RAND CP22-2001-12, Różne dokumenty o SM

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Fall 2001
Vol. 25, No. 3
Full Alert
An Arsenal of Ideas
For the War Against
Terrorism
• Suddenly, a New NATO Agenda
• Strike at the Roots of Terrorism
• Promote Democracy and
Legitimate Governments
• Give Selected Insurgents
Selected Kinds of Support
• Fight Networks with Networks
• Reorganize to Meet Today’s
Threats
• Stop Selling Out Aviation
Security
• Use Biometrics to Protect
America
Message from the Editor
uch about the world has been “asymmetric” since
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
When military planners use the word asymmetric, they
are referring to the types of strategies and tactics used by
those who cannot compete in a conventional war. The weak
and desperate resort to asymmetric measures against the
strong, such as turning passenger airliners into guided
missiles.
The war in Afghanistan has exposed asymmetries of
other kinds. Stealth bombers have targeted opponents
operating from caves. A crucial fuel to help friendly ground
forces coordinate with advanced aircraft has been horse feed.
To promote political stability in Afghanistan, the world’s
leading democracies have sought the blessing of an aging
king upon an intertribal government.
The most striking asymmetries, or ironies, could be yet to
come. A terrorist network has reached back to the 11th century
to declare war against “the new Jewish-Crusader campaign.”
Yet the ruinous rekindling of ancient animosities may, in fact,
be accelerating the resolution of other entrenched conflicts. A
long-delayed disarmament has begun in Northern Ireland.
Russian and Chechen envoys speak of ending the war in
Chechnya. Russia and NATO almost look like allies. There is
some evidence that each of these is part of the fallout of Sept.
11.
Fall 2001 Vol. 25, No. 3
3
Change of Scene
Traditional arts organizations need to update the plot
By Kevin F. McCarthy
8
Brighter Futures
Improvements in depression care pay for themselves
By Michael Schoenbaum, Cathy Sherbourne, Lisa
Rubenstein, and Kenneth Wells
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
23
COVER STORY
Full Alert
An arsenal of ideas for the war against terrorism
Suddenly, a New NATO Agenda
By James A. Thomson
Strike at the Roots of Terrorism
By Ian O. Lesser
Promote Democracy and Legitimate Governments
By Jerrold D. Green
Give Selected Insurgents Selected Kinds of Support
By Daniel L. Byman
Fight Networks with Networks
By John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt
Reorganize to Meet Today’s Threats
By Bruce Hoffman
Stop Selling Out Aviation Security
By Brian Michael Jenkins
Use Biometrics to Protect America
By John D. Woodward, Jr.
Related Reading
Plenty of backward thinking still persists around the
world, as is evident in the stalemate between Israel and the
Palestinians. But Sept. 11 was a wake-up call to many,
particularly to America, which has both awakened to the need
for homeland defense and reawakened to the need for
international collaboration.
Our cover story proposes several specific ways to defeat
terrorism, from completely reorganizing our intelligence
bureaucracy to consistently promoting democracy around the
world. Rising to these challenges would produce the most
beautiful asymmetry of all: The maniacal attack on America
would have spurred it to become more resilient within and
more of a leader without.
On the Cover
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, begins
the Oct. 9 session with a moment of silence to honor the victims of the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. From right are NATO
Secretary General Lord Robertson, Canadian Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien, and NATO Parliamentary Assembly President Rafael Estrella.
AP/ WIDE WORLD PHOTOS / CP/ TOM HANSON
—John Godges
Correction
A report in the summer 2001 issue of the RAND Review
(“Shipshape: A Reorganized Military for a New Global Role”)
stated that “the NATO allies have roughly 300 medium-range
airlifters, compared with about 200 in the U.S. Air Force.”
Those numbers are technically accurate, but a better
comparison would have included in the U.S. total the
approximately 320 additional medium-range airlifters (C-130s)
operated by the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard.
RAND Reviewis published periodically by RAND, a nonprofit institution that helps improve
policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. Opinions are those of the
authors and do not reflect positions taken by RAND, its board, or its sponsors. Although
permission is not required to quote from articles, RAND Review should be credited. Submit
letters to Editor, RAND Review, 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-
2138, or email godges@rand.org. For extra copies of RAND Review at no charge, contact
RAND Distribution Services at (877) 584-8642 (toll free), (310) 451-7002, or send your
name, request, and postal mailing address to order@rand.org.
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Visit RAND Review at www.rand.org /publications/randreview
2
RAND REVIEW / F A L L 2001
M
C
hange ofScene
Traditional Arts Organizations Need to Update the Plot
By Kevin F. McCarthy
Arts organizations can do many things to adapt. To
begin, they can learn more about why people partici-
pate in the arts. With that knowledge, they can design
several strategies to build participation. Organizations
of all sizes, not just the midsized ones, can tailor their
programs to new audiences and increase the overall
participation of Americans in the arts.
The shifting landscape of the arts has implications
for arts policy. In the future, the market will play a larg-
er role in determining what kind of art gets produced
and how it is distributed. Access to the arts will likely
hinge on future patterns of demand. Therefore, arts
policy should shift its emphasis from increasing the
supply
of art—through public subsidies of selected
institutions and artists—to stimulating the
demand
for
all kinds of art among a wider range of Americans. This
demand-focused approach would be more likely to
increase the quantity, availability, and perhaps even
the quality of the arts nationwide.
fundamental shift is taking place in the
structure of the performing arts in Ameri-
ca. In a handful of the biggest cities, the
largest and best-known arts organizations are thriving
on star-studded productions that pull in the crowds.
Elsewhere around the country, hundreds of smaller
dance troupes, music groups, and theater companies
are proliferating, even though they perform for little or
no pay. Squeezed between these two extremes are the
traditional midsized arts organizations that have his-
torically been the foremost purveyors of culture to
middle America. The midsized organizations now face
increasing financial stress.
There are several reasons for the shift. In particu-
lar, the growing reliance of Americans on televisions
and compact disc players has out-
paced the demand for live perfor-
mances. This trend has placed mid-
sized arts organizations in a particular
bind, because they often lack the
resources to produce the kinds of star-
studded live performances that can
draw full houses. As a result, tradition-
al midsized arts organizations need to
become either larger and more presti-
gious (if they have the resources to do
so) or smaller and community-oriented
(using local talent to keep costs down).
In other words, the organizations need
to adapt their programs to shifting
audiences. The organizations that fail
to adapt may disappear.
Members of Rinat
Mouzafarov
Institute of Dance
and Ballet Theatre
practice at the
McFarland
Auditorium in
Minot, N.D., on
April 27. The
group includes
children as young
as 4 and adults
older than 50
performing works
in classical
ballet, jazz, lyrical,
character, and
ethnic dance.
AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS/MINOT DAILY NEWS/STEPHEN GEFFRE
RAND REVIEW / F A L L 2001
3
Kevin McCarthy is a senior social scientist at RAND.
A
Meet the Players
We analyzed the entire national infrastructure of
the performing arts in America over the past 35 years.
Specifically, we examined the institutional health of
theater, opera, dance, and music organizations in the
nonprofit, commercial, and volunteer sectors. Our
objective, on behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts, was
to evaluate the long-term trends in organizations,
audiences, finances, and artists and to identify the
implications of these trends for arts policy.
We learned that performing arts organizations are
becoming polarized by size rather than genre or sector.
Large organizations, both commercial and nonprofit,
rely increasingly on massive advertising and marketing
campaigns to promote celebrity
artists who can draw huge audi-
ences for both live and recorded
products. Small organizations, in
contrast, are becoming more and
more diffuse, focusing on low-
budget live performances for niche
markets and relying largely on
volunteer labor. Midsized nonprofit
organizations—particularly those opera companies,
symphony orchestras, ballet companies, and theater
groups that are located outside major metropolitan
areas—face the greatest difficulties in generating
enough revenues to cover costs.
Major shifts in audience demands account for these
difficulties. American arts consumers today are pursu-
ing art in a way that allows them to choose when and
where to pursue it—a trend that favors home-based
entertainment options over live performances. The
steadily improving quality of electronically reproduced
substitutes for live performances has accelerated this
trend. In the future, baby boomers will be replaced by a
generation of consumers who are even less inclined to
attend live performances and more comfortable with
entertainment provided through the Internet and
other emerging technologies. Americans who do
attend live performances are participating in a remark-
able variety of productions within their own communi-
ties. These trends do not bode well for established arts
organizations with more conventional offerings.
Public financing for the arts has also shifted in
favor of smaller organizations. Since the early 1990s,
federal funding from the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) has plummeted by nearly 50 percent, while
state and local funding have compensated for the loss
(see Figure 1). This shift has reduced the average size of
grants, altered the characteristics of grant recipients,
and influenced their programming decisions. In award-
ing arts grants, state and local governments focus less
on the arts per se and more on the social and econom-
ic benefits to local communities.
Professional artists are also becoming more polar-
ized between the masses who make little money and
the few who make it big. The number of professional
artists in America doubled between 1970 and 1990 to
1.6 million, about 261,000 of whom are performing
artists. On average, performing artists earn consider-
ably less, work fewer weeks per year, and face higher
unemployment than other professionals with compara-
ble education levels. Meanwhile, the presence of super-
stars tilts the arts market toward the select few.
Technological advances have helped to magnify small
differences in talent and to spread that information,
while marketers have increasingly hyped certain artists
as “the best.” These developments tend to concentrate
demand around a very few stars and to drive their
wages high above everyone else’s in the field.
If these trends continue, the top-quality, live per-
forming arts could become less accessible to Americans
overall. Although top-notch live performances may
remain accessible to audiences in major metropolitan
areas, the audiences in smaller towns and cities may
come to depend on touring productions or those of
local, mostly volunteer, arts groups. And although the
number
of community-based performances will
increase, their
distribution
may become more uneven.
Access to these performances may also depend increas-
ingly upon where one lives.
Quality is likely to suffer more than quantity. Sever-
al trends are likely to make it more difficult for talented
actors, composers, musicians, and dancers to mature
artistically. If the number of large and midsized organi-
zations shrinks, and if the income gap continues to
widen in favor of the superstars, then young artists will
have fewer opportunities to gain experience. Further-
more, if financial pressures compel the large and mid-
sized organizations to tailor their programming for
mass audiences, then artistic innovation will probably
be discouraged.
To counter these trends, arts policy should focus on
increasing the demand for all kinds of art. Government
arts funding should emphasize arts education programs
that increase individual exposure to, access to, and
appreciation for the arts. By promoting arts education,
4
RAND REVIEW / F A L L 2001
Performing arts
organizations
are becoming
polarized by size
rather than
genre or sector.
Figure 1—Government Arts Funding Is Shifting to the State
and Local Levels
In the late 1950s, America sought
stature in the arts commensurate with
its economic and political leadership
in the world. The Ford Foundation
responded with an ambitious scheme
to financially revitalize major arts in-
stitutions through leveraged matching
grants. In 1960, the state of New York
took the pioneering step of establish-
ing a State Council for the Arts. In
1965, the federal government created
the NEA, the only time since the
Depression-era Works Progress Admin-
istration that the federal government
assumed an active role in directly sup-
porting the arts.
A combination of factors had trig-
gered the reversal of America’s long-
standing opposition to public funding of the arts: a
desire to demonstrate to the world the value of U.S. cul-
ture, the acceptance of a broader government role in
supporting social goals more generally, the lobbying of
arts advocacy groups for greater parity with science in
the competition for federal dollars, and the widespread
belief that arts and culture were important social assets
that could not be sustained in the marketplace.
Within 15 years of the NEA’s formation, every state
had established an arts agency. In turn, the state
agencies spawned more than 3,000 local arts councils.
Some of them were units of local
government, but most were private
nonprofit organizations. By 1980,
the transformation was complete:
The nonprofit organization had
become the dominant mode of
supplying the live high arts to
Americans.
Today, another major realignment appears to be
taking place. In the past decade, The Ford Foundation’s
leveraged funding strategy has proved difficult to sus-
tain. Political controversy over certain exhibits has
reduced federal funding. And the recession of the early
1990s prompted corporate sponsors and private foun-
dations to shy away from unrestricted grants. Individ-
ual contributions have grown, but sustaining such
growth entails formidable administrative costs.
The stark distinctions that once separated the
nonprofit (high art), commercial (popular art), and vol-
unteer sectors have become blurred. The three sectors
1400
1200
Total
government
funding
1000
800
Local
funding
600
NEA
appropriations
400
State
appropriations
200
0
1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
SOURCES: IRS Form 990 data, IRS Business Master File sample, National
Endowment for the Arts, National Association of State Arts Agencies, Americans
for the Arts.
NOTES: Local and state appropriations do not include NEA block grants.
Components do not sum to total government funding because of differences in
estimation methodologies.
arts policy could help diversify and broaden the audi-
ences for both traditional and nontraditional art forms.
The Plot Thickens
In 19th-century America, the only providers of the
performing arts were commercial or amateur artists
and organizations. Unlike Europe during this period,
America provided essentially no government support
for the arts. America also had very little tradition of
upper-class patronage.
In the early 20th century, however, the commercial
touring companies began to decline. Out of 327 theater
companies at the turn of the century, fewer than 100
remained in 1915, and only a few survived into the
1930s. The old touring companies could not compete
with the new technology of motion pictures. Later, the
phonograph, radio, and television also led to the disap-
pearance of live performing arts organizations.
In the 19th century, audiences had consisted of
both the commoners and the elite. In the 20th century,
the commoners gravitated toward the movie houses
and other new technologies, leaving only the elite to
patronize the live high arts.
Thus began the division of the high, popular, and
folk arts that has defined the performing arts in Amer-
ica for the past 100 years. The shrunken audiences for
the high arts had to pay higher prices, which often took
the form of donations or organizational subsidies in
addition to user fees. The result of this shift was a new
model of arts organization: the subsidized nonprofit
organization.
In the 19th century,
audiences
consisted of both
the commoners
and the elite.
RAND REVIEW / F A L L 2001
5
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • tejsza.htw.pl

    •