Skip to main content
Log in

Art and technology: A comparative study of policy legitimation

  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The legitimation of technology policy is discussed from the point of view of the neoclassical and of the dynamic, Schumpeterian, approach. The results are presented, using the traditional categories of policy legitimation in welfare theory: public goods, externalities, and merit goods. Art policy legitimation is discussed within the same conceptual framework. The application of the dynamic approach to art policy leads to conclusions similar to the general conclusions about technology policy. A review of the postwar development of (Dutch) art policy supports the impression that art policy may be on its way to become a subspecies of technology policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbing, H.R. (1980) ‘On the Rationale of Public Support to the Arts: Externalities in the Arts Revisited’, in W.S. Hendon (ed.)Economic Policy for the Arts. Cambridge Mass., pp. 34–42.

  • Abbing H.R. (1989)Een Economie van de Kunsten. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1961) ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources to Innovation’, in R.R. Nelson (ed.)The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 619–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derain, J.C. (1990)America's Struggle for Leadership in Technology. Paris: Albin Michel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duijn, J.J. van (1983)The Long Wave in Economic Life. London: Geogre Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., J. Clark, and L. Soete (1982)Unemployment and Technical Innovation. London: Francis Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, D. (1991) ‘On Justification for Public Support of the Arts’,Journal of Cultural Economics 15, 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gombrich, E.H. (1982)The Story of Art. Oxford: Phaidon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grampp, W.D. (1989)Pricing the Priceless. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P.H. (1986) ‘The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An Overview’, in P.H. Hall (ed.)Technology, Innovation and Public Policy. Oxford: Phillip Allan, pp. 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hietbrink, S., F. van Puffelen, and J.A.M. Wesseling (1985)De Economische Betekenis van de Profesionele Kunsten in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Stichting voor Economisch Onderzoek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabel, J.J.C. (1991) ‘Beeldende Kunst en Auteursrecht’, inKunst en Beleid in Nederland, vol. 5. Amsterdam: Boekmanstichting/Van Gennep, pp. 67–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinknecht, A. (1986)Innovation Patterns in Crisis and Prosperity. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R.C. (1988) ‘Appropriability, R&D spending and technological performance’,American Economic Review 78, 424–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1985) ‘How Rapidly does New Industrial Technology Leak Out?’,Journal of Industrial Economics 34, 217–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., J. Rapoport, A. Romeo, E. Villani, S. Wagner, and F. Husic (1977)The Production and Application of New Industrial Technology. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martorella, R. (1990)Corporate Art. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery D.C. and N. Rosenberg (1990)Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerscough, J. (1988)The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain. London: Policy Studies Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.R. and S.G. Winter (1982)An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Y.-K. (1979)Welfare Economics. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterbaan Martinius, W. (1990)Schoonheid, Welzijn, Kwaliteit: Kunstbeleid en Verantwoording na 1945. Den Haag: Gary Schwartz/SDU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, A. (1991) ‘Economics, Cultural Values and Cultural Policies’,Journal of Cultural Economics 15, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radich, A.J. (ed.) (1987)The Economic Impact of the Arts. Washington D.C.: National Conference of State Legislatures.

  • Rostow, W.W. (1960)The Stages of Economic Growth. New York.

  • Rostow, W.W. (1978)The World Economy. Methuen: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F.M. (1980)Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F.M. (1984)Innovation and Growth. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scitovsky, T. (1972) ‘What's Wrong with the Arts is What's Wrong with Society’,American Economic Review 62, 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R.M. (1957) ‘Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function’,Review of Economics and Statistics 39, 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungern-Sternberg, Th. von (1984) ‘Innovator Protection and the Rate of Technical Progress’,Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 5, 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijnberg, N.M. (1990)Innovation, Competition and Small Enterprises. Alblasserdam: Haveka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woude, A.M. van der (1991) ‘De Schilderijproduktie in Holland tijdens de Republiek’, in J.C. Dagevos, P.H. van Druenen, P.Th. van der Laar and P.R.A. Oeij (eds.)Kunstzaken. Kampen: Kok Agora, pp. 18–51.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wijnberg, N.M. Art and technology: A comparative study of policy legitimation. J Cult Econ 18, 3–13 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207149

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207149

Key words

Navigation