Politics, management, and the allocation of arts funding: evidence from public support for the arts in the UK

References

• Akaike, Hirotugu, 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 19 (6), 716–723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S. and Snyder, J.M., 2006. Party control of state government and the distribution of public expenditures. Scandinavian journal of economics, 108 (4), 547–569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, R.Douglas, 1979. Congress and the bureaucracy: a theory of influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arts Council England, 2011. Investment in the arts. Available from: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/investment-in-arts/.
   Google Scholar
• Arts Council England, 2013. How we assess applications. Available from: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/apply-for-funding/grants-for-the-arts/after-you-apply/how-we-assess-applications/ [Accessed 26 March 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Arts Council England, North West Official, 2007. Interview by author, Manchester, UK, September 13.
   Google Scholar
• Audit Commission. 2005. CPA – the harder test. Local Government Annual Report, October 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Balla, S.J., et al., 2002. Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the distribution of legislative pork. American journal of political science, 46 (3), 515–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belfiore, Eleonora, 2002. Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: does it really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK. International journal of cultural policy, 8 (1), 91–106.
   Google Scholar
• Belfiore, Eleonora, 2007. Auditing culture: the subsidised cultural sector in the new public management. International journal of cultural policy, 10 (2), 183–202.
   Google Scholar
• Bertelli, Anthony M. and Grose, Christian R., 2009. Secretaries of pork? A new theory of distributive public policy. Journal of politics, 71 (3), 926–945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertelli, Anthony and John, Peter, 2010. Government checking government: how performance measures expand distributive politics. Journal of politics, 72 (2), 545–558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickers, Kenneth N. and Stein, Robert M., 1996. The electoral dynamics of the federal pork barrel. American journal of political science, 40 (4), 1300–1326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickers, Kenneth N. and Stein, Robert M., 2000. The congressional pork barrel in a republican era. Journal of politics, 62 (4), 1070–1086.
   Google Scholar
• Blaug, Mark, 2001. Where are we now on cultural economics? Journal of economic surveys, 15, 123–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyne, George A., et al., 2009. Democracy and government performance: holding incumbents accountable in English local governments. Journal of politics, 71 (4), 1273–1284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, Trevor L. and Potoski, Matthew, 2003. Contract-management capacity in municipal and county governments. Public administration review, 63 (2), 153–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess, P.M., 1975. Capacity building and the elements of public management. Public administration review, 35, 705–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John and Fiorina, Morris, 1987. The personal vote: constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K., 1998. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, Noel, 1987. Can government funding of the arts be justified theoretically? Journal of aesthetic education, 21, 21–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, W.G., 2009. Swing voters, core voters, and distributive politics. In: I. Shapiro, S.C. Stokes, E.J. Wood and A.S. Kirshner, eds. Political Representation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 342–357.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, Gary and McCubbins, Mathew, 1986. Electoral politics as a redistributive game. The journal of politics, 48, 370–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtice, John and Steed, Michael, 1982. Electoral choice and the production of government: the changing operation of the electoral system in the United Kingdom since 1955. British journal of political science, 12, 249–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denemark, David, 2000. Partisan pork barrel in parliamentary systems: Australian constituency-level grants. Journal of politics, 62 (3), 896–915.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz-Cayeros, A., Magaloni, B. and Weingast, B. 2000. Federalism and democratization in Mexico. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association, 31 August–3 September, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Dixit, A. and Londregan, J., 1996. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of politics, 58, 1132–1155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donahue, Amy Kneedler, Selden, Sally Coleman and Ingraham, Patricia W., 2000. Measuring government management capacity: a comparative analysis of city human resources management systems. Journal of public administration research and theory, 10 (2), 381–411.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, Diana, 1994. Policy and pork: the use of pork barrel projects to build policy coalitions in the house of representatives. American journal of political science, 38 (4), 894–917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, Diana, 2004. Greasing the wheels. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Game, C., 2006. Comprehensive performance assessment in English local government. International journal of productivity and performance management, 55, 466–479.
   Google Scholar
• Gargan, John J., 1987. Local government financial management capacity: a political perspective. Public administration quarterly, 11 (3), 246–276.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, Clive, 2000. The politics of the arts in Britain. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, Clive, 2002. Local government and the arts. Local government studies, 28 (1), 77–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, Clive, 2008. Instrumental policies: causes, consequences, museums and galleries. Cultural trends, 17 (4), 209–222.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J.L., 2008a. Assessing local capacity for federal grant-getting. The American review of public administration, 38 (4), 463–479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J.L., 2008b. The forgotten regional organizations: creating capacity for economic development. Public administration review, 68 (1), 110–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handley, D.M., 2008. Strengthening the intergovernmental grant system: long-term lessons for the federal–local relationship. Public administration review, 68 (1), 126–136.
   Google Scholar
• Haubrich, Dirk and McLean, Ian, 2006. Assessing public service performance in local authorities through CPA – a research note on deprivation. National institute economics review, 197 (1), 93–105.
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, J.A., Hall, B.H. and Griliches, Z., 1984. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents – R & D relationship. Econometrica, 52, 909–938.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, A., et al., 1999. Between first and second order: a comparison of voting behaviour in European and local elections in Britain. European journal of political research, 35, 389–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honadle, B.W., 1981. A capacity-building framework: a search for concept and purpose. Public administration review, 41 (5), 575–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn, Murray J., 1995. The political economy of public administration: institutional choice in the public sector. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hou, Yilin, Moynihan, Donald P. and Ingraham, Patricia Wallace, 2003. Capacity, management and performance: exploring the links. American review of public administration, 33 (3), 295–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsiao, Cheng, 2003. Analysis of panel data. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hy, Ronald John, Boland, Cindy, Hopper, Richard and Sims, Richard, 1993. Measuring revenue capacity and effort of county governments: a case study of Arkansas. Public administration review, 53 (3), 220–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, O. and John, P., 2007. Public management at the ballot box: performance information and electoral support for incumbent English local governments. Journal of public administration research and theory, 17 (4), 567–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, Peter, Ward, Hugh and Dowding, Keith, 2004. The bidding game: competitive funding regimes and political targeting of urban program schemes. British journal of political science, 34 (3), 405–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Frances E., 1998. Representation and public policy: the consequences of senate apportionment for the geographic distribution of federal funds. Journal of politics, 60 (1), 34–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Frances E., 2000. Senate representation and coalition building in distributive politics. American political science review, 94 (1), 59–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Frances E., 2003. Geographic politics in the US house of representatives: coalition building and distribution of benefits. American journal of political science, 47 (4), 714–728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Frances E., 2004. Bicameralism and geographic politics: allocating funds in the house and senate. Legislative studies quarterly, 29 (2), 185–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt, S.D. and Snyder, J.M., 1995. Political parties and the distribution of federal outlays. American journal of political science, 39 (4), 958–980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, Gregory B. and Rushton, Michael, 2007. Understanding state spending on the arts, 1976–99. State & local government review, 39 (2), 107–114.
   Google Scholar
• McCaughey, Claire, 2005. Comparisons of arts funding in selected countries: preliminary findings. Ottowa: Canada Council for the Arts.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, Mark, 1995. Creating public value: strategic management in government. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D.P., 2008. The dynamics of performance management: constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noonan, Douglas S., 2007. Fiscal pressures, institutional context, and constituents: a dynamic model of states’ arts agency appropriations. Journal of cultural economics, 31 (4), 293–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton, Philip and Wood, David M., 1993. Back from Westminster. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
   Google Scholar
• Peacock, Alan, 2000. Public financing of the arts in England. Fiscal studies, 21, 171–205.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, Ruth-Blandina M., 1998. Public policy and the arts: a comparative study of Great Britain and Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd..
   Google Scholar
• Rallings, Colin and Thrasher, Michael, 1997. Local elections in Britain. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Reif, K. and Schmitt, H., 1980. Nine second-order national elections: a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European journal of political research, 8 (1), 3–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelli, F., 2008. Performance competition in local media markets. Journal of public economics, 92 (7), 1585–1594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, M.J., 1989. Distributive politics and the allocation of federal grants. The American political science review, 83 (1), 193–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze, Gunther G. and Rose, Anselm, 1998. Public orchestra funding in Germany – an empirical investigation. Journal of cultural economics, 22 (4), 227–247.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, Allen J., 1997. The cultural economy of cities. International journal of urban and regional research, 21 (2), 323–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Society Guardian, 2004. Q&A: comprehensive performance assessment. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/dec/16/bestvalue [Accessed 15 December].
   Google Scholar
• Stein, Robert N. and Bickers, Kenneth N., 1994. Congressional elections and the pork barrel. Journal of politics, 56 (2), 377–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, Deborah, McKay, Kieryn and Rowe, David, 2010. Tracing British cultural policy domains: contexts, collaborations and constituencies. International journal of cultural policy, 16 (2), 159–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoker, Gerry, 2006. Public value management a new narrative for networked governance? American review of public administration, 36 (1), 41–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokes, Susan C., 2005. Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American political science review, 99, 315–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannenwald, Robert, 1999. Fiscal disparity among the states revisited. New England economic review, July–August, 3–25.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, Hugh and John, Peter, 1999. Targeting benefits for electoral gain: constituency marginality and the distribution of grants to English local authorities. Political studies, 47 (1), 32–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, Halbert, 1982. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica, 50 (1), 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, John D., 2004. The fiscal impact of economic growth and development on local government revenue capacity. Journal of public budgeting, accounting and financial management, 16 (3), 413–423.
   Google Scholar