16
R. Capello et al.
In order to address the issue, the general thought process starts by taking into
account the (potential) direct relationship between cultural heritage and economic
development, which is usually assumed in the existing literature. The idea is that the
mere presence of cultural heritage is unlikely to be effective, but that there could
be some more indirect channels through which cultural heritage could affect local
development. Following this line of thought, the relationship between cultural heritage and creativity is subsequently explored, according to the idea that cultural heritage—through its inspirational role—can contribute to the shaping of the peculiar
creativity of a local area. Finally, the—expectedly positive—relationship between
creativity and economic development is investigated.
The overall reasoning is thus based on the potential mediating role of creativity
between cultural heritage and economic development: cultural heritage could affect
regional development through its inspirational role in shaping local creativity and,
by this mechanism, influence economic performance.
This perspective is empirically tested using employment growth as the main
dependent variable and Italian provinces as the units of analysis. Italy is in fact a
country with a rich endowment of cultural capital, the exploitation of which strongly
differs from one area to another. Thus, it is an interesting case study where this
innovative framework can be applied.
To address, both conceptually and empirically, the research question presented
above—does creativity mediate the effect of cultural heritage on economic development?—this part of the research program develops:
i. an investigation of the potential direct link between cultural heritage and economic development;
ii. an analysis of the effect of cultural heritage on (different types of) local creativity;
iii. an exploration of the role of creativity in regional development; and
iv. an overall comprehensive model meant to shed light on the cultural heritage →
creativity → development nexus.
According to this logical framework, the work starts by analyzing the potential
direct effect of cultural heritage on economic development. Drawing on Camagni
(2008) and Capello and Perucca (2017), cultural heritage is considered a tangible and
common element. In particular, its tangibility can be interpreted in terms of physical
representation of the history of a given place and people, since immovable units of
heritage also carry intangible meanings (Carta 1999). Moreover, cultural heritage
is considered a public good, thus characterized by nonexcludability and by a low
level of rivalry. In this sense, the variable representing cultural heritage refers to the
presence of immovable tangible cultural heritage in the area, thus to the degree of
residents’ exposure to tangible cultural heritage.
Since this first step of the analysis shows that there is no generalized direct impact
of cultural heritage per se on economic development, the work moves on with the
line of reasoning, exploring some more sophisticated channels through which cultural
heritage could indirectly affect regional performance. It could play, for instance, an
inspirational role on local creativity.
R. Capello et al.
In order to address the issue, the general thought process starts by taking into
account the (potential) direct relationship between cultural heritage and economic
development, which is usually assumed in the existing literature. The idea is that the
mere presence of cultural heritage is unlikely to be effective, but that there could
be some more indirect channels through which cultural heritage could affect local
development. Following this line of thought, the relationship between cultural heritage and creativity is subsequently explored, according to the idea that cultural heritage—through its inspirational role—can contribute to the shaping of the peculiar
creativity of a local area. Finally, the—expectedly positive—relationship between
creativity and economic development is investigated.
The overall reasoning is thus based on the potential mediating role of creativity
between cultural heritage and economic development: cultural heritage could affect
regional development through its inspirational role in shaping local creativity and,
by this mechanism, influence economic performance.
This perspective is empirically tested using employment growth as the main
dependent variable and Italian provinces as the units of analysis. Italy is in fact a
country with a rich endowment of cultural capital, the exploitation of which strongly
differs from one area to another. Thus, it is an interesting case study where this
innovative framework can be applied.
To address, both conceptually and empirically, the research question presented
above—does creativity mediate the effect of cultural heritage on economic development?—this part of the research program develops:
i. an investigation of the potential direct link between cultural heritage and economic development;
ii. an analysis of the effect of cultural heritage on (different types of) local creativity;
iii. an exploration of the role of creativity in regional development; and
iv. an overall comprehensive model meant to shed light on the cultural heritage →
creativity → development nexus.
According to this logical framework, the work starts by analyzing the potential
direct effect of cultural heritage on economic development. Drawing on Camagni
(2008) and Capello and Perucca (2017), cultural heritage is considered a tangible and
common element. In particular, its tangibility can be interpreted in terms of physical
representation of the history of a given place and people, since immovable units of
heritage also carry intangible meanings (Carta 1999). Moreover, cultural heritage
is considered a public good, thus characterized by nonexcludability and by a low
level of rivalry. In this sense, the variable representing cultural heritage refers to the
presence of immovable tangible cultural heritage in the area, thus to the degree of
residents’ exposure to tangible cultural heritage.
Since this first step of the analysis shows that there is no generalized direct impact
of cultural heritage per se on economic development, the work moves on with the
line of reasoning, exploring some more sophisticated channels through which cultural
heritage could indirectly affect regional performance. It could play, for instance, an
inspirational role on local creativity.