Evaluating three decades of the European Capital of Culture programme: a difference-in-differences approach

Original Article

Abstract

We measure the regional impact of the European Capital of Culture programme using a difference-in-differences approach. We compare the regions of cities that hosted the event with the regions of cities that tried to host it but did not succeed. GDP per capita in hosting regions is 4.5 % higher compared to non-hosting regions during the event, and the effect persists more than 5 years after it. This result suggests that the economic dimension of the event is important and supports claims that the event serves as catalyst for urban regeneration and development.

Keywords

European Capital of Culture Difference-in-differences Culture-led regeneration 

JEL Classification

R10 R58 Z10 

References

  1. Boyko, C. T. (2007). Are you being served? The impacts of a tourist hallmark event on the place meanings of residents. Event Management, 11(4), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Council of European Union (1985). Resolution of the ministers responsible for cultural affairs, meeting within the council, of 13 June 1985 concerning the annual event ‘European City of Culture’. 85/C 153/02.Google Scholar
  3. Council of European Union (1990). Conclusions of the ministers of culture meeting within the council of 18 May 1990 on future eligibility for the ‘European City of Culture’ and on a special European Cultural Month event. 85/C 153/02.Google Scholar
  4. European Capitals of Culture Policy Group. (2010). An international framework of good practice in research and delivery of the European Capital of Culture programme. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
  5. European Parliament and Council (1999). Decision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999. European Council. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1999D1419:20040501:EN:PDF.
  6. European Parliament and Council (2006). Decision No. 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006. European Council. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:304:0001:0006:EN:PDF.
  7. Garcia, B. (2005). Deconstructing the city of culture: The long-term cultural legacies of Glasgow 1990. Urban Studies, 42(5–6), 841–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garcia, B. (2006). Media impact assessment (part I). Baseline findings on Liverpool press coverage before the European Capital of Culture (1996–2005). Impacts 08, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  9. Garcia B. (2010). Media impact assessment (part II). Evolving press and broadcast narratives on Liverpool from 1996 to 2009. Impacts 08, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  10. García, B., & Cox, T. (2013). European capitals of culture: Success strategies and long-term effects. Directorate general for internal policies, policy department B: Structural and cohesion policies. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513985/IPOLCULT_ET%282013%29513985_EN.pdf.
  11. Greenstone, M., Hornbeck, R., & Moretti, E. (2010). Identifying agglomeration spillovers: Evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings. Journal of Political Economy, 118(3), 536–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herrero, L. C., Sanz, J. Á., Devesa, M., Bedate, A., & Del Barrio, M. J. (2006). The economic impact of cultural events a case-study of salamanca 2002, European Capital of Culture. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong, S. H. (2011). Measuring the effect of napster on recorded music sales: Difference-in-differences estimates under compositional changes. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 28(2), 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes, H., Allen, D., & Wasik, D. (2003). The significance of European “Capital of Culture” for tourism and culture: The case of Kraków 2000. International Journal of Arts Management, 5(3), 12–23.Google Scholar
  15. Langen, F., & Garcia, B. (2009). Measuring the impacts of large scale cultural events: A literature review. Impacts 08: The Liverpool Model, European Capital of Culture Research Programme.Google Scholar
  16. Mehrotra, A. (2012). To host or not to host? A comparison study on the long-run impact of the olympic games. Michigan Journal of Business, 5(2), 61–92.Google Scholar
  17. Mora, R., & Reggio, E. (2013) Treatment effect identification using alternative parallel assumptions, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid working paper.Google Scholar
  18. Myerscough, J. (1994). European cities of culture and cultural months: Summary report. Network of Cultural Cities of Europe.Google Scholar
  19. Palmer, R. (2004). European capitals/cities of culture. Study on the European cities and capitals of culture and the European cultural months (19952004). Palmer/Rae Associates, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  20. Richards, G., Hitters, E., & Fernandes, C. (2002). Rotterdam and Porto: Cultural capitals 2001: Visitor research. Arnhem: Atlas.Google Scholar
  21. Rose, A., & Spiegel, M. (2011). The olympic effect. Economic Journal, 121(553), 652–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steiner, L., Frei, B., & Hotz, S. (2015). European capitals of culture and life satisfaction. Urban Studies, 52(2), 374–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversidad Carlos III de MadridGetafeSpain
  2. 2.Department of Culture Media and Creative IndustriesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations