dEjournals Home Page
Competitio
Online ready Current Most Read Archives Search
Register Login

Competitio

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2012)
Papers

The Comparative Analysis of the Cultural Financing Models of France and Hungary

Published:
2012-06-18
DOI Linkhttps://doi.org/10.21845/comp/2012/1/4
Author
Akos Toth
View
PDF (Hungarian)
Keywords
cultural financing coordinated cultural financing model institutions France Hungary
How To Cite
Selected Style: APA
Toth, A. (2012). The Comparative Analysis of the Cultural Financing Models of France and Hungary. Competitio, 11(1), 50-67. https://doi.org/10.21845/comp/2012/1/4
Abstract

Both France and Hungary use the so called coordinated cultural financing model, in which the active role of the state is decisive. However, instead of producing a similar model, the level of the cultural sector value added to GDP in the two countries is different. The article’s aim is to answer this puzzle. The focus is on the role of institutions and state subsidy. The analysis tries to understand whether direct state subsidy plays a decisive role in the economic performance of the cultural sector. The analysis also shows whether the harmony of formal and informal institutions have a positive effect on the economic growth of the cultural sector. The assumption is that the size of direct government subsidy cannot increase economic growth. If the formal and informal institutions are in harmony, and if there is a long-run cultural policy strategy in a country, the cultural sector value added to GDP is higher.

Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classifications: Z10, Z11

References
  1. Admical (2008): Le mécénat d’entreprise en France 2008 Résultats. http://www.admical.org/editor/files/ADMICAL_CSA2008.pdf, Letöltve: 2010.08.23.
  2. Admical (2009): The impact of the economic crisis on corporate philantrophy. http://www.admical.org/editor/files/Impactszázalék20criseszázalék20anglais.pdf, Letöltve: 2010.08.23.
  3. Antal László (2007): A magyar versenyképesség makroökonómiai szemszögből. Debrecen.
  4. Benedek Gabriella – Scsaurszki Tamás (2008): Mi és ők? A civil szervezetek és az állam kapcsolata Magyarországon. The Sasakawa Peace Foundation, Japan.
  5. Benhamou, F. (2003): The Paradox of France’s Cultural Exception: a Strong Consensus Hiding Deep Sources of Cleavages. Conference New Cleavages in France. Princeton University, október.
  6. Boettke, P. J. – Coyne, C. J. – Leeson, P. T. (2008): Institutional Stickiness and the New Development Economics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 67, 2:331–358.
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1984): A social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
  8. Compendium (2007): Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe. 8. kiadás, Council of Europe/ERICarts. http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/index.php.
  9. Cowen, T. (2000): In Praise of Commercial Culture. Harvard University Press.
  10. Cowen, T. (2006): Good and Plenty: Creative Successes of American Arts Funding. Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey.
  11. Foundation De France (2008): A 40 years’ experience in philanthropy. http://www.fondationdefrance.org/English-version/The-Fondation-de-France, Letöltve: 2010.08.23.
  12. Hume, D. (1777): Of Refinement in the Arts. http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hume/refineme.hme, Letöltve: 2008.11.12.
  13. Kádár Katalin (2003): Marketingkommunikáció. Atlanta Távoktatási Központ.
  14. KEA (2007): The Economy in Culture in Europe. Study on the Economy of Culture in Europe. European Commision, KEA European Affairs, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc873_en.htm#bad_nodepdf_word/economy_cult/executive_summary.pdf, Letöltve: 2008.10.26.
  15. Klamer, A.–Petrova, L.–Mignosa. A. (2006): Financing the Arts and Culture in the European Union. Directorate General Internal Policies of the Union. http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/files/134/en/Financing_the_Arts_and_Culture_in_the_EU.pdf.
  16. KSH (2011): Magyarország Statisztikai Évkönyve.
  17. KSH (2011): Statisztikai Tükör. Budapest, V. évf., 90. szám, Letöltve: 2012.01.13.
  18. Kuti Éva – Marshall Miklós (1991): A nonprofit szektor fogalma. Egy definíciós vita, és ami mögötte van. Az Esély 1991/1. számában megjelent tanulmány rövidített változata.
  19. Mermiri, T. (2010): Private Investment in Culture 2008/09: the arts in the ‘new normal’. Arts & Business. London.
  20. Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication (2011): Statistiques de la Culture. http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/culture/deps/2008/pubstat_chiffcles.html, Letöltve: 2011.10.23.
  21. Morel, C. (2005): Will Businesses Ever Become Legitimate Partners in the Financing of the Arts in France? International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 11, No. 2:199–213.
  22. Nagy András (1998): A jóléti rendszer Franciaországban. Közgazdasági Szemle, XLV. évf., 1998.május:456–478.
  23. North, D. C. (1991): Instiutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter 1991):97–112.
  24. OECD (2009): Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. OECD Factbook. ISBN 92-64-05604-1.
  25. Simonin, H. (2003): The Contingency of the Cultural Policy Sector: an Hermeneutic Comparison of Cultural Policies. International Journal of Cultural Policy. Vol. 9:109–123.
  26. Stark Antal (2008): Kultúra és finanszírozás. Pénzügyi Szemle, LIII. évf.:64–82.
  27. Williamson, C. R. (2009): Informal institutions rule: institutional arrangements and economic performance. Public Choice DOI 10.1007/s11127-009-9399-x.
  28. Williamson, C. R.– Kerekes, C. B. (2010): Securing Private Property: Formal versus Informal Institutions. Journal of Law and Economics, előkészületben. claudiawilliamson.googlepages.com, Letöltve: 2010.08.13.
  29. www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org
  30. World Value Survey: Online Data Analysis. http://www.wvsevsdb.com/wvs/WVSAnalizeIndex.jsp.
Most read articles by the same author(s)