The state should not subsidise festivals
(This was originally going to be a response to people on this thread, but then it got rather out of control.)
So far as I can tell, there are three main arguments in favour of state funding of festivals. None, to my mind, are convincing.
1. Festivals improve community cohesion:
Firstly, there is no evidence for this. Secondly, I don’t think that the evidence is out there. Many state-funded festivals have an ethnic/national or a religious basis. These festivals will tend to attract people of that race/nationality or religion. Those people who go to them but who don’t fit that makeup are likely to be people whose are already communally cohesive. Is the BNP-leaning mother who is worried about the effect of high levels of immigration on her child’s school the sort of person to go to a Diwali festival? Is the Asian youth angry at Western society likely to attend a St. Patrick’s Day parade? No, and these are the people that need to be won over to help community cohesion. Why not spend the money on useful things instead, such as hiring more English as a Foreign Language teachers for immigrant children?
2. If left up to the market, poor people wouldn’t be able to go to festivals:
This is slightly patronising as it assumes that poor people wouldn’t be willing to pay for cultural days out. More to the point, plenty of middle class and rich people go to festivals, while many poor people pay a variety of taxes: council tax, VAT, the BBC tax, and if they are earning working full time and earning the minimum wage, over half their income is taxed. Poor people are being taxed to subsidise festivals, and it should be up to them whether they go or not.
3. Without state funding, these festivals would whither and die:
Maybe, maybe not. Festivals that have been long established, such as Diwali or Eid-il-Fitr, have survived for hundreds of years without British taxpayers footing the bill. These types of festivals are very popular, and there would be plenty of people willing to help contribute to the costs of these events.
Other festivals would emerge, having been restricted by the crowding out of government spending. For example, if the government set up a pie shop in a street, and charged 2 pence per pie, it is almost certain that no other pie shops would emerge on that street. If a future government decided to stop subsidising the pie shop, its supporters would complain that the government has to continue the subsidy, because evidently it cannot be left to the free market as there is no other pie shop in the street. Yet the only reason for this is because it is not economical to establish another pie shop and sell pies at such a low price. This is the same for festivals. Government-sponsored festivals can afford to charge artificially low ticket prices, because of the subsidy that they are getting.
Some festivals and events would undoubtedly have to close. But is it really the taxpayers’ role to prop up cultural events that people are not willing to pay for in a free market? Government has only finite resources, so it should allocate money first to what is necessary, and only after that consider cultural events. Since the state is currently running a deficit of tens of billions of pounds per year, essential services are not being provided, and taxes are high, it is wrong to argue that cultural events should be subsidised. Some services, such as domestic violence shelters, cannot be left up to the market, because you are not going to find sufficient victims willing and able to shell out thousands of pounds per year for shelter.
Finally, is it not dangerous that the state is so deeply involved in paying for culture, when culture usually thrives when the state has nothing to do with it, or when it is actively anti-state?
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs
Interesting piece.
Considering this argument – “Some festivals and events would undoubtedly have to close. But is it really the taxpayers’ role to prop up cultural events that people are not willing to pay for in a free market? ” – would it be fair to assume that you believe state subsidies shouldn’t merely end for festivals, but also in the cases of museums, art galleries and libraries?
This just opens up more questions in my mind.
What about the point of properous “minority” communities contributing much in way of taxes and not seeing anything in return for this in terms of diasporic cultural preservation? Are they not entitled to this?
If the few festivals and such are not to be funded would it not ultimately result in our being squeezed to fund the interests of middle class white folk from our own pockets?
Is this not plainly taking the piss?
——–
Government has only finite resources, so it should allocate money first to what is necessary, and only after that consider cultural events.
——–
This I could agree with but the point by BenSix is valid. What is to be deemed as neccesary and what not? Is there any way of doing this fairly and unfavourably? Also it is possible that this idea is the manisfestation of an increasingly rightward swing in the UK, which is becoming hostile to those perceived to be of “foreign” extraction.
Is it really that objectionable to have some of a communities money spent on their own cultural foibles?
This is slightly patronising as it assumes that poor people wouldn’t be willing to pay for cultural days out.
Erm, this is economic reality, not patronising. As a percentage of their income, poorer people spend less on arts and culture.
And they also pay lower taxes than rich people. So in fact making such festivals free is a form of re-distribution to poorer people, rather than assuming that if the festival is not funded and taxes are cut, it would poor people. Proportionately, it wouldn’t.
Similarly, when the govt makes it free for people to go see museums and art galleries, it is again a form of re-distribution to poor people.
Your second argument doesn’t stand up.
As for your third argument – it also doesn’t stand up:
Festivals that have been long established, such as Diwali or Eid-il-Fitr, have survived for hundreds of years without British taxpayers footing the bill.
Those festivals have largely survived in countries of origin because there its a national holiday and because its tradition.
In this country Vaisakhi, Eid etc weren’t celebrated in any big numbers until quite recently anyway. In this case the govt doesn’t fund them, but partly financially support activities organised by others. So its neither crowding anything out, nor ensuring its the sole funder.
But is it really the taxpayers’ role to prop up cultural events that people are not willing to pay for in a free market?
Why should cultural activities have to always be funded by the free market?
Since the state is currently running a deficit of tens of billions of pounds per year, essential services are not being provided, and taxes are high, it is wrong to argue that cultural events should be subsidised
Thats a bit like saying we shouldn’t fund anything until we first fund the NHS and other essential services to the hilt.
In reality money is rationed out to diff dept, as it should be, and they try and work within those constraints.
Finally, is it not dangerous that the state is so deeply involved in paying for culture, when culture usually thrives when the state has nothing to do with it, or when it is actively anti-state?
No. The state isn’t paying for culture – it is helping develop it. As culture and tastes change, the govt will have to fund different stuff. But a lot of cultural activities, theatre for example, wouldn’t be able to survive otherwise.
If left up to the market, poor people wouldn’t be able to go to festivals
As i understand it, the Edinburgh Fringe doesn’t get a lot of public money, yet many shows are free.
“As i understand it, the Edinburgh Fringe doesn’t get a lot of public money, yet many shows are free.”
Ah, but that’s redistribution in action. The people come in for free and the artist loses money.
Dalbir (2) – ‘What about the point of prosperous “minority” communities contributing much in way of taxes and not seeing anything in return for this in terms of diasporic cultural preservation? Are they not entitled to this?’
No, they are not. At least not at the expense of the taxpayer.
On the article itself, I think that this perhaps comes down to what these events are ‘for.’ I would suggest that Sunny’s comparison with the NHS is slightly false in that there is a world of qualitative difference between a festival and an openly available health service.
My issue with festivals is what are they really for? The article is correct in that it is difficult to seen any real cohesion benefits beyond preaching to the converted. It is the article’s last paragraph that really strikes at the heart of this.
It is difficult to see by what definition ‘culturalists’ can credibly call themselves independent when they are subsidized by the tax payer/state. This is the difference with the National Gallery/British Museum etc which do not pretend that they are independent and are overtly reflecting a cultural agenda. To my mind, this is a good thing. Inevitably in culture the quality rises to the top.
The Rainbow Festival here in Watford was put out of its misery recently and, notwithstanding the protestations of the local race relations industry, the sky did not fall. It was an event that had become stale and gone on for too long.
If culture is going to be funded, let it be in high quality heritage, galleries and theatres (accessible to all) that show off the best cultural activity. Not pointless festivals that are ultimately in the interests of very few. Culture should not be code for ramming agendas down the collective throat, however noble the intention.
On a slightly separate point, it is a really good article on a thoroughly interesting issue. It is great to see something low profile on here like this. More like this please!
I am now going to explain to my Greek friend here why the Elgin Marbles belong in the British Museum. I am also going, later this weekend, to see a show of Balkan dance – with no subsidy on my ticket.
I think talking about the state funding anything, obscures the reality that the state simply takes money from the people, it doesn’t have any money of its own. It’s amazing how many benefit junkies believe that “the social” (it representatives of the state) or whoever, has an infinite amount of money to be ladled out.
Remember Maggie Thatcher’s quote to the effect that :”The trouble with socialism is that eventually it runs out of other people’s money”. It seems iniquitous to me that money should be taken from me in tax and spent on something I don’t approve of. On the other hand, I think beer and real ale festivals should be state funded. They benefit the whole of society.
BenSix:
For the first two categories, yes, but not for libraries, which I would class as education/skills.
Dalbir:
So non-prosperous communities shouldn’t be allowed to have their own festivals? This is not about minority communities, but any festivals. I don’t think that St. George’s Day festivals should receive any public money either.
You act like some white person visits all the ethnic minorities once a year and takes their money and spends it on things which they never see. What about education, healthcare, transport, benefits etc.? This doesn’t have anything to do with whether a festival is ‘foreign’ or not, but whether the taxpayer should be funding festivals.
Sunny:
So you have statistical proof that the visitors to such festivals and events are mainly poor. Please could you show me the link.
Even if an event is being wholly funded by the taxpayer, the effect can still cancel out possible competitors. And surely the rise in numbers attending certain festivals has more to do with immigration then anything else.
Because people should be free to select their own cultural events, not be nudged by market-distorting subsidies.
That is exactly what I am saying. I am not sure why you think essential services should only be partially funded to pay for interpretative dance shows.
So the government dictates what is appropriate culture, and funds it accordingly. Sounds like a totalitarian state to me.
MaidMarian:
Always a fun topic. And thanks.
Who will be judge and jury on what is retained and what not. Judging by the responses of some people here, what seems to be suggested is:
“we’re not interested in your festivals so they shouldn’t be funded but those things we have interests in should remain to be funded.”
Either have a blanket ban or shutup. I don’t want my money solely funding the promotion of middle class white culture. I would like at least some of it going towards my own. I know my own people pay more than their fair share of taxes and contribute to the country. Personally I think this just boils down to good old fashion WASP cultural hegemony. Sure, I’m happy to contribute some towards indigenous cultural interests but hell, let me at least have the satisfaction of knowing some is going towards things I am remotely interested/invested in.
The ground reality of such policies is that those things deemed worthy of funding by a elitist minority will continue to be funded, damn the rest.
I’m not excessively concerned about this myself, but gestures of goodwill between communities/cultures can often go along way. And you don’t need empirical evidence to understand or accept this. Based on personal experiences I do believe that cultural events can bring much good to the city’s residents. I recall going to various events as a youth and loving them. They were important to me and now I think of it, I’m not sure if such melas/celebrations were funded by the taxpayer or not. I suspect they were joint ventures between councils and community people. But I imagine because they are not of interest to your average wmc, they are of inferior quality and an unnecessary extravagence for the city……
Again I reiterate my point, can we not have SOME of what we give going towards things we want. As a taxpayer myself I have to ask if this privilege is surreptitiously being reserved for certain types of white people? Maid “eff those foreigners and their ideas” Marian take a bow.
Rumbold:
“This is the difference with the National Gallery/British Museum etc which do not pretend that they are independent and are overtly reflecting a cultural agenda. To my mind, this is a good thing. Inevitably in culture the quality rises to the top.”
As much as I have enjoyed these venues I think it would be seriously narrow minded to think they are the only types of cultural activity that deserve funding. Actually it smacks of high snobbery. Yah.
Cultural activities are exactly the kind of things the public sector should be saving from the free market.
If it was left up to the free market, there would be nothing anywhere except shops.
Dalbir:
That is what I have been saying all along. Where do I distinguish between ‘white’ festivals and ‘ethnic’ festivals? And it was MaidMarian whom you quoted at the end of your comment, not I.
£60 million pounds of taxpayers’ money for this:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2008/08/public-public-dont-want.html
Rumbold:
A thousand apologies for mixing you up with the Maid.
Regarding your point about blanket bans. Is there not a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater with this approach. Looking at your last post I can see why people will be frustrated with funding, when their money goes to such things. Maybe we need a more common sense approach towards what is culture and what isn’t so that we are not afflicted by white elephants such as these. But putting it in perspective, I fail to see how people can complain about a Vasaikhi celebration that may be getting SOME funding when we have monstrous wastes like the Dome and possibly the upcoming Olympics.
Yet again I say, some of those, “festivals” may well serve a good purpose in this city. Even if it is just a simple gesture of acknowledgment of your culture’s existence in the mosaic of the city. These small things can have more of an impact on cohesion than some people think.
MaidMarian:
It is difficult to see by what definition ‘culturalists’ can credibly call themselves independent when they are subsidized by the tax payer/state.
Well, it wouldn’t be independent anyway – because someone has to fund it (unless they perform for free.
The Rainbow Festival here in Watford was put out of its misery recently and, notwithstanding the protestations of the local race relations industry, the sky did not fall. It was an event that had become stale and gone on for too long.
And I’m all for axing stuff that has gone stale and is crap too. Songs of Praise, the Monarchy etc etc included.
The article is correct in that it is difficult to seen any real cohesion benefits beyond preaching to the converted.
Not always. Sometimes it seeks to re-affirm a social convention that racism = bad. But the point here isn’t that all festivals should be about anti-racism.
Sometimes they’re merely to celebrate culture without any overt political agenda. Sure, the govt sometimes uses cultural festivals on an anti-racism ticket. But frankly, I didn’t bother going to the Chinese New Year festival but I did hang out at the Latino music festival in London a few weeks ago.
It wasn’t about anti-racism, it was about celebrating a subculture that is represented quite heavily in London.
If culture is going to be funded, let it be in high quality heritage, galleries and theatres (accessible to all) that show off the best cultural activity. Not pointless festivals that are ultimately in the interests of very few.
And this is my point. Brown people pay taxes too. Why should only mainstream culture be funded and the rest not cared for? The money can be divided up roughly proportionately, and so far it is.
Trofim:
Remember Maggie Thatcher’s quote to the effect that :”The trouble with socialism is that eventually it runs out of other people’s money”.
Maybe the hypocritical cow should have fought less wars with other people’s money then.
Rumbold:
So you have statistical proof that the visitors to such festivals and events are mainly poor. Please could you show me the link.
I’m just pointing out that proportionately, funding a free cultural festival is re-distribution to the poor, not the other way around as you asserted.
Because people should be free to select their own cultural events, not be nudged by market-distorting subsidies.
Not necessarily, because a different set of discrimination factors come into play. For example, people from a poorer community might not be able to attract private sponsorship.
Furthmore, it would be biased towards culture or events that are financially viable compared to culture that isn’t, but is still good. (Just compare the Sunrise Radio Mela to the London Mela for a start).
Thirdly, various state bodies could make it harder to organise a private festival (Notting Hill Carnival) unless there was special govt support that made it important the police cooperate. My understanding is that the police hate the Notting Hill Carnival. So if it was privately funded, they could just say the costs of policing would be prohibitely high, and avoid it. But if the Mayor’s Office is involved then they can’t really say no.
I am not sure why you think essential services should only be partially funded to pay for interpretative dance shows.
Because there is no “limit” as such to services, to the extent that nothing else will ever be funded. This argument is very much like saying – don’t talk about trivial things when there are people DYING in the world!! etc.
So the government dictates what is appropriate culture, and funds it accordingly.
No, the govt is supporting what are popular events, providing everything is regularly bid for and such things are justified on a regular basis. The govt is merely a willing partner than imposing what is right or wrong.
Sounds like a totalitarian state to me.
You think anything the state does is totalitarian
Rumbold,
You are too narrowist in your idealogical driven nonsense. You are, sir, a libertarian, until such times as we can reduce you to sense.
That moment does not seem to be near. Instead, you drift further towards the idiocy of the libertarian, read idiot,than run away as the complete and utter tit he is.
Well, Rumbold? Try your favourite menatalist.
Well, Devil’s Kitchen?
Every time I have challenged him here, he runs away, because he is a complete utter tit. You know less about climate science than Rumblod claims to do.
Rumbold, I live in West Bromwich. Its best to know the history of that building before you bring it up as an example of local authority cockups on culture.
The majority of that money came from the European regeneration fund. But a third sector company messed up the money completely. The local authority stepped into to save it but not to the tune of £60m.
The free market has made a mess of West Bromwich. The high street is a patchy network of charity shops and pound shops. Perhaps this building was a case of putting all their eggs in one basket, but noone in west bromwich is saying that the money should have been spent on something completely different. Just that they should have spread the money around a little more on smaller cultural projects.
Dalbir:
We all look alike to some people. Heh.
Oh I agree that the money spent is nothing compared to the black hole that is the Olympics.
But festivals wouldn’t vanish if there was not government funding available.
Sunny:
Which wars were they? You mean the one where a brutal military dictatorship invaded British territory?
Well, since no-one seems to have any statistical evidence one way or the other about the income of visitors, we don’t actually know.
You seem to assume that non-state = businesses. What about local community groups organizing festivals and recouping the money through ticket sales?
But if there is a shortage of essential services, why should culture take priority over them?
If they are popular, why not leave pricing up to the market?
Heh. Well, for the most part…
Douglas:
So you don’t agree with the piece then?
Inders:
What was the money supposed to be spent on then? What was the building supposed to contain?
What about local community groups organizing festivals and recouping the money through ticket sales?
That still makes it a commercial festival, subject to those constraints.
But if there is a shortage of essential services, why should culture take priority over them?
Do you buy into the argument that one shouldn’t talk about trivial things when there are people DYING in the world?
If they are popular, why not leave pricing up to the market?
tranferring a service to the free market is not good in itself, only if you can demonstrate that it will lead to more good. You’re arguing that a private enterprise will do a better job on assumption. That’s no argument.
rumbold:
i understand your arguments, but aside from the fact that you apparently can’t tell the difference between a religious festival that the group concerned will observe anyway (eid al-fitr, chanukah) and a music festival that is required in order for there to be a platform for traditional music groups to play to people outside their core ethnic/religious constituency, it is hard enough anyway to do anything musically interesting these days. there simply aren’t the facilities to have gigs. live music in london is completely threatened by this – and i can tell you that from the stage at these festivals, it damsure looks like it promotes community cohesion to *me*.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Sunny:
So?
No, because that is a silly argument which doesn’t really help anyone. But the allocation of resources is something that can make a real difference to people. I know that socialists have difficulty grasping this notion, but if the state stops funding and regulating culture, it carries on.
I am arguing that popular festivals will attract paying customers, so why do they need state subsidy? As for unpopular events, why should the state continue to subsidise those which few want?
Bananabrain:
I am not saying it is easy to find the money, but why should taxpayers subsidise live music? It isn’t like kidney machines or domestic violence shelters. There’s no moral reason why the state should pay.