Cyprus is not alone in investing next to nothing in cultural heritage conservation. It is paradoxical that countries with the longest ancient histories – with probably the richest and most impressive archaeological and other monuments – pursue ‘development’ policies and budget allocations which put culture way down the list of priorities.
It is said that monuments are not a ‘productive sector’. Historical monuments and ruins from our past are invaluable, cannot be replaced, relocated, removed or reconstructed. Still, very little money is invested in heritage conservation. A recent Report by the Global Heritage Fund (GHF) confirms this apparent anomaly.
A recent World Bank Report on the financial neglect of monuments and heritage in general, coined the term ‘client crisis’ to draw attention to the same issue. When money is not channeled to monuments, likewise monuments do not generate any money.
Heritage and Economy
Money and monuments have a complex and elusive relationship which becomes far more awkward by the approach and practices pursued by public authorities at various levels, 其中, in their sincere pursuit of high science and scholarly knowledge, divorce monuments from the hard realities of public policy and market economics.
Proactively, economists have developed a keen interest in heritage and culture that goes beyond the traditional attachment to value as an outcome of quantity focusing equally on the money value of quality. More than this, economists have succeeded in developing methods of capturing money flows created by conservation investment to support financial policies for sustainable heritage conservation.
Two principles
The early economic studies of important heritage projects undertaken mainly by the World Bank (City of Split, Croatia, Fez Medina,
Morocco, Petra in Jordan, Bulgarian Christian Monasteries, etc.) have produced impressive results strengthening the methodologies for the valuation and monetisation of benefits of heritage conservation helping to justify significant increases in conservation investment as a result.
These and many other later studies have established two important principles that underpin much of the contributions economists make in heritage conservation.
第一次, 纪念碑的历史和科学价值是太抽象，从而无法捕获作为经济工作的重点公共决策者的注意. 第二次, 动员保护资金, 经济学家建议值的基础积累的真实的人，作为公民的保护所带来的实际益处社会探讨, 居民, 访客, 消费者, 生产者或学者. 值只能存在于一个社会背景下.
许多文物专家的各种不同的背景, 然而, 继续质疑是否可以说历史古迹和文化领域有 '市场', 甚至如果他们注定要有 '市场'.
经济学家们迅速作出澄清他们的 '市场' 的意思是我们所有的人那得到满足感从养护, similar to the satisfaction we enjoy when consuming something we value and spend money; who enjoy the pleasure of the sight and knowledge of the history of a monument; who are enriched by the experience of a visit to a monument.
This is essentially what economists call the ‘services’ of a monument. It is true that monuments are of various types, with different potential relationships with the market. A castle is different from a museum in this sense. What they have in common, which is of particular interest, is their powerful role in urban regeneration, employment growth and municipal finance.
A particular brand of economic studies applied to the field of heritage, collectively known as impact studies, specifically popular with decision-makers responsible for budget expenditure allocations, 相当大的成功衡量遗产水土保持投资的收入和就业的好处.
最近的研究报告由 David Throsby 斯科普里旧市集和格鲁吉亚第比利斯旧镇的说明以及如何影响读书人可以用于生成为文化遗产领域的投资而产生的不同再生影响的确凿证据.
创造就业机会
让我们看看著名在毕尔巴鄂的古根海姆博物馆. 直到最近它被谈主要与令人印象深刻的弗兰克 · 盖里建筑. 一位经济学家毕尔巴鄂大学, 比阿特丽斯广场, 报道称，博物馆在九年中支付的本身 — — 一项世界纪录.
当它打开, 旅游立即增加. 饭店的电话号码保持不增加了大约 62,000 生产额外一个月 740,000 酒店住宿一年.
博物馆已生成有关 1,000 就业机会和支持 4,500 更多的职业，如翻译, 图书馆服务, 和手工艺品. 它增加了对外语知识的需求, 旅游包装, 广告, 市场营销, 电影生产和业务管理.
正如我们所说, 有严肃的研究正在为在赫尔辛基的古根海姆博物馆的发展, 一个 12,000sq.m 博物馆的展览空间 4,000sq.m.
方案已经为预期的访客数, 随之而来的收入和经营成本的一部分，他们将覆盖. 这被预计游客将会对 500,000 每年有可能从博物馆操作生成大约 € 650 万.
The expected economic impact of Guggenheim Helsinki in terms of spending in the City of Helsinki will be significant likely to increase by €4.0 million yearly while visitors to Finland extending their stay as a result of the new museum will generate an additional €2.9 million annually.
Monuments and money is becoming a new linkage in the economics of heritage and this synergy promises to be an even more important agent of city regeneration with far reaching impacts on urban as well as cultural development.
At home now, the development of the New Archaeological Museum in Nicosia, much needed for both economic and cultural reasons, is being abortively debated in the corridors of various departments for years without any real willingness to involve the private sector and its interests in the development process. Without money there will be no museum and, for the same reason, without a design that makes financial sense money will not be forthcoming, leaving Nicosia and our cultural education and competitive strength with yet another minus.
http://in-cyprus.com/making-money-rich-monuments/
