The Economic Value of Heritage Is Clear. Our Messaging Isn’t.

Let’s start with the numbers. According to Historic England’s latest Heritage Counts analysis, the heritage sector contributed £44.9 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA) to the UK economy in 2022, supporting over 523,000 jobs. Of this, £15.3 billion is direct economic output, with the remainder generated through supply chains and wider spending across the economy. For every £1 directly generated by heritage, an additional £1.93 is created elsewhere in the economy. This places heritage firmly within the UK’s core economic activity, deeply embedded in construction, planning, tourism, and regional development. And this is only part of the picture - across the wider cultural and creative economy, UK sectors generated over £120 billion in GVA annually, representing around 5% of the UK GDP. Even these figures are likely conservative. Government commissioned research acknowledges that standard statistical definitions struggle to capture the full extent of heritage activity, meaning its total contribution is systematically underestimated.

And yet, despite this, a persistent misconception remains. Archaeology and the wider heritage sector are still frequently framed as a 'nice to have', culturally valuable certainly, but economically marginal. A discretionary area of spending, rather than a driver of growth. The uncomfortable truth is that this is not just a misunderstanding from outside the sector. It is also, in part, of our own making. This is a failure of communication, and it matters now more than ever. I was reminded of this recently when I was fortunate to be invited to give a talk as part of a UKRI board visit to the North of England. The Industrial Strategy was high on the agenda, unsurprisingly, given its centrality to how research, innovation, and regional growth will be framed over the coming decade. It was striking how little visibility archaeology and heritage had, despite the strength of the underlying evidence. 

This is where we need to be honest as a sector. We have, for too long, assumed that the value of heritage is self-evident. That its importance, to communities, to identity, to the economy, does not need to be argued for explicitly. But in a policy environment driven by metrics and strategic prioritisation, nothing is self-evident unless it is clearly articulated. There is, too, an uncomfortable truth we do not always acknowledge - a tendency within our own sector to assume that we are somehow less economically important than our STEM counterparts, whose connections to industry are more direct, more visible, and more obviously translated into career pathways. But this is a false comparison, and a damaging one. Our value is not lesser, only less clearly articulated, and unless we recognise that internally, we will continue to struggle to communicate it externally.

Part of the problem lies in how subjects such as archaeology are perceived. There is little real understanding of what archaeology really is - yes, there is an element that is about digging up old stuff, just like there is an element of history that is about learning dates, or maths involves counting. But whilst many people know that those discipline stereotypes are only part of the picture, archaeology continues to be misunderstood. Archaeology is embedded within planning systems, infrastructure delivery, construction processes, and landscape management. It contributes to specialist employment, supports a highly skilled workforce, and generates knowledge that feeds directly into environmental and materials science, and supports a thriving heritage tourism sector through conservation of collections, buildings, landscapes, and making these accessible to communities and visitors.

More broadly, heritage operates as a system-level economic force. Historic England’s work makes clear that the sector is deeply embedded in local property markets, supply chains, and employment structures. It shapes the attractiveness of places, anchors regeneration strategies, and underpins the visitor economy. More than half of UK homeowners are renovating, many of them older properties, and investing significant sums in their upkeep, while areas with more listed buildings can have house prices around 13% higher on average. People are willing to pay a premium to live with heritage, and invest in it.

At the same time, I think that focusing only on direct and indirect economic value risks underplaying the full significance of the sector. Heritage operates across systems and over long timescales. Its impacts are distributed, cumulative, and often indirect. This is one reason why measurement has historically been difficult, and why standard economic frameworks tend to undervalue it.  But difficulty in measurement is not an argument for marginalisation; rather, it highlights the need for more sophisticated ways of understanding value.

Alongside economic value, there is also a dimension that remains consistently under-articulated - prestige and soft power. The UK’s international standing is closely tied to its cultural and intellectual heritage, from museums and collections to globally recognised academic disciplines such as Classics, and history. Our academic reputation as a world leader in these areas is integral to how the UK projects influence globally. As parliamentary analysis has noted, arts and culture play a significant role not only in economic contribution but also in international cultural influence and attractiveness.  Prestige disciplines, often dismissed as esoteric, carry symbolic capital that reinforces the UK’s reputation as a global centre of knowledge and culture. That, in turn, feeds into everything from education exports to diplomatic relationships.

We therefore find ourselves in a position where the evidence is strong, but the narrative has not kept pace. We can demonstrate clear economic contribution, powerful multiplier effects, and deep integration with other sectors, as well as a role in innovation and international position. Yet these arguments are not consistently made, or not made in ways that resonate with policy frameworks such as industrial strategy. The challenge now is to communicate this more effectively: to speak with greater confidence about economic value, to align more clearly with policy priorities, and to engage directly with debates around growth, productivity, and innovation. It also requires rejecting the false divide between intrinsic and instrumental value. Cultural significance does not sit in opposition to economic importance, it underpins it.

If the industrial strategy is about the future of the UK economy, then our sector has a clear place within it. But that place will only be secured if we engage, clearly, consistently, and collectively, as a sector whose importance is already demonstrated, and whose potential is still not fully recognised.