Advertisement

Journal of Cultural Economics

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 267–282 | Cite as

Public Funding of Controversial Art

  • Michael Rushton
Article

Abstract

In 1990, the Act governing theUnited States' National Endowment for the Arts wasamended requiring the Chairperson to ensure thatjudges of grant applications should take intoconsideration ``general standards of decency andrespect for the diverse beliefs and values of theAmerican public''. This provision has been widelydebated, and was challenged on the basis of whether itviolated the right of freedom of expression. But arecent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court found theprovision to be constitutional. This paper examinesrationales that have been put forward by philosophicalliberals, economists, and communitarians in support ofpublic funding of the arts. It finds that for each ofthese rationales the decency-and-respect provision onfunding is justifiable. The paper concludes with aspeculative discussion of the economics of the``artworld''.

cultural economics freedom of expression public funding of art 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Assembly (1997) The Arts and the Public Purpose. The Ninety-Second American Assembly, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Amis, K. (1980) Russian Hide-and-Seek. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  3. Amis, K. (1990) “An Arts Policy?” The Amis Collection: Selected Non-Fiction 1954–1990. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  4. Babbitt, M. (1958) “Who Cares if You Listen?” High Fidelity 8 (2): 38–40, 126–127.Google Scholar
  5. Baumol, W.J. (1997) “Public Support for the Arts: Why and Wherefore?” Creative America Working Papers. President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, Washington.Google Scholar
  6. Bille Hansen, T. (1997) “The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good”. Journal of Cultural Economics 21: 1–28.Google Scholar
  7. Black, S. (1992) “Revisionist Liberalism and the Decline of Culture”. Ethics 102: 244–267.Google Scholar
  8. Bonus, H. and Ronte, D. (1997) “Credibility and Economic Value in the Visual Arts”. Journal of Cultural Economics 21: 103–118.Google Scholar
  9. Brighouse, H. (1995) “Neutrality, Publicity, and State Funding of the Arts”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 24: 35–63.Google Scholar
  10. Clemens, S.L. [Mark Twain] (1977 [1885]) Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Second Norton Critical Edition, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Clotfelter, C.T. (1991) “Government Policy Toward Art Museums in the United States”, in M. Feldstein (ed.), The Economics of Art Museums. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Coase, R. (1974) “The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas”. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 64: 384–391.Google Scholar
  13. Cordes, J.J. and Goldfarb, R.S. (1996) “The Value of Public Art as Public Culture”, in A. Klamer (ed.), The Value of Culture: On the Relationship between Economics and Arts. University of Amsterdam Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Danto, A. (1964) “The Artworld”. Journal of Philosophy 61: 571–584.Google Scholar
  15. Diffey, T.J. (1991) The Republic of Art and Other Essays. Peter Lang, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Dworkin, R. (1985) “Can a Liberal State Support Art?” A Matter of Principle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Frey, B.S. (1994) “Cultural Economics and Museum Behaviour”. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 41: 325–335.Google Scholar
  18. Frey, B.S. (1999) “State Support and Creativity in the Arts: Some New Considerations”. Journal of Cultural Economics 23: 71–85.Google Scholar
  19. Frey, B.S. and Pommerehne, W.W. (1989) Muses and Markets: Explorations in the Economics of the Arts. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Galligan, A.M. (1995) “The Rhode Island Airport Cloud Machine: The Continuing Controversy over State-Supported Art in Public Places”. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 25: 57–68.Google Scholar
  21. Globerman, S. (1987) Culture, Governments and Markets: Public Policy and the Culture Industries. The Fraser Institute, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  22. Gutmann, A. (1982) “What's the Use of Going to School?”, in A. Sen and B. Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. Head, J.G. (1991) “Merit Wants: Analysis and Taxonomy”, in L. Eden (ed.), Retrospectives on Public Finance. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
  24. Hughes, R. (1992) “Art, Morals, and Politics”. The New York Review of Books (April 23).Google Scholar
  25. Lynn, J. and Jay, A. (1984) “The Middle-Class Rip-Off”. The Complete Yes Minister. BBC Books, London.Google Scholar
  26. MacIntyre, A. (1984) After Virtue. Second edition. University of Notre Dame Press, South Bend, IN.Google Scholar
  27. Mossetto, G. (1994) “Cultural Institutions and Value Formation on the Art Market: A Rent-Seeking Approach”. Public Choice 81: 125–135.Google Scholar
  28. Musgrave, R.A. (1987) “Merit Goods”, in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman (eds.), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  29. Netanel, N. (1996) “Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society”. Yale Law Journal 106: 283–387.Google Scholar
  30. O'Hagan, J.W. (1998) The State and the Arts: An Analysis of Key Economic Policy Issues in Europe and the United States. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  31. Oliver, A. (1991) “The Museum and the Government”, in M. Feldstein (ed.), The Economics of Art Museums. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Orivel, E. (1996) “Art and Social Optimum: Limits of Profit-Seeking Motivations”. Paper presented at the Association for Cultural Economics International, Ninth International Conference on Cultural Economics, Boston.Google Scholar
  33. Posner, R.A. (1992) Economic Analysis of Law. Fourth edition. Little, Brown, Boston.Google Scholar
  34. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Robbins, L. (1963) “Art and the State”. Politics and Economics: Papers in Political Economy. St. Martin's Press, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Rushton, M. (1999) “Methodological Individualism and Cultural Economics”. Journal of Cultural Economics 23: 137–147.Google Scholar
  37. Sandel, M. (1982) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Sandel, M. (1996) Democracy's Discontent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  39. Schauer, F. (1998) “Principles, Institutions, and the First Amendment”. Harvard Law Review 112: 84–120.Google Scholar
  40. Serra, R. (1992) “The Yale Lecture”, in C. Harrison and P. Wood (eds.), Art in Theory: 1900–1990. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  41. Sontag, S. (1969) “On Style”. Against Interpretation. Dell, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Spitzer, M.L. (1998) “Freedom of Expression”, in P. Newman (ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  43. Steiner, W. (1995) The Scandal of Pleasure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Sullivan, K. (1991) “Artistic Freedom, Public Funding, and the Constitution”, in S. Benedict (ed.), Public Money and the Muse. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Taylor, C. (1993) Reconciling the Solitudes. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal and Kingston.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, C. (1995) Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  47. Throsby, D. (1994) “The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics”. Journal of Economic Literature 32: 1–29.Google Scholar
  48. Weil, S.E. (1995) A Cabinet of Curiosities: Inquiries into Museums and their Prospects. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.Google Scholar
  49. Will, G. (1990) “Subsidized Shocking of the Bourgeoisie”. Suddenly. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Young, J. (1997) “Defining Art Responsibly”. British Journal of Aesthetics 37: 57–65.Google Scholar
  51. Zelinsky, R.A. (1998) “Are Tax ‘Benefits’ Constitutionally Equivalent to Direct Expenditures?” Harvard Law Review 112: 379–433.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Rushton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations