Cultural Policy in an Era of Budgetary Stringency and Fiscal Decentralization: The U.S. Experience
In the U.S. and a good many other advanced countries, the 1980s were marked by budgetary stringency and moves toward greater decentralization of public finances, often colored by strong ideological reactions against government intervention in social and economic affairs (although fiscal restraint and decentralization are not inherently characteristics of either right or left ideologies). In the U.S., the state governments in combination now provide considerably more direct cash support of the arts than does the Federal government and the disparity appears to be growing. In addition, the traditional major form of public financial support, Federal tax incentives for private giving, appears likely to be of declining importance.
KeywordsCultural Activity Fiscal Decentralization Cultural Policy Fiscal Federalism State Appropriation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Blau, J. and Quets, G. with P.M. Blau (1989) Cultural Life in City and Region, Center for Urban Studies, University of Akron, Akron.Google Scholar
- Heilbrun, J. (1989) “The Distribution on of Arts Activity among U.S. Metropolitan Areas”, in Shaw, D. et al. (eds.), Cultural Economics 88: An American Perspective, pp. 33–40, Association for Cultural Economics, Akron, Ohio.Google Scholar
- Netzer, D. (1978) The Subsidized Muse: Public Support of the Arts in the United States, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Netzer, D. (1990) “Fiscal Federalism and Regional Economic Differentiation in the United States”, paper presented at the meetings of the Western Regional Science Association, Molokai, Hawaii, February 1990.Google Scholar
- Robinson, J.P., et al. (1985) Public Participation in the Arts: Final Report on the 1982 Survey, Survey Research Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
- Schuster, J.M. (1989) “Determinants and Correlates of Arts Support by States”, in Shaw, D. et al. (eds.), op. cit. pp. 221–224.Google Scholar