The Lively Arts as Substitutes for the Lively Arts

Abstract

The notion that the price of substitutes serves as a determinant of lively arts demand is hardly new. It dates back decades at least to the seminal work by William Baumol and William Bowen (1966, p. 244), who contended that movies substitute for live performances. Susan Touchstone (1980, p. 36), examining lively arts demand in the United States, followed the lead of Baumol and Bowen by defining substitute price in terms of movie admission, while Glenn Withers (1980, p. 739), also for the United States, cast it in terms of reading or recreation. I (1984, p. 462) considered both types of measures in connection with a study of the demand for Shakespeare in Great Britain. But surely if movies or reading or recreation are substitutes for the lively arts, then so are those arts themselves. Should Richard II become dearer, an individual might elect to attend La Boheme or Fidelio or Swan Lake rather than to sit through Superman II. The lively arts are not homogeneous. Each has its own set of characteristics, and consequently substitutes lie within the arts spectrum. Apart from fleeting acknowledgment by, say, Alan Peacock (1981, p. 3), this point has been ignored by demand analyses to date. It is not ignored here.