Advertisement

Journal of Cultural Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 197–214 | Cite as

Ex-ante versus ex-post: comparison of the effects of the European Capital of Culture Maribor 2012 on tourism and employment

  • Andrej SrakarEmail author
  • Marilena Vecco
Original Article

Abstract

The estimation of the economic effects of cultural events is a topic that has stirred numerous debates in cultural economics. Although economic impact studies and contingent valuation have been the most frequently used methods, both suffer from numerous problems. In this article, we use ex-post econometric verification as a new and promising method in cultural economics in the estimation of the economic effects of cultural events and apply it to the estimation of the effects of the 2012 European Capital of Culture Maribor on tourism and employment. This enables us to compare results from economic impact and ex-post econometric verification studies to find significant differences in particular in terms of new employment. We determine the net effects on new tourism and find that they were mainly present in Maribor, the holder of the project, and not in the other five partner cities. We conclude by reflecting on the state of the art of the studies of economic effects of cultural events in cultural economics and their relevance for the study of cultural tourism.

Keywords

Economic effects Cultural tourism Economic impact studies Ex-post econometric verification European Capital of Culture Maribor 2012 Employment 

JEL Classification

Z11 C33 D57 Z30 Z31 Z32 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no potential conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

The authors declare that the research does not involve human participants and/or animals.

Informed consent

The authors declare that the research does not involve issues that would need informed consent.

References

  1. Americans for the Arts. (2012). The economic impact of nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences. Arts and economic prosperity IV. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.Google Scholar
  2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricists companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baade, R., & Dye, R. (1988). Sports stadiums and area development: A critical view. Economic Development Quarterly, 2(3), 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltagi, B. H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Barsky, R., & Kilian, L. (2000). A monetary explanation of the great stagflation of the 1970s. CEPR Discussion Papers 2389, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.Google Scholar
  7. Baumann, R., & Matheson, V. A. (2011). Estimating economic impact using ex-post econometric analysis: Cautionary tales. Working Paper Series, Paper No. 11-12, International Association of Sports Economists, and the North American Association of Sports Economists.Google Scholar
  8. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, R. M., & Freeman, K. M. (2015). Inexpensively estimating the economic impact of sports tourism programs in small American cities. Indiana Business Review, 2015, 1–6.Google Scholar
  10. Crompton, J. L., Jeong, J.-Y., & Dudensing, R. M. (2015). Sources of variation in economic impact multipliers. Journal of Travel Research. doi: 10.1177/0047287515617298.Google Scholar
  11. Cwi, D., & Lyall, K. (1977). A model to assess the local economic impact of arts institutions: The Baltimore case study. Baltimore: Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research the Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  12. Devesa, M., Báez, A., Figueroa, V., & Herrero, L. C. (2011). Measuring the economic and social impact of cultural festivals. The Valdivia International Film Festival. Fifth European workshop on applied cultural economics, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  13. Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frey, B. S. (2005). What values should count in the arts? The tension between economic effects and cultural value. Working Paper No. 253, Zurich: Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zürich.Google Scholar
  15. Frey, B. S. (2012). The value of culture, international conference culture—Potentials for development? International conference culture—Potentials for development? Maribor 2012, Powerpoint presentation.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, B. M. (2005). What remains from the Volcker experiment? Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Review, 87 (March/April 2005, Part 2).Google Scholar
  17. Gergaud, O., & Ginsburgh, V. (2013). Measuring the economic effects of cultural events with special emphasis on music festivals. ULB Institutional Repository, ULB—Universite Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  18. Goodfriend, M., & King, R. G. (1997). The new neoclassical synthesis and the role of monetary policy. In B. Bernanke & J. Rotemberg (Eds.), NBER macroeconomics annual 12 (pp. 231–283). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hadker, N., Sharma, S. David, A., & Muraleedharan, T. R. (1997). Willingness-to-Pay for Borivli National Park: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation. Ecological Economics, 21, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. KEA. (2006). The economy of culture in Europe. Brussels: KEA European Affairs.Google Scholar
  21. Kovač, B., & Srakar, A. (2013). Ekonomski učinki projekta Maribor 2012EPK [Economic effects of European Capital of Culture Maribor 2012]. Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta.Google Scholar
  22. Matheson, V. A. (2006). Mega-events: The effect of the world’s biggest sporting events on local, regional, and national economies. Working Paper Series of International Association of Sports Economics, 06-22.Google Scholar
  23. Noonan, D. (2003). Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Public Institute Maribor 2012. (2013). Letno poročilo o delu in poslovanju zavoda Maribor 2012 v letu 2012. Maribor: Javni zavod Maribor 2012.Google Scholar
  25. Radich, A. J. (1993). Twenty years of economic impact studies of the arts: A review. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.Google Scholar
  26. Saayman, M., & Saayman, A. (2006). Does the location of arts festivals matter for the economic impact? Issue Papers in Regional Science, 85(4), 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seaman, B. A. (1987). Arts impact studies: A fashionable excess. In A. J. Radich (Ed.), The economic impact of the arts: a sourcebook (pp. 43–76). Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.Google Scholar
  28. Seaman, B. A. (2003). Economic impact of the arts. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics (pp. 224–231). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Seaman, B. A. (2006). The relationship among regional economic impact models: Contingent valuation versus economic impact in the case of cultural assets. Working Paper, Atlanta: Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  30. Seaman, B. A. (2012). Economic impact in the arts: An updated methodological assessment. International conference culture—Potentials for development? Maribor 2012, Powerpoint presentation.Google Scholar
  31. Seaman, B. A., & Price Elton, J. J. (2016). How reliable are ex post econometric studies of regional economic impacts. In 19th international conference of the association for cultural economics, international, June 21–24, 2016, Powerpoint presentation.Google Scholar
  32. Skinner, S. J. (2006). Estimating the real growth effects of blockbuster art exhibits: A time series approach. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Srakar, A. (2010). Ekonomsko vrednotenje umetniških dogodkov: umetnost med trgom in državo. Ljubljana: Založba FDV.Google Scholar
  34. Srakar, A., & Slabe-Erker, R. (2016). Economic effects of EuroBasket 2013: An ex-post verification study. Presented at the SESM international conference, Berlin, 19 May 2016.Google Scholar
  35. Steiner, L., Frey, B. S., & Hotz, S. (2015). European capitals of culture and life satisfaction. Urban Studies, 52(2), 374–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stynes, D. J. (1996). Economic impact concepts. https://msu.edu/user/stynes/mirec/concepts.htm. Accessed 09 Jan 2017.
  37. Stynes, D. J. (1999). Approaches to estimating the economic impacts of tourism; some examples. https://msu.edu/course/prr/840/econimpact/pdf/ecimpvol2.pdf. Accessed 09 Jan 2017.
  38. Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(1), 89–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verbič, M., & Slabe Erker, R. (2005). Ekonomski vidik prostorskih vrednot v procesu usklajevanja razvojnih interesov in varstvenih zahtev. Aplikacija metod za ekonomsko vrednotenje prostorskih vrednot na primeru območja krajinske zasnove Volčji Potok. Ljubljana: Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja.Google Scholar
  40. Verbič, M., Srakar, A., Majcen, B., & Čok, M. (2016). Slovenian public finances through the financial crisis. Teorija in praksa, 53(1), 203–227.Google Scholar
  41. Vitez, T. (2014). Ljudske vstaje v medijihmedijski diskurz o protestih v Sloveniji na TV Dnevnik in 24 ur [Public protests in the media – media discourse about protests in Slovenia on TV Dnevnik and 24 Hours]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  42. Zakotnik, I. (2009). Ocena ekonomskih učinkov sheme deleža za umetnost [Estimate of the economic effects of the percent for art scheme]. In Kočica, J., Srakar, A. (eds.), Shema deleža za umetnost [Percent For Art Scheme] (pp. 73–96). Ljubljana: Zavod za kiparstvo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Economic Research, Ljubljana and Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations