Article

Sources of “value for money” for museum visitors: Some survey evidence

Journal of Cultural Economics (Impact Factor: 1.36). 02/1996; 20(1):67-83. DOI: 10.1007/BF00148271
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT This paper provides an economic analysis of the survey responses of visitors who were asked to make a “ value for money” (VFM) assessment of a museum visit. The paper first interprets the notion of VFM from an economic perspective, and distinguishes between evaluations made before and after a visit. It then analyses the survey responses of visitors to a major museum in the North of England, using appropriate statistical techniques to identify the economic determinants of VFM rankings by visitors. The final section discusses the implications of the methodology and results for museum management, and for the design of museum visitor surveys. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

0 Bookmarks
 · 
34 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The “free access” policy designed by the British Government has encouraged interest in museum financial issues. We define a principal-agent model for museum administration where there are two income sources: public grants and ticket revenues. This model allows us to define the optimal contract determining public grants, ticket prices, budget and managerial effort. We find a theoretical explanation for the inelastic pricing strategy commonly adopted in cultural economics. We further find that museum manager should never have any control over the price of tickets. The model can also be applied to other institutions, such as schools or NGOs, which are able to raise funds directly from private (e.g., ticket revenues or membership fees) or public sources.
    Journal of Cultural Economics 01/2006; 30(3):169-181. · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Provision of most public goods (e.g., health care, libraries, education, police, fire protection, utilities) can be characterized by a two-stage production process. In the first-stage, basic inputs (e.g., labor and capital) are used to generate service potential (e.g., opening hours, materials), which is then, in the second-stage, transformed into observed outputs (e.g., school outcomes, library circulation, crimes solved). As final outputs are also affected by demand-side factors, conflating both production stages likely leads to biased inferences about public productive (in)efficiency and its determinants. Hence, this paper uses a specially tailored, fully non-parametric efficiency model allowing for both outlying observations and heterogeneity to analyse efficient public good provision in stage one only. We thereby employ a dataset comprising all 290 Flemish public libraries. Our findings suggest that ideological stance of the local government, wealth and density of the local population and source of library funding (i.e., local funding versus intergovernmental transfers) strongly affect library productive efficiency.
    Journal of Urban Economics 05/2011; 69(3):319-327. · 1.89 Impact Factor