Conclusion

It is the author’s opinion that a robust national library policy is the only way to ensure the even and equitable growth of public libraries throughout an entire nation. While this may be characterized by some as a national government involving itself in affairs better left to professionals, it is entirely possible to formulate a national policy that is largely conceived and carried out by librarians at the local level, thus leaving the abstract issues of philosophy as well as the practical issues of service completely up to those who will be working with them on a daily basis. As certain countries such as Finland prove, it is entirely possible for a national government to guide the growth of its public libraries without dictating specifics. As other countries such as India and China prove, leaving local municipalities to deal with public library service to the best of their ability can result in a network of public libraries that is often patchy and in some areas non-existent. Even in developed countries, the absence of a policy to guide the growth of public libraries can result in levels of service that are uneven across or within certain regions. The United States is an example of this. While the quality of its libraries is excellent, there are pockets of the country that have no library service, due either to the inability of local residents to support it or the unwillingness of local politicians to finance it. The complete reliance on local funding also means that, quite simply, rich areas beget rich libraries and poor areas beget poor libraries. It would not be necessary for states to completely fund public libraries in order to bring poor libraries up to the level of their more wealthy counterparts; it could be done with a system where libraries receive subsidies based on population size from the state or a grant system that favors disadvantaged libraries. Public libraries that can count on this type of support will be more willing to try new programs, hire the most qualified staff, commit to long term projects, and any number of other activities that are difficult to consider when funding is uncertain.

While it is entirely possible for public libraries to develop perfectly well on a local or regional basis with no policy guidance, the evidence suggests that as a whole public libraries are better served by an environment in which a national policy creates predictability of funding and clarity of responsibility (of the libraries as well as the government). A national policy helps a nation’s libraries develop as a whole; in the absence of such a policy libraries are left to rely on whatever local resources are available. This is all well and good for libraries fortunate enough to have access to such resources, but those without are left to flounder. Leaving the provision of library services entirely up to local governments can also leave them vulnerable to the shifting winds of local politics, as public libraries in the United Kingdom and the United States can attest. Localities that can’t, think they can’t, or don’t want to pay for public libraries can simply drop them in the absence of a national policy that mandates access to libraries. In extreme cases, the lack of clear legislation can create uncertainty about even basic principles of library service, as it does in South Africa where different branches of government cannot agree on who exactly is supposed to pay for public libraries.

Even in countries where public libraries are already well-established and enjoy a respected place in the national culture, such as Canada and the United States, a national library policy can be beneficial. If local authorities begin to question why exactly they should pay to keep their public library open, a national policy that mandates library service for all serves a protective function. If certain states, territories, or municipalities cannot afford to fund libraries as lavishly as their neighbors, a system of national subsidies could even the financial playing field. National library policies should not be seen only as tools of developing countries with developing library systems, but also as a way to address imperfections and shortcomings in countries with well- established networks of public libraries.

In the United States especially, the adoption of a national policy that addresses services that have for many years been under the provision of local government, would be extremely difficult to implement and would face deep skepticism from librarians. Librarians in the United States have long associated politicians with budget cuts, so they are understandably wary of them. And the recent history of education reform in the United States suggests that it might not be possible for libraries to get on the national agenda without being heavily politicized. It also suggests that American politicians might not be satisfied simply to let librarians be the driving force behind the policy without setting statistical benchmarks and other arbitrary goals. However, the recent budget and the lack of financial recourse crises experienced by library systems across the country makes one wonder if it is not time to try a new system. Predictability of funding, which most American public libraries do not currently enjoy, would help to create an environment in which libraries feel free to experiment and add new services.

When executed correctly, a public library policy is a collaborative effort of government representatives and librarians that aims to achieve a common goal: quality library service for all. While the simple presence of a library policy does not obviously guarantee the emergence of a perfect network of libraries, it can certainly create a fertile environment for growth. Most of the roadblocks that libraries face (such as uncertain funding and the debate over the modern library’s purpose) can be largely addressed with the correct policy. It’s important not to view a national public library policy as a top-down document that consists of government dictating the day-to-day operations of the library or setting statistical benchmarks, but rather as laying a philosophical and financial foundation which library professionals can then use to justify new ideas for programs and services. The ideal policy does not push statistical benchmarks or attempt to regulate the day-to-day activities of the library; it empowers library professionals to undertake the services they already provide, but with the firm knowledge that they are supported financially and politically.

The ideal public library policy is a document created through the collaboration of professionals working in the field and a government that understands the benefits that public libraries provide to society. In other words, both sides need to buy in. To use Finland as an example yet again, in the Ministry of Education and Culture, the branch of government responsible for the national library policy, nine out of the ten people who work with the public libraries have backgrounds in librarianship. This common background helps create the atmosphere of trust necessary to collaborate. Librarians and their counterparts in the Ministry share the common language of librarianship, and the relationship is collegial rather than confrontational. Any policy decisions should be reached by a process which involves gathering input from concerned parties at every level. This includes the government, librarians, and the citizenry as well.

An essay by Glen E. Holt (2006) in Public Library Quarterly was one of the inspirations for this book. It asks the tough but fair question of mediocrity. Why are so many libraries in the United States allowed to be mediocre? Why are librarians content with the place of libraries in society as second-tier institutions, to be considered one step below police, fire departments, and public schools? He points out that initiatives like the highway system, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the desegregation of American public schools all came about because they were driven by national policy. If libraries in America are to make the same strides as those in other countries, he argues, it is time to put them on the national agenda because they have been taken as far as they can by their archaic funding model and extreme individualism. Since this article was published, there have been several examples of large scale collaborative projects that were made possible through state and federal funding, such as the Evergreen initiatives in Georgia, Indiana, and other states, but there is potential for much greater growth.

The intent of this book is not to argue for any particular policy position. There is certainly no single example of a public library policy that should be implemented in all countries. However, the fact that the countries that have adopted nationwide public library policies happen to own the healthiest systems of public libraries cannot be ignored. If it is implemented in an appropriate manner, and not with a heavy hand (Turkmenistan being an extreme example of this), a public library policy can encourage the further development of public libraries no matter their current state. As social institutions, public libraries are no less important than public schools, universities, and other educational organizations that are placed on national agendas and deemed worthy of attention and care. Librarians should expect others to place the same importance on the library as they do. If public libraries are to position themselves for the challenges of the future, it would be advantageous for them to be protected by legislation and to be present in the minds of their nation’s leaders. In a time where individual libraries all over the world are threatened with cutbacks or outright closure, being supported by national legislation and/or standards would be an invaluable advantage.