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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Footnotes
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.
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.
See W.J. Baumol and W.G. Bowen,Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma, Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1966.
I'm not sure how many people would argue thatOklahoma represents a greater contribution to culture thanThe TrojanW omen.
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.
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.
On this point see Dick Netzer,The Subsidized Muse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
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.
In particular, it has been suggested that certain Canadian songwriters have been bid away from the recording industry by the movie industry.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02580847