Analysis of article using Artificial Intelligence tools
|Author||Arikan, Y., ; Clark, T., N.; Noonan, D., S.; Tolley, G.,|
|Title||The arts, Bohemian scenes, and income.|
Arikan, Y.; Clark, T.N.; Noonan, D.S.; Tolley, G. (2019). The arts, Bohemian scenes, and income. Cultural Trends, 28(5): 404-416. DOI:10.1080/09548963.2019.1680013
|Keywords||Neighbourhood revitalization; Income growth; Arts; Scenescapes; Culture-led regeneration; Creative placemaking; Local economic development
|Link to article|| https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2019.1680013
|Abstract||Where and how does arts activity drive neighbourhood revitalization? We explore the impact of arts establishments on income in US zip codes, nationally and across quantiles (from four to seven subgroups) of zip codes stratified by disadvantage (based on income and ethnicity/race). We focus on what is new here: how neighbourhood scenes or the mixes of amenities mediate relationships between the arts and income. One dramatic finding is that more bohemian/hip neighbourhoods tend to have less income, contradicting the accounts from Jane Jacobs, Richard Florida and others. Arts and bohemia generate opposing effects, which emerge if we study not a few cases like Greenwich Village, but use more careful measures and larger number of cases. Some arts factors that distinctly influence neighbourhood income include the number of arts establishments; type and range of arts establishments; levels of disadvantage in a neighbourhood; and specific pre and coexisting neighbourhood amenities. Rock, gospel and house music appeal to distinct audiences. Our discussion connects this vitalizing role for arts activity to broader community development dynamics. These overall results challenge the view that the arts simply follow, not drive, wealth, and suggest that arts-led strategies can foster neighbourhood revitalization across a variety of income, ethnic, and other contexts.
|Metodology||Authors examine the impact of arts establishments on income across the entire US and among disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Their empirical analysis employs linear regressions predicting median household income in 2008–12 (American Community Survey 5-year estimate) at the zip code level for the entire US. Over 20,000 usable postal codes (Census zip code tabulation areas or ZCTAs) have relatively stable boundaries. These boundaries are not coterminous with the multiple meanings of “neighbourhood” or “community”, but they provide a far more nuanced analysis than national, metro, county- or city-level data. The large numbers are far better for multi-causal analysis than most past arts studies. Estimating arts impact generally confronts concerns about endogeneity (e.g. Noonan, 2013), especially if the growth of arts (as a luxury) follows economic prosperity, and even more so if policymakers and planners target areas of rising affluence for arts growth. The authors' analysis mitigates endogeneity concerns by not pooling all neighbourhoods together (which could generate results from wealthy neighbourhoods driving arts growth), but instead examines the relationship of arts and income varying within and across subtypes of neighbourhoods. Authors have elsewhere explored many other variables and models specifying, for example relative feedback effects of arts on income and income on arts activities, summarized in Silver and Clark (2016).