Arts Funding: A New Approach

4918

arts-funding-a-new-approach

In a new ASI briefing paper – Arts Funding: A New Approach – David Rawcliffe attacks the terrible wastefulness of the current system of arts subsidy in the UK, and proposes a novel, market-based alternative.

In the paper he argues that the distribution of arts-funding directly to producers generates four significant problems:

• An expensive bureaucratic apparatus, composed of the national arts councils, and costing more than £50m/year.
• Appalling variation in the funding received by different areas and income strata, from £24/capita in London to £2/capita in East England.
• Enormous distortion of artists’ incentives: encouraging art that satisfies the arts council paymasters, not than the consumer.
• An insurmountable barrier to entry for new artists, stifling innovation.

The author proposes that if we are to maintain subsidies to the arts at all, that they be distributed directly to consumers in the form of vouchers, redeemable at arts providers. Consumers would thus control how the subsidy is spent. Such a scheme would reduce overheads, rectify the unequal distribution, restore artists’ relationship with the consumer, and encourage competition and innovation.

As the author concludes:

The arts council system of government support for the arts is an outdated, centrally-controlled, bureaucratic nightmare, that is expensive, unfair, and ineffective. The objectives of arts subsidy would be fulfilled far more efficiently by a post-bureaucratic solution, that empowered citizens, and compelled the arts establishment to meet their needs. A voucher system is exactly that.

Beating the bully briefs

4915

beating-the-bully-briefs

Some commentators have pointed out that as the election nears, the Downing Street attack dogs have been unleashed again. The tactics are those of the off-the-record briefing which contains the smear, what Alistair Darling referred to as "the forces of hell." It is very effective because it serves both the media and the government. A chosen journalist is favoured with an inside story which he or she then runs, earning praise from their editor and the envy of their colleagues. So when the anti-bullying help-line boss reveals that Downing Street employees have called for help, within minutes the story is twisted to one of 'breach of confidentiality,' with various figures trotted out to back the new slant and trash the charity concerned.

This is not something just done to benefit the Guardian and the BBC. The centre-right press has proved just as gullible in reproducing stories they have been given to support the government version of events.

There is something that might be done. As we found with expenses, there is nothing like daylight to send insects scuttling. If this were publicized every time it happened, with names named, it might begin to lose its effectiveness. Step forward Guido Fawkes. Mr Fawkes has long denounced the lobby system and the confidential briefings. Those appalled by what the system is doing should now make it their business to report every case to Mr Fawkes, anonymously of course, naming the journalist and the person who did the briefing. They could even tip off Guido when they have been given such a story themselves, doing it in third person to make it appear that someone else has exposed them.

Once it became routine for these so-called 'briefings' to appear on the Guido Fawkes site, complete with the names of the guilty parties, its dishonesty would become transparent, and people might think twice about doing it. Over to you, Mr Fawkes.

How to achieve a Digital Britain

4855

how-to-achieve-a-digital-britain

In July, the government released the ‘Digital Britain’ white paper: their vision for putting the UK at the “leading edge of the global digital economy”. Within this is a plan for every home to have access to ‘superfast’ broadband rates of 40-50 megabits per second by 2017. This aspiration would be achieved by government intervention, and – surprise surprise- funded through more tax. In this case, a 50p-a-month charge on fixed phone lines.

Plenty of government failures start off as honorable aspirations. It would be far better to let the public decide the technology they want (many people are happy without broadband at the moment), and let suppliers respond to demand accordingly. Instead, the government might implement a regressive tax in which the poor pay £12 a year for a service that the better off tend to consume.

The report is unclear on how exactly the revenue raised will achieve universal broadband. Team this with governments' general inability to plan and implement policy in an area they know little about, and it is unlikely the project will be finished on time, on budget or even at all. Nevertheless, the government wants this legislation to go through in the spring.

Such shambolic ideas often go down rather well in the Houses of Commons, but not this one. The proposal was roundly criticized by the Commons business, innovation and skills select committee this week as “regressive and poorly targeted”. They remarked that “early government intervention runs a significant risk of distorting the market”, and questioned the logic behind the spending commitment given the dire state of public finances. Instead, the committee recommended market-based reforms effective in spreading access to high-quality broadband, such as cutting tax on fibre-optic cables, and increasing competition amongst suppliers. While the committee doesn’t have the power to strike down the government’s proposal, they have recognized that the power of the market will achieve outcomes far cheaper and faster than government intervention.

They must have been reading Eben Wilson’s Digital Dirigisme.

Sunk’ by the creative forces of capitalism

4746

sunk-by-the-creative-forces-of-capitalism

Avatar has sunken the old ship. James Cameron’s new film has generated revenues of $1,878,025,999 in 40 days (and rising), making it the highest grossing film of all time worldwide (not adjusted for inflation), finally overtaking his other blockbuster, Titanic. Regardless of the film’s artistic quality (or lack of it), Cameron has proven himself to be an incredibly talented wealth generator. For this entrepreneurial triumph, he should be commended.

On a political level, some have seen the film as a damning indictment of Capitalism. The ‘evil’ exploiting Capitalist humans are driven by their greed for unobtanium, an extremely valuable resource. They are willing to destroy the wonderful environment of the ‘Navi’ alien planet of Pandora and its inhabitants, in order to acquire it. The injustice is further highlighted by the sheer magic of this 3D world, which has reputedly had such an impact on some moviegoers that they have been driven to despair and are struggling to cope in the real world. Either that or their depression has been onset through realisation that in the real world, far away from Pandora, our public finances are in a dire state and as taxpayers; they will be footing the bill.

Despite the anti-capitalist interpretations, the film is quite the opposite: an anti-imperialism movie. Perhaps instead, it is a story of property rights (held by different humanoids) being infringed, and a journey of discovery for one of the imperialists (perhaps driven primarily by love interests). He comes to sympathise with those his side intended to coerce. Avatar also has a clear strand of thought on the environment, warning us about the sustainability of human action. However, with adequately defined property rights, a functioning market and a process of voluntary negotiation, humanoid agents should well manage environmental resources.

Regardless of the plot, Cameron has played a classic entrepreneurial role, in which he and his backers undertook significant risk, developed innovative technology, and are now reaping significant reward for their creative investments. Overall, another victory for capitalism, in an industry not famed for these sympathies.

The proposed privatization of BBC Worldwide

4738

the-proposed-privatization-of-bbc-worldwide

News that BBC Worldwide - the corporation's commercial arm - has been put on a list of public assets that could be for sale as part of a government "operational efficiency programme", and that this is now backed by the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications is welcome, but not for reasons of operational efficiency.

The committee has it right when it says that a privatised company "would be capable of becoming a major global brand for distributing UK content". This begs the real question - why isn't the BBC that now? Why is it a localised brand that does not distribute well across the globe?

One of the reasons I have always favoured privatising the BBC is that I believe its total reliance on public funding damages British media. It creates a quaint organisation, with its peculiar "Auntie Beeb" culture; arrogant, statist, often inward-looking, prone to artisitic cliques, and always struggling with rationed resources. Letting the Beeb go free would make it go fully global, levering its huge competitive advantage - the English language - and able to take on the world through its creative genius and anarchic energy.

Yes, get BBC Worldwide out there in the global media marketplace, not just to make money today, but so that it's executives can come back to the broadcasting priesthood in White City and explain to them where tomorrow's money can be made from new audiences - by a commercialised BBC.

Just not cricket

4729

just-not-cricket

It was pretty depressing watching England get hammered in the final test match in South Africa last weekend. However, it was even worse hearing English Cricket Board (ECB) Chairman Giles Clarke interviewed about the potential effect of the government’s Davies Review on English cricket – yet another example of the law of unintended consequences at work.

Basically, the government set up the Davies Review to consider which sporting events should have to be shown on terrestrial TV (i.e. not on Sky). And one of the events that the Review decided should be ‘listed’ was the Ashes – the famous test match series between England and Australia. The government has accepted the findings, and seems intent to introduce the relevant legislation before the general election.

But the trouble is English cricket is heavily dependent on the money the ECB gets from selling broadcasting rights. The £30m they estimate they will lose if they have to sell the Ashes to ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or the BBC rather than Sky represents a third of their annual turnover. To put it another way, that’s more than the entire ‘Team England’ budget. Take that money out of the game, and it will suffer.

Moreover, while it’s easy to be populist and say that more sport should be shown on free-to-air channels, people ought to bear in mind the extraordinary impact that Sky has had on British sport. Without the money they brought to football, for example, there is no way the Premier League would be what it is today, attracting the world’s greatest players and showcasing some of the world’s best football.

But of course, that’s not really the key point here. Nor is the fact that Sky’s coverage is vastly superior to that of the terrestrial broadcasters. It’s not even that the terrestrial broadcasters show no real interest in showing cricket. The key point is that private sporting institutions should be able to contract freely with whomever they want for whatever price they want. End of story. The government just shouldn’t be involved.

P.S. Another sign of the times came when Clarke discussed the increased burden of government-mandated CRB checks - £600,000 last year, up from £300,000 the day before.

Capisca!

4655

capisca

For the last few weeks my wife has been working her way through the BBC's online Italian Steps language course, so that she can make herself understood next time she visits the Italian relatives in Garfagnana. She reckons it's actually just as good as the Italian evening course she signed up to at the local college. I had a look at it, and yes, using interactive web technology, it looks quite effective. And of course there are other courses for other languages.

So do I think that the Beeb has done us all a great service, enabling people around the world to pick up at least a smattering of other languages before they go abroad? Certainly, but the trouble is, it has done this on my nickel. Or my £142.50, to be more accurate, the value of the licence fee. And in the process, it has queered the pitch for other language course publishers and online providers (such as Berlitz, Rosetta Stone, Linguaphone et al.). Why pay for something you can get free from Auntie?

I'm sure that most people who worked through an online language course like this would not mind paying a pound or two, just as they pay a dollar or to to download tracks from iTunes. I am certain that they would not mind a few ads in the sidebar. Maybe not even a bit of product placement ('Scusi, un cappuccino Lavazza per favore'.) So why should the BBC provide it to users for nothing, and charge licence payers – the vast majority of whom will never hear of its existence, let alone actually use it?

This, like so much on the BBC website, should be privatized. Spin it off into a private company and let the licence payers pocket the sale price. Going right through the website, this could bring in quite a bit of cash, just when we all need it.

Father Christmas: Public health pariah

4606

father-christmas-public-health-pariah-

Christmas: a time for festive cheer, family and eating rather more than normal. Not for Dr Nathan Grills. Writing in the British Medical Journal, the traditional Christmas wish of ‘goodwill to all men’ has been extended to cover protecting the public from the horrific, dangerous, yuletide threat that is Father Christmas. Utterly po-faced, Dr Grills accuses Father Christmas of acting in a reckless way that could “damage millions of lives". Some of his crimes are as follows:

- embarking on high-speed air travel without wearing a seatbelt or helmet, and partaking in dangerous sports such a roof-surfing
- blatantly ignoring the drink-drive limit by consuming copious measures of brandy
- equating obesity with cheerfulness and joviality
- encouraging parents to expand their own waistlines by scoffing the mince pies left out for him
- ever so occasionally being depicted with - shock-horror - a pipe in hand.

No doubt Father Christmas also glorifies the unlawful entering of people’s homes.

Likening Father Christmas’ selling power to that of Ronald McDonald, the author is concerned that Mr Christmas is sending young, impressionable children into a spiral of unhealthy behavior, which must be stopped. The answer? Give the fat man an ever-so-socially-correct makeover, swapping mice pies for celery sticks and the reindeer and sleigh for running shoes.

This report beggars belief. Father Christmas is an adored figure across the globe with an approachability and mysticism that would be utterly undermined if he served as government propaganda for healthy living. The idea that he drags children into a life of drink-driving obesity is absurd. Encouraging illustrators the world over to ease the conscious of the over-anxious, do-gooding ‘experts’ is appalling. Luckily, I’m very confident that this article will just result in incredulous laughter.

All the same, I don’t want Father Christmas to be at risk of developing liver failure, so I’ll leave him a nice bottle of Nanny State beer by the fireplace this year.

Pay nothing, get nothing

4604

pay-nothing-get-nothing

Keeping London’s museums and galleries free will cost the taxpayer over half a billion pounds in 2009. Free costs quite a lot, doesn’t it?

Of course, many who claim to value that which is kept behind the heavy doors of these institutions often come quickly to the defense of keeping them free to all. If they throw in a collection of Blairisms about social opportunity the other side of the argument is swiftly shut down. Yet most of the people defending free museums and galleries surely don’t actually visit them or they would not hold these opinions. In my experience the whole process is more often than not an ordeal. Free museums and galleries are overcrowded and under-appreciated, full to bursting with people that ruin the experience for people who value the artifacts and art on display.

It is like subsidising football matches only for most of the crowd to turn its back on the match, natter about what they are do at the weekend while doing the knitting. I oftener visit the excellent Courtauld Gallery than the free galleries. The small amount it costs to enter seems to be enough of a deterrence for anyone who usually treats such places as a creche, meeting point or playground.

So who are these people claiming that museums and galleries should be free? The loudest voices come from the politico-media types who get free invites to attend when a corporate has rented out a whole exhibition. Fine, but the rest of us would also like the luxury of being able to pay for the privilege of having people in museums and galleries that actually value what is there. Overcrowded museums and galleries are claimed to be a sign of success, they are not.

The only solution to overcoming the overcrowding of these commons is for these institutions to charge for entrance. The taxpayer would also be unburdened by half a billion quid to boot.

Preventing extremism

4590

preventing-extremism-

A leaked email to The Times suggests that police in the West Midlands have been contacting community groups encouraging them to be on the lookout for radical islamification in children from the age of 4. They are under the belief that a child may give away such indoctrination by drawing a photo of bombs or decreeing that ‘all Christians are bad’.

As the unit acknowledges it is unlikely to yield any real results, so all it does is perpetuate a society focused on surveillance and distrust. Also, one would assume that educated and compassionate humans such as nursery teachers would use their initiative and monitor and report any child’s behavior they found unsettling without prompting from the police. Police initiatives undermine individual responsibility and encourage citizens to act in a certain way ‘because the police said so’ and not because of any individual moral judgment.

The surveillance of young children for ‘abnormal’ behaviors ties in with criticism of the government’s ‘Prevent’ programme, which uses £140m to tackle extremism in the UK. The initiative has been accused of gathering data on Muslim households, stigmatizing communities & encouraging neighbors to spy on one another. Culture Secretary John Denham has recently pledged to make the project more transparent and to deal with complaints from Muslim communities that such a scheme is imposed upon them, instead of working with them.

Acknowledging shortcomings in attempts to stem extremist ideologies is a positive thing. Communities feel distrusted and treated as a threat from such schemes; as such they are given more incentive to alienate themselves from British culture. Similarly, knowing that government-directed projects are focusing in on your religious beliefs and everyday lives is likely to lead to resentment and backlash.

The best way to tackle any form of extremism is to step back from media frenzy and show the benefits that a genuinely tolerant, multicultural society that invites both diversity and debate can bring.