This week saw the firing of Andy Gray from Sky Sports, for two filmed incidents of sexism. If he or Richard Keys claimed that women didn’t know the offside law that was totally crass. It is so plainly daft that I wonder if they were just sending themselves up, but seemingly the incident was not isolated so Gray was fired. Well done Sky Sports for taking a stand, even if the result is that they, and we, lose a superb football analyst. People in positions of responsibility have to be held to account.
I guess this is a sign of progress. I believe that acceptance of difference is one of the hallmarks of civilisation, and in many fields progress has been spectacular. Take gender as an example. 200 years ago women were not allowed to sing. 100 years ago they were not allowed to vote. 50 years ago they were excluded from all golf clubs.
There is still a way to go, even if Gray represents a diminishing minority. Women still have to defer to younger male siblings to become monarchs. In my opinion shamefully we still cannot have female Roman Catholic priests – a job unusually suitable for a woman if ever there was one. In India or China a female is quite likely to be aborted or killed at birth. And many other societies still institutionalise gender discrimination. Religion can be wonderful, but it can also block progress.
Although women often still get less for the same job as men, bringing women into the workforce has arguably been one of the great drivers of growth and progress since 1950, both through adding quantity and quality. Yet throughout my career I witnessed discrimination. Some jobs were considered too physical, or too requiring of odd hours, to be suitable for women, an opinion acted on without actually consulting any women. I often heard that customers in some parts of the world would not accept women. Later, the excuse that fewer females graduated in relevant areas was made. All these arguments had a self fulfilling and reinforcing effect, and needed to be challenged, just like Gray and his ilk.
That is where quotas and laws came in. Because of inbuilt prejudice, I support these. Some examples are just good, such as not being allowed to ask a 30 year-old woman about her family plans since men are not routinely asked the same. But, necessary as they are, there is a downside to quotas. Inevitably, quotas work against free competition and therefore sacrifice merit. I believe I have seen many more over-promoted women than men over the years. The result is bad for the business, bad for the women themselves, and bad for embedding prejudice. But often there is no alternative. That is what makes Gray’s remark so shameful, since the few female officials in professional soccer in the UK have come through a transparent merit-based system, at least in recent times.
While gender inequality persists, we can still celebrate progress. One clear outcome is stronger, more creative businesses and departments, more closely understanding their customer’s needs. As usual, the Nordics lead the way. Here, a key enabler has been the provision of truly excellent child care. That is one of those government investments which clearly pay back over time. In 30 years time, maybe Western countries will have achieved full equality. I hope so.
Back to sports, should women’s sport not generally command equal airtime and wages? Tennis leads the way, but in most sports women are very much the poor relations. On this one fair play to Sky, who do give airtime to women’s sports. The answer lies in what the customers want, and in my opinion fair enough, so long as it is given a fair chance to build a following. If men are so much more skilled or fast or exciting to watch in a particular sport, and audience figures support that, then they should command a premium. In that respect, female tennis has got away with a spectacularly good deal for a long time now.
But, just as we need quotas to overcome established prejudice in business, so we should have them in sports. Otherwise female sports face a vicious circle of underfunding, lack of improvement and low audiences. So, like golf seems to, give women a good run, a chance to develop a following. Staging a women’s match just before a men’s one, or a women’s tournament in parallel, is a good way forward. But, once the sport is established, the audience and the market should rule.
Gender is only one form of prejudice. We have prejudice based on age, religion, disability, race, schooling or background, sexual preference, you name it. Together, they represent perhaps the biggest block to human progress, as every bias counts against meritocratic outcomes.
Slowly, Western societies manage to go forward. When I was at school, we routinely bullied mixed race kids, and laughed at “Love thy neighbour”. Anyone doing something a bit dumb was labelled Spastic. My mum still has something against Catholics, even though she wouldn’t recognise one if she saw one and couldn’t describe any meaningful difference between Catholics and others. One of the worst parental fears remains that their child will announce themselves as gay. Yet combating homophobia has probably seen the greatest advance of all over the last ten years. It was only that long ago that I shrunk back when a gay man tried to hug me.
What more can we do? I believe this is one of those many areas where liberals should speak up more, celebrating progress and pointing to the benefits. “Politically correct” has become an easy insult, yet usually the people arguing against it are in fact defending some prejudice or other. Sometimes things are taken too far – for example, I found it weird that I wasn’t allowed to ask someone’s age at an interview. If politically correct means providing ladies toilets, or disabled access, or combating racism then I’m all in favour of it. If you are too, then join me in defending this progress.
Sorry Andy, your analysis is brilliant but you are way out of order, your time is up.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Solving the pensions crisis
Pensions are a big issue. The basic reason is that we are now living so long. Whereas fifty years ago the typical person only drew a pension for five to ten years, that has increased now to twenty or thirty years. That is probably a four fold increase within a generation. And who knows how long we will all be living in thirty years from now?
Neither countries nor companies have done enough to catch up. One of the biggest factors in all the debts of rich world countries are pension liabilities. Part of it is paying state funded old aged pensions to all older folk, but a bigger chunk is typically the full pensions of people who worked in the public sector.
As an example, the British post office is a solid little business operationally, even though we don’t post as many letters as we used to. What cripples it is all the pensions of retired and retiring postal workers. The government have tried to privatise it a few times, but no one will touch the pension liability.
Companies are the same. The crisis in Detroit with the big three American car manufacturers was almost exclusively a pensions crisis. Just like with the post office, these companies had an ever growing mountain of retired workers, and a declining core business which couldn’t meet the liabilities. Nowadays, whenever one company takes over another company, the biggest deal breaker is often the state of the pension liability. If you join a company or want to invest in a company, be sure to read up about its pensions.
For a time, both countries and companies were fooled by a financial trick, namely that investments always rise by more than inflation. A lot of people used to fall for the same trick when agreeing to buy endowment mortgages. It was thought that pension funds, where employees effectively invest during their careers in order to reclaim when retired, would just grow and grow, and that investment growth would pay for the extra longevity. What rubbish! We know better now after repeated busts in investment markets.
Companies have mainly taken the most important step to at least stop the problem getting worse, by removing so called final salary schemes, thus balancing out the expected receipts and liabilities, at least for new employees. It is the baby boomers who are getting a free lunch, having paid less and now likely to receive more.
Wary of unions and voters, state firms are way behind in this game. Expect this to be one of the biggest changes in the new age of deficit reduction, But it is too little too late in many cases, as the liabilities have already ballooned out of control, and everyone is loathe to renege on existing commitments.
So, apart from just blithely drifting towards unsustainable debt (the primary apparent policy in the US and elsewhere), other remedies slowly come into play. One is raising the retirement age. But baby boom voters seem to be so precious, that the acceptable rate of change is very slow. We had recent riots in France when an increase from 60 to 62 was proposed, and even in the UK, the increase from 65 to 66 only kicks in around 2020. Nonetheless, expect a lot more of this, not just of general pension ages but also of the expected retirement ages for state workers.
Defence and police forces do especially well, often picking up pensions from their early fifties. Seemingly that is an unwritten trade off against the type of work they do, though for me it would be more transparent if that came through wages.
The other game in town is persuading people to work longer voluntarily. Indeed, legislation coming through means anyone who wants to continue working can do so in many countries. This is sneakily marketed as offering opportunity to older people, and in part it is, though the primary purpose is to save pension money.
For companies, though, this leads to a problem, especially companies with many bands of seniority grades. That is because there is a strong correlation between age and seniority, indeed it is almost unheard of to demote anyone. So as people stay on longer, the company has a higher wage bill they can’t afford.
But does older always been better? You would think so if you look at company wage structures, and also the lack of retirement expectations on politicians themselves, not to mention kings or popes. Of course, age brings experience and wisdom and knowledge, and indeed older people are especially suitable for some job types, for example coaching or documentation. But are these older folk as savvy with computers? Or as familiar with new processes? Or as sprightly, or as prepared to invest more energy and effort to feed their ambition? Sometimes yes, but usually no.
So I advocate a breaking of the automatic link between seniority and age. A typical career might then follow the same pattern as now until someone reaches their mid fifties, but then suffer a gradual drop off as their ambition fades. Of course, some people would continue to improve and justify further promotion, but opening the path to demotion would have many benefits.
The company could then join in the campaign to get people to stay longer with enthusiasm rather than trepidation. People would be more ready to look at lower intensity jobs or even part time jobs, as a useful bridge towards retirement. There would be fewer burnouts or crashes as people reached their level of incompetence. Specific jobs could be designed for experienced workers, without these having disproportionate rewards. Companies would be better run, and more closely resemble societies they operate in.
Oh, and we could go a long way to solving the global pensions crisis.
Neither countries nor companies have done enough to catch up. One of the biggest factors in all the debts of rich world countries are pension liabilities. Part of it is paying state funded old aged pensions to all older folk, but a bigger chunk is typically the full pensions of people who worked in the public sector.
As an example, the British post office is a solid little business operationally, even though we don’t post as many letters as we used to. What cripples it is all the pensions of retired and retiring postal workers. The government have tried to privatise it a few times, but no one will touch the pension liability.
Companies are the same. The crisis in Detroit with the big three American car manufacturers was almost exclusively a pensions crisis. Just like with the post office, these companies had an ever growing mountain of retired workers, and a declining core business which couldn’t meet the liabilities. Nowadays, whenever one company takes over another company, the biggest deal breaker is often the state of the pension liability. If you join a company or want to invest in a company, be sure to read up about its pensions.
For a time, both countries and companies were fooled by a financial trick, namely that investments always rise by more than inflation. A lot of people used to fall for the same trick when agreeing to buy endowment mortgages. It was thought that pension funds, where employees effectively invest during their careers in order to reclaim when retired, would just grow and grow, and that investment growth would pay for the extra longevity. What rubbish! We know better now after repeated busts in investment markets.
Companies have mainly taken the most important step to at least stop the problem getting worse, by removing so called final salary schemes, thus balancing out the expected receipts and liabilities, at least for new employees. It is the baby boomers who are getting a free lunch, having paid less and now likely to receive more.
Wary of unions and voters, state firms are way behind in this game. Expect this to be one of the biggest changes in the new age of deficit reduction, But it is too little too late in many cases, as the liabilities have already ballooned out of control, and everyone is loathe to renege on existing commitments.
So, apart from just blithely drifting towards unsustainable debt (the primary apparent policy in the US and elsewhere), other remedies slowly come into play. One is raising the retirement age. But baby boom voters seem to be so precious, that the acceptable rate of change is very slow. We had recent riots in France when an increase from 60 to 62 was proposed, and even in the UK, the increase from 65 to 66 only kicks in around 2020. Nonetheless, expect a lot more of this, not just of general pension ages but also of the expected retirement ages for state workers.
Defence and police forces do especially well, often picking up pensions from their early fifties. Seemingly that is an unwritten trade off against the type of work they do, though for me it would be more transparent if that came through wages.
The other game in town is persuading people to work longer voluntarily. Indeed, legislation coming through means anyone who wants to continue working can do so in many countries. This is sneakily marketed as offering opportunity to older people, and in part it is, though the primary purpose is to save pension money.
For companies, though, this leads to a problem, especially companies with many bands of seniority grades. That is because there is a strong correlation between age and seniority, indeed it is almost unheard of to demote anyone. So as people stay on longer, the company has a higher wage bill they can’t afford.
But does older always been better? You would think so if you look at company wage structures, and also the lack of retirement expectations on politicians themselves, not to mention kings or popes. Of course, age brings experience and wisdom and knowledge, and indeed older people are especially suitable for some job types, for example coaching or documentation. But are these older folk as savvy with computers? Or as familiar with new processes? Or as sprightly, or as prepared to invest more energy and effort to feed their ambition? Sometimes yes, but usually no.
So I advocate a breaking of the automatic link between seniority and age. A typical career might then follow the same pattern as now until someone reaches their mid fifties, but then suffer a gradual drop off as their ambition fades. Of course, some people would continue to improve and justify further promotion, but opening the path to demotion would have many benefits.
The company could then join in the campaign to get people to stay longer with enthusiasm rather than trepidation. People would be more ready to look at lower intensity jobs or even part time jobs, as a useful bridge towards retirement. There would be fewer burnouts or crashes as people reached their level of incompetence. Specific jobs could be designed for experienced workers, without these having disproportionate rewards. Companies would be better run, and more closely resemble societies they operate in.
Oh, and we could go a long way to solving the global pensions crisis.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Six Months Retired
It is over six months now since I last made may daily trudge to Rijswijk to spend seven or eight hours in an office. It feels a good time to review the experience, in case anyone is contemplating a similar move. What surprises have there been?
The surprise is the lack of surprises. I had thought a long time about quitting work, and thought I was ready. I’d had the good luck to have had quite a quiet last year or two while in work, to smooth the transition. Nonetheless I expected surprises.
It is always a good idea to expect surprises. “An expectation is a premeditated disappointment”, after all. And this was a big change, into a way of life I could not rehearse. There were also the words of many people ringing in my ears. There was the crowd who found the whole idea a bit distasteful, led by my mother with many adherents, who thought that a man my age needed work to prevent a total collapse of the grey cells.
I also overheard someone reciting a tale from their Shell retirement course. I didn’t get to go on that myself, perhaps due to my lacking the age requirement. Seemingly at the start of the course, the facilitator asks everyone what they will do once they retire. The first one to reply dreams of a week of seven weekend days, filled with idle repose. Hah, scorns the facilitator, that will last you a week before you get bored! The next reply talks of round the world cruises and long-deferred family visits. Fair enough, says the sceptical facilitator, and then what?
At the time of hearing this, I was a few weeks from retirement. I dreamed of seven day weekends. I had vague thoughts of holidays but no real plans. I didn’t have many other plans either, to be honest. Would I be bored stupid within a month?
Well, no. Not for a second. I can’t recall a moment of boredom. I actually feel busier than before I retired. And the pipeline of vague plans is still exactly that – a pleasing, vague set of thoughts for future enjoyment.
Feeling busy is real, Yet many days I would struggle to say what I had achieved. The day is shorter, as I tend to get up later and wallow in the start of the day, taking time to feel awake and enjoying breakfast. I think that is one key to feeling happy and fulfilled, taking time to enjoy things, especially simple things like a meal or reading. With a 07.36AM bus to catch, that was harder to achieve in work.
Perhaps I am an exception, and have somehow tricked inevitable boredom and decline (so far). After all, I did manage a good wind down process. I’ve had a few one-off distractions in these months, notably moving house and acquiring a family. Some nice projects have come up to keep me busy. There is always blogging.
However, my sense is that most people could make a similar list. The difference may be in the mind. Many people struggle to make a transition like retirement with a positive mindset. It is not surprising. First, there is the hit to the ego of coming to recognise that you are not indispensible at work. That may be very sudden in the situation where the timing of quitting work is imposed rather than chosen. Second, there may be unresolved tensions at home, made worse by the sudden addition of time to spend together. Finally, there is the mum factor, voices ringing in ears about loss of purpose or value.
I saw “Another Year” at the weekend. I like Mike Leigh very much, with his dark but intimate portraits of real people. Even though Tom and Gerri work, you sensed that retirement would not challenge them, indeed would be a gift to them. There is little tension between them, they have balanced lives, and can laugh at themselves. There is a nice passage in the film where the character called Ken has a moan about his work. He has an age and seniority which would enable him to retire tomorrow, yet the very prospect fills him with dread.
I suppose the conclusion is about being happy with yourself. The one person you inevitably spend more time with on retirement is yourself. If being with yourself is something you enjoy, then you will have more opportunity to enjoy it. If you have inner tensions, retirement will only succeed in exposing them.
What is sad and unnecessary is that the very transition creates inner tensions in people. So make sure you start preparing early enough. Keep telling yourself that your firm could survive without you. Get out before you are pushed. Force yourself to wind down. Don’t believe your mother and other doubters. And, for the benefit of your partner and friends, don’t become your mother yourself!
The surprise is the lack of surprises. I had thought a long time about quitting work, and thought I was ready. I’d had the good luck to have had quite a quiet last year or two while in work, to smooth the transition. Nonetheless I expected surprises.
It is always a good idea to expect surprises. “An expectation is a premeditated disappointment”, after all. And this was a big change, into a way of life I could not rehearse. There were also the words of many people ringing in my ears. There was the crowd who found the whole idea a bit distasteful, led by my mother with many adherents, who thought that a man my age needed work to prevent a total collapse of the grey cells.
I also overheard someone reciting a tale from their Shell retirement course. I didn’t get to go on that myself, perhaps due to my lacking the age requirement. Seemingly at the start of the course, the facilitator asks everyone what they will do once they retire. The first one to reply dreams of a week of seven weekend days, filled with idle repose. Hah, scorns the facilitator, that will last you a week before you get bored! The next reply talks of round the world cruises and long-deferred family visits. Fair enough, says the sceptical facilitator, and then what?
At the time of hearing this, I was a few weeks from retirement. I dreamed of seven day weekends. I had vague thoughts of holidays but no real plans. I didn’t have many other plans either, to be honest. Would I be bored stupid within a month?
Well, no. Not for a second. I can’t recall a moment of boredom. I actually feel busier than before I retired. And the pipeline of vague plans is still exactly that – a pleasing, vague set of thoughts for future enjoyment.
Feeling busy is real, Yet many days I would struggle to say what I had achieved. The day is shorter, as I tend to get up later and wallow in the start of the day, taking time to feel awake and enjoying breakfast. I think that is one key to feeling happy and fulfilled, taking time to enjoy things, especially simple things like a meal or reading. With a 07.36AM bus to catch, that was harder to achieve in work.
Perhaps I am an exception, and have somehow tricked inevitable boredom and decline (so far). After all, I did manage a good wind down process. I’ve had a few one-off distractions in these months, notably moving house and acquiring a family. Some nice projects have come up to keep me busy. There is always blogging.
However, my sense is that most people could make a similar list. The difference may be in the mind. Many people struggle to make a transition like retirement with a positive mindset. It is not surprising. First, there is the hit to the ego of coming to recognise that you are not indispensible at work. That may be very sudden in the situation where the timing of quitting work is imposed rather than chosen. Second, there may be unresolved tensions at home, made worse by the sudden addition of time to spend together. Finally, there is the mum factor, voices ringing in ears about loss of purpose or value.
I saw “Another Year” at the weekend. I like Mike Leigh very much, with his dark but intimate portraits of real people. Even though Tom and Gerri work, you sensed that retirement would not challenge them, indeed would be a gift to them. There is little tension between them, they have balanced lives, and can laugh at themselves. There is a nice passage in the film where the character called Ken has a moan about his work. He has an age and seniority which would enable him to retire tomorrow, yet the very prospect fills him with dread.
I suppose the conclusion is about being happy with yourself. The one person you inevitably spend more time with on retirement is yourself. If being with yourself is something you enjoy, then you will have more opportunity to enjoy it. If you have inner tensions, retirement will only succeed in exposing them.
What is sad and unnecessary is that the very transition creates inner tensions in people. So make sure you start preparing early enough. Keep telling yourself that your firm could survive without you. Get out before you are pushed. Force yourself to wind down. Don’t believe your mother and other doubters. And, for the benefit of your partner and friends, don’t become your mother yourself!
Monday, January 3, 2011
Subsidizing Arts
I went to a ballet this week, and enjoyed it very much. The whole show was refreshing and performed with passion and joy.
At the end of the show, the production leader came forward from his curtain call and made a little speech about lobbying politicians to defend cultural subsidies. In most of Europe, especially the UK and the Netherlands, there are serious threats to these budgets as part of the general drive to get deficits under control.
I must admit I felt a bit insulted. I know the man who made the speech a little bit, and greatly admire him and the work he does. He is talented, very hard working, and also generous and inclusive. Yet on Tuesday I had paid my entrance ticket to see a show, not hear a political lecture. And I also missed any valid argumentation – he seemed to want money because he wanted it, or needed it, or had always had it.
Most of the audience seemed to sympathise with the appeal, though I believe I was not alone in questioning the choice of occasion. But it set me thinking. Why should we invest tax money into culture? Since then I’ve sought out some artists, and read a couple of articles. Typical is this one from twelve months ago. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/27/arts-funding-reasons-subsidise-creativity
My exercise so far has not convinced me at all. The starting point of course has to be that any euro for art is displacing a euro for something else. Even this simple concept seems to be beyond most artists, who appear to share the same convenient belief that money grows on trees with research scientists at Shell. We can argue about how severe budget cuts should be overall, whether starving budgets actually will spin our economies into further recessions, but that is nothing to do with arts.
By the way, that is the same with student fees in the UK. It is easy to be against putting up these fees, but most don’t really think of viable alternatives. Europe needs to save money, both short term because of recent shocks, and long term because of demographics. True, none of us like bankers and many of us don’t like military spending either, but the bald fact is that most discretionary budgets must be cut. Our mental model has to be that by choosing a lower student fee or a higher arts subsidy, we are depriving a school somewhere.
Read the arguments in the article I hyperlinked in the context of choosing between art and schools, and they fall a bit flat. The argument that everyone else gets subsidised so why shouldn’t we is the weakest of all. Some artists I have spoken too have gone further. Art should be subsidised because it always has been. And art should be subsidised because I worked hard to get my qualifications. Hmm. By that token we should still be pouring money into blacksmiths or steamboats. Sorry guys, get real.
True, investment in arts may give a return. The only artist I spoke to with any figures to bolster his case quoted a study from Italy quantifying the economic return from investing in arts, and also higher growth in towns with museums and orchestras. By the way, this artist was the only one I spoke to who actually made his own living without subsidy. No coincidence – someone with some commercial acumen thinks about his own value as well as the value of the wider sphere. True, value comes in many dimensions, but finance has to be one of them. Nonetheless, impressive though these studies may be, it is still a luxury argument in times of cutbacks. If the funds aren’t there, investments can only be made at the expense of alternative investments.
Then the article gets more emotive. Art builds the national brand, and everyone benefits. Someone else I spoke to went further and claimed that art is how we understand each other’s cultures. Maybe true, but schools do all these things too, with the benefits far more clear and universal. And if these benefits are so clear, why do they need subsidies? Why can’t art attract private investment if it is such a good thing?
The final arguments are the most daring yet also the woolliest. Art challenges power. Perhaps we should subsidise journalists too then? The only countries which stifle art also stifle democracy. So if we deprive you of your little grant for your niche early music the whole democratic edifice will crumble? Sorry, I don’t buy it.
The longer I spent researching this, the harder my heart became. I heard whining that only secure long-term funding can work, that turning taps on and off was crippling. Welcome to the real world my friend. In Shell, I can barely recall a single year when my budget wasn’t arbitrarily cut. It is not ideal. But I coped. So must we all.
I heard entitlement mentality, snobbery and laziness. Some artists seem to think that attracting an audience is a sign of lack of quality, a sort of dumbing down. They are only happy doing their obscure but authentic thing in empty halls with their few like- minded friends. And, by the way, with our money! Shell scientists, come back, all is forgiven! And then they argue that if such activities stopped, they would be lost forever. What? In this age of technology? If something is lost, perhaps it is because in some cases it is not worth keeping.
All artists agree on one thing, that the disbursement of the subsidies is flawed. In the UK, a massive share of subsidy goes to the Royal Opera House, preserving something lacking international uniqueness or deep roots mainly for the benefit of a pampered elite. Not much urban regeneration there, I feel.
Sadly, that is the nature of subsidy, it corrupts. Look at the Common Agricultural Policy, or Russia for that matter. Take away open competition, and you are usually left with cronyism. Multiply that over generations, and it gets sicker and sicker. Consider also that large, subsidised, art, may be stifling new talent rather than promoting it. How can an up and coming artist sell tickets in unequal competition with grander performances of established names?
So what are the alternatives? I cannot advocate wholesale loss of museums or orchestras, nor a retreat to musicals and X Factor as commercialism dominates completely. There are, as usual, no magic bullets. Cut the budget and some things will go that maybe ought not to. Ask for philanthropy to step in, as seems to be the American way, and this will distributed almost as inefficiently as state subsidy. We can use some regulation, and also things like bursaries or differential ticket prices, though I recognise these are very partial solutions.
I love art. I hate to think of a society devoid of culture. Of course I do not advocate less art. Yet I can only conclude from my research that a period of subsidy starvation is wholly justified, not only to protect schools, but to shake up, brutally if necessary, a sick culture.
Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.
Happy 2011, everyone. Count and cherish your blessings. Live for today.
At the end of the show, the production leader came forward from his curtain call and made a little speech about lobbying politicians to defend cultural subsidies. In most of Europe, especially the UK and the Netherlands, there are serious threats to these budgets as part of the general drive to get deficits under control.
I must admit I felt a bit insulted. I know the man who made the speech a little bit, and greatly admire him and the work he does. He is talented, very hard working, and also generous and inclusive. Yet on Tuesday I had paid my entrance ticket to see a show, not hear a political lecture. And I also missed any valid argumentation – he seemed to want money because he wanted it, or needed it, or had always had it.
Most of the audience seemed to sympathise with the appeal, though I believe I was not alone in questioning the choice of occasion. But it set me thinking. Why should we invest tax money into culture? Since then I’ve sought out some artists, and read a couple of articles. Typical is this one from twelve months ago. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/27/arts-funding-reasons-subsidise-creativity
My exercise so far has not convinced me at all. The starting point of course has to be that any euro for art is displacing a euro for something else. Even this simple concept seems to be beyond most artists, who appear to share the same convenient belief that money grows on trees with research scientists at Shell. We can argue about how severe budget cuts should be overall, whether starving budgets actually will spin our economies into further recessions, but that is nothing to do with arts.
By the way, that is the same with student fees in the UK. It is easy to be against putting up these fees, but most don’t really think of viable alternatives. Europe needs to save money, both short term because of recent shocks, and long term because of demographics. True, none of us like bankers and many of us don’t like military spending either, but the bald fact is that most discretionary budgets must be cut. Our mental model has to be that by choosing a lower student fee or a higher arts subsidy, we are depriving a school somewhere.
Read the arguments in the article I hyperlinked in the context of choosing between art and schools, and they fall a bit flat. The argument that everyone else gets subsidised so why shouldn’t we is the weakest of all. Some artists I have spoken too have gone further. Art should be subsidised because it always has been. And art should be subsidised because I worked hard to get my qualifications. Hmm. By that token we should still be pouring money into blacksmiths or steamboats. Sorry guys, get real.
True, investment in arts may give a return. The only artist I spoke to with any figures to bolster his case quoted a study from Italy quantifying the economic return from investing in arts, and also higher growth in towns with museums and orchestras. By the way, this artist was the only one I spoke to who actually made his own living without subsidy. No coincidence – someone with some commercial acumen thinks about his own value as well as the value of the wider sphere. True, value comes in many dimensions, but finance has to be one of them. Nonetheless, impressive though these studies may be, it is still a luxury argument in times of cutbacks. If the funds aren’t there, investments can only be made at the expense of alternative investments.
Then the article gets more emotive. Art builds the national brand, and everyone benefits. Someone else I spoke to went further and claimed that art is how we understand each other’s cultures. Maybe true, but schools do all these things too, with the benefits far more clear and universal. And if these benefits are so clear, why do they need subsidies? Why can’t art attract private investment if it is such a good thing?
The final arguments are the most daring yet also the woolliest. Art challenges power. Perhaps we should subsidise journalists too then? The only countries which stifle art also stifle democracy. So if we deprive you of your little grant for your niche early music the whole democratic edifice will crumble? Sorry, I don’t buy it.
The longer I spent researching this, the harder my heart became. I heard whining that only secure long-term funding can work, that turning taps on and off was crippling. Welcome to the real world my friend. In Shell, I can barely recall a single year when my budget wasn’t arbitrarily cut. It is not ideal. But I coped. So must we all.
I heard entitlement mentality, snobbery and laziness. Some artists seem to think that attracting an audience is a sign of lack of quality, a sort of dumbing down. They are only happy doing their obscure but authentic thing in empty halls with their few like- minded friends. And, by the way, with our money! Shell scientists, come back, all is forgiven! And then they argue that if such activities stopped, they would be lost forever. What? In this age of technology? If something is lost, perhaps it is because in some cases it is not worth keeping.
All artists agree on one thing, that the disbursement of the subsidies is flawed. In the UK, a massive share of subsidy goes to the Royal Opera House, preserving something lacking international uniqueness or deep roots mainly for the benefit of a pampered elite. Not much urban regeneration there, I feel.
Sadly, that is the nature of subsidy, it corrupts. Look at the Common Agricultural Policy, or Russia for that matter. Take away open competition, and you are usually left with cronyism. Multiply that over generations, and it gets sicker and sicker. Consider also that large, subsidised, art, may be stifling new talent rather than promoting it. How can an up and coming artist sell tickets in unequal competition with grander performances of established names?
So what are the alternatives? I cannot advocate wholesale loss of museums or orchestras, nor a retreat to musicals and X Factor as commercialism dominates completely. There are, as usual, no magic bullets. Cut the budget and some things will go that maybe ought not to. Ask for philanthropy to step in, as seems to be the American way, and this will distributed almost as inefficiently as state subsidy. We can use some regulation, and also things like bursaries or differential ticket prices, though I recognise these are very partial solutions.
I love art. I hate to think of a society devoid of culture. Of course I do not advocate less art. Yet I can only conclude from my research that a period of subsidy starvation is wholly justified, not only to protect schools, but to shake up, brutally if necessary, a sick culture.
Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.
Happy 2011, everyone. Count and cherish your blessings. Live for today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)