Search results

What are the value theories used by art economists which can help define the field as a unique research program? We categorize the research program in art economics in Lakatosian terms and find that art economists share a value system around art which is that art contains value beyond that of exchange. This difference introduces a “paradox” of value to be addressed (either implicitly or explicitly) by the art economist in practice, in that mainstream economics assumes value is realized through exchange only. We then survey the literature and find evidence to support this value paradox claim. We also find that the art economics research program does not adequately address the potentiality of the state using art as instrumental value and introduce political economy to factor in a self-interested state using art production as a means to reproduce and ideally expand state legitimacy and power in society. We then give two examples of art-statism in practice to illustrate the possibility of art’s instrumentality.

Cultural heritage destruction, acts that are carried out by both state and non-state actors, have accompanied violence towards people in all types of wars throughout human history. Used as a means to cause terror and to directly perpetuate harm on a particular group of people, heritage destruction ultimately erases the history of the people and denies them a future at the same time. Heritage destruction, as such, is a topic that is directly relevant for conflict and peace economics. Yet, economics literature on heritage destruction, especially during epochs of violence is scant at best. Presenting some examples of heritage destruction during mass atrocities, this chapter discusses how heritage destruction is related to causes, conduct, and consequences of violence. Doing so illustrates how heritage destruction could be incorporated in extant conflict and peace economics studies and their relevance for post-conflict reconstruction and violence prevention.

How should economists incorporate culture into their economic analysis? What empirical approaches to identifying, measuring, and analyzing the relationship between culture and economic action are most appropriate for economists? In particular, what can experimental economists learn from the methods of economic anthropologists, sociologists, and historians who study culture? We argue that while both quantitative and qualitative approaches can reveal interesting relationships between culture and economic actions/outcomes, especially in experimental research designs, qualitative methods help economists better understand people’s economic choices and the economic outcomes that emerge from those choices. This is because qualitative studies conceptualize culture as a pattern of meaning, take the relevant cultural data to be people’s thoughts and feelings, treat the market as a cultural phenomenon, and allow for novel explanations.

Culture shapes economic action and, as such, impacts economic life. Although there is a growing recognition amongst economists that culture matters, there is nothing approaching a universal agreement on how to incorporate culture into economic analysis. We provide a brief summary of how economists have discussed culture and then argue that Austrian School Economics is particularly well suited to contribute to our understanding of the relationship between culture and economic action. Indeed, Austrian economics has an advantage (1) because of its links to Max Weber’s approach to social science and (2) because of its emphasis on economics as a science of meaning. A Weber-inspired Austrian economics that stresses meaning, we argue, brings a focus on culture to the fore of economic analysis and opens the door for a progressive research program within cultural economics. Austrian economists can and have made significant contributions to our understanding of the relationship between culture and economic action. Moreover, we argue, explorations of the connection between culture and economic action can be a fruitful field of study within Austrian economics.

American radical economists in the 1960s perceived China under Maoism as an important experiment in creating a new society, aspects of which they hoped could serve as a model for the developing world. But the knowledge of “actually existing Maoism” was very limited due to the mutual isolation between China and the US. This chapter analyses the First Friendship Delegation of American Radical Political Economists (FFDARPE) to the People’s Republic of China in 1972, consisting mainly of Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) members, which was the first visit of a group of American economists to China since 1949. Based on interviews with trip participants as well as archival and published material, this chapter studies what we can learn about the engagement with Maoism by American radical economists from their dialogues with Chinese hosts, from their on-the-ground observations, and their reflection upon return. We show how the visitors’ own ideas conflicted and intersected with their perception of the Maoist practice on gender relations, workers’ management, and life in the communes. We also shed light on the diverging conceptions of the role for economic expertise between URPE and late Maoism. As the first in-depth study on the FFDARPE, we provide rich empirical insights into an ice-breaking event in the larger process of normalization in the Sino-US relations, which ultimately led to the disillusionment of the Left with China.

In line with the reappraisal of the welfare state concept started in the 1980s and culminated in the recent economic crisis, governments have reduced the public funding available to cultural institutions. Thus, cultural institutions have progressively adopted more market-oriented practices, rethinking their relationship with the world of business in order to get additional economic resources. This chapter addresses corporate support to the arts and culture in the case of Italy, a country where government has traditionally played a central role in supporting culture. Drawing on the extant literature on sponsorships and corporate philanthropy, we propose a cluster analysis carried out on 160 investments in artistic or cultural activities made by 95 mid-sized Italian companies between 2008 and 2015. Results provide an up-to-date empirical evidence of corporate giving patterns in Italy and suggest an original typology of business investments in the arts and culture. Our study, focusing on the case of a Latin country and on a sample of mid-sized companies, extends the empirical settings usually investigated. Moreover, different from previous studies, we elucidate the influence that the characteristics of supporting organizations have on business investments in the arts and culture.

The main purpose of this conceptual paper is drawing up a framework to assess the company responsibility regarding culture and fine arts. Since a rich cultural life requires variety and commitment to innovative and bold forms of cultural activity, the model should measure the corporate commitment to fostering axiological pluralism in the cultural sphere. A subordinate purpose is testing that model using primary data on the biggest Spanish listed companies. First, we define the corporate cultural responsibility (CCR) as a specific field of the corporate social responsibility. Second, we defend that corporate citizenship involves accepting some risks to be in line with the public expectations on arts and culture. Third, it is proposed an assessment model that takes into account the kind of cultural activities promoted by the firms, from conventional and uncommitted to innovative and provoking. The model makes possible to rank the companies according to the quality of their CCR and take into account the influence of size and sector. The model reveals whether firms support conventional versus challenging cultural activities. This should be taken into consideration both by CSR managers and policy makers. In spite of the mounting economic significance of symbols and creativity, there is still little literature that specifically addresses the role of firms regarding arts and culture as another facet of their responsibility as corporate citizens.

This chapter introduces the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Cultural Value Project and the ensuing legacy work. It suggests that this work has resulted in the re-positioning of the field of enquiry into cultural value by shifting attention away from policy constructs and towards lived experiences; away from measuring the outcomes of cultural participation and towards understanding the process of engagement. The challenge still remaining is to develop an empirically grounded pragmatist account of cultural value as a form of practice – a situated interface of agents, actions and structures taking place in an institutionalised and materially circumscribed environment. Reconceiving cultural value in these terms will have profound methodological implications, not least the challenge of finding methodologies appropriate to its analysis within the realm of historically and geographically variable relations and structures. It is, however, a challenge worth taking. The proposed shift, it is suggested, will provide a way of addressing some long-standing ‘problems’ arising in relation to cultural value: the separation of conditions and consciousness; the overemphasis on the cognitive at the cost of the bodily; the separation between ‘the best and the brightest’ and the ‘everyday’ conceptions of culture. The proposed approach may also drive the refinement of flat(ter)-ontology methodologies which neither succumb to methodological individualism nor overemphasise methodological structuralism.