Talk:Cultural economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Culture (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge with Economics of the arts and literature[edit]

I created this page which was then moved to Economics of the arts and literature making this a redirect. Then this very small article was created on top of that. Economics of the arts and literature states that it is also called "cultural economics". Is there any reason these two articles are separate? That doesn't mean that Economics of the arts and literature shouldn't be moved back here, but... should they be separate and if so, why? gren グレン 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article Economics of the arts and literature on fr:, which was then translated here, and moved to its present location. Actually, there is indeed a terminology problem. The title of the main reference is Handbook of the economics of the Arts and Culture, because "cultural economics" can refer to
  • the economics of the fine arts, applied arts and creative industries
  • the economic implications of social norms
These are two different fields in the economics literature, and are only thinly related (different people, different magazine and different problems altogether). Maybe this page should be turned into a disambiguation page, leading on the one hand to Economics of the arts and literature and on the other hand to Economics of social norms. I apologize for my broken English, it is late here. Bokken | 木刀 22:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll let you use your judgment since I don't know the subject and just translated part of what you had written on FR. And, it's the same time here--since I believe we both live in the same country (but English is my native language which makes it easier) :) --gren グレン 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, let me say "thank you" to both of you for your excellent earlier efforts and for your comments here. As you know, the title change of the article earlier called "Cultural economics" to its current title "Economics of the arts and literature" was thoroughly discussed at Talk:Economics of the arts and literature#Name change for this article) in May 2007, when there seemed to be a consensus for the name change, for the reasons indicated there. Still, the current Cultural economics article does create a new situation. It would not be a difficult thing to have a disambig at the top of both articles, which would avoid the need for merger. It would also not be difficult to merge the 2 with the title "Cultural economics." One way to do that would be to keep the current article "Cultural economics" (with minor changes as needed) & bring the "Economics of the arts and literature" (also with minor changes) as the rest of the article with a copy of the history of that article & Talk page copied to this page. The least good alternative would be renaming this article. "Cultural economics" in the broader sense is both a field of economics and a well-established usage (as no other term is). It includes the narrower uaage of that same term (that is, economics of the arts and literature) as a subset, indicated at JEL classification codes#Other special topics (economics) JEL: Z Subcategories. Its prominent listing there suggests its importance as to cultural economics. As to the current size of Cultural economics, it is well sourced as to in-line links, which makes it much more useful to anyone interested in pursuing the subject than its size alone might suggest. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
As a person working in that field, my feeling is that the current article will never be more than a dignified disambiguation page, since the different field covered (economics of the arts and culture, economics of social norms, economic of religions, network or social capital) are fairly separate (the Handbook includes only two chapters about social norms, which is not the actual weight of the topic relative to arts and culture), and do not have unity of any kind. This needs not be a problem: it is not the first time academic terminology is at odds whith common usage. A notable improvement would be the existence of article about the economics of social norms and so forth at par with what exists for the economics of the arts and culture, with this article featuring a brief summary of each. Wishful thinking, I know. Bokken | 木刀 08:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Very practical, I'd say. Those working in the field are indeed needed to develop this article. I agree that "cultural economics" is an umbrella term that includes disparate elements and different usages of the same term -- whether narrow or broad or broad excluding some elements.
Concerning the above suggestion, another possible article name would be Social norms (economics), with a suspiciously modest sound to it. Still, though lacking much use in journals, Economics of social norms would, I agree, be a fine article title.
I think that it would be useful to expand the article along the above lines suggested with less-extended separate sections for various aspects of the subject. Piecemeal (one section at a time) might be the easiest way to do it. Even very short sections might be useful. Then the footnotes in the present Edit could be gradually moved down to the added sections. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ways of improving article[edit]

Elaborating a bit on the last Edit above, ways of improving article might include expanding the topics in the text that are footnoted using the footnoted or related sources to develop into a paragraph or 2 each. General references might also be used as a basis of organizing paragraphs or sections, such as, from the first article footnote:

In the meanwhile, the footnoted sources might be consulted, starting with the links. No one "owns" this article of course. And anyone who studies good sources may be in a good position to improve this article. Best wishes. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be not of immediate help, but I know from a good source that a new volume of the Handbook of the Economics of Arts and Culture (Elsevier) is in the works and that it will mostly deal with cultural norms. Bokken | 木刀 10:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If you come across an an online Elsevier description of the above, I hope that you'd consider adding it to the article. As a result of the above comment, I stumbled across this handbook, which I added to Monetary economics:
You might be able to the same thing on CE for your reference. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Two different fields merged by terminological confusion[edit]

According to my understanding of the term "cultural economics" this article mixes together (at least) two different sub-fields of economics into one. Just as some other editors point out above, there are two and quite different sub-fields.

  1. There is one sub-field that studies artists, writers, the cultural industries and related copyright issues etc. This is the subfield which is commonly referred to as "cultural economics". What these economists study is culture according to a definition common to the humanities; a definition where culture essentially means "the arts".
  2. There is another sub-field that studies norms, behaviour, religion, social capital, social networks, institutions etc. What these economists study is culture according to a definition from biology or psychology; a definition where culture means something like "socially transmitted differences in mental programming".

The second field is not what I would call cultural economics at all - I have never heard or seen it referred to as such. Rather, I would call that research behavioural economics, evolutionary economics or institutional economics. I propose that the stuff that pertains to norm formation etc is moved to other articles. Koyos (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed above. I held the same belief as yours, but:
  • I saw academic workshops entitled "Cultural Economics" and dealing only with behavioral issues (mainly the transmission of social norms), with leading researchers in the field (e.g. Thierry Verdier)
  • I have been told by a reliable source that the Vol. 2 of the Handbook of the Economics of the Arts and Culture (North-Holland) will deal mainly with that kind of stuff (there is already two chapters (12 and 13) of the Vol. 1 of the Handbook that cover that kind of topic, in fact.
This article thus seem to reflect the current setting of the academic field (even if, at a personal and professional level - I work in the field of cultural economics, I feel that the two are not the same thing). This being said, there is a lot of work to do in article about cultural economics. I have started to work on some in the French-speaking Wikipedia but lack the time to translate that to English. Bokken | 木刀 09:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


The sources are more than the text itself. --Aleksd (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fhis is the results of two effects. Firstly, adequately-presented academic references are verbose. Secondly, cultural economic is a motley field, which makes difficult to produce a meaningful summary. What can be done, however, is to give here a short paragraph describing each branch. Bokken | 木刀 12:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Nathan's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Nathan has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

In para 2, this entry could also refer to economic geography, specifically the body of work that looks at cultures, cities and neighbourhoods. Seminal references include:

Berliant, M. and M. Fujita (2012). "Culture and diversity in knowledge creation." Regional Science and Urban Economics 42(4): 648-662. Ottaviano, G. and G. Peri (2005). "Cities and Cultures." Journal of Urban Economics 58: 304-337 Ottaviano, G. and G. Peri (2006). "The Economic Value of Cultural Diversity: Evidence from US Cities." Journal of Economic Geography 6: 9-44 Putnam, R. (2007). "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century." Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 137-174

For reviews see:

Nathan, M. (2015). "After Florida: Towards an Economics of Diversity." European Urban and Regional Studies 22(1): 3-19. Kemeny, T. (2014). "Immigrant Diversity and Economic Performance in Cities." International Regional Science Review.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Nathan has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Neil Lee & Max Nathan, 2011. "Does Cultural Diversity Help Innovation in Cities: Evidence from London Firms," SERC Discussion Papers 0069, Spatial Economics Research Centre, LSE.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)