The Use of Heritage in the Age of Austerity

This paper uses evidence from research across the University of Leicester into the use of the ‘Heritage Paradigm’ to capture cultural value at local and regional levels. Traditionally, heritage has related to the management of historical assets regarded as central to the British national story. However, in light of the Localism Act 2011 and a restructuring of the executive governance of heritage assets, the UK now views heritage as central to a) place branding, and b) community empowerment. These developments present a way for regions to redefine their populations, economic relevance, and its legacies to the ends of ‘inspiring’ future economic prosperity. On a theoretical level, the pursuit of ‘heritage value’ has opened up democratic spaces to include a greater diversity than hitherto represented in official heritage discourse. On a practical level, the paper argues that the ‘networked governance’ approach, which includes heritage organisations, local communities, local authorities, universities, and private businesses, demonstrates an entrepreneurial approach to realise cultural value.  Consequently, the heritage paradigm is less about securing the past, but about capturing cultural value as an over-arching economic rationale emergent from austerity economics. However, this approach is not without criticism, and the paper uses evidence to illustrate that conflicting relationships between public and private interests often limit its successful realisation. The paper will question the extent to which it realistically generates entrepreneurialism more broadly through examples that highlight the divergent rationales of public and private interests. To conclude, the paper argues, using evidence from Leicester City’s ‘City of Culture’ bid that an entrepreneurial strategy to capture cultural value using heritage offers a legitimate means to promote cultural diversity, cultural creativity, and civic pride; but without a choreographed approach to working with the private sector these schemes can offer little to longer-term economic development.