 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
PSI
> News
> New report challenges the assumption that subsidy leads to innovation in the theatre
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Press ReleaseNew report challenges the assumption that subsidy leads to innovation in the theatreDate: 24/07/2001 The UK Cultural Sector: Profile and Policy Issues, a new report published today (24 July) by the Policy Studies Institute, challenges many long held assumptions about the relationship between subsidy and creativity. It is generally agreed that cultural organisations and individuals are subsidised because they need support to produce innovative work and provide a seedbed for the creative industries. But, asks the report, to what extent are these propositions true? What evidence do we have to substantiate these theories? The Arts Council of England has placed increased emphasis on diversity and innovation in theatre policy since 1996. But, the report concludes: "The available data, based on the Arts Council of England's new-work indicator for the English grant-aided theatre sector, show no significant impact on the production of new work in drama since then. The criteria that ACE developed for its 'new- work indicator' count commissions of new work created as the result of funding and intended to be presented at some future date…In fact the number of commissions for new work in drama and mime actually dropped between 1996/97 and 1997/98 from 287 to 220, but increased in 1998/99 to 302." In short, the number of commissions for new work is very variable, despite the Arts Council's emphasis on its importance. In their analysis of the subsidised theatre, John O'Hagan and Adriana Neligan also question the widely held belief that the theatre is facing a financial and artistic crisis which is forcing the industry into safe programming and restraining its "research and development" activity (cf the Boyden Report 2000). By applying standard economic indicators to test the levels of diversity across the sector, the authors conclude that: "The sparse evidence provided here does not confirm that the artistic vitality of the English theatre…has been in decline over the last few decades. The evidence, in fact, points to the contrary". This research is a starting point. Much more work needs to be done but, the authors argue, the central issues need to be addressed - how do we measure the concepts of safe programming and/or diversity and most importantly, is the level of state funding a factor influencing the level of diversity? Hard evidence needs to be introduced to the debate on the state of British theatre and the effectiveness of cultural subsidy in general. Contact: Jo O'Driscoll, Policy Studies Institute, on 020 7468 2269 Notes to Editors: 1. 'Innovation and Diversity in Repertoire in Grant-aided and Commercial Theatre' by John O'Hagan and Adriana Neligan appears as a chapter in The UK Cultural Sector: Profile and Policy Issues, edited by Sara Selwood. The report is published by Policy Studies Institute, ISBN 0 85374 789 X. Press review copies of the chapter are available from PSI publications department on (020) 7468 2269. 2. The authors assessed the diversity of repertoire in the theatre sector using the Herfindahl Index (a measure of concentration used widely in industrial economics) and DiMaggio/Stenberg Confirmity Indices. 3. The research for the chapter was supported by the John S Cohen Foundation and by Trinity College, Dublin. Support for the report as a whole came from the Monument Trust, one of the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts. Additional funding was provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund; the former Museums & Galleries Commission; and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 4. John O'Hagan is Associate Professor of Economics, Trinity College Dublin. He was President of the Association for Cultural Economics International between 1998 and 2000 and has published widely on the economics of the arts. Adriana Neligan is a graduate student at Trinity College working on diversity, innovation and theatres. Sara Selwood, the editor of The UK Cultural Sector: Profile and Policy Issues, is Quintin Hogg Research Fellow at the Centre for Communication and Information Studies, University of Westminster. She is editor of PSI's quarterly journal, Cultural Trends, and was an author of Culture as Commodity? The Economics of the arts and built heritage in the UK (PSI, 1996). 5. The project advisers for the UK Cultural Sector: Profile and Policy Issues were Professor Stephen Creigh-Tyte, DCMS and Department of Economics, University of Durham; Andy Feist, Department of Arts Policy and Management, City University; Professor Nicholas Garnham, School of Communication and Creative Industries, University of Westminster; Professor John O'Hagan, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Dublin; Dr Patricia Morison, Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts; Michael Pattison, Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts. A full list of the 25 contributors to the report is available from PSI on (020) 7468 0468. 6. PSI is a registered educational charity (no 313819) and has no association with any political party, pressure group or commercial interest. |
 |
NewsNew PSI report examines financial and employment needs of social housing tenants [added 01/07/2010] Daylight saving: is it time for change? [added 13/05/2010] New PSI briefing on green fiscal reform [added 15/06/2010] Back to ‘the future’: assessing Britain in 2010 [added 12/05/2010] Concerns expressed about support for people who need more help in Provider-led Pathways to Work [added 23/02/2010] More support needed for low-skilled workers to progress into better jobs [added 09/02/2010] Understanding social cohesion during [added 19/01/2010] Lecture on innovation policy and the challenge of climate change [added 09/02/2010] |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
Address: Policy Studies Institute, 50 Hanson Street, London, W1W 6UP
E-mail: 
Telephone: 020 7911 7500 | 
Home page: