Skip to main content
Log in

Direct versus indirect aid to the arts: A Canadian perspective

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

Conclusions

The bulk of contemporary policy concern in the cultural area is focussed on the nature of government assistance. In particular, there is a growing feeling that indirect assistance to cultural industries should be promoted to a greater extent than it has been in the past. This feeling reflects both the view that real levels of direct government grants may not be sustainable and the presumption that indirect forms of assistance (such as tax concessions and the like) can channel aid to artists more efficiently than direct forms of assistance, such as Canada Council grants to arts organizations.

The various arguments offered in favor of one or another approach towards funding cultural activities are certainly not conclusive. The main point to be made in this regard, however, is that debate over how culture should be funded is taking place in the absence of explicitly formulated operational objectives as well as crucial information about how the cultural production and marketing processes operate. In this regard, ineffectual policy-making across the broad spectrum of cultural assistance programs may be of far greater concern than any efficiency differences which might be anticipated between various forms of assistance to the arts.

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

Footnotes

  1. Some municipalities, however, provide cash grants to artistic institutions without an arms—length review by a cultural board. This gets very close to direct aid in the sense it is defined above. ve.

  2. It is somewhat beside the point to provide CRTC definitions of Canadian content. Moreover, they are embarrassingly vague and open-ended. However, we shall have more to say about them in another context in a later part of this paper.

  3. See W.J. Baumol and W.G. Bowen,Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma, Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I'm not sure how many people would argue thatOklahoma represents a greater contribution to culture thanThe TrojanW omen.

  5. What I have in mind here is the well known tendency for most voters to ignore most issues having a relatively minor impact upon their economic welfare, leaving the political lobbying process to be preempted by those few producer groups having a strong vested interest in a specific piece of legislation.

  6. From personal experience, I can attest that diminishing marginal utility sets in fairly rapidly after hearing Gordon Lightfoot sing “The Ballad of the Edmund Fitzgerald” more than twice in an aftemoon.

  7. On this point see Dick Netzer,The Subsidized Muse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  8. One exception can be found in Bernard Ostry,The Cultural Connection, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979. Unfortunately, Ostry's analysis leads to no practical rules for allocating scarce resources to cultural assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  9. In particular, it has been suggested that certain Canadian songwriters have been bid away from the recording industry by the movie industry.

  10. One ambitious attempt to estimate a production function for the performing arts can be found in J.H. Gapinski, “What Price Patronage Lost? A View From the Input Side,”Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 3, June 1979.

  11. See, for example, A.A. Keyes and C. Brunet,Copyright In Canada: Proposals for a Revision of the Law, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Globerman, S. Direct versus indirect aid to the arts: A Canadian perspective. J Cult Econ 4, 15–25 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02580847

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02580847

Keywords

Navigation