V krizi smisla tiči misel






         

28.06.2014

Na montrealskem letališču

Vračam se v Ljubljano po relativno uspešni konferenci ACEI v Montrealu. Kaj reči o vtisih po konferenci?

Najprej, prispevki na konferenci me niso navdušili, da ne rečem še kaj hujšega. Zavedam se, da sem postal že precej podoben nečemu, čemur bi rekli fah idiot, vendar v ekonomskih prispevkih pričakujem ali kakšno pomembno spoznanje ali pa vsaj zanimivo uporabo metodologije, z jasnim teoretskim, matematično-modelskim in empirično-ekonometričnim delom.

Iskreno rečeno sem na konferenci opazil štiri bolj zanimive prispevke (morda sem katerega izpustil, za kar se opravičujem).

Prvič, že prvi dan sem se spoznal s Hasanom Bakhshijem z londonskega think tanka NESTA, ki je na konferenci predstavljal članek, podoben enemu, ki ga je pred kratkim objavil z Davidom Throsbyjem. V prispevku, ki je bil izrazito ekonometrično obarvan, sta s kolegom ekonometrikom z NESTE pokazala, da so predstavitve angleškega gledališča pozitivno prispevale k ogledom živih gledaliških predstav v Angliji. Članek je bil izvrstno ekonometrično narejen, Hasan mi je sicer prvi dan obljubljal big data econometrics, ki ga ni bilo prav veliko prisotnega (razen precej obsežnega dataseta prek milijon opazovanj), vseeno pa prispevek, vreden branja.

Drugič, Isidoro Mazza je predstavil “konkurenčen” članek moji doktorski tezi o deaccessioningu, ko smo torej v Di Gaetano & Mazza 2012 in Srakar 2012 v letu 2012 postavili prve matematične modele deaccessioninga, ki (ponovno) postaja kar pomembna tema v kulturni ekonomiki. Sam bom predvidoma v naslednjih dneh v objavo oddal matematično popravljeno in dokončano verzijo mojega članka, tako da bo vsa zgodba dostopna in vidna. Razlike med obema člankoma je v problemu, ki ga obravnavata: Di Gaetano in Mazza sta pokazala, da deaccessioning oz. odsvojitev muzejskih del negativno vpliva na obseg donacij muzejem (grobo rečeno), medtem ko sem sam pokazal, da negativno vpliva na odločitve muzejskih menedžerjev. Mislim in upam, da bo ta zgodba (oba članka) še dobila več epiloga in tudi razprave med drugimi kulturnimi ekonomisti.

Mimogrede, kot stvari kažejo sedaj, bo zagovor moje doktorske teze naposled v septembru ali oktobru, I’ll keep you posted :)

Tretji članek je delo Karola Jana Borowieckega, ki je kot vedno zanimiv in ekonometrično izdelan, govori pa o vplivu emocij skladateljev, kot se kažejo v njihovih pismih, na njihovo produktivnost in blagostanje. Kot vedno priporočam Karolove članke v branje, ekonometrično so ponovno utemeljeni na instrumentalnih spremenljivkah, ki jih bom predstavil v eni (prvi) naslednjih blogovskih delavnic ekonometrije, ker upam, da mi bodo počitnice omogočile nekaj več časa glede tega. Karol je eden večjih mojstrov na področju kulturne ekonomike v iskanju zanimivih instrumentalnih spremenljivk, s katerimi lahko ovrednotimo učinke nekaterih pojavov, ki jih je sicer zaradi težke merljivosti ali zaradi problemov endogenosti težko meriti.

Četrti članek ali članka pa sta neskromno moja oz. soavtorstvo z Akosem Tothom (javni proračuni za kulturo v EU v času velike recesije) in Miroslavom Verbičem in Vesno Čopič (kulturnopolitični indeks). Zlasti prvi, ki je bil prvič predstavljen lani na delavnici EWACE v Ljubljani, temelji pa na predhodni študiji Vesne Čopič, Petra Inkeija, Anite Kangas in moje malenkosti za evropski parlament (kjer pa je bila ekonometrija še zelo bazična), je doživel za konferenco v Montrealu precejšnje popravke in dopolnila, tako da je sedaj pred koncem. Njegove glavne ugotovitve sem že predstavil v predhodnem zapisu, tako da jih ne bi posebej ponavljal. Oba članka izpostavljam predvsem zaradi tega, ker pomenita začetek raziskovalnega programa makroekonomije in (makro, pa tudi mikro)ekonometrije kulturne politike, ki je zaenkrat še precejšnja tabula rasa v kulturni ekonomiki. Kot rečeno večkrat, kulturni ekonomiki manjka tako rekoč njena polovica, makroekonomska namreč. Tudi o tem bo upam več govora v prihodnjih mesecih, članek o kulturnopolitičnem indeksu bo predstavljen tudi septembra na osrednji konferenci raziskovalcev kulturne politike v nemškem Hildesheimu. Tam bo prvič predstavljena tudi stohastična analiza multiplikatorjev za kulturo ter kulturne in kreativne industrije v državah EU, ki jo pripravljam z Vesno Čopič, vendar tudi o tem več, ko bo res kaj narejenega, kar pa bo moralo biti zelo kmalu.

Na konferenci smo se veliko pogovarjali s profesorji, dejansko vedno bolj ugotavljam, da smo v zadnjih petih letih resnično v Slovenijo privabili tako rekoč vse kar pomembnejšega “leze in gre”. Na konferenci so tako ključne vloge odigrali David Throsby (ki ga v Sloveniji še ni bilo, zelo rad pa bi prišel in čisto možno, da ga v kratkem pripeljem k nam predavat na temo uvajanja satelitskih računov v kulturi, o čemer je predaval v plenarni sekciji na konferenci), Francoise Benhamou (predhodna predsednica ACEI, ki je tudi še ni bilo v okviru mojih konferenc, kar se bomo tudi potrudili popraviti), Juan Prieto Rodriguez (prišel 2013), Victor Fernandez Blanco (prišel 2010), Kathryn Graddy (sedanja odgovorna urednica Journal of Cultural Economics, prišla 2010), Bruce A. Seaman (prišel 2012), Jen Snowball (prišla 2012), Arjo Klamer (sedanji predsednik ACEI, prišel 2010), Ilde Rizzo (verjetna nova predsednica ACEI, prišla 2010), Xavier Castaner (prišel 2012), Roberto Zanola (pretekli predsednik ACEI), Antonello Scorcu in Laura Vici (vsi prišli 2013). Od velikih so na konferenci manjkali: Victor Ginsburgh (prišel v Ljubljano 2010), Bruno S. Frey (prišel 2012 in v že nekajkrat prej na povabilo drugih, predvsem J. Šušteršiča in B. Kovača), Ruth Towse (nam je še ni uspelo pripeljati v Slovenijo, kolikor vem), Michael Rushton (moj doktorski mentor in pretekli odgovorni urednik JCE, predaval prek videa na konferenci v Mariboru 2012), John O’Hagan (prišel 2013) in Victoria Ateca-Amestoy, ki je bila v duhu prisotna že nekajkrat, upam pa, da tudi fizično pride na kak morebitni bodoči dogodek v Slovenijo.

Toliko torej samo v vednost, da boste vedeli, kaj se je v zadnjih letih dogajalo glede tega v Sloveniji in kdo vse je hodil k nam. Iskreno rečeno pa resno razmišljam, da bi v soorganizaciji Univerze v Ljubljani, Univerze v Zagrebu in Univerze v Beogradu na Ekonomski fakulteti v Ljubljani v kratkem pripravili eno od bodočih konferenc ACEI, kar bi lahko močno pomagalo temu področju na območjih bivše Jugoslavije in na področju vzhodne Evrope v splošnem – to bi bila prva osrednja konferenca združenja ACEI v vzhodni Evropi po mojem vedenju.

Iz Montreala torej odhajam precej dobre volje. Občutek sicer je, da me kljub precejšnjemu angažmaju v preteklih letih, da ne rečem že skorajda desetletju, kulturni ekonomisti le stežka pripuščajo v svoje kroge. Velikokrat so občutki precej čudni in slabi, vendar mi zaenkrat še uspeva zdržati v teh krogih. Iskreno rečeno sem tudi sam močno napredoval predvsem na metodološkem področju v preteklih letih in če se ne bo kaj nepredvidenega ponovno pojavilo na moji poti bo verjetno naslednje leto leto eksplozije člankov in objav, tako vsaj čutim trenutno. Ogromno materiala je nastalo predvsem v zadnjih treh letih, ki preprosto mora počasi najti pot v revije, članke in knjige.

Toliko torej, montrealska konferenca je tudi ena prvih, kjer sem našel nekaj časa za ogled mesta in celo za en miren orange juice (po večji količini popitega piva v vseh preteklih dneh…) ob televizijskem ogledu konca tekme Brazilija Čile na letališču v Montrealu. Navijal sem za Čile, ker mi Brazilija nikoli ni bila posebej simpatična reprezentanca (ponavadi navijam za Argentino, videli pa bomo, kaj bo z njimi letos, sam napovedujem, da bodo postali prvaki, vendar mi letos njihova zasedba ni toliko simpatična kot na nekaterih preteklih prvenstvih). Zmagala je Brazilija, torej sem zadel vsaj Nostradamusa, kjer imam zaenkrat približno 75% točk vodilnega, kar je kar v redu. Ljudje na letališču so sodeč po odzivih večinoma navijali za Brazilijo, tako da je bil vsaj nekdo res vesel.

Tako, zaključujem tale zapis, okrog mene je blazna gneča tistih, ki čakajo na predhodni let v Vancouver, sam bom torej končal s pisanjem in jim omogočil še en prost sedež. Veselim pa se že pogovorov v Ljubljani in seveda počitnic, ki so nezadržno in končno tu in mi naposled prinašajo nekaj mira in veselja, pa seveda tudi novega dela. Lepo se imejte.

  • Share/Bookmark

26.06.2014

Candidature for a place in the Executive Board of ACEI/Kandidatura za mesto v upravnem odboru ACEI

Zapisano pod: Kulturna ekonomika — andee - 26.06.2014

Moja kandidatura za mesto v upravnem odboru mednarodnega združenja kulturnih ekonomistov ACEI je spodaj, seveda v angleščini. The candidature fully in English is available here.

Vse člane ACEI (glasujejo lahko samo ti) vljudno vabim, da glasujete zame, sebi v podporo bom rekel samo to, da menim, da moje delo preteklih let (pedagoško delo na EF, FDV in FOV, predsedništvo Asociaciji, raziskovalno delo v domači in mednarodni znanstveni srenji in na Inštitutu za ekonomska raziskovanja) govori dovolj o tem, da programom, ki si jih zadam tudi sledim in jih na vsak način skušam tudi uresničiti. S spodnjim kratkim programom mislim krvavo resno in mislim, da je tudi precej “krvavo” potreben :)

Dear colleagues,

I’m responding to Your call for ACEI executive board, sent by Prof. Prieto-Rodriguez.

Firstly, to my opinion, the work of Association for Cultural Economics International in past years has been of tremendous value to all of us working in the field. In past few years many work has been done on inviting new members, providing resources for information (particularly through web sources) and communication with existing members. Great work has been done on organisation of regular events, such as traditional biennial conference and support to other events such as workshops of EWACE and similar events on other continents (Asia, North America, etc.). It is great that association’s work is also visible in East Asia (particularly Japan and South Korea) and that biennial conferences are now taking place all over the world.

On the other hand, several points of work remain, to my opinion, not addressed and I would like to focus my work, if elected, on the following:

1) The cooperation with several regions where the work of cultural economics remains un(or under-)developed. In my mind is particularly the Eastern Europe, where only few attendants attend the conferences and publish articles (or books) in this field. Perhaps part of the gap can be attributed to lack of knowledge of the field, yet to my opinion a lot can be attributed to methodological issues. In countries where I originally come from (parts of ex-Yugoslavia – Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, FYR of Macedonia) there is still a big disparity between economists working with econometric, statistical and formal mathematical models and economists working with more broader statistics and mostly theoretical issues. Only gradually is the knowledge of formal models evolving, particularly in the field of culture. Therefore, most of the people interested in the work on systemic issues in culture decide to publish and research in the fields of cultural policy and/or cultural management, which are not that (statistically) methodologically demanding. To my opinion this has to be changed by: 1) many more economists with all possible orientations have to be attracted to the work of the Association; and 2) many more economists from faculties in Eastern Europe, that deal with econometric and methodological issues have to be attracted to our work. I already invested many efforts in spreading this idea in Slovenia and other countries of Ex-Yugoslavia and responses are gradually becoming better (we now have several members of ACEI from a small country such as Slovenia, which can be to my opinion mostly attributed to this work) and people in the field are becoming more and more interested in everything that cultural economics can offer to them. If elected, I would like to continue with this work and spreading it to other countries of Eastern Europe (e.g. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Hungary, even countries of ex-Soviet Union such as Ukraine, Belarus, etc.).

2) There is unfortunately quite a big gap present between scientific fields such as cultural policy research, cultural management and cultural economics. First two fields have a developed infrastructure (e.g. Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, EENC, ECURES, LabforCulture, Culturelink, IFACCA, ENCATC, Interarts, etc.) while on the other hand very few researchers from the field of cultural economics join their efforts (and, unfortunately, also vice versa). To my opinion this gap has to be bridged and researchers from those areas have to start working and cooperating more closely. Cultural economists would have to be more interested in the research of cultural policy issues and using the methodological and theoretical knowledge of cultural economics also in those fields.

3) This closely relates to my third point. While cultural economics is spreading as a research field and its main journal (Journal of Cultural Economics) now counts among the best economic journals, there is still an undeveloped general theory of the field, too less focus on solving of the open problems (some of them were addressed by Prof. Ginsburgh’s plenary speech in Kyoto conference, but there remain many more of them open, some of them he didn’t even address) and several rather vast areas remain unresearched. I’m particularly speaking about the economics and econometrics of cultural policy. Although cultural economics started with a macro-oriented perspectives of Baumol and Bowen, issues of “cultural macroeconomics” (e.g. economics and econometrics of cultural policy) remain largely blank and unresearched. Almost half of cultural economics (the macroeconomic half) is therefore missing… To my opinion this is a big gap that would also need much more work and development and where the Association could do more by e.g. organising events in this area, stimulating new research and promoting the ideas in this field more extensively (I pronounce that I’m not speaking about the cultural policy research but the lacking research on the economics of cultural policy). There are also other areas such as economics of the internet, economics of video games, economics of copyright (although given more focus in past years) and evaluation methods (to replace the problematic economic impact studies) that need to be addressed in a more thorough sense.

4) Finally, I think that the work of cultural economics would still need more popularisation, both among the field of general economics as well as among “cultural sciences” and also in the eyes of the general, lay public. More events would have to be organised and/or supported, leading cultural economists would need more space to present their ideas to, if nothing else, compete and present their ideas on an equal level with scholars from cultural policy and cultural management. Also, more economic scholars would need to be drawn to our area. There is still much to do in this area as well.

If elected, I would therefore like to focus on those key points as well as help in the work to spread the mission of the Association for Cultural Economics International. I sincerely hope to have the possibility of realising this task.

Many thanks and with kind regards,
Andrej Srakar.

  • Share/Bookmark

17.06.2014

Public Budgets for Culture in the EU During Financial Crisis: An Econometric Perspective

Tale članek bo drug teden predstavljen v Montrealu na osrednji konferenci združenja kulturnih ekonomistov ACEI.

Tole je angleški povzetek. Ko bo kaj več časa, morda napišem še kaj več na to temo.

The article analyses whether EU countries use similar cultural financing strategies during crisis as they use in economically successful years. To provide an answer to the question we evaluate the following main hypothesis: “Effects of the financial crisis were reflected in the cuts in general, central and local budgets for culture.” To estimate it we use methods from multivariate analysis (hierarchical and K-means clustering, principal components analysis), and panel data regression analysis (static and dynamic models). Due to the endogenous (reverse-causal) nature of relationship between central and local budgets in culture that has so far not been modelled, explained and econometrically tested, we also use panel VAR methodology to resolve and estimate the consequences of this relationship. We use dataset from Eurostat according to COFOG methodology. It has to be noted that this is one of the first (or perhaps the first) econometric analyses of public budgets for culture and their determinants in the EU and in general.

We are able to establish three main findings: 1) during the period 2008-2011 in 13 studied European countries cuts in cultural budgets as measured from deviations to the trend were present on both central as well as local level (somewhat contrary to what was established by previous study of Čopič et al., 2013); 2) the patterns of cuts in the cultural budgets have not always followed cultural policy characteristics of the studied countries; 3) there indeed exists a reverse-causal relationship among central and local cultural budgets – raising the central cultural budget will also raise the local cultural budgets, while, on the other hand, raising of the local cultural budgets will have minor if not negative effects on the level of central cultural budget. This has important policy consequences and has to be verified and tested in future empirical studies.

P.S.: Powerpoint predstavitev z nekaj najnovejšimi korekcijami in dopolnili najdete tukaj.

  • Share/Bookmark

11.06.2014

Preučevanje videoiger v kulturologiji in kulturni ekonomiki

Zapisano pod: Kulturna ekonomika, Kulturologija — andee - 11.06.2014
Tagi: , , ,

Zadnja številka revije Teorija in praksa je bila namenjena kulturološkim študijam videoiger, najdete jo tukaj.

Ob tem se mi porodi misel na prispevek kolegov Karola Jana Borowieckega in Juana Prieto-Rodrigueza, ki sta ga kolikor vem prvič predstavila na delavnici EWACE na Ekonomski fakulteti v Ljubljani septembra lani, in naj bi bil prvi kulturnoekonomski prispevek na temo preučevanja videoiger. Med drugim je bil vmes objavljen kot delovni zvezek ACEI, najdete ga tukaj.

  • Share/Bookmark

Blog V krizi smisla tiči misel | Zagotavlja SiOL | O Sistemu |