Cultural commons refer to the variety of artistic and cultural expressions that combine tangible (artifacts) and intangible (ideas, knowledge) elements. Since their first theorization, which was enabled by the establishment of knowledge commons more than ten years ago, many different aspects of the cultural and creative industries have been examined from a commons perspective. However, the scholarship on cultural commons may benefit from a 'regeneration' (in the vein of the IASC 2025 theme) toward the consolidation of its theory and methodologies.
Tangible and intangible expressions of arts and culture involve joint consumption and are often non-excludable. They present a variety of social dilemmas, and the traditional reliance on the State to address market failures in arts and culture may simply not work. Arts and culture require constant contribution to avoid depletion and continuous negotiation regarding the values and meanings these practices uphold.
This panel aims to collect state-of-the-art research on the cultural and creative industries from a Bloomington institutional perspective. We welcome both empirical and theoretical work on co-production, institutional analysis development framework, polycentric governance, collective action dilemmas, the cultural civil society, and more.
Much has been discussed about the governance structure of the Commons further expanded by several scholars (Aligica, 2018; Lewis & Aligica, 2024; Aligica & Boettke, 2010) including its extension to cultural commons (Ostrom, 2009; Hess, 2012; Bertacchinni et al., 2012). Scholarship in cultural commons typically discusses how particular cultural initiatives can be understood as a commons as well as the resource characteristics of the institutional arrangement. There is a lack of studies looking into the micro organisational level implied in managing the commons, while over-focus is given to macro-level inter-party dynamics. This paper is concerned with zooming in towards the micro-organizational characteristics of working with the commons approach through the lens of the “collectivist organisations” (Rotschild-Whitt, 1979; 1986) commonly found in the arts. More rare in typical industries, collectivist organisations abound in the cultural scenes (e.g., associations, collectives, peer groups and flat hierarchies) for their adherence to “value-rationality”. The paper develops a conceptual model for applying the collectivist approach to managing cultural commons. It explores the collectivist incentives and dilemmas encountered in flat hierarchies: the consensus decision-making processes, temporary leadership, excessive homogeneity, and the absence of consistent monetary reward systems. The article argues - in accordance with Williamson’s (1973) views on peer groups and associations - that the cultural commons built on collectivist structures tend to collapse in the long run due to incentive problems, unclear rule enforcement, ephemeral leadership and consensus, different from environmental commons. The benefits of collectivism in cultural commons eventually transform flatter arrangements into a relatively inefficient structure, similar to “peer groups and associations” (Williamson, 1973), which can negatively impact the origin of such organisations rooted in the maintenance of value-rationality and the public good characteristics of culture.
© 2025 | Privacy & Cookies Policy