Harvey B. Feigenbaum – USA

Linked with GLOBALIZATION AND CULTURAL DIPLOMACY.

He is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs. He received his BA (with Distinction) in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia, the Diplome en Relations Internationales from the Insitut d’Etudes Politique de Paris, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles. He is an expert on the political economy of Western Europe and a specialist on France. He teaches courses on the politics of Western Europe, the political economy of advanced industrialized states, theories of comparative politics, and politics and culture. (full text).

Read: Smart Practice and Innovation in Cultural Policy, Responses to Americanization, Sept. 2005.

feigenbaum.jpg.

Harvey B. Feigenbaum – USA

He writes: In October 2005 UNESCO produced its Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. This was largely a response to the worries of countries, especially in Europe and not least of which France, which feared the damaging effects to their cultures if trade in entertainment products remained too one-sided. Generally the argument of this paper is that while initial tensions between the United States and Europe were motivated by the usual commercial concerns, Europeans were increasingly worried about the cultural impact of this commerce. The Japanese, however, have not been nearly so concerned as the Europeans about becoming ‘Americanized’. This lack of tension between the United States and Japan in the area of film and television is due to several factors. First, there is a complementarity between American entertainment and the Japanese electronics industry. Second, the Japanese are major players in some aspects of the entertainment industry, most especially in the area of animation, and they are especially influential in Asia. Finally, issues of cultural conflict between the United States and Japan are simply less salient to Tokyo than those which characterize Japan’s relations with its Asian neighbors. (informaworld.com).

Read: Privatization and political theory.

He teaches courses on comparative politics, political economy, and politics in Western Europe. He is the author of The Politics of Public Enterprise: Oil and the French State, co-author of Shrinking the State: The Political Underpinnings of Privatization, and of numerous articles in scholarly journals such as World Politics, Comparative Politics, Policy, and Governance.

He is currently engaged in research on the political economy of mass media and the globalization of culture. He has served as a consultant to the governments of Canada and France, and to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. (full text).

Look at: Pulse Berlin: A Magazine published by icd in 2007.

He writes also: This article examines how changes in technology affect the strategies various national governments have adopted to protect their respective cultures. The focus is primarily on national policies toward film and television. National quota systems that limit the import of American entertainment products will soon be made impossible to enforce, thanks to new digital and satellite technologies. Economic incentives will still make American products attractive to proliferating private television channels, but narrow-casting and cable distribution will offer new opportunities for locally produced shows and movies. Increasingly, those countries that wish to continue to protect their cultures from the homogenizing trends of global markets dominated by American films and television programs, will need to move away from quotas and toward subsidies. Moreover, they will have an interest in promoting technologies that are favorable to the promotion of national culture. Financial instruments that reduce risk to local producers may also be appropriate. (informaworld.com).

Look at: CultureScope, Studies & Reports.

Review of his book Postimperialism and World Politics: This book provides theoretical contributions to postimperialist theory as well as case studies of both individual countries (Britain, Cuba, the United States) and regions of the world (Africa, postcommunist Europe). It also contains historical analyses of the origins of postimperialist thought in Mexico and the United States. Topics considered include the transfer of cultural and ideological values, multilateral legal responses to transnational oligopolies, the problems of predatory corporate behavior and perceived neoimperial threats, working-class responses to the challenges of transnational enterprise, the effects of resistance to market-based economic reforms, opposition to imperial spheres of influence, and postimperialism’s contributions to theories of international politics. (full text).

Read him: on the George Washington University; on Find articles; on amazon; on Barnes & Noble; on yahoo shopping.

And he writes: Popular culture has become one of America’s biggest exports. Every year the U.S. sells more than $60 billion worth of music, books, movies, television programs and computer software to consumers abroad. And this estimate does not even include the revenues made by illegal copying and other forms of piracy. In Europe or Canada, one need only flick on the television, buy a compact disc or browse the entertainment section of a newspaper to see the ubiquity of American culture. Over the past few decades many governments around the world have viewed this trend with alarm. Fearing the loss of their national idioms and folkways, France, South Korea, Australia, Canada and other countries have adopted policies to protect their producers of music, books, magazines, films and television shows. Some of the most effective techniques for preserving cultural diversity involve quotas that limit the number of U.S.-produced films and programs that can be shown on television. In 1989 the European Union issued its Television Without Frontiers directive, which required member states to reserve, “where practicable,” most of their television schedules for European programming. Some E.U. states go even further: in cost of making a film or television show, allowing low-budget production companies in Europe and Asia to compete more effectively with their Hollywood counterparts. And even if U.S. movies and programs are shown on more screens, it is not clear that non-American cultures will be put at risk. The cultural impact of film and television may well be exaggerated. (sciamdigital.com).

Look at: Internet Related Sessions, American Political Science Assoc Annual Meeting.

Professor Barren opened the talk with comments about media markets and democracy, referring to Ed Baker’s 2002 book Media Markets and Democracy. He discussed the challenge of striking a balance between locally-produced television programs and films and media content from other contries. Countries, such as France and Canada, try to limit foreign media content, while some smaller governments are forced to intervene by subsidizing local production setting time quotas in cinemas and on TV. Even the U.S. government has worked, more so in the past, to address what Professor Barron referred to as “information apartheid,” a system wherein dominant broadcasters, with economy of scale advantages, are able to dominate smaller markets and shutout local producers and broadcasters through the “must-carry” rule, which sets aside a percentage of the airwaves for local broadcasts in smaller regional markets. (full text).

Read: Shrinking the State: The Political Underpinnings of Privatization.

links:

New Technologies Diversifying Entertainment throughout the World;

Public Diplomacy;

Structure & Organization of Government;

Privatizing the Public Business Sector in the Eighties … ;

Do Institutions Matter, page 75;

Democracy, Propaganda or Partnerships Abroad.

Comments are closed.