Public Funding of Controversial Art
In 1990, the Act governing theUnited States' National Endowment for the Arts wasamended requiring the Chairperson to ensure thatjudges of grant applications should take intoconsideration ``general standards of decency andrespect for the diverse beliefs and values of theAmerican public''. This provision has been widelydebated, and was challenged on the basis of whether itviolated the right of freedom of expression. But arecent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court found theprovision to be constitutional. This paper examinesrationales that have been put forward by philosophicalliberals, economists, and communitarians in support ofpublic funding of the arts. It finds that for each ofthese rationales the decency-and-respect provision onfunding is justifiable. The paper concludes with aspeculative discussion of the economics of the``artworld''. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Michael Rushton, 1999. "Methodological Individualism and Cultural Economics," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 137-146, August.
- Charles T. Clotfelter, 1991. "Government Policy Toward Art Museums in the United States," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Art Museums, pages 237-270 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Frey, Bruno S, 1994. "Cultural Economics and Museum Behaviour," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 41(3), pages 325-35, August.
- Bruno Frey, 1999. "State Support and Creativity in the Arts: Some New Considerations," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-85, March.
- Coase, R H, 1974. "The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 384-91, May.
- Trine Hansen, 1997. "The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28, March.
- Throsby, David, 1994. "The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-29, March.
- Holger Bonus & Dieter Ronte, 1997. "Credibility and Economic Value in the Visual Arts," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 103-118, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:24:y:2000:i:4:p:267-282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.