Cultural diversity, audiovisual industry, and trade treaties (Challenges for development and intercu

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to present the problems regarding the relationship existing between trade, culture and cultural industries, with special attention to the audiovisual sector. The essay intends on detecting and presenting problems facing audiovisual industries that result from open markets, globalization and liberalization of markets. The argumentation begins with the challenges faced to place or not place cultural industries as an integral part of trade negotiations (the principles of cultural exception and cultural diversity). Since signing the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas in 1994 (TLCAN, NAFTA, ALENA) the Government of Canada adopted cultural policies based on the concept of cultural diversity. Mexico has not adopted any policy on this regard, and the United States sustains the idea of free markets. The premise is the following: To promote an intercultural dialogue it is indispensable that the State establishes cultural policies because countries, as a fundamental aspect (Warnier, 2002:71) for their economic development, require the promotion and control of information, and communications, together with the socialization of individuals and the transmission of a cultural patrimony that establishes an identity. Movies -as industrial and social activities- and the film as the holder of the cultural audiovisual codes, can favor a dialogue among cultures.

Introduction

Culture, trade and commercial integration, as well as the so-called globalization, are central topics for the discussion on cultural industries and key aspects to inquire as to how countries can preserve their cultural diversity before the commercial exchanges of every kind. It is clear that this preoccupation is not new, but the discussion from the diversity standpoint is the result of an analysis in international forums resulting from the fact that cultural production faced by the liberalization of markets has acquired the category of merchandize. This is a very complex topic involving the State’s social and political actors, government and economy, culture and commerce, which from a local and regional origin can even achieve to disturb international relations.

What’s in play for countries involved in trade negotiations is an equal economic development, which therefore would also be pacific. Implicitly, it would mean that cultural encounters enable exchanges that don’t eliminate the identity inherited from their own cultural manifestations such as the language, foods, crafts and festivities.

Cultures are dynamic, it must not depend upon signing a treaty if they are to be totally preserved or not. What is under discussion, definitively, refers to establishing cultural policies and industries because when a given country has not defined its cultural policies, its various cultural expressions have the risk of disappearing. Every cultural policy is elaborated because it is fundamental (Warnier, 2002:71) for the economic development, promotion and control of information; for the communication and socialization among individuals and the transmission of a cultural patrimony that promotes an identity.

The proposal is to begin by establishing questions for their analysis, for example: How can we define the cultural industries within the globalization context and trade treaties? Why should we include or not include the cultural industries in the trade treaties? Who should be in charge of this? Why is it important to discuss cultural diversity within a globalization context and liberalization of markets? Would a cultural policy for cultural industries be favorable to establish an intercultural dialogue?

In this sense, Canada and the province of Quebec have elaborated national and international cultural policies, and adopted the principle of Cultural Diversity agreed upon by the UNESCO; the country and province have articulated, very interestingly, punctual definitions and proceedings as basis for pertinent principles and regulations.

In order to specify and answer the questions stated, we will present a brief conceptual overview, more or less in chronological order, to underline the current importance of cultural industries regarding the preservation of cultural expressions and economic development. In first place, we present culture, culture diversity, intercultural, and cultural industries. We follow with the discussion on movies, film and intercultural communication; and then cultural industries in the globalization context and trade treaties (the principles for cultural exception and cultural diversity). We continue with the relationship between audiovisual cultural industries and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. Finally, we briefly present the situation of the Mexican film industry since the signing of NAFTA and some data on television and film consumption during 2003. We conclude with a summarization of the policies that Canada has adopted for its cultural industries within the market liberalization context.

Culture, culture diversity, intercultural, and cultural industries

Culture, according to the UNESCO in 1982, is defined as the group of distinctive features, spiritual and material, intellectual and affective that characterizes a society or social group. This definition includes, besides the arts and literature, ways of life, fundamental rights of human beings, value systems, traditions and beliefs. Culture manifests itself through its diversity in language, religious beliefs, land management practices, the arts, music, social structure, farming selection, diet and in every conceivable attribute of human societies. The UNESCO, in its Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity in 2001, indicated that culture is found at the center of contemporary debates on identity, social cohesion and development of an economy founded on knowledge. In the declaration it states that the respect to the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and cooperation, are fundamental because peace and international safety are in stake. Therefore, the recognition of a cultural diversity provides the tools for the development of cultural exchanges.

These exchanges can also be based on an intercultural philosophy (Gómez Martínez 2004:2,3), in other words, to search for the point of convergence between cultures, proposing from the beginning to limit its field of action; a dialogue can emerge from this convergence and thus new cultural forms, but they cannot in any case believe to be superior in their original forms to any other possible cultures with which they can again converge. The referent of this philosophical construction is “the culture”. The objective then of intercultural philosophy, according to Raúl Fornet (Gómez Martínez 2004: 2), is to create the conditions so different people may speak through their own voice. This is achieved by the interruption of thinking habits and ethnocentric acts that block the perception of the other up to their most elemental forms of alterity, as for example, the perception of human dignity; in other words, to place human dignity as the referent. It implies to discuss the concepts of culture and interculturality, beginning with the praxis of daily life to recognize culture in its dynamism, its continuous transformation, the cultural expressions that constantly cease to be as others begin, and that this process takes place through an intercultural action. This leads to the affirmation that there are no pure cultures in the sense of isolated processes, and also that the transformation of cultures is done today mainly through an intercultural and hierarchical process. Among the cultural variables that have been identified as potentially problematic within the intercultural communication process (Fernández Collado 1992:186,187) we find language, non-verbal codes, and the conception of the world and its role in relationships and thought mechanisms, among others. It is said that the conception of the world has three dimensions: The purpose of life, the nature of life, and the relationship of humans with the cosmos. The importance of the conception of the world for intercultural communication works as a perceptive screen for the messages received, but it’s also used as basis to interpret the facts and observed activities. Thus by definition intercultural communication is the process of symbolic interaction among individuals and groups with recognized cultural differences in their perception and behavior conducts, in such a way that these variations significantly affect the forms and outcomes from the encounter. A critical aspect is the degree of difference between the participants, as for example, what can be acceptable for a culture can result unacceptable for another. This way the first requisite to becoming inter-culturally able is to know the own culture, and then avoid generalizations of other cultures. This way, the principle of cultural relativity is important, each culture is unique, and it is important to stress that other cultures must be recognized and respected.

Cultures (Warnier 2002:19, 30,49 ) are built on religious, educational, feeding, artistic and leisure practices and beliefs. They also have to do with the organization rules for relationships, family and political groups. Also important are the practices and beliefs related to the body, health and sickness. Their transmission and assimilation takes time, as they also have roots in the land and local history. For example, communication and cultural exchanges at continental and intercontinental levels are not new, but until 1450 intercultural contacts were slow and had to be filtered through the extension of the continents. Local communities had enough time to cultivate their differences, assuming some innovations that traveled through mountains and valleys, deserts or forests, through thousands of kilometers. The globalization of culture as such had not been born because it requires having complex exchanges and communication technologies. In this sense, the beginning of the globalization of culture was given with the industrial revolutions that began in 1760. The industrial revolution completely transformed traditional economies and gave birth to the culture industries. The globalization of mediatic, financial, commercial, migratory and technological flows intensified during the 1970’s, and culminated with the fall of the Soviet type controlled economy, by which the globalization of culture acquired its present 21st century configuration. It is characterized, on one hand, by the encounter of people inscribed in fragmented and local cultures, and inscribed in a prolonged history, and on the other, by the goods and services placed on the marked by recently global industries and communication exchange systems with great capacity. The globalization process is where we place commercial and cultural exchanges, of goods and services as well as messages produced and distributed through various technological supports such as books, DVD, magneto phonic tapes, videos, Internet, and digitalized signals, among many others. All these complex cultural products are called culture industries (Warnier, 2002:21), a term used for the first time in 1947 by Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, sociologists from the Frankfurt school. During the 1970s the term culture industries was widely accepted. Patrice Flichy (1980), Berndard Miège (1986) and Gaétan Tremblay (1990) consider that culture industries present the following features: a) Need large resources, b) Apply massive reproduction techniques, c) Work for the market, in other words, merchandize culture, and d) Are based on a capitalist type labor organization, in other words, they transform the creator into a worker and transform the culture into culture products. Culture industries produce (García Canclini, 1989: 239) cultural goods that have not been handcrafted or individually created, but are made through technical procedures, machines and labor relationships equal to those manufacturing other industrial products. Culture industries are sectors that bring together the creation, production and commercialization of goods and services, their particularity resides on the intangibility of its contents, cultural and economic duality constitutes its main mark.

Therefore we will define culture (Yúdice, 2002: 268 a) as the production and circulation of symbolic meanings which are a material process of production and exchange that becomes part of more ample economic processes within a society. A culture exposed to an extensive cultural consumption modifies in some way how it perceives itself and others in its environment, this means, that the public space where cultural forms circulate becomes increasingly conditioned by the merchandized and transnational discourses and ideologies that combine with local forms in such a way that they disarticulate the coherence of the traditional national discourses. Technological growth specifically within communications and the development of land and aerial transportation, promote the exchange of people, merchandizes and symbolic messages. We must mention that (Warnier 2002:51) the technological support and contents are inseparable from one another, independently if these are books, film or television. In particular the audiovisual language (ONU Oct, 1980) and specifically moving images are the expression of the cultural identity of groups of people because of their intrinsic educational, cultural, artistic, scientific and historical values, and are an integral part of a nation’s cultural patrimony. The cultural reconfiguration in the so-called globalization acquires a transnational character for a large portion of the cultural production and distribution, especially for entertainment. The culture industry (García Canclini, 1989:241) is interested in building and renovating a simultaneous contact between transmitters and receivers, and doesn’t care in preserving the popular as culture, tradition or historic memory. For the markets and for the media, the popular doesn’t matter as a continuing tradition. On the contrary, the incessant persuasion method of the media messages leads the consumer of these messages to interpret that what is popular is the place of success, therefore modifying the meaning of popular traditions which are consequently forgotten; therefore the great importance of redefining cultural identity, in the face of globalization, as part of popular tradition. The Latin American identity (Arboleda González, 2004:5) is popular in a sense that it has never pretended to be universal, because it has not been conquering nations, or acted as colonizers or imperialists. The reclaim of identity of the Latin American people is transformed into the need of a destiny that acquires a profoundly political connotation. It’s a popular identity in the sense of belonging, of the most ancient customs, more truthful to the people’s feelings, thoughts and wishes, even though many times it may proceed from the loss of cultures with more ample roots. For example, most of the feeding customs in Colombia’s high grounds, of farmers and popular social classes, constitute an authentic popular culture.

Mexico is also proof of this. The tortilla, beans, hot peppers and tamal are original foods from people settled here before the arrival of the Spaniards and continue being the current food base in the country. We can add the cultural roots of languages. In Mexico, besides the official language which is Spanish, indigenous languages are spoken. According to Swadesh and Arana’s classification done in 1962-1964, there are four groups of languages with 11 branches, 13 families with a total of 57. According to Mexico’s Indigenous National Institute (Instituto Nacional Indigenista de México (2004:1-9)) indigenous languages constitute de central axis of identity and communication vehicle between community members and other populations within the ethnic region.

It is important to indicate that when we refer to popular culture it is not in a pejorative sense, or to compare with the denominated European metropolis culture. We are referring to the culture that awards historic memory. In Mexico, festivities are one of the most important existing institutions to maintain the indigenous identity mechanisms, and for reasons such as the costs they imply and the growing migration of men and women to urban centers, they are one step away from extinction.

In this sense John Tomlinson (2001:164, 165) agrees with Néstor García Canclini (1989) and Apadauri (1990) on the concept of de-territorialization in Latin America as a fundamental sensation of labor displacement from the country to the city and through national frontiers. Therefore, Garcia Canclini (1989: 14,15) indicates that we also find the symbolic economic re-conversion with which farming migrants adapt their knowledge to live in the city and their handcrafts to interest urban consumers; reformulating their labor culture in face of new production technologies without abandoning their former beliefs. It’s necessary to conceptually reconstruct the whole scope of culture and investigate on its hybridizing, understood as the various intercultural mixes, and not only the racial to which the term mestizo is usually limited, including modern forms of hybridizing instead of referring to these as syncretism, a term almost always referred to religious fusions and of traditional symbolic movements. Then, it’s important to investigate what culture emerges from the rapid increase, even though unequal, of urbanization, industrialization and mass communications, in which tradition and modernity have a complicated and forced coexistence on all levels. We must point out to the notion that (Weber Edgard : in La comunicación intercultural Miguel Rodrigo 2004:11) the encounter of cultures is not necessarily intercultural. A cultural phenomenon isn’t given as a consequence of the cultures’ encounter, we could be referring merely to an aggression or the elimination of one culture by another; the encounter of cultures becomes a cultural phenomenon if, in some way, there’s an acceptance and common project.

The process by which we can find cultures is for example from the exchange or consumption of products from the culture industries. We know that rural societies in under-developed countries do not have industrialized forms of culture production, and are maybe possible consumers of these symbolic products with the vision and ideological conception of those producing the messages. Also, within the cities, various population sectors are probably consumers of the television, radio, film and literary offer of the culture products manufactured by the large culture and entertainment companies, be these national and/or international.

Culture industries (Yúdice, 2000:1, 2 b) have had an important role in the history of Latin American countries’ national identity. First given through the newspaper industry in the 19th century and by books in the first decades of the 20th century; afterwards, with the radio and popular music emergence towards the 1930s, the movies during the 1940s and 1950s, and then television beginning in the 1960s. With the deregulation and privatization of telecommunications in the 90s (Yúdice, 2002 31, 32, 33 a), and the reduction of subsidies for local production at radio stations and public networks, we have seen a penetration of global entertainment conglomerates that not only acquire the rights to the Latin American repertoires but strangulate a large number of producers and publishing houses, most small and medium sized businesses. Diversity is reduced to the business structure, and the capability of local management decreases as decisions on what culture products must be produced adjusts to the logic of profitability articulated from transnational headquarters. It could be said (Yúdice 2002 2,3 b) that the increase of mass communications provide the creation of a common patrimony, that estate of traditions and beliefs that enable to maintain a dialogue and that at the same time symbolically reproduce the community. All this is in risk with the internationalization promoted by the entertainment conglomerates.

John Tomlinson (2001: 165.166) states that Canclini (1989:288) rejects the posture that represents the relationship between modernity and tradition with a basic peripheral model, in favor of a vision in which modernity appears as the condition that includes us all, in the cities and the country, in the metropolis and the under-developed nations. This way the phenomenon of de-territorialization is given both in the developed and developing world. He defines hybridizing from this notion of de-territorialization, which is the disappearance of the link between culture and place, the interlinking of uprooted cultural practices. However, this concept is treasonously simple, (Tomlison, 2001: 174, 175) as it has complex theoretical implications that in the first place could be understood as a fortunate negotiation or dialogue that integrates cultural encounters; however, hybridism is never a neutral process of power, it follows an irreversible trajectory that reproduces old hegemonies, as Robins (1991:32) believes, it is possible that the stable and trusting identity of the West is being threatened. An example of this is how the culture industries in today’s 21st century, and specifically the audiovisual industry, contribute to this de-territorialization and are also increasingly driving Capitalist development.

The movies, film and intercultural communication

The invention of the movies marks the pinnacle of the mechanical society at the beginning of the 20th century. To be aware of the movies as a cultural fact (Lafond 1982:23, 41) is to first recognize them as a product of a culture in a given time; then to confirm that movies intervene in the production of culture. In this sense, movies are the reflection of a culture and at the same time factor for culturation of the society in general. Culture is part of the social environment, closely linked to the nature of present social forces, progressively creating its own discourse as a cultural act, as we can see in literature, theatre or music. Movies can be the mask by excellence (Lafond 1982: 44) because of its imaginary connotations, it predilection for dreams and evasion, they allow the modification of the social reality, with the best intentions. Movies consist on an ample ensemble where complexity is articulated on three strong lines: the technological, the economical, and the social-political. Movies frequently appeal to the imaginary, the subjective, the extraordinary and marvelous (Martínez 2002:3,4). They lead us to a new world in some points convergent with our own and in some ways absolutely divergent. Then we have the paradox between the objectivity of what appears on screen and the subjectivity of who watches, between the reality of that being reproduced and the unreality of the world on the screen. From an anthropological perspective, movies as reproducers of images of reality, perpetuate myths; lead us to first names, to the known, what is easily identifiable by each spectator. Movies enable the contact between culture A and culture B through a so-called film language (to which we will refer below) and its products. This connection is given thanks to images considered more or less universal; it demands the translation or dubbing of the language in which the product was made, and it’s evident that there’s a notable lack of certain senses in favor of an exclusive attention on the sight and hearing. Movies promote the construction of an artificial imaginary that not always corresponds to the authentic reality of a culture, mainly during times when simulation acquires a crucial importance because as Baudrillard indicates, this new era suppresses the referents and substitutes the real with its signs. The image constitutes the only reality of the represented characters.

However, this does not always happen. We could say that the camera movements, frames and edition constitute the cinematographic language as such, because it would then be easy to talk of a universal audiovisual intercultural language, and this is not so. The fixed and moving images represent a reality that has been selected and filtered. The connotation marks the fact that the image leads us to a given social situation, to a political and economic context, to a precise ideological environment that is manifested by the more or less conscious artistic traces. The image carries all these elements.

Within the movies, the connotation is accentuated by the movement and instantaneity of the film image and the connotation function becomes determinant in the relationship that the spectator establishes with the film. This is a not conscious process, it is similar to dreaming. The connotation is accentuated within the movies discourse with the rupture between what is and what is not said, what is immediately perceived by the receptor and what is kept away from the conscious perception. Therefore, the connotation function of the film image is amplified by the own nature of the film’s communication.

Therefore, we must indicate (Lafond 1982:44) that there’s an essential distinction between the movies and the cinematographic when we examine the conditions of production and reception of movies, when we analyze the interior of the movie text.

In the interior of the movie text we must distinguish two categories:

The facts of the movie: Which are the traces appearing on the film, this means the narrative structure.

The cinematographic facts: The film is a small part of the movie industry, which leads us to a vast ensemble of intervening facts; for example, the whole movie production apparatus, economic and technological, besides those given after the film is finished and that include the spectators and the star system, among others.

We could, in a first sense, name all the cinematographic facts, which would be the entire phenomenon that constitutes the environment of a film and that necessarily influence its elaboration and perception. The cinematographic facts as those that belong to the movies as a unified domain of the expression of the culture; in other words, the cinematographic facts produced by the movies in themselves. We can then ask if the movies create their own semantic universe by elaborating that which we call specific movie codes. Then a film is (Lafond 1982:45, 48, 49, 50) a certain number of light and hearing frequencies that carry a meaning where: 1. The film is an organized ensemble, this means, that all the visual and hearing elements carry meaning and none is more important than the other. If the film is presented as a coherent whole it’s because all the elements obey to a series of mutual relationships that are organized and combined in a configuration: the film discourse. 2. This organization is specified. It is understood that if the movies are a group of films that form a language, this refers to a language without tongue (langue et langage), in other words, it does not posses stable units which can be renamed. There is not then in a strict sense a “cinematographic language”, but there is, from a structuralism perspective, the way to investigate how the meaning is produced. The film would then be a structure, an object consumed by the spectator, a film discourse that is constructed from a social and cultural reality. The film has an explicit referent that generally locates its action in a more or less determined place and time; and when it’s an imaginary place or a fantastic fictional situation, there is at least an explicit referent: reality or dream; and an implicit referent which is linked to the film’s connotation function.

All films have a common denominator: they are directed to certain spectators, within a certain social, political and economic reality in a precise moment and at a precise epoch. The film as a meaningful product is precisely organized and articulated in all these elements that work in a non-conscious way in the relation it established with the spectators. This relation of the implicit referent helps understand the success or failure of a film when viewed by an audience, and can vary depending on the moment when and where the context of the implicit referent is submitted to a change.

The film exists the moment when the spectator gives meaning to the film. From the symbolic cultural consumption we can access information on our local, regional and national cultures, and others nearby, geographically or historically located.

An intercultural dialogue is established when we have elements of knowledge of other cultures. We need to have access to the knowledge on expressions, and the diversity in creativity from cultures around the world. The culture industries can favor this exchange. The controversy and dilemma is how to promote diversity in creativity and in contents, and the expansion and equal access to all this diversity when faced by the globalization of culture.

Cultural industries in the context of globalization and trade agreements

The articulation of international markets requires of a legal instrument; therefore globalization (Dávila Francisco, 2002:28, 29) stems from a general theory of economic integration and points out to the need to link the world economy into a harmonious whole. The general theory of global integration or globalization assimilates important elements of the trade theory and especially of exchanges at an international scale.

The antecedent for Latin America’s entrance into what we today call the global economy can be found in the 1920s and 1930s (Yúdice, 2002:3 c) when the new state forms of the first post-war era were integrated as producers of import substitutions. The new role required different forms of distinguishing workers as citizens and vice versa. The Latin American experience in this regard represents a great contribution to contemporary social theory because it was based on the recognition, expressed through Gramci, that the politics, legitimate knowledge and culture are founded on the hegemony process.

The World Bank indicates that when referring to globalization it is crucial to carefully define (2004) the various forms that it adopts. International trade, direct foreign investment, and flows from the markets of capitals, present different questions and have different consequences: potential benefits on one hand, and costs and risks on the other, which demand different valuations and answers. In second place, the degree of participation of different countries in the globalization is not uniform either. For many of the poorest and less developed countries, the problem is not found in that globalization will make them poorer, but in the threat of being excluded from it. In 1997, the minimal participation of these countries in the world trade, with a 0, 4% number, corresponded to half of its participation in 1980. The growth rate in these countries is also way below those from countries within a more global development.

The interpretation of the economic development phenomenon (Yúdice, 2002:4 c) by different researchers such as Cardoso and Faletto in 1969 was the dependency theory, for Dorfman and Mattelart the theory of cultural imperialism that explained this phenomenon as subordination with a one-direction flow. Later, the transactional analysis of cultural flows generated important intuitions regarding the structuring of inequalities. Martín Barbero in 1987 directed his studies towards cultural mediation, the mediations in the differentiated reception, in other words, that the diverse groups that comprise Latin American cultural heterogeneity interact among themselves, and to know what perspectives these groups have to achieve a larger participation in the distribution of knowledge, goods and services. However, without having to accept the cultural imperialism framework, it is a reality that international businesses, and not exclusively American, have increased their control on the cultural offer in Latin America.

There are some scholars that even state that the culture (Yúdice, 2002:32, 33 a) has been transformed by the own logic of contemporary capitalism. This culturation of the economy since its beginning started to be regulated through trade and intellectual property agreements, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), and through laws that control the movement of intellectual and overseas work (for example, immigration laws). The so-called globalization of markets that expressed in another way has been the new phase of economic growth, of the cultural economy, and also of the political economy.

The creation of property, as well as legal and infrastructure conditions that make the culturation of the economy profitable began in the 1920s with the United States film industry organized in unions from New York to Los Angeles, as it established a close relationship with the financial capital and the government officers in charge of trade activities. After The Second World War, the industry was transformed in response to the challenge that television represented and the anti-monopoly trials that obligated to renounce to the cinematographers. Hollywood began to balance the risk of investing in its products, which required an intensive use of capital, hiring foreign networks formed by independent production companies that provided diverse services such as scripts, casts, cinematography, wardrobe, sound mix and masters, and editing. It could be said that the film industry represented and still represents the post-Ford flexible specialization model.

Even though the debate can be truly important and we could discuss regarding this form of flexible production, the main effects of this new international cultural work division are not limited to the fact of using or not using multicultural actors. The main aspects are found in the increase of author rights for producers and distributors of large entertainment conglomerates that have gradually acquired the intellectual property, and have established the conditions for the creators to provide the contents.

From the historical-structural point of view, globalization must be understood (Sánchez Ruiz ,2003:4-11 b) in a very complex way as a multi-casual convergence of diverse mediating dimensions, as for example, the economical, political, cultural, technological, and institutional. In this sense, the audiovisual sector of the cultural industry (movies, television and video) has been constituted as the contemporary fortification of the accelerated process of the cultural globalization. According to a report on world culture from the UNESCO (1999) industrialized countries publish 297 daily newspapers for every 1,000 persons, compared to 43 published by developing nations (the world average was 97 newspapers for every 1,000 persons). In 1999, the UNESCO estimated that in 1991 the world trade volume in cultural goods was of 196,500 million dollars, from which 80% belonged to industrialized countries. The countries under development participated with 20%, and Latin America and the Caribbean with 2.5% of the world cultural trade. A study on Spanish speaking countries audiovisual industry (Latin America, Spain and Portugal) shows that five companies concentrated approximately 90% of film, video and television exports: Televisa, Rede Globo, Venevisión, Radio Caracas and RTVE. Televisa exports represent almost 50% of the total.

Mexico began opening to international trade when it signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986, and the most notable consequence (Nivón Bolán, 2002-2003:2) of the globalization process, in Mexico’s case, has been a certain weakening of state policies and the transference of the development axis from the central region, dominated by Mexico City, to the north of the country. The consequences of this process can be seen in the regional redistribution of the country’s economic and industrial activities: relocation of industries on the border; production of a complex urban-regional relationship in northern cities such as Tijuana-San Diego and Ciudad Juárez-El Paso; a close connection of industrial activity in the north of the country with Texas; and the connection of the Pacific agro-industrial strip with the southern regions of the United States.

Mexico has signed approximately 11 trade treaties with several countries throughout the world, among them NAFTA with the United States and Canada; besides, the fact that Mexico is member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), we could say that places the country in undisputed task of resolving how to integrate the Cultural Industries into the country’s economic development.

As we discuss Mexico’s cultural development we observe a multiple panorama with a strong presence of the State in areas such as cultural patrimony, the arts, popular culture and infrastructure, and the private sector has grown towards the field of cultural industries and entertainment. The great moments of cultural infrastructure development in Mexico were between the 1920s and 1970s, (Nivón, 2002-2003: 4); during its first period, there was an institutionalization of a nationalist cultural policy that promoted the construction of a great number of educational and cultural facilities, such as the Public Education Secretariat. The slow-down in the cultural infrastructure growth in Mexico was a consequence of the reduction of state budgets for education and culture; even though the most notable effect by the 1980s was the reduction of workers wages in culture related fields, and the poverty of the institutions achieved levels of a maximum depression. To the budget reductions we must add a pressure on cultural and educational institutions to achieve efficiency levels similar to those in the private enterprise. The result of these policies was twofold: in first place, the State notably reduced its presence in the cultural area. In some areas, such as the movies or public television, budgets were cut. In second place, entrepreneurial type approaches were promoted together with a higher participation of private companies in the culture area. The private sector began competing with the State in producing cultural goods, and became an important actor in the organization of cultural and political relationships between the diverse groups that integrate society.

As we have indicated above, in globalization a large part of the cultural production is done industrially and is supported by international communication companies (Nivón, 2002-2003:7) that help overcome time and space barriers; thus the capacity of the States to guide cultural policies is weakened. We observe international communities of spectators that reduce the importance of differences among nations; juvenile cultures guide their cultural practices according to extra-territorial models that are not always sensible to the traditions and ethnic differences, for example in musical tastes, American movies, clothes’ trends, and sports, among others. Maybe one of the most neuralgic aspects of this problem (Getino Octavio, 2003:6) is the way in which business concentration processes privilege not the production of a country’s own cultural goods but the re-conversion of an internationally conceived capitalism for the production of a merchandizing capitalism, this means, for its sale and market. Therefore, selling, more than producing becomes the center of gravity for international interests.

Either way it’s important to understand that if globalization and liberalization bring about substantial changes in national cultures from an anthropological and sociological standpoint, this does not mean, however, that we must reject (Bernier Ivan, 2003:2) all political initiatives that could affect in one way or another the contents of cultures. To state the contrary would give a stereotyped sense to the notions of culture and national identity. However, here is where we particularly need to preserve cultural expressions as they are a key element for cultures to adapt to the transformations imposed by the globalization and liberalization of exchanges. In effect, cultural creators and interventionists have a first level role in the sense that they create a space of critical confrontation between national and foreign values, between values and conducts from the past and the perspectives for the future. In this sense, we can say that the preservation of a cultural diversity unavoidably passes through the preservation of the cultural expression. Therefore we can state that culture is (Sauvé Pierre, 2002:31-32) above all an identity good in most societies, a rooting facet that unites its different components and promotes the sense of belonging to a community of values, customs and ideas. As commercial objects, cultural products can hardly become excluded from the scope of international trade agreements. From the time they are exploited with the purpose of obtaining a commercial benefit and as international exchange objects, they permit diverse interests to come into play which are sometimes opposite and that can only be reconciled within an adequate legal framework. Further from economic considerations, to exclude cultural products from international trade agreements opens the door, in the legal field, to more justified restrictions due to trade protectionism or even because of ideological reasons, which may have many possibilities of being contrary to cultural diversity.

We need to implement national and regional policies to protect (Mattelart, 2003: 3) and generate cultural industrial products that reflect a more regional and national identity. The principle of cultural exception, supported by France, was approved by GATT in December, 1993, and finalized in April, 1994. This topic of cultural exception turned into a debate (Frau Meigs, 2002:3) and has been considered one of the main crises of the cold post-war. The debate on cultural exception has tested the alliance between the countries of the Atlantic sphere. As product of the debate, in May 1993, two bands were created as consequence of the French position of cultural exception that rejects including the movies (and in lesser degree the audiovisual media) from the list of products to “liberate”:

-The “free-exchangers” (or hyper-liberals according to the Europeans that proclaim the total abandonment of protection measures leaded by the United States (but not exclusively).

-Those that subscribe the exception position (or protectionists according to the United States) who wish to maintain their national industries without recurring to completely closing their borders. This position is leaded by the European Union, promoted by France and supported by Canada.

According to those subscribed to the exception approach (Frau Meigs, 2002:4) governments have the right of conducting national policies destined to give life to cultural industries in their territories. Economically speaking, those subscribed to the exception approach consider that the world market in question is a false market dominated by a small number of international companies lead by the United States. Some even denounce the reality of the United States’ protectionism, a country that imports less than 1% of the world film production.

The free-exchangers, on another hand, consider that movies are an industry based entertainment, the same as, for example, a football or chess game, and reject any protection notion for this industry. They argue the fact that they themselves do not have a Federal concentrated practice regarding communications, information and culture. Since 1993, free-exchangers and those subscribing to the exception approach have maintained their positions. Among both bands, arguments have been refined regarding some aspects. The principle of this negotiation had its origin on screening quotas (Bernier Ivan, 2002-2003:3) imposed by a certain number of European countries to oppose the invasion of American films once the First World War ended. Initially centered on the preservation and development of a cultural expression, in 1947 it achieved the authorization of GATT’s Fourth article regarding screen quotas for national films and immediately caused a debate that reached its peak at the end of the Uruguay Ronda. The debate in question was essentially centered, until the WTO came into existence, in the exception status for cultural products in international trade agreements. A short time after the WTO began working, a change in paradigm took place that coincided in time with two events that had a fundamental influence, the failure of negotiations of the Trade Organization for Economic Development (OCD) with the aim to arrive at a Multilateral Investments Agreement (MIA) in October, 1998; and later with the controversial WTO Seattle meeting in December, 1999.

The street manifestations marked a change regarding the consideration of the impact of globalization and freedom of exchanges on cultures, interpreted and analyzed from a sociological and anthropological view, establishing that globalization has imposed on society a sense of loss of cultural references.

In this context, in February 1999, the idea was launched for an international instrument on cultural diversity, developed within the works of the Sectarian Consultations Group on Foreign Trade (SCGFT) –Cultural Industries, which was incorporated to the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Canada. This idea set aside the strategy of cultural exception, establishing a new strategy through the negotiation of an international instrument expressly centered on cultural diversity to recognize the real role that national cultural policies have in ensuring cultural diversity. Of course, this upsets the development of the own cultural expressions, there is data to corroborate this and we will provide some statistics below. What is significant in Mexico is the crisis of the Film Industry since the 1980s, even more critical since 2000. Mexico has not elaborated a comprehensive plan of public policies for its cultural industries in response to globalization.

Audiovisual cultural industries and the North American Free Trade Agreement

Modernization, market liberalization and deregulation of cultural industries and telecommunications in Mexico can be studied from the perspective of a State reform; however, these reforms do not relate to an integral modification of the Mexican State but instead, have led to changes in legal and economic aspects. In the negotiations for the Free Trade Agreement, Mexico didn’t consider culture as a pertinent topic, nor did the country consider the relationship of trade and culture. The new Film Legislation was approved on December 29, 1992, which opened the way to foreign capitals. Cable TV regulations were modified in 1993 doubling concession times and transforming concessionaries into public communications networks. The modification to the Constitution’s 20th Article on March 2, 1995, which establishes the possibility of incorporating 49% of foreign capital to television and cable distribution systems; the approval of the new Telecommunications Law (Crovi Delia, 2000:4) on June 7, 1995, which privatized national satellites and opened foreign satellite services; and, finally, the changes in Copyright Laws in 1997 which included the possibility of legally acquiring the intellectual (author) property –before inalienable- opened an ample place of action for audiovisual companies as well as the telecommunications sector, and have modified the dynamics of the audiovisual industries. For example, it made possible for a 49% share in cable television to be in foreign hands. Before, this was a sector reserved for Mexicans or Mexican societies with exclusion clauses for foreign investment. In the film industry before signing NAFTA 50% of the screens’ quota was reserved for Mexican films, this quota was reduced to 30% afterwards. In June, 2002, (Revista Mexicana de Comunicación Sep-Oct 2002:1 sección Bitácora) the companies Onex Corporation of Canada, and Oaktree Capital Management from the United States, acquired 100% of Cimex, one of Mexico’s leading movie theater chains with 31 complexes and a total of 349 theaters. Cimex covered 25% of the national market and 50% of the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City. The operation was valued in 266 million dollars.

In 1989, as an antecedent to the liberalization and deregulation the MMDS (Multipoint Mukltichaner Distribution Service) system began working, first in Guadalajara and then in Mexico City, operated by Multivisión and offering a restricted distribution signal. In 1993, the Mexican television privatization process was finalized when two government networks, channels 7 and 13 of IMEVISION, were sold to Television Azteca. The audiovisual industries (Crovi, Delia 2000:3) have had changes in their legal framework directed towards deregulation and promotion of free markets; regarding these markets as property systems were restructured; and in their contents by accentuating the subordination of culture to the rules imposed by the markets. This has strengthened (Esteinou, Javier 2003:3) the communication-market model and dismissed the public service media model; the commercial-private media system has notably expanded, becoming the dominant pattern and, therefore, the public arena has been privatized. In the specific case of the audiovisual sector, the United States pressured to accelerate the deregulation and privatization process (Sussman, in Continental Order? 2001:136-138 “Telecommunications after NAFTA Mexico’s Integration Strategy”), because besides supplying films and television series, it is the main technology provider. As an example, we quote some cable television consumption statistics. According to data from the Cable Television Industry Chamber (CANITEC) in 2003, with a base of 2,233,000 cable subscribers in Mexico, the channel most watched was the Discovery Channel with 60%; in second place Animal Planet with 46%; in third Cartoon Network with 45%; in fourth place Cinema Golden Choice and Fox with 36%; followed by TNT with 32%; and in eighth place is Cinema Golden Choice 2 with 29%. We also know, according to data from Cofetel, that subscribers for cable television in Mexico have been growing. In June 2003 this number was of 37.2 for every one thousand individuals, and for December 2003 it increased to 40.2 subscribers for every thousand people. The programming offer from these channels comes from the United States.

This has brought consequences in the above-mentioned sectors; however, the biggest problem faced by Mexico is not having an integral strategy of public policies both towards the interior and to the exterior of the country. It has approved laws that do not always benefit its cultural industries but that respond to pressures, and in the case of NAFTA, mainly from the United States.

Following we will present some numbers that explain the complex and difficult situation faced by Mexico’s film industry in view of its commercial partners.

Mexico’s film industry and NAFTA

During President Carlos Salinas de Gortari’s term in office (1988-1994) we observed the disappearance in 1992, due to bankruptcy, of the private/state-run distribution structure called Películas Nacionales (main distributor of Mexican films). The following year, Operador de Teatros (COTSA), which exhibited Mexican movies, was privatized. Also, during Salinas’ term the Federal Movie Legislation was approved and the National Council for the Culture and the Arts (CONACULTA) was formed, as well as IMCINE (Mexican Film Institute) depending from CONACULTA. During this presidency, 62.3 films were produced annually in average, while during the following presidency of Ernesto Zedillo (1994-2000) 17.5 films were produced per year.

In 1997, there was a movement in the national film community to modify the law approved in 1992 because of the notable decrease in Mexican film production. In response to these demands, in December 1997 the Quality Film Production Fund (Foprocine) was created, depending on IMCINE, with a base budget of 135 million pesos. The grave situation (Sánchez Ruiz, Feb 2003:40-44 a) in which the national film industry was found can be described by three main aspects: 1) An almost inexorable contraction process, mainly of the national production, 2) Concentration in a few companies, both for production as for exhibition and distribution, and 3) An accelerated internationalization, this means, a greater articulation subordinated to the world market which is dominated by the United States’ cultural industry. During 1998 there were some debates in which, due to contradicting interests, distributors and exhibitors confronted the producers (and actors, directors, scriptwriters, and technicians) regarding the three topics included in the initiative of: 1) Maintain restrictions on doubling foreign films to Spanish for their projection in movie theatres, except in case of children films and educational documentaries, 2) The restriction of 10% screen time to Mexican films in all movie houses in the country, and 3) Create a film industry promotion fund financed in part with 55% of ticket sales. The law was published in the Federal Official Newspaper on January 5, 1999. The doubling of films was maintained as it was in Article 8 of the 1992 Law, but just some months later, international distribution companies (United International Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Buena Vista/Columbia-Tri Star) obtained legal protection from the Nation’s Supreme Court of Justice that ruled in their favor, based on “trade freedom” and “equality” terms. Regarding the 105 quota, the Senate lessened this disposition by adding to Article 19 the paragraph “…except for those determined in international treaties in which Mexico has not made reserves of screen times”, with which this article could not evade NAFTA. And regarding the Film Investment and Promotion Fund (Fidecine) it was effectively created together with its related trusteeship, even though the sources were not the originally proposed and the amounts were left undefined, open to the decision of the country’s President.

During the presidency of Vicente Fox (2000-2006) the diagnosis done in 2003 (Ugalde, Aug 2003:2 a) was first the Federal Film Legislation of March 29, 2001 creating the Fund for the promotion of film productions; and then on November 21, 2001, when the public officers named belonged to the film media. Afterwards, during 2002, Mexico produced 14 long-feature movies (Canada produced 53 in 2001 and Argentine 40). The scarce number of Mexican movies that were exhibited accompanied by an increased Americanization of the screens did not recuperate investments in promotion and advertisement, and neither did the money risked on their production. Investors backed due to the one-sided conditions imposed by the film production chain in which most income is destined to companies in charge of the distribution and exhibition of foreign films, causing a loss of capitals from the country due to royalty payments, and consequently aggravating the balance of international payments, which has a deficit that surpasses 90%.

According to the National Film and Videogram Industry Chamber (Conacine) (Revista del Consumidor abril 2004:21) it is estimated than in 2003, 138 million tickets were sold in Mexico. During 2002, 153 million tickets were sold, less than in 1990 when 190 million tickets were sold. According to data from Conacine, the audience decrease in movie houses that began between 1990 and 1995 could be because of reasons such as the 43% decrease in movie theatres during 1990 to 1993. Also, ticket prices increased 26% in Mexico City. Until 1993, the company Operadora de Teatros was government-owned and managed most movie theatres in Mexico. Movie houses were uncomfortable and had low sound and image quality. With the 1992 legislation, the development of large movie complexes was facilitated. Up to February of 2004, Conacine had 2,648 movie theatres registered, plus 160 movie houses not registered with Conacine but that this organization has detected throughout the country. In general, owners of movie houses do not inform on new movie theatres or their closing. Most movie theatres are found in certain regions and organized in three or four chains. For example, in February 2004, five companies managed 2,287 movie houses (87%) of the country’s total: Cinépolis had 1,034 (39.05%), Multimedios Cinemas managed 562 (21.22%), Cinemex owned 347 (13.10%), Cinemark had 258 (9.74%), and the Lumière chain managed only 86 movie theatres (3.25%).

The 10 most watched movies in 2003 were American: in first place Looking for Nemo with 2,271,618 spectators, followed by X Men 2 with 1,834,319 spectators, and in third place Matrix Reloaded with 1,526,892 spectators. According to Cinemex, 2003 was a year of negative results due to the lack of good productions, both domestic and foreign. Conacine reported that attendance to movie houses in Mexico increased in 11%. In June 2004, Cinermex changed hands and was sold 100% to a group of investors formed by Bain Capital, The Cartyle Group and Spectrum Equito, for 1,500 million dollars, which included the sale of Lowens Cineplex Entertainment Corporation (Milenio Diario, martes 22 junio 2004).

Another example of the Americanization of screens is the city of Monterrey in Mexico, with a total of 25 films in exhibition on May 30, 2004, 16 were American films projected in 157 movie houses of the total 184 houses that advertise their movies. At the same time, 3 Mexican films were exhibited in 9 movie houses. The proportion is enormous, the offer surpasses the possibility of a balanced consumption, and we do not see either a more or less balanced production or distribution. Therefore, the intercultural dialogue for Mexicans with Mexicans is in conflict.

Culture, commerce and economy are deeply linked (Ugalde, Octubre-2003:3 b). During the Fifth Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Cancun during September of 2003 some organisms made an appeal to this organization to respect UNESCO’s declaration on cultural diversity of November, 2001, as well as the European Council declaration on cultural diversity of December, 2000. It is therefore indispensable for Mexico to analyze the multiple and integral public policies (Sánchez Ruiz, 2003:48) of countries such as Canada, which has bastions of the market economy applied to promote/protect cultural industries through regulatory financial supports, some of them fiscal.

Policies for Canadian Cultural Industries within the trade and globalization context

Canada has considered that Industrial Cultures, including the audiovisual sector, are important enough to be respected in international treaties through the so-called cultural exception. By the end of the sixties and during the seventies, with the administration of Pierre Trudeau, actions were taken such as the foundation of the Canadian Development Corporation (CFDC) which in 1983 became Telefilm Canada and that has become the main distribution vehicle supporting the Canadian audiovisual sector. The proximity with the United States (Sánchez Ruiz, 2003:20 a), plus its search for self-affirmation, has led the Canadians to maintain a more or less a strong national identification, and for the different governments, either liberal or conservative, to manifest a nationalist rhetoric. Stemming from this posture, policies and legislation have been directed towards two categories: the intention of protecting the Canadian cultural industries with regulatory or tariff barriers, and the intention of promoting a Canadian massive culture through subsidies to individual artists or the creation of government cultural facilities. In the case of the movies, besides a series of provincial entities in charge of promoting the audiovisual development, there are policies and actions at a federal level developed by at least two organisms coordinated by the Canadian Patrimony Department, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. This is a federal cultural agency dedicated to develop and promote film, television and multimedia industries. Even since 1995 it takes care of promoting the multimedia production. Both the National Film Board as Telefilm Canada depend on the Canadian Patrimony Department, which under its Cultural Industries branch develops policies and programs to strengthen Canadian cultural industries and ensure access to films, video, books, magazines, and sound recordings made in Canada.

In a report published in February 1999 by the Foreign Affairs Ministry of the Canadian Government, under the section Negotiations and Trade Agreements, cultural policies were presented, as well as the new strategies for culture and trade elaborated by the Sectarian Consultation Group on Foreign Trade (GCSCE)-Cultural Industries, that forms part of the federal government’s consultation system on foreign trade. The GCSCE gives officers from the Foreign Affairs Ministry and International Trade, as well as the Canadian Patrimony Ministry, the possibility to consult their representatives of Canada’s cultural industries. Ministry of International Affairs. First, it indicates that the cultural policies in Canada have changed throughout the years, adapting to the evolution of domestic and world markets, and of certain massive transformations caused by the technology and liberalization of international changes. Canada’s current policies, elaborated by the GCSCE-Cultural Industries, are also been applied in other countries, for example, the cultural exception strategy that consists on not including the culture in international trade negotiations. One of the first comments in the report indicates that the cultural exception principle was considered surpassed because it was limited. A new strategy for an international instrument that expressly addresses cultural diversity is needed, recognizing the legitimate role that cultural national policies have in ensuring cultural diversity. The members of GCSCE estimated that it’s as important to protect the culture as it is to promote cultural and linguistic diversity.

The principles that regulate cultural policies and programs in Canada are: a) Freedom of expression, considering that Canadians live in a free and democratic society in which the freedom for cultural expressions is at the same time necessary and desirable; b) Liberty to choose, Canadians have access to a vast inventory of cultural products of domestic and foreign origin; c) Government supported access through regulations and measures, for example, ensuring that Canadian products are always available in the domestic market and that Canadians have easy access to their culture; d) Cultural diversity, Canada has a diverse and multicultural society that reflects its cultural production abroad. Canada centers itself on the products that are integrated within the two linguistic markets and sustain numerous regional and local services in the country.

Past instruments of cultural policies were generally directed towards subsidies that sustained their cultural industries; they later adopted measures linked to fiscal approaches specifically in television, movies, music and publishing. Currently, the policies aimed at motivating the creation, production, and promotion of cultural products in the domestic market are directed towards financial supports linked to programs related to Canadian contents, fiscal measures, restriction of foreign investment and protection measures on intellectual property.

Canada’s statistics estimate that in 1994-1995 the amount of business in the cultural sector, specifically in cultural industries such radio programming and television, the scenic and visual arts, festivals, institutions dedicated to the patrimony such as museums and libraries, and related professions such as architecture, design, photography and advertisement, represented more than 20 million Canadian dollars, which is 3% of Canada’s gross domestic product. The cultural sector also contributes to the country’s economic growth. From 1989 to 1994 its growth rate was 9,9% above transportation and agriculture.

Also, film, video and television industries that produce, distribute and sell their products in Canada and abroad are expanding, formed both by small enterprises and large partnerships that have placed shares in the stock market. Production in 1995-1996 increased to 879.2 million Canadian dollars, a growth compared to that registered in 1990-1991 which was of 581,3 million Canadian dollars. Summarizing, during 1994-1995 the cultural sector provided 610 000 full time and part time jobs. This represents approximately 5% of the economically active population in Canada. It has been estimated that between 1991 and 2005 employment in the arts, culture, sports and entertainment sectors will have grown approximately 45%, which would classify these sectors in the second place in the country based on growth rate.

On another hand, it is known that 80% of Canadians live near the border with the United States and besides their common linguistic background Canada’s market is becoming an extension of the American market and its cultural products. Therefore, foreign companies and products represent 45% of book sales in Canada, 81% of English speaking magazines that are sold in newspaper stands, 79% (more than 910 million dollars) of retail sales of cassettes and CDs, among others, 85% (165 million dollars) come from the exhibition of films in Canada, in a range between 94% and 97% of projection time in the movie theatres, which is paradoxical, as the Hollywood studios have treated Canada as an integral part of the American market.

Finally, Canada intends on insisting on a new international instrument based on cultural diversity, having established the basic principles presided by the formulation of cultural and trade policies for cultural products that will enable all signatories to maintain policies that ensure the promotion of their cultural industries. This would mean a new cultural treaty directed towards the achievement of an international community consensus with the need to promote cultural expressions for every community and considering the needed regulations as well as other measures to promote cultural and linguistic diversity. The treaty will not place pressure on any country to establish culture promotion measures but will give the governments the right to determine what measures apply to their country in order to safeguard cultural diversity, within the limits permitted in the agreement. The instrument will serve as a base plan favoring cultural diversity within the globalization context. This clearly circumscribes the field of action and will stress the importance of cultural sovereignty.

Mexico faces serious problems for the integral economic development of its cultural industries. We are pointing out to the importance of understanding that the culture’s industrialized products posses’ duality as merchandizes and culture. Both for the developed countries as for poor ones, the principles of freedom of expression, freedom of access to cultural goods, freedom of cultural production, and freedom of creativity must be respected. The free play of the market in this type of products places cultural identity, as well as creative and cultural diversity, in danger of extinction. It places the intercultural dialogue in danger as there is not a basis for an exchange, as the different power positions of the speakers are being ignored.

References

Arboleda González, Carlos (2004) La iniciativa de comunicación “Globalización: un conflicto entre la Libertad y la Tradición” http://www.commit.com/la/printversion.cgi

p5.

Bernier, Ivan (2002-2003) Una Convención Internacional sobre la Diversidad Cultural en la UNESCO 2 http://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/international/diversite-culturelle/esp/cronica.html p23.

Banco Mundial (2004) http://www.bancomundia.org/temas/globalizacion/cuestiones1.htm

Crovi Vidaurreta, Delia (Ags Oct 2003) Razón y palabra, “Las industrias audiovisuales de México a partir del TLC. Una lectura desde la perspectiva del proyecto monarca.” http://www.cem.itesm.mx/dacs/publicaciones/logos/anteriores/n19/19-dcrovi.htm.

p23.

Dávila Aldás, Francisco R (2002) Globalización Integración, América Latina, Norteamérica y Europa, México., ed Fontamara. pp28, 29.

Esteinou Madrid, Javier (Marzo 2003) Revista etcétera“La mano invisible”. http://etcetera.com.mx/pag42ne29.asp p3.

Fernández Collado, Carlos and Dahnke Gordon, L (1992) La Comunicación Humana. México.,ed Mc Graw Hil.l pp 186,187.

Frau Meigs, Divina ( Sept-Dic 2002) Quaderns num 14, “Excepción cultural”, políticas nacionales y mundialización: factores de democratización y de promoción contemporáneo”

Conseil de l’audiovisual de Catalunya, Barcelona. p3.

Gómez Martínez, José Luis (2004) Antología del ensayo hispánico “La cultura indígena, como realidad intercultural” http://ensayo.rom.uga.edu/critica/teoria/gomez/gomez2c.htm

pp2 , 3,6.

García Canclini, Néstor (1989) Culturas Híbridas “estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad.” México.,ed Grijalbo .pp 14,15,239,241, 288.

Getino, Octavio (Junio-Septiembre 2003) Pensar Iberoamérica,”Las industrias culturales: entre el proteccionismo y la autosuficiencia.”

http://www.campus-oei.org/pensariberoamerica/ric04a05.htm p6.

Instituto Nacional Indigenista (2004) Perfil de los Pueblos indígenas en México.”Identidad”

http://cdi.gob.mx/ini/perfiles/nacional/04_identidad.html pp1-9.

Lafond Jean-Daniel (1982) Le film sous influence. Paris., ed Edilo. pp45, 48, 49,50.

Mattelart, Armand (2003) Chasqui “Alianzas para superar la fragmentación”

file://A:Armand%20Mattelart%20-Excepción%20cultural.htm. p3.

Milenio Diario de Monterrey (martes 22 junio 2004).”Cinemex Cambia de dueño lo venden por mil 500mdd “. Sección negocios p34.

______________________ (miércoles 23 junio 2004) “El cine en México, atractivo para la inversión extranjera” Sección negocios p38.

Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Commerce International Canada .Négociations et accords commerciaux. Enjeux additionnels. La culture canadienne dans le contexte de la mondialisation. « Nouvelles stratégies pour la culture et le commerce, la culture canadienne dans le contexte de la mondialisation. Groupe de consultations sectorielles sur le commerce extérieur (GCSCE)-Industries culturelles « Février 1999.

http://www.dftait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/canculture-fr.asp

Nivón Bolán, Eduardo (Octubre 2002-Enero2003) Pensar Iberoamérica “Cultura e integración económica. México a siete años del Tratado de Libre Comercio” http://www.campus-oei.org/pensariberoamerica/ric02a02.htm p.247.

Revista Mexicana de Comunicación (Sep Oct 2002)”Bitácora” México., ed Fundación Manuel Buendía-Universidad de occidente, año XII. p1.

Revista del Consumidor (Abril 2004) “Cómo consumimos cine” México., ed Procuraduría Federal de Consumidor. p21 .

.

Sánchez Ruiz, Enrique (Feb 2003a) “La Industria Audiovisual en América del Norte entre mercado (oligopólico) y las Políticas Públicas”. Documento inédito, presentado en el X Congreso de la AMEC. pp.5, 15, 20, 40,44, 48.

____________ (Nov 2003 b) Revista Universidad de Guadalajara “Globalización y convergencia: retos para las industrias culturales latinoamericanas”pp.5-11.

http://www.cge.udg.mx/revistaudg/rug20/art4.html

Sauvé, Pierre (sep-diciembre 2002) Quaderns num 14 « Los retos culturales de la ronda de negociaciones de Doha de la OMC”Conseil de l’Audiovisual de Catalunya.Barcelona pp31, 32.

Sussman, Gerald “Telecommunications alter NAFTA: Mexico’s Integration Strategy” in: Continental Order? Vincent Moscoso and Dan Schiller., eds pp136-138.

Tomlinson, John (2001) Globalización y Cultura .México ed., Oxford University Press

pp165, 166, 174,175.

Ugalde, Víctor (Agosto 2003 a) Revista etcétera “A revisión, el cine mexicano, sus logros mero espejismo” http://www.etcetera.com.mx/pag37ne34.asp p2.

_____________ (Octubre 2003 b) Revista etcétera “Diversidad Cultural en riesgo la expresión plural del mundo”. http://www.etcetera.com.mx/pag36ne36.asp p3.

UNESCO (2004) Culture, commerce et mondialisation. Questions et réponses.

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/fr/ev.php@URL_ID=2461&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=-512.html

Weber, Edgard 1997:36 mayo p XII en: “La comunicación intercultural” Miguel Rodrigo (2004) http://www.blues.uab.es/incom/2004/cas/rodcas.html p11.

Warnier Jean –Pierre (2002) La mundialización de la Cultura .Barcelona, ed.,Gedisa. p71.

Yúdice, George (2002 a) El recurso de la cultura “Usos de la cultura en la era global.” Barcelona. ed., Gedisa pp 31, 32,33 ,268.

___________ (Junio-Septiembre 2002 b) Pensar Iberoamérica “Las industrias culturales: más allá de la lógica puramente económica, el aporte social”.

http://www.campus-oei.org/pensariberoamerica/ric01a02.htm pp1- 3.

____________ (2002 c) “Contrapunteando estadounidense/latinoamericano de los estudios culturales” in: Daniel Mato (coord.): Estudios y Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) and CEAP, FACES: Universidad Central de Venezuela. pp3, 4.