Abstract
This chapter analyses the evolution of public spending for culture, in front of institutional changes, specifically decentralization processes, and fiscal consolidation policies, taking Italy over the period 1996–2012 as a case study. The case of Italy is representative of the top-down, state-driven model of public support to culture, even if increased autonomy has been attributed to local subjects in recent times. We pay attention to the role of different government layers and to differences across regions, with a focus on what happened during the years of the so-called ‘Great Recession’ (2008–12). Particular aspects of spending for culture, as compared to the whole of public spending, do emerge, as well as the link with the dynamics of aggregate income.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We are referring, for example, to the reforms of museums which have taken place in Italy over the last years: starting from 2009, different administrative acts have been adopted (till to the comprehensive reform in 2014 which takes the name from the current Minister for Culture, Franceschini), to provide state museums with a larger degree of managerial and technical-scientific autonomy. The reforms aim to simplify administration, to promote innovation and to enhance the valorisation of the specific endowment of museums.
- 2.
Expenditure for culture include public funds for heritage, museums and monuments, historical gardens, libraries, cultural centres; cinema, theatre and music; leisure and sport without commercial or tourist scope. Thus, the entries are rather heterogeneous, and culture has to be interpreted in a broad sense.
- 3.
In Italy, a number of public firms have been privatized over the last decades—but they have remained under a public control. These entities are included in the public sector in a broad sense, and RPA takes them into account. Similarly, in several cases, local administrations have created firms to manage local public services. Even if these firms are formally private, they are included in the broad public sector by RPA, as long as public administrations control them and generally appoint the managerial structures.
- 4.
The North-Western regions include Piemonte, Valdaosta, Lombardia and Liguria, representing about the 32 % of Italian GDP and 26 % of population, with an income per capita larger than 1.22 times the average national datum (data are referred to 2008); the North-Eastern regions include Emilia R., Veneto, Trentino A.A., Friuli V.G., representing 23 % of GDP and 19 % of population, with income per capita 1.18 times the national datum; the Central regions are Toscana, Marche, Umbria and Lazio (21 % of GDP, 19 % of population, with income per capita 1.05); the Southern regions are Abruzzo. Molise, Campania, Puglia, Basilicata and Calabria (23 % of population but less than 16 % of GDP, with income per capita equal to 0.66 times the national datum); the Islands are Sicilia and Sardegna (7 % of GDP and 12 % of population), with income per capita, in relation to the national datum, similar to the South. The aggregation of Southern regions and Islands is also called Mezzogiorno.
- 5.
For instance Guccio and Mazza (2014) document that the allocation of funding for cultural heritage conservation activities in Sicily for the period 1992–2002 was politically motivated and influenced by the prominence of representatives of the ruling coalition in a district and the loyalty of voters to the main party. See also Mazza (2011).
- 6.
The situation is substantially similar, if the share for personnel is evaluated with reference to spending in current account, instead of considering the total amount of spending.
- 7.
In this exercise, all variables are considered in nominal, aggregate terms. The GDP has been built by applying to the series in real terms, provided by CRENoS, the national IACP series provided by Istat.
- 8.
The results concerning elasticity coefficients are substantially identical if the independent variable is considered in lagged value.
References
AA. VV. (2013) I flussi finanziari pubblici nel settore Cultura e Servizi ricreativi in Italia. Dipartimento per lo sviluppo e la Coesione Economica, Roma
ACRI—Associazione delle Casse di Risparmio Italiane (2013) Diciottesimo rapporto sulle fondazioni di origine bancaria—Anno 2012. ACRI, Roma
Cellini R, Scorcu AE (1997) How many Italies? Rassegna lavori dell’ISCO 13:93–124
Cellini R, Torrisi G (2013) Regional public spending for tourism in Italy: an empirical analysis. Tourism Econ 19:1361–1384
Copic V, Inkei P, Kangas A, Srakar A (2013) Trends in public funding for culture in the EU. European Expert Network on Culture (EENC) Report, Brussels
Council of Europe (2014) Compendium of cultural policies and trends in Europe (15th edition). http://www.culturalpolicies.net. Accessed 30 January 2016
Cuccia T, Rizzo I (2015) Less might be better: sustainable funding strategies for cultural producers. City Cult Soc. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2015.07.002
Cuccia T, Monaco L, Rizzo I (2015) Are less public funds bad? New financial strategies for cultural operators. MPRA wp64782. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/64782/1/MPRA_paper_64782.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
Daniele V, Malanima P (2007) Il prodotto delle regioni e il divario Nord-Sud in Italia 1861-2004. Rivista di Politica Economica 97:267–316
Felice E (2011) The determinants of Italy’s regional imbalances over the long run: exploring the contributions of human and social capital. Oxford University Economic and Social History working paper series n 088. Nuffield College, Oxford University
Felice E, Vecchi G (2013) Italy’s growth and decline, 1861-2011. CEIS Research Paper 293
Granger CWJ (1988) Some recent developments in a concept of causality. J Econ 39:199–211
Guccio C, Mazza I (2014) On the political determinants of the allocation of funds to heritage authorities. Eur J Polit Econ 34:18–38
Istat (2014) Annuario statistico Italiano 2013. Istat, Roma
Marrelli M, Fiorentino P (2016) Cultural commons and local art markets: zero-miles contemporary art in Naples. Cult City Soc 7(2):117–122. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2015.12.002
Mazza I (2011) Public choice. In: Towse R (ed) A handbook of cultural economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 362–389
Paci R, Pigliaru F (1997) Structural change and convergence: an Italian regional perspective. Struct Change Econ Dynam 8:297–318
Peacock AT (1961) The growth of public spending in the United Kingdom. NBER, Washington, DC
Peacock AT (2000) Public financing of the arts in England. Fiscal Stud 21:171–205
Peacock AT (2006) The arts and economic policy. In: Ginsburgh VA, Throsby D (eds) Handbook of the economics of art and culture. Elsevier, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1123–1140
Peacock AT (2007) The credibility of cultural economists’ advice to Governments. In: Towse R (ed) Recent developments in cultural economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 60–73
Peacock AT, Wiseman J (1979) Approaches to the analysis of government expenditure growth. Publ Finance Rev 7:3–23
Trigilia C (2012) Why the Italian Mezzogiorno did not achieve a sustainable growth: social capital and political constraints. Cambio 2:137–148
Trupiano G (ed) (2015) La finanza della cultura: La spesa, il finanziamento, la tassazione. TrE, Rome
Van der Ploeg F (2006) The making of cultural policy: a European perspective. In: Ginsburgh VA, Throsby D (eds) Handbook of the economics of art and culture. Elsevier–North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1183–1221
Volpe M (2015) I flussi finanziari pubblici nel settore della cultura e dei servizi ricreativi a livello regionale. In: Trupiano G (ed) La finanza della cultura: La spesa, il finanziamento, la tassazione. TrE, Roma, pp 25–36
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
(a) Total public expenditure, in nominal and real terms; (b) share of total public expenditure in GDP. Figure is based on data from CPT
(a) Public expenditure for culture, in nominal and real terms; (b) share of public expenditure for culture in GDP and in total public expenditure. Figure is based on data from CPT
(a) Pattern of total public expenditure in territorial areas; (b) pattern of public expenditure for culture in territorial areas. Figure is based on data from CPT
The share of public expenditure for culture in share of total public expenditure, territorial areas. Figure is based on data from CPT
(a) Public expenditure per in per-capita terms; (b) public expenditure for culture per in per-capita terms. Figure is based on data from CPT
Shares of central, regional, local government and public firms—(a) total public expenditure and (b) public expenditure for culture. Figure is based on data from CPT
Pattern of public expenditure, in current account and in capital account, and expenditure for personnel—for (a) total public expenditure, and (b) public expenditure for culture. Figure is based on data from CPT
The share of expenditure in capital account—total public expenditure and public expenditure for culture. Figure is based on data from CPT
The share of expenditure for personnel in public expenditure. Figure is based on data from CPT
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cellini, R., Cuccia, T. (2016). The Public Spending for Culture in the Face of Decentralization Processes and Economic Recession: The Case of Italy. In: Rizzo, I., Towse, R. (eds) The Artful Economist. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40637-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40637-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40635-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40637-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)