|
ROLE OF MODEL |
WHERE USED |
POLICY OBJECTIVE |
FUNDING MECHANISM |
STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
FACILITATOR |
USA |
Diversity |
Tax expenditures and incentives |
S: diversity of funding sources W: excellence not necessarily supported; valuation of tax costs; benefits for benefactors; calculation of tax cost |
|
PATRON |
UK, Australia |
Excellence International standards |
Arm’s length Peer evaluation |
S: support for excellence W: favours traditional elite artforms |
|
ARCHITECT |
France |
Social welfare Industry assistance |
Department and Ministry of Culture |
S: relief from box office dependence; secures training and career structure W: Creative directives lead to stagnation and resistance |
|
ENGINEER |
Former Soviet countries, Cuba, Korea |
Political education, National culture |
Government ownership of artistic production |
S: focus creative energy to attain political goals W: subservience; underground; counter-intuitive outcomes |
|
ELITE NURTURER[1] |
Major Organisational Fund (Australia) |
Selective elite development |
Direct government ongoing funding of cultural organisations |
S: encourage excellence, financial stability W: insulates organisations from external influences/forces |
|
[1] NB. Cummings and Katz refer to this as the Elite Gambler model. I prefer the term Elite Nurturer since it involves cosseting chosen organisations rather than betting on them (see Craik 1996). |
||||
Source: Adapted from Harry Hillman-Chartrand and Claire McCaughey (1989) ‘The arm’s length principle and the arts: an international perspective — past, present and future’, in M. Cumming and M. Schuster (eds) Who’s to pay for the Arts? The International Search for Models of Support New York: American Council for the Arts Books, pp. 54-55.