Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
1 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
BEYOND BOTTOM-LINE
APPROACHES: AN EXTENDED
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF
PERFORMING ARTS FESTIVAL
Gianluigi Mangia, Maria Laura Toraldo, Paolo Canonico,
Riccardo Mercurio
ABSTRACT
The impact of the Performing Arts Festival (PAF) is an ongoing field of research, currently
facing several flush issues.
Despite the most part of specialise literature takes into account the measurement of economic
impact, the assessment of social impact and the assessment of the social and environmental
performance, there is little robust evidence on organizational goals and on the degree of
effectiveness of mechanisms and structures used to achieve the goals agreed.
Drawing on the received experience of research in the field, this paper outlines a new
integrated theoretical model able to include and combine the dimensions evaluated by the
traditional literature, pooled with dimensions related to the analysis of organization’ s
strategic goals and to the organizational effectiveness analysis.
In more detail, an in-depth case study on the Napoli Teatro Festival (NTFI) is carried out to
illustrate the new theoretical framework applied to the brand new Italian performing arts
Festival.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
2 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Keywords:
Performing Arts Festival, Economic & Social Impact, Organizational goals, Effectiveness.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
3 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
1. Performing Arts Festivals and cultural industries
1.1 The relevance of Festivals and their main characteristics: towards a taxonomy
Cultural industries have received a great deal of attention in recent years (Hesmondhalgh,
2005, 2006; Pratt, 2005; Scott, 1997). The term cultural industries was first introduced to
address the production and dissemination of cultural content in mass media. Nowadays, it
usually refers to suppliers of mass media content as well as producers of the traditional arts,
that do not lend themselves to mass-reproductions. Following Cherbo and Wyszomirski
(Cherbo & Wyszomirski, 2000) we can say that the artistic industries includes profit,
nonprofit, and public enterprises, focused on the cultural heritage, literary, media, performing
or visual arts. As Hirsch (2000: 356) states, when we use the word “industry” we take the
focus of attention away from any single firm “in the sequence of discovering, producing, and
delivering a product, redirecting attention to the interconnections and inter-dependencies
between them in order to get to the final ("finished") product or outcome” (Hirsch, 2000:
356).
Moving to the outputs, cultural products may be defined “as tentatively immaterial goods
directed to a public of customers, to whom they generally serve an aesthetic of expressive
rather than utilitarian function. Insofar, as one of [the] goals is to create and satisfy consumer
demand for new fads and fashions, every customer industry is engaged to some extent in the
production of cultural goods, and any consumer good can be placed along the implied
continuum between cultural and utilitarian products” (Hirsch, 1972: 640-641).
Cultural industries can be actually considered as some of the most vital one in western
countries, even because they represent very fastest growing sectors.
In particular the theatre sector is showing a full expansion within Cultural industries. In 2008,
SIAE1 registered, more or less, 2,8 million of performance represented in comparison to the
2,7 million of 2007. Within cultural industries, theatrical-related performances account for a
significant stake of the overall turnover. It is remarkable, that in Italy the theatrical
performances produced, during 2008, revenues for nearly half a billion euros, while the
1
SIAE is a point of reference for authors and publishers, as well as for those who operate in the entertainment
industry. A society (in the language adopted by author’s societies it is often referred to as a “multi-purpose
society”) that issues thousands and thousands of licenses for the uses of each work, thus facilitating the payment
of royalties by the users and protecting the authors’ works. www.siae.it
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
4 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
turnover of the entire culture Italian sector amounted to 5.6 billion euros (Siae, The Yearbook
of
the
Entertainment
Activity,
2008;
Istat,
2008).
As Thornton, Jones et al. say (2005) we would be wrong, if we would estimate cultural
industries just in terms of revenues produced; we have, in fact, to take into account the role of
knowledge, creative, and symbolic assets of the cultural industries (Thornton, Jones, & Kury,
2005; Wenger, 2000). These assets can be considered as the key facts that impact on the
degree of innovation and competitiveness in both national and global economies (Florida,
2002; Lampel, Shamsie, & Lant, 2008). Obviously, the real effect produced by cultural
industries depends on the characteristics of cultural organizations that constitute the
managerial subsystems of the industry in which they operate (Lewis, 1992).
Among cultural industries, Festivals play an important role. The growth of Festivals and
special events in numbers, diversity and popularity has been huge in very recent years
(Crompton & McKay, 1994, 1997; Getz, 1991; Thrane, 2002). In fact, many cities developed
or carried out new initiatives, Festival and other big events (sometimes specifically for
residents and citizens) in order to produce economic and social development (Gursoy, Kim, &
Uysal, 2004).
This huge growth in the number of Festivals and the use of public funds devoted to their
implementation arise a need of accountability. In this paper, we argue that Performing Arts
Festivals’ impact analysis should require a whole integrated model, that helps us in
thoroughly understanding interconnections between economic and social dimensions
(Andersson & Getz, 2009; Getz, 1991; Getz, 2008; Robertson, Rogers, & Leask, 2009; Small,
Edwards, & Sheridan, 2005)
Festivals vary enormously in type and form2. A central issue to consider is linked to the
expansion of the Art concept. Traditionally the arts were seen to incorporate works and
activities such as classical music, opera, theatre, dance, fine arts (Hughes, 2000). An
enlargement is occurred today, including a wider collection of activities such as contemporary
dance, film, popular music and various component of the performing arts. Indeed, as stressed
by Yeoman and Robinson (2004), the program of any international Festival reflects the
diversity of the contemporary arts and its audience base. Another approach to categorize
2
Although a categorization of Festival distinguished on different typologies is not complete and comprehensive, traditionally
Festivals have been categorized considering its principal art form celebrated. Then it will be take in consideration Opera
Festival (f.e. Rossini Opera Festival in Pesaro or Opera Festival of Rome), Music Festival ( f.e. Festival Mito, and Salzburg
Festival), Theatre Festival (f.e NapoliTeatroFestival), Festival of Cinema (Festival of Venice or Festival of Cinema in Rome)
and Cultural content Festival (f.e. Festival Letteratura in Mantova, or Festival della Matematica). As obviously clear, the
previous examples derive from Italian context.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
5 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
events come from the contribution of Bowdin et al. (2002) in which they group Festival
according to scale, genre, aim (to celebrate a location or a community group),
professionalism, and commercial profile: f.e. Art-form Festivals, Commercial music Festivals,
Celebration of work by a community of interest.....
Referring to the Performing Arts Festivals industry, it is possible to distinguish several
categories (Lee, Lee, & Wicks, 2004). Andersson and Getz (2009) distinguish Festivals into
three different types depending on ownership governance structure (private firms, public
sector/government, public-private partnerships) considering the Festival industry as a “mixed
economy” that includes features of central planning and government enterprise with some
degree of privatization (Andersson & Getz, 2009).
1.2 Performing Arts Festivals: positive and negative effects
When we speak about PAF, we are considering their nature of big social events able to impact
on the social renewal of urban contexts (Zhou, 2009). As a direct consequence, we face to a
huge increase in the number of publications, papers and researches focused on the topic of
economic impacts and motivations (Gartner & Holecek, 1983; Nicholson & Pearce, 2001;
Uysal & Gitelson, 1994; Zhou, 2009).3
Typically, research from a managerial perspective focused on the impact analysis tend to
underline that the economic impact produced is either the only or the main reason for
implementing a Performing Arts Festival (Gursoy et al., 2004; Thrane, 2002).
On the contrary, moving to sociological literature we adopt a different lens of understanding.
The main idea is that social communities organise Festivals and artistic events with the main
purpose of reinforcing social cohesion (Turner, 1982; Evans & Shaw, 2004). Festival and
events are socially embedded and they give a contributions in showing what a society believes
to be its essential elements (Gursoy et al., 2004). As Granovetter states (Granovetter, 2005:
35) “when economic and non-economic activity are intermixed, non-economic activity affects
the costs and the available techniques for economic activity”. It means that economic results
are linked and depend on organizational action, institutions and other organizational actors
that are non-economic in content, goals or processes (Granovetter, 1985, 2005).
In other words, as Gursoy et al. state “Festivals and special events reinforce social and
3
It is interesting to point out that the most part of the contributions focused on the topic of Festival comes from
the tourism management literature (Getz, 1991; Getz, 2008) or from performing arts discipline (Yeoman and
Robinson, 2004 ; Hughes, 2000).
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
6 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
cultural identity by building strong ties within a community”. Performing Arts Festivals can
increase pride and social/ cultural identity, feeling of cohesion, the tacit knowledge dimension
(Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002; Esman, 1984; Mathieson & Wall, 1984).
Integrating an economic and a sociological perspective we can argue that a PAF produces a
significant impact on the economic and social context. In many instances, Performing Arts
Festivals are seen as complementary to normal arts programming and can reflect the best of
what it has to offer. To become a noted location on the arts circuit, cities need to provide a
very rich spectrum of events for a broad range of audiences. Performing Arts Festivals could
be viewed as the new cultural infrastructures for cities because they have the potential to raise
cultural profiles and attract international performers, audience resources and economic and
social development (Andersson & Getz, 2009; Finkel, 2006; Parkinson, 2001). As Long and
Robinson (Long & Robinson, 2004) state, typically Festivals represent a good opportunity to
facilitate a knowledge creation process, positively impacting on the context.
Beyond possible advantages, some common negative effects have been traced in the social
division and gentrification effects. The two concepts are intimately linked. Social division
occurs when people are divided along lines interrelated class and ethnic lines by segregating
experience and by providing inequitable opportunities for participation. As what concern the
concept of gentrification4, it simply put the notion that influent people can be attracted leading
to gentrification and displacement of lower income people.
In the following table we try to summarize the most relevant advantages and disadvantages
linked to the implementation process of a Performing Arts Festival.
-----------------------------------Table 1 about here
------------------------------------
4
In 1964 the British sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term “gentrification” (the term “gentry” in English
indicates the middle-high class of the society) to denote the influx of middle-class people to cities and
neighborhoods, displacing the lower-class worker residents. As stated by Grant (2003) the term gentrification
denote the socio-economic, commercial, and demographic change in an urban area resulting from wealthier
people buying housing property in a less prosperous community.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
7 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Referring to the richness of positive and negative possible impacts includes the idea that we
need to develop a coherent framework for an economic and social impact analysis.
In the above figure, are highlighted positive and negative effects deriving from Performing
Arts Festivals both considering social aspects and economic aspects. In the left column, are
put in positive economic effects as investment increase or income growth and positive social
effects such as lifestyle enhancement or urban regeneration. Symmetrically, in the right
column are inserted negative social effects as gentrification or social division and negative
economic effect like price growth and cost of living increase. As what concern the kind of
economic negative effect of service and good rationing, it is something which can occur for
very popular events performed in small town or village.
It is clear that each typology of positive and negative impact (both social and economic) has
to be evaluated in the context or location in which the Festival is embedded, evaluating the
specificity and distinctiveness of the social end economic environment. This last
consideration poses several relevant implications in the impact analysis matter, implying the
need of a systematic inclusion of contextual socio-economic characteristics.
2. Festivals as events: current research on assessing economic and social impact
2.1 Concepts, aims and main implications in economic and social impact analysis
Impact analysis is a controversial topic on its own, and the ambiguity of the concept tends to
increase when artistic endeavours are under scrutiny. Furthermore the topic is covered by an
air of technicality, as thought the only or the main problem could be refining measurement
techniques (Crompton&McKay,1994; Seaman,1997; Snowball, 2000). On the contrary, we
argue that the most interesting question in the topic is not technical at all, but theoretical. In
our opinion, the problem is not simply how to measure the socio-economic impact, but what
to measure, analysing how definitions and techniques can be selected and how they are
strictly related with other organizational dimensions (governance models, organization'
s
strategy, organization'
s structure) (Mangia, Canonico, Toraldo, & Mercurio, 2009). In this
way, the main problems plaguing this research domain cannot simply considered as
disturbances that can be brushed aside as soon as a new and more sophisticated technique is
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
8 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
adopted (Seaman,1997; Snowball, 2000)
Moving to the matter of definition, according to Radich (1987), the economic and social
impact of a given phenomenon (a PAF, for example) can be defined as the effect of that
phenomenon on such economic and social factors as the economic behaviour of consumers,
businesses, firms (micro-level) and on the economy as a whole, national wealth or income,
employment, and capital (macro-level)'(Radich, 1987).
More in detail, considering firstly the economic dimension, for Crompton and McKay
economic impact can be defined as the net economic exchange in a host community,
excluding non market values which result from spending attributable to the event (Crompton
& McKay, 1994, 1997).
In this way the word "impact", when used in the phrase "economic and social impact
analysis” and when it refers, as in the case, directly to the idea of direct economic impact has,
in a certain way, a literal meaning and it refers to the benefits flowing from the project
investment (Throsby, 2001, 2003, White & Rentschler, 2005(Crompton & McKay, 1994;
DiNoto & Merk, 1993; Seaman, 1997; Uysal & Gitelson, 1994; Vogelsong, Graefe, & Estes,
2001; Zhou, Yanagida, Chakravorty, & Leung, 1997).
The main advantage of researches focused on the measurement of the direct economic impact
relies on the fact that it gives a quantifiable measure (in terms of money and value created)
respect to other kinds of studies that give just a pure qualitative result (Throsby, 2001, 2003;
Vogelsong, Graefe, & Estes, 2001). In this way, economic impact studies have been used to
measure the value of a variety of public and mixed goods, such as arts Festivals, sports
facilities and educational institutions (Seaman, 1997; Snowball, 2000, 2007).
Economic (and social) impact studies are particularly relevant: in fact, they motivate for
public funds (Hager & Kopczynsky, 2004). In fact, it is agreed that Performing Arts Festivals
generate a wide range of economic and social benefits for the citizenship, but it is so
fragmented and diffuse that typically only governments or public–private agencies can
manage, market and support it (Carlsen, Ali-Knight, & Robertson, 2008).
Furthermore, there is a strong linkage to the fact that only through sustaining destination
competitiveness it becomes possible to achieve public benefits. In this way, governments at
all levels elect to participate to varying degrees in PAF development. Stemming from these
considerations, Pearce states that the promotion of a destination (through the implementation
of a PAF, for example) can be interpreted as a public good, due to the social and economic
benefits it generates (Andersson & Getz, 2009; Pearce, 1992).
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
9 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
In this perspective, Hall includes the introduction of specific incentives as a mean that
governments and institutions have in order to promote social and economic development
through PAF (Hall, 2005). Where the social objective is to create more cultural experiences,
or more output where economic demand is weak (as in Opera) (Sicca, 2001) subsidies to notfor-profit organisations are , under this premise, reasonably justified.
The estimation of positive and negative effects can drive Festival organizers, managers,
policy makers, researchers in understanding not only the economic implications, but also
other aspects such as the resident perceptions, which provide important non-economic
dimension for gauging how events benefit or impinge on the host community (Jeong and
Faulkner, 1996; Hall, 1992).
2.2 Economic and social Impact: Methodological Issues
To understand the contemporary state of economic and social impact analysis, it is necessary
to grapple with some of the major intellectual disputes that have swept through the social
sciences and organizational domain in recent years (Dwyer, Mellor, Mistilis, & Mules, 2000;
Granovetter, 2005; Radich, 1987; Robertson et al., 2009; Snowball, 2000; Zhou, 2009). As we
stated above, the main problem is represented not simply how to measure but what to
measure, thinking that we can develop the right tool, after defining the object of the
evaluation process (Jackson, Houghton, Russell, & Triandos, 2005). In this analysis, we argue
that it is expedient to start from the consideration of what an economic and social impact
analysis typically means (Crompton & McKay, 1994; Dwyer, Mellor, Mistilis, & Mules,
2000; Salvemini, Morganti, & Nuccio, 2009; Snowball, 2000; Vogelsong, Graefe, & Estes,
2001; Getz, 1991).
The most part of economic and
social impact analysis rests on a deep and careful evaluation of the direct and indirect impact
produced by the PAF within the area of study (Guerzoni, 2008; Mangia, Canonico, Toraldo,
& Mercurio, 2009; Radich, 1987).
We can go in-depth in the analysis of
these different sources of impacts, starting to distinguish several dimensions that are typically
taken into account in literature:
1. measurement of direct economic impact;
2. measurement of indirect and induced economic impact.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
10 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
3. measurement of social impact.
The first dimension is closely related with the idea the measurement of the impact produced
by a Performing Arts Festival depends directly on the expenses generated by the institution
that is in charged of the organization of the Festival (DiNoto & Merk, 1993; Throsby, 2001;
Van Puffelen, 1996). In particular, the analysis of the direct economic impact includes two
main aspects (Jackson et al., 2005; Salvemini, Morganti, & Nuccio, 2009; Throsby, 2003):
1. understanding and measuring the economic expenditure produced by the institution
that is in-charged of the organization of the Festival.
2. understanding and measuring the direct economic impact produced by the audience.
The quantification of the direct expenditure implies a systematic balance sheet analysis. By
this way, it becomes possible to identify the relevance of different categories of expenditure,
giving a possible grid of interpretation.
If we use the metaphor of a heavy stone (the performing arts Festival) thrown away in a
placid lake (the social and economic context) the first ring of waves is represented by the
direct economic impact, but immediately after we face to a second ring that is constituted by
the indirect and induced economic impact.
The second dimension is represented by the second ring in the stone metaphor. We are
referring to what we define as indirect and induced economic impact.
In this way, Pratt states (Pratt, 1997): “much attention has been paid to developing analyzes of
the indirect impact of the arts and cultural industries. Urban managers in the US and latterly
the UK have developed economic impact studies that have sought to explore the extra
economic activity generated by arts and culture; predominantly via participation figures, and
secondary impacts via proximity on shopping and tourism, as well as transport and
accommodation. Such studies have effectively re-legitimized arts investment (that is not-forprofit art activity) within a new state regime.'(Pratt, 1997).
In the literature review we carried out, the main tendency for measuring the indirect and
induced impact implies the adoption of econometric models able to trace the right correlations
between sectors and industries (Guerzoni, 2008; Salvemini, Morganti, & Nuccio, 2009;
Snowball, 2000).
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
11 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
As Guerzoni states (2008) it is possible to identify different theoretical models, that differ in
the number of sectors to be included in the analysis. The simplest alternative (economic base
– EB) includes just two sectors; the most articulated one (input-output analysis) implies the
inclusion of hundreds of different industrial sectors
-----------------------------------Table 2 about here
-----------------------------------Regional input-output techniques have been developed and applied over a long period of time
in the field of regional economics, with many useful results being generated (Throsby, 2003).
As Thorsby states, given the recent growth in interest in the possibilities for investment in arts
and cultural activities as a means towards urban and regional revitalisation, there would seem
to be some scope for the extension of regional input-output analysis into the cultural field,
(Throsby, 2003).
Input-output methodologies are frequently used as a powerful tool to evaluate economic
impacts from tourism (Briassoulis 1991; Fletcher 1989; Johnson and Moore 1993). In
management literature, due to the very common use, scholars have well-documented
hypothesis, limitations, weaknesses, advantages, pitfalls (Zhou, Yanagida, Chakravorty, &
Leung, 1997).
The main feature of IO studies is that they deal with the empirical analysis of the
interdependence among the various sectors of an economic area-nation, region, state, etc. By
an IO analysis it is possible to map the actual uses of the output deriving from Performing
Arts Festivals as an input to other industries/sectors in the economy. In other words, the basic
objective of IO models is to map how an industry’s product is distributed throughout a region
or economy (Zhou et al., 1997).
If we decided to limit our model to the use of this typology of tools , we would adopt what we
could call “a simple accountability perspective” (Mangia et al., 2009) because we “simplifiy”
the economic impact analysis identifying two main dimensions (direct and indirect economic
impacts) that can be, more or less, easily defined and quantified. The more you decide to
circumscribe the matter to the simple quantification of direct and indirect economic impacts,
the more you try to identify a figure that you can take for sure (Hager & Kopczynsky, 2004;
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
12 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Pyatt & Roe, 1977; Snowball, 2000; Vogelsong et al., 2001).
The main advantage of this perspective rests on the fact that it is able to give a measure whose
borders can be very well defined. At the same time it is easy to understand the main
shortcoming that is in the incapacity of measuring other relevant dimensions that produce
effects in terms of costs and revenues both on an economic and social level (Dwyer et al.,
2000; Rao, 2001; Snowball, 2000).
This approach should be expanded by including the less quantifiable economic impacts (the
third dimension above mentioned), such as occupational opportunities and the contribution of
the Festival to local entrepreneurial culture (Rao, 2001). In this way, Rao (2001) states that
performing arts go beyond “pure entertainment and revenue generating”, due to the fact that
they give everybody the opportunity to socialize and to show his/her own belonging to the
collective. Rao thinks that through the participation in the Festival, each single citizen can
demonstrate to be a good member of the community, establishing good relations with other
families and citizens. (Rao, 2001). Going beyond the economic (direct and indirect) impact,
we have also to reason about the social impact produced by a Performing Arts Festival
(Landry, 2000). In this case, it is absolutely clear that we face to the need to translate this
social value (effects produced or perceived) in terms of a quantifiable measure, coping with
the problem that is methodologically difficult to have a model able to support this conversion
(DiNoto & Merk, 1993; McCarthy, Henegan Ondaatje, & Novak, 2007; Wilton & Nickerson,
2006). In the light of these considerations, a new stream of research is towards the adoption
(among other different and articulated techniques) of the willingness to pay and willingness of
paying models. These constructs have been studied for roughly 30 years and with a wide
variety of goods (Horowitz & McConnell, 2002) and recently even for cultural goods and
services (Snowball, 2000; 2007). Willingness to pay means the value people are willing to
pay in order to have in their city the event, even if they do not attend to any performance.
Willingness to accept it means the minimum amount of money one would accept to forgo
some good or to bear some harm (Horowitz & McConnell, 2002; Shogren, Seung, Dermot, &
James, 1994).
The difference between willingness to pay WTP. and willingness to accept WTA. has been
widely studied through both theory (Horowitz & McConnell, 2002; Snowball, 2000). As
Horowitz et al. state WTA is typically larger than WTP, and the WTP/WTA ratio is much
higher than their economic intuition would forecast (Horowitz & McConnell, 2002; Shogren,
Seung, Dermot, & James, 1994).
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
13 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Typically, studies focused on residents’ perceptions regarding the impact of Festivals have
shown that those citizens who feel a strong perception of identification with the event, are
hose who are more likely to have positive perceptions of the events impacts (Small, Edwards,
& Sheridan, 2005).
Even considering the WTP stream of research, extant research has been focusing mainly on
monetary measures of events’ worth and outcomes, neglecting issues that cope with social,
cultural, environmental and organizational dimensions behind the event (Small, Edwards, &
Sheridan, 2005).
The academic community has been debating on the opportunity to integrate these dimensions
into a wider and richer theoretical model.
To achieve such result, in specialised literature a few authors (Elkington, 1997; Sherwood,
2007) have proposed a Triple-Bottom line approach to planned events evaluation, in order to
grasp economic, social and environmental parameters in an integrated effort. The objective
here at stake is the ability to put organizing bodies in condition to comprehensively evaluate
their impacts and account for their actions. Accountability has to extend beyond internal
shareholders to encompass all stakeholders interested in and affected by planned events,
including visitors and especially the affected communities. Standardized measures and
methods will be required, but currently only the financial/economic measures are welldeveloped.
The idea of 3BL approach is that a Festival’s ultimate success can and should be measured
not just by the traditional financial bottom line, but also by its social/ethical and
environmental performance. Stemming from one of the most enduring clichés of modern
management “if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”, we feel forced to develop tools
that make more transparent to managers, shareholders and other stakeholders how the
institution in-charged of the implementation of the Festival is doing in this regard.
Considering more in detail the matter of sustainability we argue that a huge number of firms,
institutions try to make clear their behaviour is sustainable, introducing proper management
systems (inspired by TBL principles). As Walton et al. (2004) state in this case organizations
aim at accounting to a more diverse group of “stakeholders” for their social and
environmental impacts (Pope, Annandale, & Morrison-Saunders, 2004).
Getz (2009) put forward that “Multiple stakeholder perspectives are essential when we
examine event outcomes, and they all have to be brought into a consensus-building process if
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
14 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
event sustainability is to be achieved”.
Summing up, it is possible to point out the main dimensions of analysis taken into account in
the specialised literature:
1. a matter of measurement of direct economic impact;
2. a matter of measurement of indirect and induced economic impact
3. a matter of assessment of social impact (e.g. WTA, WTP);
4. a matter of assessment of the social/ethical and environmental performance (3BL
approach).
What emerges from this review it is an interesting picture, that offers, in our view, an
important aspect, that is the lack of a coherent analysis of the organizational goals and of the
degree of effectiveness in achieving the goals agreed.
In the next paragraphs we try, stemming from our experience of research in the field, to
outline a new theoretical model able to include and integrate all the dimensions above
mentioned and described, focusing our attention on the Napoli Teatro Festival experience that
is described in the next few pages.
2.3 The Napoli Teatro Festival experience
The Napoli Teatro Festival (NTFI) was born in 2008 under the initiative of Regione
Campania (through the Fondazione Campania dei Festival) and of the Italian Ministry for
Culture and Tourism in order to set up in Italy an international performing arts Festival able to
compete with the foreign best performers (e.g. Edinburgh, Avignon....).
Omitting intentionally a detailed description of what NTFI is and does, we argue that it is
expedient
just
to
mention
the
main
features5.
From its beginning, the NTFI, through its scientific director Renato Quaglia, and its president
Rachele Furfaro, decided to carry out an independent process of economic and social impact
analysis. The authors, at different levels, were involved in both years (2008, 2009) analysis6.
The research group decided to apply the traditional research approach including the
5
6
www.napoliteatroFestival.it for further information.
See at this regard, Salvemini, S., Morganti, I., & Nuccio, M. 2009.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
15 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
dimensions of economic and social impacts, trying to follow the TBL approach suggestions.
In particular, in the two years analysis, we worked on a theoretical model focused on the
following main dimensions of analysis: economic (direct and indirect) impact; social impact;
sustainability (3BL).
What emerges is the deep difficulty in evaluating the final results in terms of effectiveness.
We mean that the research experience applied to a newly introduced Festival gave us the
opportunity to reflect on the fact that we should include in the theoretical debate the nexus
between goals, mission and results achieved, trying to translate in the literature focused on the
impact analysis the hypothesis underlying the organizational goals debate.
Just to give an example, one of the most qualifying goals attributed to the organization in
charged of the organization and the implementation of the NTFI was its launch as a high
standing Festival in the international arena. Respect to this ambitious goal, the top
management implemented a bundle of organizational actions strictly related, among which we
can include the production of the first European Theatre Company, composed of artists from
different countries of the European Union. Furthermore, the Festival set up a huge number of
agreements with other primary cultural and theatrical institutions (Singapore Art Festival,
Théâtre de la Ville-Paris, Festival d’Avignon, Festival de Mérida, Wiener Festwochen,
Festival of Edinburgh, Armitge Foundation of New York....). How to evaluate these results?
Can it be done just in terms of economic or social impacts? Or do we have to include the
matter
of
the
coherence
with
the
goals
attributed
and
shared?
On a different level, a second main goal was represented by the willingness to create and
promote a sort of cross-fertilization in the local cultural context. In this way, we had to face to
several significant initiatives that took place for the 2nd edition. In particular, we refer to the
fact that the NTFI has reached a three-year agreement with Teatro di San Carlo7 and the
Mercadante Teatro Stabile di Napoli, that binds the cultural institutions to co-produce
concerts and shows that will go beyond the month of June, in Naples and the surrounding
areas. Furthermore, in collaboration with the Museo Madre8 the programme of the second
edition of the Festival opens itself to the world of contemporary art, with a cycle of
7
The San Carlo is the oldest working theatre in Europe (older than both Milano'
s Scala and Venice'
s Fenice) has
now carefully restored to its former splendour.
8
The Museo d’Arte Contemporanea Donna Regina (M.A.D.RE) stands in the historical town centre of Naples,
close to the Duomo and the Treasure of St. Januarius, a hundred yards from the Museo Archeologico Nazionale
and the Accademia di Belle Arti (Galleria d’Arte Moderna). The origin of the name of the museum can be traced
back to the building that houses it, the Palazzo Donnaregina, which stands next to the Monastery of S. Maria
Donnaregina, founded by the Swabian dynasty (13th century) and then rebuilt and enlarged in 1325 by Queen
Mary of Hungary.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
16 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
performances that present the encounter between artistic practises and the most radical
theatrical experimentation. It is clear that the real meaning of this initiatives requires a longtime analysis. At the same time, we realized tht the only rational parameter to analyse and
evaluate the organizational analysis implemented needed a systematic comparison with the
goals defined.
3. Discussion: the new integrated theoretical model
What clearly emerges from the theoretical background depicted in the previous paragraphs is
the presence of a huge and interesting debate that, even in its most recent contributions,
considers three main aspects in the economic and social impact analysis:
-
economic (direct, indirect, induced) impact;
-
social impact (citizens’ perception,…);
-
sustainability, a first effort to make an integration of different perspectives (3BL
approach).
What seems to be definitively miss out is the inclusion in the appraisal process of two
different components that, in our opinion, are definitively fundamental (Mangia et al., 2009):
1. there is a matter of strategic assessment, that includes the analysis of the mission and
of the strategic aims respect to the context;
2. there is matter of organizational mechanisms and structures used and implemented to
accomplish the tasks assigned;
The reason why both aspects seem to play a central role within an impact analysis framework
relies on the fact that it is impossible to get along without debating on the matter of
organization goals (Mohr, 1973; Simon, 1964). Some authors define organizational goals as
the functions of the organization for society, and the analysist is directed to study the
interrelationship of societal subsystems (Parsons, 1954, 1961, 1963; Zald, 1963)9.
Now we focus our attention on the two main aspects previously indicated.
9
On the point, there is a very widespread theoretical debate that is not central respect to our reasoning.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
17 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
The strategic assessment
The first dimension focuses on the analysis of both the strategy and the mission of the
institution in charged of the organization and implementation of the artistic event. This
analysis seems definitively expedient due to the fact that by this way it becomes possible to
define the right standard in order to assess the performance achieved (Morecroft, 1984).
The analysis of goals and strategic aims plays a fundamental role for several reasons. First, by
this way we can focus the attention on a certain object, by defining what action is
organizationally relevant. Secondly, we can identify practices and technological processes
that are potentially required to achieve specific goals. Thirdly, we presume that the successful
implementation of different strategies implies different actions and it is related with different
organizational models and structures. For example, an artistic institution in charged of the
implementation of a performing arts Festival can pursue either an internationalization strategy
or a audience growth strategy in the short term. It is clear that the comprehension of the
strategy helps significantly in understanding the results achieved (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995;
Mangia et al. 2009).
Furthermore, the identification of goals and aims impacts on the relationship with external
context. In fact, whether or not goals are achieved affects the ability of the organization to
command resources and to be legitimized by the external society.
In fact, the choices
Performing Arts Festival may make are strategic, insofar as they are made in relation to
formal policy (i.e., with mission statements, for instance, and/or statements of objectives),
which may or may not have been made in negotiation with other institutions or organizations
(Patton, 1990).
It is interesting to underline that we face to the problem that people (individuals) have goals,
collectivities of people do not (Cyert & March, 1963, pag. 30; Ethiraj & Levinthal, 2009).
Due to the particular nature of the Fondazione Campania dei Festival (that is the institution in
charged of the organization and the implementation of the NTFI) the main goals are shared by
the participants. It is partially a priori sharing, due to the fact that the goal of public interest
and social welfare is definitively introduced; partially, it is a posteriori consensus achieved
through discussion within small groups even throughout a symbolic interactionist process
(Blumer, 1986).
It is even true that the goals that Fondazione Campania dei Festivals tries to pursue are
conditioned by the formal strategic mission attributed to the institution by Regione Campania,
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
18 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
that is the most important shareholder (that in this scheme plays the role of the
entrepreneur).(Cyert, March, 1963). In this way, NTFI is an example of a public organization,
where external agents may at least partially control the goals of the organization by tight
supervision of appointments to key executive positions, by establishing official goals, by
budget allocations, and by legislative rules and policies (Zald, 1963).
The final output of this step in the research process is represented by the setting up of a
possible hierarchy of the main goals pursued by the organization in charged of the
implementation
of
the
Performing
Arts
Festival.
Considering the methodological issues, we are using different methods for the same
assessment. We think that we should base the analysis on:
1. internal documents analysis
2. interviews with top management and middle management
3. analysis of real actions in terms of performance and results achieved
It is a sort of within method triangulation (Denzin, 1978: 301): in fact, we use different
multiple techniques within the same qualitative method in order to collect and interpret data.
As stated by (Denzin, 1978) and by (Jick, 1979) "within-method" triangulation essentially
involves cross-checking for internal consistency or reliability.
The simple analysis of internal document and formal statements (organizational chart,
mission’ statement, process diagrams…) can offer just a partial view (Hackman, Lawler, &
Porter, 1977; Perrow, 1970, 1986). In this way, we think that it is expedient to analyse the role
played by most influencing individuals (f.e. major decision makers) (Cameron, 1986;
Connolly,
Conlon,
&
Deutsch,
1980;
Price,
1971;
Zald,
1963).
The application of qualitative research methods can be traced back to the fact that it is more
coherent with a perspective that relaxes the ontological assumption (Morgan, Smircich, 1986:
498) that the world is characterized by a concrete structure. On the contrary, the processes
through which human beings “project themselves from the transcendental to more prosaic
realms of experience” (Morgan, Smircich, 1986: 498) require quantitative techniques.
The following step is composed of an analysis and appraisal of organizational actions
implemented in order to achieve the above defined goals.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
19 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
The organizational assessment
The second dimension implies the analysis on the organizational level; in this way, we mean
that the real comprehension of the weakness and strengths of the Festival can be really done
only through the analysis of the organizational structure that has been implemented (Mangia
et al., 2009). The analysis of the organizational dimension, in fact, represents a fundamental
brick in order to assess the degree of efficiency, of coherence and of congruence respect to the
strategic aims pursued.
Following the scheme by Pugh et al. (1963) we argue that the organizational analysis must
include six different dimensions: specialization; standardization; formalization; centralization;
configuration; flexibility. The six variables mentioned above can be considered as structural
variables. Stemming from the old but even today right assumption by Simon that principles of
management are not in fact a guide to effective action, we argue that it is particularly useful to
define a scale for all these variables in order to identify relationships and scientifically test the
hypotheses Pugh et al. (1963).
So these six variable are able to describe differences in terms of organizational characteristics
and forms. They must be analysed on the basis of contextual variables that can be used as
independent variables: Origin and History, Ownership and Control, Charter, Technology,
Technology, Resources, Interdependence.
The final step is represented by the evaluation of the analysis of organizational behaviour is
an organization'
s success in reaching its stated goals.
This evaluation process can be traced back to a matter of: profitability, productivity,
adaptability, market standing, morale, …. (Pugh et al., 1963).
It is clear that we could use the above mentioned goals as relevant performance criteria;
furthermore, we could also make an interesting comparison of the organization'
s relative
effectiveness at various times, building up a sort of longitudinal analysis.
In a broader view we could study the structure and activities of an organization in relation to
its other characteristics and to the social and economic context in which it is found.
What we are facing to is a matter of measurement of organizational effectiveness (Jobson &
Schneck, 1982; Steers, 1975) that occupies a prominent place in the history of managerial
debate. In particular, effectiveness not only is a basic concept within organizational theory but
it is a constant characteristic in everyday life (Goodman & Pennings, 1977; Jobson &
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
20 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Schneck, 1982).
Following Jobson and Schneck (Jobson & Schneck, 1982) we think that effectiveness criteria
should be viewed in multidimensional terms. What we mean is that it is not possible to
identify a either univariate or a overall measure of organizational effectiveness, because we
should consider multiple effectiveness measure considering that each organization has
multiple goals and constituents: in other words, each single dimension of effectiveness may
be independent (Jobson & Schneck, 1982).
In particular, we worked on a set of four variables, defined as follows.
Degree of international performances and the number of alliances and partnership done. This
first parameter has a two-fold importance and relevance. The first aspect is related to the fact
that the development of a high-standing set of partnership and co-production relationships
represents one of the most relevant aims that a PAF may try to get to. Secondly, this variable
can be interpreted as a first possible measure of quality. Naples has a very strong theatrical
tradition: the introduction or the strengthening of the international perspective
can be
interpreted as a sort of value added to the Neapolitan cultural heritage10. We classify as
international spectacles performances produced abroad or where the presence of international
elements seem predominant. The total number of international performances is divided by the
total number of performances; the resulting ratio is used as an effectiveness criterion in terms
of degree of internationalization. The second variable is represented by the degree of
“turnout” of theatres and of the locations of spectacles. The total audience was divided by the
potentially total capacity for each single performance. the resulting ratio is used as an
effectiveness criterion in terms of degree of “market success”. The third variable is
represented by the degree of effectiveness perceived by local communities. In this way, we
mean the effect produced on the sense of awareness and commitment and citizenship in the
local population. Effectiveness criteria derived from population'
s perceptions will be
developed by a community questionnaire. All questions will be scored at a 5-point Likert
Scale; except for items from 10 to 16. The questionnaire includes a section of questions
entirely devoted to get demographic information. We are reasonably confident that the items
are reliable and have a high degree of validity. In particular, the statements and the questions
included into the questionnaire help us in understanding five main aspects:
10
See for further interesting details Vittorio Viviani. 1992. Storia del teatro napoletano. Guida Editori, Napoli.
With the preface by Roberto de Simone.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
21 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
1) process behaviour;
2) task performance;
3) importance of NTFI for the collective;
4) participation in the community;
5) quality of cultural local production and the impact produced by NTFI.
The fourth and last variable refers to the perceived effectiveness by NTFI staff and manager.
Five perceptual items are going to be used to assess how manager and staff themselves rate
their effectiveness. The answers to these questions are firstly totalled and then we define the
average for each single detachment. The final result is an
estimate of the perceived
effectiveness mean measurement.
So in conclusion, we have a multiple-fold model that add 8 further variables:
1. degree of internationalization;
2. turnout degree of theatres
3. degree of effectiveness perceived by local communities;
4. degree of perceived effectiveness by NTFI staff and manager.
Adopting this multidimensional perspective, effectiveness criteria and parameters are
operationalized from a number of organizational goals. This research project can show how
the adoption of multiple criteria of effectiveness may represent a strong and robust tool in
order to build up a integrated theoretical model in order to measure the economic and social
impact produced by a PAF.
Concluding this section of the paper is expedient to spend some words about the methodology
adopted. In this perspective, to measure and to evaluate the degree of effectiveness perceived
by local communities and the degree of perceived effectiveness by NTFI staff and manager
we use a two-fold method, including both semi-structured interviews and two questionnaires.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
22 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
In order to evaluate the degree of internationalization and the degree of “turnout” of theatres
we analyse internal documents and official statistics.
4. Some remarking conclusions
This paper has proposed an alternative theoretical model of economic and social impact
analysis which underscores its socio-economic dimensions. This paper, in particular details
and illustrates a new methodological model that could inform our understanding and future
investigations of how impact analysis can be carried out.
The model described in the paper provides insights into the limitations and
contributions of prior conceptualizations of impact analysis. In particular, we can show how
each of the traditional research stream are one-fold. The “a simple accountability perspective”
perceiving the economic impact as the core provides useful insight into how festival and
other
big
events
can
impact
on
the
economic
texture.
The social dimension helps us in perceiving festival as a phenomenon able to impact on
citizenship, on social commitment. What we propose is a new methodology of analysis that
implies the inclusion of different dimensions at the same time. In the economic impact
analysis applied to the NTFI experience we are taking into account each single component we
have mentioned and analysed. By this way, we want to give an answer to the main statement
that within the topic of economic and social impact analysis the main problem could be
refining measurement techniques.
On the contrary, we have presented a new integrated
model where the identification of the tools and
techniques stems from the preliminary
analysis of what has to be evaluated. In this way, we build up a model composed of 5 main
bricks. The first one refers to the analysis of the direct and indirect economic impact; the
second one to the social impact.
The third dimension includes the 3BL approach principles. The fourth and the fifth
dimensions are related to the analysis of strategic goals and to the organizational effectiveness
analysis.
Understanding how different dimensions influence the impact produced by Performing Arts
Festivals would give insight into the limits and opportunities of strategic and organizational
design.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
23 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
5. References
Adinolfi, P. (2010). “Learning Computer Supported Collaborative Problem Solving: a Case
Study in Post-graduate Education”, con Scarano V e Tateo L., in A. D'
Atri, M. De Marco, A.
M. Braccini, F. Cabiddu (Eds), Management of the Interconnected World, Springer;
Allen J. et al. 1999. Festival and Special Event Management. Milton, John Wiley & Sons
Australia
Andersson, T. D., & Getz, D. 2009. Tourism as a mixed industry: Differences between
private, public and not-for-profit Festivals. Tourism Management, 30: 847-856.
Antonelli G. (2009) – Il social capital nei network di innovazione: il caso Molise, Rassegna
Economica giugno.
Argano, L. 2005. Gli eventi culturali. Milano, FrancoAngeli.
Barman, E. 2007. What is the Bottom Line for Nonprofit Organizations? A History of
Measurement in the British Voluntary Sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations, 18: 101-115.
Bassett, K. 1993. Urban cultural strategies and urban regeneration: a case study and critique.
Environment and Planning , 25: 1773-1788.
Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. 2002. Residents'perceptions of the cultural
benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29: 303-319.
Bille Hansen, T. 1995. Measuring the value of culture. European Journal of Cultural Policy,
1: 309-322.
Blumer H. 1986. Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. Prentice Hall
International, Englewood Cliff.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
24 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Bowdin, Glenn, Ian McDonnell, Johnny Allen, & William O'Toole. 2002. Events
Management. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Briassoulis H. 1991. “Methodological issues: Tourism input output analysis”, Annals of
Tourism Research, 18: 485-495.
Cameron, K. 1986. A Study of Organizational Effectiveness and Its Predictors. Management
Science, 32: 87-112.
Carlsen, J., Ali-Knight, J., & Robertson, M. 2008. Access a Research Agenda for
Edinburgh Festivals. Event Management, 11: 3-11.
Caves, R. 2000. Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce. Harvard, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Cherbo, J., & Wyszomirski, M. (Eds.). 2000. The Public Life of the Arts in America.
Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Cicellin M. (2009) cap. 1, par. 1.2 “Dall’approccio teorico del New Public Management
all’approccio critico della Public Governance”, pp. 19-22; par. 1.5 “Lo stato attuale delle
public utilities in Italia”, pp.28-32, in (eds.) Mercurio R., Martinez M. “Modelli di
governance e processi di cambiamento nelle public utilities”, FrancoAngeli, ISBN 978-88568-2488-9.
Cyert, R., March, J., (1963). A behavioural theory of the firm. Prentice Hall.
Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. 1980. Organizational effectiveness: A multiple
constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5: 211-217.
Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. 1994. Meausuring the economic impact of Festivals and
events: some myths and, misapplications, and ethical dilemmas. Festival Management &
Event Tourism, 2: 33-43.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
25 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. 1997. Motives of visitors attending Festival events.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24: 425-439.
Delamere, T.A. 1999. Development of a scale to measure local resident perceptions of the
social impacts of community Festivals, The Canadian Congress on Leisure Research.
Denzin, N. K. 1978. The research act : a theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2d
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. 2005. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
de Vita, P., Mercurio, R., Testa, F. (a cura di), (2007). Organizzazione Aziendale: assetto e
meccanismi di relazione, Torino, Giappichelli.
DiMaggio, P. 1991. Constructing and organizational field as a professional project: U. S. Art
Museums, 1920-1940. In W. P. Powell, & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, P. 1994. Culture and economy. In N. Smelser, & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Handbook
of Economic Sociology: Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press: 27-57.
Di Noto, M. J., & Merk, L. H. 1993. Small economy estimates of the impact of the arts
Journal of Cultural Economics., 17: 41-53.
Dubini, P. 1999. Economia delle aziende culturali. Milano: Etas.
Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N., & Mules, T. 2000. A Framework for Assessing
“Tangible” and “Intangible” Impacts of Events and Conventions. Event Management, 6: 175191.
Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Capstone: Oxford.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
26 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Esman, M. R. 1984. Tourism as ethnic preservation : The Cajuns of Louisiana. Annals of
Tourism Research, 11: 451-467.
Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. 2009. Hoping for A to Z While Rewarding Only A: Complex
Organizations and Multiple Goals. Organization Science, 20: 4-21.
Evans, G., & Shaw, P. 2004. The Contribution of Culture to Regeneration in the UK: A
review of evidence. London: London Metropolitan University
Finkel, R. 2006. Tensions between ambition and reality in U.K combined Arts Festival
programming: a case study of the Lichfield Festival. International Journal of Event
Management Research, 2.
Fleming W.R. e Toepper L. 1990. Economic impact studies: Relating the positive and
negative impacts to tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 29: 35-41.
Fletcher J.E. 1989. Input-Output Analysis and Tourism Impact Studies. Annals of Tourism
Research, 16: 514-529.
Fletcher J.E. e Archer B. 1991. The development and application of multiplier analysis. In
Cooper C.P. (ed.), Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, 3, London,
Belhaven Press, 28- 47.
Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. And How It'
s Transforming Work, Leisure
and Everyday Life. London: Basic Books.
Franco M., (2010) “Approcci, modelli e strumenti organizzativi – Introduzione”, in Santucci
R., Natullo G., Esposito V., Saracini P. (a cura di), ”Diversità” culturali e di genere nel lavoro
tra tutele e valorizzazioni”, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Garnham, N. 1987. Concepts of Culture: Public Policy and the Cultural Industries. Cultural
Studies, 1: 23-37.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
27 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Gartner, W. C., & Holecek, D. F. 1983. Economic impact of an annual tourism industry
exposition. Annals of Tourism Research, 10: 199-212.
Getz, Donald and Andersson, Tommy D. 2009. Sustainable festivals: On becoming an
institution. Event Management, 12: 1-17.
Getz, D. 2008 Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29:
403-428.
Getz, D. 1991 Festivals, Special Events and Tourism. New York: Van Nostrand.
Goodman, P. S., & Pennings, J. M. 1977. New perspectives on organizational effectiveness.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of
Embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510.
Granovetter, M. 2005. The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes. The Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 19(1): 33-50.
Guerzoni, G. 2008. Effetto Festival: L’impatto economico dei Festival di approfondimento
culturale, Fondazione Carispe.
Guerzoni, G. 2008. Il Festival della mente di Sarzana: l'
impatto economico. Autonomie locali
e servizi sociali, 2: 225-234.
Gursoy, D., Kim, K., & Uysal, M. 2004. Perceived impacts of Festivals and special events
by organizers: an extension and validation. Tourism Management, 25: 171-181.
Hackman, J. R., Lawler, E. E., & Porter, L. W. 1977. Perspectives on behavior in
organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
28 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Hager, M., & Kopczynsky, M. 2004. The Value of the Performing Arts in Five
Communities. Washington: Nostrand.
Hall, M. 2005. Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility. Harlow: Pearson/Prentice
Hall.
Hall, C. M. 1992. Hallmark events: Impacts, Management and Planning. London Belhaven
Press.
Heneghan Ondaatje, E., McCarthy, K. F., Novak, L. 2007. Arts and Culture in the
Metropolis: Strategies for Sustainability. Rand Corporation.
Hesmondhalgh, D. 2005. Media and cultural policy as public policy. International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 11: 95-109.
Hesmondhalgh, D. 2006. Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media Culture
Society, 28: 211-231.
Hirsch, P. M. 1972. Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural
Industry Systems. The American Journal of Sociology, 77: 639-659
Hirsch, P. 2000. Cultural Industries revisited. Organizational Science, 11: 365-371
Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. 2002. A Review of WTA/WTP Studies. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 44: 426-447.
Hughes, A. 2000. Arts, enterntainment and Tourism. Butterworth – Einemann
Jackson, J., Houghton, M., Russell, R., & Triandos, P. 2005. Innovations in Measuring
Economic Impacts of Regional Festivals: A Do-It-Yourself Kit. Journal of Travel Research,
43: 360-367.
Jeong, G. H., & Faulkner, B. 1996. Resident perceptions of mega-event impacts: the Taejon
international exposition case. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 4: 3-11
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
29 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602-611.
Jobson, J. D., & Schneck, R. 1982. Constituent Views of Organizational Effectiveness:
Evidence from Police Organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 25: 25-46.
Johansson, M., 2008. Festivals as temporary organising: Constructing durability and the
notion of place. 24th EGOS Colloquium Amsterdam July 10-12.
Johnson R.L. e Moore E. 1993. Tourism Impact Estimation. Annals of Tourism Research,
20: 279-283
Yeoman, I., Robinson M., et al. 2004. Festival and Events Management: an International
Arts and Culture Perspective. Elsevier Limited, Oxford, U.K.
Lampel, J., Shamsie, J., & Lant, T. 2008. The Business of Culture: Strategic Perspectives
on Entertainment and Media. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Landry, C., 2000. The Creative City: A Toolkit Urban Innovators, Earthscan, London.
Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K., & Wicks, B. E. 2004. Segmentation of Festival motivation by
nationality and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 25: 61-70.
Lewis, J. 1992. Art, Culture and Enterprise. London: Routledge.
Long, P., & Robinson, M. 2004. Festivals and Tourism: Marketing, Management and
Evaluation. Sunderland: Business Education Publishers Limited.
Loveridge, S. 2004. A tipology and Assessment of Multi-Sector Regional Economic Impact
Models. Regional Studies, 38: 305-317
Mangia, G., Canonico, P., Toraldo, M. L., & Mercurio, R. 2009. Social and economic
impact analysis: towards a new integrated model through the experience of Napoli Teatro
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
30 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Festival: Working paper no. 20. Università di Napoli Federico II - Dipartimento di Economia
Aziendale, Napoli, Italia
Martinez M (2007), I livelli dell'
attore organizzativo: azienda, in Mercurio R, Testa F. De
Vita P., Organizzazione aziendale: assetto e meccanismi di relazione,
ISBN:
9788834877647, Giappichelli, Torino, pag. in 113 pag. fin 160
Martinez M (2007), I livelli dell'
attore organizzativo: network, in Mercurio R, Testa F. De
Vita P., Organizzazione aziendale: assetto e meccanismi di relazione,
ISBN:
9788834877647, Giappichelli, Torino,
Martinez M (2011). ICT, productivity and organizational complementarity. In: CECILIA
ROSSIGNOLI, ANDREA CARUGATI. Emerging Themes in Information Systems and
Organization Studies. p. 271-281, BERLINO:Springer Verlag, ISBN: 9783790827385
Martinez M., Pezzillo Iacono M. (2012), "Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna
che tutto cambi”, Management, Cambiamento e Legittimazione Istituzionale nelle Public
Utilities in Italia, Management delle utilities; vol. 1/12, pp. 21-31.
Mercurio R. ; Adinolfi P. (2005). La clinical governance possibile soluzione ai fabbisogni
d'
integrazione nelle aziende sanitarie in Mecosan, n.53, pp.85-98, ISSN:1121-6921.
Mercurio R., Canonico P., Mangia G., De Nito E., Esposito V. (2009). Interpreting
projects - bureaucratical mechanisms or level for change?. ORGANIZACJA I
ZARZADZANIE (ISSN:1899-6116) pp.5- 17 Vol.N 3 (7).
Mercurio R., Mangia G. (2009), L'
approccio teorico dei critical management studies, in H.
Willmott, D. Knights, R. Mercurio e G. Mangia, Comportamento Organizzativo, Isedi,
Torino, ISBN/ISSN: 9788880083504.
Mercurio R., Martinez M. (2009) “Modelli di governance e processi di cambiamento nelle
public utilities”, FrancoAngeli, ISBN 978-88-568-2488-9.
Mercurio M. Martinez M., (2005), Scelte manageriali e teorie organizzative: la
progettazione organizzativa negli studi di organizzazione aziendale, in Atti del Convegno
AIDEA La riconfigurazione dei processi decisionali nel quadro evolutivo della
competizione,Catania, 7-8 Ottobre, 2004, Giappichelli, Torino
Mercurio R., Martinez M., Moschera L. (2000), Le imprese di trasporto ferroviario in
Europa: pressioni istituzionali e nuove forme organizzative, in Maggi B. (a cura di ), Le sfide
organizzative di fine secolo ed inizio secolo. Tra postfordismo e regolazione. Etas, Milano.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
31 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Moschera L., Consiglio S., Berni A., Cicellin M. (2011) “Logiche istituzionali e
allomorfismo in un campo organizzativo: le Agenzie per il Lavoro in Italia”, Studi
Organizzativi, n. 2/2011, ISSN 0391-8769.
Moschera, L., (2007), Forme organizzative e contributi teorici, in de Vita P., Mercurio R.,
Testa F., (a cura di), Organizzazione aziendale: assetto e meccanismi di relazione, G.
Giappichelli Editore, Torino
Garzella, S., Mancini, D., Moschera, L., (2009) Sistemi di controllo interno e soluzioni
organizzative, S, Giappichelli, Torino
Moschera, L., (2000), L’efficacia organizzativa, capitolo 8, in Mercurio R. e Testa F.,
Organizzazione. Assetto e relazioni nel sistema di business, Giappichelli, Torino;
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. 1984. Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. New
York: Longman.
McCarthy, K., Henegan Ondaatje, E., & Novak, L. J. 2007. Arts and Culture in the
Metropolis. Strategies for Sustainability. New York: Rand.
McKevitt, D., Lawton, A., & Open University. 1994. Public sector management : theory,
critique and practice. London ; Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mohr, L. B. 1973. The Concept of Organizational Goal. The American Political Science
Review, 67(2): 470-481.
Morecroft, J.D.W. 1984. Strategy support models. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5(3),
215-229.
Morgan, G., Smircich, L. 1986. The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management.
The Academy of Management Review; Oct 1980; 5: 491-500.
Murphy, K.R., Cleveland, J.N. 1995. Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,
Organizational, And Goal-based Perspectives. SAGE Publications.
Nicholson, R. E., & Pearce, D. G. 2001. Why do people attend events: A comparative
analysis of visitor motivations at four south island events. Journal of Travel Research, 39:
449-460.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
32 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Parkinson, M. 2001. Key challenges for European cities: achieving competitiveness,
cohesion and sustainability. Area: 78-80.
Parsons, T. 1954. Essays in sociological theory (Rev. [i.e. 2d] ed.). Glencoe, Free Press.
Parsons, T. 1961. Theories of society; foundations of modern sociological theory. New
York]: Free Press of Glencoe.
Parsons, T. 1963. Essays in sociological theory (Rev. ed.). Glencoe,: Free Press.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Pearce, D. 1992. Tourist organizations. Harlow: Longman.
Perrow, C. 1970. Organizational analysis; a sociological view. Belmont, Calif.,: Wadsworth
Pub. Co.
Perrow, C. 1986. Complex organizations : a critical essay (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
Pezzillo Iacono M., Esposito V., Mercurio R. (2012), Controllo manageriale e regolazione
dell’identità organizzativa: la prospettiva dei Critical Management Studies, Management
Control, Vol. 4 n.1.
Pezzillo Iacono M., Esposito V., Sicca L.M. (2009), Diversity management o retorica del
linguaggio manageriale?, in Di Guardo M. C., Pinna R., Zaru D., Per lo sviluppo, la
competitività e l’innovazione del sistema economico. Il contributo degli studi di
Organizzazione Aziendale, Franco Angeli, Milano, pp. 277-301.
Pyatt, G. and Roe, A. 1977 Social Accounting Matrices for Development Planning, The Review
of Income and Wealth, Series 23 (4), 1977.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
33 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. 2004 Conceptualising sustainability
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6): 595-616.
Pratt, A. C. 1997. The Cultural Industries Sector: its definition and character from
secondary sources on employment and trade, Britain 1984–91. London: London School of
Economics.
Pratt, A. C. 2001. Understanding the Cultural Industries. Paper presented at the Convergence,
Creative Industries and Civil Society – The New Cultural Policy, Nottingham.
Pratt, A. C. 2005. Cultural industries and public policy. International Journal of Cultural
Policy, 11(1): 31 - 44.
Price, J. L. 1971. The Study of Organizational Effectiveness. The Sociological Quarterly,
13(1): 3-15.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Macdonald, K. M., Turner, C., & Lupton, T.
1963. A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,
8(3): 289-315.
Radich, A. J. (Ed.). 1987. Economic Impact of the Arts: A Sourcebook. Washington: National
Conference of State Legislatures.
Rao, V. 2001. Celebrations as Social Investments: Festival Expenditures, Unit Price Variation
and Social Status in Rural India. Journal of Development Studies, 38(1): 71 - 97.
Robertson, M., Rogers, P., & Leask, A. 2009. Progressing socio-cultural impact evaluation
for Festivals. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(2): 156 - 169.
Rosentraub, M. S., & Joo, M. 2009. Tourism and economic development: Which
investments produce gains for regions? Tourism Management, 30(5): 759-770.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
34 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Scott, A. J. 1997. The Cultural Economy of Cities. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 21: 323-339.
Seaman, B. 1997. Arts impact studies: A fashionable excess. In R. Towse (Ed.), Cultural
economics: the arts, the heritage and the media industries. 2. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sherwood, P., Jago, L. K., and Deery, M. 2005 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Special
Events: Does the Rhetoric Reflect Reporting? In: Proceedings of the Council of Australian
University Tourism and Hospitality Education. Charles Darwin University.
Sherwood, P. 2007. A triple bottom line evaluation of the impact of special events: the
development of indicators. Phd thesis, Victoria University.
Shogren, J. F., Seung, Y. S., Dermot, J. H., & James, B. K. 1994. Resolving Differences in
Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept. American Economic Review, 84(1): 255-270.
Siae 2008. The Yearbook of the Entertainment Activity. Istat..
Sicca L. M 2001. Organizzare l’arte. Milano, Etas.
Simon, H. A. 1964. On the Concept of Organizational Goal. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 9(1): 1-22.
Small, K., Edwards, D., & Sheridan, L. 2005. A flexible framework for evaluating the
socio-cultural impacts of a (small) Festival. International Journal of Event Management
Reasearch 1(1): 66-77.
Smith, H. W. 1975. Strategies of social research : the methodological imagination.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Snow, C. C., & Hambrick, D. C. 1980. Measuring organizational strategy: Some theoretical
and methodological problems. Academy of Management Review, 5: 527-538.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
35 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Snowball, J. 2000. Towards more accurate measurement of the value of the arts to society:
economic impact and willingness to pay studies at the Standard Bank National Arts Festival.
Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.
Snowball, J. 2007. Measuring the value of culture: methods and examples in cultural
economics. Springer.
Steers, R. M. 1975. Problems in the Measurement of Organizational Effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(4): 546-558.
Thornton, P., Jones, C., & Kury, K. 2005. Institutional logics and institutional change in
organizations: Transformation in accounting, architecture and publishing. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, 23: 127-172.
Thrane, C. 2002. Jazz Festival Visitors and Their Expenditures: Linking Spending Patterns
to Musical Interest. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2): 281-286.
Throsby, D. 2001. Economics and Culture. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Throsby, D. 2003 Determining the value of cultural goods: how much (or how little) does
contingent valuation tell us? Journal of Cultural Economics, 27: 275-285.
Turner, V. W. 1982 Celebration, studies in festivity and ritual. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Tzeng, R., & Uzzi, B. 2000. Embeddedness & corporate change in a global economy. New
York: P. Lang.
Uysal, M., & Gitelson, R. 1994. Assessment of economic impacts: Festivals and special
events. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 2(1): 3-10.
Van Puffelen, F. 1996. Abuses of conventional impact studies in the arts. European Journal
of Cultural Policy, 2: 241-254.
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
36 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Vogelsong, H., Graefe, A., & Estes, C. 2001. Economic impact analysis: a look at
usefulmethods. Journal of Parks and Recreation, 36(3): 28-32.
Walton, M., Rao, V., 2004. Culture and Public Action. Standford University Press.
Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of Practice and Social Learning System. Organization, 7:
225-246.
White, T. R., & R. Rentschler 2005. Toward a New Understanding of the Social Impact of the
Arts. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management.
377 July.
Wilton, J., Nickerson, N.P., 2006. Collecting and using visitor spending data. Journal of
Travel Research, 45 (1), 17-25.
Zald, M. N. 1963. Comparative Analysis and Measurement of Organizational Goals: The
Case of Correctional Institutions for Delinquents. The Sociological Quarterly, 4(3): 206-230.
Zhou, D., Yanagida, J. F., Chakravorty, U., & Leung, P. 1997. Estimating economic
impacts from tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1): 76-89.
Zhou, Y. J. , Ap, J. 2009. Residents'Perceptions towards the Impacts of the Beijing 2008
Olympic Games. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 78-91
TABLE. 1
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
37 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS DERIVING FROM FESTIVAL
Positive
Negative
Income growth
- Price growth
Lifestyle enhancement standard
- Services and good rationing
Improvement for local economy
Cost of living increase
Improvement of occupational opportunities
Resident escape
Investment increase
Real Estate growing value
Maintenance growing service for infrastructure or
Territorial development, and urban regeneration
garbage disposal
Improvement of infrastructures
Social Division
Touristic attractiveness
Gentrification
Positive and negative effects deriving from Festivals
Source: reprocessing from Guerzoni, (2008)
TABLE. 2
Theoretical models of Economic Local Impact
Computational
Type of model
Involved sectors
approach
Economic Base (EB)
2
Indices
Input- Output (I-O)
Hundreds
Inverse matrix
Cesit Centro Studi sistemi di trasporto
38 collettivo “Carlo Mario Guerci”
Piazza Bovio 14 80133 Napoli
Working paper series n. 7 2011
Social
Accounting
(S.A.M.)
Matrix
less than I.O
Source: reprocessing from Loveridge (2004)
FIGURE 1.
The new integrated model
Source: Mangia (2009)
Inverse matrix