Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines the diffusion of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network, focusing on the dynamics of four core diffusion mechanisms and reinterpreting them within a multi-agent framework. This approach enhances understanding of policy diffusion as a socially constructed process, emphasizing the heterogeneous pathways that various agents navigate within a single mechanism. Such variances are vital for grasping the complexities of why policies diffuse or fail, aspects that often escape traditional quantitative methods. In tracing the UNESCO Creative Cities Network’s diffusion from the Global North to South, we highlight UNESCO’s pivotal role in steering diffusion to reflect its evolving priorities; how cities appropriate the UNESCO Creative Cities Network to legitimize their policy goals and actions; the differing capabilities of cities from the Global North and Global South in negotiating and adopting such a global policy; and the tendency of global policies to diffuse among countries that are culturally proximate, as demonstrated by cultural distance index.

Keywords

Diffusion mechanisms policy diffusion emulation diffusion agents international organization cultural distance sustainable development Global South

Introduction

This article explores the diffusion of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) across the globe over the past two decades, emphasizing the network’s evolution from a primarily western focus to a significant presence in the Global South. Initiated by UNESCO in 2004, the UCCN was designed to promote collaboration among global cities and advocate for the use of creativity and culture in sustainable development (UNESCO, 2023). It includes seven thematic categories: Crafts and Folk Art, Design, Film, Gastronomy, Literature, Media Arts, and Music. This thematic approach has expanded to over 100 countries and 350 cities in the past two decades. The scope and accessibility of this longitudinal data make the UCCN an exemplary case for understanding global diffusion in cultural areas, particularly in non-western and developing countries.

The study of policy diffusion attracted scholarly attention early in the 1960s (Crain, 1966; Walker, 1969) and gained popularity in the 1990s (Berry and Berry, 1990). Since the beginning of the 21st century, policy diffusion research has become dominated by quantitative approaches like event history analysis, which often assume homogeneity among actors within diffusion mechanisms and a dichotomous nature of policy adoption (Graham et al., 2013; Shipan and Volden, 2008). However, these methods may overlook the nuanced, heterogeneous processes and pathways that characterize policy diffusion in diverse geographical and cultural contexts. This study complements the prevailing methodologies by incorporating an in-depth case study approach, supported by discourse analysis of international policy documents, stakeholder interviews and supplementary quantitative data, offering a comprehensive view of the plurality and diversity present in global policy diffusion and highlighting it as a socially constructed process.

Our analysis reveals that the diffusion of policies ideas within the UCCN often resembles the mechanism of emulation, characterized by divergent pathways taken and varying degree of implementation efforts, which are influenced significantly by human agency and local conditions. The heterogenous pathways taken by the global cities in the UCCN diffusion underscore the adaptability of cultural policies to different municipal needs and agendas. In particular, our research shows that cities from the Global South are more drawn to the immediate economic benefits and low costs of policy adoption. Conversely, cities in the Global North engaging with the UCCN are driven by political incentives and the desire to enhance their global influence.

Additionally, the findings highlight the critical role of international organizations (IOs) like UNESCO in setting diffusion agendas, providing diffusion infrastructures and even altering diffusion patterns. The diffusion of the UCCN has been used as a tool to address global challenges such as economic inequality and sustainable development. Through the diffusion of the UCCN, UNESCO has facilitated urban development and international collaboration, as well as improved its geographic presentation, addressing the criticism of being western-centric. Despite this, our analysis reveals a persistent disparity between the Global North and Global South in the UCCN, manifesting across its thematic fields, rooted in underlying selection biases.

Furthermore, this research shows that policy ideas are more likely to diffuse between countries that are culturally proximate to each other. We measured this through the use of cultural distance index and the United States (US) and China as the proxy countries. We also point out that this impact of culture could be magnified by other confounding factors such as spatial proximity and geopolitical influence.

Research methods

This article employs a mixed-method approach to examine the diffusion of the UCCN, particularly its shift from the Global North to the Global South as a socially constructed process.

Narrative reflects the goals of actors and how these change over time, leading causally to social changes (Fischer, 2003). A full-bodied and in-depth case study can articulate the complex realities and conflicting voices surrounding a policy issue (Kaplan, 2002). Building on this, we conducted semi-structured interviews and discourse analysis to produce a well-developed case to understand the intricacies of the diffusion of global cultural policy, which can otherwise be overlooked in large-number quantitative studies (Howlett and Rayner, 2008). Specifically, we analyzed the discourses and changes in the UCCN archived documents on the UNESCO website dating back to 2004, including various versions of the UCCN’s introduction, application forms, procedures and policy documents, as well as profiles of designated cities and reports on their practices and impacts.¹ Additionally, we referred to existing case studies on the UCCN cities in scholarly works to identify features and patterns. For example, UNESCO creative cities have unique implications in Asian contexts (Gu et al., 2020). Furthermore, we conducted interviews with individuals who initiated and supported the UCCN application, and the focal contact persons of the current UCCN cities.²

We use quantitative data to support and validate the discourse analysis. We gathered data on each UNESCO-nominated creative city in the following categories: Country, Region, Creative Fields, Global North/South distinction, Year of Designation and Cultural Distance. The cultural distance index database is built upon Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, which proposes a six-category scale for comparing national cultures: Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV), Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative Orientation (LTO) and Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR). Each country possesses a unique distance to another. For example, the UK’s cultural distance to the US is 0.258, contrasting with its distance to China, which is 3.368.

Our approach to assess the impacts of national culture on the diffusion of the UCCN was inspired by Klein et al.’s (2018) advice to use a proxy, and a later study utilized the US as a proxy for WEIRD³ nations (Muthukrishna et al., 2020). We selected two proxy countries: China and the US, representing two distinct groups within the UCCN: western developed nations and non-western developing nations.⁴ We then measured and compared the cultural distances of the newly joined UCCN member countries to both the US and China in two distinct periods, defined by the cessation of the US’ contributions to UNESCO, and China’s rise as UNESCO’s largest patron in 2013.⁵ This power shift between these two culturally and politically polarized countries provides an ideal context to study the correlation between cultural values and the diffusion of global cultural policy among differing cultural spheres.

Conceptual foundation

‘Understanding how public policy become socially accepted is the key to understanding why they diffuse’(Dobbin et al., 2007: 452), and this diffusion/social acceptance occurs when the solutions proposed by experts (of epistemic communities) have achieved what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) describes as ‘normative isomorphism’. Building on this perspective, we ground our study in the four widely accepted diffusion mechanisms, reinterpreted within a multi-agent framework that highlights how various agents interact with and influence the diffusion process.

Diffusion mechanisms

Learning and emulation

Policy diffusion describes the process wherein the policy choices of one unit are influenced by the policy choices of other units (Gilardi, 2010). This section considers four mechanisms of policy diffusion – learning, emulation (also known as mimicry or socialization), competition and coercion (Graham et al., 2013; Marsh and Sharman, 2009; Shipan and Volden, 2008) – each associated with distinct incentives for adopting policy elements.

Existing literature predominantly covers city-to-city policy learning within domestic contexts across various issues such as anti-smoking, abortion, and same-sex marriage bans (Shipan and Volden, 2008). However, international city-to-city diffusion through learning remains sparse due to its complexity and the challenge of controlling numerous variables, despite the long-recognized significance of international learning (Rose, 1988: 219):

The major problems that face one government are often the same as those that face its neighbors . . . Although the existence of common or similar problems need not imply that every nation should or will respond in the same way, it does mean that each may draw lessons from the relevant experience of others.

The diffusion of the UCCN provides a platform to study varied responses of city actors globally. We begin by contrasting learning and emulation. In learning, the successful outcome of a policy is a crucial criterion for policy learning, and policymakers adopt policies based on observed successes, believing in their replicability, provided there is evidence of at least partial successful implementation (Berry and Baybeck, 2005; Rogers, 1995). Unlike learning, emulation does not rely on objective outcomes but on the symbolic meanings or normative values associated with policies. Actors may emulate policies perceived as ‘advanced’ or ‘appropriate’, or those aligning with their values, institutional structures and ideologies (Evans and Davies, 1999; Eyestone, 1977).

Shipan and Volden (2008) conclude in their study of local policy diffusion that smaller cities, compared to larger and wealthier ones, are less capable of learning and more likely to engage in simple imitation. Similarly, in an international context, Marsh and Sharman (2009) argue that emulation is particularly prevalent in developing countries. Our analysis supports this, showing that cities in the Global South are more susceptible to emulation.

Competition and coercion

Competition, initially tied to the international capital market, involves countries adopting rival policies to attract investors and maintain competitiveness (Dobbin et al., 2007). This mechanism has expanded to include environmental, educational and cultural spheres. Within the UCCN context, competition extends beyond the economic aspects typically analyzed in diffusion studies to include a contest for reputation and influence, driven by the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Coercion, considered a distinct mechanism, describes scenarios where policies are adopted under pressure, such as joining international memberships like the European Union (EU) (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996). While competition reflects horizontal diffusion, coercion is seen as hierarchical (Lindsey and Bitugu, 2018). We suggest that both mechanisms reflect the Global North’s adoption of the UCCN. The example from the competition mechanism can also be interpreted as coercion; UN member states feel compelled to implement SDGs, with indirect coercion manifesting through monitoring and evaluations (Stone, 2012), such as the quadrennial evaluation report required from UCCN members.

Mapping the dynamics and relationships of diffusion mechanisms

We contend that differences among these mechanisms can be analyzed along two key dimensions: (a) the degree of transfer, and (b) the level of willingness to adopt a policy. Figure 1 identifies multiple mechanisms and their interrelationships as discussed in the literature.

Figure 1.

Dynamics and relationships of the diffusion mechanisms.

However, its limitations became apparent through our case study of the UCCN. First, it does not show the temporal effects of diffusion, which reflects the speed of adoption and the varied lasting effects of these mechanisms. Studies have shown that learning and competition exhibit longer-lasting effects compared to imitation, which, although initially highly visible and therefore prone to rapid adoption (Nicholson-Crotty, 2009), tends to fade over time (Shipan and Volden, 2008).

Additionally, our findings indicate that the diffusion pathways within each mechanism are not homogeneous. These variances are crucial for understanding why policies diffuse or fail to diffuse, especially when they are too nuanced to be captured by widely applied quantitative methods. The various agents involved in diffusion are key to understanding the different pathways as they can intervene and mediate the diffusion dynamics to varying degrees (Stone, 2012). Moreover, diffusion dynamics can be shaped by policy feedback received and processed by agents and therefore evolve over time. An initial learning-dominant mechanism may be replaced by emulation in the later phase of diffusion due to unexpected obstacles. For this reason, we expand the discussion on diffusion agents and their interaction with the diffusion process in the following section.

Towards a multi-agent framework

Agents in diffusion include not only those who theorize and adopt policy choices but also anyone interacting with the diffusion process. Traditionally, nation-state and governmental actors have been viewed as the primary agents of international policy diffusion (Berry and Berry, 2018). However, this paradigm has shifted over the past two decades, evolving towards a more multifaceted agent framework, facilitated by globalization and the diminishing centrality of national governments in the policy diffusion process (Graham et al., 2013).

IOs such as UNESCO play greater roles in shaping national policy choices (Elkins and Simmons, 2005). These IOs act as powerful agents that collect, promote and disseminate policy ideas, leveraging their organizational legitimacy to influence and legitimize the policy decisions of nation-states and sub-national actors (Barnett and Finnemore, 2019; Nay, 2012). This is evident in the UCCN, where UNESCO’s designation enhances the legitimacy of smaller cities and developing nations. Furthermore, sub-national entities like cities, local organizations (e.g. advocacy groups) and individuals (e.g. academics, professionals) are increasingly influential in the diffusion process (Risse, 1995). In particular, municipal actors rather than central governments adopt the UCCN idea. In some instances, powerful cities in the Global North bypass their federal government to assume international responsibilities to fulfil SDGs that are not adequately supported by their national government.

This agent-centred approach facilitates a study that goes beyond structural mechanisms and acknowledges diffusion as a dynamic process, constructed by various actors with varying objectives in different contexts. The traditional roles of carriers, exporters and inducers of policy (Stone, 2004) are no longer confined to a single agent but are increasingly shared among multiple stakeholders. In the UCCN, these evolving roles and power dynamics shape the direction, pace and methods of policy diffusion.

Propositions and findings

Integrating the diffusion mechanisms with the multi-agent framework, this analysis examines the UCCN across three sets of propositions related to agents and their incentives, mechanisms and national culture as a key factor in diffusion.

The UCCN diffusion agents

Proposition 1: UNESCO, as the international organization, diffuses the cultural policy ideas, which in turn reflect and serve the changing priorities of the UN and UNESCO.

Proposition 2: The diffusion of the UCCN is socially constructed as a legitimate means to various ends; the negotiation of multiple agents determines how the policy is framed and adopted locally.

UNESCO as the primary diffusion agent

The UCCN, managed by UNESCO, has attracted participation from 350 cities across over 100 countries. To understand this rapid expansion, we evaluated UNESCO’s role as a diffusion agent. Interviews with UCCN contacts highlighted the significance of the UNESCO brand, with one respondent noting: ‘The city and its partners were fully supportive of the bid to become a UCCN city as soon as they heard the name UNESCO.’ The UNESCO designation carries the organization’s authority and legitimacy which are derived from its history and the political backing it receives from member states (Barnett and Finnemore, 2019). These include its founding charter, global representation, cultural mandates and longstanding engagement with civil society. These elements, as a part of the UCCN, allow the norms and procedures set by the UN and UNESCO to guide and validate member state decisions. Thus, UNESCO, as a ‘diffusion agent’, legitimizes city decisions and mobilizes local resources through the diffusion of the UCCN concept.

Changing values and the UCCN diffusion

Stone (2012) refers to the diffusion of ideas and norms as ‘soft diffusion’, as opposed to the hard transfer of policy structures and tools. This concept aligns with the diffusion of the UCCN, which promotes the idea of thematic creative cities without specifying policy goals or tools. The changing norms and values of UNESCO have profoundly shaped the diffusion of the UCCN. By tracing the diffusion process, this research captures how UNESCO has intervened and redirected the diffusion process to suit its changing values.

The UCCN’s orientation towards the Global North correlates significantly with UNESCO’s evolving focus, shifting from cultural diversity to sustainable development. Initially, the UCCN was part of UNESCO’s Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity Initiative (UNESCO, 2004), with the mission to ‘unlock the potential of cultural industries and promote UNESCO’s goals of cultural diversity’ (UNESCO, 2007). This emphasis on ‘cultural diversity’ continued until the SDGs were introduced in 2015. Following the SDGs, UNESCO redefined the UCCN’s mission to ‘utilize creativity for sustainable development’ (UNESCO, 2021), aligning it with the new SDG priorities.

The introduction of the SDGs changed not only the UCCN’s mission but also its diffusion trajectory among countries. As of 2013, UCCN-designated cities in the Global North outnumbered those in the Global South by three to one. However, by 2021, the proportion of Global South cities had increased to 43%.⁶ This shift was likely catalyzed by two major events in 2013: the US’ withdrawal from UNESCO and the formulation of the UN SDGs. Specifically, SDG Goal 11,⁷ which aims to ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable’, recognizes culture as a crucial lever for change. In response to the UN’s SDG agenda, UNESCO announced during a conference in Hangzhou, China that it would place culture at the heart of sustainable development.⁸ This change coincided with China becoming UNESCO’s largest contributor. As a result, the number of UCCN cities, especially those in the Global South, began to increase significantly. Notably, the City of Literature – one of the UCCN’s seven categories – first opened its network into the Global South from 2013 onwards (refer to Figure 2). Similar expansion patterns were observed in other categories such as film, and crafts and folk art (refer to Figures 3 and 4). The first City of Film from the Global South emerged after the publication of the SDGs. The number of Global South cities in the Crafts and Folk Art category surged following the Hangzhou declaration in 2014, marking the first instance where they outnumbered cities from the Global North.

Figure 2.

UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) City of Literature.

Figure 3.

UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) City of Film.

Figure 4.

UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) City of Crafts and Folk Art.

Structured diffusion

In order to strengthen the geographical representation of the Network, please note that the Cooperation Framework specifically targeting applicant cities from Africa and Arab States, which are currently underrepresented within the Network. (UNESCO 2023 application guidelines: 3)

UNESCO has established the structure that facilitates the shift in diffusing the idea of thematic cities. This structure provides accelerated pathways for applicants from the Global South, as outlined in the above application guidelines. Additionally, in 2017, UNESCO introduced a Strategic Plan for the UCCN that articulates a renewed focus on SDGs and prioritizes Global South countries (UNESCO, 2017: 2–5) This document also includes a Cooperation Framework that pairs existing UCCN members with prospective applicants from the Global South to enhance their participation. Current UCCN members are actively involved in supporting these applicants by providing technical assistance, sharing insights and offering advisory recommendations. By leveraging its existing network, UNESCO has created additional avenues for targeted support. The capability to orchestrate such a structure on a global scale is a distinctive feature of IOs like UNESCO (UNESCO, 2021: 16):

Opening up the Network to cities from the Global South also offers the opportunity to explore new dimensions of creativity, often intimately linked to local development, which can be a source of mutual learning for member cities. The enhancement also aligns with UNESCO’s commitment to strengthening North-South and South-South cooperation towards building sustainable and resilient cities of tomorrow and achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

Such calls by international organizations carry great weight in shaping nation-states’ behaviours, which ultimately shapes the pace and direction of global diffusion.

Local agents

Beyond the top-down diffusion of norms and values by UNESCO, the shift towards the Global South has also been influenced by local framing and adoption of the policy idea, which varies widely among city actors globally. The UCCN, as a malleable model, has been continually redefined and adjusted to align with the diverse interests of municipal actors. To illustrate the dynamics in the UCCN diffusion, we have identified two primary patterns: South to North, and North to South. The first pattern reflects UNESCO’s application guidelines, where many cities in developing countries are actively seeking assistance from existing UCCN cities for their applications. This initiates a process of learning/emulation before the official diffusion begins. The second pattern, revealed through interviews, flows from the Global North to the Global South. Many Global North UCCN members view aiding the Global South as an opportunity to showcase their SDG commitments and gain global influence, corresponding to the diffusion mechanism of competition. These interactions between the South and North, while driven by differing policy goals and incentives, lead to similar diffusion outcomes, specifically a diffusion shift towards the Global South.

Networks as the diffusion infrastructure

In the above examples, the diffusion is facilitated by UNESCO and the cities, through city-to-city partnerships and the coordination of the thematic clusters. These networks within the UCCN serve as critical infrastructures that enable a diverse range of agents to communicate effectively. Two types of networks emerged from our discourse analysis: cluster networks and national networks.

A cluster network comprises cities belonging to the same UCCN category and is managed by a designated cluster coordinator.⁹ This type of network is cross-national, enabling member cities to exchange knowledge, collaborate on global events and share various responsibilities. For instance, in the case of the Literature network, member cities¹⁰ are invited to cooperate on major annual global events, such as World Poetry Day and International Literacy Day. Furthermore, these cities jointly review the UCCN applications and offer their collective suggestions to UNESCO. Therefore, cluster networks work horizontally across the cities and enable the learning mechanism in the UCCN diffusion.

National networks exist in countries with multiple UCCN-nominated cities across thematic fields. For example, China currently has a national network of 18 creative cities across 6 thematic fields. These national networks, often in collaboration with the UNESCO national commission, can provide valuable advice and support for new UCCN applications and current members.¹¹ The network compiles a repository of both successful and unsuccessful experiences, offers crucial insights into UCCN guidelines and assists in crafting a collective national strategy. For instance, the UCCN guidelines specify that ‘a maximum of two applications from the same country, and in two different creative fields, can be eligible for designation’ (UNESCO, 2023: 2). As nominations currently occur biennially, it becomes imperative for countries and their cities to strategically plan their applications to avoid excessive internal competition. Therefore, these national networks operate domestically and vertically to facilitate learning before and after diffusion occurs.

The circulation and implementation of the UCCN ideas are orchestrated within and across these networks by agents, who function as ‘gatekeepers’ and ‘idea brokers’. While some academic literature contends that policy diffusion occurs without the coordination of central actors (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996; Maggetti and Gilardi, 2016), our findings suggest that the diffusion of cultural policy ideas like the UCCN is a socially constructed process, and can be appropriated to legitimate policy goals and actions (Meyer et al., 1997). It is influenced by the interpretations and negotiations of various agents operating within multi-organizational contexts. The networks offer opportunities for the expression and negotiation of diverse interests.

Diffusion as a versatile policy tool for multiple agents

In summarizing Propositions 1 and 2, we argue that the diffusion of the UCCN is led by UNESCO as the primary agent and shaped by its changing values and norms. This soft diffusion of UCCN ideas guided by the UN SDGs led to the shifting geographic presentation towards the Global South. The legitimacy and authority of UNESCO are critical to the rapid dissemination and re-orientation of the diffusion trajectory. For UNESCO and UN, the UCCN and its diffusion function as a policy instrument for global development.

Meanwhile, the diffusion of the UCCN opens a policy window (Kingdon, 1984) for cities to enhance their global visibility and strengthen international ties. These local agents frame the idea of a thematic creative city to serve their dissimilar policy goals, legitimize actions and undertake the initiatives that central or federal governments are either unable or unwilling to execute. Global South cities take advantage of the structure set up by UNESCO, and additional aid provided by Global North cities to adopt the policy idea and benefit from the designation would not otherwise be possible. Global North cities gain international visibility and reputation by assuming leadership roles and promoting awareness and best practices related to SDGs. For example, despite the US’ withdrawal from UNESCO, American cities remain active within the UCCN.¹² Interviews with representatives from two American UCCN cities illustrate their engagement in the UCCN as a strategic move and a significant gesture to compensate for federal disengagement. Thus, while initiated by UNESCO, the diffusion and shift towards the Global South would not have been possible without the active participation of the cities, which perceive and utilize the UCCN as a tool for varying ends. This ongoing interaction among multiple agents highlights the UCCN’s role as a versatile policy tool at different institutional levels.

Diffusion mechanisms and pathways

Proposition 3: Emulation emerges as a primary mechanism in the UCCN diffusion, favoured for its immediate benefits and adaptability to various policy goals and contexts. However, the diffusion process involves multiple mechanisms that vary depending on the actors involved and the phases of diffusion.

Proposition 4: Multiple pathways can coexist within a diffusion mechanism. The varying diffusion pathways in the UCCN are shaped by the cities’ perceived cost-benefits and UNESCO’s selection criteria.

Primary mechanism

Among the four mechanisms, we argue that emulation best characterizes the diffusion of the UCCN for the lack of evidence of implementation (as depicted in Figure 5). The high level of willingness to adopt the UCCN ideas place the diffusion at the top of Figure 5. In comparison, policy learning requires a greater degree of transfer, often signified by decisions predicated on evidence of previous success.¹³ In our interviews, respondents did not indicate ‘learning from another successful city’ as a rationale for joining the UCCN. Furthermore, our document research revealed a lack of assessments of the existing UCCN members. Although cities are required to submit a monitoring report every four years, there is no evidence to suggest that UNESCO provides universal metrics for drafting these reports, leading to diverse assessment methods and formats among cities. Due to this lack of standardized assessment and evidence, we could not identify a correlation between previous success and prospective cities’ decisions to join the UCCN. Moreover, the frequent discussion of the values of UNESCO designation, both by our research participants and in the existing literature (Gu et al., 2020), indicates that municipal actors involved in the UCCN diffusion anticipate an immediate response to their adoption without concern for the effects of specific policies. This supports the idea that emulation, known for its short-term effects, is the dominant mechanism in the UCCN diffusion.

Figure 5.

Primary diffusion mechanisms in the UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN).

Additionally, studies argue that emulation is more common among developing countries as they often fail to implement after they have signed on new policies (Dobbin et al., 2007). Our analysis supports this argument but also reveals another uncovered aspect: the plural goals across the cities. Even within the same UCCN cluster, each city possesses different goals,¹⁴ including economic development, cultural diplomacy, civic engagement, sustainable development and knowledge exchange. As a result of goal dissimilarity, a city’s decision to join the UCCN is less likely to be influenced by a successful measure or outcome from another city, but rather is purely driven by the appealing idea endorsed by UNESCO and any prospective benefits it may yield.

This perspective is further supported by the absence of structural similarity, a key condition to copy policies from another country. The cost of directly copying a policy is often high and can lead to conflicts and resistance from various parties (Howlett and Rayner, 2008). Instead of copying, we observed that linking, adapting or incorporating existing programmes into UCCN offerings is a more common practice. For instance, Shanghai, as a UCCN designated city, includes Shanghai Fashion Week in the achievements section of its 2013–2016 monitoring report. However, Fashion Week originated in 1995 and had long existed before the city received its UNESCO designation in 2010. In this case, the UCCN serves as a policy framework that accommodates multiple pre-existing policy solutions. In another case, since becoming a UNESCO City of Literature, Manchester has leveraged the designation to attract reputable publishers and writers to relocate to the city. Here, the UCCN serves as a policy framework to gather attention and set priorities.

These examples show that emulation instead of learning is the dominant mechanism in the UCCN diffusion. Ambiguity and autonomy are essential to the diffusion of the UCCN as it allows the multiple interpretations of various actors, therefore minimizing friction between agents, allowing them to utilize existing resources and fostering a collaborative environment.

Coexistence of multiple mechanisms

In addition to emulation as the primary mechanism, other mechanisms are associated with distinct actors at different stages of diffusion. Figure 5 illustrates the other mechanisms present in the UCCN diffusion. As exemplified in our data, cities from the Global North are driven to compete for global influence but also face pressure to ‘tick all the boxes for SDGs’, as described by an interview participant.¹⁵ This scenario reflects the mechanisms of competition and coercion. In another scenario, Chengdu and Chongqing, two neighbouring cities which are both renowned for their spicy cuisine, have applied to join the UCCN Gastronomy cluster successively to compete for businesses and tourists. Furthermore, actors transition between mechanisms in response to changing conditions and priorities. Cities that joined before the introduction of UN SDGs may have shifted from emulation to coercion mechanism, reflected by their practices to align with the SDGs. Therefore, the coexistence of multiple mechanisms and their temporal effect highlight the limitations of relying solely on quantitative methods to fully understand the nuances of diffusion processes.

The varied diffusion pathways

With emulation as the primary diffusion mechanism in the UCCN, the specific pathways are not identical in the seven UCCN thematic clusters. Propositions 1 and 2 highlighted the initial imbalance between Global North and Global South cities and how UNESCO has reshaped the UCCN’s mission and guidelines to address the under-representation of certain regions and nations. Through years of effort, the proportion of Global South Cities in the UCCN rose from 27% in 2013 to 43% in 2021.¹⁶ Despite this, our research reveals that the unequal geographical representation continues at a different level.

We found that Global South cities predominantly fall into the UCCN categories associated with ‘traditional’ and ‘popular’ culture, such as Gastronomy, and Crafts and Folk Art (see Table 1). Conversely, in categories linked with ‘elitism’, ‘modernism’ and ‘technology’, such as Literature, Film, and Media Arts, Global South countries remain significantly under-represented. This incongruence between the improved overall presentation of the Global South and the persistent imbalance hidden within the clusters suggests the existence of multiple pathways which can disadvantage and even exclude some actors over the others.

Table 1.

Global South vs Global North: Different pathways.

	Film	Literature	Media Arts	Music	Design	Gastronomy	Crafts and Folk Art
Global North	18	34	17	32	23	23	23
Global South	3	8	5	27	20	27	36
Total	21	42	22	59	43	50	59
Global South City Representation %	14%	19%	23%	46%	47%	54%	61%

The diffusion pathway is a mutual selection between UNESCO and the cities themselves. For cities in the Global South, the primary focus often lies in urban and economic development. Gastronomy, and Crafts and Folk Art, compared to other fields, have a closer connection to immediate economic advantages, such as those derived from tourism and international trade. For instance, Chiang Mai (Thailand) chose Crafts and Folk Art because this designation could best support local businesses (Chuangchai, 2020). This economic rationale aligns the interests of various stakeholders, thereby maximizing political and public support.

On the other hand, cities in the Global South are also constrained by UNESCO’s selection criteria. The criteria of some clusters specify the structure and practices required from the city, which turned the ‘soft diffusion’ into ‘hard diffusion’, making the diffusion of the UCCN idea difficult in these clusters. For example, the City of Film cluster demands ‘important infrastructure related to cinema’ and ‘historic links to production, distribution, and commercialization of films’ (UNESCO, 2008: 2). For the City of Literature, UNESCO emphasizes the possession of libraries and publishing houses as essential criteria. Therefore, in these clusters, diffusion pathways have been defined by UNESCO in a way that favours developed countries. The western-centric approach of UNESCO has long been the focus of its criticism (Wiktor-Mach, 2019). While the UN SDGs are a significant step forward, further measures are needed at the fundamental level to promote equal opportunities across the UCCN clusters.

Propositions 3 and 4 identify emulation as the dominant mechanism in the UCCN diffusion and explore the various pathways within the emulating behaviours. These pathways are relevant to the actors involved, their selected clusters and the criteria set by UNESCO as the leading agent. It is noteworthy that the ability of agents to negotiate and decide their pathways varies significantly between the Global North and Global South. Developed countries and major cities, as highlighted by Shipan and Volden (2008) and Marsh and Sharman (2009), are better equipped to adopt specific policy tools.

The UCCN diffusion: national culture as a key factor

Proposition 5: Cultural policy ideas are more likely to diffuse between countries that are culturally proximate to each other, as measured by cultural distance.

Proposition 6: The impact of national culture has on policy diffusion may be confounded by other factors such as geopolitical influence and spatial proximity.

Proxy countries and methods

We integrated the UCCN dataset with the cultural distance index to examine these two propositions. As outlined in the methodology, we selected the US and China as proxy representatives for two distinct groups of countries within the UCCN: western developed nations and non-western developing nations. Moreover, the US and China contributed to the leadership of UNESCO in two distinct periods, divided by the cessation of the US’ contributions to UNESCO in 2013. We refer to 2013 and before as the ‘US-led period’ and from 2014 onward as the ‘China-led period’. These labels serve to distinguish between the two periods in the following visualization and analysis, and to hypothetically imply the impacts their respective cultures may have had on the UCCN diffusion.

Our analysis was focused on assessing whether the diffusion of the UCCN was predominantly concentrated within a cultural group during the US-led and China-led periods, and whether this pattern evolves with changes in leadership at UNESCO. Figures 6 and 7 are divided into four quadrants based on the cultural distance to China (x-axis) and the US (y-axis). The bottom two quadrants indicate a closer cultural distance to the US, while the left two quadrants signify a closer cultural distance to China.

Figure 6.

The UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) designation in the US-led period.

Figure 7.

The UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) designation in the China-led period.

The UCCN diffusion in the US-led period

In Figure 6, red triangles represent countries which became a part of the UCCN before the US discontinued its financial support to UNESCO. The majority of these countries are located in the bottom right corner, meaning they are culturally similar to the US while distant from China, with two developed East Asian countries (Japan and South Korea) being outliers and five wwestern European countries in the middle. Notably, as the first group of countries who joined the UCCN, Australia’s, Canada’s and the UK’s cultural distances to the US are nearly zero. However, this is not sufficient to conclude that the US played a role in the diffusion and their designation, but only indicates that the UCCN idea attracted and favoured countries which shared similar cultural values with the US in this period. This result also confirms UNESCO’s western-centric focus and imbalanced geographic representation in the UCCN’s early period.

The UCCN diffusion in the China-led period

Figure 7 stands in contrast to Figure 6, in both the number and the distribution of designated countries. Designations saw a significant increase after 2013, coinciding with the formulation of the SDGs and China’s increasing presence in UNESCO. This period marked a noticeable growth of countries that are culturally distant from the US but closer to China, as evidenced in the top left corner of Figure 7. As most of these countries are also from the Global South – the UNESCO priority region – it becomes challenging to isolate the cultural influence. When comparing the cultural distances to the US and China across these two periods, we discovered that the average cultural distance of the UCCN countries to China has decreased from 2.924 to 2.449 (becoming closer to China), while the cultural distance to the US has significantly increased from 1.668 to 2.553 (moving away from the US).¹⁷ This shift indicates that the UCCN has evolved to embrace greater cultural diversity and a more pronounced non-western focus. This also indicates that policy diffusion, especially the soft transfer, is more likely to occur among countries that share similar norms and values due to compatibility (Lindsey and Bitugu, 2018). Cultural distance serves as a quantifiable indicator of these value similarities and differences.

The confounding impacts

In the meantime, we acknowledge that the impact of national culture on diffusion can be confounded or magnified by other factors, such as China’s increased geopolitical influence on its neighbouring countries and globally. This influence could potentially affect the decisions and behaviours of various agents involved in the UCCN diffusion, including UNESCO which disseminates the idea, and the cities that adopt it. Our following discourse analysis illuminates these confounding impacts of national cultural and other geopolitical factors.

In 2013, shortly after China became the largest financial contributor to UNESCO, a UCCN summit titled ‘UNESCO Creative Cities Network: A Lever for Sustainable Urban Development’ was hosted in Beijing. At the summit, Irina Bokova, the director-general of UNESCO at the time, remarked in her welcome speech (Bokova, 2013: 3): ‘I thank most especially the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Municipality of Beijing, for their leadership in taking forward this global network and also the concept of learning cities, which are tightly interlinked.’ Besides highlighting China’s leadership role in the UCCN, Bokova also recognized China’s pioneering efforts with UNESCO to emphasize the role of culture in sustainable development (Bokova, 2013: 2). Given China’s status as the largest UNESCO donor at the time, resource dependency is a crucial factor to consider in these acknowledgements. This summit marked a significant moment for the UCCN, signalling its global expansion and pivotal shift towards the Global South. Experts at the summit concluded that the UCCN had shifted its selection criteria from ‘why you deserve this’ to ‘what do you hope to achieve?’ (Gu et al., 2020: 275), a change that particularly benefited Chinese cities. Prior to the summit in 2012, only five Chinese cities had joined the UCCN across three clusters. From 2014 to 2023, an additional 13 cities joined, covering all clusters except music. By 2024, China hosted 18 UCCN cities, the most of any nation (Figure 8). Furthermore, the composition of these cities expanded from affluent first-tier cities to include a broader range of medium and even smaller-sized cities.

Figure 8.

Geographic distribution of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) cities, 2024.

China’s rising influence has benefited not only its own cities but also neighbouring ones that previously faced similar challenges in applying for the designation. Before the summit, among the Asian and Pacific countries, only 14 cities had joined the UCCN, with 8 located in developed nations including Japan, South Korea and Australia. Since the summit, the UCCN has expanded to 60 cities across Asia and the Pacific from 2014 to 2021, with 32 of these cities in the Global South.

The UCCN’s spread in this region shows that national culture is not a standalone factor. There are other factors (e.g. spatial proximity and institutional distance) behind it, collectively shaping the speed and the pathways in the diffusion. Even with sophisticated quantitative methods, it is challenging to isolate and control these intertwined factors. Instead of quantifying the impact of each factor, conducting more in-depth case studies may offer greater insights into how these influences vary across different contexts and over time.

Conclusions

This article investigates what contributes to the diffusion of the UCCN. We adopt a dynamic perspective on the four commonly discussed diffusion mechanisms – emulation, competition, coercion and learning – and reinterpret them within a multi-agent framework.

We highlight three critical aspects (in the format of three sets of propositions) of the UCCN diffusion. First, UNESCO as the diffusion agent plays a central role in disseminating the policy idea and has been shaping the diffusion to reflect its changing priorities, UN SDGs in particular. Second, the research identifies emulation as a primary diffusion mechanism while also highlights the coexistence with other mechanisms. However, the four mechanisms cannot fully account for the diverse pathways that different actors (e.g. from the Global North versus the Global South) take under various conditions and over time. Instead, we characterize diffusion as a socially constructed process, influenced by various agents and evolving over time. Third, while cultural similarity facilitates the diffusion of policy ideas between countries, this influence is nuanced by factors such as geopolitical influences and spatial proximity, which cannot be fully isolated by quantitative methods. These findings extend beyond the UCCN case, shedding light on the broader considerations necessary for analysing global policy diffusion beyond the western contexts.

Finally, this study emphasizes the necessity of blending qualitative and quantitative data in diffusion research, advocating for more comprehensive case studies like that of the UCCN to enhance our theoretical understanding of the heterogeneity, variability, and multiplicity inherent in global policy diffusion mechanisms.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ips-10.1177_01925121241281942 – Supplemental material for Global policy diffusion as a socially constructed process: Insights from UNESCO Creative Cities Network’s shift towards the Global South

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ips-10.1177_01925121241281942 for Global policy diffusion as a socially constructed process: Insights from UNESCO Creative Cities Network’s shift towards the Global South by Biyun Zhu and Xuefei Li in International Political Science Review

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their insightful and meticulous comments,as well as their continued support,which greatly improved this article. We also extend our gratitude to all interview participants for sharing their invaluable experiences and expertise.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (grant number AH/Y00664X/1).

ORCID iD

Biyun Zhu

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Biyun Zhu is a lecturer in cultural policy and governance at the University of Manchester. Her research focuses on international and comparative cultural policy,soft power and international cultural relations.

Xuefei L i is an associate professor at the School of Government,University of International Business and Economics. His research interests include cultural policy and cultural geography.

References

Barnett

Michael

Finnemore

Martha

(2019) Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Berry

William D

Baybeck

Brady

(2005) Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition. American Political Science Review 99(4): 505–519.

Berry

Frances Stokes

Berry

William D

(1990) State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review 84(2): 395–415.

Berry

Frances Stokes

Berry

William D

(2018) Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research. In Weible

Christopher M

Sabatier

Paul A

(eds) Theories of the Policy Process. New York, NY: Routledge, 253–297.

Bokova

Irina

(2013) Address by Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO on the occasion of the Mayor’s Roundtable during the Creative Cities Summit UNESCO. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000223964

Chuangchai

Phichakan

(2020) Creative City Policy in Second-Tier Cities: The case of Chiang Mai, Thailand. In Gu

Xin

Lim

Michael Kho

O’Connor

Justin

(eds) Re-Imagining Creative Cities in Twenty-First Century Asia. Switzerland: Springer, 239–252.

Crain

Robert L

(1966) Fluoridation: The diffusion of an innovation among cities. Social Forces 44(4): 467–476.

DiMaggio

Paul J

Powell

Walter W

(1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.

Dobbin

Frank

Simmons

Beth

Garrett

Geoffrey

(2007) The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review of Sociology 33: 449–472.

10.

Dolowitz

David

Marsh

David

(1996) Who Learns What from Whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies 44(2): 343–357.

11.

Elkins

Zachary

Simmons

Beth

(2005) On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A conceptual framework. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598(1): 33–51.

12.

Evans

Mark

Davies

Jonathan

(1999) Understanding Policy Transfer: A multi-level, multi-disciplinary perspective. Public Administration 77(2): 361–385.

13.

Eyestone

Robert

(1977) Confusion, Diffusion, and Innovation. American Political Science Review 71(2): 441–447.

14.

Fischer

Frank

(2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15.

Gilardi

Fabrizio

(2010) Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes? American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 650–666.

16.

Graham

Erin R

Shipan

Charles R

Volden

Craig

(2013) The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science. British Journal of Political Science 43(3): 673–701.

17.

Xin

Lim

Michael Kho

O’Connor

Justin

(2020) Re-Imagining Creative Cities in Twenty-First Century Asia. Cham: Springer.

18.

Henrich

Joseph

Heine

Steven J

Norenzayan

Ara

(2010) The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3): 61–83.

19.

Howlett

Michael

Rayner

Jeremy

(2008) Third Generation Policy Diffusion Studies and the Analysis of Policy Mixes: Two steps forward and one step back? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 10(4): 385–402.

20.

Kaplan

Thomas J

(2002) Reading Policy Narratives: Beginnings, middles, and ends. In Fischer

Frank

(ed.) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysys and Planning. London: Routledge, 175–193.

21.

Kingdon

John W

(1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York, NY: Brown and Company.

22.

Klein

Richard A

Vianello

Michelangelo

Hasselman

Fred

Adams

Byron G

Adams

Reginald B

Jr Alper

Sinan

Aveyard

Mark

Axt

Jordan R

Babalola

Mayowa T

Štěpán

Bahník

(2018) Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1(4): 443–490.

23.

Lindsey

Iain

Bitugu

Bella Bello

(2018) Distinctive Policy Diffusion Patterns, Processes and Actors: Drawing implications from the case of sport in international development. Policy Studies 39(4): 444–464.

24.

Maggetti

Martino

Gilardi

Fabrizio

(2016) Problems (and Solutions) in the Measurement of Policy Diffusion Mechanisms. Journal of Public Policy 36(1): 87–107.

25.

Marsh

David

Sharman

Jason C

(2009) Policy Diffusion and Policy Transfer. Policy Studies 30(3): 269–288.

26.

Meyer

John W

Boli

John

Thomas

George M

Ramirez

Francisco O

(1997) World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology 103(1): 144–181.

27.

Muthukrishna

Michael

Bell

Adrian V

Henrich

Joseph

Curtin

Cameron M

Gedranovich

Alexander

McInerney

Jason

Thue

Braden

(2020) Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychological Science 31(6): 678–701.

28.

Nay

Olivier

(2012) How do Policy Ideas Spread Among International Administrations? Policy entrepreneurs and bureaucratic influence in the UN response to AIDS. Journal of Public Policy 32(1): 53–76.

29.

Nicholson-Crotty

Sean

(2009) The Politics of Diffusion: Public policy in the American states. The Journal of Politics 71(1): 192–205.

30.

Risse

Thomas

(1995) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Vol. 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Rogers

Everett M

(1995) Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.

32.

Rose

Richard

(1988) Comparative Policy Analysis: The program approach. In Dogan

Mattei

(ed.) Comparing Pluralist Democracies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 219–241.

33.

Shipan

Charles R

Volden

Craig

(2008) The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 840–857.

34.

Stone

Diane

(2004) Transfer Agents and Global Networks in the ‘Transnationalization’ of Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 11(3): 545–566.

35.

Stone

Diane

(2012) Transfer and Translation of Policy. Policy Studies 33(6): 483–499.

36.

UNESCO (2004) Networks of Creative Cities Within the Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000136203

37.

UNESCO (2007) UNESCO Creative Cities Network. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000156026

38.

UNESCO (2008) How to Apply to UNESCO’s Creative Cities Network? Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000159841

39.

UNESCO (2017) UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) ‘Building a Collective Vision for the Future’ Strategic Framework. Available at: https://bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/pdf/strategic-framework_uccn_eng_20170705_vf_no_budget.pdf

40.

UNESCO (2021) UNESCO Creative Cities Network Call for Applications. Paris, France: UNESCO.

41.

UNESCO (2023) UNESCO Creative Cities Network Call for Applications. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/03/uccn-2023-application-guidelines-en%5B1%5D.pdf?hub=80094

42.

Walker

Jack L

(1969) The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. American Political Science Review 63(3): 880–899.

43.

Wiktor-Mach

Dobrosława

(2019) Cultural Heritage and Development: UNESCO’s new paradigm in a changing geopolitical context. Third World Quarterly 40(9): 1593–1612.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.02 MB

0.00 MB