Back in the day, I took a few years leave from academia to work in the public service, as a policy advisor to the Cabinet of the government of the province of Saskatchewan. We would receive from various line departments proposals for policy changes or new initiatives, and a large part of my job was to work with our team to evaluate these proposals and write up advice to the Cabinet. I have never forgotten how my boss in this office approached proposals: she would ask, as a gateway question, “what problem are they trying to solve?” If there was no clear answer, then the policy proposal was immediately in trouble. If there was a clear answer, and it seemed like an important problem to address, then we could get started on the details. This approach would also give us, some years down the line, a starting point for evaluating the policy: “it was meant to do this – did it work?”
It is a bit of a fad right now in the arts policy world to look at Guaranteed Income for Artists (GIA). There are programs and pilots in Ireland, Scotland, Minnesota, and elsewhere. The fine details and the amounts differ, but the concept is straightforward: artists apply to the program, a limited number are selected, by lottery or some other method, and they are given a stipend of income per month (which is, of course, taxable). They can do what they want with this income, and there is no requirement for art actually produced – it is entirely “no strings attached”.
What problem is this meant to solve?
Well, it is tough being an artist, no doubt. Most struggle financially, need to scramble for non-art work sources of income, and are, like all of us, trying to do what needs to be done within a strict limit of twenty-four hours in the day. But that doesn’t really get to answering our question. These programs don’t fund all artists – they couldn’t possibly – and so a few get a benefit and many do not. It is good to have policies that help those who are less well off, of course. But GIA programs are narrowly and arbitrarily targeted. When I go for my morning walk in Bloomington I pass by many people in much more dire need of income assistance than artists, and even the artist program applies only to a selection. So, if the goal is simply to transfer some resources to people who are less well off, it is a hard program to justify. Give a guaranteed income to everyone, not just a handful of artists.
The organization Creatives Rebuild New York has just released its preliminary findings from its GIA program. We should emphasize preliminary here – more findings are to come later. So what do they have so far?
The first finding is that the artists who received funds from this program are happy. They used funds to pay off some debt, build a bit of savings, and they found they had more time to do things other than working as a barista. One participant is quoted:
“Not to be hyperbolic, but Guaranteed Income literally saved my life. In 2022, I was behind on rent and bills (despite working a full time 9-5). With the added boost to my income, I was able to get ahead of my finances, build up savings, and thrive instead of merely survive. Now I am inspired once more instead of my mind worrying about finances.”
But we didn’t need a study to find out if the recipient artists liked getting a monthly income supplement with no strings attached – of course they do. Anybody would. But shouldn’t we look for something more?
Well, suppose the real issue here is a more traditional arts policy one: can we support the creation and dissemination of good, interesting art? That’s what our granting agencies do, though in the US funds to individual artists, rather than nonprofit presenting organizations, are very limited.
So let’s look at GIA from that angle. How would we know the policy was working? The report notes:
Early survey analysis indicates that artists who received GI were more likely to receive grants or prizes to support or pursue their artistic work.
All right, but that doesn’t get us very far, since it is not scalable. If artists selected to the program won more grants or prizes, it simply means they got a head start over artists not in the program. If there were funds (there would never be, but bear with me) to give an allowance to each and every artist, the effect on grants and prizes won would be nil, since they are fixed in number.
And so we are left with one thing: did the program lead to the creation of good art that would otherwise never have come into being, and did an audience, even if only a small one, get the chance to experience and enjoy it? That is the “problem” the policy ought to be trying to solve, and ought to be the guide to program evaluation. The report says artists had more time to pursue their work, and that they could experiment more. That’s good, but the follow-ups will really need to focus on what happened next.
The artists receive the funds with no strings attached, no requirement to show that there was resulting success, however measured, in creating and sharing art. Fair enough, if that’s how the administrators of GIA programs want to do this. But policy analysis is different: it does require that some outcome be demonstrated, and that the outcome has to go beyond the happiness of those selected into the program. Otherwise, why are we doing this?
Cross-posted at https://michaelrushton.substack.com/
I appreciate your take. I would offer pushback on the idea that we need “good art.” Who defines what is good? What space do artists who live in the USA, who are– for the most part– poor people trying to survive in this country, have to dream, imagine, fail when they are constantly hustling to make ends meet? When artists do get support from a grant to make art, it is tied to creating a product which they must produce if they want to keep the money, which means they don’t have any margin for failure.
GIA gives artists space to fail. Space to make the “bad” art that, maybe, will inform their artistic process in the future. I think a longer-term goal could be looking at these artists’ work in 50 years. Were they able to build a life for themselves as an artist with the support from GIA? If they were already an established artist, how much more has their work been able to bring people together, or challenge society’s assumptions, or make people smile, or show up in community for other artists or… whatever it is they want to do with their work?
I agree that it’s necessary to be clear about goals for a program and consider how we can collect data to assess these goals, but I think we need to be more expansive with the goals and make room for “bad” art and for failure.
Thank you for your comment. Yes, fair point, in terms of the results of a GIA program in terms of art, scope has to be given that the real impact might take many years to come to fruition, and allowance ought to be made for that. In the end though, which might be quite a few years down the line, there has to be *something* that shows that indeed this was a program that improved the creation and dissemination and enjoyment of art, that there is something we can point to beyond the fact that this made life better for the artists selected for the program.