I. INTRODUCTION

There is considerable interest to measure the economic contribution of creative and cultural industries at national levels, particularly their impact on GDP (Gross Domestic Product), GVA (Gross Value Added), employment, and hence the impact on economic growth. Moreover, these impacts are extended to foreign trade, competitiveness, and foreign direct investment (FDI).

Nowadays, cultural industries have become an important component of modern economies and knowledge societies due to their impact on society's development, as the cultural sector may generate two types of impacts: non-economic and economic. The non-economic impacts could be realized in social cohesion and integration of marginalized groups;

constructing of a new value system; supporting the creativity and talents, the evolution of cultural diversity and national identity. Moreover, facilitating innovation. While the economic impacts appeared in stimulating economic growth, enhancing both foreign trade competitiveness and foreign direct investments (FDI), as we previously mentioned.

The objective of this study is to illustrate concepts, approaches, methodologies related to cultural economics. Particularly, shedding light on measuring approaches of the economic contribution of cultural industries, referring to these approaches in some selected countries. These countries are; UK, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain from Europe. Canada and USA from North America. Australia, China, and India from the Asia-pacific region. South American economic organization (MERCOSUR) countries for South America region. South Africa and Egypt from Africa region.

In light of the above, our study is divided into five sections, in addition to the introduction (Section I). Section(II) is devoted to Terminologies and Conceptual framework. Section (III) devoted to a brief literature review. Section (IV) discusses different measuring approaches of the economic contribution of cultural industries. Section (V) is devoted to the applications of these approaches in the selected countries previously mentioned. Section (VI) concluding remarks.

II. TERMINOLOGIES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

We will begin with the conceptual definitions related to cultural economics. Figure (1) Illustrates the evolution of these concepts, followed by a brief discussion for each concept, with emphasizing on the most concern:

Source: by the researcher based on: Canadian Heritage. (2013), The Creative Economy: Key Concepts and Literature Review Highlights, Edited by the Policy Research Group. Canada. May. Available at: https://cch.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/inline/documents/creative-economy-synthesis_201305.pdf

a) Culture

Defining culture was a debatable issue ${}^1$. In the sixteenth-century, culture was considered as enlightenment of society's mind and intellect ${}^2$. Yet, in the nineteenth century, the "culture" term had been used in a broader sense, describing intellectual and spiritual development of society's civilization ${}^3$.

Some definitions of "culture" were so narrow as to be restrictive in light of phenomena description. While other definitions were broader, where "cultural" has two broader definitions: first is the anthropological or sociological framework, that describes "culture" as a set of attitudes, beliefs, mores, customs, values, and practices which are common to any group, this group may be defined in terms of politics, geography, religion, ethnicity or some other characteristics ${}^4$. The second is functional definition; stated that "culture" has functional orientation, denoting certain activities performed by people, and the products of these activities, which are related to intellectual, moral and artistic aspects of human life. According to this definition, "culture" is related to activities that are devoted to the enlightenment of mind, rather than the acquisition of purely technical skills. The definition is more probably in "cultural goods," "cultural institutions," "cultural industries" or the "cultural sector of the economy".5 For our study, we will depend on the functional definition.

According to the functional definition; we can determine cultural activities as follows: the arts as traditionally defined: music, literature, poetry, dance, drama, visual art,..etc. In addition, activities such as filmmaking, story-telling, festivals, journalism, publishing, television and radio, and some aspects of design ${}^6$ (Throsby, 2001).

Recently, the key role of the cultural sector has been emphasized and recognized for its importance in economic fields ${}^7$. The researchers' interests in this field focused on measuring the socio-economic performance of the cultural sector. Furthermore, public perception continued to view the arts as a matter of enlightenment or entertainment, which may be led to a marginalized view of the sector in terms of its economic contribution, and thus limited the public view analysis. This limited view may explain the lack of statistical tools available to measure the economic contribution of the cultural sector (KEA, 2006).

b) Culture and Economics

As we previously discussed, and for the analysis objective, we will depend on the functional definitions of "culture" (p. 3). So, we can define the interrelationship between economics and culture as follows: the beliefs, attitudes, and values that bear on the economic activities of individuals, organizations, and other institutions ${}^8$ (Porter, 2000). Although the relationship between economics and culture was debatable ${}^9$, economic impacts of culture were evident. These impacts have three main paths: first, historical component, made by habits and values received from parents and earlier generations. The second, contemporaneous component, represented by beliefs generated by social interactions and networking (Marini, 2016; 2013). Third, evident in the direct and indirect economic impacts of cultural industries and their activities.

Another point we should mention is the broad literature of the relationship between culture and economics, which was later called "cultural Economics." The first step of "cultural Economics" as a discipline was established in 1965-1966, with the publications of Baumol and Bowen's titled: "On Performing Arts: Anatomy of their Economic Problems"; "Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma." Later, Blaug pioneered the "economics of arts" in the 1970s, he started his work with comprehensive "cost-effectiveness analysis" to reveal the allocation of public subsidies for arts (King and Blaug, 1973). Blaug also gave the main contribution to what we called "cultural economics." He pointed out achievements, gaps, and desirable impacts of cultural economics on the economy ${}^{10}$. He also confirmed the importance of analysis for costs and benefits to provide main framework for cultural policy. Moreover, Blaug stressed the special role of cultural economics for economic theory ${}^{11}$. By 1976, It was evident that there was a new field of economics that was emerged when Blaug focused on economics of arts in a narrow sense ${}^{12}$, he referred to the exclusion of television and radio with a distinction between "entertainment" and the arts. A year later, the North American Academy established the Journal of Cultural Economics (JCE) (Handke and Dekker, 2013). By 2001, cultural economics began to cover an increasing range of "artistic phenomena" that justified the shift from "economics of arts" to "cultural economics" ${}^{13}$.

c) Cultural Industry(Industries)

The first use of the "cultural Industry" term was in 1947 ${}^{14}$, describing arts and cultural goods that could be industrialized. This term was widely used in modern society's life, and it was picked up by French sociologists (UNESCO, 2012). Recently, "cultural industries" is converted to "creative industries" by policymakers (p. 9). Evolution the term "cultural industries," was made by shedding light on the production and consumption of cultural activities; especially arts, which are characterized as purely economic processes ${}^{15}$. That is exactly the main issue of cultural economics.

Later, cultural economics researches have been conducted, with expanding theoretical and applied literature framework in both cultural industries and their economic impacts (as we will discuss in part III). These researches traced the modern origins of Galbraith's first writings of economics and art in 1960, also Baumol and Bowen's work in ${1966}^{16}$. In this tradition, cultural industries were interpreted using traditional tools of economic analysis, with some adaptations for the features of cultural demand and supply ${}^{17}$. According to this approach, cultural industries could be integrated into wider economic models, such as an input-output models, with taking into account relationships between culture and related industries and sectors.

The main idea of these thoughts was that commodification of culture does not crowd out other activities of cultural production and industries. So, the economic view of culture and cultural industries is simply accepted as producing and consuming cultural goods and services within an economic system that is involved in economic transactions, and hence cultural industries could be economically measured and analyzed (Throsby, 2001).

Many types of research have been conducted to make a significant contributions for modeling cultural industries to measure their economic contribution. The baseline of these researches was related to the traditional structure of art, based on criteria of aesthetics theory (Adorno, 1998). A broader perspective added some criteria from the industrial field such as cultural levels and economic value (Throsby, 2008), interactions of the creative workforce (Higgs et al., 2008; Florida, 2004), industrialization level of production (Hesmondhalgh, 2002), and effects of technical progress (Boix et al., 2010).

The researchers also revealed two types of the culture industries' impacts; The non-economic and economic impacts. The non-economic that cultural industries have on social development can be realized in the social solidity and integration of marginalized groups (Council of Europe, 1998; Matarasso, 1997); building of a social values systems (Ingelhart, 2000); creativity, talents emphasis (Throsby, 2001; UN,2010); development of cultural diversity, national identity (UNESCO, 2005; Herrera, 2002; Throsby, 2001), facilitating creativity and innovation (ABS, 2001; Cox, 2005; Potts and Cunningham, 2008; Bakhshi et al., 2008). The economic impact could be evident in the increasingly important components of cultural industries to modern economies and knowledge-based society, due to their impacts on the economic development (UNESCO, 2012).

By the end of the 1990s, researches conducted in developed countries revealed that cultural industries stimulate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross Value Added (GVA) and employment; and also have main characteristics as a leading sector, that can stimulate economic growth ${}^{18}$. The growing interest in cultural economies give a key component for cultural industries in formulation of economic policy development. In this regard, there is a growing tendency in several countries; particularly in developed countries, to include different cultural industries aspects (production capacity, creative classification, cultural facilities, etc.) in measuring economic development and economic growth.

In recent decades, there was a greater understanding and measuring of the economic importance of cultural industries. It has become clear that these industries impact GDP, GVA, employment, and economic growth rates. Moreover, they can enhance a country's foreign trade account and competitiveness, contribute to the regeneration of creative cities and attract investments. That was evident in researches that revealed the significant impact of cultural industries on the economy by enhancing economic growth and economic development (Lash and Urry, 1994; Jensen, 1999; Pine and Gilmore, 1999). These trends in economics are represented new terms; "culturalisation," (Ellmeier, 2003) or "creativisation" (Rikalovic and Mikic, 2011). Moreover, researchers shedding light on the central role of the cultural sector as a base of creative economy (UNDP, 2010; Howkins, 2001; Florida, 2002; Conference Board of Canada, 2008).

So, by the first decade of the 21 ${}^{st}$ century, cultural industries became one of the most dynamic sectors of the global economy, with their expected enhancing for GDP growth. Later, the "cultural industries" term was converted to "creative industries" by policymakers ${}^{19}$ (Hesmondhalgh, 2002; Throsby, 2010; Pratt, 2005).

d) Creative Economy and Creative Industries

Howkins pioneered the "creative economy" definition in 2001 who defined the creative economy as "the transactions of creative products that have an economic good or service that results from creativity and has economic value" (Howkins, 2001). Yet, the most used definition was by the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which defined the creative economy as "those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property" (DCMS, 1998).

Recently, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) defined the creative economy as a developed concept based on creative assets, and potentially generating economic growth. According to this definition; a creative economy can enhance income generation, employment, and export revenues with promoting social inclusion, cultural diversity and human development. Moreover; the creative economy also includes economic, cultural and social aspects interacting with technology, intellectual property and tourism objectives and It is a set of knowledge-based economic activities with a development dimension and cross-cutting linkages at macro and micro levels to the overall economy, It is a feasible development option for innovation ${}^{20}$, multidisciplinary policy responses and inter-ministerial action, and the creative industries become at the core of creative economy (Canadian Heritage, 2013).

For expanding view of the creative economy, we will briefly discuss "creative industries" term, which used for shedding light on the role of creativity in economic life, and stating that economic and cultural development are not isolated, but actually, it represents a part of a larger process of social and economic development.

The "creative industries" term was initially used in 1994 by the Australian Report entitled Creative Nation ${}^{21}$, and widely used in 1997 when policymakers of the UK's DCMS established the Creative Industries Task Force (CIFT) ${}^{22}$. Since then, the relationships between the art, culture sector, and creative industries were debatable. Arts are generally understood as activities and institutions that are subject to public-funded, such as galleries, concert halls, symphonies, and literature (Canadian Heritage, 2013).

In the same context, Scotland's Government suggested that traditional performing arts and cultural organizations are increasingly being involved in the creative content dimensions of the creative economy, especially the playwrights, musicians, and a host of performers, who become more interested in their intellectual property rights, using the social and broadcast media (Knell and Fleming, 2008). This illustrates that most artists move between various projects, businesses, values, aspirations, techniques, and products in the day-to-day aspects of their career (Australia Council for the Arts, 2020). Conference Board of Canada also suggested growing understanding and appreciation of relationship between arts, cultural industries, and society. This relation gives creative economy extends beyond the culture sector to bring positive social and economic changes in industries, sectors, and social organizations (Conference Board of Canada, 2008).

This new term; creative industries, expanded the scope of what was generally considered as "cultural industries," to exceeded arts to potentials of commercial activities (UNCTAD, 2004), what we can be agreed on is that creative industries located in the center of a broader term; that is the creative economy.

For determining our basic terminologies and conceptual framework that are in consistent with our research objective (p.1), we agree on using of the functional concept of culture that we previously referred (p. 3). Moreover, we will use the "cultural industries" term to review measuring approaches of the economic contribution of these industries, while measurement of contribution for broader terms as "creative industries" maybe suggested for other future studies.

III. LITERATURE REVIEW OF MEASURING THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

The literature of measurement economic contribution of cultural industries is evident in developed countries, other than the rare research for developing countries, Particularly in Africa, as we will discuss later(p. 20; p. 24). There was a lack of measurement of the economic contribution of cultural industries till the 1960s ${}^{23}$. Yet, by the 1980s, the research emerged driven by the conducted analysis on the relationship between cultural industries and economy ${}^{24}$ (as we previously mentioned in part II), focusing on the quantification of the economic impact of cultural economics on both economic development and economic growth ${}^{25}$.

Since the 1990s, the research interests focused on regional issues or for solving global problems related to intellectual property rights. Later, researchers emphasized on the evolution for the economic measures of economic contribution of cultural industries. In the same context, Anglo-Saxon urban researches were focused on the economic development of cities on cultural industries. These thoughts enhanced the methods and techniques of research in measuring cultural industries' contribution.

Moreover, some researchers discussed the evolution of cultural industries, which may stimulate effective demand in the short run by attracting visitors and local consumers to cultural areas (Bille and Schulze, 2006). Other researches revealed the long-run impacts, driven by attracting firms to invest in the cultural sector (Heilbrun and Gray, 2004). Moreover, cultural industries cluster had also an increasing interest in conducted researches (Hervas- Oliver et al., 2011).

Most researchers focused on the indirect measurement of the economic contribution of cultural industries, other than the direct measurements. Moreover, they also investigated interactions between the cultural sector and other sectors and industries (UNESCO, 2012). While other researchers revealed the role of supply chain linkages (Bakhshi et al., 2008), they also referred to structural relationships in labor markets between cultural and non-cultural sectors (Shafi et al., 2020; Higgs et al., 2008).

IV. MEASURING APPROACHES OF THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

The economic measurement of cultural industries' effects has different approaches, which include several terminologies and indicators ${}^{26}$; as illustrated in figure (2), followed by brief distinction for these terms.

Source: by the researcher based on; UNESCO, 2012 (i) Mapping studies provide an overview of industries, economic value, particularly in industrial sectors that relatively have lack of data about their activities, such as the cultural sector ${}^{27}$. This approach helps in the data gathering process. Yet, it is not sufficient for measuring the economic contribution or economic impact of cultural industries. (ii) Economic contribution of cultural industries refers to quantification of economic aggregate changes resulting from cultural industries. This concept, also called the economic importance, is static and descriptive, according to its variables and indicators, which are used in the measuring process. These variables and indicators such as Gross value added(GVA), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment ${}^{28}$. (iii) Economic impact is a more dynamic concept, which referred to real and potential changes in one variable, driven by changes in another. More precisely, the economic impact measures the net financial flows (Madden,

2001) and strong effects of changes in variables on economic factors, such as consumers, firms, markets, and income (Radich, 1987). Moreover, economic impact reveals the direct and indirect effects of different cultural activities (Bille and Schulze, 2006; Helibrun and Gray, 2004) ${}^{29}$. So, this concept can be used at both micro and macro levels. At the micro level, we can use it for studying the short-run impacts of investment in cultural sectors. While at the macro level, we can investigate the impact of cultural industries' activities on other industries, sectors, and therefore effects on the economy.

In light of the above, we can divide the methods of theses methodological approaches two branches: first, for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries, that includes two methods: economic size and structural analysis, and cultural satellite accounts (CSA). Second, measuring the economic impact of cultural industries, which includes three methods: multiplier analysis, production function, and disequilibrium model (UNESCO, 2012).

According to our best knowledge, the methods of the first methodology, economic contribution, did not get sufficient research interests ${}^{30}$. So, for filling the research gap, we will focus on these measurement methods in our discussion. Where these methods give us a broader view of the main and aggregate economic contribution of cultural industries and activities, and also these methods are consistent with our research objective (p. 1). Moreover, measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries at the international level gives the ability for countries to estimate potentials about the evolution of culture industries that are consistent with their society's capabilities and interests. So, we will briefly discuss the methods of the first methodology approach; (i) Economic size and structural analysis. (ii) cultural satellite accounts(CSA).

a) Economic Size and Structural Analysis

The main objective of this method is to determine interrelationships and interactions between economic activities and cultural industries, using estimates derived from Satellite National Accounts (SNA), for measuring the direct economic contribution of cultural industries. These estimates, which are relevant to macroeconomic aggregates, are as follows: gross value added (GVA), gross domestic product (GDP), the gross value of production(GVP), employment, fixed capital formation, and foreign trade ${}^{31}$.

According to this method, we can distinguish between two sorts of analysis: the economic size analysis and the structural analysis. The economic size analysis provides a general view of the economic roles of cultural industries. This analysis includes all components of all economic sectors and also focusing on the economic effects of cultural industries in the long run ${}^{32}$. Second, the structural analysis, which could be separately conducted, or could be applied as a part of economic contribution studies. This analysis includes different techniques for studying the structure of cultural industries ${}^{33}$. The structural analysis is not limited to data description; it is rather considered as an interpretation of specific policy, markets, and economic aspects ${}^4$.

These two analyses are used not only for measuring long term contributions of cultural industries but also to measure the short term contributions by investing the performance of cultural industries' business, based on operational indicators of business, such as turnover ratio, sales, revenues, profits, number of enterprises, etc.

According to these analyses, macroeconomic variables are used to estimate indicators that are used to specify the economic contribution of cultural industries. The objective of these indicators is to provide reliable measurements for the decision-making process in the culture industries' policy. The main three indicators are as follows (UNESCO, 2012):

(i). Gross value added (GVA): which includes three measures: gross value added as a share of GDP of cultural industries, in absolute terms ${}^{35}$. Gross value add as a share of the culture of GDP of culture industries, in relative terms ${}^{36}$. Distribution of gross value added as a share of GDP by sub-sectors ${}^{37}$.

(ii). Employment indicators, which includes four measures: contribution of cultural industries' employment to total employment ${}^{38}$. Distribution of employment in the cultural industry sector ${}^{39}$. Volume and share of self-employment ${}^{40}$. Labor productivity in the cultural industry sector ${}^{41}$.

(iii). Business activity indicators, which include six measures: stock of business ${}^{42}$. Distribution of business by sub sector ${}^{43}$. Business startups ${}^{44}$. Business mortality ${}^{45}$ measurement ${}^{46}$. Distribution of startup business by sub-sector ${}^{47}$. Distribution of business mortality ${}^{48}$.

b) Cultural Satellite Accounts(CSA)

The main purpose of satellite accounts systems (SAS) ${}^{49}$ is to measure the economic importance degree of a specific industry. Cultural satellite accounts (CSA) statistically measure the economic contribution of cultural industries in a certain economy ${}^{50}$. CSA also includes both demand and supply sides of cultural industries, based on the Input-Output matrix. It also includes aggregates variables of GDP, intermediate consumption, value-added, and employment. Yet, the investment in cultural sectors is not included because of lack of data about industry classifications in many countries (UNESC, 2012), which made difficulties in using CSA for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries.

Recently, cultural satellite accounts CSA based on input-output tables, derived and modified to capture the economic contribution of cultural industries (Australia's CSA), or by especial preparation of input-output tables for cultural activities, which based on empirical research about sectorial interrelationships (Colombia's CSA).

Although widely used, the CSA system faces serious applied problems: First, identification of these industries that are considered as cultural industries, therefore, should be included in CSA ${}^{51}$. Second, availability of data about Both supply and demand sides for constructing CSA ${}^{52}$. These problems make serious difficulties for using the (CSA) systems in practice at the national level, and also for international comparisons purposes.

V. MEASURING APPROACHES IN SOME SELECTED COUNTRIES

In this part, we will discuss approaches of measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries in the selected countries (p. 1). The objective of this discussion is to clarify two main points in the selected countries: First, differences in concepts and activities that include cultural industries. Second, approaches and measures for the economic contribution of cultural industries. The selected countries widely cover different geographical regions. Moreover, they are regionally and internationally the most important countries that realized the importance of cultural industries. Therefore they have considerable literature in this field, and also they applied different modern approaches for measuring the economic contribution of culture industries. These selected countries regionally classified are as follows: UK, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain from Europe. Canada and USA from North America. Australia, China, and India from the Asia-pacific region. South American economic organization (MERCOSUR) for South America region. South Africa and Egypt from Africa region (Appendix A. 1; A. 2).

First: Differences in both concepts and activities, including in cultural industries in the selected countries

The selected countries have various definitions and classifications of cultural industries (Appendix, A.1). This variation led to changes in the scope and perspectives of researches that measure the economic contribution of cultural industries.

Based on the UK classification model, European selected countries agreed on concepts and activities of cultural industries, with conducting initial modification, according to their local needs. Their cultural industries concepts mostly include activities such as: Architecture, film & video, broadcasting (radio & TV), performing arts (theatre, dance, festivals), publishing, music industry, and Advertising. While some other activities, such as sports industries, audio industry, botanical gardens, and zoos, education & training is more included in cultural industries classification for selected European countries, Finland and Spain (Appendix, A. 1). Moreover, some cultural activities are sometimes included in both the culture sector and other sectors ${}^{53}$.

For the North America region, the two selected countries; the USA and Canada, almost agreed on cultural industries activities, that include: Architecture, film & video, broadcasting (radio & TV), performing arts (theatre, dance, festivals), publishing, music industry, audio industry, Advertising. While some other activities, such as sports industries, botanical gardens, and zoos, education & training, are not included (Appendix, A. 1). Yet, the definition of arts in the USA includes art councils and cultural organizations that have a non-profit orientation and also have their independent budgets. In the same context, the definition of creative industries in the USA focused on businesses involved in the production or distribution of art products (for-profit and not-for-profit). This definition implies that creative industries include art councils, government agencies, museums, art or science centers, art galleries and art schools (non-commercial), symphony orchestras, theatres, opera companies, performing arts center productions, ballet productions, dance studios, schools and halls, theatre building, ownership, and operation. This concept excludes industries that are creative but not focused on the arts (e.g., computer programming and scientific research (Appendix, A. 1)). Another concept in the USA is copyright-based industries, which includes four industries: core copyright industries, partially copyright industries, distribution, and copyright-related industries ${}^{54}$.

Canadian cultural activities concept is based on the stages of the creative chain model. These stages are creation, production, manufacturing, distribution, and support activities ${}^{55}$. Moreover, Canadian cultural activities are identified according to the level of culturality, including in products. The core of cultural products is that entire cultural chain, and their primary purpose is the transmission of intellectual concepts (Statistics Canada, 2004).

Asia-Pacific region definition of cultural industries based on a combination of UK and UNESCO perspectives and it was established within the "Jodhpur Initiatives." This definition considers cultural industries that produce tangible or intangible artistic and creative outputs, and that have a potential for wealth creation and income generation through investing in cultural assets and production of knowledge-based goods and services (UNESCO, 2005). In this region, most of the selected countries are using creative industries term (Australia, China), which includes broader activities such as: Architecture, Broadcasting (radio & TV), Performing Arts (theatre, dance, festivals), Designs (product, fashion, festivals), Visual arts and art market, Publishing (book, press, journals), The music industry, Software, computer games and multimedia, Internet access providers, Advertising, Jewellery, crafts, and related activities. other than India's cultural industries term; Media & entertainment industries, which only includes activities such as Film & Video, Broadcasting (radio & TV), Music industry, Advertising (Appendix, A. 1).

For MERCOSUR countries in the South American region, the cultural field is used for expressing a broad and dynamic concept, which includes not only activities that produce goods and services with symbolic meaning and value, but also includes broader activities such as artistic training, because these can play a role in the generation of symbolic content (Appendix, A. 1). According to the CSA of MERCOSUR countries, culture production divided into 12 sectors and several sub-sectors, as follows (i) artistic creation (literary, drama, music, etc.); (ii) performing arts (theatre, dance, live music, etc.); (iii) visual arts (photography, sculpture, graphic arts, industrial arts..etc.); (iv) books and publishing (books, periodicals, other publications); (v) audio-visual (film and video, radio and television, video games, etc.); (vi) music (music publishing and music recording); (vii) design (architectural, industrial, graphic, textile, fashion, accessories); (viii) games and toys; (ix) tangible heritage (museums, libraries, heritage institutes, etc.); (x) natural heritage (botanical gardens and zoos, natural reserves, etc.); (xi) intangible heritage (festivals and fairs, local languages, cuisine and local culinary traditions, etc.); and xii) artistic training (UNESCO, 2012).

In African selected countries, cultural industries have a common term, and it is usually including activities such as music industry, crafts, film and television, and the publishing industry (Ghoneim, 2002) ${}^{56}$. cultural industries in a broader sense may include cross-cutting sectors, such as cultural tourism, design and fashion, heritage, gastronomy.

In Africa, cultural industries are represented as interdisciplinary between traditional knowledge, arts, and creative economy. They are organized as household units, working in informal groups. Most the cultural production in some African countries occurs in an informal economy, and this is often the only source of income (UNDP, 2008). In other countries; e.g., South Africa, cultural industries are highly diverse and also characterized by their structure of small firms and concentrated in urban areas (UNECO, 2012).

Second: The main approaches and measures for the economic contribution of cultural industries in the selected countries

There are different approaches using for measuring economic contribution of cultural industries across the selected countries. These approaches varied between economic size and structural analysis, cultural satellite accounts (CSA), value chain analysis by sub-sector, Input-Output matrix, and satellite account creative sector sub-model. All these approaches depend on mapping studies, driven by information availability about the cultural sector (Appendix, A. 2).

In European selected countries, the DCMS model was applied in mapping studies of the UK by the 1990s, based on the value chain concept. This concept includes the creation, production, manufacturing, and distribution of cultural content. Therefore, the value chain model was used as a type of economic analysis ${}^{57}$. Moreover, the Finnish model depend on the culturality of goods and services to implement a value chain approach (Ministry of Education, Finland, 2009).

Instead of the value chain model, three-sector model was applied in Germany. These three sectors are private, civil, and public property & management rights. According to this model, measuring the economic contribution of the culture sector, is focused on private sector or market-oriented businesses, and all sub-sectors related to cultural activities (UNESCO, 2012).

Another approach is employment-based, which measures direct and indirect employment in creative occupations for all industries. According to this approach, There are two ways for measuring the contribution of cultural employment to economic growth: first, measuring the impact of cultural activities and concentration of creative class on economic growth. Second, the trident model, which is used for measuring direct and indirect employment in cultural industries, applied in UK and France.

In European selected countries, three main measures are used to measure the economic contribution of cultural industries; these are gross value-added, employment, and the dynamics of business in cultural industries. These economic measures are used in both quantitative and qualitative way and are mainly based on data derived from Satellite National Accounts (SNA).

Economic size and structural analysis was also the main methodological approaches in the selected European countries, which devoted to estimating the direct contribution of cultural industries on macroeconomic aggregates such as GVA, GDP, employment, trade, export, and import) (Appendix, A. 2). This analysis is also combined with structural analysis, based on the availability of data. Moreover, structural analysis is sometimes combined with value chain analysis for explaining the structure and function of different stages of the value chain in cultural industries (UNESCO, 2012).

In the UK, a new model I-O matrix for the cultural sector was constructing in 2007, based on a combination of input-output data. The primary objective of such analysis was to investigate the linkages between cultural sector and the economy in the UK. This kind of analysis is very rare in European countries due to the extensive process of data gathering.

Another method for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries is cultural satellite accounts (CSA). It was developed in Finland and Spain. In Finland, (CSA) was evaluated in 2005. later, a calculation model for measuring the economic contribution of culture was created. Then, in 2007, a culture satellite account survey was constructed with a computational framework for cultural satellite accounts ${}^{58}$ (Ministry of Education, Finland, 2009). While in Spain, measurement framework focused on gross value added, the contribution of the cultural sector to GDP, employment, number of firms, net sales, etc. as well as on distinction between private and public sector in measuring economic contribution of cultural and leisure industries, based on anthropological activities such as sports, bullfighting, amusement parks, fairs, lotteries, gaming and toys (Ministry of Culture Spain, 2007), these activities provided estimations of economic value and contribution of culture. It was the basis for the development of culture satellite accounts in Spain, published in 2010. The Spanish CSA model is based on a combination of cultural activities and activities related to intellectual property. While cultural activities are the key of this model, it also includes cultural-related activities that are not strictly cultural but essential for the understanding the creative sector as a whole (Ministry of Culture Spain, 2009).

Although these efforts, data limitation is still the main problem in most European countries. As statistics for cultural industries and statistical methodologies have not yet been harmonized in a systematic manner, economic measures of cultural industries can only be interpreted in their local and regional contexts. However, these measures can be effective for analyzing certain areas of cultural industries and their contribution to economic growth; they are still not enough as measures for cultural industries' contribution. That may lead to suggest the need for more elaborate evolution to new common concepts and measurements of the economic contribution of cultural industries to be more comparable at both regional and international levels.

In both Canada and United States, approaches for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries are multiplier analysis and economic size analysis (Appendix, A. 2). In Canada, the economic contribution of culture includes direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts ${}^{59}$ (Conference Board of Canada, 2008) (Appendix, A. 2). In 2009, an additional multiplier was calculated for measuring indirect spin-off of culture sector on employment (Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, 2009).

In the USA, measuring of the economic contribution of cultural industries (Appendix, A. 2) presented as systematic data on business statistics (number of organizations and employees) by U.S. state and U.S. Congressional District (Creative Industries: Business & Employment in the Arts 2008; 2010; 2011). Moreover, The base of calculating multipliers was I-O tables were constructed for 156 study regions (116 cities and counties, 35 multicounty regions and five states). Data were collected from 6080 non-profit arts and cultural organizations, while impacts were measured as total expenditure, full-time equivalent jobs, resident household income, local government revenue, state government revenue and federal income tax revenue (Americans for the Arts, 2009).

In the Asia-pacific region, measurement tools of economic contribution for cultural industries are evident in Australia (Appendix, A. 2), based on numerous mapping studies and conducted researches. Moreover, the production chain model is used and also focused on creative activities in Australia. The mapping studies, which used for analyzing cultural industries, were consisting of five stages: pre-creation ${}^{60}$, creation ${}^{61}$, realization ${}^{62}$, consumption ${}^{63}$, and post-sale ${}^{64}$. Only the pre-creation and creation stages are including for measuring the economic contribution ${}^{65}$. The applied approach for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries in this region is economic size and structural analysis in both Australia and China (Appendix, A. 2). In contrast, structural analysis is used for studying the structure of the culture studies in India and also for analyzing the distribution of macro-economic aggregates by sub-sectors (UNESCO, 2012).

In the South America region, MERCOSUR countries constructed I-O matrix with 29 products and 29 branches of activities, based on the CSA system and culturality of goods and services, using both monetary and non-monetary indicators. Moreover, cultural activities in these countries are included in mapping and other methodological approaches for the creation of cultural satellite accounts. The objective was to develop a CSA system to achieve supporting decision-making process and evaluation of cultural policies set comparable information system and economic measures at international and cross-country levels, and provide information for structural analysis (p. 25).

In Africa, researches that dealt with measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries are scarce(Snowball et al., 2017; Oyekunle, 2017; Oyekunle and Fillis 2016; Hadisi and Snowball 2017; Nawa and Sirayi 2014, Ghoneim, 2005; 2002), and most of their interests were focusing on the case of South Africa (Shafi et al., 2020; Oyekunle and Sirayi 2018; O'Brien et al., 2016; National Planning Commission 2013; Joffe and

Newton 2007). So, it is difficult to provide an evident for the measuring methodologies in the selected African countries.

In South Africa, direct and indirect economic contribution has been measured for the first time in 2008. The total direct contribution was measured using value-added, output, and employment indicators ${}^{66}$. While the indirect contribution was calculated by estimating both output and value-added multipliers (British Council, 2008). Later, other researchers measured the economic contribution of cultural industries in South Africa using four indicators, as follows: the value of production, profitability, employment, and number of firms in cultural industries. Some of these studies also analyzed the structure of culture industries in South Africa using the value chain model (UNESCO, 2012).

In the same context, as our best knowledge, conducted researches for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries in Egypt were scarce. Ghoneim used the questionnaire method and available poor data to measure the importance of cultural industries for Egypt. He estimated the economic contribution of cultural industries by 0.000128% to GNP in 1999 (Gross National Product). Yet, he revealed optimistic estimates that would not exceed 0.5% of GNP ${}^{67}$. Such estimates were very low, compared with other countries ${}^{68}$ (Ghoneim, 2002).

VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The relationship between culture and economics is debatable and has increasing interests across countries. The research in measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries revealed the importance of cultural industries for stimulating economic growth. Therefore, there is increasing interest to measure the economic contribution of cultural industries, using several approaches and methods.

In light of this study, we may reach several conclusions and suggestions as follow:

First, the importance of cultural industries has been more realized by developed countries. Therefore, the conducted researches of cultural economics are more evident and complicated in developed countries rather than developing countries.

Second, cultural industries in developing countries are sometimes considered as a part of the creative industry. At the same time, there is a clear distinction between cultural and creative industries in developed countries, particularly in the EU.

Third, although the realization of cultural industries importance, there are not a clear and common definition for cultural industries in developed and developing countries, this led to difficulties in setting comparable measures for economic contribution of cultural industries at the international level, while comparable measures are much available at local and regional levels.

Fourth, there are several approaches for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries. Yet, these approaches face serious problems in application, particularly the identification of these industries and activities that should be included in cultural industries, and also there is a lack of a common conceptual framework across countries.

Fifth, data limitation is still the main problem for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries, due to statistics of cultural industries and statistical methodologies which have not been harmonized in a systematic manner.

Sixth, although difficulties, the measuring approaches of the economic contribution of cultural industries can be effective for analyzing the structure of cultural industries, and their contribution to economic growth. Yet, they are still not enough measures for cultural industries' contribution. So, we can suggest the need for more evolution to new common concepts and measurements of economic contribution for these industries to be more comparable at both regional and international levels.

Seventh, while several approaches of measuring are applied, mapping studies represent a starting point for measuring the economic contribution of cultural economic. So, we can suggest it for measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries for the Egyptian case, which is suffering from scarce researches in this field. Eighth, the Egyptian case needs a clear conceptual framework for cultural industries and also data availability about these industries. So, constructing cultural satellite accounts (CSA) for Egypt is necessary. That would be a great first step towards measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries in Egypt.