I contributed a version of this in January to the DCMS priceless blog on Cultural Value so I thought I’d post it again here to keep the debate going.
This is a timely and interesting discussion to have a phase two of the debate on cultural value.
The arts and cultural sector has too long been tied to the cultural economics agenda (and I understand why) but now there is an opportunity to think more widely about culture.
Is it the value of culture or cultural value we should be interested in?
Value absolutely exists in the cultural industries, and thus we need to take account of the triple bottom line, but as some have suggested maybe the quadruple bottom line should be considered now. This should include the social impact of culture on individuals, industry and society.
I think trying to measure cultural impact and the concomitant indicators assigned to this is well debated (by some commentators on the DCMS blog). Perhaps we should be trying to capture Cultural value instead of just measuring it. Thus, taking account of social, well-being, lifestyle benefits, etc., to towns and cities by investing in Culture. You invest in people, places, infrastructure and attract inward investment, international recognition, stop brain drain to other areas, and lastly create a leverage through cultural planning that lasts well beyond the initial investments.
Thus, is it possible to create a model of Capturing Cultural Value, that looks at social indicators and social capital from a qualitative perspective and takes us beyond the Treasury’s Green Book template? However, I’m not sure those responsible for evaluation, analysis, measurement and capture are quite ready to take that step. Over to you.
Gayle McPherson 