aceUVi

‘tangible and intangible manifestations of culture [can] be articulated as longlasting
stores of value and providers of benefits for individuals and groups’ (2001,
44). Following the conventional distinction in relation to ‘ordinary’ economic
capital, Throsby differentiates between the ‘stock’ of cultural capital (the quantity
of available capital) and the ‘flow’ that it creates (a stream of goods or services
that may be consumed) (2001, 45). While it is relatively easy to understand how
cultural objects such as paintings or heritage sites can be counted as assets in this
framework, Throsby argues that intangible cultural phenomena, such as languages
and traditions can also be counted as assets in this sense. The cultural capital
that is stored in these assets gives rise both to the cultural and economic value of
the cultural goods. Ordinary financial capital, on the other hand, is only able to
provide economic value (2001, 45).
By introducing the notion of cultural capital, Throsby avoids having to make the
controversial claim for an inherent, absolute value within works of art and culture.
Instead he argues that such works represent a form of capital, which produce a
flow of cultural goods and services that are valued by consumers—which is in
keeping with the accepted economic concept of value formation.
In a more recent report, co-authored with Hasan Bakhshi, Throsby also uses
the term ‘intrinsic value’. While the authors generally apply Throsby’s 2001
framework, they cite earlier work by Bakhshi, Freeman and Hitchen in claiming
that ‘economic measures such as consumer surplus and willingness-to-pay are
also closely related to the intrinsic value of the art’ (19). 1 Here it seems that
‘intrinsic value’ might be near synonymous with Throsby’s use of ‘cultural capital’
(ie, the source of all economic and cultural value). However, the authors also state
that ‘a complete picture of intrinsic value requires a reassertion of the importance
of the cultural value that is essential to the existence and operations of organisations
in the arts’, which implies that cultural value might be just one part of the
larger construct of intrinsic value (perhaps including economic value). From
these passing references to intrinsic value, it is difficult to gain a clear understanding
of its relationship to cultural and economic value. They are certainly not to be
considered a major expansion of Throsby’s framework.
1 The 2009 paper by Bakhshi, Freeman, and Hitchen equates ‘intrinsic value’ with the
public good (non-market) components of culture, which Throsby generally counts as part
of economic value.
Framing the Conversation 38
UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences