Title: Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts | The Heritage Foundation
Headings: Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
Laurence Jarvik
Authors
Subscribe to email updates

Content: The NEA Discourages Charitable Gifts to the Arts
Defenders of the NEA argue that the much of its benefit lies in its ability to confer an imprimatur, similar to the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval," necessary to encourage private support of the arts. NEA officials have asserted frequently that by persuading donors who would otherwise not give, Endowment support can offer a financial "leverage" of up to ten times the amount of a federal grant award. 17 There is little or no empirical evidence to support such claims. The only available study of "matching grants"-those designed specifically to stimulate giving- concluded that matching grants did not increase total giving to the arts. Instead, "matching grants" appear to shift existing money around from one recipient to another, "thereby reducing the private resources available to other arts organizations in a specific community." 18 Indeed, a study by the Association of American Cultures (AAC) revealed that private funders found major museum exhibits, opera, ballet, symphony orchestras, and public television to be "attractive" for donors without an official government stamp. 19
Economist Tyler Cowen also sees an ominous effect to government arts programs: " Once donors believe that government has accepted the responsibility for maintaining culture, they will be less willing to give." 20 This analysis is consistent with recent public statements from foundation executives that the private sector will not make up the gap resulting from decreases in NEA funding, despite record levels of private giving in recent years. Cowen's conclusion: "