Socio-­economic trends of the World Heritage List: how the relationship between developed and developing countries is affecting the future of the World Heritage Program

As the World Heritage List approaches its 1000th site, the inevitable question is: “What is the future of the List?” Searching for this answer can only begin through an examination of the trends and data of sites and countries represented on the List. Through 35-years, 190 countries, and 982 sites, the List has consistently been reflective of major political and economic world events, as cultural health is directly related to economic, political, and social health. Countries that have the most stable socio-economic status, or Most-Developed, dominate the list. With this in mind, the World Heritage Committee established the Global Strategy in 1994 to balance the List and expand the World Heritage program around the world. The Asia and Pacific region was highly supported by the initiatives of the World Heritage Centre, including the Local Effort and Preservation program, and the financial support through the Funds-in-Trust of Most-Developed countries. Whereas many developed countries once endeavored to designate many of their sites on the World Heritage List, now many of these countries are turning away from the inherited problems of listing. The turbulent economic climate in recent years has made economic security and growth a priority for countries. Communities are willing to risk their World Heritage status in order to bring about new development. The first city to lose their World Heritage status over this situation was Dresden, in 2009. Now the United Kingdom has four sites in danger of losing their designation because of development projects. This thesis aims to examine the changing situations that cause a declining participation in the World Heritage program, and how despite the World Heritage Committee’s best efforts, many developing countries are losing international, national, and local support. Sites in developing countries or small communities may also face local political and social aversion to designation. When these situations are compounded with decreasing financial support, developing countries may also look to sacrifice their place in the program, just as has been becoming the trend for developed countries.M.A.Includes bibliographical referencesby Lauren Moulde