Our cultural infrastructure is currently far from sufficient to help produce social and cultural values that could otherwise contribute to the general economy.
By
HILMAR FARID
·6 minutes read
We learned of rather discouraging news a few days ago. National Film Month, which had been initiated by the Jakarta Arts Council’s Film Committee, had been canceled because the organizing committee had failed to reach an agreement with the management of Taman Ismail Marzuki (TIM) regarding the use of the arts and culture center’s Kineforum movie theater.
The Jakarta Arts Council (DKJ) has taken the incident as a manifestation of the many problems related to TIM governance. The problems revolve around the perspective that TIM deserves to be viewed as an arts center as well as a state asset, the development of which required a large investment.
I am not going to look further into the TIM case because, as I was preparing this article, there was information about the DKJ pursuing a meeting with the Jakarta provincial administration. Hopefully, there will be an agreement soon between the parties in the conflict.
Our concern now is that the TIM case may illustrate of the general problems in the governance of cultural infrastructure, such as theaters, cultural houses and museums. This issue is more concerning, given the government’s grand plans to build theaters, museums, galleries and other cultural facilities in the nation’s new capital city of Nusantara (IKN), which will definitely absorb huge funds.
Return on investment
Infrastructure development certainly requires a lot of money. President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo recently disclosed that the government had spent Rp 3.309 quadrillion on building and repairing thousands of kilometers of roads, hundreds of airports and seaports, thousands of meters of bridges, rural roads, ponds, irrigation systems, and so on. All of these are intended to support economic activities that are expected to contribute to state revenue. It means they are part of long-term return on investment (ROI).
In developing public facilities using public funds, the ROI is calculated differently from that of private businesses.
In addition to the expected economic returns from infrastructure use, such as from road tolls or airport fees, the calculation also incorporates the social and cultural impacts of the committed investment. In economic studies, this is known as a social return on investment (SROI) and a cultural return on investment (CROI).
Highways, airports and seaports are built not only for economic purposes. On highways, there are also ambulances that transport ill people; night buses transporting people to see their parents after a long time spent apart; ships carrying a group of students for the Kampus Merdeka (independent campus) program. Filmmakers, with their equipment, also use planes in their projects so that they may elevate Indonesia to the international stage. All these should be weighed in the ROI calculation.
We need to make a distinction between profit and benefit. An investment may be slow to generate financial returns, but it is possible that it brings about social benefit quickly.
Formulas are available to convert social and cultural benefits into their equivalent financial returns. In several countries, this calculation has become a general part of policymaking in development programs, particularly in the field of cultural infrastructure development.
Cultural infrastructure
There are currently dozens of state-run cultural centers across Indonesia that were built in the 1980s. Some are in a state that requires improvement in physical facilities, as well as in their management, programs, and human resources (HR). For these purposes alone, the estimated required cost is around Rp 20 trillion.
If including the state-run museums, which number more than a hundred, the required investment will swell three to four times the above sum, and of course it will take a longer time.
If carried out consistently, the completion of the infrastructure revitalization is estimated to fall within five years, or one term in government. This revitalization was once part of President Joko Widodo’s work agenda during his second term, but it seems to have been disrupted by the Covid-19 emergency.
On several occasions discussing this issue, I was often faced with queries about the return on investment, particularly from the financial perspective.
Was it certain to bring an ROI for asset managers or users, in this case, cultural actors? If what is meant by “return on investment” is income from asset management, the answer is no. TIM can be taken as an example. Its revitalization cost Rp 1.4 trillion.
KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI
The Kridha Hambeksa Association performed a dance theater entitled Ramayana at the Big Theatre, Taman Ismail Marzuki, Jakarta, Tuesday (28/2/2023) evening.
With a capacity of 2,500 seats, equipped with several showrooms, parking lots and other facilities, TIM's asset management is unlikely to generate ROI. It even needs subsidies. If an income-oriented venture is all that is pursed, it will backfire, and on none other than cultural activities, as in the case of National Film Month.
Therefore, calculating the social and cultural benefits should be of crucial consideration. We should not be preoccupied with generating revenue from the number of spectators, but mindful about how the activities, whether at TIM or other cultural centers, contribute to increasing public appreciation, strengthening social cohesion and cultural identity that gives pride.
This will in turn contribute to productivity, social security, innovation capacity, and physical and mental wellbeing, all of which can be converted into financial value.
Collective work
Our cultural infrastructure is currently far from sufficient to help produce SROI and CROI that could otherwise contribute to the general economy.
We still have some work to do to improve the existing infrastructure, such as facilities and equipment from the stage to lighting, sound system, restrooms, changing rooms and to administrative offices.
If museums are included in the rejuvenation plan, it means that we need to procure sophisticated technology for managing cultural collections and so on. It’s not a small investment.
What is no less important is to improve the asset management system through the support of qualified human resources. We need a management system that is more agile and adaptable to contemporary advancement, as well as qualified professionals for curatorial, artistic, information system, research and administrative functions.
We also need the participation of members of the public to enable effective management systems in line with public aspirations and expectations, especially those in the arts and culture sector.
To make a well-calculated investment requires a collective effort that involves all stakeholders. For areas that we cannot handle ourselves, we must never hesitate to ask for assistance from experts and professionals from elsewhere.
Thorough and farsighted planning is, of course, a must. No less demanding is the commitment from all stakeholders involved. They must all be aware of the need for joint efforts and mutual cooperation to sustain the value of our culture and arts.
/https%3A%2F%2Fasset.kgnewsroom.com%2Fphoto%2Fpre%2F2023%2F02%2F28%2F3182aad0-4069-4f4c-aa06-03b4e5c536b3_jpg.jpg){kind=logo}
/https%3A%2F%2Fasset.kgnewsroom.com%2Fphoto%2Fpre%2F2020%2F05%2F12%2F99ac4836-1b24-49d5-9b48-052b343d158c_jpg.jpg){kind=logo}
