Who benefits from public funding of the performing arts? Comparing the art provision and the hegemony–distinction approaches

In this paper we ask, who does cultural policy serve? We test the applicability of two theoretical approaches that explain the motivations that underlie public funding of the performing arts. One approach emphasizes the role of cultural policy in making the arts accessible to the wider public. The second approach emphasizes how cultural policy facilitates processes of hegemony–distinction. Using data from Israel, we document trends in the public funding of arts organizations in the domains of dance, orchestras, theater, and opera over a period of 48 years. Employing a time series analysis, we demonstrate how these trends in funding are associated with changes in level of education, ethnic composition, and level of income in the population. Our main conclusion is that in terms of how funding responds to changes in education and income—support for the performing arts in Israel benefits the wider public. However, in terms of how funding responds to changes in the size of ethnic groups—support for the performing arts in Israel caters to elite interests. This intricate set of relationships is discussed in the light of the two theoretical approaches.

► We ask who cultural policy serves, and we test two theoretical approaches.
► One approach stresses the role of cultural policy in providing a merit good.
► Another approach stresses that cultural policy facilitates hegemony and distinction.
► We document decades of public funding of dance, orchestras, theater, and opera.
► Arts funding in Israel both serves the public and fosters hegemony and distinction.