From a speech given by the Administrative Under-Secretary in the Hungarian Ministry for Cultural Heritage at the conference "The Value and Price of National Culture in the European Union", arranged by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation and the monthly Beszélő this spring.

Hungary’s entry into the European Union will not only have economic conse- quences, for entry will create a new situation for the country in virtually all fields of life, including culture. The question is how well we can predict and prepare for the new circumstances, and what changes are necessary in order to stay on track for EU-membership.

The EU does not lay down detailed rules or restrictions concerning culture. Paragraph 128 of the Maastricht Treaty states that the EU supports cultural concepts which strengthen common European awareness. The various aid and grant programmes have also been drawn up with this aim in mind. But it is not easy to conform to such broad and vague conditions. At the same time, we surely cannot be expected to guess what these general terms are supposed to mean. I would therefore be delighted if those EU programmes that are already open to us were to contain more specific criteria so that we could judge which cultural activities would qualify for EU support. But what is even more important is for us to concentrate on, and work out, our own strategy of moving culture onto the offensive.

By this I refer to an aspect of EU membership which is of considerable importance economically, despite being only indirectly related to the interests of the economy. At the end of the 20th century, the task of cultural policy must surely be to create markets for culture as well. If we look at our eventual EU membership from this perspective, then accession could mean a substantial expansion of the market for Hungarian culture. This is not to say that the spread of Hungarian culture abroad has been hindered or impeded in any way up to now. There is, however, reason for us to believe that Hungary’s EU-membership will create a new attitude towards the country, not only in foreign customers for culture, but also in the general European thinking. Hungarian culture will be interpreted as part of the European heritage to a much higher degree than ever before. This is the new situation we have to prepare for.

At this point we come to the question of financing culture. I am aware that here any kind of centralization is bound to be unpopular. Nevertheless, I should like to appeal not only to your goodwill, but also to your common sense. My arguments are the following.

At the beginning of the 1990s it was obvious that a centralized cultural policy would have to be abandoned and that decisions would, as far as possible, have to be taken at lower levels. This was an attractive concept, at the dawn of the change in the system of government it was necessary for cultural resources to be allocated according to the principle of "let all the flowers bloom", within a much broader system of decision making. But today, on the verge of joining the EU, if we say we need a deliberate cultural strategy, and we continue taking important decisions at low levels, then who will take these steps, on the basis of which decisions and financed from what sources?

For markets for culture to be created, especially abroad, within the framework of the EU, changes are necessary in the system of financing. A substantial part of cultural life will still have to be financed in keeping with decisions taken at low levels, so the current system will continue to operate. At the same time, however, the proportion of these will have to be reduced in favour of centralized decisions. It is an absurd and unacceptable situation that, on the one hand, we maintain cultural institutions using Hungarian taxpayers’ money, we pay their electricity bills, the salaries of their employees, and so on, and on the other, we say to them: apply for money so that you can realize your projects, we can’t give enough to you to carry out the functions we support you in.

It is true that the system of financing based on cultural surcharges which took shape in the 1990s was of profound importance. But how does that fit in with the need to work out a new cultural strategy, and how does it conform to new objectives such as changing the country’s image or creating new markets? What I have just said about our cultural institutions, such as the Műcsarnok (Kunsthalle) in Budapest is equally true of Hungarian cultural institutions abroad, which we will need to use as bridge-heads in our cultural offensive. Only if we finance these institutions adequately will our concept of creating markets and spreading Hungarian culture all over the world be realized on a national, government scale. It is my conviction that the proportions of the system of financing culture have to be altered to achieve this. Of course, this will leave such important values as those represented by the National Cultural Basic Programme untouched.

Finally, one more footnote on EU matters, which is especially timely during the current German EU presidency. It is fortunate that Germany and France have managed to agree on a mutual programme of protection for European cultural values. Both countries are taking significant steps to achieve this, primarily, of course, in areas with notable economic repercussions, such as films or sound recordings. The aim is to serve common European interests as well, besides serving the interests of their individual countries. This programme is likely to benefit Hungary, notably our film industry. I am not saying this prompted by anti-American sentiments. It is a fact that European films are grossly underrepresented in Hungary, compared to their quality. American films, on the other hand, have swamped the cinemas, thanks to steam-roller marketing strategies and the vastness of available resources. This is another area where EU membership may bring improvement.

My brief was to talk about the practical aspects of financing culture on the road towards the European Union. It is clear, however, that our strategy must include other things as well. Culture, which is an important factor in shaping identity, may help us in strengthening our collective national identity by rooting it in a common European consciousness. The presentation of European culture in Hungary and the starting of a Hungarian cultural offensive on European markets will help us in realizing this goal. At the same time, they will also create a cultural milieu that is in harmony with our long-term economic interests.