Culture as an Instrument of Mass Construction

In the Programming Period 2007–2013 cultural heritage has always been defined as an emerging market, however from the total sum of 47 billion euros Structural Funds, only 6 billion (1.7%) are allocated to culture, as culture is thought to be an issue of national interest. Given the fact, that only few fields of application require such a vast integration of different skills, the question is: why culture is considered a trans-European market but remains heavily subsidized at national level. This paper builds an attempt to shed light on how do we measure the return on cultural investment; if it is correct to measure only direct returns; what does it exactly mean to invest in culture rather than investing in construction or in the production of ice cream; if we use should the same criteria or is it necessary to proceed differently. We argue that the understanding that the social value of any investment is far more important than the actual income: the sums for example governments can save health services, if violence is decreased, are substantially higher than the sums invested for culture to regulate social behavior. We further argue that in order to achieve this goal, the cultural sector needs to transcode contemporary impressions into emotion by employing art and artists, while economists need to demonstrate the social balance and the social profit of a market such as culture.