How New Public Management Reshapes Contemporary French Poetry: Professionalization, Commodification, and Expertization in Cultural Policy

This article explores the profound impact of the New Public Management (NPM) concept on the field of contemporary French poetry. It analyzes how the state, through mechanisms of professionalization, commodification, and expertization, has created a unique publicly funded labor market in the realm of poetry—a "pure art"—and the complex effects of this transformation on the identity of poets, creative autonomy, and the artistic ecosystem.

Poetry holds a unique position in French culture, with a deep tradition of state intervention dating back to François I. It is what Bourdieu calls the alternative to the market for "pure art" (focused on aesthetic innovation rather than profit). Historically, poetry faced the paradox of separation between market and reputation: 19th-century book industrialization marginalized poetry—Baudelaire lamented that France did not understand poetry; Mallarmé’s collections had low sales but far-reaching influence; Prévert’s Paroles sold 20,000 copies but his main income came from films; Paul Gérardy’s You and Me sold a million copies but was forgotten, while Apollinaire and Valéry needed friends’ support yet left immortal legacies.

Chapoz and Poupion (2012) summarized New Public Management into seven core points: separation of strategic political choices and execution, decentralization and institutionalization, new personnel management rules (contract system, performance-based promotion, etc.), transformation of the public sector into a quasi-market, transparency, pursuit of performance, and user participation in defining and evaluating public services. In the field of cultural policy, these principles are reflected in splitting large cultural departments into multiple entities, establishing contractual funding relationships, introducing competitive reviews, and emphasizing quantitative output indicators. Previous organizational studies have mostly focused on cultural intermediaries or public-private relations; this article fills the gap in research on changes in poets’ status.

The first impact of NPM on the poetry field is the "professionalization" of poets’ identity: 1. Formalization of the funding application process—poets are required to write project proposals, budgets, etc., and need to use management language to package their creative activities; 2. Popularization of the contract system, replacing traditional patronage or stable positions—poets have to continuously apply for funding, investing energy in fundraising rather than creation; 3. Introduction of "deliverables" (residencies, readings, workshops, etc.) in performance evaluation, relying on quantitative indicators such as the number of participants and media coverage. This transformation not only grants poets professional recognition but may also erode creative autonomy and experimental space.

Core argument: Under the NPM framework, the state has created a "publicly funded market for poetic labor" (quasi-market). Its manifestations include: 1. Competitive grant mechanism—various poetry funding programs (creation grants, publication subsidies, etc.) are open to competition, and poets need to promote their projects and demonstrate their value; 2. Cross-funding strategies—poets combine funding sources from local, national, private, and EU levels, requiring complex management capabilities; 3. Performance-oriented contracts—funding is accompanied by performance requirements (regular reports, public events, etc.). This mechanism makes poets subjects in the field of public fund competition.

The third dimension of NPM is "expertization": 1. Professionalization of review committees—decision-making power is transferred to committees composed of poets, scholars, etc., which claim to judge based on artistic quality but may replicate the hierarchy of the literary field; 2. Strengthening of procedural justice—norms such as anonymous review and multi-round screening ensure fairness but may exclude innovative works that are difficult to measure with established standards; 3. "Representative" politics—poets need to demonstrate representation of tradition, groups, or diversity, creating tension with aesthetic pursuits. Questions: Who has the right to define "good poetry"? How to protect innovation?

The impact of NPM is profound and complex: Positive aspects include expanded funding opportunities, standardized procedures reducing patronage, and improved project management capabilities enhancing social visibility; Negative aspects include increased administrative burden, short-term projects leading to discontinuous creation, performance pressure inhibiting experimental creation, and expert reviews reinforcing literary hierarchy and marginalizing non-mainstream voices. More fundamentally, the essence of poetry lies in its symbolic dimensions (conveying values, forms, and ideas); when poets are forced to become project managers and performance provers, the space for criticism and transcendence may be squeezed.

This article reveals a paradox: Through NPM, the state has created a publicly funded labor market in poetry that the commercial market failed to achieve (based on expert review rather than consumer choice). Insights: 1. Reflect on the applicable boundaries of NPM in cultural fields—pure art like poetry has hard-to-quantify value, delayed impact, and innovation requires breaking rules; 2. Policies need to balance efficiency and autonomy, avoiding excessive performance accountability that harms experimental space; 3. Poets are not passive recipients—they will find strategies to balance funding requirements and creative autonomy. In the context of globalization and digitalization, France’s experience has universal significance for countries supporting pure art.