COMMONING WITH CULTURAL GOODS?
A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Abstract
Based on systemic literature review, this study explores both cultural and social dimensions of cultural goods that function as commons. More specifically, it aims first to analyse the relationships between cultural goods and commons, focusing on the cultural and social values that these goods yield in commons related context. Second, by integrating different literature sources, this paper explores about commons in the art and culture in order to build a conceptual framework which addresses research gaps and paths of further inquiry on the above - mentioned relationships. The ambitious goal of this research is to propose a taxonomy of commoning in respect to the multiplicity of values and functions of the cultural goods.
From the cultural economics perspective, cultural goods derive as a result of human creativity and yield cultural values while being aesthetically appealing or/and intellectually inspiring, and also they contain intellectual properties (Throsby, 2001). Their production is characterized by high level of uncertainty (Caves, 2000) because of the idiosyncratic nature of cultural goods (Santagata, 2006). An important part of the discussion of cultural goods is the values that they can yield which is focus of study for cultural economists (e.g. Ginsburgh, 2003; Hutter& Shusterman, 2006; Hutter & Throsby, 2008; Klamer, 2002; 2017; Throsby, 2001; Snowball, 2011). Beyond the economic value, cultural economists distinguish between cultural and social, where “cultural” has connotation/refers to the artistic, aesthetic, symbolic, and historic functions of the cultural goods whereas “social” represents anthropological dimensions where different norms, values and practices are link to certain group or community identity (Throsby, 1999; Klamer, 2004).
In her seminal work, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1990), Ostrom was the first scholar to introduce the concept of commons and highlight its economic implications. From the commons perspective, cultural good is interpreted as a common or a shared good, that is, one which is based on shared practices or the commons (Bertachini et al., 2012; Klamer, 2017). Here the constitutive characteristics of the community become the relevant for understanding the social dynamics within which cultural goods function. Common goods are those which are non-excludable, and as much as they are used, as much their value increases (Bertachni et al., 2012). The critical issue with respect to the commons is their governance (Ostrom, 1990).
While commons perspective prioritized the realization of social values such as belonging, identity, social distinction, freedom, solidarity, trust, tolerance, responsibility, cultural economic perspectives emphases that to fulfill its function, cultural good needs to realise both cultural, i.e. artistic/aesthetic/intellectual/symbolic and social values. In a way cultural goods yield artistic and social merits only when people share and use them. Here, the presumption is that the realization of these social and cultural values (e.g. different functions) of a cultural good depends on the different capacities of individuals and communities to deal with these values, and realise them within various contexts.
Acknowledging, on one side the multidimensionality of cultural values, and on the other the importance of communities to realise these values, we propose to explore how both set of values are realised when cultural goods function within commons context. If a community is aspired by the cultural dimensions of a good, its purpose should be to preserve, enhance, affirm cultural value which can translate in different balance between community’s social and cultural practices. Here cultural practices are defined as activities or achievements in arts and cultural sectors, which are related to symbolic, aesthetic, historic, intellectual meanings. These practices reflect, for example, new ideas and content that artists create and share with others. Social practices here relate to the broader, anthropological sense of culture qua values, norms, behavior.
With this in mind, the present analysis will address what social dynamics qua diverse relationships underpin the cultural practices. In other words, comprising both types of culture, the common practices might be informed not only by the artistic values, such a beauty, creativity, authenticity, openness, etc. but also by the specific culture that shape community’s traditions and norms of behaviour. The tensions between those two sets of values, respectively practices usually produce different relational dynamics which can affect the governance structures, and the way the cultural commons act upon their purposes.
Methodology
To amalgamate the fields of research we utilize a systematic literature review approach (Tranfield et al., 2003). In economics, management and entrepreneurship studies systematic literature reviews have established as a “standard method” (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009, p. 673) to extract, analyze and combine scientific insights. Systematic literature reviews are frequently used in emerging and highly fragmented research fields (Tranfield et al., 2003; Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Denyer & Neely, 2004) and the design is customized in accordance with the research project at hand (Thorpe et al., 2005; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; MacPherson & Holt, 2007). Following the process outlined by Tranfield et al. (2003), we conduct the review by identifying the appropriate literature. Based on the definitions of our two main subjects, “commons” and “culture” and “arts”, we select keywords and derive appropriate search-terms. To ensure that all possible variations of a keyword can be found we create search terms as (“cult*”) or (“art*”), (“common*”). Moreover, we apply the ‘AND’ operator as well to find literature that addresses communing practices. Additionally, we define the databases, taking into consideration that systematic literature reviews ideally should include different types of publications (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Pittaway et al., 2004). Hence, we select Springer E-Books, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost as relevant databases as they include journal articles as well as books and dissertations. Likewise, we supplement the database search, if necessary, by adding relevant articles and journals, which were not captured by the initial search (Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Denyer & Tranfield, 2009). Titles, keywords, and abstracts were reviewed, and bibliographical data has been recorded separately. Our systematic literature review covers the period from 1990 to 2023. To select the relevant studies, the complete body of literature is reduced by employing predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. For all three research projects, we set these criteria with the help of the short test search carried out during the planning stage (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009). After further removing doublets, anonymous, or not accessible articles, the final body of literature is refined.
Takeaway and results: a conceptual framework and a taxonomy.
Keywords: commons, communing practices, values, cultural good
General track: Creative Industries
References
Bertacchini, E. E. (Ed.). 2012. Cultural commons: A new perspective on the production and evolution of cultures. Edward Elgar Publishing
Denyer, D., Neely, A. 2004. “Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK”, in: International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 5./6., No. 3/4, pp. 131-135.

Denyer, D., Tranfield, D. 2009. “Producing a systematic review”, in: Buchanan, D. A., Bryman, A. (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Orginational Research Methods, pp. 671-689, Thousand Oaks.
Elster, Jon. "More than Enough." U. Chi. L. Rev. 64 (1997): 749.
Ginsburgh, V. A. 2003. “Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts”, in: Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(2), pp. 99–111.
Hutter, M. & Shusterman, R. 2006. “Value and the valuation of art in economic and aesthetic theory”, in” V. A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby, eds, Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Vol. 1, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 169–208.
Hutter, M., & Throsby, D. 2008. Beyond price: Value in culture, economics, and the arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klamer, A. (2004). “Cultural goods are good for more than their economic value”, in: V. Rao & M. Walton, eds, Culture and Public Action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. pp. 138–162.
Klamer, A. 2002. “Accounting for social and cultural values”, in: De Economist, A150(4), 453-473
Klamer, A. 2017. Doing the right thing: A value based economy, London: Ubiquity Press.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education. A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510.

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., Neely, A. 2004. “Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence”, in: International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 5./6, No. 3/4, pp. 137-168.
Santagata W. 2006. “Cultural Districts and their role in Economic Development”, in: V. Ginsburg and D. Throsby (Eds.) Handbook on the Economics of Art and Culture, North Holland, Amsterdam,
Snowball, J. D. 2011. “Cultural value”, in: R. Towse, ed., A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 172–176.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., Pittaway, L. 2005. “Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence”, in: International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 257-281.
Throsby, D. 1999. “Cultural capital”, in: Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 3–12.
Throsby, D. 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P. 2003. “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, in: British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 207-222.

In 1944, The Rank Organisation, then a major film production company, created the Children’s Film Department (CFD) to commission and finance the production of children’s films that would be circulated in special film programmes for children. The CFD pioneered the production of British domestic films made exclusively for children that sought to instil educational and cultural values. In 1947, the CFD was renamed the Children’s Entertainment Films (CEF), and it expanded the production and promotion of children’s films by commissioning feature films for children. Although the CEF’s achievements and contributions to British film culture were broadly acknowledged by the public and civic sectors as well as the film industry, the Rank Organisation decided to dissolve the CEF in 1950 due to financial difficulties. The Children’s Film Foundation (CFF), a non-profit organisation funded by the British Film Production Fund, better known as the Eady Levy—a tax on the film industry and collectively managed by trade associations—inherited and expanded the CEF’s activities.
This paper aims to show how the CFF’s active involvement of public authorities, film industry organisations and educationalists resulted in partnerships between them and in the growing production of children’s films in Britain. Drawing on under-investigated historical archival materials, this paper argues that the Advisory Council of the CFD and CEF, precursors of the CFF, offered significant platforms for mediation between public authorities, industry organisations and educationalists, and for shaping new beliefs about child audiences and children’s cinema, which resulted in both the film industry’s and educationalists’ support for, and commitment to, producing films with entertaining and educational values. This paper demonstrates that the CFF, one of the organisations whose policies most successfully cultivated children’s film culture in Britain, resulted from effective cooperation between public-, business-, and civic-sector actors whose shared beliefs about children’s film and child audiences brought about the growth of children’s film and the development of audience research methodologies.
For this study, I conducted comprehensive archival research and document analysis, consulting collections including the National Archives, the British Film Institute Special Collection, digital newspaper archives, the British Library, and the University of Warwick Modern Records Centre (MRC). This is the first academic study to utilise the MRC to enhance understanding of British film policy and more specifically the Children’s Film Foundation. The variety of documents published by public authorities, film industry organisations, and educational and social workers, as well as the CFD/CEF/CFF and their Advisory Council, provides evidence of these stakeholders’ commitments and how they interacted to promote the production of children’s films in Britain. Employing these archival resources, this paper demonstrates that the CFF, one of the most impactful organisations cultivating children’s culture and British film, was made possible by effective cooperation between the state, the market, and civil society, under the initiatives of an Advisory Council which mediated between diverse stakeholders by conducting audience research and facilitating efficient dialogues.
The case study of the CFD/CEF/CFF and their Advisory Council demonstrates how British film policies successfully involved the public, business, and civic-sector actors, and how partnerships between these stakeholders brought about impactful policies by overcoming the commerce – culture dichotomy in film policy discourse. This paper shows that these institutions’ Advisory Council offered significant platforms for the development of partnerships between public-, business-, and civic-sector actors, and for shaping new beliefs about child audiences and children’s cinema. The Advisory Council helped to mediate the CFD/CEF and civic/public actors in three ways: (1) Advisory Council meetings with the stakeholders’ representatives, (2) conferences including representatives of local educationalists and public authorities, and (3) policy consultancy and lobbying to communicate with public authorities. To effectively communicate and establish the legitimacy of the CFD, the Council developed audience research methods that offered convincing and empirical resources demonstrating the potential of children’s films. The Advisory Council also popularised and legitimised the children’s film programme by setting up occasions for the council members and external stakeholders to attend actual film screenings in the company of children. The Advisory Council facilitated dialogue between stakeholders and built a consensus about the significance and cultural contributions of children’s films, and this resulted in both the film industry’s and educationalists’ support for, and commitment to, producing films with entertaining and educational values.
The most evident achievement of the state-business-civic partnerships formed in relation to the CFD/CEF/CFF was the production and exhibition of high-quality children’s films. These organisations produced not only feature films but also a variety of films including documentary, educational, and fictional movies. For instance, in 1946, the CEF produced three story films (Jeans’ Plan, Bush Christmas, and The Boy Who Stopped Niagara), two film serials (six episodes of The Voyage of Peter Joe; five episodes of The Adventure of Dusty Bates), one news film (Our Club Magazine), two films about nature (Revised Secrets of Life and Tales of the Woodlands), one film about travelling (Portuguese Harvest) and one interest film (The House Goblin). In addition to the screenings in domestic theatres, CFF children’s films were broadly shown and welcomed at international festivals. For example, four CFF films were shown at the Berlin Film Festival in August 1954 and were circulated in continental cities such as Amsterdam as well. In December 1954, two CEF films were shown at the Bombay Children’s Film Festival. In 1955, at the Venice Children’s Film Festival, a CFF film won the prize for the best long film, an award for the best short film, and the Silver Gondola Award for the best cultural film.
Moreover, the state-business-civic partnerships in the CFF significantly advanced the audience research methods in British film production and film policy. The CFD/CEF/CFF’s pivotal policy for film production was to understand children’s tastes and expectations. The CFF’s first annual report defined its primary goal as being to supply entertaining films ‘that children will readily pay to see’, stating that ‘it cannot be emphasised too strongly that the Foundation’s aim is to produce entertainment films that children will enjoy’. To produce films that can truly entertain children, the CFD/CEF/CFF had to study young audiences and improve research methods that resulted in production of children’s films that can attract and entertain children. It was the Advisory Council that played a leading role in designing, developing, and elaborating the CEF’s audience research. The archival records of the Advisory Council showcase how the CEF critically challenged the limitations of previous audience research and developed sophisticated new methodologies by combining participative observation, questionnaires, and interviews with both children and managers to understand and document the influence of cinema on children in a more convincing manner. The Advisory Council’s effective and frequent application of audience research does not indicate that it merely championed children’s preferences and advised the CFD/CEF to supply what children wanted. On the contrary, the Advisory Council believed that audience research should be employed to balance entertainment and education so that the CFD could create children’s films that both attracted children and made them ideal audiences with good morals and tastes. Driven by its belief that children’s tastes should be studied and respected, the Advisory Council developed methodologies to systematically review children’s responses and evaluate films’ impacts on youngsters.
The historical research on the CFF elucidates how the balanced involvement and equal representation of stakeholders was crucial to the state-market-civic partnerships regarding the educational and cultural film policy in Britain. Including educationalists and representatives of diverse film industry organisations resulted in the CFF being conceptualised as a semi-public foundation representing not only the interests of the Rank Organisation but also those of the diverse backers of the industry and civil society. In addition to balancing the stakeholders from the state, market and civil society, the balancing of the stakeholders within the film industry was also crucial in building their consensual involvement and support. The CEF and CFF included representatives from the film industry organisations and dominant cinema chains in the governing board and the Advisory Council to balance the interests of these major cinema chains. Significantly, following the establishment of the CFF, the policymakers and stakeholders concluded that balancing the diverse stakeholders was not only necessary but also desirable. Balancing the interests and influence of the stakeholders was critical because these stakeholders tended to support organisations that were autonomous and independent of the control of any other stakeholder.

1. Issue and argument
When the current Mayor of Lisbon took office, he mentioned Elinor Ostrom’s work in his inaugural speech (Moedas, 2021). The point was that his policy would refute the core idea behind the “Tragedy of the Commons” – i.e. the concept defined by Garrett Hardin in 1968, that describes a scenario where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, deplete shared resources, ultimately leading to their ruin – rather promoting a view in line with Elinor Ostrom’s definition of the commons as resources that are shared and effectively managed collectively.
This paper aims to investigate and explore the notions of commons, what they mean and what they imply; analyse what is or what can be the role of public policy in the establishment and functioning of commons and commons’ practices, specifically in the realm of cultural public policy; and finally present a case where the government of Lisbon is implementing a commons-based public policy in the cultural sector.
A number of assumptions underlie the construction of the “Tragedy of the Commons” scenario, namely that facing a shared resource people act as rational self-interested agents, that the resource at stake presents diminishing returns and that collective consequences come about when these rational individuals exploit the resources in an unstructured way. The tragedy of the commons emphasizes the need for collective action, regulation, and responsible stewardship.
Elinor Ostrom work, however, challenges the conventional "tragedy of the commons" narrative, rather focusing on understanding how communities can collectively manage common-pool resources effectively and sustainably.
Elinor Ostrom (1999) defines the commons as “natural or man-made resources from which it is difficult to exclude or limit users once the resource is provided, and one person’s consumption of resource units makes those units unavailable to others”. Ostrom introduced the concept of polycentric governance, emphasizing that resource management should not rely solely on centralized government control but should involve multiple layers of decision-making, including local communities.
The leap that Ostrom’s conceptualization of the commons takes is that of conveying the possibility that top-down regulation may not be the sole, or even the best, way of managing collective resources. Management under this theory is open to adaptive, context-specific solutions.
Governments can play a role in protecting and promoting commons by enacting and enforcing policies that support community-based resource management and that limit the privatization and enclosure of commons. This can (and maybe should?) be accompanied by investment in community-based resource management.
Cultural commons specifically play a particularly relevant role in the cultural sector. The diversity of organizational forms that may be found in the sector (associations, companies – public and private, cooperatives, informal groups, etc.) has always been a sign that culture may come about through different, and sometimes unexpected, ways of triggering some form of collective action.
The commons in culture can seen as practices (Klamer, 2019), namely those of disseminating knowledge and information; of promoting learning and innovation; providing equal access to cultural resources and encouraging active engagement in cultural activities; and fostering creativity.
Cultural commons, however, are under threat from several factors, including privatization, enclosure, and commercialization. This can lead to a loss of access to cultural resources for marginalized groups and a decline in the diversity and richness of culture.
As an action to counteract these threats, the government of Lisboa announced and has been implementing a program called “Um Teatro em Cada Bairro” (“A Theatre in Each Neighbourhood”).
This program's mission is to create a network of local cultural centres with different characteristics and dimensions, which allow for a diverse offer of cultural proposals, built with the involvement and participation of communities and local agents. A network of medium-sized cultural and creative facilities that respond to the growing demand for work and performance spaces in the city, as well as grassroots involvement and proximity, territorial and community work.
These cultural spaces in the city must, on the one hand, respond to the needs of cultural entities in the development and dissemination of their work, and on the other hand, allow access and cultural fruition to the greatest number of people.
Currently, the city of Lisbon faces an aggravated lack of spaces and contexts alternative to theatres and institutional spaces for creation, rehearsal, and presentation by the city's cultural entities, so it is urgent to rethink resource sharing formulas. This is not a problem exclusive to Lisbon, several cities have been or are currently faced with this problem and have implemented programs that seek to respond to this challenge.
“A Theatre in each Neighbourhood” allows for the connection and rationalization of human and logistical resources between the Municipality of Lisbon and other institutions that make up the city's cultural ecosystem, whether public or private, of an associative or other nature. This will be achieved through the implementation of a mixed management plan for the qualification of existing spaces (or the creation of new ones) in municipal buildings or other public or private spaces, managed by the boroughs administration or by cultural entities in priority territories.
This model is a challenge civil society to join the “Um Teatro em cada Bairro” network with the spaces where they already carry out activities or through the allocation of municipal space for this purpose. All spaces that become part of the “Um Teatro em Cada Bairro” network, regardless of the operating model, must commit to a body of obligations that guarantee the benefit of the local community and access to all.
It responds to the need to involve local communities in artistic practices and activities, whether through programming events or participation in creation processes. It is necessary to bring these realities closer to the needs of the community, ensuring that the cultural programming presented in different territories is based not only on the indispensable quality that encourages cultural enjoyment with individual and collective impact, but also on the appropriate response and respect for the needs, capabilities and incentives of the audiences concerned, thus valuing, and giving visibility to local cultural practices.
“A Theatre in each Neighbourhood” reinforces the commitment to decentralizing cultural activities from the centre to other areas of the city, not only to meet most Lisbon residents who do not live in the historical centre, but also as a way of making flows more flexible and diversifying cultural ones. The creation of cultural practices, the contact with new artistic areas, the discovery of new spaces for contact with contemporary experiences and the preservation of memory and traditional and local cultural practices are a necessity in territories less equipped with cultural facilities.
The target audience of each territory must be considered not only as a consumer and passive recipient of proposals, but also as a generator of new discourses and stories. An active and participatory agent. This dynamic is facilitated by the progressive influence of new channels of creation and access to cultural content and new collaborative and horizontal forms of work, challenging limits, and stereotypes.
This paper will show how this community-based resource management model is a structuring basis for promoting access to knowledge that encourages citizenship, social inclusion and favours creativity, creation, innovation, and professional training.


2. References
Bertacchini, Enrico (Ed.) at al. (2012). Cultural Commons: A New Perspective on the Production and Evolution of Cultures,
G. Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, vol. 162, 1968, n°3859.
Klamer, Arjo (2019). “Economy and Culture: The Importance of Sense-Making”, The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and Economics, Mark D. White (Ed.), Oxford University Press.
Moedas, Carlos (2021). “Discurso Tomada de Posse como Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Lisboa”, p.6
Ostrom, Elinor (1999). “Coping with tragedies of the commons”, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 2, p. 497.
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2007). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, MIT Press.
Cohen, E. (2012). The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, Yale University Press.
Bollier, D. (2014). Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons, New Society Publishers.

3. Methodology - agenda and stage of completion of research
This paper is based on a review of literature about the commons and, in specific, the cultural commons, followed by the analysis and contextualization under the concepts of the commons of a case in Lisbon.
The literature review is under way and the case study has already been extensively developed.

4. Takeaway and results
The main takeaway of this paper is that there is an effective interconnection between the commons and public policy, which can be seen in our case study.
Commons and commons’ practices in the cultural sector bear a relation with public policies insofar as these can stimulate the emergence and the sustainable management of the commons and can intervene in the regulation of aspects that constitute threats to the commons.
The case that we develop in this paper proves to be a good example of how municipalities can view a network of community-based cultural initiatives as commons’ practices and, as such, approach their methods of governance in an empowering, rather than in a regulatory, fashion.