The case of Novi Sad European Capital of Culture 2021 (NS2021), in which various rationales of cultural policy (local, national, supranational) thread a complex web of political interactions, brings interesting challenges to the theoretical landscape of cultural policy research. We start with the analysis of the Bidbook NS2021 as a cultural policy text, discussing its inconsistencies and ambiguities. Then we study the context and the policy process through participant observation and interviews with key authors. We find that the policy-making process is best explained as contingent - meaning that it is dependent on the historical discourses, demands of the specific policy genre, external requirements and internal pressures, and individual agencies and accidents. In the concluding section, we discuss theoretical and methodological implications that policy contingency poses to cultural policy studies.

Digitalizacija, povezanost, globalizacija, ekspanzija ekonomije zasnovane na znanju, rastuća potražnja za ekonomijom zabave i slobodnog vremena i ekspanzija sektora koji spadaju pod intelektualnu svojinu imaju značajan uticaj na tradicionalno razumevanje umetnosti i kulture. Kao rezultat tranzicije od kapitalističkih ka postkapitalističkim društvima, termini kao što su "kreativne industrije", "kulturne industrije" i "kreativna ekonomija" boje skorašnje diskusije o kulturi, ekonomiji, tehnologiji, urbanom planiranju, kulturnim politikama i politici uopšte.Termin "kulturna industrija" datira iz posleratne francuske kritičke teorije Teodora Adorna i Maksa Horkhajmera i bila je korišćena kao kritika masovne i standardizovane kulturne produkcije. Ekonomski potencijal umetnosti i kulture prepoznat je u Velikoj Britaniji tokom perioda vlade Margaret Tačer, u izveštaju "Ekonomska važnost umetnosti u Britaniji" i time je utvrđen termin kulturne industrije.3 Danas je negativna konotacija koja se odnosi na ideju mešavine kulture i industrije uveliko napušte-na. UNESCO tretira kulturne industrije kao sektor visoke važnosti i definiše ih kao "one industrije koje proizvode materijalne i nematerijalne umetničke i kreativne proizvode, i Termin je ovde korišćen u množini kako bi se razlikovao od adornovskih negativnih konotacija, kao i zato što množina bolje opisuje varijetet kulturne produkcije druge polovine XX veka.

No abstract

At the beginning of the 20th century, Dadaists were shouting, 'ruin the museums and heritage'. Near the end of it, Fukuyama (1989) prophetically questioned 'the end of history', while museum, heritage and memory rituals were becoming all but unavoidable. In the last two decades, in the wake of occupied and uncertain futures, the heritage field has boomed. Hundreds of museums have opened each year across the globe; heritage tourism has become an ever-stronger industry niche; heritage issues have made it into numerous policy areas other than culture; heritage studies have become an immensely dynamic and interdisciplinary field; heritage practices have extended their scope, aspirations and approaches with each new day; and conflicts in numerous parts of the world have incorporated references to heritage and history. Questions that have been raised and continuously discussed in these decades have transformed both heritage practice and research. What counts as heritage? Who has the right to define, safeguard and transform it? What is the role of memory institutions in ever more plural and fragmented memory landscapes? Which knowledges, skills and competences are needed to be engaged in heritage practice, professionally and otherwise? How is heritage to be understood and cared for?These and other questions have challenged the long-standing, Western European, hegemonic way of understanding and practising heritage. The push for critical reassessment within the heritage profession, the new muse-

In this final chapter we address the key questions we consider to lie ahead for heritage planning, when pushing new practice and research frontiers. We build on and take forward the points made in Parts I and II, as well as discussions with authors and other heritage planning experts in academia and practice. We touch on those heritage issues that we believe could contribute to a more just, diverse and sustainable world. With this agenda, we aim to enrich and inspire both practice and research directions by suggesting new, combined, continued and alternative perspectives on doing, studying and reflecting on heritage planning. We focus on conceptual and thematic ways forward, supported by methodological, governance and funding considerations. There are many angles to be explored, numerous ideas to be shared and actions to be undertaken. This agenda is but a small contribution. Heritage planning and contemporary challengesSpatial planning operates in a world full of context: tabula scripta. Developing spatial policies, plans and designs for the future always requires interaction with pre-existing conditions: structures, creations, ideas, uses, values, pollutions and other historic layers. Engaging with them can be seen as a restriction, or as an opportunity to work with the potential of place. We would therefore argue that, conceptually, all spatial planning is a form of heritage planning. Conversely, heritage planning cannot be limited to what is formally designated or listed. As also discussed in the introduction to this book (Chapter 1), formal definitions of heritage, as for example used in European policy contexts, have become much broader over time .