Is Public Funding for Arts and Culture spent or investment?
Not even people who disagree with incentive policies deny that art plays an important social role in a culture and know that these actions are fundamental to the formation of the identity of a society. The point, for these people, is that this money should not come from the already demanded public reserves, but from private agents, which justifies an austerity in government spending. There are several examples from around the world and throughout history to deny that public funding of art is a waste of resources.
Since Classical antiquity, the urban scene has been modified through arts. Temples, theaters, amphitheaters and sculptures were built in the capital of the Roman Empire. Emperor Augustus would have said the following sentence about these changes: “I am proud to have found a city of bricks and to have left a city of marble”. The practice of encouraging cultural production and materially supporting artists to dedicate themselves exclusively to the development of their capacities entered a certain decline during the Middle Ages. However, during the European Renaissance, with the enrichment of a part of the merchants who lived in Italy during this period, the practice of patronage was revived.
Currently, there are two successful countries that serve as an example and try to be copied around the world. With one of the largest and best museums, concert halls, theaters, operas and public libraries on the planet, Germany is considered an artistic center like few in the planet. In the country, art and culture are mainly supported by public funds, in a decentralized manner, but with special participation from regional administrations.
In France, the incentive to culture has a long government tradition. The topic is considered a political priority. The country has historically tended to have strong control of central power in this area, however in the 1980s, the government tried to make it more flexible. The measures included laws to encourage decentralization, aiming to give more autonomy to regions and municipalities and promoting the creation of a series of cultural centers managed by institutions and local authorities. However, the cultural incentive continues to have a significant participation by the French Ministry of Culture, responsible for more than 50% of the public funds made available for culture in the country, while the cities contribute with almost 40%.
In the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the arts add $ 763.6 billion to the American economy, four times as much as agriculture and twice as much as transportation. The artistic sector employs 4.9 million workers in the country and has a surplus of US $ 20 billion in the American trade balance. Cinema (which alone contributes $ 100 million of that amount) is so strategic that, between 2004 and 2014, Southern California failed to raise $ 3 billion just by diluting the entertainment industry to places outside of Hollywood — Today, more than 40 American states, in addition to Canada and South Africa, offer tax exemptions for studios that want to shoot films. New Zealand, which hosted the filming of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001–2003), experienced a 40% growth in its tourism revenue shortly after the success of Peter Jackson’s films.
As much as it does not seem intuitive from a purely economic point of view, most different countries in the world finance their culture with public resources. Either to increase their influence, move their economy, attract new investments or encourage tourism.
References:
National Endowment for the Arts. (2019). Latest Data Shows Increase to U.S. Economy from Arts and Cultural Sector.
