jwilzewske: government

Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Sunday, October 12, 2008

South Asian Chamber Music: Gamelan Galak Tika

Gamelan Galak Tika, Copley Square, Boston

G amelan presents reality in musical form: it is cyclical yet linear, constantly alternating between event-overload and waktu kosong—‘empty time’. A person’s role within the ensemble is strictly defined and limited, only becoming meaningful in relation to the whole through kotekan. Culture is what we make of the world, both in creating cultural artifacts as well as in making sense of the world around us. Culture-making is an individual and collective civic duty.”
— Evan Ziporyn, MIT.

As non-Western chamber musics go, none, I think, is more beautiful than gamelan.

A gamelan is usually comprised of two metal percussion sets of bells—metallic drones, basically, plus some bronze or brass gongs—and each set is tuned to a different pitch-interval structure (‘laras’). One set is tuned to laras ‘sléndro’ (a pentatonic five-tone tuning system made up of approximately equidistant intervals), and the other set is tuned to laras ‘pélog’ (a heptatonic seven-tone tuning system with larger and smaller intervals). The gamelan’s elements are bulky and some of them are heavy, so the logistics and expense of touring with them are difficult. The MIT-based group, Gamelan Galak Tika, is one of a few gamelan ensembles touring regularly. Gamelan Galak Tika was founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1993 by Evan and Balinese artists Nyoman Catra and Desak Made Suarti Laksmi. A part of the MIT Music and Theater Arts program, its membership is comprised of both students and members of the Cambridge community.

Gamelan tonality is not the only distinctive aspect of gamelan music; the rhythms are characteristic, too. The precise inter-relationship of the gamelan percussionists’ parts is known as ‘kotekan’. Difficult for Western ears and minds to recognize—kotekan can, like Indian carnatic music, be mistaken as aleatoric, random, concrète.

Gamelan is a visceral, physical chamber music. The word ‘gamelan’ means nothing more grand than ‘to hammer’. The percussion ensembles of Java and Bali often involve 10 to 30 members, but smaller gamelan ensembles exist as well. The word ‘gamelan’ implies a collectivism or ‘social’ hammering; in general, ‘gamelan’ doesn’t denote solo hammering by one individual. Besides the gongs and metallophones, a gamelan ensemble often includes hand drums, cymbals, bamboo flutes, and violin-like stringed instruments. For some gamelan pieces, vocal or ambient sounds are added.

P revailing scholarly analyses of international relations pay virtually no attention to music. And yet the political dimensions of music are all too evident. The terrifying realities of conflict and the search for peace have inspired composers throughout history, from Haydn’s anti-war message in Missa in Tempore Belli to the astonishing outpouring of musical creativity following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Few would question the political content of explicit musical texts, such as protest songs. The more difficult challenge, however, is to locate the significance not only of titles or sung passages (where references to the political are easy to find), but also of purely instrumental music.”
— Roland Bleiker, Of Things We Hear but Cannot See, in Resounding International Relations (Franklin, ed.), p. 179.

In follow-up to the previous CMT post on separation of Music and State, I should mention that gamelan is the ethnic chamber music of Java and Bali, and is historically both a religion-sponsored sacred chamber music and a State-sponsored courtly and secular chamber music. The Balinese form of Hinduism prescribes gamelan for all ceremonial and liturgical events.

T he present Lao government is ideologically committed to the promotion of ethnic equality. The nominal equality of the state-constructed ethnic categories of Lao Lum, Lao Theung, and Lao Sung is officially celebrated in political rhetoric and administrative decrees. [But there is a] paradox that these official practices nevertheless result in the implicit affirmation of ethnic Lao political and cultural superiority. A popular restaurant features traditional Laotian live music. ... [But] the dance itself, as well as the musical accompaniment, contains no ethnic minority elements; instead, it is unmistakably ethnic Lao.”
— Jan Oveson, in Civilizing the Margins (ed., C. Duncan), p. 214.

If you would like to experience a concert of contemporary gamelan music, you can do that next Saturday, 18-OCT-2008, at 14:30 at the brilliant, new EMPAC at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Gamelan Galak Tika and Ensemble Robot will perform at the opening of RPI’s new Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center in Troy, New York. Or you can catch them in Boston later this month (Thursday, 30-OCT-2008, 19:30) in the intimate Berklee David Friend Recital Hall at 921 Boylston Street. Gamelan Galak Tika will be performing new music by composers including Ramon Castillo, Midori Matsuo, Sachi Sato, Christine Southworth, and Po-Chun Wang.

Or, if you are in Kansas City this weekend, you can hear Gamelan Genta Kasturi at the Urban Culture Project, La Esquina, 1000 West 25th St, Kansas City, MO, 18-OCT-2008, at 19:30, and 19-OCT-2008, at 14:00.

David Friend Recital Hall, Berklee College of Music

Gamelan Galak Tika play on two complete gamelans, both ‘sléndro’ and ‘pélog’. [Incidentally, Galak Tika is not a cute, spacey corruption of ‘galactica’. ‘Galak Tika’ in Bahasa Kawi (classical Javanese, a dialect of Sanskrit) means ‘intense togetherness.’ And intense togetherness is surely the unabashed effect that listening to and performing gamelan chamber music has.] Have a listen to a clip from one of their recent recordings:

[50-sec clip, Evan Ziporyn, Gamelan Galak Tika, ‘Ngaben’, 1.2MB MP3]

With gamelan, there is, not surprisingly, an ‘historically-informed performance’ (‘HIP’) and historically-informed composition movement, not unlike HIP for Early Music in the Western tradition. Some composers who have written new music for gamelan—Györgi Ligeti, Michael Nyman, Lydia Ayers, Howard Skempton, David Parsons, and others—have been primarily interested in the gamelan for its interesting, atmospheric timbre. They have not been fastidious about Javanese sléndro/pélog tuning, except where it happenstantially suits their own compositional goals. They have not been fastidious about inter-part ‘kotekan’ rhythmic historicity either, except where it somehow supports the rhythmic complexity and authenticity that they were aiming at. A traditional gamelan ensemble learns aurally, typically without any notation. But that does not mean that the pieces are somehow imprecise or ad hoc improvised. Historically, they were not. It takes many, many hours of rehearsal to achieve the collective kotekan and learn a piece without notated sheetmusic. (It takes many hours even when you do have a written score!)

[50-sec clip, David Parsons, ‘Urartu to Ubud’, 1.2MB MP3]

[50-sec clip, Lydia Ayers, ‘Prime Gongs’, 1.2MB MP3]

[50-sec clip, Jan Michiels, Györgi Ligeti, ‘Ouverture-Jaya Semara’, 1.2MB MP3]

Lou Harrison (1917-2003) was a notable exception insofar as he did not merely coopt the instrument and leave its idioms behind. His gamelan compositions pushed the boundary in terms of rhythmic and harmonic innovation in gamelan, but he also concerned himself deeply with traditional, authentic gamelan composition and performance. Harrison was a student of Henry Cowell, Arnold Schoenberg, and K.R.T. Wasitodiningrat (Pak Cokro). He is noted for incorporating elements of the music of non-Western cultures into his work, and he is one of the most prominent composers to have extensively used microtonality in his pieces. Harrison’s music is often constructed around so-called ‘melodicles’, short motifs that he reverses (palindromes) and inverts upside-down in pitch-space: minimalist but melodic, giving rhythm a role equal to that of melody; sensual, corporeal, physical.

[50-sec clip, Lou Harrison, ‘Jhala III’, 1.2MB MP3]

[50-sec clip, Lou Harrison, ‘Chaconne for Gamelan and Violin’, 1.2MB MP3]

I ’d long thought that I would love a time when musicians were numerate as well as literate. I’d love to be a conductor and be able to say, ‘Now, cellos, you gave me 10:9 there, please give me a 9:8 instead.’ I’d love to get that!”
— Lou Harrison.

Gamelan Galak Tika founder and director is Evan Ziporyn, Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Music at MIT. Recently he completed a work for Yo Yo Ma’s ‘Silk Road Project’, co-commissioned by Carnegie Hall, and a concerto for gamelan and strings for Galak Tika and the Philadelphia Classical Orchestra, commissioned by the Pew Foundation, premiered in 2007. His compositions have been performed by the Kronos Quartet, Bang On A Can, Nederlands Blazer Ensemble, master pipaist Wu Man, Boston Modern Orchestra Project (BMOP), and Gamelan Sekar Jaya. In addition to writing for Gamelan Galak Tika, he has arranged for the group works by Brian Eno, Conlon Nancarrow, Hermeto Pascoal, and Kurt Cobain. He also regularly performs and records as a featured soloist with Steve Reich and Musicians, and shared in their 1999 Grammy for “Music for 18 Musicians”. Born in Chicago in 1959, Ziporyn received degrees from Yale University and the University of California, Berkeley, where his teachers included John Blacking, Martin Bresnick, Gerard Grisey, and David Lewin. Upon completing a Fullbright Fellowship in Indonesia, he became Musical Coordinator of San Francisco’s Gamelan Sekar Jaya in 1988. He collaborated with Balinese composer I Nyoman Windha on ‘Kekembangan’, a unique work for full gamelan and saxophone quartet. He has been on the faculty of MIT since 1990.

G amelan ensemble interactions are like fish swimming in a school. Like birds flying in a flock. There are individuals, but the interlocking kotekan makes them express themselves as a collective, a synchronized, composite organism.”
— Jeffrey Ruckman, Gamelan Genta Kasturi, KCUR interview.

Gamelan Galak Tika, Boston Museum of Science, 2006

D hek jaman berjuang njur kelingan anak lanang
Biyen tak openi ning saiki ana ngendi
Jarene wis menang keturutan sing digadhang
Biyen nate janji ning saiki apa lali
Neng nggunung tak cadhongi sega jagung
Yen mendhung tak silihi caping nggunung
Sokur bisa nyawang nggunung desa dadi reja
Dene ora ilang nggone padha lara lapa.
[Since the war, I remember my son—
Long ago I cared for him, but now where is he?
I hear he has prospered. His dreams have now come true.
Long ago he made a promise, but now has he forgotten?
In the days on our mountain, I fed him corn and rice;
When it was rainy, I lent him my hat.
I hope he and his generation will come to their senses [and grasp the collective significance of those kindly gestures so long ago].
I hope to see this remote village become [with their financial and political help] a better place,
So that our own unselfish efforts will not have been without consequence.]”
— RumahKiri.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Econometrics and the Separation of Music and State

B elieving with you that [Music] is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, ... and that the legislative powers of government reach action only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of [Music], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between [Music] and State.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter, 01-JAN-1802.

The case of independence between music and state is often considered as being an ideal towards which all societies should aim. Social scientists of music have long anticipated the gradual separation of music from state as one of the predictions of the well-known secularization theory. But independence appears to be far from being the norm in the world today, however. In the U.S. it is not clear how the First Amendment should apply to the separation of Music and State.

It is common for states to fund the provision of some musical goods and to exert influence on musical practices, such that a surprisingly small proportion of countries in the world have fully achieved independence of Music from State. Alarmingly, lawless cooptation of music by political parties—in political contests in which the state itself does not participate—is also increasingly common. “Get Off My Lawn” McCain and “Barracuda” Palin, for example, have belligerently refused to cease and desist from playing certain music for promotional purposes at rallies and campaign events without consent and without paying any fees or royalties, thereby flouting the property rights, financial interests, and wishes of the composers and copyright holders of that music (for example, Ann & Nancy Wilson (Heart), Chuck Berry, John Hall, Jackson Browne, John Mellencamp, Tom Scholz, ABBA, and their respective publishers/record companies). Illegal behavior like this by elected officials is beyond appalling.

Some form of state influence or control over the provision of musical goods is typical in traditional societies. By contrast, state ‘control’ of the music is relatively uncommon in modern times. In the ancient world, musical institutions were typically subordinated and controlled by the state or by clerical authorities. In some societies, the ruler was also the musical leader, as was the case for gamelan music in Indonesian states. The ruler’s control of music has also been the norm among tribal societies throughout the world.

The Arts and State are arguably the two most important social institutions created by humankind. Not surprisingly, therefore, the history of their relationship has been stormy, ranging from cooperation to conflict. It would be desirable to develop a quantitative econometric model that accounts the relationship from an economic perspective. Such a model would answer the question as to what role does Music play in supporting the ability of the sovereign to extract resources from the people through taxation? The idea that Music, through its motivations (or ‘doctrine’ inducing citizens’ beliefs and actions) can facilitate this function of the State is an inchoate one, underlying both ancient and modern civilizations but never stated outright.

A proper model might posit two avenues by which an alliance with Music benefits the State. The first is the [Marxian] notion that musical goods pacify the populace, allowing the state to extract more resources before citizens reach the threshold of revolt. The second is the fact that citizens pay taxes more willingly (i.e., tax evasion declines) when the State is seen as musico-motivationally more legitimate.

This second avenue that potentially makes state control of music—i.e., the establishment of a State-funded Music or, conversely, the indirect repression of certain music—desirable. The reason is that an independent Music serves the pacifying function without the need for distortionary tax financing. If this were Music’s only function vis-à-vis the State, an independent Music would be optimal. However, an independent Music will not provide the sovereign’s ideal level of legitimacy. As a result, it may pay the sovereign to seize control of Music, even at the cost of having to finance it out of taxes, in order to maximize the State’s net gain.

A crucial factor in this decision is the nature of musical doctrine—that is, how favorable or unfavorable is musical teaching toward the State? The more favorable is the music’s doctrine, the more likely it is that the State will benefit by taking control of music. In contrast, when Music is regarded by the State as antagonistic to its power over the populace, the State may act to suppress Music.

A useful consequence of the model would be to better define the nature of musical doctrine. This poses a significant challenge, since Music and music organizations are complex, and distinct institutions, the former being a collection of “texts” and “teachings” aimed at illuminating the mysteries of the universe and humankind’s place in it, and the latter being the organizational structure supposedly established to inculcate and spread those teachings. Music doctrine therefore must be comprised of a constellation of rules and ideas that reflect an amalgam of practical considerations and genuine “revelations,” and any attempt to explain them as originating from a single decision maker or as the product of a single econometric ‘objective function’ is unrealistic.

One possible model is a direct adaptation of one developed by Brennan and Buchanan (2006), and extended by Wintrobe (2000), in which a self-interested sovereign maximizes the surplus of taxes over spending on a public good. To keep the model simple, we only consider spending on a “musical good,” either by the State (in the case of a State-run Music), or the musical community (in the case of an independent Music). The basic conclusions of the model would not be affected if the state also provided a public good.

In the model, the representative citizen has a utility function given by:

U = x + v(q), (1)

where x is composite consumption, and q is the quantity of a musical good, where v' > 0, v˝ < 0. The musical good consists of those services typically provided by Music. The citizen is endowed with wealth of E, an amount T of which the government confiscates in taxes. The citizen therefore has after-tax wealth of, E–T, which he or she can spend on x and, in the case of an independent Music, on musical goods.

Tax collection is costly to the government because of resistance by citizens to having their property confiscated. We capture this by assuming that a fraction δ of each tax dollar collected must be spent on enforcement. This cost will tend to be lower, however, as the government is seen as being more legitimate. As noted, musical spending can potentially provide this legitimacy, for example by proclaiming that the sovereign is divinely inspired (or is himself a classical music prodigy or rock-star). We thus write δ = δ(λq), where λ is a parameter that reflects the extent to which musical goods convey legitimacy, δ' < 0.

W e do not restrict λ a priori in magnitude or sign; λ > 0 means that Music legitimizes the State, λ = 0 means that music is neutral regarding the state, and λ < 0 means that Music de-legitimizes the State (e.g., incites resistance). Thus, we assume that for q > 0, δ —> 0 as λ —> +∞ and δ —> 1 as λ —> -∞. We also assume that δ(0) ≡ δ₀, where 0 < δ₀ < 1. The objective for the State is to maximize tax revenues net of enforcement costs and, in the case of a State-run Music, the cost of the music good.

Over the range where λ < λ₂, the State suppresses Music (that is, takes over Music and sets q = 0). Here, the de-legitimizing effects of Music are so detrimental to the state (or political parties) that the State (or political parties) finds it advantageous to eliminate Music altogether (or to curtail music spending, or to refuse to seek consents or pay royalties, or to embroil music rights-holders in ruinously expensive litigation).

It cannot be disputed that throughout history that there have been cases where Music has manifested motives other than beneficence toward its public. So a proper econometric model of Music and the State ought also to examine the implications of allowing independent Music to act in a self-interested manner; specifically, to maximize profit to the detriment of the public and the State.

Let π be the profits earned by a hypothetical ‘non-beneficent’ Music, where π > 0. That is, R - c(q*) = π or R = c(q*) + π. Solving for T yields the citizen’s tax payment:

T = E + v(q*) – c(q*) – π - U , (2)

and the corresponding return to the State:

V₂(q*, π) = [E + v(q*) – c(q*) – π – U] (1 – δ(λq*)). (3)

Higher values of π reflect a stronger Music in the sense that a stronger Music can extract a larger share of the citizen’s total ability to pay. (So π is bounded above by E – v(q*) – c(q*) - U, the point at which T = 0.)

Consider how an econometric model can show the relationship between independent and State-run Music. As π gets larger, the less desirable independent music is from the State’s perspective. Figure 1 summarizes the various regions where each of the three regimes dominates, depending on the political content of music doctrine (λ) and the degree of music power (π). As the diagram reveals, an independent Music occupies a region where doctrine is neither too overtly favorable nor too detrimental to the state, and where the Music’s power is limited.

In an economic downturn such as the one that’s presently upon us, the private economy makes a truly independent Music less and less viable. Circumstances like these foster a larger role for governments and public-sector econometrics, augment Music’s vulnerability to political ideology, and make stewardship of Music as a pluralistic public good more vital than ever.

T homas Mann often spoke in the face of would-be synthesizers. They were prophets who foretold that there would eventually be a gathering of the separate forces, a centering and synthesis among the world’s legal systems and the religions. People like Mann instead contended that the world has many centers. There is no single organon, encyclopedia, summa, canon, legal code, or synthesis available to and accepted by all the people or all the peoples. Ours turned out to be a century when science propounded the indeterminacy principle and chaos theory. Indeterminacy rules religion and law when they interact... No single symbol system unites the arts or makes them intelligible to all... This decentered and decentering scene demands attention.”
— Stephen Feldman, Law & Religion, p. 26.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Non-Profit Chamber Music Orgs and the Recession

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Balance of Trade, 1Q2004-2Q2008, seasonally adjusted (no CPI or other adj)

C ore June retail sales fell 0.7%, versus the Federal Government's report of 0.1% core retail sales gain. June data showed payrolls turned negative 2008-over-2007. Monthly payrolls dropped by 147,000 net of concurrent seasonal adjustment bias. Broadest Unemployment Rate jumped by 0.2%. Purchasing Managers Manufacturing Index (PMMI) ‘gain’ reported in June was due to [the government’s gratuitous—] re-weightings of the Index’s components [for the June reporting interval].”
— John Williams, Shadow Government Statistics newsletter, 15-JUL-2008.

The economy looks grim. And here in the U.S. you can see signs of radically altering consumer spending of disposable income. You see it in every restaurant—many of them with only one or two tables occupied during prime suppertime hours. You see it in mostly-empty retail-shopping car parks. You see it in drycleaners’ rotating racks, half-empty. You see it in dramatically lower attendance at sports and arts events. Will chamber music presenters see the effect this Fall, in terms of decreased subscription renewals? Almost certainly, yes.

Part of the frustration here in the U.S. is that the current government administration has for years persistently denied and obfuscated the economic facts, presumably for political reasons. Not conspiracy or malfeasance, exactly. Just a succession of convenient restatements of the rules for how the indicators are calculated and which data shall henceforth be excluded from which metrics.

Housing prices going up? Take them out of the calc and insert a bogus government-agency estimated 'equivalent rent'. Food and energy going through the roof? Exclude them and call the remainder 'core inflation', as if food and energy were not inconvenient core truths. Unemployment surging? Quit counting people who've given up looking for work. Averages higher than you'd prefer? Then use geometric means [e.g., Nth root of the product (a(1) * a(2) * ... * a(N))] instead, which will deemphasize high values and give extra weight to low ones. Presto! More favorable-looking numbers!

Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee this week is perhaps the first forthright admission by a government official, that the economy in the U.S. is seriously troubled and will not likely recover anytime soon.

Non-profit executives have the skills and resilience to cope with economic down-turns, even prolonged ones. But their operational planning and financial planning depend on having factual information. Rosy, erroneous economic data from the federal government seriously undermine any manager’s effort to plan and manage an enterprise rationally.

One alternative is to utilize John Williams’ ShadowStats.com and other sources of independent data that are not susceptible to gratuitous political manipulation.

ShadowStats.com: CPI trend, 1980-2008, under evolving Federal policies for calculating CPI; vs. CPI trend for same period using same calc method as Federal govt used in 1992

Another alternative is to follow the international foreign-exchange and other indicators and commentary that reflect how other countries perceive the economic situation in the U.S., in a way that is entirely independent from U.S. government messaging (for example, the USD-EUR exchange rate, below).

Yet another alternative is to follow the Financial ‘prediction futures markets’, on InTrade or similar web-based services. Still another alternative is to utilize financial measures that are decoupled from the markets themselves, such as the Silicon Valley Venture Capital Index. The Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist Confidence Index (Bloomberg ticker symbol: USFSVVCI) is based on a quarterly survey of 27 San Francisco Bay Area venture capital firms. The Index measures and reports the opinions of professional venture capitalists in their estimation of the highgrowth venture entrepreneurial environment in the San Francisco Bay Area over the next 6 - 18 months. The Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist Confidence Index for the second quarter of 2008, based on a June 2008 survey measured 3.07 on a scale with 5 denoting high confidence and 1 low confidence. In just 3 quarters’ time, by the end of the quarter just completed (2Q2008), the USFSVVCI index has fallen 32% from its 2004-2007 average, to a third consecutive new low since the Index’s inception. (The 32% is referenced to bottom = 1, since there is no zero score possible.)

Univ San Francisco Silicon Valley Venture Cap Index trend

It’s a recession. We feel it. We see it all around us. We smell it. Don’t keep misleading us with conveniently-revised, ever-evolving economic indicators. Call the recession by its proper factual name, please—won’t you?—you in the media and government. And do something major about it, quickly!

I t’s a Recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a Depression when you lose yours.”
— President Harry Truman, 1948.

The alacritously-repeated claims in the media—to the effect that ‘These are un-charted [economic] waters. No one can predict what will happen. No one knows how these [economic] things work.’—are disempowering and inertia-enabling, and interfere with managers’ planning as well.

T his is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and the worst U.S. recession in decades.”
— Nouriel Roubini, 16-JUL-2008 on BloombergTV.

There are past deep recessions and inflationary periods about which we do know quite a lot, to which we can turn for clues and predictions and ideas as to what we should do and what results we should expect and how soon. Ruth Towse’s excellent book, for example, shows how the non-profit economy contracted from 1991 to 1994 (see esp. pp. 144ff) before recovering. Similar economic and inflationary trends between 1978 and 1983 are also germane. For the authorities and media pundits to bloviate on about “No one could’ve predicted … No one can say …” disserves the entire society. Non-profit organizations are probably among those most vulnerable during such periods.

S ocial capital [represented by the arts] ... is largely forgotten by governments pressurized to treat the arts in the short to medium term as a set of sectors within a creative or cultural industry, for economic gain mostly.”
— Lorelei Loveridge, 2008.

Have a look at the book co-edited by Steinberg and Powell. Steinberg continues his extensions of Weisbrod’s work, identifying and characterizing three types of economic failures in the non-profit sector:

Market failure;
Voluntary failure; and
Government failure.

The choices (for possible actions that chamber music orgs’ executive teams and Boards of Directors can take) are substantially different for addressing each of these three failure types. Therefore, it’s wise to have a clear notion of what’s happening and what failures are in-play as you plan and execute your operating plan in these tough times.

I n uncertain economic times—especially when the airwaves and the front pages are abuzz with talk of recession—non-profit executives may overreact. Under pressure from their boards of directors, they all too frequently take ‘cost-cutting’ too far. The greatest victims are new-donor acquisition, which is often sharply cut back or even eliminated temporarily, and donor cultivation programs such as donor acknowledgments communications.”
— Mal Warwick & Dan Doyle, NonProfitTimes, MAR-2008.

Adverse economic conditions affect fundraising results in multiple ways and do not hit all nonprofits equally. For example, the rise and fall of the stock market strongly correlates with the ability and willingness of foundations and big individual donors to give to the arts. Foundation grants are especially prone to dramatic curtailment, since most foundation assets tend to be in equities, and U.S. nonprofit regulations and foundation boards tend to limit their annual giving to five percent of assets at the most. This effect tends also to kick in later than the economic downturn itself, as grants are typically made on the basis of the previous year’s asset valuations.

Corporate giving to nonprofits shrinks as corporate profits decline. This is a big deal as the spend on energy and materials has skyrocketed in the months past. But the impact of a poor economy will affect different companies in very different ways. Many companies manage to preserve their profits for many quarters through cost-cutting, even in a prolonged ‘down’ economy. And there are some businesses in “countercyclical” industries—ones that serve basic human needs such as groceries and gasoline and heating that don’t go away in a recession—which are profiting from a downturn despite the adverse impact on everybody else. Corporate donors (or big individual donors) associated with such businesses might increase giving. So you might look to cultivate those donors this year. Probably you won’t be looking to see big giving to non-profits by, say, banks and other hard-hit businesses this year.

In summary, if you’re a chamber music presenter or other non-profit arts manager, factually fore-warned is fore-armed. Avail yourself of the trustworthy, untampered-with data that are out there. Become a more discriminating data-consumer, as Prof. Menzie Chinn says. And start looking to potential donors whose businesses are maybe more resilient than your traditional donors, or to some whose businesses may somehow be backhandedly benefiting from the economic pox that’s upon us.

E xcept in cases of severe economic downturns, the effects tend to be much less pronounced on membership renewal rates, average gifts in direct mail and telefundraising ... and other barometers of giving by people who aren’t necessarily wealthy. However, as a recession drags on, donor acquisition efforts may become even more challenging than they already are. Even those people whose day-to-day finances aren’t curtailed by a recession tend to become more cautious, and response rates in acquisition may shrink because donors hesitate to expand their giving choices. Shrinking personal income and a bear market on Wall Street take their toll.”
— Mal Warwick & Dan Doyle, NonProfitTimes, MAR-2008.