ABSTRACT
In this chapter cultural economics is approached from an unusual angle. I question one of the central assumptions underpinning modern “mainstream” economic analysis: that the money price people pay for things is a reasonably accurate indicator of the value they attach to those things. The way they choose to spend their time doing things is a more reliable indicator, arguably—in the cultural sphere especially.
Formal time-centred economics has an under-appreciated history, which the chapter seeks to retrieve. It goes on to explain why time considerations matter. There is very little that policymakers can do to enhance the popular appeal of Capital-C Cultural artforms just by pulling monetary levers, by subsidizing tickets for instance. These like all artforms—like “experience goods” of any sort—only make sense to consumers who have learned the relevant rules and conventions. Learning takes time.
If the arts are valued mainly or solely on a monetary basis, and if evidence of “economic impact” is held to justify government funding, then arts organizations catering for rich people’s tastes will be able to make a stronger case for investment than those serving a poorer clientele. Consumers least in need of taxpayer support will be first in line to receive it.
