Can public arts education replace arts subsidization?

The debate about whether the arts should be supported or not is far from new, and most governments support the arts in one way or the other. The literature considers several arguments in favor of such interventions. Public education may seem to be an action which could, in the long run, lead to possible reductions of subsidies. Surveys show that those who have been exposed to the arts when young participate more when adult. However, the “non-market” transmission from parents to children generates an external effect, which has to be taken into account to reach first-best situations. We construct an overlapping generations model in which young consumers are exposed to both public education toward the arts and to non-altruistic transmission of such a taste from their parents. We show that the first-best can be reached only if there is both public cultural education and subsidization of arts consumption. Therefore, education cannot be considered as a substitute for subsidies to arts consumption. However, as is often the case in European countries, government intervention is usually below the first-best level. Using a model calibrated on French data, we show that it is then preferable to subsidize education, while consumption, especially of the older generations, should be taxed rather than subsidized.