Skip to main content
Log in

Who pays? Who benefits? Who decides?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper was presented at the symposium dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the publication of Patrons Despite Themselves: Taxpayers and Arts Policy (Feld et al. 1983), held by the Association for Cultural Economics International, Boston, June 2008. It considers alternative means of providing indirect tax-based state support of the arts, such as the use of tax credits as opposed to tax deductions for charitable contributions, matching grants, and support applied to specific projects. It also considers the problem of broad-based changes to tax policy that have unintended consequences for arts organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bakija, J. M., & Gale, W. G. (2003). ‘Effects of estate tax reform on charitable giving’, Tax Policy Issues and Options, No. 6. Washington, DC: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakija, J., & Heim, B. (2008). How does charitable giving respond to incentives and income? Dynamic panel estimates accounting for predictable changes in taxation. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper #14237.

  • Brooks, A. C. (2004). In search of true public arts support. Public Budgeting and Finance, 24(2), 88–100. doi:10.1111/j.0275-1100.2004.02402006.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, A. C. (2007). Income tax policy and charitable giving. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(3), 599–612. doi:10.1002/pam.20267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. (1985). Federal tax policy and charitable giving. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordes, J. J. (2004). The partially subsidized muse: Estimating the value and incidence of public support received by nonprofit arts organizations. In A. E. Schwartz (Ed.), City taxes, city spending. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T. (2006). Good and plenty: The creative successes of American arts funding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation; Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2006). Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 72(4), 794–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, A. L., O’Hare, M., & Schuster, J. M. D. (1983). Patrons despite themselves: Taxpayers and arts policy. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivey, B. (2008). Arts, Inc.: How greed and neglect have destroyed our cultural rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joulfaian, D. (2000). Estate taxes and charitable bequests by the wealthy. National Tax Journal, 53(3), 743–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlan, D., & List, J. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. The American Economic Review, 97(5), 1774–1793. doi:10.1257/aer.97.5.1774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, R. (2004). Charitable bequests and the repeal of the estate tax. Congressional Budget Office, Tax Analysis Division, Technical Paper Series #2004-8.

  • Meier, S. (2007). Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(6), 1203–1222. doi:10.1162/JEEA.2007.5.6.1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netzer, D. (1992). Arts and culture. In C. T. Clotfelter (Ed.), Who benefits from the nonprofit sector? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Steel, P. (2005). The price elasticities of charitable contributions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24(2), 260–272. doi:10.1509/jppm.2005.24.2.260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Policy and Taxation Group. (2008). Status of death tax repeal (July 18). http://www.policyandtaxationgroup.com/. Accessed 14 September 2008.

  • Rushton, M. (forthcoming). Federal tax policy. In: B. A. Seaman & D. R. Young (Eds.), Nonprofit management and economics: The state of research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

  • Schuster, J. M. D. (1986). Tax incentives as arts policy in Western Europe. In P. J. DiMaggio (Ed.), Nonprofit enterprise in the arts: Studies in mission and constraint. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. M. (1987). Issues in supporting the arts through tax incentives. Journal of Arts Management and Law, 16(4), 31–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. M. (1999). The other side of the subsidized muse: Indirect aid revisited. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(1–2), 51–70. doi:10.1023/A:1007566119420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. M. (2006). Tax incentives in cultural policy. In V. A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weil, S. E. (1991). Tax policy and private giving. In S. Benedict (Ed.), Public money and the muse: Essays on government funding for the arts. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Rushton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rushton, M. Who pays? Who benefits? Who decides?. J Cult Econ 32, 293–300 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-008-9083-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-008-9083-x

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation