Abstract
Serbia, with its diverse experience in (self-) management, entered the process of transition accompanied by wars and disintegration of the state (economic crisis, political pressure, populist discourse). Culture is perceived as an identity pillar, belonging to an elitist sphere. This is a key challenge for cultural policy and consequently for cultural governance. Cultural operators are focusing on organizational survival, not on governance models or long-term strategies. The leadership is crucial, both in public institutions and in co-operatives (‘shared leadership’), while the role of boards is marginal. Although cultural organizations are the core actors in creating public values by serving their organizational mission, the research has shown a lack of transparency, accountability, as well as democratic composition of the board, and an inability to fully engage community and stakeholders remain key issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to the World Bank report (Mikić and Radulović 2018), creative industries in the narrow sense are made up of the following sectors: information technology, audiovisual (film, television, radio, and photography), advertising, publishing, contemporary arts (music, performing, and visual arts), heritage (museums and galleries), and ‘Other’.
- 2.
Today in Serbia there is a division of power at the state level, the province of Vojvodina, cities, and municipalities, and all public cultural institutions are allocated to the appropriate level of government.
- 3.
Sometimes it even refers more to the party in coalition that controls certain ministries according to the coalition agreement.
- 4.
In the last two years these organisations have organized several conferences and round tables devoted to commons (common good and public interest), including issues related to participative and shared governance, solidarity, etc. However, their inner managerial practices do not completely integrate those principles. Look at the conference that was organized in Rijeka by Fondation Kultura Nova from Zagreb in November 2017…
See more: Harvey (2008), Vidović (2018), and Dragićević Šešić and Drezgić (2018).
- 5.
The self-governance period in Yugoslavia started in 1953 when the first ‘Workers Board’ was created, but as a systemic practice was defined by the Constitution of 1974. That meant that each institution elected its own management by a general vote of all employees, and selected at the same meeting five to nine organizations that will nominate (send) an external board member. Each organization that was asked to delegate a board member organized a general meeting of all employees to decide whom to select. This happened once every four years, and, for example, the Faculty of Dramatic Arts was requested to delegate more than thirty persons to boards of different institutions. During selection, nominations were debated in detail, taking in account a nominee’s competences for the profile of a certain institution, the complexity of the task (e.g. if the organization was in the processes of reforms, or in an investment period), so that the most appropriate person would be selected and sent to a board. About self-government as a Yugoslav experiment read more at https://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/yugoslav-self-government/, accessed 12 June 2018.
- 6.
The notion Western Balkan is used today by the EU and donor communities in order to avoid the usage of the word Yugoslavia. The term seems more politically correct because it joins Albania to the region, although the number of regional projects with Albania is extremely low.
- 7.
Some additional data were also used from the following research: Alfirević et al. The Fundraising Patterns and the Management Professionalization in Independent Arts Organizations in SEE, 2016 (fourteen civil society organizations from Serbia: Kolektiv Šabac, Mimart, CZKD, Balkankult, KulturaNOVA, Tačka komunikacije, Remont, Europa nostra Serbia, Dah teatar, Hop.la, Stanica, Liceulice, Nova iskra, Creative mentorship); Dragićević Šešić, M, Stefanović, M. (University of Arts Belgrade) Leadership styles and values: the case of independent cultural organizations, 2017 (eighteen civil society organizations from Serbia: Kolektiv Šabac, Mimart, CZKD, Balkankult, KulturaNOVA, Tačka komunikacije, Remont, Europa nostra Serbia, Dah teatar, Hop.la, Stanica, Liceulice, Nova iskra, Creative mentorship, Baza art, Lotrek network, Film art, Supervizuelna, Trag foundation); Kern et al. Report of the Council of Europe Experts “Art and culture, an investment for Serbia’s future”, 2015.
- 8.
In the press, such as the daily journal Politika, there are often published articles with accusations and even lists of NGOs that accept foreign, and especially American, help. Throughout the social media and tabloid press these texts are used for further accusations; for example, Foreign mercenaries in Serbia raise their voice against making public the list of those who receive money from Soros, Rockefeller… See: Vidovdan (2017) http://www.vidovdan.org/info/strani-placenici-u-srbiji-digli-glas-zbog-objavljivanja-spiska-ko-dobija-pare-od-sorosa-rokfelera/?script=lat. Accessed 18 June 2018.
- 9.
This “dyad leadership” is maintained also because artistic leaders do not have an interest in managing organizations.
- 10.
Matica Srpska was founded as a citizen association in the Austro-Hungarian empire and became public in socialist Yugoslavia.
- 11.
According to Kern (2015): “Some downsizing may have to take place for financial resources to be used more effectively in a country whose priority lies elsewhere in view of the economic and social crisis. Public cultural institutions operate slowly as autonomous economic entities. Public funding supports structures rather than artistic projects. The majority of public structures are old-fashioned in management and overstaffed, with little incentive to promote audience development.”
- 12.
According to Kern (2015), structures are too heavy and costly (for instance there are 110 dancers—some of them beyond dancing age—on the payroll of the Belgrade National Theatre, whilst there are eighty at la Scala in Milan). There is no life-long training scheme before they reach retirement age enabling talented artists to prepare to become teachers or managers.
- 13.
This is confirmed every year when MA students of cultural management from the University of Arts Belgrade undertake strategic analyses of selected cultural organizations in all three sectors. For them, among other things, organizations should present their organizational charts, but the encounter with the students is usually the first time they are faced with this question. Together with students they try to visualize the reality, and sometimes this task inspires them to change their traditional non-written structures (since at the moment when their structures are clearly presented on paper, organizational design flaws become obvious).
- 14.
Some of the museums and libraries in Serbia are more advanced and proactive in creating new departments such as National Library during Sreten Ugričić and Matica Srpska Gallery during leadership of Tijana Palkovljević. Tijana Palkovljević was one of a very few women leaders in cultural sphere who participated in the Leadership course organized by Government in 2008. Unfortunately, these types of courses were not repeated later.
- 15.
The majority of NGOs see themselves as social entrepreneurs within the cultural but also within the much wider social realm. They took an important part in all dissident socio-political movements in Yugoslavia, developing actions and projects aiming to achieve social impact. Civil society leaders cooperated with political movements, and among themselves, through collaborative artistic projects and joint manifestations and festivals (from Alterimage in 1996, or Balkan Art Generator in 2000 till On its own engine, 2016). The civil society sector is promoting solidarity and networking on national level (from ANET, the association of independent theatres to NKKS, the comprehensive association of the independent cultural scene of Serbia), regional level (Kooperativa, Balkan express, etc.), and European level (participation in different networks: IETM, THE, etc.).
- 16.
In the rare case that the board does not approve the yearly report, as was the case for one public institution in 2004–2007, there were no repercussions for the director of the institution, as he had more political prestige (within the ruling party) than board members who were cultural researchers from different universities, but without political strength. The board offered its resignation, but the ministry did not accept it—so the process of negative evaluation continued until the new elections, where the new ministerial team changed both the director and the board. There are no consequences if the board doesn’t approve annual reports, as this is not explicitly defined in the relevant law.
- 17.
In this case organizations have to organize board meetings regularly, to approve the strategic plan, annual plans, and reports. Those reports are valid for international funders only if signed by the board president.
- 18.
Every year students of the Faculty of Drama and students of the UNESCO Chair of University of Arts, undertake strategic analyses of different cultural organizations under our supervision. On average, 50% of organizations refuse to give data about budget spending, although this information might be considered information in the public interest, and thus should be available to the public.
- 19.
Ilija Milosavljević Kolarac (1800–1878), as many of his generation without children of his own, left his property for the creation of the People’s University in Belgrade, for the enlightement of the nation. The centre was finally created only in 1927, according to his will, and since then has been operating as a major public lecturing institution and concert hall.
- 20.
http://www.hrt.hr/320500/vijesti/inicijativa-kulturnjaci-2016-protiv-hasanbegovica, accessed 5 May 2018.
- 21.
For example, Stanica published a manual aiming to help contemporary dance education in primary schools and how to approach different vulnerable groups with dance workshops (Rakić et al. Šta je to savremeni ples, Stanica, Belgrade 2017).
- 22.
In the same time they do not organize neither evaluation, neither new call, as it was foreseen in the partnership agreement, so that NGOs use this space for free only several years, get stronger and find new solutions, so that new emerging organizations can get same opportunities. Now, the existing beneficiary organizations are offering to emerging ones use of space, through solidarity and self-organization.
- 23.
See more: NKSS 2016. http://nezavisnakultura.net/2016/12/08/sacuvajmo-magacin-kulturni-centar-dostupan-svima/, accessed 5 May 2018.
- 24.
As described before, person culture (according to the Charles Handy typology of organizational cultures) dominates in Serbian theatres.
- 25.
In the last eighteen years, there have been many changes in cultural policies on different levels. Thus, in certain periods (2015–2018, etc. on national level, and in different moments in the region of Vojvodina and different cities) cultural policy fulfilled certain principles of cultural governance mentioned below. But this evaluation refers to the last three years of cultural governance on all three levels in Serbia, with the exception of only a few medium-size cities ruled by citizens’ movements that won local elections.
References
Alfirević, N., Dragićević Šešić, M., & Čačija, L. N. (2016). The Fundraising Patterns and the Management Professionalization in Independent Arts Organizations in SEE. In V. Potočan, M. C. Ünğan, & Z. Nedelko (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Managerial Solutions in Non-Profit Organizations (Public Policy and Administration (APPA) Book Series, pp. 405–425). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Blagojević, M. (2009). Understanding the Population Change from Semi-Peripheral Perspective: Advancement of Theory. Zbornik Matice Srpske Za Drustvene Nauke, 314, 148. http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0352-5732/2014/0352-57321448525B.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2018.
Blic. (2016). I Tasovac se pobunio: Smena direktorke KC Požega nedopustiv čin. https://www.blic.rs/kultura/vesti/i-tasovac-se-pobunio-smena-direktorke-kc-pozega-nedopustiv-cin/1ksdpsp. Accessed 9 May 2018.
Caust, J. (2018). Arts Leadership in Contemporary Contexts. London: Routledge.
Cvetičanin, P. (2016). Živeti i umreti u civilnom sektoru u kulturi u Srbiji u 36 slika. Manek, 5, 8–27. Beograd: Nezavisna kulturna scena Srbije.
Cvetičanin, P., et al. (2018). Analysis of the Results of the Open Call of the Ministry of Culture in the Field of Contemporary Arts. Niš: Center for Empirical Cultural Studies of South East Europe. http://nezavisnakultura.net/2018/06/13/napredak-u-regularnosti-konkursa-stari-problemi-ostaju/. Accessed 18 June 2018.
Danhash, N., Lehikoinen, K., & Heinsius, J. (2018). Careers in the Arts: Visions for the Future. Amsterdam: Elia.
Djukić Dojčinović, V. (2008). Tranzicione konfuzije i dileme – sedam godina kasnije, Kulturna politika u Srbiji. Nova srpska politička misao. Beograd: Čigoja.
Dragićević Šešić, M., & Drezgić, R. (2018). Methods of Institutional Agency in the Public Sphere: Cultural Policy Challenges and Achievements in: Modelling Public Space(s). In N. Bodrozic, V. Kachakova, & B. T. Kjulavkovski (Eds.), Culture, Rethinking Institutional Cultural Practices in South East Europe and Historical (Dis)continuities. Skopje: Lokomotiva.
Dragićević Šešić, M., & Milena Stefanović, M. (2013). How Theaters Remember: Cultures of Memory in Institutionalized Systems. Skopje: Kultura/Culture, III(4), 11–30.
Dragićević Šešić, M., & Milena Stefanović, M. (2017a). Leadership Styles and Values: The Case of Independent Cultural Organizations. Cultural Management – Science and Education, 1: 2017.
Dragićević Šešić, M., & Milena Stefanović, M. (2017b). Activism as a Leadership Style: An Independent Cultural Organization in a Troubled Context. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 5: 2017.
Dragojević, S., & Dragićević Šešić, M. (2005). Arts Management in Turbulent Times. Belgrade: Clio.
Habermas, J. (1992). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organizations. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Harvey, D. (2008). Right to the City. New Left Review 53. London. https://newleftreview.org/II/53/david-harvey-the-right-to-the-city. Accessed 22 Mar 2018.
Haug, H. K. (2012). Creating a Socialist Yugoslavia: Tito, Communist Leadership and the National Question. New York: I.B.Tauris.
https://www.academia.edu/36172146/Izve%C5%A1taj_Svetske_Banke_o_proceni_ekonomskih_efekata_kreativnih_industrija_u_Srbiji_2014-2016. Accessed 15 Mar 2018.
Jakovljević, B. (2016). Alienation Effects: Performance and Self-Management in Yugoslavia, 1945–91. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jović, B. (1980). Kulturni život. Beograd: Zavod za obrazovanje administrativnih kadrova.
Kern, P. (2015). Cultural Policy Peer Review of Serbia. Report of the Council of Europe Experts. http://www.keanet.eu/wp-content/uploads/NCPR-Serbia-fnal-report-ling-rev-docx-fin-15-4-15.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.
King, I. W., & Schramme, A. (2018). Chapter 1, Introductory Remarks. In Cultural Governance in a Global Context: An International Perspective on Art Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Klaić, D. (2012). Resetting the Stage – Public Theatre Between the Market and Democracy. Bristol: Intellect Ltd.
Kultura, Strategija razvoja kulture Republike Srbije. (2017). http://www.kultura.gov.rs/docs/dokumenti/nacrt-strategije-razvoja-kulture-republike-srbije-od-2017%2D%2Ddo-2027-/-nacrt-strategije-razvoja-kulture-republike-srbije-od-2017%2D%2Ddo-2027-.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
Law on Culture. Закон о култури. 2009/2016. n. 72/09,13/16, 30/16. http://www.kultura.gov.rs/docs/dokumenti/propisi-iz-oblasti-kulture/zakon-o-kulturi.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
Lofgren, M. (2016). On the Public Value of Arts and Culture. In Perspectives on Cultural Leadership. Goteburg: Natverkstan kultur.
Mihaljinac, N., & Đorđević, M. (2017). Methodological Annex Related to the Survey of European and International Cultural Cooperation in Serbia. In M. Dragićević Šešić, L. J. Rogač Mijatovic, & N. Mihaljinac (Eds.), Cultural Diplomacy: Art, Festivals, Geopolitics. Belgrade: Institute FDA, Ministry of Culture of Republic of Serbia.
Mihaljinac, N., & Tadić, D. (2017). Audience Development in Serbia. Belgrade: Creative Europe Desk Serbia.
Mikić, H. (2015). Creative Economy of Serbia. Belgrade: Creative Economy Group. http://www.kreativnaekonomija.com/en/2013/11/09/creative-economy-serbia/. Accessed 16 Mar 2018.
Mikić, H., & Radulović, B. (2018). Republika Srbija: Procena ekonomskog uticaja kreativnih industrija 2014–2016. Report for World Bank, unpublished.
Mojić, D. (2003). Leadership Styles of the Managers in Serbia. Belgrade: Čigoja stampa.
Moore, M. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Orlović, S. (2008). Politički život Srbije –Između partokratije i demokratije. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
Pusić, E. (2007). Javna uprava i društvena teorija. Društveno veleučilište u Zagrebu; Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.
Ristić, I. (2016). Novi modeli samoorganizacije. Manek, 5, 78–85. Beograd: NKSS.
Schrauwen, J., Schramme, A., & Segers, J. (2016). Do Managers Run Cultural Institutions? The Practice of Shared Leadership in Cultural Sector. In K. Dalborg & M. Löfgren (Eds.), Perspectives on Cultural Leadership. Goteburg: Natverkstan kultur.
Spasić, I. (2013). Social and Cultural Capital in Serbia. Niš: Centre for Empirical Cultural Studies of South-East Europe.
Vidović, D. (Ed.). (2018). Do It Together: Practices and Tendencies of Participatory Governance in Culture in the Republic of Croatia. Zagreb: Cultura Nova Foundation.
Републички завод за статистику. (2015). E-culture 2015. http://e-kultura.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Kultura_Culture_2015.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dragićević Šešić, M., Mihaljinac, N. (2019). Serbia. In: King, I., Schramme, A. (eds) Cultural Governance in a Global Context. Palgrave Studies in Business, Arts and Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98860-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98860-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98859-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98860-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)