This paper aims to explain the changes that occurred in the Galician innovation policy during the last two decades. We note that this policy emerged as an innovation policy, not only focused on S&T, at the end of the 1990s. In a way, there was a pattern of continuity until 2009, in which the changes came to a large extent to be determined by processes of imitation and learning. Interactions with other levels of government are particularly relevant. Thus, the Spanish innovation policy has been very influential in regard to the institutional and governance structure, particularly at the beginning. The influence of the European level has been gradually increased, especially in the field of the selection of priorities and instruments, until reaching the highest point at present with the RIS3. Even so, the Galician innovation policy has gradually consolidated its own dynamics, due to the internal processes of accumulation of experiences and learning. Starting in 2009, certain changes have been made, largely due to the economic crisis. This crisis did not only mean a decrease in the public budget for innovation, but also made possible a scenario for changes in ideological orientation and in the instruments of this policy. ; El objetivo de este artículo es explicar los cambios acontecidos en la política gallega de innovación durante las dos últimas décadas. Observamos que esta política surgió como una política de innovación, y no solo de ciencia y tecnología, a finales de los años 90. En cierto modo, existe un patrón de continuidad hasta el 2009 en que los cambios vinieron determinados en buena medida por procesos de imitación y aprendizaje, siendo particularmente relevante las interacciones con otros niveles de gobierno. Así, la política de innovación española fue muy influyente en lo que se refiere al organigrama institucional de gobierno, particularmente al inicio. La influencia del nivel europeo fue aumentando gradualmente, sobre todo en el campo de la selección de prioridades e instrumentos, hasta llegar al punto culminante en la actualidad con la RIS3. Aún así, la política gallega de innovación fue poco a poco consolidando una dinámica propia, debido a los propios procesos internos de acumulación de experiencias y de aprendizaje. A partir del año 2009 se producen cambios de cierto calado, en buena medida debido a la crisis económica. Esta crisis no solo significó una disminución del presupuesto público para la innovación, sino que también posibilitó un escenario para que pudieran aplicarse cambios en la orientación ideológica y en los instrumentos de esta política. ; O obxectivo deste artigo é explicar os cambios acontecidos na política galega de innovación durante as dúas últimas décadas. Observamos que esta política xurdiu como unha política de innovación, e non só de ciencia e tecnoloxía, a finais dos anos 90. En certo modo, existe un patrón de continuidade ata o 2009 en que os cambios viñeron determinados en boa medida por procesos de imitación e aprendizaxe, sendo particularmente relevante as interaccións con outros niveis de goberno. Así, a política de innovación española foi moi influente no que se refire ao organigrama institucional de goberno, particularmente ao inicio. A influencia do nivel europeo foi aumentando gradualmente, sobre todo no eido da selección de prioridades e instrumentos, ata chegar ao punto culminante na actualidade coa RIS3. Aínda así, a política galega de innovación foi pouco a pouco consolidando unha dinámica propia, debido aos propios procesos internos de acumulación de experiencias e de aprendizaxe. A partir do ano 2009 prodúcense mudanzas de certo calado, en boa medida debido á crise económica. Esa crise no só significou unha diminución do orzamento público para a innovación, senón que tamén posibilitou un escenario para que puideran aplicarse cambios na orientación ideolóxica e nos instrumentos desta política.
Rad koristi interdisciplinarni pristup u okviru kulturne politike, kako bi predstavio potrebe za decentralizacijom kulturnog sistema u Srbiji i istovremeno predložio model decentralizacije kulture koji može biti primenjen. Uvodni deo prvo predstavlja značaj decentralizacije u kulturi za Srbiju, ali istovremeno i naglašava prepreke koje su vezane za tranzicioni period u kome se zemlja nalazi. Takođe, u teoretizaciji same decentralizacije u kulturi, rad uvodi nove ključne aspekte – jednakost, ravnopravnost i pravednost, koji se predstavljaju kroz političko – ekonomske teorije poput liberalizma, socijalizma, anarhizma i feminizma, da bi se socijalna pravda uvela kao glavni princip. Iz toga proizilazi i glavna hipoteza - uz primenu principa pravednosti u modelu, može se ostvariti i princip jednakosti/ravnopravnosti u decentralizaciji kulturnog sistema Srbije. Metodološki postupak zasnovan je na interdisciplinarnim teorijsko-empirijskim istraživanjima koja obuhvataju kulturnu politiku, menadžment u kulturi, teoriju upravljanja, političke nauke, ekonomske nauke, pravne nauke i sociologiju. Cilj istraživanja je modelovanje novog kulturnog sistema decentralizacije u Srbiji, zasnovanog na principu pravednosti. Oslanjajući se na evropske primere decentralizacije kulture, kojima se teži kao pripadajućem prostoru države, rad predstavlja i istorijski pregled decentralizacije u širem smislu, političke i fiskalne, kao preduslova pune decentralizacije u kulturi. U opštem teoretisanju decentralizacije, istovremeno se i sama decentralizacija terminološki odvaja od pojmova poput dekocentracije, demetropolizacije, devolucije i delegacije, a predstavljaju se i suplementarni poput regionalizacije i supsidijarnosti, kao i međusobna uslovljenost navedenih oblika decentralizacije (političke, ekonomske i kulturne). Polazne definicije decentralizacije, trodelna definicija uslovljenosti decentralizacije u kulturi Nobuko Kavašime kao "fer distribucija resursa" i Meklijeva "decentralizacija odlučivanja", odnosno dva principa – top down demokratizacije kulture i bootom up kulturne demokratije, u radu se ne isključuju nego zajedno koriste u susretnom smislu. Rad analizira i teorije o decentralizaciji kulture (Malro i Mekli u Francuskoj, Kavašima u Engleskoj, kao i regionalne poput Dragojevića u Hrvatskoj), kao i teoretske pojmove koje smatra neophodnim za primenu decentralizacije u kulturi poput socijalne (shvatanje Džona Rolsa) i tranzicione pravde, društvene sektore sa posebnim naglaskom na civilni sektor u kulturi, populistički diskurs decentralizacije koji koristi politika, participaciju kao neophodan element decentralizacije kulture, commons i spillover efect. Analiza je obuhvatila i praktične, nekadašnje i sadašnje modele decentralizacije u kulturi u Evropi (sa posebnim naglaskom na Francusku i Englesku), nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji (sa posebnim akcentom na samoupravni sistem), država u regionu (Hrvatska posebno) i samoj Srbiji (Nacrt strategije Komisije za decentralizaciju kulture), kako bi se predstavile strategije koje se mogu iskoristiti za predloženi model. Utvrđujući putem empirijskog istraživanja (stavovi kreatora kulture u unutrašnjosti Srbije), finansijske analize javnih izdvajanja za kulturu, strateških planova i medijske vidljivosti, visok stepen centralizma, rad predlaže i konkretne mere za ostvarivanje decentralizacije u kulturi. Poseban segment istraživanja je utvrdio i potencijalnu ulogu civilnog sektora u kulturi u decentralizaciji kulture, gde se merio njegov potencijal, održivost, povezivanje (poput Asocijacije nezavisne kulturne scene Srbije i njene uloge) i prevashodno primeri dobre prakse u svetu (omladinski centri Estonije) i kod nas nekada (Otvoreni klubovi Savezne republike Jugoslavije) i danas. Glavni rezultat ovog rada je predlog modela za implementaciju decentralizacije u kulturi Srbije, koji je adekvatan specifičnim uslovima sredine i realno primenljiv. Model je nazvan "susretno-pravednim" jer u sebi sadrži više pristupa koji nisu samostalni nego upravo povezani uslovljenim obligacijama odlučivanja koje dvosmerno dolaze vertikalno (nivoi vlasti) i horizontalno (korisnici i sektori) uz primenu načela pravednosti kao glavnog kriterijuma. Model je trostepeni (kulturna decentralizacija bez političke i fiskalne, kulturna i fiskalna decentralizacija i sva tri vida zajedno) sa trogodišnjim trajanjem svake faze. On predlaže mere i strategije poput regionalizacije (politička decentralizacija), "skandinavskog modela finansiranja" lokalnih samouprava (fiskalna decentralizacija) i kao najbitnije za kulturnu decentralizaciju: jačanje regionalnih i lokalnih resursa (razvoj kadrova i publike, departizaciju, deinstitucionalizaciju, izgradnju i revitalizaciju infrastrukture i obavezne lokalne i regionalne strategije kulture), "kapilarnu decentralizaciju" kulture putem jačanja uloge civilnog sektora, obavezni "lokalni spillover" za manifestacione kreativne industrije i primenu faktora socijalne pravde u finansiranju kulture, difuziji institucija i manifestacija od nacionalnog značaja i u nacionalnoj medijskoj promociji. Naučni doprinos rada je dalja teoretizacija pojma decentralizacije u kulturi sa stanovišta principa jednakosti, ravnopravnosti i pravde. U oblasti kulturne politike, vrednost dizajniranog modela je u tome što može imati i potencijalnu praktičnu primenu, kako od strane nacionalnih, tako i lokalnih subjekata u kulturi Srbije. ; The paper uses an interdisciplinary approach within cultural policy to present the needs for decentralization of the cultural system in Serbia and at the same time propose a model for decentralization of culture that can be applied. The introductory part first presents the importance of decentralization in culture for Serbia, but at the same time highlights the obstacles that are associated with the transition period in which the country is located. Also, in the theorizing of decentralization in culture, the paper introduces new key aspects - equality, equal and justice, which are presented through political - economic theories such as liberalism, socialism, anarchism and feminism, to introduce social justice as the main principle. This leads to the main hypothesis - with the application of the principle of equity in the model, the principle of equality in the decentralization of the cultural system of Serbia can be realized. The methodological procedure is based on interdisciplinary theoretical and empirical research covering cultural policy, cultural management, management theory, political science, economic sciences, legal sciences and sociology. The aim of the research is to model a new cultural system of decentralization in Serbia, based on the principle of equity. Drawing on European examples of decentralization of culture, which strives as belonging to the state space, the paper also presents a historical overview of decentralization in the broad sense, political and fiscal, as a precondition for full decentralization in culture. In the general theorizing of decentralization, decentralization itself is terminologically detached from concepts such as decocentiation, demetropolisation, devolution and delegation, and they are also complementary such as regionalization and subsidiarity, as well as the interdependence of these forms of decentralization (political, economic and cultural). The initial definitions of decentralization, the three-part definition of the conditionality of decentralization in the culture of Nobuko Kawashima as a "fair distribution of resources" and Moeckli's "decentralization of decision-making", that is, two principles - top down of culture democratization and bootom up of cultural democracy, are not mutually exclusive but used together. The paper analyzes the theories of decentralization of culture (Malro and Moeckli in France, Kawashima in England, as well as regional ones like Dragojevic in Croatia), as well as theoretical concepts that he considers necessary for the application of decentralization in culture such as social (John Rolls' understanding) and transitional justice, social sectors with particular emphasis on the civil sector in culture, a populist discourse of decentralization used by politics, participation as a necessary element of cultural decentralization, commons and spillover efect. The analysis also included practical, former and current models of decentralization in culture in Europe (with special emphasis on France and England), former Yugoslavia (with particular emphasis on the self-governing system), countries in the region (Croatia in particular) and Serbia itself (Draft Commission Strategy to decentralize culture), to outline strategies that can be used for the proposed model. By establishing through empirical research (views of cultural creators in the interior of Serbia), financial analysis of public appropriations for culture, strategic plans and media visibility, a high degree of centralism, the paper also proposes concrete measures for achieving decentralization in culture. A specific segment of the research identified the potential role of the civil sector in culture in decentralizing culture, measuring its potential, sustainability, networking (such as the Association of the Independent Cultural Scene of Serbia and its role) and, above all, examples of good practice in the world (Estonian youth centers) and in Balkan once (Open clubs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and today). The main result of this paper is the proposal of a model for the implementation of decentralization in the culture of Serbia, which is adequate to the specific environmental conditions and realistically applicable. The model has been called "counter-righteous" because it contains more approaches that are not standalone but just linked by conditioned decision-making obligations that come two-way vertically (levels of government) and horizontally (users and sectors), by applying the principle of fairness as the main criterion. The model is three-stage (cultural decentralization without political and fiscal, cultural and fiscal decentralization and all three aspects together) with a three-year duration of each phase. It proposes measures and strategies such as regionalization (political decentralization), the "scandinavian financing model" of local governments (fiscal decentralization) and as essential to cultural decentralization: strengthening regional and local resources (development of staff and audience, depoliticization, deinstitutionalization, construction and revitalization of infrastructure and mandatory local and regional cultural strategies), "capillary decentralization" of culture through strengthening the role of the civil sector, mandatory "local spillover" for creative industries and the application of social justice factors in the financing of culture, diffusion of institutions and events of national importance and in national media promotion. The scientific contribution of the paper is further theorization of the concept of decentralization in culture from the standpoint of the principles of equality and justice. In the field of cultural policy, the value of the designed model is that it can have potential practical application, both by national and local subjects in the culture of Serbia.
Rad koristi interdisciplinarni pristup u okviru kulturne politike, kako bi predstavio potrebe za decentralizacijom kulturnog sistema u Srbiji i istovremeno predložio model decentralizacije kulture koji može biti primenjen. Uvodni deo prvo predstavlja značaj decentralizacije u kulturi za Srbiju, ali istovremeno i naglašava prepreke koje su vezane za tranzicioni period u kome se zemlja nalazi. Takođe, u teoretizaciji same decentralizacije u kulturi, rad uvodi nove ključne aspekte – jednakost, ravnopravnost i pravednost, koji se predstavljaju kroz političko – ekonomske teorije poput liberalizma, socijalizma, anarhizma i feminizma, da bi se socijalna pravda uvela kao glavni princip. Iz toga proizilazi i glavna hipoteza - uz primenu principa pravednosti u modelu, može se ostvariti i princip jednakosti/ravnopravnosti u decentralizaciji kulturnog sistema Srbije. Metodološki postupak zasnovan je na interdisciplinarnim teorijsko-empirijskim istraživanjima koja obuhvataju kulturnu politiku, menadžment u kulturi, teoriju upravljanja, političke nauke, ekonomske nauke, pravne nauke i sociologiju. Cilj istraživanja je modelovanje novog kulturnog sistema decentralizacije u Srbiji, zasnovanog na principu pravednosti. Oslanjajući se na evropske primere decentralizacije kulture, kojima se teži kao pripadajućem prostoru države, rad predstavlja i istorijski pregled decentralizacije u širem smislu, političke i fiskalne, kao preduslova pune decentralizacije u kulturi. U opštem teoretisanju decentralizacije, istovremeno se i sama decentralizacija terminološki odvaja od pojmova poput dekocentracije, demetropolizacije, devolucije i delegacije, a predstavljaju se i suplementarni poput regionalizacije i supsidijarnosti, kao i međusobna uslovljenost navedenih oblika decentralizacije (političke, ekonomske i kulturne). Polazne definicije decentralizacije, trodelna definicija uslovljenosti decentralizacije u kulturi Nobuko Kavašime kao "fer distribucija resursa" i Meklijeva "decentralizacija odlučivanja", odnosno dva principa – top down demokratizacije kulture i bootom up kulturne demokratije, u radu se ne isključuju nego zajedno koriste u susretnom smislu. Rad analizira i teorije o decentralizaciji kulture (Malro i Mekli u Francuskoj, Kavašima u Engleskoj, kao i regionalne poput Dragojevića u Hrvatskoj), kao i teoretske pojmove koje smatra neophodnim za primenu decentralizacije u kulturi poput socijalne (shvatanje Džona Rolsa) i tranzicione pravde, društvene sektore sa posebnim naglaskom na civilni sektor u kulturi, populistički diskurs decentralizacije koji koristi politika, participaciju kao neophodan element decentralizacije kulture, commons i spillover efect. Analiza je obuhvatila i praktične, nekadašnje i sadašnje modele decentralizacije u kulturi u Evropi (sa posebnim naglaskom na Francusku i Englesku), nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji (sa posebnim akcentom na samoupravni sistem), država u regionu (Hrvatska posebno) i samoj Srbiji (Nacrt strategije Komisije za decentralizaciju kulture), kako bi se predstavile strategije koje se mogu iskoristiti za predloženi model. Utvrđujući putem empirijskog istraživanja (stavovi kreatora kulture u unutrašnjosti Srbije), finansijske analize javnih izdvajanja za kulturu, strateških planova i medijske vidljivosti, visok stepen centralizma, rad predlaže i konkretne mere za ostvarivanje decentralizacije u kulturi. Poseban segment istraživanja je utvrdio i potencijalnu ulogu civilnog sektora u kulturi u decentralizaciji kulture, gde se merio njegov potencijal, održivost, povezivanje (poput Asocijacije nezavisne kulturne scene Srbije i njene uloge) i prevashodno primeri dobre prakse u svetu (omladinski centri Estonije) i kod nas nekada (Otvoreni klubovi Savezne republike Jugoslavije) i danas. Glavni rezultat ovog rada je predlog modela za implementaciju decentralizacije u kulturi Srbije, koji je adekvatan specifičnim uslovima sredine i realno primenljiv. Model je nazvan "susretno-pravednim" jer u sebi sadrži više pristupa koji nisu samostalni nego upravo povezani uslovljenim obligacijama odlučivanja koje dvosmerno dolaze vertikalno (nivoi vlasti) i horizontalno (korisnici i sektori) uz primenu načela pravednosti kao glavnog kriterijuma. Model je trostepeni (kulturna decentralizacija bez političke i fiskalne, kulturna i fiskalna decentralizacija i sva tri vida zajedno) sa trogodišnjim trajanjem svake faze. On predlaže mere i strategije poput regionalizacije (politička decentralizacija), "skandinavskog modela finansiranja" lokalnih samouprava (fiskalna decentralizacija) i kao najbitnije za kulturnu decentralizaciju: jačanje regionalnih i lokalnih resursa (razvoj kadrova i publike, departizaciju, deinstitucionalizaciju, izgradnju i revitalizaciju infrastrukture i obavezne lokalne i regionalne strategije kulture), "kapilarnu decentralizaciju" kulture putem jačanja uloge civilnog sektora, obavezni "lokalni spillover" za manifestacione kreativne industrije i primenu faktora socijalne pravde u finansiranju kulture, difuziji institucija i manifestacija od nacionalnog značaja i u nacionalnoj medijskoj promociji. Naučni doprinos rada je dalja teoretizacija pojma decentralizacije u kulturi sa stanovišta principa jednakosti, ravnopravnosti i pravde. U oblasti kulturne politike, vrednost dizajniranog modela je u tome što može imati i potencijalnu praktičnu primenu, kako od strane nacionalnih, tako i lokalnih subjekata u kulturi Srbije. ; The paper uses an interdisciplinary approach within cultural policy to present the needs for decentralization of the cultural system in Serbia and at the same time propose a model for decentralization of culture that can be applied. The introductory part first presents the importance of decentralization in culture for Serbia, but at the same time highlights the obstacles that are associated with the transition period in which the country is located. Also, in the theorizing of decentralization in culture, the paper introduces new key aspects - equality, equal and justice, which are presented through political - economic theories such as liberalism, socialism, anarchism and feminism, to introduce social justice as the main principle. This leads to the main hypothesis - with the application of the principle of equity in the model, the principle of equality in the decentralization of the cultural system of Serbia can be realized. The methodological procedure is based on interdisciplinary theoretical and empirical research covering cultural policy, cultural management, management theory, political science, economic sciences, legal sciences and sociology. The aim of the research is to model a new cultural system of decentralization in Serbia, based on the principle of equity. Drawing on European examples of decentralization of culture, which strives as belonging to the state space, the paper also presents a historical overview of decentralization in the broad sense, political and fiscal, as a precondition for full decentralization in culture. In the general theorizing of decentralization, decentralization itself is terminologically detached from concepts such as decocentiation, demetropolisation, devolution and delegation, and they are also complementary such as regionalization and subsidiarity, as well as the interdependence of these forms of decentralization (political, economic and cultural). The initial definitions of decentralization, the three-part definition of the conditionality of decentralization in the culture of Nobuko Kawashima as a "fair distribution of resources" and Moeckli's "decentralization of decision-making", that is, two principles - top down of culture democratization and bootom up of cultural democracy, are not mutually exclusive but used together. The paper analyzes the theories of decentralization of culture (Malro and Moeckli in France, Kawashima in England, as well as regional ones like Dragojevic in Croatia), as well as theoretical concepts that he considers necessary for the application of decentralization in culture such as social (John Rolls' understanding) and transitional justice, social sectors with particular emphasis on the civil sector in culture, a populist discourse of decentralization used by politics, participation as a necessary element of cultural decentralization, commons and spillover efect. The analysis also included practical, former and current models of decentralization in culture in Europe (with special emphasis on France and England), former Yugoslavia (with particular emphasis on the self-governing system), countries in the region (Croatia in particular) and Serbia itself (Draft Commission Strategy to decentralize culture), to outline strategies that can be used for the proposed model. By establishing through empirical research (views of cultural creators in the interior of Serbia), financial analysis of public appropriations for culture, strategic plans and media visibility, a high degree of centralism, the paper also proposes concrete measures for achieving decentralization in culture. A specific segment of the research identified the potential role of the civil sector in culture in decentralizing culture, measuring its potential, sustainability, networking (such as the Association of the Independent Cultural Scene of Serbia and its role) and, above all, examples of good practice in the world (Estonian youth centers) and in Balkan once (Open clubs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and today). The main result of this paper is the proposal of a model for the implementation of decentralization in the culture of Serbia, which is adequate to the specific environmental conditions and realistically applicable. The model has been called "counter-righteous" because it contains more approaches that are not standalone but just linked by conditioned decision-making obligations that come two-way vertically (levels of government) and horizontally (users and sectors), by applying the principle of fairness as the main criterion. The model is three-stage (cultural decentralization without political and fiscal, cultural and fiscal decentralization and all three aspects together) with a three-year duration of each phase. It proposes measures and strategies such as regionalization (political decentralization), the "scandinavian financing model" of local governments (fiscal decentralization) and as essential to cultural decentralization: strengthening regional and local resources (development of staff and audience, depoliticization, deinstitutionalization, construction and revitalization of infrastructure and mandatory local and regional cultural strategies), "capillary decentralization" of culture through strengthening the role of the civil sector, mandatory "local spillover" for creative industries and the application of social justice factors in the financing of culture, diffusion of institutions and events of national importance and in national media promotion. The scientific contribution of the paper is further theorization of the concept of decentralization in culture from the standpoint of the principles of equality and justice. In the field of cultural policy, the value of the designed model is that it can have potential practical application, both by national and local subjects in the culture of Serbia.
