V krizi smisla tiči misel



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

Brez komentarjev »

Še brez komentarjev.

RSS vir za komentarje na objavo. Trackback URI


Komentiranje iz tujine je omogočeno zgolj prijavljenim uporabnikom !

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