Introduction
The discipline of Economics distinguishes between three forms of capital, namely Physical capital, human capital, and natural capital. In the past, attention was focused primarily on accumulation of physical assets with less emphasis being placed on human and natural capital. However, this trend has been changing in the recent past with much emphasis being placed on both human and natural capital to enhance performance of organizations.
Indeed, a fourth form of capital, cultural capital has been proposed by David Throsby to be incorporated in economic studies. Cultural capital is a sociological concept that was developed through the theoretical and empirical work of a French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in the early 1960s. In his theory, David Throsby presents cultural capital as an asset evaluated through its cultural value and proposes its incorporation in economic evaluation and investment appraisals.
Summary of cultural capital
The concept of cultural capital was originally developed by Bourdieu as a partial explanation for the less tangible inequalities and is related to the class-based socialization of relevant skills, abilities, tastes, preferences and norms, which are considered valuable in the contemporary social realm (Winkle-Wagner 2010). The concept of cultural capital extends beyond an understanding of financial inequalities to explain the way that privilege and power are perpetuated in the society (Winkle-Wagner 2010).
Bourdieu observed that the economic obstacles were not sufficient to explain the differences in educational attainment among children from varying social classes and attributed school success to cultural habits and dispositions inherited from the family. On the other hand, (Throsby 1999) justifies the development of cultural capital by the common observation of the characteristics of capital assets in numerous cultural phenomena such as heritage buildings and works of art.
Cultural capital has been defined in different contexts with the most common definition being in terms of sociological and cultural studies where cultural capital is perceived in terms of competence acquisition in society’s high-status culture (Farkas 1996).
Cultural capital has been defined in terms of high-status knowledge or competence, skills and abilities that are valued in particular social settings, “otherized” cultural capital, which is applied to minority groups and as part of a larger theory of social reproduction (Winkle-Wagner 2010). According to the sociological perspective, Bourdieu classifies cultural capital into three subtypes; embodied state, objectified state and institutionalized state.
The embodied state refers to a long-lasting disposition of the individual’s mind and body, which is acquired through learning and accumulation over time (Deacon et al., 2003). In its embodied form, cultural capital cannot be bought or transferred directly to another person.
Consequently, this dimension creates an intricate relationship between the possessor of cultural capital and those who lack it but own other forms of capital. Although it is not freely transferable, its acquisition is often facilitated by the utilization of other forms of capital (Jackson 2010). For instance, economic ability of the parents enhances their children’s education since they have the financial ability to send their children in prestigious schools.
In its objectified form, cultural capital is transformed into cultural goods such as pictures, books, artefacts, among other things. In this state, the cultural capital exists in form of material possessions and is therefore easily transferable from one individual to another (Jackson 2010). However, it is worth noting that mere possession of cultural capital does not necessarily guarantee returns since the possessor may not know how to efficiently utilize them.
Consequently, meaningful possession of such capital has to be backed by individual knowledge on how to make use of the objects which, when absent results in meaningless exchange of cultural capital (Jackson 2010). In most situations, individuals with appropriate dispositions are not the possessors of cultural capital, which places those who do not possess a high volume of economic capital in an ambiguous position in the system of social relations.
Institutionalized cultural capital is acquired when embodied cultural capital is recognized in, for instance, academic credential (Throsby 1999). This form of cultural capital augments the added value of embodied cultural capital and guarantees its worth.
In addition, it serves to validate cultural capital through institutionalization, which draws the line between official recognition and mere possession of cultural capital. Establishing the qualitative difference between those who are licensed and those who are not guarantees the monetary value of the credentials. Although Bourdieu provides detailed information on the three forms of capital, he still suggests that other forms of capital may emerge from differentiation of fields into other domains (Jackson 2010).
Throsby (1999), attempts to incorporate cultural capital into a broader discourse of Economics. Culture, in the context of economic development incorporates the functional element where it is viewed as an industrial sector of the economy and the sociological view where it is expressed in terms of societal practices and beliefs.
Thus cultural value can be defined as something that positively contributes to the shared elements of human experiences (Throsby 2001). He further considers cultural values as being measured according to a unit of account where an individual assigns a cultural valuation to a given cultural artefact and the valuation differs between individuals just like in the case of economic goods and services (Throsby 1999).
Cultural capital is an asset that contributes to cultural value or in simpler terms, it is the stock of cultural value embodied in an asset, which may in turn result in a flow of goods and services over time (Throsby 1999). Tangible stock of cultural capital may take the form of buildings and sites holding substantial amount of cultural significance as well as artefacts existing as private goods, which may give rise to the flow of services that may be consumed as direct private or public goods.
Intangible form of cultural capital, on the other hand, may take the from of ideas, practices, and cultural beliefs which are shared among a group of people and also gives rise to a flow of services which form part of final private consumption or contribute to the production of future cultural goods (Throsby 1999).
Article critique
In his article, David Throsby, a professor of Economics at the Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, seeks to incorporate cultural capital into the economic framework by approaching cultural capital as an asset embodying cultural value.
He contrasts the sociological perspective of cultural capital, as explained by Bourdieu with his proposed usage in economics and emphasizes on the relationship between cultural and economic value to highlight the economic concept of cultural capital (Throsby, 1999). Further, he discusses the implication of cultural capital in economic analysis touching on the issues of economic growth, sustainability and investment appraisal.
Strengths of Throsby’s analysis
Bruno Frays of the University of Zurich acknowledged that David Throsby is a long-standing contributor to cultural economics and his analysis of cultural capital marks a major step from a mindless application of orthodox economics to the discipline of Arts towards the consideration of special characteristics which is backed by good economic reasoning notable in his treatment of the value in cultural capital and Arts (Throsby 2001).
Throsby’s attempt to bring economic analysis to bear on cultural issues is a complex yet innovative way of looking at the modern issues. He seeks to not only provide a literature review on cultural capital but also to emphasize on the notion of cultural value in policy issues often monopolized by the analysis of economic value. According to him, cultural value analysis should be equivalent to economic value analysis hence should be heavily emphasized upon in the modern economy (Throsby 2001).
David Throsby acknowledges that the consideration of cultural capital as an economic phenomenon must begin from a clearly outlined relationship between cultural and economic value, which he attempts to define through the tangible and intangible forms of cultural capital.
Just like the founders of the theory, Throsby acknowledges the fact that cultural capital is transmitted to generations in form of cultural value and asserts that in particular cases, cultural valuation may be ranked according to collective judgment if there is sufficient consensus which leads him to the definition of cultural capital as the stock of cultural value embodied in an asset. He further recognizes that a lot of work still needs to be done to clarify the concept of cultural capital in relation to economic value.
Through this article, David Throsby advocates for economic valuation of cultural capital through application of frameworks for assessing the economic role of culture. He distinguishes between tangible and intangible forms of cultural capital where tangible forms of cultural assets are described as structures endowed with cultural significance while intangible cultural capital is described as comprising of ideas, beliefs and practices which bind the society together (Weininger n d).
Through this distinction, Throsby does not merely develop an academic definition of cultural value, but uses the concept of cultural capital existing in both tangible and intangible forms to highlight the economic value that it may possess.
Weaknesses of Throsby’s theory
Throsby (1999) distinguishes between economic and cultural value through the assumption that cultural value can be measured in a unit of account comparable to the monetary scale. While he is correct in distinguishing between the two concepts, his definition of cultural value fails to adequately demonstrate how cultural value transcends economic value.
Indeed sociologists have argued that despite the importance of the relationship between economics and cultural values, Throsby makes a considerable number of good general observations in his attempt to incorporate cultural capital in economics, but the details of his arguments either lack in logical validity or are just plainly wrong.
For instance, his assumption on measurement of cultural value where an individual or group assigns a cultural valuation to a certain cultural artefact in the same way that economic valuation of goods and services expressed through demand price and willingness to pay is done is not necessarily correct as cultural significance is subject to differing factors.
While Throsby may have correctly recognized culture as an intellectual heritage transmitted from one generation to the next and emphasized on the importance of culture in terms of beliefs and customs for economic development, the view of beliefs, customs, and ideas as capital remains blurred.
Capital goods are produced means of production which are independent of human labour; beliefs, customs and ideas, on the other hand, cannot exist independent of human beings hence failing as independent form of capital. Throsby further uses his theory of cultural value to inform the analysis of almost all the issues he addresses on cultural capital.
Consequently, the ambiguity, inconsistency and lack of validity evident in some of the areas in his approach to cultural value follow through to other issues that he addresses in the article making it less justifiable. Consequently the implications of his study, which include the proposition to incorporate a cultural capital function in the production function and investment appraisals used in contexts such as capital budgeting and cost-benefit analysis remains invalid.
Conclusion
David Throsby’s article on cultural capital is a diligent attempt to incorporate cultural issues in economic development. The efforts by an open-minded cultural economist to define cultural value in economic terms through fine survey of cultural and economic literature as well as formulation of a number of informed propositions provide readers with a rather insightful view of cultural economics.
The writer differentiates between cultural value and economic value by differentiating between tangible and intangible assets, which serve to define cultural capital as an economic asset. However, these achievements are offset by the ambiguous analysis and arbitrary assumptions used by David Throsby in his economic analysis of cultures, which calls for the need for a more accurate economic analysis of culture.
Reference List
Deacon H., Mngqolo S., Proselandis S., 2003. Protecting Our Cultural Capital: A Research Plan for the Heritage Sector Issue 1. Cape Town, HSRC Press.
Farkas G., 1996. Human Capital or Cultural Capital, Ethnicity and Poverty Groups in an Urban District. New York, Transaction Publishers.
Jackson L. R., 2010. Encyclopedia of Identity. California, SAGE.
Throsby C. D., 1999. Cultural capital, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Journal and cultural economics 23: 3-12.
Throsby C. D., 2001. Economics and Culture. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Weininger, B. E., Not dated. Cultural Capital, University of Maryland. Web. Web.
Winkle-Wagner, R., 2010. Cultural Capital: The Promises and Pitfalls in Educational Research, AEHE. New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons.