It is clear from initiatives such as the Laissez-passer membership scheme at the Pompidou Centre in Paris that we have much to learn from our European colleagues. One speaker at the recent Audiences Europe conference, where the Pompidou Centre experiences were recounted, was Michele Trimarchi, an eminent Italian economist who specialises in the cultural sector. He delivered a revealing critique of the same type of economic impact study as has been used by Dominic Shellard, a Professor of English Literature, to draw the impressive conclusion that UK theatre contributes £2.6bn annually to the UK economy. What might Professor Trimarchi make of this particular report? Well, to quote his presentation: "Academic economists are critical towards impact studies [as] outcomes are generally overstated. Gross figures of economic impact are not sufficient. We need to evaluate the amount and proportion of income and employment newly generated, net of costs, and the differential impact of spending on the arts in comparison with alternative subsidised activities." He also pointed out that "a causal relationship between visitors' spending and the arts is uncertain, as choices are influenced by various factors. If we eliminate the arts supply, would the expenditure and employment be diverted or eliminated?" And his conclusion? "that impact studies ignore the main purposes of arts production: artistic innovation and creativity, and quality of life." The strange thing is that Tessa Jowell seems to agree with him (p3), so quite why anyone is bothering with the tedious economic sleight of hand contained in the latest report is something of a mystery. One suspects that the mandarins at the Treasury, in the midst of the Spending Review, may just see through this particular ruse.
