Discussion on Whether Governments Should Subsidize The Arts

This is a long-standing topic for discussion. Proponents believe that art is non-profit and has public benefits, which means it needs the support and protection of the government; nevertheless, opponents argue that the intervention of government in art will hinder the free expression of art and become a tool for propagating national ideology and identity (Gray, 2002).

In the early social structure, patronage system: whether royal family, church or state commissioned artists to create works of art (Bauerlein & Grantham, 2009). Thus, the cultural needs of institutions such as churches, or the taste of royal family, or the need of states for honour, formed the dominant style of the period. However, with the development of the times, cultural changes interact with social structures in complex ways. In today’s social structure, art can be bought and sold, and artists can freely sell the fruits of their labour according to their own decisions, and art no longer exists solely for propaganda of an ideology (Roberts & Rochlitz, 2008). Its value is potential and public welfare; therefore, its audience has become more and more enlarged. As a part of culture, government-led systematic sponsorship is an important aspect of the social civilization regulation system, conducive to social and cultural prosperity and development.

In this essay the topic that whether government should sponor art will be discussed. The government’s view of subsidizing art often starts with the external benefit of art, and holds that the external benefit of art becomes the reason for art to obtain subsidies. Here, it takes education as an example to show what external benefits are.

Education creates personal benefits for educator, and also provides external benefits to the whole society. External benefits are the benefits gave to other social elements by every educated member. Because the external benefit of the whole consumption benefits the members of the society generally, it can also be called ‘collective benefit’, and the analysis and description of the external benefits of education are also applicable to art (Mulgan, 2008). Although both art and education can provide individual benefits to consumers, these benefits are the enjoyment and enlightenment people get from enjoying live art performances, visiting museums and galleries, or contacting other works of art. These pleasures and humanization are classified as external or collective benefits.

The external benefits of art include the following four aspects. To begin with, art is the priceless inheritance from the older generation. Famous economists Baumol and Bowen (1996) argue that preserving art and culture as legacies to the next generation is in line with collective benefits. This proposition applies not only to the preservation of books, architectural sites, and Museum works of art, but also to the performing arts that require excellence in terms of craftsmanship, taste and traditional maintenance. Taking museums as an example, museums ensure that past and present cultures and arts can be preserved through research and collections, through exhibition and education, museums can help their descendants understand the rich cultural heritage of mankind and thus establish their own identity (Bishop & Brand, 2003). In the multi-ethnic environment of China, it is an important way for the ethnic minorities to know their traditional culture and preserve the endangered cultural heritage through museum display. Through exhibition and education, Chinese museums have inherited the art and culture of all Chinese nationalities from generation to generation.

At the same time, the transmission of these heritages also marks the continuation of a nation's heritage and identity. Second, art helps to enhance local economic efficiency or urban regeneration. Art activities can provide spillover benefits for producers of local economies. Lots of economists believe that the existence of cultural institutions such as museums is conducive to the development of local economies or urban regeneration (Heilbrun & Gray, 2001). Art can attract consumers from other parts of the world. Besides buying tickets for local performances or museums, they can also spend money in local shops, restaurants and hotels, thus promoting local economic development and even increasing employment opportunities.

The most well-known example is the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao in Spain, the establishment of this museum contributed to the regeneration of declining urban areas and successfully shaped new regional styles and images for this city, and it has become an important case of art promoting urban regeneration (Lindeborg & Lindkvist, 2013). Third is the contribution of art to generalist education. The main function of museums is education. According to the American Association of Museums, museums are the organ that collects and preserves information that best illustrates natural phenomena and human life, and uses it to enhance people’s knowledge and enlightenment education (Bauerlein & Grantham, 2009). Education is the reason for the existence of museums. Whether formal or informal education, museums provide the benefits and contributions of public education services. Art is an indispensable part of generalist education.

For example, in China, each province or city has its own local museums, which can be visited free of charge on the basis of personal identity cards. Museums mostly display works of art related to local culture, life or unique feature. Through these art exhibitions, people can not only understand local culture and knowledge, but also inspire people to think about local culture and life, so as to achieve the purpose of education (Mulgan, 2008).

Fourth, folk art and minority art need special protection. Folk art and multi-cultural heritage need special protection, and play a certain role in inheriting and promoting history and culture; only in this way can people ensure the prosperity and lasting development of art (Zuidervaart, 2010). Without government subsidies, private interest in art and culture alone is not enough to ensure the preservation of cultural heritage. Here, it takes China as an example. China is a multi-ethnic country, and different ethnic groups have different artistic and cultural heritage. However, with the development of time, a lot of ethnic minorities’ cultural heritage is on the verge of extinction. If art operates purely by market mechanism, lots of arts and cultural heritage of ethnic minorities which cannot bring a large number of economic benefits, such as shadow play, will be on the verge of extinction (Zuidervaart, 2010). Therefore, in order to protect these cultural heritages and maintain cultural diversity, the Chinese government plays an important role in the art subsidising of ethnic minorities. Beyond that, art has the characteristics of public good and merit goods; this is another reason for artistic subsidy. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the external benefits of art are sufficient to explain the reasons for the existence of art, but also the reasons for government’s public subsidy. Now an important issue to be discussed is how to determine the actual value of external benefits of art. If these external benefits exist, they have the characteristics of what economists call ‘public good’ (Mulgan, 2008).

According to economists, ‘public good’ has two characteristics: first, it belongs to joint consumption, that is, when one consumes it, one does not consume the remaining amount of other people’s enjoyment. In addition, usually public good is not exclusive, and once they exist, there is no way to prevent someone from benefiting from them, even if that person refuses to pay for them (Mulgan, 2008). Since no one can be forced to pay a specific fee for it, it is impossible to raise money for the public finances, like ordinary good, by bidding for sale in the market. Instead, they must be paid through the public sector, so they are called ‘public goods’. According to the characteristics of ‘public good’, the external benefits from art obviously have the external benefits of public good: they belong to joint consumption, but not exclusive; and the special nature of art makes it possess ordinary pleasures, such as the value that religion and wine do not possess (Zuidervaart, 2010).

Therefore, all citizens should at least have the right to access artistic and cultural heritage. On the other contrary, if art is determined by market mechanism completely, there will be the phenomenon of market failure, and the characteristic of ‘public good’ of art cannot be brought into full play. Take the United State as an example. The inequality of income makes it difficult for poor people in the country to get close to its culture. Surveys have shown that relatively poor people simply cannot afford a large number of on-site art and cultural activities at market prices (Bauerlein & Grantham, 2009). Therefore, to ensure greater access to cultural traditions for the majority of the population, subsidies are needed to overcome barriers to high prices and low incomes, as well as geographical difficulties in obtaining specific cultural and artistic products and services. This phenomenon has become a strong moral reason for the US government to subsidise art. Furthermore, art not only has the characteristics of public good, but also has the characteristics of ‘merit goods’.

According to the explanation of the economist Musgrave (1987), ‘merit goods’ refers to the commodities that society decides what people want, and provides more than the number of consumers willing to buy at market prices. Throsby and Withers (1979) believe that, according to their research on public statement of national politicians: considerations about merit goods are perhaps the single most important explanation for government’s involvement in the arts. Art is seen as a good thing, or, more precisely, it is a particularly good thing, so politicians are willing to support it, even if they know that the amount of activities it causes will exceed the needs of what consumers themselves choose to do. Another explanation for ‘merit goods’ is that the levels of goods and services it describes have some ‘indigenous value’ or ‘essential advantages’, which make them different from ordinary consumer goods (Bauerlein & Grantham, 2009). For instance, in the United States, the policy of National Education Association to subsidise modern dance on a larger scale across the country was written in this position: basically, that decision was a merit good assumption, and more exposure to modern dance was a good thing (Zuidervaart, 2010).

In the same vein, subsidies to the Metropolitan Opera House must be based on a clear merit good proposition: the Metropolitan Opera House is a good thing, and can only be sustained by a large amount of public subsidies (Zuidervaart, 2010). Similarly, this view can be extended to art culture and museums, where subsidies are needed to lower the price of merit good to increase consumption or to encourage public participation. Hence, it can be concluded that governments should be the sponsor of the arts. The reasons for the subsidy are mainly manifested in two aspects: firstly, the external benefits of art become the reasons for the arts to obtain subsidy, which are mainly reflected in four aspects: first, art is the heritage left to the next generation; secondly, art is conducive to the promotion of local economic benefits or urban regeneration; third is the contribution of art to generalist education; fourth, folk art and minority art need special protection. Secondly, the characteristics of public good and merit goods of art is another reason for artistic subsidy.

The external benefits of art obviously have the external benefits of public good, this peculiar quality gives it the value that ordinary pleasures, such as religion and wine, do not possess. All citizens should at least have the right to access artistic and cultural heritage. This phenomenon has become a strong moral reason for the US government to subsidise art. In addition, the nature of ‘merit goods’ of art makes it necessary to reduce the price of merit goods through subsidies to increase the quantity of consumption, or to encourage public participation.