When Prominence Overrules EminenceSubsidization of the Cultural Sectors in the Netherlands

Abstract

What processes determine the allocation of state subsidies to a selection of cultural and artistic organizations? In the case of the Dutch cultural basic infrastructure (BIS) two main criteria are issued, namely quality and reputation. In this article, no attempt is made to define measures for artistic quality and reputation. Instead, it is observed by which criteria decision makers, public media, and artistic leaders refer to these concepts. The way in which the selection and granting are performed shows striking similarity with processes described in the literature. First, the theory of social comparison asserts that people in a shared activity compare opinions and abilities in a strife for growth. When technical constraints and limits impede the progress in ability, effort and attention shift to opinions on abilities of the members. In this social dimension, growth is more easily attained. This decoupling results into stagnation and inferior learning processes. Second, in an implicit elaboration of the social comparison theory, a model is proposed in which perceived quality and prominence determine which organization will receive price premiums. Perceived quality is indicated by the quality of the inputs and productivity assets. Prominence origins from media rankings and elicited preferences of intermediary organizations and affiliation with high-status actors. Prominence has more bearing in social processes in the institutional field than on quality indicators. This model provides a base for reputation bias among stakeholders of organizations. The theoretical approaches have been operationalized into an analytical framework. The framework appears to offer a powerful and accurate instrument to describe and explain courses of action and outcomes in Dutch cultural sectors. In discussion, it is questioned if it is wise to base a subsidization policy on social comparison. The strive for prominence in the institutional fields tends to overrule the search for quality and eminence. It is recommended to reconsider social comparison processes by reduction of the arbitrariness in the performance assessment and evaluation. In this respect, promising and high-quality performers are supported in their access to large audiences. It is proposed that the framework can be applied in all situations where resources and performance opportunities are allocated to a selection of executing actors. Choices will be based on a mix of past and future performances. The situations suited for application may vary from philanthropy to hard core and non-profit sectors to private business industries.