Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:11:51.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Past Polluted: A Pigovian Approach to the Black Market in Antiquities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2019

Lawrence Rothfield
Lawrence Rothfield*
Affiliation:
Department of Comparative Literature, University of Chicago, United States; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

In the global struggle to protect not-yet-excavated archaeological sites from looting, despite legal strictures, the playing field remains badly tilted against the site guards, customs officials, antiquities police, and prosecutors who lack the financial resources to enforce existing laws. To supplement and give teeth to the strict, but ineffectual, legal regime now in place, economic theory points to a policy solution: a “pollution tax” on antiquities purchased by residents of “market” countries, designed to internalize the social costs of looting so that the industry either takes measures to clean itself up or pays the government to prevent or mitigate the harm the industry causes. Tailored to fall more heavily on antiquities with weaker provenance or extremely high prices, and channeled into an antiquities-protection “superfund” (as was done to clean up toxic chemical sites) or via existing governmental agencies, a Pigovian tax on antiquities could provide a sustainable funding stream for more robust monitoring and enforcement efforts against the illicit market as well as for better site security. Archaeologists and dealers may find the idea of this kind of tax repugnant, but such feelings may be overcome through sustained discussion and negotiation explaining the benefits to both sides of a more licit regulated market.

Keywords

antiquitieslootingPigovian taxantiquities marketheritage policypollution tax1970 UNESCO Conventionprovenanceenforcement cost
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 343 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Jonathan, and Leshner, Sarah. 2000. “How Serious Are Expressions of Protected Values?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 6, no. 3: 183–94. http://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898x.6.3.183.Google ScholarPubMed
Bedaux, R., and Rowlands, M.. 2001. “The Future of Mali’s Past.” Antiquity 75, no. 290: 872–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00089456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, Neil. 2014. “Provenance and Price: Autoregulation of the Antiquities Market?” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 20, no. 4: 427–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-014-9235-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, Neil. 2015. “The Internet Market in Antiquities.” In Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods: The Global Challenge of Protecting the World’s Heritage, edited by Desmarais, F., 11–20. Paris: International Council of Museums.Google Scholar
Brodie, Neil. 2016. “Aramaic Incantation Bowls in War and in Peace.” In Art Crime, edited by Charney, N., 169–78. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-40757-3_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, Neil, and Renfrew, Colin. 2005. “Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate Response.” Annual Review of Anthropology 34, no. 1: 343–61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, Ronald. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost.” Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2017. “Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention by the United States and Other Market Nations.” In The Routledge Companion to Cultural Property, edited by Anderson, J. and Geismar, H., 70–88. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou. 1995. “Product Differentiation and Oligopoly in International Markets: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry.” Econometrica 63, no. 4: 891–951. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, F., Marrone, J., Topçuoğlu, O., and Vorderstrasse, T.. 2019. “A Site-Level Market Model of the Antiquities Trade.” International Journal of Cultural Property 26, no. 1: 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739119000018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leape, Jonathan. 2006. “The London Congestion Charge.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20, no. 4: 157–76. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.4.157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masur, Jonathan S., and Posner, Eric A.. 2015. “Toward a Pigouvian State.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 164: 93–147.Google Scholar
Parcak, Sarah. 2015. “Archaeological Looting in Egypt: A Geospatial View (Case Studies from Saqqara, Lisht, and El Hibeh).” Near Eastern Archaeology 78, no. 3: 196–203. https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.78.3.0196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearlstein, William G. 2013. “A Proposal to Reform US Law and Policy Relating to the International Exchange of Cultural Property.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment 32: 561–650.Google Scholar
Roth, Alvin. 2007. “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21, no. 3: 37–58. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothfield, Lawrence. 2009. The Rape of Mesopotamia: Behind the Looting of the Iraq Museum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, J. Mark. 1996. “Questions to Ask of a Cultural Policy: Who Should Pay? Who Should Decide?” Culture and Policy 7, no. 1: 115–39.Google Scholar
Sherburne, Carolyn. 2014. “Operation ‘Cerberus Action’ and the ‘Four Corners’ Prosecution.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 20: 475–86.Google Scholar
Stavins, Robert. 2003. “Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments.” In Handbook of Environmental Economics, edited by Mäler, K. G. and Vincent, J. R., 355–435. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar