Collaboration and Diffuse Reciprocity or The “What's In It For Me Right Now” Conundrum

There is fairly decent sector support for the effort required to protect the funding for the NEA. But that support (the response to rally cries to lobby one’s elected officials) is hardly universal. The quid pro quo for a lot of those who are willing to collaborate on a national advocacy platform to protect the Endowment’s funding is to be a recipient of that funding. Both large and small states benefit as do virtually all discipline areas. While the NEA’s budget isn’t huge, it is large enough so that a lot of people get something. Would the challenge of protecting that funding be easier if more organizations and people (including those that are not direct recipients of the funding – but might someday be) were willing to collaborate on the advocacy necessary to convince elected officials that the value of the agency justifies the expenditure of the money to fund it?

And might a much larger contingency of the nonprofit arts succeed in finally growing that budget to a meaningful level, so that more could share in the bounty?

Is the same true on the state or local level? When state and local available funding drops dramatically, is there not a growing segment of our people who then aren't nearly as interested in joining the advocacy movement for state or local funds as they don’t see any direct, immediate benefit in doing so?