In times of economic crisis—when hunger and unemployment dominate headlines—many argue that government funding for the arts should be suspended in favor of more “urgent” needs. While the desire to prioritize food security and job creation is understandable, I believe that cutting support for the arts is neither a sustainable nor effective solution. The arts are not just aesthetic embellishments—they are integral to cultural identity, emotional resilience, and even economic recovery. In this post, I’ll explore both sides of this debate and ultimately argue why governments should continue supporting the arts, even during financial hardship.
When Suspending Arts Funding Might Seem Justified
There are scenarios in which suspending or redirecting arts funding could be temporarily advantageous. In times of natural disasters or national emergencies, the immediate need to feed, house, and employ citizens may take precedence over sustaining artistic programs.
For instance, during the 2008 global financial crisis, the Greek government controversially slashed arts funding to stabilize its economy. Similarly, in the wake of major earthquakes or floods, countries often reallocate budgets from cultural projects to relief efforts.
In such moments, temporarily reducing arts funding may feel like a responsible trade-off to safeguard human lives and livelihoods.
Why Cutting Arts Funding Is a Mistake in the Long Run
1. The Arts Preserve Culture and Build Resilience
The arts play a critical role in preserving cultural identity, promoting unity, and fostering emotional well-being—especially in difficult times. During the COVID-19 pandemic, people turned to music, literature, virtual museum tours, and films for comfort. Removing access to these outlets can deepen a nation’s sense of despair and disconnect.
2. The Arts Industry Drives Economic Activity
The arts are not just expressive—they are economic drivers. In the U.S. alone, the arts and culture sector contributes over $166 billion in economic activity and supports more than 4.6 million jobs (source: Americans for the Arts). Cutting funding can actually exacerbate unemployment by leading to widespread layoffs across museums, theaters, orchestras, and film institutions.
3. Global Reputation and Tourism
In countries like France, Italy, and Japan—where culture is a cornerstone of national identity—suspending arts funding could hurt tourism, international partnerships, and soft power. These sectors often rely on public investment to maintain quality and accessibility.
4. Funding the Arts Is Often a Small Slice of the Budget
Contrary to popular belief, arts budgets are typically a small fraction of overall government spending. Redirecting these funds may have a symbolic impact but is unlikely to meaningfully resolve large-scale issues like national hunger or unemployment.
Real-World Consequences of Arts Cuts
In 2011, Philadelphia proposed cuts to arts funding that threatened to shutter several community cultural centers and eliminate dozens of jobs. The public backlash highlighted how deeply citizens value accessible arts programming.
Meanwhile, countries that maintained or increased arts funding during downturns—like South Korea and Germany—have seen measurable returns in national morale, social cohesion, and creative industry growth.
Example of a High-Scoring GRE Essay
To help illustrate how to approach this issue on the GRE, here’s an example of a well-structured, high-scoring essay response to the prompt: “Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.” This sample response clearly takes a stance, considers both sides of the issue, and uses logical reasoning supported by real-world examples.
Essay Title: A Balanced Society Requires Both Bread and Beauty
The claim that nations should suspend government funding for the arts when large portions of the population are hungry or unemployed is rooted in the noble desire to prioritize urgent human needs. However, I strongly disagree with this recommendation. While addressing hunger and unemployment is undeniably critical, eliminating support for the arts can produce unintended consequences that harm society both economically and emotionally. A truly resilient nation must invest in both its people’s survival and their spirit.
First, the arts are more than an aesthetic luxury—they are a source of economic vitality. The arts and culture sector employs millions of people worldwide and generates billions in economic activity. In times of recession or widespread unemployment, slashing funding for the arts can further weaken job prospects and damage local economies. For example, in the United States, the nonprofit arts industry alone generates over $160 billion in annual economic activity and supports more than 4 million full-time jobs. Cutting this funding could paradoxically worsen unemployment—the very problem the policy seeks to solve.
Second, arts serve as a powerful tool for collective healing, education, and civic engagement—especially during times of crisis. Art helps communities cope with hardship by offering spaces for expression, dialogue, and cultural preservation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to music, film, literature, and virtual museum experiences helped many people manage isolation and anxiety. Defunding the arts during times of crisis would deprive citizens of these important resources just when they are most needed.
Of course, it is reasonable to expect some budgetary recalibrations during extreme emergencies. Governments may need to temporarily redirect funding to ensure access to food, healthcare, or job creation. But a wholesale suspension of support for the arts is a short-sighted solution. Instead, public leaders should pursue balanced strategies—such as forging partnerships with private donors, adjusting grant timelines, or introducing targeted relief for both artistic and humanitarian sectors.
In conclusion, suspending funding for the arts during economic hardship may appear pragmatic on the surface, but it undermines the very systems that support economic resilience, social cohesion, and national identity. Rather than pitting bread against beauty, governments should find ways to nourish both. A thriving society requires not only full stomachs but also full hearts and minds.
Conclusion
While the instinct to prioritize basic needs over the arts during times of hardship is understandable, doing so ignores the long-term value of the arts to a nation’s identity, economy, and emotional well-being. Rather than eliminating funding, governments should explore balanced solutions—such as public-private partnerships, flexible grants, and targeted investments—that preserve cultural vitality without neglecting core necessities.
In the end, the arts are not a luxury to be afforded only in good times. They are a vital investment in the health, resilience, and future of society.
Key Takeaways
- The arts provide emotional and cultural stability, especially during crises.
- Arts industries create jobs and stimulate economic growth.
- Government funding for the arts is typically modest compared to other budget priorities.
- Suspending arts funding can harm public morale, national identity, and long-term recovery.