میراث فرهنگی به عنوان اقتصاد خوب چند بعدی، چند ارزشی و چند مشخصه ای : به سوی یک چارچوب جدید برای تجزیه و تحلیل ارزیابی و اقتصادی

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.

The paper is divided into three sections. The first part addresses the notion of merit good and merit wants as developed since the original suggestion given by Musgrave, 1956 and Musgrave, 1959 up to the recent contributions. The section is then devoted to surveying the literature on merit good, focussing on both neo-classic and more unconventional contributions (Bekemans, 1989). By critically analysing the literature, I will show how merit good can be included as one of the determinant elements of the “economic” definition of cultural good. The analysis builds upon the comprehensive contribution on merit goods presented by Bariletti (1993). The second section, building up on the multi-dimensional framework, defines cultural good as multi-attributes stocks providing multi-value services and functions. This allows setting up a conceptual environment where cultural heritage is classified as a multi-dimensional, multi-attribute and multi-value economic resource. The last section concludes giving some suggestions for future research, concerning the analysis and valuation of benefits deriving from cultural consumption. Most particularly, I will attempt to define the extent to which the framework here developed provides a new basis for valuing (i) cultural goods as non-homogenous economic resources, defined by a set of services and functions (“the supply side” of the market); (ii) infra- and inter-generational values, concerning and linked with the “merit good” dimension of cultural good. On such a basis, evaluation techniques specifically devoted to measuring benefits (“demands”) for goods, as conceptually disaggregated by services and defined over a spectrum of use and non-values, are suggested, in order to study cultural “markets” and reveal people preferences. The valuation of attributes and specification of different dimension of value is also relevant to the policy making and to the regulatory process. The necessity of valuing demands arises in order to develop institutions along a path where supply and demand are jointly expanding ( Darnell, 1998). Understanding how people perceive single components of value, the measurement of benefits received by whoever consumes the good, and the trade off between functions and services of cultural capital, seem to be main important issues. Further more, knowledge and measurement (and eventually capture) of non-use components of value, both “pure” non-use and “merit good” non-use, is relevant to make explicit the total value of the cultural activities and to set up a balanced, rational, financing mechanism.

The paper attempts to set up a new conceptual framework for addressing, on a theoretical and applied basis, relevant economic issues concerning cultural heritage policies and the associated valuation of the flow of benefits arising from the cultural stock of capital. The environment wherein cultural goods are ideally defined is: • Multi-dimensional, to the extent that characteristics of merit, public and mixed good are shown to exist consistently with economic theory. • Multi-attribute, to the extent that an heterogeneous flow of services and functions characterises cultural markets. • Multi-value, to the extent that services and functions are associated to a wide spectrum of personal and inter-personal value benefits, ranging from use to non-use, and from “egoistic” to “altruistic”. Some implications arise. The conceptual definition of cultural services (supplied by institutions) I have attempted to establish provides a first basis for exploring new applications and techniques concerning the valuation of cultural demands. I argue that economic valuation should attempt to explore new routes beyond extensively applied revealed and stated preference techniques (respectively travel cost method and contingent valuation markets). The valuation paradigm can be enriched. The main scope is to go “beyond” holistic valuation, by: (i) enlarging the set of stated preference evaluation tools, structuring analysis on a multi-attribute, multi-value framework; (ii) establishing an evaluation set of tools specifically shaped for addressing cultural economic issues. In order to achieve this purpose, we need theoretically consistent and sound empirical inquiry, explicitly aimed at assessing the relative weaknesses and potentialities of different evaluation techniques for cultural goods. CM is arising as the most promising and most consistent with cultural goods defined as multi-dimensional, multi-attributes and multi-values economic resources. The aim is to comprehensively measure the complex set of values, which characterises cultural good use (from use to different non-use motivations), and to measure them analytically rather than holistically, with the aim to provide some new instruments to policy making 56 and economic analysis. This is necessary, although (I honestly remark) not sufficient, to inform and establish sound policies for the “best value” of cultural institutions. 57