Journal of Cultural Economics

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 275–284 | Cite as

Do People Really Care About the Arts for Future Generations?

  • Arthur C. Brooks
Short Paper


Many people argue that public art contains an element of “bequest value”: value derived by people today from the expected enjoyment of the art by future generations. In this paper, I investigate the existence of this claimed benefit. I employ an intergenerational model of the benefits from government subsidies and private charitable gifts to the arts, and fit it empirically using 1996 US General Social Survey data. The data analysis suggests that people take their life expectancies into account to some extent when giving to the arts or supporting government arts spending. Indeed, we cannot reject the hypothesis that people do not consider future generations in their current support for the arts.

Key words

art subsidies bequests non-use values 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andreoni, James (1989) “Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence”. Journal of Political Economy 97(6): 1447–1458.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, Arthur C. (2003) “Public Goods and Posterity: An Empirical Test of Intergenerational Altruism”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(2): 165–176.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, Arthur C. (2001) “Who Opposes Government Arts Funding?” Public Choice 108(3/4): 355–367.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, Trady A. and Huppert, D. (1991) “‘Referendum’ Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values”, Journal of the American Statistical Association 86(416).Google Scholar
  5. Davis, James Allan, Smith, Tom W., and Marsden, Peter V. (1999) General Social Surveys, 1972–1998: Cumulative CodeBook. National Opinion Research Center, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Frey, Bruno S. (1997) “Evaluating Cultural Property: The Economic Approach”. International Journal of Cultural Property 6(2) 231–246.Google Scholar
  7. Frey, Bruno S. and Pommerehne, Werner W., (1989) Muses and Markets: Explorations in the Economic of the Arts. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Gapinski, James H. (1986) “The Lively Arts as Substitutes for the Lively Arts”. The American Economic Review 76(2): 20–25.Google Scholar
  9. Kao, Chihwa, and Wu, Chunchi (1990) “Two-Step Estimation of Linear Models with Ordinal Unobserved Variables: The Case of Corporate Bonds”. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 8(3): 317–325.Google Scholar
  10. Moore, Thomas Gale (1966) “The Demand for Broadway Theatre Tickets”. The Review of Economics and Statistics 48(1): 79–87.Google Scholar
  11. National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA) (1997) Measuring Your Arts Economy: Twelve Questions and Answers about Economic Impact Studies. National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Noonan, Douglas S. (2002) “Contingent Valuation Studies in the Arts and Culture: An Annotated Bibliography”. University of Chicago Cultural Policy Center Working Paper 11.Google Scholar
  13. Lange, Mark D. and Luksetich, William A. (1984) “Demand Elasticities for Symphony Orchestras”. Journal of Cultural Economics 8: 29–47.Google Scholar
  14. Popp, David (2001) “Altruism and the Demand for Environmental Quality”. Land Economics 77(3): 339–349.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, David Horton (1994) “Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteering: A Literature Review”. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23(3): 243–263.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) Statistical Abstract of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Withers, Glen A. (1979) “Private Demand for Public Subsidies: An Econometric Study of Cultural Support in Australia”. Journal of Cultural Economics 3: 53–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maxwell SchoolSyracuse UniversitySyracuseU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations