Rethinking the State’s Role

Privatization, Economics and Cultural Policy
  • David Throsby


In most countries of the world, the state plays a significant role in supporting or influencing cultural activity. Almost everywhere governments — whether national, regional or local — have some involvement with the arts and the cultural sector, through the provision of financial support, through the ownership and operation of cultural institutions such as museums, galleries, libraries, performing companies, public broadcasters and so on, and through the imposition of regulations designed to benefit the arts and cultural development generally.


Private Sector Public Sector Private Ownership Cultural Institution Cultural Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumol, W. J. and W.G. Bowen (1966) Performing Arts: the Economic Dilemma. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.Google Scholar
  2. Carnaghan, R. and B. Bracewell-Milnes (1993) Testing the Market: Competitive Tendering for Government Services in Britain and Abroad. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  3. Council of Europe Culture Committee (1997) In from the Margins: a Contribution to the Debate on Culture and Development in Europe. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  4. Domberger, S. (1996) ‘Contracting out: a phenomenon in search of a theory’, Proceedings of the 1996 Industry Economics Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 4–5 July, 44–52.Google Scholar
  5. Domberger, S. and S. Rimmer (1994) ‘Competitive tendering and contracting out in the public sector: a survey.’ In: International Journal of the Economics of Business, Vol. 1 No. 3, 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foster, C.D. (1992) Privatization, Public Ownership and the Regulation of Natural Monopoly. Oxford: Blackwell, Ch. 10.Google Scholar
  7. Fullerton, D. (1991) Tax policy towards art museums.’ In: The Economics of Art Museums, M. Feldstein (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 195–235.Google Scholar
  8. Galinsky, A.D. and E.V. Lehman (1995) ‘Emergence, Divergence, Convergence: Three Models of Symphony Orchestras at the Crossroads.’ In: European Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 2, No. 1, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hodge, G. (1996) Contracting Out Government Services: a Review of International Evidence. Melbourne: Montech.Google Scholar
  10. Lorrain, D. (1997) The expansion of the market.’ In: The Privatization of Urban Services in Europe. D.L. Stoker and G. Stoker (eds.). London: Pinter, 1–26.Google Scholar
  11. Marcel, M. and A. Solimano (1994) The distribution of income and economic adjustment.’ In: The Chilean Economy: Policy Lessons and Challenges, B.P. Bosworth, R. Dornbusch and R. Labán (eds.). Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 217–255.Google Scholar
  12. McKinley, T. (1997) Cultural Indicators of Development Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Occasional Paper No. 4.Google Scholar
  13. Schuster, J.M., J. de Mondiaux and CA. Riley II (eds.). Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation. Hanover: Salzburg Seminar and the University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  14. Throsby, D. (1994) The production and consumption of the arts: a view of cultural economics.’ In: Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
  15. UNESCO (1998) World Culture Report. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  16. Vickers, J. and G. Yarrow (1988) Privatization: an Economic Analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Yarrow, G. (1989) ‘Does ownership matter?’ In: Privatization and Competition: a Market Prospectus, Cento Veljanovski (ed.). London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 52–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Throsby

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations