Soft-power and pro-European bias in the UNESCO World Heritage List? A test based on ICOMOS experts’ evaluations of colonial sites

Martina Dattilo, Fabio Padovano () and Yvon Rocaboy ()
Additional contact information
Martina Dattilo: UNITO - Università degli studi di Torino = University of Turin
Fabio Padovano: CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Yvon Rocaboy: CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: European sites are said to be overrepresented on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Some scholars attribute this phenomenon to Western countries' influence over international organizations, which results in the adoption of biased, pro-European aesthetic standards by UNESCO's selection committee. We test this explanation by comparing the International Council on Monuments and Sites' (ICOMOS) evaluations for sites of European (colonial) and native origins. We rely on two measures of site quality—Outstanding Universal Value and a textual analysis of ICOMOS' reports. ICOMOS experts produce these evaluations based on UNESCO's aesthetic standards before lobbying by member countries can take place. Hence, the evaluations reflect the stage of UNESCO's decision-making process in which European 'soft power' is most likely to appear, if it in fact exists. After controlling for numerous potential confounders, our estimates show no statistical difference in ICOMOS' evaluations of colonial vs. native sites, suggesting that ICOMOS experts appear impartial.

Keywords: UNESCO World Heritage List; International organizations; Cultural bias; Measurement of quality; Textual analysis; Cultural capital; Colonization (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024-11-23
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04834031v1
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Public Choice, 2024, ⟨10.1007/s11127-024-01248-z⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04834031

DOI: 10.1007/s11127-024-01248-z

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().