{"id":1032,"date":"2014-02-08T07:12:25","date_gmt":"2014-02-08T15:12:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/?p=1032"},"modified":"2014-02-08T07:12:25","modified_gmt":"2014-02-08T15:12:25","slug":"rich-man-poor-man","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2014\/02\/rich-man-poor-man\/","title":{"rendered":"Rich man, poor man"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"we<\/a>My last post<\/a> criticizing a recent study on the distribution of the benefits of NEA funding generated a lot of commentary. I thank everyone for contributing, and will try to respond to at least some of the points raised.<\/p>\n

First, I was not staking any claim on whether public funding of the arts is a good thing. As it turns out, I do<\/em> think it is a good thing – I’ll post my thoughts on this later – but all I was doing in the initial post was saying that the recent study<\/a> out of SMU on arts funding was flawed. That the study was trying to say something positive about the NEA, and that I criticized the methods of the study, does not imply that I want to say something negative about the NEA. I don’t.<\/p>\n

On the media picking up the study: I think there is a problem with reporting on studies that come from universities and think tanks – “A new study says…”. The problem is that one study will never be definitive. The reporter with time on her hands needs to dig a little deeper, to find what the literature<\/em> on the subject says. Any new study on the distributional impacts of arts funding, or the effects of increasing the minimum wage, or of the benefits of pre-school education, ought to be reported in the context of what the profession has generally had to say on the matter. If the new study contradicts everything that has come before it, then the reporter should say that, and try to explain why it is that the new study comes up with something different. If the literature is generally divided on a question, then the reporter should say that the new study is a contribution to an area where we still haven’t reached consensus. Provide context, do not just report as a new set of facts a document that happens to come with some numbers and charts.<\/p>\n

On distribution: every government funded activity, including regulation, has some distributional impact, whether the funding be on the arts, schools, highways, flood control, health insurance, policing, you name it. Taxes are collected from various sources, and spent in a way that benefits some more than others. In general, I will venture to say there is a consensus that if the redistribution between taxes and spending happens to be from rich to poor, it is seen as a positive aspect of the program. It is not the only<\/em> thing that matters (although sometimes redistribution is the goal itself), but it is something to be considered. If a spending program happens to mostly benefit the well-off, that doesn’t mean the program ought to be scrapped, but it is a consideration that needs to be considered when the policy is evaluated. Arts spending includes a lot of different sorts of things, and some of it tends to benefit the well-off and some is explicitly directed at people who otherwise wouldn’t get much access to the arts because of income or local offerings. Programs should be evaluated on their own terms – what is the goal? Who benefits? Is this the most cost-effective way to achieve those benefits?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

My last post criticizing a recent study on the distribution of the benefits of NEA funding generated a lot of commentary. I thank everyone for contributing, and will try to respond to at least some of the points raised. First, I was not staking any claim on whether public funding of the arts is a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":571,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1032","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-issues","8":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/postbox.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3dIW5-gE","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1025,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2014\/02\/nea-funding-and-the-ecological-fallacy\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":0},"title":"NEA funding and the ecological fallacy","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"February 4, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"The SMU study has a serious problem","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"rich town poor town doesn't matter","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/openingnight.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1966,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2016\/02\/local-state-federal-public-funding-for-the-arts-in-the-u-s\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":1},"title":"Local, state, federal: public funding for the arts in the U.S.","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"February 1, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"At the Atlantic, Andy Horwitz asks 'Who should pay for the arts in America?' He is specifically asking about nonprofit arts, whose funding comes from paying customers, donors and other sponsors, and the public sector. He observes: The current state of the arts in this country is a microcosm of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"this land is your land","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/america_map.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/america_map.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/america_map.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1667,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2014\/11\/arts-policy-and-the-election\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":2},"title":"Arts, policy, and the election (updated)","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"November 3, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Barry's Blog has a post on the consequences of the election, anticipating Republican gains in the House and likely control of the Senate, calling the post 'What Tomorrow's Election Means for the Nonprofit Arts.' Good question! He writes: On the federal level, if the Democrats maintain control of the Senate,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"what's the big deal?","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/11\/Voters.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2112,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2016\/09\/what-should-congress-do-about-the-arts\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":3},"title":"What should Congress do about the arts?","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"September 28, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Blog neighbour Doug McLennan reviews the recent Congressional Arts Report Card produced by the Americans for the Arts Action Fund PAC. He notes that there isn't really a lot of material on which to base a report card - indeed, there were no recorded floor votes that were solely concerned\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"where's the vision?","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Mr-Smith.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Mr-Smith.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Mr-Smith.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Mr-Smith.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Mr-Smith.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Mr-Smith.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2154,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2016\/12\/what-to-do-about-the-nea\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":4},"title":"What to do about the NEA","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"December 6, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"At Bloomberg, Tyler Cowen posts some recommendations on US federal government arts policy. He has written at length about this in his book Good and Plenty; here he gives some ideas for the new administration. The thing I always enjoy about Cowen - especially in his blog - is his\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"let's give some support?","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Sculpture_Studio_Classroom.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Sculpture_Studio_Classroom.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Sculpture_Studio_Classroom.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Sculpture_Studio_Classroom.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":3641,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2024\/11\/the-fate-of-the-nea-in-the-coming-administration\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":5},"title":"The fate of the NEA in the coming administration","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"November 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"On NPR this morning is a short piece pondering the fates of the NEA and NEH under the second Trump administration. It is optimistic, though given the Wall Street Journal article by Musk and Ramaswamy this morning (they obviously didn't write it - but it carries their names), which, in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/image.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1032\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/571"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}