An assessment of recent applications of economic theory to the arts

Abstract

Observers of the cultural economics "scene" cannot fail to notice two continuing themes: (1) the suspicion among the less conventional economists doing arts research that the tools of neoclassical economics simply do not provide adequate insight into problems related to the arts, and (2) the even greater suspicion among arts professionals and organization managers that very little helpful advice can be obtained from economists regarding the day to day decisions they must make. Thus, the editors of the proceedings of the International Conference on Economic Planning and the Arts, in Edinburgh, write in the preface: "Our collective perception was that economists might treat cultural studies as a novelty, as Schovshy describes, for their own intellectual stimulation. Economic applications are often no more than effort to deal with (the interdisciplinary issues) by finding escape points through which the closed system of economic thinking can be opened to other perspectives/' [1] Even though their ultimate verdict on the work being done by economists is cautiously approving, one suspects that they would favor a bit more art and a bit less economics in the economics of the arts. On this they are on the same side as the arts managers, who ofteri found in Edinburgh yet another reason to be wary of the economist, even as they become ever more attuned to the advice of the accountant. [2] This paper is a modest attempt to comment on this dilemma. In short, the argument is that (1) the substantive gaps between the nonconventional economists (perhaps called institutionalists) and the conventional neoclassical economists have been minor to date; the differences have been primarily of style and scope, rather than content; (2) neither approach has yet been able to provide much useful advice to arts decision makers; but (3) the chances of the neoclassical approach being able to provide insight into arts managerial