Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey, ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
Tangible, or Intangible?: Implications of Heritage
Inscription on UNESCO Lists1
Sangmee BAK2
This paper examines what are the implications of having cultural heritages on
UNESCO Lists in a variety of contexts. In particular, the similarities and differences
between the World Heritage List and the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Humanity
List are closely observed. Inscription of a heritage element on the World Heritage List
is believed to be more frequently done by the more affluent countries. And some of
those countries were colonizers in recent centuries. This type of Inscription is also
believed to have more positive impacts on tourism industry of the country, where the
heritage is located. On the other hand, Inscription on UNESCO Intangible Heritage
List is perceived to be more active among non-Western, less affluent countries. Some
of the countries were colonies in recent centuries. This paper shows some empirical
research outcome on the distribution of UNESCO Heritages in various regions and
contexts, and attempts to show political, historical, economic, and cultural implications
of such distribution. This paper is an initial outcome of a broader research project. The
ultimate purpose of this research is to closely examine the dynamics of cultural politics
surrounding UNESCO Heritage Lists (for both tangible and intangible heritages) and
find the underlying meanings and hegemonic power in this field.
UNESCO World Heritage List is based on the UNESCO Convention concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972). For a heritage element
to be inscribed on this List, it should have an “Outstanding Universal Value (OUV),”
and this should be clearly stated in its nomination file, authored by experts in relevant
field, and submitted by the state government where the heritage is located.
Preparation of the nomination file for a possible UNESCO inscription requires a
significant amount of research and cultural resources including accumulated academic
knowledge and researchers. For a country to have UNESCO heritages, she needs the
resources for researching and writing the nomination files in addition to the heritages
themselves in their territory. Some critiques have raised concerns over the possibility
that UNESCO World Heritage List can be much more accessible for those countries
with sufficient resources. Both the experts in the field and the general public seem to
perceive that UNESCO World Heritage List is more favorable towards those countries
that are economically more affluent, and rich in academic resources. The most
important criteria used in the evaluation of heritage element for inscription,
“Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)” itself is sometimes criticized for being biased in
favor of the “Western civilization.” For example, criteria VI for evaluating the OUV
concerns the intangible aspect associated with a tangible element. Religious symbols
and meanings associated with heritage sites belong to the criteria VI. Among many
religious traditions, for example, Christianity is more likely to be deemed to be
associated with “universal” values than other, smaller religious traditions in non3
Western societies.
1
This work was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund.
Sangmee BAK, cultural anthropology, Hankuk University of Foreign Studie, Seoul, Republic of Korea,
If necessary, contact the author at sangmbak@hufs.ac.kr. This is a preliminary draft. Please do not
quote without written permission by the author.
3
An empirical (comparative) research on criteria VI of UNESCO World Heritages is currently being
conducted by a team of experts in the field (including the author of this paper) in the Republic of
Korea.
2
1
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey, ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
On the other hand, UNESCO Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage are based
on the 2003 Convention on Safeguarding Intangible Heritage. This UNESCO Lists of
Intangible Heritages (Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of
Humanity, List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, Best
safeguarding practices) are relatively new and therefore significantly shorter than the
World Heritage List. For the purpose of this paper, namely comparing UNESCO Lists
of tangible and intangible heritages, I will mainly focus on the Representative List of
the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (Representative List, hereafter). As for
the criteria used in evaluating for inscription, no hierarchy is assumed among the
heritages. Rather, the nomination files are examined for the following criteria:
whether the heritage represents the creativity and cultural diversity of the humanity,
whether it represents the cultural identity of the relevant community, and whether the
heritage is still a “living” part of the community’s life, among others. Safeguarding,
rather than preservation, is the key word, for these living heritages. Since the
heritages are viewed in the particular context of communities, each element is
unique and there is no universal value to be used as a common evaluating standard.
Although all cultures and societies have intangible heritage, UNESCO’s List
in this domain is often associated with smaller-scale, non-Western societies where
their intangible heritages are often vulnerable with globalization, urbanization, and
industrialization often introduced along with Western influences. There has been a
perception that the efforts to put intangible heritages on the UNESCO List have been
more eagerly made by non-Western, less developed countries. This paper is based
on the first part of the research on comparing the countries with, or without their
intangible heritages on UNESCO List. Economic conditions, education, tourism
industries of 74 countries (from 80 countries with at least one UNESCO Heritages,
either tangible or intangible, 6 were eliminated for various reasons) have been
analyzed to find relationship among these factors and their intangible heritage
inscription on the UNESCO List. The initial outcome of the research is shown on
Table 1.
Table 1: Differences between countries without and with Intangible Cultural Heritages in 2012
Are there Intangible Cultural
A>B?
Heritages?
Variable
A- B
(p-value)
No (A)
Yes (B)
GDP per capita
27,622
8,312
19,310
Yes (0.000)
ARRIVALS per capita
0.658
0.530
0.127
No (0.428)
RECEIPTS per capita
779.6
356.2
423.4
Yes (0.026)
SCHOOL (%)
66.38
44.12
22.26
Yes (0.001)
HEALTH (%)
8.86
6.59
2.27
Yes (0.000)
URBAN (%)
71.58
62.85
8.73
Yes (0.067)
2
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey, ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
1. A total of 74 countries are included in the comparisons: 22 countries (No) vs. 52
countries (Yes).
2. The 22 countries without intangible heritages in 2012 are Canada, Chile, Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Paraguay, Poland, Slovenia, S. Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia,
Ukraine, and UK.
3. The 52 countries having intangible heritages are Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria,
Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote
d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Eduador, Egypt, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary,
Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico,
Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Turkey, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, and Vietnam.
4. The following countries are deleted because of missing observations: Argentina for
GDP; Kenya, Norway, Oman, Senegal and Uzbekistan for ARRIVALS; Cote d’Ivoire,
Iran, Madagascar, Mali, Senegal and Uzbekistan for RECEIPTS; Brazil, Canada and
So. Africa for URBAN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------GDP = gross domestic product in the 2005 US$
ARRIVALS = the number of international arrivals in each country during year 2012
RECEIPTS = tourism receipts in the 2005 constant US$
SCHOOL= the ratio of total enrollment, regardless of age, to the population of the
age group that officially corresponds to the level of tertiary education
HEALTH= the percentage of health expenditure in GDP
URBAN= the percentage of urban population
Research Findings and Implications
One of the most prominent differences between the countries with UNESCO
intangible heritage and those without them is that those without UNESCO intangible
heritages have more than three times higher GDP than the wones with UNEWSCO
intangible heritages. This confirms the general perception that lexx developed and
less affluent countries are more eager to put their intangible heritages on the
UNESCO List. Countries without UNESCO intangible heritages tend to attract more
tourists and have higher revenues from tourism industry. Other indicators, including
education and health, also show that the economically affluent societies have less
enthusiasm for inscribing their intangible heritages on UNESCO List.
The findings above may confirm the general perception that UNESCO List of
intangible heritages are more eagerly pursued by less affluent (many of them nonWestern) countries. Following this initial findings, the author plans to analyze and
interpret further the implications of these findings. The eventual purpose of this
research is to closely examine the dynamics of cultural politics surrounding
UNESCO Heritage Lists (for both tangible and intangible heritages) and find the
underlying meanings and hegemonic power in this field.
3
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey, ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
References
Bak, Sangmee, (2003A) "Local Development and the Preservation of Intangible
Cultural Heritage" In Proceedings of the 2003 UNESCO Regional Training Workshop
on Intangible Cultural Heritage.
___________, (2003B) “Heritage is Good to Think: Politics of Identities in Hahoe
Village, Andong, Korea", paper presented at the 102nd annual meeting of the
American Anthropological Association, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
__________, (2011) “Intangible Cultural Heritage and Cultural Tourism in Korea," in
Intangible Cultural Heritage and Local Communities in East Asia, edited by Liu Tiksang, Hong Kong, China: South China Research Center, The Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Heritage Museum, pp. 75-82.
Su, Y. W., & Lin, H. L. (2014), Analysis of international tourist arrivals worldwide: The
role of world heritage sites, Tourism Management 40, pp. 46-58.
Yang, C. H., Lin, H. L., & Han, C. C. (2010), Analysis of international tourist arrivals
in China: The role of World Heritage site, Tourism Management 31, pp. 827-837.
Yang, C.H., Lin, H.Y. (2014), Revisiting the relationship between World Heritage
Sites and tourism, Tourism Economics 20(1), pp. 73-86.
UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage
UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage
4