Paper short abstract:

“Culture” in processes of “development” is often reduced to cultural and creative industries. I argue, however, that the focus should be more on culture as capacity to aspire (Appadurai 2004) and less as a catalyst of economic growth (UNCTAD 2008; 2010).

Paper long abstract:

"Culture" in processes of "development" is more often than not reduced to cultural and creative industries (CCI). As such, culture is now being considered explicitly in the context of international development. The Creative Economy Reports (UNCTAD 2008; 2010 and UNESCO/UNDP 2013) are exemplary of this. My argument in this paper is that the predominantly optimistic CCI discourse may however not be as strongly linked to the "culture and development" school of thought in development studies as it seems on first sight (see e.g. Schech and Haggis 2000 and Yousfi 2007). My aim is to clarify the complex relationship that exists between these approaches.

For a considerable time, culture was seen as a stumbling block in the teleological approach to development. This largely economic approach aimed for rational modernization, and considered "traditional" cultural practices as obstacles. Later on, culture became more accepted as a "good" constituent of societies and development processes. Presently, culture is promoted as a building block of development.

In this paper, I expand on the expediency of culture (Yúdice 2003) as the contemporary paradigmatic realm through which culture works in society. I clarify where cultural and development policies overlap, and where their implicit convergence should be studied more closely. I bridge notions of culture as capacity to aspire (Appadurai 2004) and as a catalyst of economic growth (UNCTAD 2008; 2010). I argue that in order to engage with culture for development in a constructive way, the focus should be more on the former and less on the latter.