Cultural heritage as multi-dimensional, multi-value and multi-attribute economic good: toward a new framework for economic analysis and valuation

Abstract The purpose of the paper is to review critical issues concerning the economic dimensions of cultural heritage, in order to show that—tangible and intangible—“cultural economic” goods and services, as provided by cultural institutions, may be analysed and valued in a multi-dimensional, multi-attribute and multi-value socio-economic environment . On this multi-dimensional and multi-attribute setting, a conceptual framework for analysing cultural services and cultural capital is established. The paper is speculative in nature, suggesting new prospective for evaluation and empirical inquiry. The work is divided in three parts. The first part begins by surveying the literature on merit goods, re-examining how different paradigms, neo-classic and more unconventional, have dealt with the issue, and assessing why, and to what extent, merit good is a proper economic notion. The second part focuses on the role merit good theory should play in cultural economics, and specifically how it is possible to integrate the merit good and the mixed good theoretical and conceptual framework. Cultural resources are to be defined ideally as joint merit-mixed good, on a multi-dimensional scenario. Cultural capital offers and “produces” services and functions, providing private, public and merit good elements of benefit (value). The multi-dimensional framework also entails a multi-paradigmatic perspective, bringing together neo-classic and non-neo-classic elements. The last section summarises and concludes that such an established conceptual framework indicates and supports new routes for economic valuation and policy making concerning the cultural field and cultural institutions. Disaggregating cultural activities into many services and functions allows the analysis to focus on single components of “benefit” supplied by cultural institutions and demanded by users. Valuing culture as a non-holistic resource might help economic analysis and decision-making processes. The main emerging results are: (i) the notion of merit good is relevant for cultural economics and cultural policy, and it represents a relevant ideal “metaphor” and an important dimension of value associated to “cultural functions”; (ii) the inclusion of merit good theory gives the possibility to define cultural stock and services as a compelling case of multi-dimensional categorisation of private, public, mixed and collective services, where different theoretical perspectives are integrated with each other as far as possible; (iii) being intrinsically placed in a dynamic and uncertain setting, merit good theory demonstrates to be, in theoretical and policy term, the necessary a priori for the theory and policy of mixed good provision, both at macro and microeconomic level. Policies motivated by the merit good issue should aim at providing the necessary collective tangible and intangible investments on which long run effects of cultural policies rely; (iv) special effort should be devoted to the study of “demands” associated to cultural goods, emphasising the role of valuation analysis, supported by the conceptual framework here developed. The work intends to constitute a point of reference for future research, generating some controversy and stimulating further contributions.

[1]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment , 1998 .

[2]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[3]  S. Mourato,et al.  Preserving cultural heritage in transition economies: a contingent valuation study of Bulgarian monasteries. , 2002 .

[4]  P. Boxall,et al.  Valuing Undiscovered Attributes: A Combined Revealed-Stated Preference Analysis of North American Aboriginal Artifacts , 1998 .

[5]  Kenneth E. McConnell,et al.  Does Altruism Undermine Existence Value , 1997 .

[6]  S. Creigh-Tyte,et al.  Museums in the U.K.: Some Evidence on Scale and Activities , 1998 .

[7]  M. Engberg,et al.  Paternalism and autonomy: a presentation of a Nordic study on the use of coercion in the mental health care system. , 2002, International journal of law and psychiatry.

[8]  Arthur Cecil Pigou,et al.  A study in public finance , 1947 .

[9]  K. Lancaster,et al.  Modern Consumer Theory , 1991 .

[10]  Michael Rushton Methodological Individualism and Cultural Economics , 1999 .

[11]  P. Boxall,et al.  Valuing aboriginal artifacts: A combined revealed-stated preference approach , 2003 .

[12]  R. Costanza,et al.  The evolution of preferences Why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it , 1998 .

[13]  W. Grampp Rent-seeking in arts policy , 1989 .

[14]  D. Throsby,et al.  What price culture? , 1985 .

[15]  P. Else Further Thoughts on Public Goods, Private Goods and Mixed Goods , 1988 .

[16]  Jean Cocteau,et al.  The White book , 1989 .

[17]  Walter Santagata,et al.  Contingent Valuation of a Cultural Public Good and Policy Design: The Case of ``Napoli Musei Aperti'' , 2000 .

[18]  N. Powe,et al.  Benefits received by visitors to heritage sites: a case study of Warkworth Castle , 1996 .

[19]  Kenneth E. McConnell,et al.  Consumer Surplus from Discrete Choice Models , 1995 .

[20]  Peter B. Boorsma,et al.  Privatization and Culture , 1998 .

[21]  N. Hanley,et al.  Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? , 2002 .

[22]  Samuelsonian and Weisbrodian Public Goods , 1999 .

[23]  Elisha A. Pazner Merit Wants and the Theory of Taxation , 1972 .

[24]  R. Kling,et al.  The Double Public Good: A Conceptual Framework for ``Shared Experience'' Values Associated with Heritage Conservation , 2001 .

[25]  Carl Folke,et al.  A systems perspective on the interrelations between natural, human-made and cultural capital , 1992 .

[26]  R. McCain Optimal subsidies to the arts in a shortsighted world , 1982 .

[27]  Charlotte Twight Urban amenities, demand revelation, and the free-rider problem: A partial solution , 1993 .

[28]  Luigi Mittone Politica tariffaria e politica informativa nell'offerta di servizi pubblici , 1992 .

[29]  Public support of the arts: Three arguments examined , 1980 .

[30]  F. Nuti Paternalism vs. Consumer Sovereignty in the Economic Appraisal of Non-Market Goods , 1998 .

[31]  Michael Hutter,et al.  Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage , 1997 .

[32]  G. Casoni Cognitive Representations of Total Value in a CVM Framework: A Critical Review of the Literature , 1998 .

[33]  Masazo Okawa,et al.  Richard A. Musgrave, The Theory of Public Finance -A Study in Public Economy, New York, 1959 , 1960 .

[34]  Charles D. Kolstad,et al.  Research Trends and Opportunities in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics , 1998 .

[35]  David G. Davies,et al.  The Theory of Public Finance , 1960 .

[36]  F. Martin Determining the size of museum subsidies , 1994 .

[37]  J. Bennett,et al.  Some Fundamentals of Environmental Choice Modelling , 2001 .

[38]  E. West,et al.  De Gustibus Est Disputandum: The Phenomenon of "Merit Wants" Revisited , 1983 .

[39]  George J. Stigler,et al.  De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum , 2010 .

[40]  A. Sandmo Ex Post Welfare Economics and the Theory of Merit Goods , 1983 .

[41]  Christian Koboldt,et al.  Optimizing the Use of Cultural Heritage , 1997 .

[42]  James P. Feehan A simple model for merit good arguments: A comment , 1990 .

[43]  Richard A. Wasserstrom,et al.  Morality and the law , 1971 .

[44]  Kent Willis Paying for heritage: what price for Durham Cathedral? , 1994 .

[45]  The concept of a "merit good" the ethical dimension in economic theory and the history of economic thought or the transformation of economics into socio-economics , 1998 .

[46]  G. Garrod,et al.  Economic Valuation of the Environment , 1999 .

[47]  Earl R. Rolph Public Goods and Public Welfare , 1975, American Political Science Review.

[48]  Trine Bille Hansen,et al.  The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good , 1997 .

[49]  W. Eecke Public goods: An ideal concept , 1999 .

[50]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[51]  D. Netzer,et al.  The State and the Arts: An Analysis of Key Economic Policy Issues in Europe and the United States , 1999 .

[52]  Walter Santagata,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Cultural Policy Design: The Case of 'Napoli Musei Aperti' , 1998 .

[53]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods , 1998 .

[54]  T. Besley A simple model for merit good arguments , 1988 .