EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Issue and argument
The COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted the film industry, mirroring the struggles of other cultural and creative industries (CCI) that rely on in-person audiences. Movie theater closures worldwide severed the industry’s core revenue stream, while lockdowns brought film production processes, being collaborative by nature, to a standstill. According to MPA statistics (Loria, 2022), global box office plummeted by 72% from USD 42.9billion in 2019 to USD 11.8billion in 2020, with a modest rebound to USD 21.3billion in 2021. Production levels also suffered, declining 32% in Europe (Cabrera Blázquez et al., 2022), and 46% in North America (MPA, 2022). Germany’s film industry faced similar repercussions. Cinemas were shut down for several months beginning in March 2020, resulting in a 63.6% decline in box office between 2019 and 2021 (FFA 2022), and the number of feature films produced in 2020 dropped by 47% compared to 2019 (Cabrera Blázquez et al., 2022).
The pandemic’s devastating impact on German CCI, specifically the film industry, necessitated a decisive response from both the Federal Government and the German Federal States. Official estimates projected that 98% of all businesses and individuals involved in the German film industry would be “very strongly affected” (Arndt et al., 2020, p. 7), encompassing cinemas, production, and post-production companies. Compounding the challenge was the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, rendering conventional crisis management measures inadequate (Arndt et al., 2020). True to its unique character, the pandemic can be categorized as a “wicked problem” due to its elusive nature, lacking a definitive formulation, stopping rule, or exhaustive set of potential solutions (Rittel & Weber, 1973), akin to other complex challenges like the climate crisis (Klasche, 2021).
Numerous support measures were implemented at various levels to address the crisis. In June 2020, the Federal Government launched the Neustart Kultur (“Restart Culture”) program, allocating EUR 1billion to bolster Germany’s CCI through an extensive “rescue and future support package” (Bundesregierung, 2020). The program encompassed five overarching measures administered by the Federal Ministry of Culture and Media (table 1):
---TABLE 1---
Out of the EUR 480million allocated to cultural infrastructure, EUR 120million was specifically earmarked for the film industry. This funding was primarily intended to support cinemas, while also covering additional costs in production and distribution (Bundesregierung, 2020). The measures were implemented through a variety of sub-programs and tools, including default funds and grants. The program was extended in 2021 with an additional EUR 1billion (Bundesregierung, 2021). Furthermore, the Federal Government provided extensive economic aid and assistance to companies and self-employed individuals, including those within the CCI (Cabrera Blázquez, 2020).
Complementing these measures were funding-specific initiatives undertaken by the German Federal Film Board (FFA), including deferment of the film levy for cinemas, deadline extensions, and reduced holdbacks (Duve-Schmid et al., 2021).
In a collaborative effort, federal and state funding institutions established an additional emergency fund worth EUR 15million to assist pandemic-affected production companies, distributors, and exhibitors. This program was designed to fill the gaps left by other federal and state aid measures implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Additionally, the federal states launched specific programs to support regional film companies (Florescu, 2020).
As the pandemic subsided in 2022, audiences gradually returned to cinemas, but attendance remained below pre-pandemic levels. In Germany, box office revenues reached EUR 722million, representing a 29% decline from 2019, with admissions down by 34%. Despite this decline, cinema numbers remained stable, with 1,730 operating in 2022 vs. 1,734 in 2019. Film production also experienced a resurgence in 2022, with 237 German films released, just 6% less than in 2019 (FFA 2023).
While the support measures implemented by federal and regional institutions helped to mitigate the devastating effects of the pandemic on the German film industry, the long-term consequences of the crisis remain uncertain. Moreover, the programs have faced criticism, both at the regional level (e.g., Marques-Marcalo, 2022) and on the national level. The Neustart Kultur program has been particularly scrutinized by the Bundesrechnungshof (Federal Court of Audit), which identified serious deficiencies in its conception and implementation (Kuball, 2023).
The in-depth evaluation of government crisis management during the pandemic is still in its nascent stages. While auditing reports (e.g., Bundesrechnungshof, 2023) have emerged, research assessing state aid for film during the COVID-19 crisis remains limited. Existing studies predominantly focus on the pandemic’s impact on the industry itself (e.g., Rahmouni, 2023).
My research aims to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the federal and state programs implemented to support the German film industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. It will employ a range of policy evaluation indicators, while also comparing the German experience with that of other countries. To address the complexities of the pandemic, the concept of wicked problems will be utilized as a frame of reference.

References
Arndt, O., Freitag, K., Bartuli, R., Wankmüller, B., Neufeld, J., Reichert, J., & Theel, T. (2020). COVID 19 Impact on the Cultural and Creative Industries in Germany. The Federal Government’s Centre of Excellence.
Blaney, M. (2023, June 23). German film industry proposes major changes to €370m funding system. Screen Daily. https://www.screendaily.com/news/german-film-industry-proposes-major-changes-to-370m-funding-system/5183638.article
Bomnüter, U., & Schulze, A. (2019). Governance of the German Film Industry: A Multilevel Analysis of State Aid Policy. International Journal of Arts Management, 22(1), 54-72.
Bundesrechnungshof (2023). Pandemiebedingte Förderung von Kultureinrichtungen und Kulturschaffenden durch das Rettungs- und Zukunftsprogramm NEUSTART KULTUR. https://www.bundesrechnungshof.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Berichte/2023/neustart-kultur-volltext.html
Bundesregierung (2020, June 17). Cabinet adopts cornerstones of programme: One billion euros for NEUSTART KULTUR. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/neustart-kultur-1761588
Bundesregierung (2021, June 4). Zukunfts- und Rettungsprogramm NEUSTART KULTUR: Milliardenhilfen für Kultur und Medien. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/milliardenhilfen-fuer-kultur-und-medien-1850938
Cabrera Blázquez, F., Cappello, M., Chochon, L., Fontaine, G., Talavera Milla, J., & Valais, S. (2020). The European audiovisual industry in the time of COVID-19. IRIS Plus 2020-2.
Cabrera Blázquez, F., Cappello, M., Ene, L., Fontaine, G., Grece, C., Kananovich, A., …, & Valais, S. (2022). Yearbook 2021/2022: Key Trends. European Audiovisual Observatory.
Duve-Schmid, S., Steinbrenner, J., Witt, A.-M., Schürmeier, A. (2021). Funding 2021. German Federal Film Board FFA.
FFA (Filmförderungsanstalt) (2022). Das Kinojahr 2021. https://www.ffa.de/broschueren.html#kinojahr
FFA (Filmförderungsanstalt) (2023). Das Kinojahr 2022. https://www.ffa.de/broschueren.html#kinojahr
Howlett, M. (2014). From the “old” to the “new” policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187-207.
Florescu, I. (2020, April 6). German film institutions provide support for the industry during the coronavirus pandemic. Cineuropa. https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/387512
Klasche, B. (2021). After COVID-19: What can we learn about wicked problem governance? Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4, 100173.
Kuball, M. (2023, September 18). Harsche Kritik an Corona-Programm für Kultur. Deutschlandfunk Kultur. https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/neustart-kultur-kritik-corona-hilfen-kultur-bundesrechnungshof-100.html
Loria, D. (2022, March 14). Global Box Office Rebounds to $21.3 Billion in 2021 as Exhibition Transitions from Closures to Blockbusters. Boxoffice, https://www.boxofficepro.com/global-box-office-rebounds-to-21-3-billion-in-2021-as-exhibition-transitions-from-closures-to-blockbusters
Marques-Marcalo, D. (2022, March 9). Filmverleiher in Not: Schlechte Aussichten für deutsche Filme. NDR Kultur. https://www.ndr.de/kultur/film/Filmverleiher-in-Not-Schlechte-Aussichten-fuer-deutsche-Filme,filmverleiher100.html
MPA (Motion Picture Association) (2022). THEME Report 2021. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/MPA-2021-THEME-Report-FINAL.pdf
Rahmouni, L. (2023). The Impact of COVID-19 on the Cinema Industry. ELWAHAT Journal for Research and Studies, 16(1), 1084-1099.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Science, 4, 155-169.

Methodology
I am conducting a systematic document analysis based on secondary data from film funding institutions, official statistics, and reports. This approach will provide a comprehensive overview of the public governance of the COVID-19 crisis in the German film industry and its impact. In addition, I will conduct expert interviews with actors from different institutions along the film industry’s value chain to deepen my understanding of specific aspects of the crisis and its aftermath.
As a framework for my analysis, I will employ Howlett’s model of nested policy processes (Howlett, 2009, 2014) for assessing policymaking at multiple levels, which is particularly relevant in the context of the German film industry, where responsibilities are shared between the federal and state levels (Bomnüter & Schulze, 2019).
Thematic analysis will be employed to identify the aims, rationales, preferred measures, and expected outcomes of the support programs. Next, I will compare the expected outcomes with the actual outcomes reported. This target-performance analysis will enable an evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the programs.
I am currently working on the document analysis. The expert interviews will be conducted in early 2024. A first draft of the paper will be completed by spring 2024.

Takeaway and results
Initial findings suggest that the German film industry was shielded from the predicted devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic through a substantial infusion of state aid. However, there appear to be notable shortcomings in the efficiency of the implemented measures, and differences across affected subsegments.
While the German film industry has partially rebounded, there are lingering structural issues predating the pandemic (Cabrera Blázquez et al., 2020) that may not be resolved by a simple return to the status quo ante. It remains to be seen whether Germany’s anticipated funding system reform (Blaney, 2023) can foster greater resilience for the future.
My findings will provide valuable insights for cultural and media policy decision-makers, enabling more effective crisis management in the face of future, unforeseen wicked problems. Their applicability extends beyond Germany, offering valuable comparative perspectives for identifying best governance practices across countries.

The issue of sustainable development is a complex one for arts managers, and although there is increasing good practice in the area, it is now argued that sustainability and net zero is not enough. Some argue that a new paradigm is required to move beyond sustainability and aim instead for net positive, regenerative outcomes (Stafford et al, 2018; RSA, 2021; Ichioka and Pawlyn, 2021). Creating and sustaining a paradigm shift is a complex process that requires collective action and new ways of being. What does this mean for arts managers now and in the future? Do the arts managers of today have the appropriate combination of leadership skills, anticipatory abilities, regenerative competencies, values and ethics to lead a paradigm shift?

In this presentation we will discuss the skills, competencies, and ways of being arts managers may need to address this paradigm shift and move from a sustainable development to regenerative mindset.

From sustainable development to regenerative practice:
The goal of sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Bruntland, 1987). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015) are the most often cited as a framework for addressing sustainable development globally. The 17 SDGs are described as “a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and improve the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere.” They have undoubtedly been useful in providing a global agenda to aspire to and have been effective in promoting understanding of the interconnecting issues relating to sustainable development, including climate crisis and social injustice. However, it is argued that sustainability is not enough, it is insufficient as an ambition as human activity has already pushed beyond planetary boundaries and reduced the planet’s regenerative capacity (Dasgupta, 2021). Further criticism exists relating to the lack of action or real change that has happened in the decades since the SDGs were introduced and that faster action is needed to meet the climate emergency. In response, other frameworks have emerged and are gaining traction including Wellbeing Economics (Wellbeing Economy Alliance, 2022), Doughnut economics (Raworth, 2017) and Regenerative Practice (RSA, 2021; Ichioka and Pawlyn, 2021, Stafford et, al. 2018). These frameworks focus much more on planetary boundaries and transforming behaviours to address change.

Literature on regenerative mindsets:
Regenerative practice has no fixed definition but is described as a ‘net positive’ approach to sustainability. Rather than doing less damage, as current sustainable development practice advocates, regenerative practice is more ambitious in that it aims to ‘do more good’. Its’ roots are in agricultural practice and its’ principles are in alignment with nature. It calls for humans to “live in conscious alignment with living systems principles of wholeness, change, and relationship, as nature does” (Gibbons, 2020).

Regenerative practice is more prevalent in agriculture, where a regenerative relationship with nature is more organically aligned. Other sectors, including architecture, design, construction and tourism are also starting to innovate with the principles. Recent research exploring the possibilities of regenerative practice in tourism has led to the creation of a ‘regenerative tourism framework tool’ for practitioners and researchers to support the development of practice and measure the effects of change (Belato et al, 2023). Further research on regenerative tourism (Dredge, 2022) considers what is needed to transform mindsets in support of regenerative practice and makes the case for “place-based, community-centred and environment-focused” activity as pivotal to the approach. Dredge also highlights the role of educators and encourages those in higher education to consider their actions in evolving “the collective and collaborative intelligence that we need to address a regenerative future”. Within arts and culture the Royal Society for the Arts’ (RSA) Regenerative Futures Programme is arguably the most high-profile project pioneering thinking in the area in the UK. The programme’s mission is to ‘help create a future where people and planet flourish hand-in-hand for the long term’ (RSA, 2021). In demonstrating its commitment to the practice the RSA has embedded regeneration in its overarching vision. It describes regeneration as a mindset and emerging paradigm and that adopting the guiding principles “marks a fundamental shift in thinking and action in the arenas of environmental, economic and social change” (RSA, 2021).

There is no collective agreement of the key skills and competencies required for regenerative practice, although a ‘Living Systems Perspective’ is often cited (Gibbons, 2020; RSA, 2021; Ichioka and Pawlyn, 2021, Dredge, 2022). A Living Systems approach is defined by the founder of the theory as “open, self-organising systems that have the special characteristics of life and interact with their environment. This takes place by means of information and material-energy exchanges.” (Miller, J, G. 1978). In Flourish (Ichioka and Pawlyn, 2021) the authors offer 5 paradigm shifts that aim to dismantle current ways of being and shift mindsets in support of regeneration. These paradigm shifts are described as 1. Possibilism, which explores human capacity to effect change; 2. Co-evolution as nature, which reframes humans’ relationship with nature; 3. A longer sense of time; 4. Symbiogenesis, defined as “the living together of organisms of different species” (Margulis, 2004); and 5. Planetary health as the new driver of economies . For Cultural Managers seeking to play an active role in change making the ideas presented in Flourish offer a helpful, if complex, starting place.

Those promoting regenerative practice are clear that a breakdown of beliefs and assumed ways of doing things are no longer useful, and that changing this will undoubtedly be a complex process. It is also clear that for the changes to happen on a large scale, strategic action and a collective, collaborative approach (Dredge, 2022; Bellato et, al. 2023; Twist, 2023 ) is most needed. The Director of Creative Carbon Scotland advocates for the arts sector to get more involved in the degrowth agenda to help create the tipping point needed for radical change. He argues that a key requirement for tipping points to take place is collaboration; many agencies working together, including arts and culture, and crucially, everyone pushing in the same direction (Twist, 2023).

Our approach: Professional Development for Arts Managers:
As educators in higher education and practitioners in the sector, we are interested in understanding and nurturing the key skills, competencies and values required to address regenerative practice in arts management. Both speakers currently lead focussed courses on sustainability for Arts Manager professionals. These courses have been set up to challenge current practice and support change within the field of Arts Management. Encouraged by Dredge’s work in regenerative tourism and their critique of tourism scholarship (Dredge, 2022) we aim to identify blind spots in our current practice that may limit different modes of thinking, and consequently contradict the qualities needed for a regenerative mindset

The full paper presented at the conference will include more critical perspectives on regenerative practices; historical examples from within arts and culture production; and case studies of change instigated from our teaching practice. The presenters will recommend approaches to professional development for arts managers to foster a regenerative mindset and, drawing on the research and analysis, offer proposals for the development of regenerative cultural practice as a field for further research.



References

Brundtland, G. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations General Assembly document A/42/427.

United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN General Assembly

The RSA (2021) What does ‘regenerative’ thinking mean? Available at: https://www.thersa.org/comment/2021/11/what-does-regenerative-thinking-mean

Warden, J (2021) Regenerative Future: From sustaining to thriving together, RSA. Available at https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/from-sustaining-to-thriving-together-final.pdf

Ichioka, S. and Pawlyn, M (2021) Flourish: Design paradigms for our planetary emergency, Axminster: Triarchy Press

Stafford, M.; Tilley, S.; & Britton, E (2018). The New Sustainability - Regeneration. The Innovation Group. Available at: https://www.wundermanthompson.com/insight/the-new-sustainability-regeneration

Dasgupta, P. (2021), The Economics of Biodiversity: the Dasgupta Review. Abridged Version, HM Treasury, London

Wellbeing Economy Alliance (2022) Available at: https://weall.org/

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Gibbons, L. (2020). “Moving Beyond Sustainability: A Regenerative Community Development Framework for Co-creating Thriving Living Systems and Its Application” Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 13. DO - 10.5539/jsd.v13n2p20

Dredge, D. (2022), "Regenerative tourism: transforming mindsets, systems and practices", Journal of Tourism Futures, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 269-281. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-01-2022-0015

Margulis, L (2004), “Serial endosymbiotic theory and composite individuality”. Microbiology Today, 31

Bellato, L.; Frantzeskaki, N.; & Nygaard, C. (2023) Regenerative tourism: a conceptual framework leveraging theory and practice, Tourism Geographies, 25:4, 1026-1046, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2022.2044376

Meadows, D (1999) Leverage Points: Places to intervene in a system. Harland, The Sustainability Institute

Twist, B (2023), Creating a tipping point for radical change. Creative Carbon Scotland. Available at: https://www.creativecarbonscotland.com/creating-a-tipping-point-for-radical-change/