Economic support for the arts in Australia (& why it's not so hot!)

‘The relationship between the arts, arts funding and governments

is often dynamic, volatile and contested’

- Dunstin Kidd, 2014

With every new Australian government, comes new opinions regarding the level and type of support that should be given to the arts. As Kidd suggests in the statement above, this is a complex conundrum as the rigidity of economics collides with the fluidity of arts and culture. This tension can also be understood through the idea of intrinsic verses instrumental value. As David Throsby wrote, ‘In both fields of our concern, economics and culture, the notion of value can be seen, despite its differing origins, as an expression of worth’ (Throsby, 2000, p.19). It is this determination of worth that governments use as their reasoning to support the arts. The process of doing so is of course, flawed, and complex. This essay deconstructs the way intrinsic and instrumental value is determined to firstly elucidate why governments support the arts, but also to criticise the narrow-minded approach to funding and support in this sector. As Academic Josephine Caust wrote, ‘Support for the arts is generally accepted in the Australian community, [but] the form this takes and the role of government in the transaction continue to be a site of contestation’ (2019, p.776). Within this, the mistake of relying much too heavily on skewed quantative data to validate government support for the arts is revealed. Ultimately, this essay reveals not only why government support for the arts exists, but also how their support keeps this sector stuck on life support rather than encouraging creative and economic independence.

There is no doubt that the arts contribute incredible intrinsic value to wider Australian society. With 98% of the Australian population saying that the arts play a role their daily lives (Australia Council, 2017), the arts are crucial to the maximisation of an individual’s sense of everyday welfare. On a macro level the sum of each individual’s welfare creates collective benefits. This is evident in Throsby’s statement, ‘the effect of culture on individual behaviour will be reflected in collective outcomes’ (2000, p.64). The value of the arts to each individual, and thus to society as a whole ‘are believed to have public good characteristics that improve welfare and the quality of life’ (Towse, 2019, p.175). From here there is a domino effect of positive benefits. Supporting arts and cultural experiences and communities have been seen to promote shared values within groups, enhance equity (Throsby, 2000, p.63), and develop a sense of community and national identity (Towse, 2019, p.175). Although it is not contested that these intrinsic benefits are valuable, they are often dismissed for lack of objectivity. As Mark Casson wrote, ‘Today the theorist is more likely to admit that culture matters, but to argue that it is something that economics cannot, or should not, attempt to explain’ (1993, p.418). There is difficulty in establishing quantative data regarding the intrinsic value of the arts, and when it comes to decisions within the organisational governance of an arts institution or within the Australian government more broadly, the tendency to rely on qualitative data is slim. There is no doubt that governments support the arts because of their intrinsic worth to Australian society, but when challenged to increase support for these reasons the lack of ‘concrete’ data becomes a hinderance.

Beyond the intrinsic worth of the arts, governments support this sector for the instrumental value it contributes to society through social and economic frameworks. To expand on the domino effect of positive benefits mentioned in the previous paragraph, supporting the arts and cultural sectors also creates tangible, quantative outcomes. Correlated social trends discussed by Throsby, and Chartrand, and McCaughey include, increase of social welfare programs, and community services (2000, p.64), growth of the educated population, and an increasing role of women in political and economic life (1989, p.1). Correlated economic trends discussed by Throsby include, ‘growth of per capita GDP, rates of technological change, employment levels… and willingness to undertake long-term public investment programmes’ (2000, p.64). Expanding upon the economic value of the arts, it has become commonplace for arts advocates to ‘justify the case for more arts funding by trying to prove the economic value of the arts’ (Harris, 2021). As written in the 1994 Creative Nation Cultural Policy document, ‘Culture creates wealth…culture employs...culture adds value…The level of our creativity substantially determines our ability to adapt to new economics imperatives.’ (1994, p.7). There is a constant need to validate intrinsic value through instrumental perspectives. But in doing so there evolves a crucial misconception. As writer Lauren Carroll Harris wrote, ‘Despite almost seven decades of cultural policy, there remains no economic framework for most people working in the arts to earn anything resembling a full-time, liveable wage’ (2021). When over-simplifying the arts as a means of being taken seriously, it over-simplifies the response from the government. Government is support is almost always through funding, but employment rights, job security, and welfare also need to be addressed. The arts industry is ‘one of the fastest growing and largest employers in Western economies’ (Chartrand, & McCaughey, 1989, p.7). But this is insecure growth, relying on the fact that artists will subsidise their careers with free labour, other employment, and alternative income.

So far, this essay has given an overview to the intrinsic and instrumental reasons as to why the Australian government supports the arts. It is at this point that the discussion will shift to question why governments continue to support the arts in a way that does not enable independence, employment benefits, and/or long-term financial security. Despite usually being a very small percentage of the Australian government’s budget, ‘political parties see a ‘use’ for arts funding that is not necessarily related to the arts practice it is supporting’ (Caust, 2019, p.767). The current arm’s length funding model is separate from the government to allow artists to be ‘adequately supported so that they could produce their best work, without being dominated by the needs of their funder/patron or the marketplace’ (Caust, 2019, p.766). However, before you are granted creative freedom you must be accepted by complying with requirements of government grants, and/or the values of a major institution that must also uphold certain values as per their funding agreements. Thus, there may not be a dictatorship of creativity but within a highly competitive market for funding, the ‘guidelines’ to conform to certain principles, themes, and values are firm. This control allows the promotion of ‘a certain image for their citizens and ensuring provision of a range of cultural institutions is an obvious way of projecting it to the rest of the country or to the world’ (Towse, 2019, p.175). In a recent example of the government manipulating arts funding to promote specific outcomes, the former Arts Minister George Brandis ‘removed $104.7 million of the Australia Council’s forward budget’ to create his own ‘National Program for Excellence’ art fund (Caust, 2019, p.768). This fund directly controlled by the Minister favoured projects and organisations that he believed upheld ‘excellence’. The gross elitism, bias, and corruptive control of this event reveals, as Caust wrote, ‘a serious re-evaluation of the structure for arts sector support nationally’ (2019, p.776). The current structure of arts funding in Australia may be arm’s length, but in a highly competitive market for grants, too little employment security, and an imbalance between funding distribution to large and small institutions (Eltham, & Verhoeven, 2020), there is a tight grip at the end of that arm clasped over the possibility of creative autonomy.

The Australian government supports the arts due to both the intrinsic and instrumental worth it brings to society. The benefit it contributes to individual welfare and thus societal welfare and productivity, in addition to the correlative boost in economic efficiency and social progression make funding the arts a necessary continuum. However, the manner in which funding for the arts sector has been structured, evolved, and manipulated has kept the sector alive but it is far from a being an economically thriving, and autonomous community. Although there is commitment to government arts support across political parties, there are intense ‘ideological conflicts over how it should be allocated and to whom’ (Caust, 2019, p.776). No matter the conditions, art will continue to be created. But the sacrifices to do so will dramatically increase. At the present, it is too tempting to turn to over-simplified instrumental data as to why governments support the arts, creating instead a transactional relationship rather than one of nurturing and support. An ideological shift must occur to validate the intangible and intrinsic benefits that is the arts; that is the lifeblood of any culture.

---

References

Australia Council for the Arts. (2017) Connecting Australians. https://australiacouncil.gov.au/advocacy-and-research/connecting-australians/

Casson, Mark, 1993. ‘Cultural determinants of economic performance,’ Journal of Comparative Economics 17: 418-42.

Caust, J. (2017, June 28). Creative country: 98% of Australians engage with the arts. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/

Caust, J. (2019) The continuing saga around arts funding and the cultural wars in Australia. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 25(6), 765-779. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2017.1353604

Chartrand, H.H. & McCaughey, C. (1989). The arms length principle and the arts: an international perspective – past, present and future. Who's to Pay? for the Arts: The International Search for Models of Support, 1-10.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1994) Creative Nation: Commonwealth Cultural Policy.

Craik, J. (2007). The Conceptual ambivalence of art and culture. In Re-Visioning Arts and Cultural Policy: Current Impasses and Future Directions (1–6). ANU Press.

Craik, J. (2007). Historical phases in arts and cultural policy-making in Australia. In Re-Visioning Arts and Cultural Policy: Current Impasses and Future Directions (7–24). ANU Press.

Eltham, B., & Verhoeven, D. (2020). ‘A ‘natural experiment’ in Australian cultural policy: Australian Government funding cuts disproportionately affect companies that produce more new work and have larger audiences’. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(1), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2018.1436167

Harris, C. L. (2021, August 31). The Case for Salaried Artists. Kill Your Darlings. https://www.killyourdarlings.com.au/

Kidd, D. (2014). Legislating Creativity: The Intersections of Art and Politics. Taylor and Francis.

Throsby, D. (2000). Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press.

Towse, R. (2019). A Textbook of Cultural Economics (2nd Edition). Cambridge University Press.