From a Given to a Construct

An Economic Analysis of Heritage as Commons: Reflections on Theory, Methodology and Social Imagery

“…Therefore, according to the rationality theorem, heritage resources are caught in social dilemmas, defined as situations where it is individually preferable to pursue one's personal interests instead of contributing to the commons' collective provision. This might hold especially true when social agents do not directly use heritage (as in the case of alienated communities) or when they can reap heritage-induced profits by free-riding (as in the case of tourism entrepreneurs; see Gonzalez 2014). Apart from limited incentives to invest in the maintenance and enhancement of heritage commons, the feature of rivalry, entailing the existence of certain interests pushing for heritage appropriations that clash with the uses and values of other interest groups, bears the inherent risk of excessive exploitation, overdevelopment and over-extraction of value (Briassoulis 2002).…”

Situating the local in global cultural policy

“…This work has been accompanied by growing rhetoric and advocacy for co-production and citizen-led as well as participatory governance structures (Jancovich, 2015). Many welcome these potentially more democratic approaches and the possibility of a commons of cultural assets, infrastructure, resources and knowledge (Gonzalez, 2014;Ostrom, 1990). However, questions equally abound about the application and implications of such approaches, which may weaken local power and decision making by replacing governmental policy (either at a local or national scale) with a neo-liberal governance model, which might perpetuate uneven distribution of resources by placing responsibility for development on already under-resourced communities (Davoudi & Madanipour, 2015;Mohan & Stokke, 2000).…”

ParticiPat: Exploring the Impact of Participatory Governance in the Heritage Field

“…This adaptation is connected to the emergence of “community heritage” (Waterton and Watson ), “participatory museums” (Simon ), “participative mapping” (Risler and Ares ), “public archaeology” (Schadla‐Hall ), “public history” (Ashton and Kean ), “communitarian archaeology” (Merriman ), or “public folklore” (Baron and Spitzer ). The so‐called critical heritage studies have in turn identified the fractures derived from systems of heritage management, which often lead to patronizing attitudes that divide communities, scholars, technicians, and heritage institutions (Alonso González ; Sánchez‐Carretero ). Instead of leading to the desired outcomes imagined in EU reports, heritage management frequently reproduces social divisions and exclusions, and experts often find themselves needing to “educate” people in heritage values and to initiate them in the “heritage crusade” (Lowenthal ).…”