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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Source: Own elaboration

Notes

  1. 1.

    The choice of the variables was driven by the available data at the municipal level. The source of all data was Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SORS), database SI-STAT.

  2. 2.

    With extensions when using different estimators: lags for the System GMM, noninteracted time and treatment variables for the difference-in-differences method.

  3. 3.

    As a rule, ex-ante studies contain or should contain less information than ex-post studies (Gergaud and Ginsburgh 2013). The difference between ex-ante and ex-post does therefore not lie only in the timing of the analysis.

  4. 4.

    In input–output analysis and economic impact analysis, sometimes the concept of “capture rate” is discussed (Stynes 1996, 1999; Crompton et al. 2015; Brewer and Freeman 2015), denoting “the portion of spending that accrues to the region as final demand.” Only the spending that is “captured” by the local economy should be multiplied by a sales multiplier (Stynes 1996). In our analysis we do not address this issue specifically, although the tables entering the calculation of multipliers are only the domestic production symmetric input–output tables. Previous analyses done for Slovenia (e.g., Zakotnik 2009) do not address this issue, but it would be useful in future to address it properly. It is logical to say that the capture rates will to a certain extent lower the predicted amounts from the multiplier analysis.

  5. 5.

    The results of the final estimates were derived from the numbers on average spending, aggregated to the full population of the visitors and divided by the number of events and, finally, multiplied by the production (and, respectively, value added and employment) multiplier for culture, calculated from two different sets of input–output multiplier estimates for years 2005 (the first, lower estimate for each category) and 2010 (the second, higher estimate for each category). To this number, the similarly calculated effects of the spending of the project were added: the value of the budget of the project was multiplied by respective multiplier for this area (source: Kovač and Srakar 2013).

  6. 6.

    Including dummies for municipalities instead of regions does not change the results in any sense.

  7. 7.

    We mainly used models with 1 or 2 period lags. The best models were chosen on the basis of information criteria (AIC and BIC) and other relevant statistics of the models.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baade, R., & Dye, R. (1988). Sports stadiums and area development: A critical view. Economic Development Quarterly, 2(3), 265–275.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  8. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  16. Friedman, B. M. (2005). What remains from the Volcker experiment? Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Review, 87 (March/April 2005, Part 2).

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  23. Noonan, D. (2003). Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Public Institute Maribor 2012. (2013). Letno poročilo o delu in poslovanju zavoda Maribor 2012 v letu 2012. Maribor: Javni zavod Maribor 2012.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  30. Seaman, B. A. (2012). Economic impact in the arts: An updated methodological assessment. International conference culture—Potentials for development? Maribor 2012, Powerpoint presentation.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Srakar, A. (2010). Ekonomsko vrednotenje umetniških dogodkov: umetnost med trgom in državo. Ljubljana: Založba FDV.

  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.

  35. Steiner, L., Frey, B. S., & Hotz, S. (2015). European capitals of culture and life satisfaction. Urban Studies, 52(2), 374–394.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrej Srakar.

Ethics declarations

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.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Descriptive statistics for the economic impact study, final sample.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Srakar, A., Vecco, M. Ex-ante versus ex-post: comparison of the effects of the European Capital of Culture Maribor 2012 on tourism and employment. J Cult Econ 41, 197–214 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-017-9294-0

Download citation

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