Abstract

The intangible dimension of cultural heritage is not confined to public dignity that is at the basis of their public law regime (legal immaterial); but also includes, almost always, an economic value, often overlooked or understated by the jurist (economic immaterial). It is reductive to consider the only economic value of the oppositional property. There are other news economic interests that use the temporary availability of cultural goods, but does not require the onerous property. Not necessarily this economic utility is in conflict with the public aim: indeed, sometimes it is in apparent support to that. The attitude of the individuals involved in the management or development of cultural heritage can be dative or acquisitive, with significant echo on various public law purposes and risks of significant distortions in the second case. This reveals the difference between cultural valorization and economic valorization and their possible conflict and demand a realistic update of the dual theory of the cultural good.