The term ‘cultural economy’ tries to outline the ways in which the economic interrelated with the cultural. The term refers to how cultural meanings are embedded in economic life. We cannot explain how economic practices are co-ordinated without understanding the cultural meanings behind the actions.

This representation of culture and economy (or production and consumption) is an improvement on previous models that either privileged the economy over the culture, or they were treated as separate and unconnected entities. But this depiction of the cultural economy has some limits. I will highlight two weaknesses in particular.

The first weakness is that the model of the cultural economy accepts ‘the market’ as a central mechanism in the economy. The model treats the public as the market, and the people as consumers. Cultural products are necessarily purchased to achieve cultural identity. The model celebrates the diversity and the choice available to the consumers. Yet, we are not offered a political and moral critique of the market’s place in the economy. There is silence over the market effects on the human values and social practices.

The second weakness is that the model fails to provide a reasonable criterion for judging a successful cultural economy. Though, writers on the cultural economy do seem to suggest that a system that creates more cultural meanings and lifestyles is better than one in which there is less. So we are invited to assess the effects of globalisation by whether it adds to or subtracts from cultural diversity. Again, when considering the effects of cultural production, we are suppose to ask whether mass and niche consumption allow consumers to create meaning. When writers on the cultural economy speak of clothes fashions, praise is offered to a production and consumption system that enables consumers to be active in creating their own identities, rather than following a cultural elite. Crudely speaking, a successful cultural economy maximises cultural meanings, lifestyles and identities, just as a successful corporate economy maximises profits and output.

But this criterion of maximising meanings, lifestyles and identities is morally suspect and unacceptable. Take two examples. In the first case, cultural meanings may be aesthetically enhancing, but can also be immoral. Think of pornographic materials. We can describe the models in adults’ magazines in terms of their beauty, youthfulness and attractiveness. But, such images are degrading and dehumanising to women.

In the second case, cultural lifestyles can be creative and expressive, giving raise to claims of authentic identity. But, such lifestyles can also be simply wrong and bad. Think of fascist and racist politicians. We can describe the regalia and costumes that fascists and racists have in terms of their expressiveness and aesthetics. But their political ideas are dangerous and just wrong. No matter how culturally alive and creative a racist may be, her ideas on race and ethnicity are false.

What these weaknesses suggest is that our model of the cultural economy requires an explicit moral framework. Without such a moral system, we can write off the cultural economy as just simply a version of neo-liberalism, naively celebrating the false gods of market choices, individual autonomy, and value-neutrality.