Advertisement

Voluntary taxation and the arts

  • R. Andrew LuccasenIII
  • M. Kathleen ThomasEmail author
Original Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

The arts in the USA receive little federal support relative to other developed nations. Because culture and the arts are often viewed as a nonessential role of government, public officials have proposed eliminating public funding for the arts. We examine support for public arts funding using a real-donation experiment (Eckel and Grossman in Games Econ Behav 16(2):181–191, 1996). Real-donation experiments combine elements of a controlled laboratory experiment with the context of a field experiment. In this “giving to the government” experiment, each participant allocates money between herself and a charitable organization supporting either cancer research, education, or the arts. There are two charities within each function: one is a private organization and the other a government agency. Not only do participants donate significant amounts to support the arts generally, we observe significant donations to a government agency that funds the arts. We find similar donation rates to cancer research and education as Li et al. (J Publ Econ 95(9–10):1190–1201, 2011), which provides a measure of external validity. Participants donate less to the arts than to cancer research or education and consistently give less to government organizations than to private charities. However, observing voluntary taxation to support the arts stands in striking contrast to current public policy. Significant predictors of giving include the perceived importance, efficiency, and trust of the organization, as well as gender. Our evidence suggests that current public funding for the arts may be less than optimal.

JEL Classification

C91 D64 H2 Z1 

Keywords

Charitable giving Taxation Laboratory experiment Real donation Philanthropy The arts 

Notes

Funding

We wish to thank Mississippi University for Women for financial support of this project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Americans for the Arts. (2018). Americans speak out about the arts in 2018: An in-depth look at perceptions and attitudes about the arts in America. https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-data/research-studies-publications/public-opinion-poll.
  2. Borgonovi, F., & O’Hare, M. (2004). The impact of the National Endowment for the Arts in the United States: Institutional and sectoral effects on private funding. Journal of Cultural Economics,28(1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, A. C. (2001). Who opposes government arts funding? Public Choice,108(3/4), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camerer, C. F. (2015). The promise and success of lab–field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to Levitt and List. In G. R. Fréchette & A. Schotter (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. de Quidt, J., Vesterlund, L., & Wilson, A. (2019). Experimenter demand effects. In A. Schram & A. Ule (Eds.), Handbook of research methods and applications in experimental economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior,16(2), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Johnston, R. M. (2005). An experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis. Journal of Public Economics,89(8), 1543–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ho, J., Tumkaya, T., Aryal, S., Choi, H., & Claridge-Chang, A. (2018). Moving beyond P values: Everyday data analysis with estimation plots.  https://doi.org/10.1101/377978.
  9. Jones, K. (2017). Government or charity? Preferences for welfare provision by ethnicity. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics.,66, 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kessler, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2015). The external validity of laboratory experiments: The misleading emphasis on quantitative effects. In G. R. Fréchette & A. Schotter (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kirchberg, V. (2003). Corporate arts sponsorship. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Levitt, S., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. Journal of Economic Perspectives,21(2), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis, G. B., & Brooks, A. C. (2005). A question of morality: Artists’ values and public funding for the arts. Public Administration Review,65(1), 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li, S. X., Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Brown, T. L. (2011). Giving to government: Voluntary taxation in the lab. Journal of Public Economics,95(9–10), 1190–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, S. X., Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Brown, T. L. (2015). Directed giving enhances voluntary giving to government: Implications for tax policy. Economics Letters,133, 51–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. List, J. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy,115(3), 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. List, J., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy,110(1), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luccasen III, R. A. & Grossman, P. J. (2019). Taking aversion with earned endowments and tangible money. Monash University, Working paper.Google Scholar
  19. Massey, C., & Thaler, R. (2013). The loser’s curse: Decision making and market efficiency in the National Football League draft. Management Science,59(7), 1479–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGlone, P. (February 12, 2018). Trump’s budget eliminates NEA, public TV and other cultural agencies. Again. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/02/12/trumps-budget-eliminates-nea-public-tv-and-other-cultural-agencies-again/?utm_term=.781cef838e9c. Accessed 15 July 2018.
  21. Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I., & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,16, 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Endowment for the Arts. (2000). International data on government spending on the arts. Research Division. Note #74. https://www.arts.gov/publications/international-data-government-spending-arts. Retrived July 15, 2018.
  23. National Endowment for the Arts. (n.d.). Quick facts. https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA_Quick_Facts_2018_V.1.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2020.
  24. Newport, F. (2017). Americans’ confidence in institutions edges up. http://news.gallup.com/poll/212840/americans-confidence-institutions-edges.aspx. Accessed July 15, 2018.
  25. Vesterlund, L. (2016). Using experimental methods to understand why and how we give to charity. In J. Kagel & A. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Zizzo, D. J. (2013). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics,13(1), 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BusinessMississippi University for WomenColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Finance and EconomicsMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations