Comments on: Where does our money go?

By: jet

jet — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:21:46 +0000

Dan Simon, that was brilliant.

By: Eszter

Eszter — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:14:41 +0000

Tom, can you point to data on charitable giving to any cause in Europe vs US?

By: Tom Hurka

Tom Hurka — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:03:34 +0000

Let’s say you want to give government aid to the arts. You then have to decide who will determine which artists and arts groups get that aid. One possibility is the bureaucrats in a government Ministry of Culture; another is an arms-length agency like the Canada Council or NEA; a third is individual citizens, if you give them tax deductions or credits that will in effect top up their individual donations, so they determine where the government money goes. European countries typically prefer the first or second lapproach. The U.S., for reasons stemming from its traditional distrust of governments, prefers the third. So while the U.S. gives much less direct government aid to the arts, there’s a much lower level of individual charitable giving to the arts in Europe. (My country of Canada is, as always, in between the European and U.S. models.) And contrary to Eszter’s suggestion, the tradition of private support for the arts in the U.S. goes way back before anyone was thinking of direct government aid, to the days of the Carnegies, Rockefellers, etc. I have no idea how the total level of government support, both direct and indirect, in different countries compares. But you have to recognize that countries can have principled reasons for preferring one mode of delivery to another.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:30:38 +0000

The conclusion is obvious: Americans, unlike the rest of the world, will only fund people who are willing to do useful work, but are happy to elect people just for their entertainment value.

By: Lawrence White

Lawrence White — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:44:40 +0000

>On the other hand, art is the sort of thing that >people consume because it benefits them >directly, while science is the sort of thing >that has positive externalities for the state (at least arguably).

The majority of Western artists throughout history have thought they were serving the state, or the equivalent thereof for their era. Esp. w/the advent of nationalism.

& art is more than entertainment.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:53:14 +0000

As an international comparison, the NEA gets about as much as the corresponding Australian body. The NSF gets about 15 times as much as the corresponding Australian body, which is roughly proportional to population.

By: Eszter

Eszter — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:13:01 +0000

Tom, that’s a good point, but note that
1. it may be that arts in the US have to depend on private donations precisely b/c there is so little govt funding
2. science gets a TON of funding from private sources (donations to many non profits are tax deductible) so you’d need comparative data on that, too

By: M. Gordon

M. Gordon — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:59:33 +0000

I think the science vs art spending comparison is not very enlightening. For one thing, science is simply more expensive to produce than art. And, while I think the comment “Art is the science of enjoying life” is quite amusing, I think it’s an MIT dork’s way of looking at art. But, given that: if we were to decrease science funding, and increase art funding by a corresponding amount, would we all enjoy life that much more? What are the relative efficiencies for life enjoyment per dollar versus life improvement per dollar that we get from science?

By: Bob McGrew

Bob McGrew — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:55:39 +0000

On the other hand, art is the sort of thing that people consume because it benefits them directly, while science is the sort of thing that has positive externalities for the state (at least arguably). That’s why it makes a lot of sense not to subsidize art, but it can make sense to heavily subsidize science.

For one thing, we are swimming in art as it is – I have 12 GB of music on my computer, and I saw a live performance of an great band last Saturday night (Drive By Truckers) for about the cost of eating out.

By: Tom Hurka

Tom Hurka — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:44:55 +0000

Isn’t it true that, unlike in European countries, in the U.S. the vast majority of government support for the arts is indirect, given through tax deductions or credits for charitable donations to arts organizations by individuals, foundations, etc.? The amount of indirect support given that way dwarfs, I believe, direct grants through organizations like the NEA. (The latter are more important in Europe, and private contributions less so.) Of course, there’s also indirect support for science through tax deductions for contributions to, e.g., cancer research. But you can’t compare the overall levels of government support for the two activities unless you know about the comparative levels of their indirect support, via tax deductions. Are there any data about that?

By: tom f

tom f — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:09:22 +0000

That was a fascinating little article, but the thing that really got my attention in that issue was the assertion that “Walter Scott’s Personality Parade” has it’s own “intelligence sources”(?!). In this case, they were claiming that Rafik Hariri may have been Crown Prince Abdullah’s illegitimate son.