Making the Invisible Visible – Roma in the Programme of European Capitals of Culture: From Marseille 2013 to Timișoara 2023

Recent years have seen significant interest among urban policy-makers and researchers in the relationships between culture and urban strategies. The articles contained in this special issue address this theme being evolved versions of selected papers presented at workshops organised by the French and British Planning Studies Group in Liverpool and Lille during 2008 on the theme of 'European Cities and Capitals of Culture'.1 The French and British Planning Study Group (FBPSG) is a thematic group of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) and brings together academics and practitioners from both sides of the channel who have an interest in Franco-British comparative study. It does this through a network of members and bi-annual meetings held alternately in France and Britain. Membership of the group is defined only by an interest in, and a willingness to discuss, the differences between spatial planning and urban policy in France and Britain. Themes to be studied in the French and British contexts are selected for each year and papers are invited from members of the group and from outside experts in the chosen theme. Presentations and participant interventions may be made in either French or English, as individuals prefer reflecting a commitment to intercultural dialogue and exchange and ongoing debates on the internationalisation of planning research in recent years (Kunzmann, 2004; Yiftachel, 2006; Stiftel and Mukhopadhyay, 2007). The group's activities can also be seen against the backdrop of recent work that emphasises the importance of different 'planning cultures' in conditioning the nature of planning practices and the nature of the issues or problems that planning is called upon to address in different societies (Knieling and Othengrafen, 2009; Sanyal, 2005; Healey and Upton, 2010). As noted above, in 2008 the theme selected to guide the group's activities was 'European Cities and Capitals of Culture'. The theme and the location of the meetings were particularly appropriate and timely given that Liverpool was European Capital of Culture (ECoC) in 2008 and that Lille had been designated as such in 2004. The potential for cross-national learning and comparison was therefore felt to be great and papers were invited on a range of topics relating to culture, planning and urban development. The papers gathered together in the present issue recount the experiences of past and forthcoming ECoCs in France and Britain and other cities that have pursued cultural initiatives as part of their wider urban development strategies. Situating European cities and capitals of culture In his book Europe, une mauvaise marque? ['Europe, a bad brand?'], the French marketing expert and academic Georges Lewi argues that 'Europe' has become a well-known but unattractive 'brand' for citizens that no longer conveys a clear sense of purpose or direction (Lewi, 2004). With the original goals of European integration of securing peace and prosperity having been broadly achieved, the merits and goals of the maturing 'European project' have become the subject of more divergent and contested readings among citizens and political parties in the EU member states. The 2000s were a difficult and contradictory decade for the idea and practice of European integration and governance, during which the largest-ever single enlargement of the EU contrasted with a growing 'euroscepticism' in a number of longstanding member states - most dramatically manifested by the rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005. However, regardless of the vagaries and controversies of wider processes of European integration and governance and the mediation of different nations' and groups' relationships with, and understandings of, 'Europe' and the EU (which it is far beyond the scope of the present issue to address), the ECoC programme provides a striking example of cities and regions proactively seeking to associate the term 'European' with their particular places and territories. …

This paper examines the cultural and social impacts of the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) on the case of the Slovenian city Maribor, the cultural capital of Europe in 2012. The aim is to examine whether geographical area, time, and the level of participation, affect the community reputation and community pride of the citizens. Collection of data occurred twice—at the halfway point, and at the end of the ECOC year—and was conducted on a sample of 2156 citizens from Maribor and 2635 citizens from whole country. The results revealed that, firstly, feelings of community reputation rose during the ECOC year. People from Maribor showed a stronger sense of community reputation than Slovenes. Secondly, people from Maribor were, at the halfway point of the ECOC year, prouder of the event than Slovenes, which changed by the end of the year. Generally, community pride of the ECOC designation improved till the end of the ECOC year, in Slovenes more than in people from Maribor. Thirdly, Slovenes who participated actively in the ECOC events had a higher sense of community reputation than the actively involved people from Maribor. By contrast, passively involved people from Maribor had a stronger sense of community reputation than passively involved Slovenes. The results led to suggestions to organisers of the ECOC events to be aware of the wide impact of the organised events on public opinion for community reputation and pride in a particular city and country.

European Capital of Culture (ECoC), as a long-term cultural initiative of the European Union, has inevitably become intertwined with tourism development in designated cities. For almost four decades, medium-sized and small cities across Europe have been allowed to shift their local economies towards creativity and cultural tourism, driven by the ECoC title, with different cities achieving different levels of success. Since the 1990s, the ECoC initiative has followed the EU's trends, resolutions, and recommendations. The mid-2000s, 2010s, and early 2020s have given the trend a new drive with a more procedural approach in the ECoC bidding process. Sustainable development is one of the EU’s main strategic goals in the new era, and sustainable tourism has also influenced the ECoC initiative, making it one of the key priorities. This paper analyses the concepts of modern cultural tourism and the phenomena of over-tourism and sustainable tourism, especially in the ECoC context. Research methodology is based on secondary sources, including scientific papers, bid books and other official documents drawn up by ECoC cities and ECoC reports. The paper seeks to recognise and systematise the changes in cultural tourism trends in the ECoC context.

Recent academic work on European Capital of Culture (ECoC) has fallen into two broad categories: either evaluative, based on assessing the effectiveness of hosting ECoC for policy agendas; or critical, questioning the rationale behind ECoC and its impact on the cities that have held the title. However, little attention has been paid to the role ECOC has played in the ‘modernisation’ of urban governance, particularly in the UK. This article seeks to explore ECoC’s role in city governance by examining the specific case of Liverpool, ECoC 2008 and the related local government agencies in the city, particularly Liverpool City Council (LCC). A narrative of the history of cultural policy within LCC, using institutionalist theory, shows that cultural policy has had a difficult evolution within a city that was initially reluctant to devote institutional capacity and resources to cultural matters. Problems in the build up to 2008 reflect the influence of ‘institutions’ in Liverpool’s political culture and history. The influence of these institutions is at the root of the uncertainty surrounding the long‐term viability of cultural policy in the city. As a corollary to the exploration of the role of institutions in Liverpool, a concluding discussion of ECoC’s role in city governance offers prospects for the cultural policy settlement within Liverpool in the post‐ECoC 2008 era, particularly focusing on the role of Liverpool’s cultural sector as a motivator for cultural policy.

This paper focusses on the institution of the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) and its evaluation as documented to have emerged in official European Commission (EC) publications that present the event owners' and event hosts' perspectives. Notions of EC Action standards, ECoC evaluation, its indicators and impacts as well as concepts of ECoC legacies are sourced and are hereby presented and discussed in light of event evaluation frameworks' literature. Using qualitative content analysis of documents that cover the 1985 to 2012 period, the research juxtaposes event owners evaluation narratives and those of ECoC hosts to illustrate the nature of concepts employed, differences among them and their evolving character. The paper concludes that rigour in evaluation is present/increasing and at the same time, debates are held on the dimensions of evaluation, ECoC impacts and legacies. The methodologies used to measure them are being redefined, requests are made for incorporating legacy plans to bidding and the bid evaluation process, and calls are made for some structured knowledge management and standardisation of the evaluation process. This is in line with the literature on city festivalisation, event evaluation and the professionalization of event assessment exercises, as well as the literature on the use of event evaluation for public relations and image making purposes of event owners and event hosts

Since 1985, the EU has designated cities as European Capital of Culture (ECOC) for 1 year at a time. Various ECOCs have used the designation as a tool to revive the city space. The cultural initiatives, such as the ECOC designation, are the EU's political instruments, whose significance has increased during the recent decades, and through which the EU aims to influence various political objectives, such as the unity of the Union and economic growth. These particular objectives were brought into the focus of the ECOC initiative during the Eastern enlargement of the Union. Since 2007, various Central and Eastern European cities have aimed to regenerate their economy through large construction projects, developing and repairing public spaces, investing in creative industries and transforming the image of the city, with the help of the ECOC brand. On one hand, the investments have recreated the cities with a unified modern look and an up-to-date atmosphere. On the other hand, the ECOC designation can be criticized for homogenizing the urban spaces in European cities by forcing the cities to follow certain criteria and expecting them to obey certain cultural values and trends in the urban development.

The European Capitals of Culture (ECOC) is the most ambitious cultural, collaborative programme in Europe. Up until 2000, ECOC projects were hosted by several national capitals and principal cultural cities in Europe. In the second phase, the programme also began to discover second-tier and less well-known cities hidden in the shadow of the cultural capitals. This paper focuses on assessing different ECOC strategies (traditional versus radical) and the corresponding legacies of two medium-sized cities: Guimarães (ECOC in 2012, Portugal) and Košice (ECOC in 2013, Slovakia). Cultural heritage is identified by the capacity of culture to change development trajectory and to boost the economy of cities. The strategies and legacies of Guimarães and Košice have revealed themselves to be comparatively different, especially due to their differences with respect to UNESCO cultural heritage. While Guimarães partially succeeded in enhancing its position as a tourist attraction and the visibility of its historical cultural heritage, the industrial city of Košice is an example of more radical and dynamic culture-led form of development, overcoming the provincialism of the city. Most importantly, and due to the strengthening pride of the locals, both ECOC cities have stepped out of the shadow of stronger cultural capitals in their countries. This joint research offers the possibility of a first-hand comparison of traditional and radical approaches and an in-depth interpretation of their legacies after a period of five years, explaining the mechanisms of forming different legacies in two types of ECOC cities. The results can help future ECOC cities to set their strategies in relation to their desired cultural and economic development.

The paper is part of an ongoing thesis on the city of Matera (Italy). The research questions the effects and challenges of a double international recognition on urban space production: the mega-event ‘European Capital of Culture’ and the UNESCO World Heritage status. Using Matera’s bid book to become the European Capital of Culture, the paper focuses on the vocabulary used by the experts in charge of the application and questions the city models underlying the cultural programme. Through the use of an entrepreneurial vocabulary, the stakeholders of the Matera–Basilicata 2019 Foundation propose to transform the classic modes of bureaucratic management and the way of conceiving urban design. In this perspective, the challenge is no longer to invest in infrastructural components or public facilities but to create a new attractive image of the city. In this context, the Foundation in charge of the organization of the event acts as a company to promote new narratives and to provide new services for the city. The label ‘European Capital of Culture’ is therefore used to promote the city through a new urban vision, which reinterprets the local and historical urban representations.

This paper presents principle planning issues for one of the biggest cultural initiatives introduced by the European Commission - the ‘European Capital of Culture’ programme. Evaluating the success of past European Capitals of Culture, scholars particularly emphasise the need for a well prepared and systematic planning approach. The main objective was to scrutinize how a city can successfully prepare itself for the title year and to develop a framework that depicts key planning areas for the programme. This framework in combination with guiding questions for each of the key planning areas aims to assist future applicant cities in the planning and preparation phase of the programme. One of these applicant cities is the Bulgarian town of Veliko Tarnovo. A comprehensive literature review provided a first insight into the topic. In a second step, in-depth interviews with former European Capitals of Culture experts were conducted with the final aim to develop the aforementioned framework and guiding questions. Finally, the findings were applied to the city of Veliko Tarnovo and recommendations were given. The results indicate that during the planning phase particular attention needs to be paid to the field of organisation, marketing and communication as well as funding and infrastructure investment. Organisers ought to be precise on the aims and objectives of the programme, keeping in mind its stakeholders and the legacy they want to leave for after the title year.

ABSTRACTThis study explores the effects of the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) on tourism demand, measured as overnight stays, for the years 1998–2014. The analysis includes 34 ECoC hosts and makes use of data on approximately 800 European cities. A difference-in-differences propensity score matching estimator shows that hosting the ECoC leads to an increase in overnight stays of 8% on average during the year of the event but does not stimulate tourism demand in subsequent years. To account for deviations in the distribution of tourism inflows between ECoC and other cities, the quantile difference-in-differences estimator is used. This leads to similar but somewhat stronger results, especially for the year of the event and for the year after. Separate estimations of ECoC hosts reveal that there is a certain degree of heterogeneity in the effect. Long-term impacts can only be observed for a small group of cities (Essen, Guimarães, Salamanca and Tallinn).

For many European cities, a key motivation in developing event strategies is to use an event as a catalyst for urban regeneration. One type of event that is particularly used as a means of urban development is the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) initiative. Based on a case study of the 2008 ECOC Liverpool, this article aims at conceptualising the significance of this major event for a city’s economic, cultural and social regenerations. In terms of economic regeneration, the role of the ECOC has been central in creating Liverpool’s visitor economy and reshaping the city’s image. Liverpool planned different themes for eight consecutive years as a way to ensure economic sustainability. As far as cultural regeneration is concerned, the ECOC contributed to the cultural regeneration of Liverpool by stimulating cultural participation and interest from the demand side, as well as improving cultural provision and collaboration in the cultural sector from the supply side. As for social regeneration, Liverpool treated access development as a policy guideline and considered the ECOC as an opportunity to enhance the sense of place. The most significant lesson learned from Liverpool is its long-term planning and the efforts made to integrate the ECOC into the overall urban development strategy. As a result, a more balanced and long-term effect on urban regeneration could be achieved.

Since its launch 30 years ago, the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) programme has been researched widely from different perspectives of urban and regional development, investigating the physical and structural changes that it initiates and the challenges that it brings to local government and to urban governance. Alternatively, this chapter gives a longitudinal analysis of two particular ECOC cases to examine the potentials of this cultural mega-event for social (network) capital mobilisation. Inter-organisational networks of an ECOC project can be characterised as collaborative networks; however, considering their potential longer-term sustained impact, they can contribute to strengthening the local–regional governance network. Using examples of the cities of Pecs, in Hungary, and Turku, in Finland, the analysis looks into the networks and relations between various participating actors in order to explore how these ECOC projects facilitate and change inter-organisational cooperation and networking among cultural and creative producers. The study applies the basic approach and methodology of social network analysis and uses primary data taken from online surveys performed in the two ECOC cities. Primarily, the chapter uses an analytical approach based on the thorough examination of numerical and visualised data. The findings reveal the importance of knowledge and support networks in the field of creative industries and the role of large-scale cultural events in the formation and sustainability of such networks.

Rather than exploring culture-led urban transformations, media representations or city-image building, this article tackles the way in which the European capitals of culture (ECOC) has been a local, regional, national or European task. The responsibility for the event and the possibility to use it to articulate political identities is transferred from one level to another. This article discusses the ECOC as multi-level policy on European, national, regional and local levels. It works on the macro-level drawing from many of the recent ECOCs and hopes to inspire more in-depth analysis of case studies. Moreover, the article recognises the difference between explicit and implicit policies. The European Union, having been legally deprived of the chance to run explicit official policies until the Maastricht treaty in 1992, has still provided support for culture through implicit cultural policies and cultural policies of display, such as the ECOC. The cases considered in this paper vary, as the main emphasis is the exploration of the role of the ECOCs and the multiple levels in the process. However, quite often references would be made to recent Capitals of Culture, such as Sibiu and Luxembourg in 2007, Vilnius in 2009, Ruhr 2010 and Turku 2011. They highlight particularly well the conflicts between the levels, especially local and national, as well as the role of the region in the construction of a common reference point in the ECC process.

There is an interesting debate around the role played by a European Capital of Culture (ECoC)—a city designated as a cultural capital in its subregion and beyond—in the development and growth of creative and cultural organizations working in that city. While it is widely acknowledged that the mega-event of designating a city as an ECoC has an impact on the city’s broader profile and can improve the credibility of the city’s creative offerings, creative and cultural organizations engaged with the development of such mega-events have had a variety of experiences. This chapter describes the impacts on the business model of some creative and cultural organizations that experienced Matera ECoC 2019, exploring and analyzing them through the lens of the Business Model Prism, a multidimensional framework describing the structure and logic of the business model of a creative and cultural organization. The exploratory research involved five cultural organizations that led as many big projects within the Matera ECoC 2019 program. The analysis of cases reveals various impacts and confirms the importance of a mega-event like ECoC in boosting business model improvement and generating new growth opportunities. After providing a short view on the evaluation of ECoC impacts, the chapter describes the Business Model Prism and the findings of the case studies analysis. Finally, the chapter provides some concluding remarks and suggests future avenues of research.

The paper deals with the evaluation of the project Pilsen – European Capital of Culture 2015. It is based on a few empiric research studies that were implemented after the project was finished. It presents the city of Pilsen and the project of the European Capital of Culture form its initiation to implementation. It deals with the benefits of the project from the point of view of attendance, investment, tourism, and impacts on the economic development. It also brings the evaluation of the project Pilsen - European Capital of Culture 2015 as seen by the city´s residents.