Economist John Kay offers a useful rant against our common approach to measuring economic impact for the arts (and sports, and leisure activities). He begins the rant by applying that very same approach to a less desirable social element: disease.
Many people underestimate the contribution disease makes to the economy. In Britain, more than a million people are employed to diagnose and treat disease and care for the ill. Thousands of people build hospitals and surgeries, and many small and medium-size enterprises manufacture hospital supplies. Illness contributes about 10 per cent of the UK’s economy: the government does not do enough to promote disease.
Beneath the satire, the point is obvious: Economic impact studies measure the costs of producing, presenting, and consuming artistic goods and services. And costs are only a part of any economic equation. Says Kay: ”…the value of an activity is not what it costs, but the amount by which its benefit exceeds its costs…Bad economics here, as so often, involves inventing bogus numbers to answer badly formulated questions.” He concludes:
Activities that are good in themselves are good for the economy, and activities that are bad in themselves are bad for the economy. The only intelligible meaning of “benefit to the economy” is the contribution — direct or indirect – the activity makes to the welfare of ordinary citizens.
Of course, the flaw in Kay’s argument is his assumption that any of these studies are driven by a quest for truth, or an effort to understand the impact of arts and culture on social systems. At their best, economic and community impact studies are political documents. They do not change the minds of policy makers, but rather give political cover to those already disposed to support the arts with public funds.
Along the way, we have certainly lost the distinction between truth and utility in our search for public credibility. Kay provides a focused and sharp reminder of that difference.
Thanks to Russell Willis Taylor at National Arts Strategies for the link!
I just toured the Communism Museum in Prague, where they made the point that the only measure of success in that society was industrial output. No value was given to experts in fields of agriculture, the arts… All that mattered was output and consumption. For agriculture this resulted in horrific environmental issues which the country is still combating. The arts fared much better, simply because it wasn’t really recognized as having any influence or power. Ironically, it was folks from the creative disciplines that ultimately forced social change. Musicians, painters, actors, playwrights…. These people gave voice to a nation that ultimately culminated in the Velvet Revolution. I really wouldn’t know how to quantify that achievement adequately for a grant proposal…
Check out “Composing the Citizen: Music as Public Utility in 3rd Republic France” the excellent new book by Jann Pasler. In it she discussed how the French built their country as we know it through the use of music! Fascinating.
They knew the power of music and wielded it very effectively.