Advertisement

Journal of Cultural Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 211–245 | Cite as

Measuring emotion through quality: evaluating the musical repertoires of Spanish symphony orchestras

  • Mafalda Gómez-Vega
  • Luis César Herrero-PrietoEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Repertoire programming decisions taken by symphony orchestra managers usually pursue a mixture of aims embracing both quality and audience success, but are influenced by various factors. Our goal is to assess the quality of the repertoire of Spanish symphony orchestras and to gauge the impact of a series of external variables on the programming decisions. We take a sample of 20 professional symphony orchestras covering a homogenous period from 2014 to 2017. First, we summarise the quality in the repertoires through three partial indices (contemporaneity, most well-known composers and conventionality) before constructing a composite quality indicator using Data Envelopment Analysis. Second, we use regression analysis to examine the effect on the programme quality of various external variables, some related to the internal management of the orchestras, others addressing the socio-economic contextual aspects of the area in which they are located. We also carried out a cluster analysis to identify the most frequent programming strategies. We find there are two programming strategies, ranging from novelty and risk to more stable and safe repertoires based on well-known composers. The quality of orchestras is linked to longer seasons, how young these institutions are, and their being located in Madrid, whereas the most conventional programmes correspond to longer-standing orchestras located in areas with older populations and lower levels of education.

Keywords

Symphonic orchestras Repertoires evaluation Synthetic index of quality Data envelopment analysis Cluster analysis 

JEL Classification

Z11 C14 L31 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the referee and participants at the 8th European Workshop on Applied Cultural Economics as well as the participants at the Research Seminars of the Department of Applied Economics II at the Universidad de Valencia for their comments and discussion on a preliminary version of the paper. We also wish to thank the two anonymous referees of the Journal for their comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Compliance with ethical standard

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbé-Decarroux, F. (1990). La Demande de Services Culturels: une Analyse Économique. Unpublished PhD thesis, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  2. Abbé-Decarroux, F. (1994). The perception of quality and the demand for services empirical application to the performing arts. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 23(1), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertaux, N., Skeirik, K., & Yi, D. (2015). Art music and the economy: the modernity index and the cincinnati symphony Orchestra, 1895–2013. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 9(4), 376–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowen, H. P., Moesen, W., & Sleuwaegen, L. (2008). A compositive index of the creative economy. Review of Business and Economics, 54(4), 375–397.Google Scholar
  5. Castañer, X., & Campos, L. (2002). The determinants of artistic innovation: Bringing in the role of organizations. Journal of Cultural Economics, 26(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Despotis, D. K. (2002). Improving the discriminating power of DEA: Focus on globally efficient units. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53, 314–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiMaggio, P., & Stenberg, K. (1985). Why do some theaters innovate more than others? An empirical analysis. Poetics, 14, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Felton, M. V. (1994). Evidence of the existence of the cost disease in the performing arts. Journal of Cultural Economics, 18(4), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gapinslkit, J. H. (1981). Economics, demographics and attendance at the symphony. Journal of Cultural Economics, 5(2), 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansmann, H. (1981). Nonprofit enterprise in the performing arts. The Bell Journal of Economics, 12(2), 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heilbrun, J. (2001). Empirical evidence of a decline in repertory diversity among american opera companies 1991/92–1997/98. Journal of Cultural Economics, 25(1), 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heilbrun, J. (2011). Baumol’s cost disease. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Ito, T., & Domian, D. (1987). A musical note on the efficiency wage hypothesis. Programmings, wages and budgets of American Symphony Orchestras. Economics Letters, 25(1), 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krebs, S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1995). Politico-economic interactions of german public performing arts institutions. Journal of Cultural Economics, 19(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lange, M., Luksetich, W., Jacobs, P., & Bullard, J. (1985). Cost functions for symphony orchestras. Journal of Cultural Economics, 9(2), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luksetich, W. & Hughes, P. A. (2008). Effects of subsides on symphony orchestra repertoire. Economic Faculty—Working Papers. Paper 4. St. Cloud State University.Google Scholar
  17. McGrath, T., & Legoux, R. (2017). Balancing the score: The financial impact of resource dependence on symphony orchestras. Journal of Cultural Economics, 41(4), 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murias, P., Martínez, F., & Miguel, J. C. (2006). An economic wellbeing index for the Spanish provinces: A data envelopment analysis approach. Social Indicators Research, 77(3), 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murias, P., Martínez, F., & Novello, S. (2009). Bienestar Económico Regional: un Enfoque Comparativo entre Regiones Españolas e Italianas. Investigaciones Regionales, 18, 5–36.Google Scholar
  20. Neligan, A. (2006). Public funding and repertoire conventionality in the german public theatre sector: An econometric analysis. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1111–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nissi, E., & Sarra, A. (2016). A measure of well-being across the Italian urban areas: an integrated DEA-entropy approach. Social Indicators Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1535-7.Google Scholar
  22. O’Hagan, J., & Neligan, A. (2005). State subsidies and repertoire conventionality in the nonprofit English theater sector: An econometric analysis. Journal of Cultural Economics, 29(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peiró-Palomino, J., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. (2017). OECD: One or many? Ranking countries with a composite well-being indicator. Social Indicators Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1747-5.Google Scholar
  24. Pérez, V., Guerrero, F., González, M., Pérez, F., & Caballero, R. (2014). La sostenibilidad de los Destinos Cubanos de Turismo de Naturaleza: un enfoque Cuantitativo. Tourism & Management Studies, 10(2), 32–40.Google Scholar
  25. Pierce, J. L. (2000). Programmatic risk-taking by american opera companies. Journal of Cultural Economics, 24(1), 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pompe, J., Tamburri, L., & Munn, J. (2011). Factors that influence programming decisions of US symphony orchestras. Journal of Cultural Economics, 35(3), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rodríguez, A., Martín, J. L., Palma, M. L., & Martínez, M. I. (2016). Indexes of creativity: A measurement proposal for Spain and its Autonomous Communities. In International conference in cultural economics, ACEI 2016, Valladolid, Spain.Google Scholar
  28. Seiford, L. (1996). Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7(2–3), 99–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tamburri, L., Munn, J., & Pompe, J. (2015). Repertoire conventionality in major US symphony orchestras: Factors influencing management’s programming choices. Managerial and Decision Economics, 36(2), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Throsby, D. (1990). Perception of quality in demand for the theatre. Journal of Cultural Economics, 14(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tobias, S. (2004). Quality in the performing arts: Aggregating and rationalizing expert opinion. Journal of Cultural Economics, 28(2), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Towse, R. (2001). Quis custodiet? Or managing the management: The case of the royal opera house, Covent Garden. International Journal of Arts Management, 3(3), 38–50.Google Scholar
  33. Towse, R. (2014). Advanced introduction to cultural economics. Cheltenham: Elgar Advanced Introductions.Google Scholar
  34. Urrutiaguer, D. (2004). Programme innovations and networks of french public theatres. The Service Industries Journal, 24(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Werck, K., & Hwyndels, B. (2007). Programmatic choices and the demand for theatre: The case of Flemish theatres. Journal of Cultural Economics, 31(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zieba, M., & O’Hagan, J. (2013). Demand for live orchestral music the case of German Kulturorchester. Journal of Economics and Statistics, 233(2), 225–245.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grupo de Investigación Reconocido en Economía de la CulturaUniversidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Facultad de ComercioUniversidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations