John O’Hagan

Politicians and taxpayers understandably want to know how their money is being spent and whether to good effect or not. This applies across the whole public sector, including expenditure on the arts. One might argue that the ‘output’ of the arts sector is very difficult to measure, and this is probably true, but so also is the output of the police service or the educational system or the health service. The arts sector is no different.

This paper therefore addresses in some detail the possible societal benefits from state expenditure on the arts, and hence the justification for its continuance. These must be kept separate from personal benefits. Personal benefits may be large and intense, just like the benefits from doing yoga classes or going to church or hill walking or gardening might be, but they should not be paid for by taxpayers. The only role of the state in this regard might be to make individuals aware of the benefits before making their personal choice of what to spend their time and money on. This the state does in relation to many other activities, highlighting through information programmes the disadvantages say of smoking/gambling or the benefits say of regular exercise to personal health.

The arts are used also in the educational and health sectors and the prison service and are funded in this case through the dedicated budgets for these activities. The focus of this paper is on the justification for direct funding of the arts, via central and local governments. As such, their funding is justified not because they improve education and/or health outputs for individuals, but because there are benefits to the wider society which only state funding can capture. The key issue is the freedom from market constraints that state funding provides. This of course as in the past and indeed today can be provided also by private patronage, be it through private individuals, foundations, or church organisations.

One crucial issue in fact to keep in mind is that the vast bulk of state funding on the visual and performing arts sectors goes to the following: theatre, opera/ballet, art museums and individual artists. Small amounts are also allocated to regional arts events, which often have a wider remit. There is no point then, when examining public funding on the arts, in devoting much attention to areas which receive little direct public funding, such as film, popular or church music, creative industries, or the media. A discussion of these activities is of interest in itself of course but does not link directly to the issue of large state direct funding, the focus of this paper. It probably relates more to industrial policy, where the creative industries are as worthy of state encouragement as other supported industries. Such support may take the form of tax breaks, or start-up grants or assistance with promotion/ advertising.

There are also many important personal benefits as mentioned above which flow from the consumption of the arts heavily subsidised by the state, but the role of the state in this regard might simply be to draw attention to these so that everyone can make more informed decisions. It is not the role of the state though to subsidise the consumption of these activities or for others to ‘lecture’ people on what is ‘good for them’ in this regard.

The structure of the paper is as follows. The first five sections outline the various arguments for state funding of the arts, in Ireland and elsewhere. The following two sections then discuss the issue of access for all to the arts, in terms of several possible definitions and their relevance to the issue of societal benefit and hence state funding. The final section concludes the paper.

Societal benefit 1: National/regional identity

One of the societal outcomes of supporting the arts relates to the extent to which the arts can define those elements of national/regional life which characterise a country or region and distinguish its attitudes, institutions, behaviours, and way of life from those of other countries/regions. The protection of such identity is a form of public good and hence benefits everyone.

It is argued by some that group identity is as important a concept as personal identity.² In this context, it could be argued that the benefit of group identity is synonymous with social cohesion and harmony (which again benefits others). This cohesion, in turn, depends on the intensity of social communications within and among groups, and that members of the same nation/region communicate more effectively with each other and over a wider range of subjects than with outsiders.³ If the arts help us in this process to understand who we are and to understand the ways of living and the problems of others then the benefits are public in nature and should be supported, at least in part, by the state.

In his splendid book on Germany, Neil MacGregor for example chooses to ‘define’ Germany more through the works of cultural figures – such as Beethoven, Dürer, Goethe, Luther, and members of the Bauhaus movement – and important historical cultural monuments and artefacts, than through political figures and events.⁴

In a similar vein, how would we ‘define’ Dublin without reference for example to Joyce, O’Casey, and the Abbey? Would we think differently about Ireland if there were none of the major national monuments such as the Rock of Cashel or Trim Castle or artefacts such as the Book of Kells? Would Ireland be the same place without the traditional music of counties such as Clare and Galway, and the visual art of people such as Jack Yeats, and the poetry of Heaney and W. B. Yeats? Would all of this have been generated/ preserved without patronage, be it private as in the past or public as today?

The impact of these on identity though can be very long term in nature, with for example the work of Joyce positively banned in Ireland in the early years and yet regarded today as an iconic representation not only of Irish literary prowess but also of life in Dublin in the early twentieth century. This fact compounds the difficulty of providing evidence on this societal benefit.

Societal benefit 2: International prestige

International recognition and prestige are often posited as a benefit of the arts that is related to national identity and is public in nature. Few people, it is argued by Baumol and Bowen, would be happy if their country ‘became known abroad as a cultural wasteland, a nation in which Mammon had put beauty and art to rout’.⁵ Thus, nations are like individuals: they can derive huge standing and prestige from having a vibrant arts sector collectively owned. What Irish person for example does not get some pride from knowing that Beckett, a graduate of Trinity College Dublin, won the Nobel Prize in Literature even if they would never attend any of his plays? Who does not get some pride from knowing that James Joyce is so highly regarded world-wide even if they cannot get past the first paragraph of his most famous novel, Ulysses?

There are possible spill-over economic benefits related to this which may be much more significant. If Ireland’s reputation is enhanced in some way by that part of the arts sector supported by the Arts Council, it benefits everyone, not only by boosting national pride but also by positively impacting, in the medium to long term, both tourism and investment decisions to locate in Ireland. This highlights again the interconnectivity of societal outcomes.

Thus, national identity and social cohesion are linked and are reinforcing. Apart from the art itself, organising arts events, for example local arts festivals, can contribute to social cohesion through extensive volunteering thereby furthering a sense of community and group identity. This aspect of the arts though applies to any community activity such as gardening or yoga clubs, church groups, sports clubs, and other means. But it also applies to the arts.

Societal benefit 3: Social cohesion and social criticism

The key benefit arising from identity and national prestige is the possible social cohesion that could result. The more socially cohesive a society the less risk of social disruption and instability. Social cohesion results from some common identity, but it can also arise from situations which allow social interaction and hence a better understanding of each other’s problems and modus operandi. It also arises from an on-going social criticism function of the arts. This aspect of social cohesion in fact arises from social criticism, thereby allowing society to develop and progress and not be stuck in some time warp regarding stereotype identity concepts. Weil sees social criticism as a very important function of the arts:

Functioning as agents of social disruption and change, the arts may intrude rudely upon our everyday sensibility, force us to consider the most extreme possibilities of the human condition, and prod us to think more profoundly than is comfortable about ultimate matters of life, death, and our own contingency.⁶

Thus, this aspect of the arts could challenge the notion of identity, both personal and communal, and in fact highlight the restrictive nature of regional/ national identity in an increasingly globalised world. The arts also allow a channel of critical communication about society that is often very different to what is possible through the written or spoken word, thereby contributing in a special way to a functioning democratic liberal society. This though can happen through both the private and subsidised arts sectors, but as shall be argued below it might happen only through the first of these channels where there is a subsidised sector with the freedom (from commercial constraints) to explore these possibilities.

Societal benefit 4: Experimental/innovative work

The social criticism arguments are part of the more general argument for public support for work that is challenging, experimental, innovative, and has public good dimensions. An analogy can be drawn between subsidies for experimental/innovative work in the arts and subsidies for research and development in the humanities, sciences, engineering, and medicine. It is argued that the social returns from major innovations far exceed their private returns and that it may be that a similar condition exists for major new arts innovations. For example, films and TV may draw their inspiration from ideas created in the subsidised arts by adapting and popularising a concept developed there. Commercial and industrial design may be also influenced by and adapted from breakthroughs in the arts.

This argument applies to creative artists, but it also applies to performing artists in the following ways. Just as the experimental scientist needs a laboratory and engineers and technicians need workshops, the experimental dramatist needs actors, and a theatre and composers need performing artists to test and experiment with their works. Likewise, the experimental artist needs exhibition space and an audience upon which to test and diffuse his/ her ideas.

This argument is often made for public support for creative and performing artists involved in experimental/innovative work. As with all such experimental work, a high level of ‘natural wastage’ can be expected in the search for innovation and novelty. This though is a crucial function of state funding of the arts, as it is for research in science or engineering or the humanities. However, it is one that is not given much emphasis by arts funding bodies, except in the sense of promoting ‘quality’ and ‘excellence’, often undefined.⁷ It needs also to be understood that funding for such work will not result in high attendances, quite the opposite often for most productions. The high attendance will result from the odd huge success, eventually, either in the subsidised venue or later in the commercial sector.

It is possible as in the past that large private philanthropic funding can play a similar role to state funding of experimental/innovative work, and this could still apply today. However, this cannot, like in the sciences, engineering and humanities be left to private funding only. It is often the case that the latter in fact will be drawn to the high-status events rather than the innovative, risky ventures, the main emphasis of this argument for non- market funding of the arts.

Societal benefit 5: Economic spill-over effects

In many countries the promotion of employment and regional balance through state employment and tourism agencies is accepted government policy, involving large public expenditures. Given this, and the value of the creative industries, there is undoubtedly a role for the arts in a policy of promoting employment, economic growth, and balanced regional development.

There are three main ways in which the arts can contribute to increasing employment. First, they provide direct employment for artists, administrators, and other staff. Second, they may be a factor in influencing tourists to visit an area, city, or country, thereby enhancing employment prospects in hotels, restaurants, etc. The arts may also be an important factor in shaping decisions on whether to locate a commercial operation in a certain city, region, or country or not.

An expenditure of, for example, €50 million on any activity will create direct employment, the arts sector being no exception. As such there is no special case for providing funding for direct employment in the sector, except perhaps because people in the arts are more prone to fluctuating and insecure employment than in other sectors. The key issue is whether this employment generates employment in other sectors as a spill-over effect and this is the focus of the discussion here.

There is some evidence to suggest that the existence of adequate cultural institutions has been an important factor in attracting business and tourists to a region.⁸ In this case, the arts may form part of the social infrastructure that some see as a necessary condition for locating/working in an area.

There are, however, other spill-over effects on the production side resulting from arts activity. The possible beneficial effects on industrial and commercial design and on the output of the more commercial aspects of the cultural sector have been discussed previously. There are also potential benefits in terms of the training of artists in the non-commercial sector.

Mismatch between objectives of funding agencies and societal benefits

How do the various objectives/outputs of the arts funding agencies link, if at all, to the societal outcomes identified above? Not surprisingly, there are indeed links, but some are tenuous, and, in most cases, the societal outcomes are not even made explicit and hence cannot be traced back to outputs. O’Hagan studied four important national funding agencies of the arts, in Ireland, England, New Zealand and Australia, respectively.⁹ There were five key objectives/outputs identified in the case of Ireland.¹⁰ These are:

1. a rich, vibrant, and enduring culture,
2. an inclusive society in terms of involvement with the arts,
3. an arts sector which contributes to creativity and innovation,
4. enhanced reputation for Ireland,
5. spill-over economic benefits including employment, tourism, and foreign  direct investment in the  creative  industries. Objectives (4) and (5) directly link to the societal benefits of economic spill-over and international reputation. Objectives (1) and (2) link to the identity and social cohesion argument but not very directly. The link needs to be made much more explicit. Without a vibrant and enduring culture and an inclusive society identity and social cohesion would be difficult to achieve. Outcome (3) links to the experimentation/innovation societal benefit discussed earlier but again this is not explicitly recognised by the funding agencies. There are other interconnections. A rich, vibrant, and enduring culture would be essential to the achievement of Objectives (4) and (5). Likewise Objective (2) would be important to the State’s objective of balanced regional development and hence also to Outcome (5). Thus, these societal outcomes of the Department of the Arts articulated in 2015 are not mutually exclusive but interact and reinforce each other.

These objectives though are much more closely linked to societal outcomes than is the case in the other three countries examined by O’Hagan.¹¹ It is very difficult though to link the objectives of the Arts Council, outlined in Making Great Art Work: Leading the Development of the Arts in Ireland. Arts Council Strategy (2016–2025),¹² to any of the societal benefits discussed above. Many of them could apply to any sector of the economy. Besides, for example, the fourth aim is: ‘where local and national politicians, decision- makers, and officials in a wide range of departments and agencies recognise the distinctive societal value of the arts, and provide for them, accordingly’. This is of course defining part of the role of the Arts Council, but nowhere is the ‘distinctive societal value of the arts’, articulated in any convincing way.

Meaning of access to the arts?

Access to the arts for all has become a mantra of many arts agencies (see earlier in relation to Ireland). However, it is rarely made clear that it is possible to speak of access to the arts on at least four levels. First, there is the issue of access to the supply of arts services to consumers. For example, has everyone access to employment as an actor, a violinist, or a production mananger? Second, one may speak of access to the decision-making process of arts policy and the organization of arts events, something that may impinge on the other aspects of access. Third, one may also refer to the consumer and the consumption of arts services or simply attendance at arts events. Finally, there is access to the ‘making/doing’ of art, in classes and at an amateur/personal and community level. All merit attention, but this paper will concentrate only on the third aspect of access to the arts, or what shall be called from this point, equality of access to the ‘consumption’ of the arts.

The first issue that then arises is what is meant by equality of access in this context? At a minimum, equal access could be defined in terms of equality of rights to access cultural life, where such rights are construed as the absence of legal and institutionalized barriers (e.g., to certain ethnic groups) to entry in each institution or system. This effectively ensures the absence of discrimination in the case of anyone’s access to the arts; this is an eqaulity objective with which few would argue.

Equality of formal rights though does not guarantee more equal attendance at the arts. A second and more useful indicator of equality therefore might be equality of opportunity. This involves not only providing formal rights but enabling and encouraging certain sectors to attend/participate on an equal footing with others. For example, if those on low incomes are to attend on equal terms with those on middle incomes in the arts, then a policy of zero or low entry charges for attendance at the arts might be necessary to ensure equality of opportunity to attend. It may also be necessary to encourage attendance of certain groups, through a proactive policy of advertising and/ or education regarding the arts. This is clearly a more far-reaching concept of equal access.

Unequal access in terms of attendance

Enabling and encouraging equal attendance facilitates but does not of course ensure equal attendance at state-funded arts. Thus, a further equality objective might relate to equality in terms of outcome or success, i.e., actual equality of attendance in the arts.

A policy concern much discussed in the arts world is the very uneven pattern of attendance by educational/income level at arts events for which the bulk of public money is allocated. One must be careful here though. It has been argued above that the high arts could create benefits that are not confined to those who attend – they also create benefits that are public in nature. Thus, the public subsidy may be provided simply to cover/pay for the collective benefit (which accrues to everyone), with those in attendance paying in full for the private benefit received and thereby receiving no direct public subsidy at all. This would be especially so if the main benefit of the subsidy went to paying the artistic personnel involved a higher income, as opposed to leading to a reduction in price.

It must be remembered then as seen earlier that public funding of the ‘high arts’ is justified not solely, not even mainly, on the grounds of improving access for those with low educational attainment. For example, the innovation/ experimental argument for public subsidy is not dependent on the level and/ or composition of the initial audiences for the subsidised art form. It is clear then that the rhetoric of more equal access to the arts must be linked much more carefully to the societal outcomes of the subsidised arts sector. If the argument is based solely on the notion that the disbursement of the monies should equally benefit all socioeconomic groups in terms of initial outlays then this flies in the face of the other societal benefits, especially those of innovation, international prestige, and economic development.

The key societal outcome that an emphasis on access for all relates to is identity and social cohesion. Without a broad involvement in the arts, it would be difficult to argue that this societal benefit of the arts would be realised. The focus then must shift to more funding of arts activities which encourage social cohesion and social inclusion, with the case for public funding of the high arts having to rest on generating the other societal benefits outlined earlier. The former can best be done by supporting arts projects involving a large section of the community, such as regional and local arts festivals.

As discussed earlier, other activities such as sports and village/town associations can provide similar communal benefits, but the arts may be able to do so in a unique way given the communicative nature of the arts, the personal nature of creative expression, and the trust associated with revealing one’s creativity to others. This may make joint arts activities particularly conducive to forging social bonds and bridges across social divides. It is also through the arts, perhaps, more so than through sports or other local activities, that different ethnic groups can develop and maintain their cultural heritage and communicate their cultural identity to the rest of the community. Looking at attendance at the high arts by socioeconomic group then is seeking the wrong evidence to throw light on progress in achieving the objective of identity and social cohesiveness. However, given the markedly skewed socioeconomic composition of attendees at the so-called high arts,¹³ the onus on the funding agencies must be to provide evidence that this funding is justified based on other objectives.

Conclusions

While it is possible to argue in principle for state funding of the arts and the importance of equality of access in certain circumstances, the key issue then is providing evidence for these. This understandably is what politicians want to see, before committing say to more funding, but that is for another paper.¹⁴ But the first step is knowing on what we are seeking evidence and why. The main messages of this paper are threefold. The societal outcomes (or benefits to the general taxpayer) which are the target of state funding need to be articulated very clearly and kept totally separate from private benefits. At least then we know what we are aiming at. Second, arts funding agencies should articulate much more clearly how organisational goals link to these societal outcomes. Third, even if evidence on the success or otherwise of arts funding agencies in achieving the desired societal outcomes is subsequently difficult to get at least some effort can be made to fill some of the gaps. The task is a daunting one, but perhaps no more difficult than the everyday exercise faced by the judicial process, namely proving sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, clarity needs to be brought to the concept of access to the arts for all as well as to the rationale for this.

John O’Hagan is Professor Emeritus of Economics, Trinity College Dublin. His main research focus for the last thirty years has been on the economics of the arts, on which he has published widely, internationally.

Notes

1. This title is, with minor adjustments, that of the pioneering book on this topic by Dick Netzer, TheSubsidizedMuse:PublicSupportfortheArtsintheUnitedStates(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). The paper also draws on a webinar lecture I gave at Trinity College Dublin, found at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AVZjJmDBo>.
2. John O’Hagan, The State and the Arts: An Analysis of Key Economic Policy Issues in Europe and the United States (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1998).
3. Similar arguments are used in relation to the preservation of a national language.
4. Neil McGregor, Germany: Memories of a Nation (London: Allen Lane, 2014).
5. W. J. Baumol and W. G. Bowen, Performing Arts – The Economic Dilemma: A Study of Problems Common to Theater, Opera, Music, and Dance (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966), p. 383.
6. Stephen Weil, A Cabinet of Curiosities: Inquiries into Museums and Their Prospects (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996), p. 156.
7. John O’Hagan, ‘Objectives of arts funding agencies do not map well onto societal objectives’, CulturalTrends, 25:4 (2016), 1–14.
8. See Trine Bille and Gunther G. Schulze, ‘Culture in Urban and Regional Development’, in Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, ed. by V. Ginsburgh and D. Throsby (Amsterdam: North Holland, 2006), vol. i.
9. O’Hagan, ‘Objectives of arts funding’.
10. Department of Arts, Heritage, and the Gaeltacht, Value for Money and Policy Review of the Arts Council (Dublin, September 2015).
11. O’Hagan, ‘Objectives of arts funding’.
12. Arts Council of Ireland, Making Great Art Work: Leading the Development of the Arts in Ireland. Arts Council Strategy (2016–2025) (Dublin, 2015). The Arts Council in 2015 outlined that it was ‘inspired by the prospect of an Ireland.

• • where the arts are valued as central to civic life, as a hallmark of local and national identity, and as sign and signature of our creativity as a people

• • where the arts are practiced and enjoyed widely in our communities, public spaces (real and virtual) and in dedicated venues and centres across the country

• • where artists and practitioners whose exceptional talent and commitment lead them to work professionally in the arts can have productive and rewarding careers

• • where local and national politicians, decision-makers and officials in a wide range of departments and agencies recognise the distinctive societal value of the arts and provide for them accordingly

• • where the Arts Council as the national development agency for the arts is resourced adequately to address the full breadth of its remit’

13. John O’Hagan, ‘Attendance at publicly funded arts events: Are the highly variable rates by educational level a cause for concern?’, Social Observatory (2016), <https://elobservatoriosocial. fundacionlacaixa.org/en/-/la-asistencia-a-actividades-artisticas-y-culturales-financiadas-con-fondos- publicos>

14. See O’Hagan, ‘Objectives of arts funding’ .