Glyn Balkwill mentioned the Australian reports `What Price Heritage?' and
`What Value Heritage?' as documents that may be useful in the discussion of
the 'moral' value of collections.

The first was produced by the Dept of Finance in 1989.  It was the product
of an economic rationalist (ie Thatcherite) attempt by the bean counters of
the Commonwealth government to show that the state and national museums are
extravagant and over-subsidised.  It did so via such meaningful analyses as
exhibition space as % of total space and cost.  All right, this is the
worst interpretation; the more fair is that it showed that visits to these
major museums are subsidised by the taxpayer between $6-16 per visit.  The
conclusion suggested that museums should be more accountable via
performance indicators, that they should raise more income off-budget, and
that the then (and still) embryonic National Museum of Australia should
distribute its collections among the states for display while a decision is
made whether to proceed with the building it.  [The latter still hasn't
happened].

The second report 'What Value Heritage?' was a rather belated response by
the Dept for the Arts (and other things), published in 1990.  It pointed
out that there are unquantifiable values such as public goods contained in
the support of heritage collecting institutions, but acknowledged that
performance indictators are important.

Neither report is in print.


Linda Young
Cultural Heritage Management
University of Canberra
[log in to unmask]