Search results

This paper develops the issue of funding from a first paper “Conservation finance 1: support for historic buildings”), which highlighted specific measures in use including direct grant aid, low‐interest loans, fiscal relief, tax credits, the transference of development rights with associated funding measures and compensation schemes. Further consideration is given to other avenues for raising finance in support of the built heritage from public and also other sources as a part of the process of developing integrated conservation strategies (such as via foundations, lotteries, revolving funds and non‐profit organisations, combining methods of financing for individual properties including for housing rehabilitation and through area‐based schemes). Taken together, the two papers examine different approaches to funding the built heritage by reference to practice in western Europe and North America.

Throughout Europe there is an ever‐increasing number of properties or areas protected due to their cultural heritage interest. This results in obligations for owners (duties to maintain, keep in good repair, etc.). However, it is generally accepted that laws and policies must provide positive incentives as well as the negative controls in order to successfully preserve and use this heritage. In the UK there is now a well‐developed system of grant aid and a few fiscal measures but demand for assistance outweighs supply. In Ireland a limited amount of financial support measures have recently been provided. Looking further afield, this study examines the need for developing specific measures according to European policy and identifies practice in European Union countries and North America in relation to grant assistance, loans, fiscal and compensation measures. A second paper will examine economic arguments and methods of combining support to sustain the built heritage.

American federalism permits the states a good deal of latitude for action, and, at the same time, the federal government can exercise control through both mandates and the use of its financial powers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal relationship was strained not only because of the sheer magnitude of the crisis but also because of political conflicts between the federal government and some of the states. During the Trump administration, the federal government initially denied the importance of the pandemic, and then (except for encouraging the development of vaccines) did little to support the states or citizens in fighting the virus. The Biden administration, on the other hand, was active in distributing the vaccine and in supporting other responses to the pandemic. The pandemic also exposed the underlying weaknesses in the public health system of the United States and the extent to which years of conflict between levels of government have reduced effective cooperation, even in times of crisis.