Subsidizing the Arts

There is always much debate when it comes to government intervention in every aspect of a nation. The “less is more” versus the “more is necessary” views oppose one another leading to no end. When it comes to opinions of government subsidizing the art, each side has its weaknesses intertwined with their valid points causing many to be on the fences neither agreeing nor disagreeing that there is an issue with government subsidizing the arts. In Arts Funding: A New Approach, David Rawcliffe explains that government subsidizing would be necessary because the art market is subject to market failure. He explains that an accomplished arts industry creates national pride, leaves a legacy for future generations, contributes to education, encourages tourism, and that artistic innovation benefits other artists which isn’t protected by intellectual property laws (Rawcliffe). This means that an effective art industry has positive long term effects on a nation’s economy and society as a whole. Government subsidy also makes it possible for all to gain the benefits of art especially the lower income individuals that would normally be able to afford to attend art events (Rawcliffe). Another reason that the government should subsidize art is because generally the public wants them to as shown by a survey commissioned by the Scottish Arts Council. The survey found that 82% of the Scottish public believe that central government is responsible for the support of art and culture (Rawcliffe). From an economic stand point, it is argued that art institutions have the “character of public goods.” Since it is widely accepted that when more individuals can benefit at little to no additional cost from a service, government intervention can be justified as the service/good tends to be undersupplied by the market (Clotfelter). Another economic perspective in favor of government subsidies for the arts is that the arts represent a merit good meaning that it is a commodity deemed of importance by society that should and must in turn be provided by the government (Clotfelter).

When it comes to arguments against government subsidizing the arts, there are many. It is said that the criteria that subsidies are distributed by are undefined; along with the unclear requirements of allocation, it has also been stated that “there is no indication as to how the size of the subsidy is calculated for different institutions,” (Rawcliffe). Rawcliffe explains that with the government subsidizing the arts, there are “distorted incentives.” He says, “Rather than striving to please the consumer or patron, artists serve the bureaucracy that allocates their funding,” (Rawcliffe). There are risks as a result to this: conflicts of interest may wrongly determine the distribution of funding (either accidentally or intentionally) and reduced competition. To the argument that government subsidy frees it from external control, Rawcliffe argues that subsidy “simply moves external control from a diverse variety of consumers and patrons to a single politically-motivated centre.” In the end, the funding leads to “politicization of the arts” meaning that art becomes used for political agenda or propaganda, and artists may avoid “controversial, challenging or risky artwork” to please the political figures backing them (Rawcliffe). Many economists argue that government intervention in relation to the arts is unnecessary as the free market works well enough alone (Fullerton). In Against Art Subsidies, Brian Mickelthwait argues against the notion that subsidies are for those that normally wouldn’t be able to afford to go to art displays stating that these individuals rarely turn up anyway leading more money to be spent trying to get them to attend these events.

Bibliography

Clotfelter, Charles T. "Government Policy Toward Art Museums in the United States." The Economics of Art Museums. By Martin S. Feldstein. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991. 237-70. Print. Fullerton, Don. “On Justifications for Public Support of the Arts,” Journal of Cultural Economics (Dec., 1991). Reprinted in Ruth Towse, ed., Cultural Economics: The Arts, the Heritage, and the Media Industries Vol. 2, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar (1997). Heilbrun, James, and Charles M. Gray. The Economics of Art and Culture. New York: Cambridge UP, 2001. Print. Mickelthwait, Brian. "Against Art Subsidies." Libertarian Alliance. Libertarian Alliance, n.d. Web. . Rawcliffe, David. "Arts Funding: A New Approach." Adam Smith Institute. Adam Smith Institute, n.d. Web. .