Author: Austen-Smith, David

Publication Year: 1979

Media Type: Conference paper/presentation

Summary:

Paper presented at First International Conference on Arts and Economics, sponsored by the Association for Cultural Economics, held in Edinburgh, Scotland, August 8-10, 1979.

Abstract:

Paper presented at First International Conference on Arts and Economics, sponsored by the Association for Cultural Economics, held in Edinburgh, Scotland, August 8-10, 1979. Comments by Alexander Belinfante appear on p. 32-33.

The problem of justifying subsidies to the arts is an important one in supposedly liberal democratic societies, where any redistribution of resources solely on grounds of taste is generally considered illegitimate. This is especially true when the redistribution favors a relatively wealthy and well-educated minority, as in the case of the arts. Economists have looked for some justification on the grounds of inefficiency. And, for the performing arts sector at least, market failure arguments do entail positive net subsidies. Unfortunately, as Peacock (1969) recognized, this result alone fails to vindicate the provision of public monies. The conclusion reached is that the decision to provide such subsidies must be purely political; it is none of the economist's business qua economist.

But the Robbins position is unduly restrictive. Its tenability rests on an implicit contention that there is no necessary relationship between the policymakers' preference schedule - whether or not it is explicit - and the reasons underlying the political decision concerning subsidy per se. This contention is false.

In the sequel the policymaker is referred to as the state and is assumed to be unique and consistent. A case can be made for the first assumption on grounds of collective responsibility. Despite possible differences in view among members of any policymaking committee, if a decision is reached, there is an official perspective, and this is the relevant issue here. It is clear that the impossibility results of social choice theory are irrelevant. The second assumption is considered a normative requirement of the state.

We wish to show that there exists a necessary relationship between the reasons for the political decision to subsidize (the arts) and the state's objective function. That there is some connection is obvious, given consistency. However, a stronger result can be established - if the state can justify its decision, then the justification essentially implies the relevant objective schedule. Although the detailed argument (based on the philosophy of practical reasoning) is inappropriate here, some elucidation is necessary. (p. 24-25)

CONTENTS
A concept of justification.
The arguments for subsidy.
Extrinsic arguments.
Intrinsic arguments.
Some conclusions.

Arts & Intersections:

Categories: Community Development