Search

Over the past three decades, those advocating for arts funding have shifted their arguments. When the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) was created in 1965, its supporters praised arts and culture for their uplifting qualities, and for their ability to counterbalance trends toward materialism and militarism. By the 1990s, arts advocates were far more likely to use instrumentalist arguments, showing that investment in arts and culture produce other desirable benefits, most notably economic development advances. This article reviews the changing discourse of arts advocacy in several ways: (1) by reviewing and coding Congressional debates on arts funding from 1965–2000, (2) reviewing arts coverage in the New York Times and selected arts periodicals during this same time period. Comparing this case to others in the literature on policy redefinition, the paper argues that cultural advocates have consciously reframed their arguments to broaden their appeal in the face new and more threatening opposition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science and technology policy initiatives in the early 1980s have focused in both the United States and Western Europe on improving capacity to apply a good science base in practice, expecting increases in technological advancement, improved market presence and enhanced economic growth. Results varied broadly in the United States and Europe. Even more puzzling, Japan charged ahead in technological advancement without that strong of a science base of its own. Some industrialized economies do not conform to the expected science–technology relationship, whereby strong performance in science shall lead to strong technological performance. The puzzling science–technology relationship in advanced countries has plausible explanations. (1) Science–technology relationship is much interdependent or symbiotic. Its strength and primary direction at a given time varies largely by field of science or technological innovation and across long periods of time. (2) Science–technology link in a country may depend on the overall scientific and technological level of development in that country. The strength and interdependent nature of this link evolves historically and varies across fields of science and technology. The strength of the link is affected by scientific and technological specialization in a country. Different technological fields have different scientific intensities, or degrees of building upon the science base. (3) Specialization of countries across scientific and technological fields varies. Hence, the strength of science–technology link differs between countries. High technological specialization of a country may impact its technological performance more than its immediately current scientific performance does. History, tradition and knowledge transfers may affect more returns on R&D expenditures than the actual value of R&D funds spent in science or technology. Explanations of puzzling behavior of science–technology link may become policy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]