Advocacy network organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina- possibility of the cultural policy from bellow

This document has main aim to offer the framework for action for cultural sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to act as the trigger in turnaround of the government in the process of cultural strategy/policy formulation. Innovative cultural strategies in accordance to European principles will, in my opinion, move cultural sector in BiH from the current desperate and hopeless position of chaos to the state with more regulated and stimulative conditions for the functioning of cultural sphere with generally stronger acknowledgment of the value of culture for the overall development of the country.

The rationale for writing of this document is the urgent need for changes in the current position in the system of culture in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Chaos and uncertainty in which cultural organisation in BiH operates are the results of many factors- the war and the destruction of social structure of the country is one of the main reasons for such a poor position of culture in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the all other sectors in the country- economy, education, health, etc. But there are many more reasons that brought Bosnian cultural sector into difficult position and they are in accordance to the general management causes of the decline of the performance of an organisation.

As one of the crucial reason for the desperate situation in the field of culture in BiH, cultural operators from the field interviewed in the research phase of the preparing of this paper, identified the lack of any cultural strategy on all levels in artificially decentralised country. Interviews’ results showed that the governments who are the main stakeholders in the process of cultural strategy development don’t do their job- they ignore to communicate with the cultural operators from the field, they isolated themselves from the external influences trying to preserve the status quo remained from the socialist system, they privatised their public offices and without transparency and any criteria distribute public budgets for culture. This governments’ attitude created an “existence-threatening” situation for many cultural organisation in the country exists now for 10 years after the end of the war in BiH in 1995, and in this year reaches its most evident culmination. All cultural sector operators interviewed for this  are agreed- lack of government strategy in the cultural sphere will soon destroy all conditions for vibrant cultural life in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this paper I refer to the entire cultural sector consisted of many organisations, with different legal statuses, financial resources and relation toward the governments- not to say with the diversity of arts disciplines they are dealing with.

Interviewed cultural operators agree that quick turnaround in the government role in the process of cultural strategy formulation has to be performed in order to bring the entire cultural system in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the long and slow process of revitalisation. My question is whether the trigger for this turnaround can come from bellow in bottom-up direction; it is to say from the cultural organisations and cultural operators themselves as the legitimate stakeholders in the process of cultural strategy development. This document will also answer the question if the strategic framework for cultural sector to act as the mentioned trigger in government turnaround can be organising around cultural advocacy networks.


This document tends to analyse the roles of the Government(s) and the entire cultural sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the process of cultural policy/strategy formulation and proposes the framework of cultural advocacy & lobbying network organisations known in Western Europe and US as the platform for bottom-up action and even “grass-roots” approach in the process of cultural policy formulation on any administrative levels in BiH. The document characterises the government(s) organisation(s) in Bosnia and Herzegovina as Minzberg’s “closed machine bureaucracies” in which a natural forces for change do not exist. So, in order to revitalise itself, the organisation needs a push from something beyond itself.
Later, document deals with the main elements of the turnaround processes defining the phases in the turnaround cycle. Literature identifies the stakeholders’ action as the main trigger in the starting of turnaround in closed machine bureaucracy government organisations. In the cultural policy/strategy formulation, several stakeholders can be identified.
Finally, document offers the platform of advocacy& lobbying network organisation in the cultural field as the strategic framework for stakeholders’ action in the process of cultural policy formulation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Government as “closed machine bureaucracy”

When looking at the government as the machine bureaucracy organisation, several conclusions can be made:
•    Government machines are not capable to change themselves internally; innovative forces for renewal don’t exist in machine organisations. Lacking an ideology, vision, commitment, human spirit and energy, government machine bureaucracy is not able to perform simple turnaround because process of turnaround has to change the entire system of norms, mentalities and behaviour. Rationality that stays behind the government machine bureaucracy organisation and its tendency to isolate itself from the external perturbation in order to keep the control, manifest outside as the ignorance toward inclusion or consultation of the people from the field in the strategy formulation process. To be innovative and versatile, this strategy formulation process has to include new, fresh ideas from the outside of government machine organisation.
•    The impulse for turnaround in government bureaucracy machine has to come from the outside. In order to act as the agent for change of government machine bureaucracy, others have to organise themselves, formalise their norms and create an organisation that will counterbalance the power of government. Costs of turnaround in government machine bureaucracy organisations resistant to change can be awfully high.

Turnaround of “closed machine bureaucracy organisation”

•    Term turnaround which was widely used in profit sector is more and more used to describe the need for renewal of poorly performing public organisations. However, definition which emphases the urgency in existing-threatening organisational decline is common in both sectors.
•    Turnaround cycle has three major phases as shown at Figure 1: preturnaround period when problems within the organisation are not recognised, crisis phase when it is broadly perceived by stakeholders that something must be done and period of recovery. There might be some time needed for the stakeholders to perceive the problem, but on the whole, the formal diagnosis of organisational failure rarely comes as a surprise to most stakeholders in the organisation, particularly to those who are the most affected by the poor organisational performance. Stakeholders’ diagnosis of the decline may even be a relief and a source of encouragement because it forces acknowledgement of long-standing problems and demands action.

Figura 1

Figure 1. The turnaround cycle (adapted from Zimmerman, 1991: 25)

• Events or circumstances which mean that the extent and seriousness of decline is recognized and explicitly acknowledged by internal and external stakeholders in the organisation represent major trigger for change.
• Turnaround process might be more difficult in the non-profit and public sector because the signals concerning low performance may be less clear, and the difficulties in sustaining a coalition for change much greater. Due to the complexity of stakeholders in public sector, defining failure might be more complicated, subjective and open to challenge. Organisation’s poor performance can become accepted as the ‘normal or inevitable’.

As stated earlier, Government is closed machine organisation bureaucracy and need an external trigger for turnaround. Poorly performing governments affect the complex set of stakeholders and create the existence-threatening situation for them. When stakeholders perceive the difficulties of the situation and identify the government poor performance as the cause for their decline, they already enter the second phase of the turnaround cycle- the crisis period which is characterised by the stakeholders’ determination to do something in order to change their position. This stakeholders’ action represents the trigger for government turnaround, the most relevant in this research.

Context for cultural policy development in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Stakeholders in cultural policy developoment

Cultural strategy and Cultural policy are two terms which are interchangeably used in this paper and stands for the intentional, systematic interference of the government in the sphere of culture (Ilczuk, 2001), and reflects their vision and direction of the functioning and development of cultural sphere, in certain area (city, canton, entity, state). Cultural policy is constitutive part of government public policy.

Policy community for the field of culture have three equally developed and interacting stakeholders and each one of them stimulates, supports and carries out different social tasks, as showed on Figure2:

Figure 2

Figure 2. Three stakeholders in the cultural policy development (adopted from Dragicevic-Sesic/Dragojevic, 2004: 27)

• In the process of cultural strategy development, cultural sector is important stakeholder. Whether acting as an independent advisory pool for interesting policy proposals or controller of state expenditures for culture to ensure the full transparency of the public decision process cultural sector participation in cultural policies is crucial for the general wellbeing of the art. Cultural sector constituted of both the representatives of non-governmental or private cultural organisations and independent artists-citizens have right and responsibility to organise the interest groups- networks in order to empower its position of the stakeholder in cultural strategy development process. Another important stakeholder in cultural strategy development process is government (public sector). They both (together with the private sector) are obliged to take full responsibility for the development of cultural strategies in accordance to European principles.

• Although in the post-socialist/communist or so called “new democracy countries” it might be labelled as the reaffirmation of communistic involvement of the state in all spheres of life, the role of the efficient government administration in the processes of cultural strategy formulation is essential. That role, however, has to be redefined in accordance to democratic principles of good governance and in line with the new, wider definition of culture which embraces the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterise a society or social group. It includes not only arts and letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs." (Mucica, 2003: 11) This new understanding of culture embraces the approach that recognises the necessity of active participation of all cultural stakeholders in the formulation of cultural policies. The reasons for the fact that transition of cultural system in some socialistic countries (like Bosnia and Herzegovina) didn’t happened can be find in the interesting idea of Dorota Ilczuk that government officials (and other stakeholders) maybe are still not aware of their role and therefore they only try to preserve status-quo inherited from the past.

Government and the cultural sector in BiH

Giving the overview of the current situation in the cultural field in Bosnia and Herzegovina in regard to the indicators of turnaround processes identified earlier in the document, several conclusion can be developed.

• First, after the start of withdrawal of the main international financers and supporters of newly emerged cultural scene in BiH, namely SOROS Foundation (Open Society Fund BiH) in the year 2000, decline in the quality of conditions for functioning of that particular segment of cultural field started gradually to decline and gained the existence-threatening level in the year 2004 and 2004.
• For publicly funded state institutions of culture, crisis was immediate- after the shocking decision of ministries on cantonal and federal level not to continue financial support for these institutions in the same amounts as earlier, existence-threatening time has come along with the constant balancing on the edge of survival.
• For all others, out of mentioned groups, crisis has started with the introduction of strict copyright and tax laws which brought, for example publishing sector and music sector in big crisis.
• Meanwhile, governments officials responsible for culture on all levels in Bosnia and Herzegovina didn’t develop any strategy for the cultural sphere, not a single document on this subject exist in BiH. Government operates completely isolated from the reality in the field, budgets are distributed without transparent criteria, officials are corrupted-this situation lasts for ten years after the end of the war in BiH with no sign that internal change can occur. The state of chaos in the cultural sphere looks as the normal state for the government in BiH. According to Minzberg, these are characteristics of closed machine bureaucracy organisation which doesn’t have the internal potential to start the process of renewal, but needs an external trigger for turnaround.
•    At this moment, and maybe also because of symbolic meaning of this sad anniversary, ten years after the end of the war, representatives of all cultural organisations, as well as the remaining artists and intellectuals from Bosnia and Herzegovina- stakeholders who are strongly affected by the government passive role in the process of cultural strategy development- are agree- SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE! According to Zimmerman, this statement is characteristic of crisis phase in turnaround cycle and, in order to expect positive results of process of turnaround, action has to be taken immediately.

Giving the earlier mentioned findings, we conclude the government in BiH is fulfilling all the conditions for turnaround. External trigger in the process of strategy formulation will be the stakeholders’ action- actually, the action by cultural sector.

Overview of all relevant research findings for government(s) and cultural sector in BiH

An overview of the relevant contextual characteristics for government and cultural sector in BiH based on the sources: data collected in the interviews with the four key players from the cultural field in BiH and ECUMEST survey, as well as from the single document about cultural policy issues in BiH written by Charles Landry is presented in the Table1.

  Causes of decline for cultural organisations in BiH
- Lack of cultural strategy on any level of government in BiH
- Lack of communication with government departments responsible for the cultural issues on any level of government in BiH
- Lack of transparency when making the decisions about distribution of the budget for culture
- Lack of criteria for distribution of budget for culture
- Corruption, nepotism and private links
- Private lobbying and the fact that only few cultural organisations ‘eat’ almost all money allocated for culture
- No legislation in the relation cultural sector – business sector
- Little money for culture
- No programmes for training in the cultural management or cultural policy development
- Narrow definition of culture; focus on ‘pure’ classic culture and folklore
- Understanding of youth culture doesn’t exist
- No programmes or strategies for integration of so called ‘independent cultural organisations’ after withdrawal of international support
Reasons for decline
- government machine bureaucracy who resists the change
- incompetence of the governmental officials who deal with culture
- ‘old-fashioned style’ in  policy making (Landry, 2002)
- lack of knowledge about cultural policy development
- lack of awareness that cultural strategy should be created transparently in partnership with other stakeholders (Ilczuk, 2004)
- passivity, ignorance- ‘we will stay here until the last moment’
- relying on the fact that public opinion and critics don’t exist in BiH
Consequences of this ‘policy’ on the cultural organisations in BiH

- constant feeling of uncertainty for majority of cultural organisations
- impossibility of making strategies or plans for future
- existence-threatening position of public cultural institutions
- adaptation to the policies of international (or other) donors under pressure to continue their existence
- difficulties in continuation organisation’s mission
- chaos in the field of culture- no criteria, ‘everything goes’
- decline in professional criteria and standards for culture
- provincialisation of culture, populistic programmes dominate the cultural scene
- redundant programmes and projects
- brutal commercialisation of culture
- no interest for public interest in culture
- festivalisation of culture
- hardly surviving artists and institutions of culture in the shadow of society of spectacle
- many intellectuals and artists don’t want to live in BiH anymore, they go abroad
- dramatic brain drain of young people who doesn’t see the perspective in staying in BiH

Table1. Overview of the main research findings for government and cultural sector in BiH from this Chapter (sources: Zubcevic, Blazevic, Tahirbegovic, Kresevljakovic, 2005; Landry, 2002)

Framework for action

The basic description of the intention of cultural sector representatives (stakeholders) to trigger the turnaround process in make pressure on government to start process of cultural strategy formation, can be explained by terms that describe civic and political engagement, words like social action, political action, public voice, social capital, mobilisation, lobbying or advocacy.

Words of professor Dragan Klaic who emphasizes that artists in 21st century shall define themselves primarily as citizens are used as the point of departure in this document. By foregrounding their own status as citizens, artists can stress their belongings to a civic community on various levels and can proclaim a range of their own rights and responsibilities in interaction with other citizens. The role of citizens presumes an involvement in social, political, cultural developments and actions, an alertness for public issues and sense of commitment to various collective causes, a feeling of solidarity with threatened or groupings (Klaic, Transeuropeenes 1997).
Interaction in the process of cultural strategy formation represents the form of political engagement and form of full practice of the rights and responsibilities mentioned by Klaic. In this document, I used the theoretical model of political engagement introduced by Saidel and shown at Figure 3.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Elements of political engagement model (adapted from Saidel, 2000: 2)

After the presenting of the theoretical concept of political engagement model, the following main elements are identified:

• Resources, motivation and recruitments networks in the activation phase; resources aggregation through specific organisational forms and sense-making process; and political participation which represent the realisation of the collective intentions for action through various forms of advocacy and lobbying activities. All of these elements are crucial in the analyses of the preconditions for the starting of the collective action in the political venue by different groups of individuals or organisations.
• During the activation phase, analysis begins at the level of the individual, but moves quickly to the individual’s encounter with the dynamics of collective associational activities.
• The mobilization phase captures aggregation and sense-making processes that going on inside organisations. “Organized action for change” is at the core of the political participation phase (Saidel, 2000:3).
• The term “political engagement” is used broadly to include all the three participatory phases: activation, mobilisation and political participation.

Two particular elements from the political engagement model are selected for further theoretical research- organisational structure and advocacy aspect- in order to create the strategic framework for action (Action framework) for cultural sector in BiH.

Framework for action- organisational aspect

As the most feasible form of organising within the political engagement process, the networks’ structure is selected for further analysis. Why exactly networks? What is the rationale to use these structures in the political engagement model?

• To counter networks of power and their connections, alternative networks need to be introduced- Networks versus networks. This Castells’ thesis is in complete accordance with Minzberg’s advice to disperse groups to organise themselves in order to act against machine bureaucracies.
• Networks’ emergence out of need represent the answer on the question what to do in difficult situations of crisis, how to unite the individual organisations and individuals’ resources, knowledge, experiences and reposition them towards the centres of power. Networks create bridges that enable these various participants to exploit the synergies between these resources. They allow for the pooling of know-how and the exchange of experience. Spanning socioeconomic, political, and cultural gaps, networks manage relationships that might otherwise degenerate into counterproductive confrontation.
• Networks’ openness, horizontal structure, innovative results, non-bureaucratic governance and long-term approach produce tangible benefits to its stakeholders- network members.
• Networks’ flexible structure enables the interactive strategy formulation with participation of its members. Coordination of networks is the creative challenge for arts managers of new millennium.
• Networks demand commitment and investment of resources-time, money, voluntary work and other resources.
• Networks with good coordination offices are very convenient form of catalysing the individual energies and ideas of their members. It is a very popular form of organising in civil society sector in order to influence government in the policy development process. Networks became very popular form of organising in the new millennium among cultural operators in Europe.

Framework for action- advocacy aspect

Advocacy, examined as social and political participation, emphasizes how people take action “on their own behalf.” Non-profit advocacy as participation refers to collective action and social protest as well as the face-to-face contact of people and their political leaders. Language about the practice of advocacy as participation includes grassroots action, civic voice, public action, citizen action, organizing, mobilization, and empowerment (Reid, 2000: 4).

What is the relevance of advocacy in the political engagement model?
• Acting in order to make an influence to the political decisions of government brings the activities of organisations from various sectors into political arena.
• Term advocacy which basically describes this attempt to influence policy makers is the activity which can be successfully undertaken within the organisational framework (informal or more formalised). Organisation catalyses the collective efforts for political engagement, aggregate collective resources, create the common idea (make-sense) and enter the venue of politics in three main phases- activation, mobilisation and political participation.
• Advocacy network organisations empower marginalised groups or sectors and empower them to present their views, ideas and opinions in public. Lobbying as the specific form of advocacy represents the direct influence on the legislation.
• Advocacy by its definition(s) represent the core of the political engagement process and therefore its significance in this process is crucial.  

Analysis of capacities of cultural sector in BiH  to start the process of political engagement through advocacy networks actions

The useful tool in the process of strategy formulation can be strengths/weaknesses analysis (s/w). Strengths are skills and capabilities that enable an organisation to conceive and implement its strategies, while weaknesses are opposite characteristics which stop an organisation to realise its strategy. (Griffin, 2005: 243)

There are essentially two ways of addressing the weaknesses- first an investment needed to obtain the strengths which are necessary for the realisation of the strategy, and second, the mission of an organisation might be modified so that can be accomplished with the skills and capabilities that organisation already possesses. (Griffin, 2005: 243)

According to Griffin’s proposal of dealing with the weaknesses in strategy formulation process, in the case of the cultural sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its identified weaknesses, it would be necessary to adapt the first action- to make an investment needed to obtain the strengths which are necessary for the realisation of the strategy. This investment can be done by the individual organisations from the cultural sector, or, preferably, should come from external sources.

Based on the findings collected in the interviews with cultural operators from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the summary of strong and weak points of cultural sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina for acting within the “Action framework” is presented in Table2.

  Strengths Weaknesses
Resources   Lack of time, money, educated staff and other resources
Motivation Strong motivation for action  
Recruitments networks Good contacts with media- possibility for public debates about cultural strategy issues • Lack of knowledge about advocacy and lobbying
• Lack of any knowledge about cultural policy development issues
• Animosity towards politics
Resource aggregation   • Lack of any form of organisation in the country which deals with the issues of cultural policy development and advocacy for the wellbeing of the arts and culture in general
• Lack of knowledge about already existing cultural advocacy networks, their structure and actual operating and the benefits for the cultural sphere
Sense-making • Good ideas about common interests for all cultural sector in BiH
• Willingness of several leaders of key cultural organisations in the country to start making pressure on government to begin the process of cultural strategy formulation
• Short-termism and self-interests among several huge cultural institutions stop them to think of the overall conditions for other cultural organisations in BiH
• Strictly local/regional orientation of some cultural organisations outside of capital Sarajevo
Advocacy networks   • Request for quick results of advocacy network organisation
• Reluctance toward bureaucratic forms of organising, fear of loosing the track with the hot issues from the field

Table 2. s/w analysis of cultural sector in BiH in regard to “Action framework”

Conclusions and recommendations

In the previous chapters of this document we have undertaken the following approach:

• analysed the role of government in BiH in the process of cultural strategy development- in regard to turnaround elements;
• identified the stakeholders’ action as the most applicable approach to trigger government turnaround;
• identified the cultural sector as the stakeholder in the process of cultural strategy formulation;
• developed the “action framework” for cultural sector in BiH to act as the trigger for government turnaround ;
• diagnosed strengths and weaknesses of cultural sector in BiH to act within “action framework”

For cultural organisations from Bosnia and Herzegovina it would be almost impossible at this moment to invest money, time and voluntary work in the future cultural network organisation. Constant, day-by-day survival battle narrowed the interests of many cultural managers and focused them only on their self-interest what fragmented the cultural sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Identification and promotion of common interests for cultural sector in BiH will be of great importance for creation of the positive climate for establishing of the future cultural network organisation in this country.

Based on the presented conclusions, it is obvious that external support is essential in order to give the initial support for the establishment of the future advocacy network organisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The core group of people who should start these activities will be the cultural managers from the organisations that already started serious discussion about the cultural policy issues inside their organisations (SCCA, Buybook) and the independent cultural operators who are interested in these issues. First meeting of the interested organisations should take place as soon as possible, after which similar email-attack strategy from Kunsten’92 can be applied because of its non-costs and simplicity. This action should result with the founding assembly of the network association, election of the governing bodies, formulation of the strategic objectives, etc.

This future network association should be organised as the membership organisation, but due to the financial constraints, members will not be obliged to pay membership fee for first 4 years. The costs of running of the network association should be covered by the financial support from international and local donors. Simultaneously, a series of workshops and trainings for cultural operators from all BiH (as well as for interested government officials responsible for cultural issues) in the fields of cultural management, project and strategic management, advocacy, cultural policy development and cultural networking practices should be developed in the cooperation with international partners. These trainings will raise the awareness about the importance of mentioned subjects for the overall modernisation of the cultural system in BiH, as well as for the organisational and sectoral capacity building.

Schematic overview of the proposed model for government turnaround in the process of cultural strategy development is presented at Figure 4.

Figura 4

Figure 4. Model for government turnaround in the process of cultural strategy development in BiH

This approach from the Figure4 suggest the assumption that government as machine bureaucracy organisation has to start the turnaround process by the means of external turnaround trigger identified as profiled, organised collective action from the all actors in cultural sector. It is impossible to expect that this turnaround will happen as the effect of internal triggers, since the analysis of the government actions in past ten years showed gradual declining in performance and no signs of the change of behaviour. This is possible due to the fact that culture in general doesn’t play a significant role in the public governance, and no challenging tasks are in front of local Ministries of culture in the context of overall reform of public governance. Described situation is great habitat for the corrupted, irresponsible and ignorant cultural operators since the evaluation their efficiency is not in the government agenda. In this context, cultural operators from the field are not consulted in the decision-making process when budget is distributed or any other action that affect the existence of cultural sector as such. The fact that collaborative or participatory approach in the cultural strategy formation is not yet an issue for local governments, determines the role of the cultural sector as the external trigger as shown at Figure4, but that position should definitely be changed into new one- when cultural sector is perceived as the stakeholder in the process of cultural strategy formation. The next logical phase that will follow up the success of the process shown at Figure4 will actually be the cultural strategic dialogue as the part of interactive strategy formulation as elaborated by Hagoort. (Hagoort, 2003: 111)

But, the process from the Figure4 can be also analysed in the reversed direction- in the case that government promote new innovative cultural strategies, it can be external trigger for the organisations from cultural sector in BiH- for example for a poorly performing public institution of culture on the edge of survival- to start their own turnarounds in order to reform themselves in accordance to modern and innovative principles accompanied in the government cultural strategy. In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina later seems almost impossible to occur soon; reasons for this government’s inabilities are explained in this document. Therefore, an urgent action of the cultural operators from the field is necessary for beginning of the process of cultural strategy formulation.

Knowing that the crisis for cultural sector in BiH was the result of gradual declining in support and all other various factors tied in complex net of interest and influences, the activities of the future Bosnian organisation of this type will need to be much more part of the bottom-up strategy formulation (and later transformed in interactive approach in strategy formulation), changing the system of culture. The lack of resources will be another difficulty for the establishing of future Bosnian cultural advocacy organisation. This will be the long and painful process which requests lot of support- again international- in know-how transfer in the area of civic participation, advocacy and lobbying, network management, cultural policy and management, etc, as well as for the running costs of the organisation. However, the long-term goal of this organisation should be to become financially sustainable and funded by its members and certainly by local government, but at this moment the conditions for both doesn’t exist.

International support is essential in first four years of the existence of future Bosnian cultural advocacy network organisation. This support would cover:

• training for leaders of cultural organisations in the field of cultural policy development, advocacy and lobbying and strategic management
• participation of BiH cultural representatives in the international seminars and conferences with cultural policy, networking, lobbying and advocacy issues
• study visits to/from European cultural networks and national networks like Kunsten’92, knowledge exchanges
• first media campaigns
• publishing and distributions of the leaflets, flyers, booklets
• funds for commissioning of several cultural policy analysis/studies done by independent (preferably local) experts with practical policy recommendations
• organisation of public debates, seminars, workshops, conferences and lectures
• funding of the small coordination office with two employees for four years

During the process of recovery or renewal of the cultural system in BiH, apart of the collective turnaround that is focus of this paper, also individual turnarounds should occur. For example, transformation of poorly performing public cultural institutions can be started with more or less promising ending for some of them. As Minzberg says, sometimes it simply does not pay to try to save a sick institution, no matter how important it once was and how strong are the social pressures for doing so. (Minzberg, 1989: 297)


Castells, Manuel, “Network logic: Afterword: Why networks matter”, Demos, 2004,
Dragicevic-Sesic, Milena and Dragojevic, Sanjin, “Intercultural mediation in the Balkans”, GIK OKO- “The University Book”, Sarajevo, 2004
Griffin, Ricky W., “Management”, 8th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New York, 2005
Hagoort, Giep, “Art Management- Entrepreneurial Style”, Eburon, Delft, 2003
Harvie, Betsy A., “Regulation of Advocacy in the Voluntary Sector: Current Challenges and Some Responses”,  Voluntary Sector Initiative Report, Government of Canada, January 2002
Klaic, Dragan, “Cultural perspectives of the EU enlargement”, European Cultural Foundation- Reflection Group, Working paper 7, 26 May 2003/ rev. 14 July 2003
Klaic, Dragan, “The Artist as a Self-defining Subject”, Transeropeennes, IETM, Fall 1997
Landry, Charles, “Togetherness in difference: Culture at the crossroads in Bosnia Herzegovina, Cultural Policy in Bosnia Herzegovina: Experts Report”, European Programme of National Cultural Policy Reviews, Mosaic Project, Council of Europe- Steering Committee for Culture, Strasbourg, 2002
Mintzberg, Henry, “Mintzberg on management: inside our strange world of organisations/ Henry Mintzberg, The Free Press, New York, 1989
Mintzberg, Henry, Ahlstrand, Bruce and Lampel, Joseph, “Strategy Safari- The Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic Management”, Financial Times- Prentice Hall- Pearson Education, London, 2005
Reid, Elizabeth J., “Understanding the Word “Advocacy”: Context and Use”, Urban Institute Press, Washington, 2000
Saidel, Judith R., “Nonprofit Organisations, Political Engagement, and Public Policy”, Urban Institute Press, Washington, 2000
Zimmerman, Frederick M., “The Turnaround Experience: Real-world Lessons in Revitalizing Corporations”, University of St. Thomas St. Paul, Minnesota, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.


Dunja Blazevic, director of Sarajevo Centre for Contemporary Arts (SCCA) (Sarajevo, 16. 06. 2005)
Nihad Kresevljakovic, executive producer of International Theatre Festival MESS Sarajevo (Sarajevo, 15. 06. 2005)
Marianne Versteegh, a secretary of Kunsten’92. (Amsterdam, 19. 07. 2005)
Farah Tahirbegovic, executive editor and programme manager in bookshop and publishing house “Buybook” Sarajevo (via telephone, 18. 06. 2005)
Edin Zubcevic, director Jazzfest and recording label Gramofon Sarajevo (via telephone, 14. 06. 2005)
Ellen Walraven, member of Kunsten’92 Board (Amsterdam, 01. 04. 2005)
Geert van Itallie, member of Kunsten’92 Board (Amsterdam, 15. 04. 2005)


NOTE: This paper is an extract of MA thesis defended at Hogeschool voor de Kunsten Utrecht (HKU), spetember 2005.