Cultural heritage in socio-economic development: local and global perspectives.

Curiously, the role of culture in the economy of cities, countries and regions is not only greatly expanding in countries lagging behind in their economic development. On the contrary, the tendency proves far more typical of industrialized countries. For example, in 2000, the Government of Denmark released a report entitled Denmark's Creative Potential, suggesting that a closer interaction and even convergence between culture and industry should take place because of its potential to "trigger a new social dynamic, which will, at one and the same time, strengthen culture and the arts, offering new opportunities for development, and add impetus to industrial development marked by innovation, creativity and resourcefulness" (Government of Denmark 2000: 4). A similar approach is taken locally by many big and small cities, towns and villages all over the world. Kim (2001: 1) calls it the "cultural turn of capitalism" and observes that in the global-local context, culture can be both a resistant and a resilient force. More broadly, culture is currently perceived not only as facilitator of the economy, but also of individual well-being and the collective well-being of society as a whole; it is identified both as an essential social capital and as a builder of such.

The foregoing tendencies in the culture-development discourse have significantly contributed to a shift in the concept of cultural heritage. They serve as a background for the following discussion, which extends the heritage concept to the framework of economic and social development.

New perceptions of cultural heritage in development

Cultural heritage includes the material aspects of culture--sites, buildings, landscapes, monuments, and objects--as well as the non-material aspects, which are embodied in social practices, community life, values, beliefs and expressive forms such as language, arts, handicrafts, music and dance. Representative of many contemporary definitions, Graham et al. (2000: 2, 157) define cultural heritage as "the contemporary purposes of the past" or "that part of the past which we select in the present for contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural, political or social." The concept of heritage is evolving as a result of and according to the changing attitudes, needs and demands people convey towards it. There is a clear move toward a people-centered, functional approach in regards to heritage, simultaneously shifting its focus along three interrelated axes: from monuments to people, from objects to functions and consequently from preservation to sustainable use and development (Loulanski 2006). Heritage has ceased being just about objects--with its main duty as physical preservation--and has become associated with "whatever fulfils the function of cultural heritage" (Muller 1998: 399).

Most importantly, heritage has stopped being divorced from its societal context and is increasingly perceived as a human construction, made by people and defined by them. A movement toward wider definitions, roles and uses of cultural heritage in society is thus observed. From separate objects--architecture, archeology and movables--heritage has expanded to landscapes, urban and rural areas, the whole historic environment and place. The roles of heritage, seen before in the narrow meaning of symbols of national unity and pride, have expanded to include much broader phenomena, contributing to political ideals, economic prosperity, social cohesion and cultural diversity (Clark 2000). Indeed, heritage assets are increasingly being used in their capacity as resources for a wide variety of modern purposes.

There are critics who consider use to be among the biggest threats to heritage, potentially leading to commercialization, exploitation, devaluation and destruction. There are others, like Netzer (1997: 4), who contend that "the greatest successes in heritage preservation can occur when the heritage element is in actual use, and thus capable of generating revenue to pay for its preservation" or Koboldt (1997: 56) who argue that "many if not most of the benefits [derived from cultural heritage] are realized only in the course of [its] actual use." Among the proponents of heritage use we find not only economists and sociologists but also those who have traditionally opposed the idea, such as culturalists, anthropologists, legal scientists and even preservationists. For instance Prott (2005) points to the need of preserving, together with objects, the multiple human lifestyles through the "continued re-endorsement of value by use" within communities. She warns that the practices of preservation that are typically used often lead to de-contextualization and damage of heritage. She argues for a more adequate interpretation and protection of heritage, based on prioritizing the traditional values of people for whom it holds special social and cultural meanings (Prott 2005: 231, 236).

In a similar vein, Jokilehto (2004) calls for integrated heritage management, emphasizing that every historic area and its surroundings should be considered in its totality as a coherent whole whose balance and specific nature depend on the fusion of the parts, which include human activities as much as the buildings, spatial organization and surroundings. Thus, the very notion of conservation has drastically changed from preservation to sustainable use and management of change in both the cultural and natural environment. Present practices reveal that the preservation of heritage cannot be seen as a process that attempts to stop development and change by freezing culture and heritage. Rather heritage preservation is identified with the practice of managing change as a factor driving the balance between preserving heritage values and ensuring development (Jamieson 2000). This new thinking has led towards shifting the emphasis in conservation from "the conservation of discrete monuments in isolation to the sustainable management of towns, cities and landscapes as a whole" (Clark and Drury 2000: 114).

More specifically, in a new developmental context, heritage is recognized as both engine and catalyst of socio-economic development. Graham et al. (2000) have suggested a theoretical framework, based on three main economic dimensions of heritage to explain its developmental role. First, they identify heritage as "an economic sector in itself"--often referred to as "the heritage industry"--"using resources, producing products, and generating returns in profits, [incomes] and jobs." Second, it is also considered "one element in economic development alongside others, frequently exercising a catalytic or integrating role in development projects" due to its capacity to attract economic activities and accommodate economic functions. Finally, it is looked upon as "an instrument in the management of economies at various spatial scales from the international to the local, as for example in the creation and promotion of place images for dominant economic purposes (Graham et al. 2000: 155). Most recently, the economic rationale of heritage was thoroughly discussed in Mason's (2005) Brookings Institution Report Economics and Historic Preservation--A Guide and Review of the Literature with an extensive and annotated bibliography of both academic and professional literature that reviews the current findings on the value of historic preservation and the methods used to assess that value. A case is made for improving expertise in the field of preservation economics that would allow for more objectively and rigorously quantifying the effects of historic preservation.

Not only in the academic literature, but in policy documents of international organizations and national and regional governments, heritage is repeatedly identified as a powerful economic and social resource, a "development asset" that can be used to "catalyze local-level development," provide employment, generate income, revitalize local urban and rural areas, enhance environmental protection and strengthen communities' social capital (World Bank 1998: 15). Although heritage and its preservation have long been regarded as oppositional to economic development (it is either historic preservation or economic growth), they are increasingly seen as effective partners in development. Their partnering is consistent with all five principles of 21st century socio-economic development--globalization, localization, diversity, sustainability, responsibility--and reinforces the five senses of quality communities--sense of place, sense of identity, sense of evolution, sense of ownership or share, and sense of community (Rypkema 1999). Indeed, cultural heritage has stopped being only a burden to national budgets, and is gradually transforming into a significant "value-adding industry" (Cernea 2001: 45). Anticipations show that investments in heritage are going to grow even further with heritage becoming "the most significant product of the 21st century, determining communities' future" (Ogino 2002: 277).