To begin with, the majority of people who take part in the arts have a tendency to reason that the government ought to provide financial sustenance. The fact remains that, the display of these art treasures is of great benefit to the state itself. First and the foremost, the artistic assets offer national prestige, educational benefits and is of great value in the improvement of culture. But economists argue that many of goods are similar in quality when it comes to nature (Levitt, 1991). In an example, when we compare movie theatres and art museums it is realized that they have the same attributes and the same artistic performances. The same way the production of a brilliant arts requires time, expenses and talent, it’s also the same case in the production on a brilliant Hollywood movie. These artistic works are preserved to be seen by future generations helping them define their culture and entrance fee can be charged.
One of the most asked questions is why the government take part in supporting the arts and not the movie theatres. To address these questions, some economists like Adam Smith realized that one of the most convincing frameworks is the power of competitive markets. This agenda puts a burden of proof to those who would try to defend the government’s support to any activity, and it is beneficial as it helps in preventing government’s interference to private markets, thus helping avoid baseless government interferences. This advantage can be lost if the assumptions are not applied uniformly. Economists, therefore, conclude that public aid of the arts should be proved by severe investigative disagreement.
Progressively, there are several major arguments that have been advanced as explanations for public support of the arts. Some of the professionals and frauds of the arguments are raising cost, contract failure, and compensation for capital constraints, redistribution, merit goods, public goods, and externalities. In a brief summary, it is true to say that there is no profuse argument to the public support of the arts. Justifications have been put forward but most of them have been found to lack when considered nontheoretical in the rigorous free market framework of economists.
Government direct funding of the arts in the United States is a small quantity of the public sector budget and a slight part of the general spending on the arts. Whether this establishes an opposite mode of support has been contentious. Much of this disharmony concerns the process by which direct federal assistance is dispersed, who gets it and which type of art it promotes. In our study, we will analyze the relationship between national endowment for the arts and private support. To begin with, national endowment for arts is a federal agency which operates at aimed length which is considered as the most leading source of public funding to arts. This agency awards a large number of small grants with the matching project rather than institutional support. It consists of a number of panel professionals who recommend to the agency chairperson and an oversight council. However, neither the corresponding requirement for the good housekeeping closure of endorsement brings a considerable leveraging effect at the institutional level. This is mainly because of the latching mechanism and the way national endowment of arts distributes its grants.
The corresponding requirement, in particular, does not fulfill the requirement itself. Allowing all arts organizations to use indirect and reallocated funds to match National Endowment of arts grants misrepresents the entire mechanism. Many foundations are on the other hand considering strategies to leverage the amount of money they invest through matching requirements. In order to promote the highest possible leverage different options should be explored (DiMaggio, 2013). It is also very important to realize that, foundations do not want to be indispensable for the survival of institutions. This gives power to all program officers who intern express the need for their organization to make grants to an organization that is well-thought-out to have an expanded funding base (Brooks, 2001). Moreover, if National Endowment or Arts grant leverage private support, it is likely that those organizations that do not receive this support, end up suffering low funding due to the consequent lack of private support. Although research shows that the national endowment of arts grants has no big impact on artistic choices the concern remains that in the event where other support schemes ended up being successful in their leveraging efforts.
In the gauge of public investment in arts and cultural clusters recommends that policymakers consider the arts and cultural sector as a vital component of the structure that helps facilitate the innovation and growth of cities (Marquis, 1995). There is no theoretical evidence to a strong connection between arts and cultural gathering on the economic performance of cities. Looking at arts and culture as local features, economists who mainly major on studying migration proposed that all individuals balance a number of factors while deciding on to locations and places to work. In addition, people also consider a number of economic factors such as demand for labor and housing prices. By this, arts and culture are basically introduced as amenities. It has been proven that some individuals are always willing to sacrifice bigger wages for an opportunity to settle in locations with varied arts and cultural offering.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the impression that arts and cultural clusters could have an effect on the economy of cities that go beyond tourism and urban branding by attracting skilled individual for lower wages is found to be very correct. Secondly, arts and cultural cluster also impact the English city economy by forming an attractive part of the network of creativity, in which imperceptible investment in skills, organizational and public investment makes an economic input in the shape of modernization spillovers for-profit creative firms. Obtaining the greatness of these spill overs and determining why arts and cultural clusters do not manage to capture all the external benefits that they generate. This is why there is always market disappointments in the local ecosystem of originality.
Works Cited
Brooks, Arthur C. "Who opposes government arts funding?" Public Choice 108.3-4 (2001): 355-367.
DiMaggio, Paul, Manish Nag, and David Blei. "Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of US government arts funding." Poetics 41.6 (2013): 570-606.
LEVITT, Arthur, et al. Public money and the Muse: Essays on government funding for the arts. New York; London; WW Norton, 1991.
Marquis, Alice Goldfarb. Art lessons: Learning from the rise and fall of public arts funding. Basic Books, 1995.
.
