Cultural Districts, Property Rights and Sustainable Economic Growth

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyse the economic properties as well as the institutions governing the start-up and evolution of cultural districts. The first part of the article reviews the relationships between culture, viewed as an idiosyncratic good, and the theory of industrial districts. The second part comprises a critical discussion of four models of cultural districts: the "industrial cultural district" (mainly based on positive externalities, localized culture and traditions in 'arts and crafts'); the "institutional cultural district" (chiefly relying on the assignment of property rights); the "museums cultural district" (based on network externalities and the search for optimal size); and the "metropolitan cultural district" (based on communication technologies, performing arts and electronic trade). The assignment of intellectual property rights to local idiosyncratic cultural goods seems to be the most significant way to differentiate among cultural districts. The final section discusses a possible convergence of all district models towards the institutional district, based on the creation of a system of property rights as a means to protect localized production. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.

How US cultural districts reshape neighbourhoods

“…While I consider only the US experience here, Santagata (2002) provides an excellent general introduction in the global phenomenon. Cultural districts overlap and are embedded within broader notions of "cultural clusters" and "creative placemaking" discussed at length elsewhere (e.g., Stern andSeifert 2010, Markusen andGadwa 2010b).…”

“…This narrower scope -US cultural districts -is empirically tractable while representing a substantial cultural trend in its own right. Districts can cultivate activities at three levels: primary cultural facilities and producers (e.g., museums, theatres, studios), secondary producers (e.g., arts and crafts workshops, music and movie studios), and complementary producers (e.g., gift shops, restaurants, hotels) (Santagata 2002). Which levels are favored varies across districts.…”

“…At some point, a community can organise to capture, protect, and cultivate the shared value in local cultural production (Santagata 2002). Successful arts districts exhibit robust coalitions that span traditional boundaries, as governments, nonprofits, and business communities collaborate in its operation (Brooks and Kushner 2001).…”

“…The omission of these districts ultimately weeds out the most minor or dubious cases as well as ones that actually disappeared. There is a risk of failure in these kinds of efforts (Santagata 2002 . The average year formed for districts in the sample is 1995, although some are much older.…”

Culture and human capital in a two-sector endogenous growth model

“…7 See, among others, Scott, 2000;Santagata, 2002;Florida, 2002Florida, , 2005. This is done in order to support our claim that, in a complementarity relation with human capital accumulation, cultural capital investment may be a key element in sustaining balanced, long-run economic growth.…”