S.O.S. or Subsidy for Our Screen and An Examination of Subsidy Abroad

Discourse about the impact of art has been prominent in academic and arts industry discourse over the past two decades. Contention in the discourse has led to the call for new research frameworks that place the experience of the individual as central to understanding the impact of art. The authors present the background of this discourse and outline narrative inquiry as a research method that elicits individual experiences. The authors present the findings of a narrative inquiry and establish that the way individuals experience art and its impact is far broader in scope than previous research suggests.     

The Advantage of Proximity: The Distinctive Role of Local Government in Cultural Policy

The arts and cultural sector has historically relied on funding from state and federal levels of government. Increasingly, however, local government has become a source of distinctive cultural policy making and a provider of significant funding for arts and cultural activities. The paper notes the relative absence of analyses of the role of local government in policy literature. It argues that with the recent proliferation of dedicated local cultural policies and plans, the attention of scholars is warranted. Through an analysis of the cultural plans of five local councils around Australia, the paper argues that the distinctive feature of cultural policy at the local level is a function of local government's proximity to its constituents, flexibility in decision‐making and the discretionary nature of its expenditure.     

Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance

Lower courts in the United States are generally responsive to specific precedents and trends in the decisionmaking of their judicial superiors. In this article, we ask why. We test one popular explanation—that compliance can be attributed to judges' fear of having their decisions reversed—through an analysis of search and seizure cases decided in the U.S. Courts of Appeals between 1961 and 1990. Since the Supreme Court cannot reverse a decision unless it agrees to review it, we ask whether circuit judges are more likely to decide as the Supreme Court would be expected to when they face cases that are otherwise more likely to be reviewed by the Court. Finding that they are not, we conclude that fear of reversal cannot account for widespread circuit court compliance in these cases, nor, presumably, more generally. More broadly, our findings point to the importance of factors apart from supervisors and the threat of sanctions in determining subordinates' compliance.