This is the published version
Witcomb, Andrea 2010, Book review: The Heritage Game: Economics, Policy
and Practice by Alan Peacock and Ilde Rizzo, International journal of arts
management, vol. 12, no. 3, Spring 2010, pp. 80-81.
Available from Deakin Research Online
http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30067867
Reproduced with the kind permission of the copyright owner
Copyright: 2010, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales
HEC - Montréal - Chair of Arts Management
The Heritage Game: Economics, Policy and Practice by Alan Peacock; Ilde Rizzo
Review by: Andrea Witcomb
International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 12, No. 3 (SPRING 2010), pp. 80-81
Published by: HEC - Montréal - Chair of Arts Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41065030 .
Accessed: 26/11/2014 23:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
HEC - Montréal - Chair of Arts Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to International Journal of Arts Management.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.184.132.73 on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:03:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BookReview
cover
followsI shalltryto briefly
both the lessonsand the frustrations.
The Heritage Game:
Economics, Policy and
Practice
Alan Peacock and llde Rizzo
Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press,2008
209 pages
ISBN 978-0-19-921 31 7-7
Hardback
Writtenby two leadingcultural
economists,TheHeritageGameis
of thevaria forceful
exploration
thatcan be made
ous arguments
in cultural
forpublicinvestment
from
an
economist's
point
heritage
of view. Its main focus is the
valueofeconomicanalysisforthe
and implementation
formulation
of heritagepolicy.Consequently,
theauthorsdeal withissuessuch
economicreasons
as establishing
forpublicintervention,
evaluating
the demand forheritage,investmentand performance
appraisal,
betweenheriandtherelationships
and theeconomy.
tageinstitutions
the
way,theydebunkthe
Along
withintheheritage
over-emphasis
on professional
profession
judgementas thebasisforrationalizing
the need forpublic investment,
arguingthatthiscarriesno favour
and politiamongstpolicy-makers
ciansandonlymakestheprofession
themselves
lookelitist.Positioning
the
as friends
ofculturalheritage,
authorswant to demonstrateto
museum directors,historic-site
managersand CEOs of various
heritagebodies that economics
which
a sounder
basefrom
provides
forpublic
to makethearguments
supportof culturalheritage.As
theyputit,theythoughtit"worth
to curethe'dialogueofthe
trying
arises
deaf thatall too frequently
of
froma lack of understanding
to
whateconomicscan contribute
culturalheritage
policy"(p. x). As
one suchdeafperson,I tookfrom
the book a numberof salutary
lessons.I also tookfromita numand in what
ber of frustrations,
gQ
The mostsalutaryreadingwas
in the firstfew chapters,where
I began to appreciatejust how
difficult
itis to gethardeconomic
indusdataon thecultural
heritage
let
level
of
at
try any
government,
alone data thatmightbear interNot thatthe
nationalcomparison.
is
the
problem
heritageindustry's
alone, forthe faultlies as much
in the lack of a common set of
formeasurement
between
criteria
as
bureaucracies
government
museumsand
betweendifferent
heritagesites or organizations.
Thereis no doubt,as theauthors
argue,thatwe areverybad atkeeping statisticsthat mightinform
forpublicfunding
ourarguments
based on the abilityto pinpoint
of
therealeconomiccontribution
theheritageindustry.
Figuresare
hiddenwithinthegeneralstatistics
fora rangeof industries,
includleisure
ingthecreativeindustries,
or forgovernment
and recreation,
bureaucraciesnot usuallyassociated withculturalheritage- for
example, transportor military
museumsembeddedin particular
It is a
departments.
government
taskto gatherthosefigdifficult
ures together,
let alone establish
them.There
between
equivalences
is also the public/private
divide,
whichmakesit hardto aggregate
the total value of the cultural
giventhatthese
heritageindustry
finansectorsanswerto different
These problems
cial imperatives.
are made more difficultby the
as
lack of an agreedterminology
well as the natureof the labour
ofwhich
force,a largeproportion
is made up of volunteerswhose
cannot be
financialcontribution
there
is no
because
quantified
These
so.
for
method
doing
agreed
make it impossibleto
difficulties
establisha nationalpictureofthe
economic contributionof heritage,letalonedevelopinternational
comparisons between Western
countries.Gettinga global pictureis wellnighimpossible.
Peacock and Rizzo seek to
demonstrateboth the need to
and the
addressthesedifficulties
valueofdoingso. Thus theyshow
the value of variousmethodologiesforspecifictasks,suchas the
ValuationMethodfor
Contingent
thedemandforheriestablishing
thatthisdemand
tage,recognizing
cannot be simplymeasured by
box officesuccess but includes
what economiststerm non-use
values. They also show that a
basicgraspofeconomicscan help
one to understandthe various
stylesof public interventionin
fromoutthe heritageindustry,
rightfull public subsidy(almost
in Westerncountries)
non-existent
to no intervention
at all,leavingit
to marketforcesto shapethefield.
As a lessonin how governments
approachthequestion,Chapter8,
The Practiceof Public Intervention,is invaluable.
While findingwaysto establishwhatthe cost-benefit
forthe
heritageindustrymightbe is an
importantand usefulcorrection
to the over-emphasis
on professionaljudgementas the basis for
thereare some
decision-making,
serious limitationsarisingfrom
the frameof the book and the
scope of its analysis.The narrow
focus on developingarguments
thatmightcurryfavourwithpolreflects
iticiansand policy-makers
of what
a narrowunderstanding
shouldbe countedin as economic
value.The argumentsare mostly
playedout in termsofaccounting
forbroadpublicsupportforpubIn their
in heritage.
lic investment
desirefora moredemocraticbasis
than
forpublic decision-making
the elitism of connoisseurship,
the authorsfail to engage with
in theheritageand
developments
museologyfields themselvesas
well as thosewithinpublicsector
policy.The economicfocussugin
lackofinterest
gestsa worrying
engagingin suchbasicdiscussions
of heritageto
as thecontribution
the tourismindustrybeyond a
level.There is, furrudimentary
Ifyouwishto haveyour
book reviewedinthe
International
Journal
ofArts
please send
Management,
one copyto the Book
ReviewEditor:
Jennifer
Professor
Radbourne
Head
School ofCommunication
and CreativeArts
FacultyofArts
DeakinUniversity
221 BurwoodHighway
Burwood,Victoria3125
Australia
Phone:61-3-92446559
Fax:61-3-92517635
Mob: 0448 81 1155
E-mail:j.radbourne@deakin.
edu.au
INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF ARTS MANAGEMENT
This content downloaded from 128.184.132.73 on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:03:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
omistscould workawayat these
thermore,no engagementwith
one of the issuesthathas always problems,ratherthan at simply
madeitdifficult
to getpublicsuphow to reflecteitherbox office
interport for heritage-listing
regimes appeal or theirdisciplinary
that carrylegal consequencespretationof non-use value in
the perceptionthatheritagelist- public policy,theircontribution
wouldbe thegreater.
ing has a negativeimpact on
values.Somedecentanalproperty
Withtheseissuesin mind,itis
ysisof whetheror not thisis so,
to knowwho thebook is
and of whetherlistingincreases difficult
aimedat. Despitetheauthors'
clear
value,would be extremely
helpdesire
to
address
it
to
ful.While thereis somerecognimanagersof
sitesand museum
tion that economicvalue might culturalheritage
culturalheritage
directors,
experts
includenon-usevalues,whichthe
arelikelyto findthatitsapproach
authorsdefinefroman economic
to heritageissuesis at a basiclevel
as existence,
perspective
optionand
and to findits advocacyof culbequestvalues,thereare manyof
and
turaleconomicsunconvincing
us who would arguefora much
rathertedious. Few economists
ofthesigbroaderunderstanding
and those
willhavemuchinterest,
nificanceofheritageto society.
in
the
econominterested
already
ics of culturewill have littleto
A more disappointingaspect
of theworkfromthe perspective learnfromit.Publicpolicy-makers
ofone ofthosedeafpeopleis that
mayfinditofmoreuse,although
most are alreadywell versedin
no attemptwas made to add an
to some of
economicperspective
polusingeconomicsto determine
the mostimportantdebatesnow
icy.Whatwouldbe ofmostuse to
ofother
themis a clearexplanation
takingplace withinthe museum
sources of value in relationto
and heritagefields- debatesthat
have nothingto do withthe traheritageso that theycan make
ofthe
ditionalfieldsofconnoisseurship. morethoroughassessments
value of heritageas a publicpolTwo of thesewill serveto illussuch as forenviicy instrument,
is thegrowingrectrate.The first
issues.
ronmental
and
social
of
ognitionthattheconservation
our heritagefabricmaywellhave
and
The book is informative
a roleto playin the need to find
but its old-fashioned
helpful,
sustainable building practices.
field
oftheheritage
understanding
Could therebe an economicvalue,
hindersit fromengagingmore
fromthepointofviewofsustainusefullywith the ways in which
abilityand the need to address economic
analysismightcontribglobalwarming,in findingways
of the heritage
ute to the efforts
to recycleand adapt our built
to playa morevitalrole
industry
Can economistshelpus
heritage?
whatthatvaluemight
to identify
Andrea Witcomb
be? The second comes fromthe
AssociateProfessor
on thepartof
CulturalHeritageCentrefor
increasinginterest
in
the
value of the
Asia and thePacific
policy-makers
in
social
Deakin University
industry building
heritage
cohesion.In Britainalone,which
Australia
is thebase of one of the authors,
therehas beenintensedebateover
the increasinglyinstrumentalist
public policy that expects the
Gallery,LibraryAnd Museum
(GLAM) sectorto addresssocial
in the
and economicdisadvantage
bid to increasesocial cohesion.
Can economistsdevelopa methodologyforestimatingthe value
ofthesectorscontribution
tosocial
cohesionvia the ways in which
theyadd to both social capital
and socialvalue?IfculturaleconVOLUME 12, NUMBER 3 · SPRING 2010
This content downloaded from 128.184.132.73 on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:03:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
81