An international review of arts inclusion policies: lessons for Hong Kong

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review and compare the implementation of “arts inclusion” policies (AIPs) by 14 different public administrative systems around the world. It aims to provide a consolidated source which informs further studies in this field, and to develop a framework to compare AIPs at a global level. Design/methodology/approach Using “arts inclusion policy” as the search term, academic journals from a wide spectrum of fields were reviewed. A data set was extracted from the Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends’ online database which provided real-time information of national cultural policies. Another data set is from the United Nations’ Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, as the geographic scope of the review – largely focussing on UK, US, Australian, Scandinavian and Asian contexts. Using existing policy-making literature as benchmark, the authors designed and applied a comparative framework dedicated to AIPs which focussed on “policy-making structures” as the main ground of comparison. Findings An important finding is that the policy development and implementation of AIPs often underscore inter-sectoral involvement in many public administrations in this study. With policy leadership and financial incentives pivotal to effective AIPs, central governments should take a more concerted leadership role to include AIPs in national inter-sectoral policies, encourage evidence-based research, expand funding and advocate the recognition of the impacts of arts inclusion. It is concluded that AIPs in western countries remain more developed in targeted scopes and programme diversity compared to those of Asian countries and regions. Continued studies in this field are encouraged. Originality/value This review is the first of its kind to include a number of Asian and western countries within its research scope, allowing it to offer a more holistic outlook on the development and implementation of AIPs in different countries and regions. A common critique with all relevant existing literature was usually their lack of concrete comparative grounds, and the present study’s all-encompassing review of literature from across different levels and sectors of respective public administrative systems contribute to a unique and comprehensive perspective in the arts and health discourse.