http___gamahosting.net_web-hosting-hrvatska_WebHostingHrvatska0188.htm.xml
http___gamahosting.net_web-hosting-hrvatska_WebHostingHrvatska0139.htm_1.xml
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 6.1 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 16.2 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 20.2 21.1 22.1 24.1 25.1 25.2 26.1 27.1 27.2 27.3 28.1 29.1 30.1 30.2 31.1 31.2 32.1 33.1 34.1 36.1 37.1 37.2 38.1
STRATEGIJA2.6 6/18/03 5:12 PM Page 188 financing functions transferred to para state bodies that bring decisions in a relatively autonomous manner, except when ideologically sensitive topics that require funding are at stake or else the publishing specific works. For example the former self management interest community model in Yugoslavia/Croatia. 88 Process of transferring financing powers (financial decentralization) to regions, cities, and municipalities. Considerable lack of coordination among administrative lev els. Some regions or municipalities allocate no funds for culture. General situation in Croatia today. 7 Financial decentralization is accompanied by administrative decentralization: the sys tem or number of local units is being reformed and greater autonomy introduced in determining the structure of local (self)government, including departments for culture. The allocation of funds for culture on local levels is even more uncertain and uneven. The minister no longer appoints the heads of cultural institutions, but does intervene in cases of misunderstanding or conflict. 6 Mosaic or sustainable decentralization. The state (central) sanctions decentraliza tion only in the case of local units with infrastructural, professional and financial condi tions for decision making in culture while in all other cases it intervenes (financially and supervising their work) with a view to protecting cultural property on the territories of the units in question. The beginnings of polycentric management and involvement of non state foundations, sponsors, and other outside interested parties in the financing of culture. Polycentric management: transfer of the authority for cultural planning to larger cul tural historical regions, namely their cultural councils. The (central) state retains its pre cedence in setting the objectives and strategic instruments of cultural development, i.e. key criteria for the allocation of funds. The growth of non state financing. The point to which Croatia (according to the existing priority list) should go (but no further). 4 The beginning of deconstructing polycentrism in the direction of decentralization. The diminished share of public funds as compared to private resources. Inter connection with development in other sectors and increased importance of culture as a means. The definition of public cultural property becomes less significant than purely local and pri vate criteria of defining cultural property. 3 Municipalities and cities, including private firms or corporations become the chief footer Copyright 2006, Gamahosting.net. Sva prava zadrzana. web hosting hrvatska
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 8.1 9.1 9.2 10.1 11.1 12.1 12.2 13.1 14.1 15.1 15.2 16.1 17.1 17.2 17.3 18.1 18.2 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 22.2 23.1 23.2 24.1 25.1 25.2 26.1 27.1 28.1 28.2 29.1 30.1 32.1 33.1 33.2 34.1 35.1 35.2 35.3 36.1 38.1 39.1 39.2 40.1
STRATEGIJA2.6 6/18/03 5:12 PM Page 139 Upravljanje Cilj: oblik (politiEke, financijske i upravne) (de)centralizacije koji je (u danom trenutku) najpoticajniji za kul turno odr iv razvitak na svim teritorijalnim razinama. Centralizirano Decentralizirano Potpuno centralizirano i etatizirano ( in enjerska dr ava ). Sve odluke donose se na razini dr avnih ili paradr avnih organa, obiEno u dogovoru s partijskim rukovodstvima. Cenzura nad stvarala tvom ili pak publiciranim radovima. 9 PoEeci deetatizacije i decentralizacije. Neke funkcije odluEivanja i financiranja pre nose se na paradr avna tijela koja odluEuju razmjerno autonomno, osim kada su u pita nju ideolo ki osjetljive teme a tiEu se odobravanja financiranja ili objavljivanja pojedinih djela. Npr. biv i SIZ ovski model u Jugoslaviji/Hrvatskoj. Proces preno enja ovlasti u financijama (financijska decentralizacija) na regije, gra dove i opEine. PriliEna neuskla enost i nekoordiniranost me u upravnim razinama. Neke regije ili opEine uopEe ne izdvajaju sredstva za kulturu. Glavnina stanja u Hrvatskoj danas. 7 Financijskoj decentralizaciji pridru uje se upravna: reformira se sastav ili broj lo kalnih jedinica, veEa autonomija u odre ivanju strukture lokalne (samo)uprave, ukljuEu juEi odjele za kulturu. Izdvajanja za kulturu na lokalnim razinama jo neizvjesnija i neu jednaEenija. Ministar vi e ne imenuje voditelje kulturnih ustanova, ali intervenira u slu Eaju nesporazuma ili sukoba. 6 MozaiEna ili odr iva decentralizacija . Dr ava (centralna) dopu ta decentralizaci ju samo u sluEajevima lokalnih jedinica koje imaju infrastrukturne, struEne i financijske uvjete za odluEivanje u kulturi, a u ostalim sluEajevima intervenira (financijski i kontro lom rada) u svrhu za tite kulturnih dobara na podruEjima dotiEnih jedinica. PoEeci poli centriEnog upravljanja i ulaska nedr avnih zaklada, sponzora i drugih vanjskih interese nata u proces financiranja kulture. PolicentriEno upravljanje: preno enje ovlasti kulturnog planiranja na veEe kulturno povijesne regije, odnosno njihova vijeEa za kulturu. Dr ava (centralna) zadr ava prven stvo u odre ivanju ciljeva i strategijskih instrumenata kulturnog razvitka, odnosno kljuE nih kriterija za dodjelu sredstava. Porast nedr avnog financiranja. ToEka do koje bi treba la (ali ne i dalje) iEi Hrvatska (prema sada njem vi enju prioriteta). footer Copyright 2006, Gamahosting.net. Sva prava zadrzana. web hosting hrvatska