Culture and smart growth: A perspective for the 2014-20 structural funds cycle

PIER LUIGI SACCO

Professor of Cultural Economics

IULM University Milan

Director

Siena 2019 ECoC bid

Culture in the 2014-20 structural funds perspective

• Culture may be a key source of competitive advantage if it is conceived as a main platform of smart growth

• Especially in the Mediterranean countries, the emphasis has been almost exclusively placed on the complementarity between culture and tourism – and this is clearly reflected in the Operational Programs of EU MED Regions

• While this is a legitimate and important field, one has to understand that the social and economic role of culture goes much beyond entertainment and leisure, and touches upon the most various sectors

• The structural funds perspective is an ideal one to pursue these new strategic complementarities within a common, coherent approach

• The key aspect is the level and quality of cultural participation

The structure of the cultural and creative macro-sector

• Non-industrial core

Visual arts

Performing arts

Heritage, museums and archives

• Cultural industries

Publishing

Cinema

Music

Radio-tv

Videogames

• Creative industries

Design

Fashion

Industry of taste

Architecture

Communication

• Digital platforms

Culture: direct vs. indirect impacts

• The remarkable growth and success of cultural and creative industries in the last decade has brought considerable attention upon the direct economic impact of cultural production

• In order to maintain a proper and effective developmental approach, however, we need a conceptual scheme that allows us to understand (and capitalize) the indirect socio-economic effects of cultural production

• Also, we have to keep into account that the new paradigms of cultural production do not necessarily use the market as the value-generating platform (communities of practice)

From Culture 1.0 to Culture 3.0

From Culture 1.0 to 3.0

• 1.0: pre-industrial, small audiences, absorbs resources but does not generate turnover, author/craftsman; at the end of the value chain

• First major revolution: technologies that enhance reproducibility and demand

• 2.0: cultural industry, large audiences, generates turnover, author vs. audience, a specific sector of the economy (a specific value chain)

• Second major revolution: technologies that enhance participation and production

• 3.0: communities of practice and not only markets, generates turnover but also indirect non-market value, prosumers and user generated content, a pervasive dimension that permeates the whole economy (culturalization of the economy and culturally mediated value); at the root of the value chain

An 8-tiers approach to the indirect effects of cultural production (and participation)

• Innovation

• Welfare

• Sustainability

• Social cohesion

• New entrepreneurship

• Soft power

• Local identity

• Knowledge economy

Innovation

Ranking Innovation Scoreboard 2008

(UE15)

1 Sweden

2 Finland

3 Denmark

4 Germany

5 Netherlands

6 France

7 Austria

8 UK

9 Belgium

10 Luxemburg

(UE27 average)

11 Ireland

12 Spain

13 Italy

14 Portugal

15 Greece

Ranking Active cultural participation Eurobarometer 2007 (UE15)

1 Sweden

2 Luxemburg

3 Finland

4 France

5 Denmark

6 Netherlands

7 Belgium

8 Germany

9 UK

10 Austria

(UE27 average)

11 Ireland

12 Italy

13 Spain

14 Greece

15 Portugal

Culture as a pre-innovation platform?

Culture as a ‘pre-innovation’ platform

Active cultural participation stimulates the capability building of people in terms of attitudes toward the un-experienced:

• questioning one’s beliefs and world views,

• getting acquainted with, and assigning value to, cultural diversity,

• learning to appreciate the transformational impact of new ideas,

• building new expressive and conceptual skills…

Strong link with innovation systems

Speaking of impact…

• In terms of macroeconomic impact, the indirect impact of active cultural participation in terms of innovation could be as relevant as the direct one of the cultural and creative industries’ turnover;

• Moreover, it may have effects on all sectors;

• It is likely to be even more important in terms of securing the long-term competitiveness of the economy

• We may look at national/regional systems of innovation from a new perspective

Welfare

• There is a strong statistical association between life expectancy and cultural participation (Konlaan et al, 2000)

• There is an equally strong association between cultural participation and psychological well-being (The Italian culture and well-being study, IULM/Bracco)

Hierarchy of factors affecting psychological well-being

Hierarchy of factors affecting psychological well-being

1 Diseases

2 Cultural participation

3 Income

4 Age

5 Education

6 Gender

7 Job

8 Geography

Classical music concerts

Theatre

Which single variables have the strongest impact on SWB?

Towards a cultural welfare perspective?

Towards a cultural welfare perspective?

• The well-being impact of cultural participation is especially strong among the severely ill and the elderly

• Systematic cultural participation in these categories might bring about substantial improvement in their quality of life

• At the same time, cultural participation might significantly reduce hospitalization frequency and duration for chronic pathologies

• If this is true, the whole program could be financed through the consequential saving on general welfare costs

Sustainability

• There is a strong relationship between performance of differentiated waste recycling systems and cultural participation (Crociata, Lilla and Sacco, 2011): the cognitive development from cultural participation spills over to motivation and ability to classify different waste items

• An indirect systemic effect similar to the innovation one in fostering awareness toward the consequences of individual behaviors for the environmental common good (Agenda 21): from innovation systems to sustainability systems?

Cultural access and waste recycling

Does culture improve recycling?

Does culture improve recycling?

• The answer is yes: people with access to cultural experiences recycle more, no matter whether recycle bins are close to or far away from home: not only better capacity, but also better motivation

• There is a statistically significant causal relationship from cultural attitudes to recycling habits

• The same mechanisms are likely to work also for other forms of environmental responsibility (reduced use of pollutants, resort to ‘green’ mobility networks, etcetera) more ongoing research

In a nutshell…

• Culture is not simply a large and important sector of the economy, it is a ‘social software’ that is badly needed to manage the complexity of contemporary societies and economies in all of its manifold implications

• The total indirect macroeconomic impact of cultural participation is likely to be much bigger than the (already remarkable) direct one

• Once we become able to measure the indirect effects of culture on the various dimensions (to ‘capitalize’ culture), it will be possible to bring cultural policy at the top ranks of the policy agenda

• These effects are further strengthened by the growth of the cultural and creative industries, but only insofar as such growth is as inclusive and participative as possible

Thanks!

pierluigi.sacco@iulm.it

@PierLuigiSacco