







































 

VOL. 12 
2023–2024 

 

Narrowing the Gap 
Implications of Arts Business Training on Artist Labor Market 

Outcomes 

Christos Makridis 

Arizona State University  

University of Nicosia 

Jonathan Kuuskoski       

University of Michigan 

ABSTRACT: This paper investigates whether entrepreneurship training subsequently impacts 
artists’ labor market outcomes. Collecting data from major universities, we find that only 9.7% 
have arts entrepreneurship certificates; just 11.4% have any required arts entrepreneurship 
classes. Analyzing data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and controlling for demo-
graphic factors, fine arts graduates are 1.3% less likely to be employed and earn 8.7% lower 
annual earnings. However, individuals with both arts and entrepreneurial business training earn 
more and offset the earnings disadvantage by roughly a half. These results underscore the im-
portance of integrating art entrepreneurship education with the sustainability of the arts sec-
tor. KEYWORDS: arts entrepreneurship, arts business, employment, earnings, wages, entrepre-
neurship pedagogy. DOI: doi.org/10.34053/artivate.12.1.182 

I. Introduction 
There is growing empirical evidence that the arts and cultural sector contributes substan-

tially to the United States economy. As of 2021 arts and culture contributed just over $1 

trillion or 4.4% of gross domestic product (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2022). That 

impact is manifested by arts workers, who both create new artistic offerings and facilitate 

the production and distribution of such offerings. Beyond direct economic impacts (e.g., 

sales of tickets to live performances and events, production of artistic goods, web-based 

services, and arts education, etc.), additional, indirect socio-economic benefits of the arts 

are created through arts education during early childhood (Makridis et al., 2022) and via 

the ways arts promote social capital and reduce political polarization and bring people 



ARTIVATE 12 

2 

with different ideological perspectives together (Makridis, 2020).  

Despite the immense socio-economic value that artistic labor creates, arts graduates 

in the United States have poor job prospects (Cascone, 2018) and the sector exhibits high 

uncertainty for workers (Menger, 1999). If artists tend to be highly educated, then why do 

they hold poor labor market prospects? Although the returns to college attainment have 

declined over the past decade (Valletta, 2018), there is substantial heterogeneity across 

degrees (Hastings et al., 2013). Much of the decline is concentrated heavily among arts 

majors: in fact, by the time students reach retirement, only 32% of arts and music gradu-

ates have recovered their college costs (Cooper, 2021). Furthermore, Makridis (2023) 

shows that artists have been earning less than their non-artist peers over time. One po-

tential reason stems from the growing importance of social and other general skills that 

are often acquired and cultivated through business training (Deming, 2017). 

Scholars have investigated the ways in which access to business training, often 

through the integration of arts entrepreneurship, can manifest positive outcomes beyond 

just venture creation. Following the work of Essig (2015), Hart (2018), Nytch (2018), 

Rabideau (2018), and Roberts (2012), arts pedagogies that integrate business training can 

foster greater employability, the creation of new arts ventures, intrapreneurship (entre-

preneurial activity within existing organizations), project-based collaborations, and social 

impact. A recent survey among alumni finds that the three largest skill gaps reported are 

those they use “for financial and business management skills, entrepreneurial skills, and 

networking and relationship building” (Skaggs et al., 2022, n.p.). In fact, alumni report 

those skills as essential for advancing and sustaining arts career prospects. 

The primary contribution of this paper is to explore the role of business training in 

the arts and suggest a renewed focus on entrepreneurship curricula for artists. First, we 

begin with a historical exploration and theoretical framing of how business training is de-

ployed within the arts and the value of these skills for artists. Next, we draw on the U.S. 

Census Bureau between 2009 to 2019 (Ruggles et al., 2022), restricting our sample to col-

lege graduates. Finally, based on that data set, we examine the degree to which participa-

tion in arts business training impacts employability and earnings amongst arts graduates. 

II. Background and Theoretical Framework 

A. Precarity and the Arts Job Market 

Our paper contributes to an ongoing discussion in arts pedagogy about the value of busi-

ness training and exactly how to go about it. Over the last two decades, business training 

has been bundled within the arts entrepreneurship programs that have proliferated ex-

ponentially across both universities and conservatories (Beckman, 2007; Essig & Guevara, 

2016; Fayolle et al., 2016; White, 2013)—a response driven both by increasing economic 

precarity amongst artists and institutional awareness about those alumni outcomes 



ARTIVATE 12 

3 

(Strategic National Arts Alumni Project, 2012). A decade ago, the Strategic National Arts 

Alumni Project (SNAAP) annual report—which, at that time, encompassed 36,000 arts 

alumni across 66 institutions—indicated that more than 80% of working artists had to 

maintain employment outside of the arts for job security (Strategic National Arts Alumni 

Project, 2012, p. 19). 

Follow up studies on the SNAAP data set showed similar indications of precarious-

ness. For example, Lindemann, et al. (2012, p. 22) observed that 50% of artists who 

stopped working professionally did so because they could find better paying work in other 

fields, and Frenette (2020, p. 3) observed a 65% skills gap reported by arts alumni around 

financial and business management skills. White’s (2013) initial analysis in response to 

the SNAAP data postulated that integrating arts entrepreneurship education could serve 

as an intervention to remedy skills gaps and foster greater resiliency amongst future pro-

fessional art makers. Other scholars have long indicated that entrepreneurship training 

may be potent in transforming both professional outcomes and elevating artistic leader-

ship skills (Essig, 2015; Rabideau, 2017; Roberts, 2012; Toscher, 2019). Our paper builds 

upon that conversation by exploring the relative saliency of arts business training on em-

ployment and income. 

Relatedly, our results align with economic literature on artists as entrepreneurs. For 

example, Piano and Al-Bawwab (2021) developed a supply-side theory for explaining 

when artists specialize in both artistic and entrepreneurial capabilities. They find that 

“high art” markets incent artists to perform both tasks, whereas “low art” markets lead to 

a decoupling. As per capita income in society has risen, the market for “low art” has also 

risen, along similar lines as Cowen and Tabarrok (2000). Furthermore, Piano (2021) ap-

plies the framework to Renaissance Italian painters, explaining why and when some of 

them performed both artistic and entrepreneurial duties. Finally, Oates and Baumol 

(1972) and Baumol and Baumol (1994) were among some of the first economists to study 

competitive forces in the art market. 

The precarity facing arts graduates derives from both internal motivations and exter-

nal constraints. Popovic  and Ratkovic  (2013) argue that many artists are willing to risk 

oversupplying the job market because of their inherent passion for their work and desire 

for self-discovery and actualization. Employers are often aware of and take advantage of 

artists’ intrinsic motivations, which has led to the rise of contract work positions and the 

displacement of opportunities for full-time employment (Throsby, 2010). Menger (1999) 

articulates the problem field-wise: “[j]ob rationing and an excess supply of artists seem to 

be structural traits associated with the emergence and the expansion of a free market or-

ganization of the arts” (Menger, 1999, p. 1). 

Artists are thus being driven to choose self-determined career paths in lieu of em-

ployment because of the precariousness of the arts employment marketplace. Artists are 

3.6 times more likely to be self-employed than other workers (“Artists and Other Cultural 

Workers,” 2019, p. iii). However, research shows artists are more likely to pursue self-



ARTIVATE 12 

4 

employment because they feel forced to do so due to a “lack of choice” and general eco-

nomic precarity (Feder & Woronkowicz, 2022, n.p.). These findings correlate to the obser-

vation that 60% of trained artists who elect to pursue non-arts professions did so due to 

higher or more consistent pay in those other fields (Strategic National Arts Alumni Project, 

n.d., p. 28). Additionally, factors such as the level of student debt and social class of an 

artist—namely, cultural capital in the form of specialized knowledge or industry con-

tacts—can impact the degree to which an artist stays in the field (Frenette & Dowd, 2020). 

These inequities can further exacerbate precarity for those artists with fewer means in 

their pursuit of an artistic career.  

As current job market conditions have a detrimental impact on arts employment 

probabilities, entrepreneurship training has been identified as a potential intervention to 

facilitate more agency around career choice and longevity. Arts entrepreneurship, which 

integrates business skills within artistic contexts, has been shown to increase the proba-

bility artists will seek entrepreneurial career paths (Guo & McGraw, 2022). Yet significant, 

related skills gaps are reported in those areas—entrepreneurial, financial, and business 

management skills—by arts alumni (Frenette & Tepper, 2016). The disruptions caused by 

the COVID-19 pandemic have fomented additional uncertainty around career planning, 

further motivating artists to bolster their entrepreneurial and management acumen 

(Skaggs et al., 2022). 

While prior research has focused on the intersection of entrepreneurial training and 

artists’ pursuit of entrepreneurial career paths, this paper investigates the degree to 

which access to business training might impact artists’ employability and earnings. 

B. Modalities of Arts Business Training  

While business training has been available at universities and colleges for well over a cen-

tury, integrated arts business training is a relatively new field. In 1969, the Wisconsin 

School of Business at the University of Wisconsin-Madison launched the first Master of 

Arts—Business in Arts Administration (“Bolz Center for Arts Administration,” n.d.). The 

New York Foundation for the Arts, founded in 1971, was amongst the earliest independent 

agencies to offer business training for professional artists (“New York Foundation for the 

Arts,” n.d.). 

Additional programs emerged in subsequent decades under the banners of music 

business, arts entrepreneurship, and arts management. Notable examples include the En-

trepreneurship Center for Music at the University of Colorado, Boulder (founded in 1999), 

and the Institute for Music Leadership, originally the Arts Leadership Program (founded 

in 1996), at the Eastman School Music, as well as Columbia College Chicago’s Arts Enter-

tainment and Media Management program, founded in 1992, and the PAVE Program in 

Arts Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University in 2006 (Beckman, 2007). Arts manage-

ment and music business programs proliferated from the 1970s as well, including New 



ARTIVATE 12 

5 

York University’s Masters of Arts in Music Business, which grew out of their arts admin-

istration program, founded in 1971 (“History of NYU Arts Administration Programs,” n.d.), 

and Berklee College of Music, which launched its Music Business Major in 1992 (“A Brief 

History,” n.d.). Barnet and Dixon (2014) observed 113 undergraduate and 14 graduate mu-

sic business programs across the U.S, and, as of 2023, the Association for Arts Administra-

tion Educators lists 63 undergraduate and 94 graduate arts management programs within 

their international network (“Programs Archive,” n.d.).   

Arts entrepreneurship programs subsequently proliferated in the first decade of the 

twenty-first century, many having developed out of career service programs, as conserv-

atories and universities began to grapple with the employment challenges facing gradu-

ates in the wake of the emergence of the gig economy (Beckman, 2007; Beckman, 2011; 

White, 2013). The Great Recession served as a wake-up call for many schools, who were 

confronted by the gaps reported by alumni around entrepreneurial and business skills as 

manifesting barriers to sustainable careers (Strategic National Arts Alumni Project, 2012; 

Frenette, 2020). Access to entrepreneurship training within tertiary arts education grew 

exponentially between 2006 and 2016, at which point 372 programs of some type were 

being housed at universities across the country (Essig & Guevara, 2016).  

Arts entrepreneurship in practice delivers business training in a variety of ways, from 

advancing individualized career development to new venture creation (Beckman, 2007; 

Beeching, 2005; Cutler, 2009; Essig & Guevara, 2016; Rabideau, 2018). Common definitions 

frame entrepreneurship in the arts, at least in part, as a mechanism by which artists use 

business skills to create new ventures—specifically, as an interventional business practice 

adapted towards cultural production (Essig, 2015; Preece, 2011; Rabideau, 2018; Roberts, 

2012; White, 2015). Much of that work also investigates the ways entrepreneurship train-

ing can intersect with broader professional considerations. Gary Beckman provided a flex-

ible framework for arts entrepreneurship as “both an aspect of professional development 

and a discrete educational trajectory,” which may manifest either towards the goal of new 

venture creation or as a means to transition more generally into professional life (Beck-

man, 2007, p. 89). 

Others define entrepreneurship in the arts as a praxis for artists to understand and 

navigate their socio-economic ecosystem. For example, several scholars explore entrepre-

neurism as a mechanism by which artists may become effective advocates around social 

and aesthetic issues, such as cultural representation, labor policy, and the inherent value 

of art making (Chang & Wyszomirski, 2015; Hausmann & Heinze, 2016; Taylor et al., 2015). 

Linda Essig has embraced arts entrepreneurship as a highly inclusive continuum of prac-

tice, “[a] discovery and creation process for connecting means with desirable ends 

through an appropriate mediating structure within the arts and culture sector” (Essig, 

2015, p. 242). Entrepreneurship encapsulates business training holistically towards cre-

ating value, both in a personal sense and for the world at large. 

Despite the field’s proliferation, relatively few institutions offer formalized, 



ARTIVATE 12 

6 

curricular business training as part of degree programs. A national survey by Essig 

and Guevara (2016, p. 13) observed just 99 arts entrepreneurship degrees, minors and 

certificates available amongst U.S.-based research institutions, regional universities, 

art and design schools, liberal arts colleges, community colleges and vocational/tech-

nical schools. Additionally, no singularly dominant arts entrepreneurship framework has 

emerged, which reflects the still highly experimental nature of the field. Educators and 

practitioners thus continue to choose working research definitions that best suit their mo-

dalities of practice. As a result, Universities and arts conservatories deliver entrepreneur-

ship training in various guises, from supporting the launch of new ventures to preparing 

graduates to innovate as employees within existing organizations, as well as resources 

designed to catalyze applied learning through self-directed projects. The kinds of training 

offerings that support such activity have also diversified—from degrees and certifications 

to granting programs, a  la carte course offerings to ad hoc coaching services, and from 

pitch competitions to venture incubators. The field of arts entrepreneurship therefore 

provides contextual business training to most professional situations artists might find 

themselves in (White, 2015). 

Research activities span books, case studies, white papers, empirical research studies, 

practitioner serious games, and academic journals. The focus of this study specifically in-

vestigates the impact of curricular business training on employability and earnings out-

comes for arts graduates. However, the field also lacks sufficient empirical research to fos-

ter consensus around a particular theoretical framework or definition of practice (Essig & 

Guevara, 2016). The focus of this study is to provide one such contribution by examining 

the relative efficacy of business training, specifically in a curricular context, on the eco-

nomic viability of working artists.  

III. Data and Measurement 

A. The Rationale for Measuring Curricular Arts Business Training 

There are four primary reasons for specifically observing arts business curriculum, as ev-

idenced by the field’s literature. First, the goal of curricular integration has been central 

to the development of arts business education. The earliest major study on arts entrepre-

neurship, by Beckman, claimed that “[c]lassroom instruction is the primary mechanism of 

formal arts entrepreneurship education” (Beckman, 2007, p. 90). Essig’s early research 

suggested that suffusing entrepreneurship across the curriculum could allay concerns 

within institutions around resource allocation and create more buy-in from colleges and 

universities of various sizes (Essig, 2009). In contrast, the first music business and arts 

management programs were curricular in nature, which established a precedent for other 

programs that have since followed (“Bolz Center for Arts Administration,” n.d.; Barnet & 

Dixon, 2014). 



ARTIVATE 12 

7 

Curricular content naturally provides progressive, contextual learning that can am-

plify applied learning (internships, self-guided projects, venture creation, etc.) but even in 

isolation offers pathways to deeper learning compared with one-off, or even sequential, 

co-curricular offerings. Indeed, the dominant foci of the most widely used academic pub-

lications in the field over the last two decades have centered around pedagogical applica-

bility—how to translate business concepts for artists, how to integrate arts business con-

cepts into arts curricula, how to train arts faculty members as facilitators of arts business 

skills in the classroom, and how to create more conducive arts business learning contexts 

within academia (Beeching, 2005; Beckman, 2011; Beckman 2022; Boyle-Clapp et al, 2016; 

Feist, 2013; Hart, 2018; Nytch, 2018; Passman & Glass, 2023; Radbill, 2017; Rabideau, 

2018). 

Second, while facilitating curricular content may seem more laborious and slow-

paced as compared to creating new co-curricular offerings, the development of courses 

and degree programs demonstrates a deeper institutional commitment to the integration 

of arts business training. Curricular integration is already a common pretext for scholar-

ship on strategies for sustaining entrepreneurship training more broadly within academic 

contexts, which may account for this trend in the descendent fields of arts entrepreneur-

ship and arts business training (Archino et al., 2020; Fayolle et al., 2016; Tuominiemi & 

Benzenberg, 2021).  

Delivering curricular content often also requires collaboration across units and thus 

may formalize the ways in which arts students have access to business training. The inte-

gration of business skills through entrepreneurship training in particular is a construct 

that has been levied as a tool for amplifying the impact of tertiary arts education and thus 

also often plays into narratives around the ways in which universities may serve as an-

chors for both developing new business models and to spur economic development. The 

greater depth offered by curricular content, coupled with its tendency to be more sus-

tained within institutions, underlies this argument (Ashley & Durham, 2021; Bryan & Har-

ris, 2015; Hausmann, 2010). 

Third, co-curricular content varies to such a degree from institution to institution that 

tracking pedagogical effectiveness continues to perplex the field. Previous studies have 

painted broad strokes of correlation between access to business training and career read-

iness, yet they also consistently point both to the challenges of cataloging and quantifying 

the impact of specific arts business training resources (Beckman, 2011; Hart, 2018; 

Rapisarda & Loots 2021; Roberts, 2010; White, 2013). Scholarly interest in training effi-

cacy is responsive to the broad persistence of an entrepreneurial skills gap reported by 

arts alumni, despite the proliferation of entrepreneurial training programs in the arts 

(Frenette, 2020; Strategic Arts Alumni Project, 2012). 

Three other kindred research projects have approached the question of training effi-

cacy through broader lenses. One recent Delphi study surveyed experts and unpacked 43 

entrepreneurial mentorship best practices for academic practitioners, finding that 



ARTIVATE 12 

8 

“mentoring and classroom-based entrepreneurship education can be complementary” 

(Hanson, 2021, p. 18). Another recent study using SNAAP data explored whether arts 

alumni’s perceived preparedness in critical thinking, leadership, business management, 

and artistic skills during their tertiary training had a significant association with those 

alumni’s subsequent predilection to pursue either freelancing careers or new venture cre-

ation (Guo & McGraw, 2022). They found that preparedness in business management and 

artistic specialty “. . . are positively associated with the probability of taking any of the 

entrepreneurial career paths” (Guo & McGraw, 2022, p. 16). Finally, a recent SNAAP spe-

cial report examining motivations amongst professionals to stay versus leave the arts con-

cluded that “artists would greatly benefit from more entrepreneurial-focused curricula 

within higher education” (Frenette & Dowd, 2020, n.p.). While these general findings indi-

cate that curricular content might have a significant impact on the outcomes of arts grad-

uates, specific studies on the effectiveness of curricular offerings have yet to be published.  

Finally, curricular business training is captured by the Census Bureau’s American 

Community Survey (ACS), which allows us to associate whether business training 

amongst arts graduates translates to better employment and earnings outcomes. Deliver-

ing arts business content in the classroom is thus more than a potent formula for sustain-

ing and amplifying the impact of arts business training. It is a key limiting parameter that 

facilitates the analysis of the efficacy of business training on arts graduates. 

B. Methodology and Analysis of the American Community Survey (ACS)  

In order assess prevalence of curricular business training amongst arts graduates, we 

gather individual-level data from the American Community Survey (ACS) by the Census 

Bureau between 2009 and 2019. We restrict our sample to college graduates and deflate 

earnings by the 2012 personal consumption expenditure (PCE) index. For each individual, 

we see their employment status, hourly wage, and a wide array of demographics. 

Starting in 2009, the ACS allows us to see individuals’ formal degrees. We focus on 

fine arts degree holders, a specific set of business degree holders, and everyone else. Our 

focus on fine arts includes: Drama and Theater Arts; Music; Visual and Performing Arts; 

Commercial Art and Graphic Design; Film, Video, and Photographic Arts; Art History and 

Criticism; Studio Arts; and Miscellaneous Fine Arts. We align our classification of business 

as much with entrepreneurship as possible, so we specifically code respondents as having 

a business degree if they take “business management and administration” or “marketing 

and marketing research.” We have experimented with other business sub-degree pro-

grams, such as finance and accounting, and have found that our main results become null, 

suggesting that simply taking business classes is not a panacea to learning entrepreneur-

ship—the specific type of class matters. 

Table 1 below documents these summary statistics across different partitions of the 

labor market with at least a college degree, including for the pooled sample in the ACS. We 



ARTIVATE 12 

9 

report our main demographic characteristics of interest, coupled with labor market out-

comes. Fine arts degree holders are slightly younger, more female, and whiter than their 

non-fine-arts counterparts. They are also slightly less likely to be employed, have lower 

hourly wages and annual earnings, and work less per week. The income differences are 

especially striking: fine arts degree holders make an average of $50,866 per year, whereas 

their counterparts make $73,349 per year. 

Turning towards those with an arts degree but with or without some business degree, 

we see large differences in the share of females. For example, those with art and business 

degrees are 26% male, whereas those without business but with arts degrees are 40% 

male. Interestingly, however, the raw differences in earnings between those with and 

without business degree experience (and with an arts degree) are minor: those with busi-

ness degree experience only earn roughly $1,000 more per year. As we will explain shortly, 

these raw differences confound many potential omitted variables. For example, highly 

competent artists might choose to add an alternative major, such as mathematics or writ-

ing, rather than business, which would create negative selection effects. In our eventual 

regressions, we will control for many demographic and occupational differences to miti-

gate concerns about spurious correlations and omitted variables bias. 

While we are not aware of any way of linking respondents in the ACS with the actual 

school they attended, the ACS still provides the most comprehensive data available to 

study arts entrepreneurship over time and on a nationally representative sample. Because 

we can see the degree program that a respondent has participated in, coupled with a wide 

array of demographic and labor market information (including occupation and industry), 

we can study the returns from having some business exposure. Formally, to understand 

the employment and hourly wage differences between those with and without fine arts 

bachelor’s degrees, we estimate multivariate models of the form: 

𝑦𝑖𝑡 = 𝛾𝐴𝑅𝑇𝑖𝑡 + 𝜉(𝐴𝑅𝑇𝑆𝑂𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑡 × 𝐴𝑅𝑇𝑖𝑡) + 𝜙(𝐵𝐼𝑍𝐷𝐸𝐺𝑖𝑡 × 𝐴𝑅𝑇𝑖𝑡) + 𝛽𝑋𝑖𝑡 + 𝜁𝑜 + 𝜆𝑡 + 𝜀𝑖𝑡  

where 𝑦𝑖𝑡 denotes individual 𝑖’s employment status in year 𝑡, 𝐴𝑅𝑇 denotes an in-

dicator for whether the individual has a fine arts degree, 𝐴𝑅𝑇𝑆𝑂𝐶𝐶 denotes an indica-

tor for whether the individual is in an arts occupation, 𝐵𝐼𝑍𝐷𝐸𝐺 denotes an indicator 

for whether the individual has a business administration double major, 𝑋 denotes a 

vector of individual demographic traits, and 𝜁 and 𝜆 denote fixed effects on occupation 

and year. Standard errors are heteroskedastic-robust. Our vector of demographic 

controls include age, gender, and race (White, Black, Asian) and marital status. These 

controls help us mitigate bias that might emerge from composition effects related to 

preferences for the arts over other degree programs or occupations and/or other con-

straints (e.g., family commitments). 

We restrict the sample to college degree holders in the ACS, reducing the sample 

size considerably as roughly a third of workers hold a college degree. We are mainly 

interested in the marginal effect of a fine arts degree on hourly wages or employment, 



ARTIVATE 12 

10 

as well as the interaction effects with working in an arts occupation and holding a 

business degree. We classify arts occupations by standard occupational classification 

(SOC) codes, namely “Art and Design Workers” and “Entertainers and Performers, 

Sports and Related Workers.” 

When an indicator for employment is our outcome variable, we simply layer on 

controls for potential heterogeneity in capabilities or preferences. However, when log 

annual earnings is our outcome variable, we can exploit variation within the same 

occupation (i.e., artists with and without business degrees), comparing people with 

similar levels of age, gender, race, and marital status within the same occupation over 

time, thereby reducing concerns of a spurious correlation. 

The main concern associated with interpreting the coefficients from this regres-

sion as causal is the presence of selection effects. That is, people with higher ability or 

skill are more likely to select certain jobs and majors. For example, in a world where 

all the most capable learners and workers select into a computer science degree pro-

gram, then our marginal effect of fine arts on wages will be downwards biased. Simi-

larly, if less capable learners and workers select into business, that will further down-

wards bias our marginal effect on the interaction. We view the business degree as a 

proxy for some amount of entrepreneurship training since such courses, at least at a 

theoretical level, have become standard. But we also recognize that the coefficients 

might reflect a broader suite of human capital—not just entrepreneurship training. 

In reality, the direction and size of the bias is not fully known, so we do our best 

to control for confounding demographic characteristics (e.g., age, race, gender, mari-

tal status) and two-digit occupation fixed effects in a sequential manner. That ensures 

that our comparisons are on observationally equivalent people in similar major occu-

pations rather than comparisons between, say, a cashier and a manager. Another con-

cern with this setup is that our data only allows us to see formal degree holders. We 

do not, for example, observe whether individuals have undertaken a certificate pro-

gram or even non-degree coursework. We believe that our results are likely to hold 

since degrees proxy for exposure to certain curricula, which should be reflected in 

any arts business curricula, too. 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 



ARTIVATE 12 

11 

Table 1: Summary Statistics from the Census Bureau 

Pooled Fine Arts Non-Fine Arts Arts and 

Business 

Arts and Non-

business 

 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mea

n 

SD 

Age 44.5 13.4 42.2 13.6 44.6 13.4 38.6 12.4 42.3 13.6 

Male 0.49 0.50 0.40 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.26 0.44 0.40 0.49 

Married 0.65 0.48 0.54 0.50 0.66 0.47 0.48 0.50 0.54 0.50 

White 0.81 0.39 0.85 0.36 0.81 0.39 0.84 0.37 0.85 0.36 

Black 0.07 0.25 0.04 0.20 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.24 0.04 0.20 

Asian 0.09 0.29 0.06 0.24 0.09 0.29 0.06 0.23 0.06 0.24 

Employed 0.94 0.24 0.92 0.27 0.94 0.24 0.93 0.25 0.92 0.27 

Hours 

worked/w

eek 

40.7 12.2 38.3 12.8 40.8 12.1 39.9 12.0 38.3 12.9 

Hourly 

wage 

39.6 203.5 30.8 188.4 40.0 204.1 29.6 97.8 30.8 189.2 

Annual 

earnings 

72377 77043 50866 56589 73349 77700 51698 5402

9 

5085

7 

56617 

Observa-

tions 

5570791  240868  53299

23 

 2592  2382

76 

 

IV. Differences in Labor Market Outcomes for Fine Arts and 

Other College Graduates 
Table 2 below documents these results across a range of specifications that sequen-

tially control for greater degrees of heterogeneity. Starting with column 1, we see that 

fine arts majors are 1.4 percentage points less likely to be employed than their coun-

terparts. That gradient remains identical even after controlling for demographic char-

acteristics. While business majors are more likely to be employed, we do not see a 

statistically significant interaction effect between arts and business degree holders 

(column 3). That could reflect the low incidence of unemployment among people with 

a college degree in general. 

Turning towards column 4 where we switch our outcome variable to the log an-

nual earnings, we find that fine arts majors earn 26.7% lower earnings than their 

counterparts. As we add additional demographic controls, the economic magnitude 

declines slightly to a 18.5% wage gap but remains significant (column 5). We subse-

quently add two-digit occupational fixed effects, controlling for differences in the 

types of jobs that people with an arts major select into, lowering the magnitude to a 

8.4% wage difference (column 6). 

Next, we turn to column 7 where we allow for heterogeneous treatment effects 

among those fine arts degree holders who also have a business degree. Based on our 



ARTIVATE 12 

12 

earlier theoretical motivation, we expect that those with some business education 

would be better off than their counterparts. Like before, fine arts majors have a 8.7% 

earnings disadvantage, but those who also have a business degree earn an additional 

4.2% more per hour. The net effect of holding an arts and business degree is still neg-

ative (6.5% earnings disadvantage) relative to their counterparts, but it is roughly half 

as negative as fine arts degree holders who do not also have a business degree. In 

other words, those with both an arts and business degree tend to earn higher earnings 

even after controlling for many possibly confounding factors.  

Is this just a feature of double majoring? To answer that question, we can estimate 

column 7 controlling for an indicator for whether an individual has double majored, 

comparing those with an arts and business degree with their counterparts who dou-

ble majored in other degree programs. This produces qualitatively similar results: the 

interaction effect on a fine arts and business degree declines from 0.042 to 0.029 but 

remains statistically significant (p-value = 0.026), suggesting that selection effects 

into double majoring are relevant but cannot explain the entirety of the result. 

Finally, we turn to column 8 where we allow for an interaction effect between 

working in an arts occupation and holding an arts degree. These fine arts workers 

make an additional 6.8% more in annual earnings, almost completely offsetting the 

wage disadvantage of a fine arts degree. Likely, the strong positive interaction effect 

reflects the benefits of working in a job that aligns with the human capital investments 

and interests during college. 

 

Table 2: Evaluating the Differences Between Fine Arts and Other Majors Over Time. The table reports the co-
efficients associated with regressions of an indicator for whether an individual is employed (columns 1-2) and 
the log hourly wage deflated with the 2012 price of consumption (columns 3-5) on an indicator for whether 
the individual has a fine arts bachelor’s degree, an indicator for whether the individual also has a business de-
gree, their interactions, conditional on controls and fixed effects. Controls include age, gender, marital status, 
and race (White, Black, Asian). 

Dep. var. 

= 

Is Employed Log Annual Earnings 

 

 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 

Fine Arts 

BA 
-.014

∗∗∗
 -.014

∗∗∗
 -.013

∗∗∗
 -.267

∗∗∗
 -.185

∗∗∗
 -.084

∗∗∗
 -.087

∗∗∗
 -.091

∗∗∗
 

 

Business 

[.001] [.001] [.001] 

.004
∗∗∗ 

[.000] 

[.002] [.002] [.002] [.002] 

 

[.001] 

[.002] 

Fine Arts 

BA × Busi-

ness 

  .002 

[.006] 

   
.042

∗∗∗ 

[.013] 

 

Fine Arts 

BA × Arts 

Occupation 

       
.068

∗∗∗ 

[.006] 

R-squared .00 .01 .01 .00 .13 .35 .35 .35 



ARTIVATE 12 

13 

Sample Size 5570791 5570791 5570791 5219604 4671481 4671481 4671481 4671481 

Individual 

Controls 

No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Occupation 

Fixed Ef-

fects 

No No No No No Yes Yes Yes 

Year Fixed 

Effects 

No No No No No Yes Yes Yes 

Sources: American Community Survey (2009-2019). 

These results also complement recent empirical evidence by Makridis (2023), who 

finds that the relative earnings among artists, relative to non-artists, has further declined 

since 2006: whereas artists would earn 15% less than their non-artist peers with similar 

age, education, race, and gender, now they earn 30% less. Furthermore, when restricting 

the set of individuals to those with at least a college degree, those with a fine arts degree 

incur an earnings and employment penalty even if they work in the arts. In addition, those 

with a master’s degree also earn much less than their artist counterparts with a college 

degree. While Makridis (2023) does not interpret these as causal effects—especially as 

they may reflect negative selection into further study among those artists who have yet to 

“make it”—they nonetheless underscore the importance of exposure to business training 

among artists, particularly in providing additional skills, networks, and other opportuni-

ties to help navigate a challenging labor market and build resilience. 

While we have endeavored to control for a wide variety of potentially confounding 

factors and show that the differences in earnings are driven by exposure to business train-

ing, our data paper nonetheless has several shortcomings. First, arts degree holders who 

also have a business degree are only 1% of the sample. That this proportion is small 

should not come as a surprise; the findings align with previous research showing rel-

ative scarcity of curricular programs (Barnet & Dixon, 2014; Essig and Guevara, 2016; 

“Programs Archive,” n.d.).  

Second, there is unfortunately no way to connect the respondents in the ACS with the 

specific college that they attended. Ideally, we could measure exposure to business train-

ing at the individual level directly rather than inferring from their degree program. How-

ever, that will generally cause us to recover an “intent to treat,” which may cause attenu-

ation bias if anything since we will infer business treatment when none may have 

happened. In that case, our estimates would be overly conservative. 

Third, we do not have a measure of quality in arts business training. In practice, we 

know that there is substantial heterogeneity in teacher quality and even institutional ac-

cess, which contributes to post-graduation career outcomes and placement. However, that 

should only produce attenuation bias rather than change our main results. 

Finally, we do not have direct measurement of individuals’ participation in arts busi-

ness training. Rather, we only have a proxy based on the individuals’ exposure to business 

curriculum. Still, the analysis above effectively positions curricular business training as a 



ARTIVATE 12 

14 

proxy for arts-focused business exposure for two reasons. First, while the low frequency 

of arts majors also earning a business degree indicates that practice is not common, it is 

reasonable to assume arts students who do take business courses may do so to gain infor-

mation relevant to their career interests. Arts business curricular content offered within 

arts colleges, or in partnership with arts colleges, could thus create advantages for those 

interested in such training—the psychological and course credit barriers may be smaller, 

and those courses generally will be more accessible as they are scheduled in unit around 

other required courses. The rise of arts entrepreneurship, music business, and arts man-

agement programs reflects those goals. However, additional research is required to deter-

mine the degree to which arts unit-based business courses are, indeed, more accessible 

than business school-based courses. 

Future work should aim to harmonize individual-level data on employment and 

wages with higher education data degree attainment through the use of the Longitudinal 

Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) fielded by the Census Bureau, for example. The 

LEHD tracks individuals over time across employers but would require augmentation 

with state-level data on educational attainment, which is only possible in a subset of 

states. Such data would also allow researchers to identify how different employers value 

different sets of skills and educational backgrounds, and whether these valuations have 

changed substantially over time as the arts sector has also changed. 

We have taken an initial step towards such an analysis by compiling the 2022 US News 

and World Report list of top universities (2022-2023 Best Universities in the World, 2022). 

We reviewed the catalogs for the top 185 institutions (Table A in the Appendix), examining 

the curriculum at each of these institutions and looking for any arts entrepreneurship cer-

tificate and coursework related to arts business available for students. We find that just 

9.7% (18) colleges offer a curricular arts entrepreneurship certificate program while 

11.4% (21) require at least one arts business course—representative of arts entrepre-

neurship, music industry, or arts management topics. These rates of incidence supplement 

previous findings by Essig and Guevara (2016), Barnet and Dixon (2014), and White 

(2013), and reinforce the challenges artists face in integrating arts business training into 

their degree programs. There are several limitations to this work, however. First, data on 

rates of participation in specific courses, minors, certificates, or even degrees is not readily 

observable at the institutional level from the US News and World Report. Second, the va-

riety of nomenclature used to represent arts business content varies from school to 

school, which means that the incidence of such training may be under- or over-repre-

sented. Some institutions may indeed deliver embedded arts business training through 

courses that are not listed explicitly as such. Third, the list includes schools outside of the 

United States, which is asynchronous to the United States-based ACS data. These issues 

are outside the scope of this paper, and we leave them to future research.   



ARTIVATE 12 

15 

V. Conclusion 
Each year, thousands of new arts graduates enter the labor market. But many of them 

have a tough time finding employment and, even among those who do, many still 

struggle to pay their bills and earn a living within the arts. Some colleges and conserv-

atories have launched arts entrepreneurship, arts management, or music business 

programs to improve those outcomes, but the criteria for such programs and their 

relative efficacy remains in question and many programs have yet to do so. The pur-

pose of this paper is to examine the value of arts business training quantitatively. 

We synthesized the literature on the growth of arts business training and the 

field’s motivations. Using data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Sur-

vey between 2009 and 2019, we also estimated the association between having both 

an arts and business degree and both employment and earnings outcomes. We find 

that, while arts graduates earn 8.7% less than their non-arts graduate counterparts, 

those with a business degree only earn 3.5% less. In other words, having both arts and 

business exposure offsets roughly half of the earnings disadvantage that arts gradu-

ates incur. Similarly, we find that those arts graduates who also work in an arts occu-

pation only earn 2.3% less per year rather than 9.1% less among those graduates in 

non-arts occupations. Our results control for demographic differences (e.g., age, race, 

gender, etc.) and compare workers in similar occupations. 

These findings have higher education policy implications. First, curricular busi-

ness offerings for arts students—those that translate and apply business content 

within arts environments—have a positive impact on the future earnings of arts grad-

uates. Given the rarity of such programs, integrating business curricula within higher 

education training requirements should be a priority for institutions of all types, and 

there could be social value in conditioning or allocating federal resources to fund such 

programs. Coupled with findings on the potentially negative returns to a college edu-

cation (Makridis, 2023), these results highlight the ways colleges can help promote 

greater diversity of human capital for their artist graduates. Otherwise, colleges risk 

continuing to produce more arts graduates that the labor market cannot accommo-

date, putting graduates in even greater financial precarity and debt. 

Beyond advancing professional outcomes, institutionalizing such training based 

on tangible outcomes could also be leveraged as a recruiting and fundraising tool. 

Similarly, it appears that delivering business training specifically in an arts training 

context is relevant to catalyzing better earnings outcomes, suggesting that cross-unit 

collaborations—drawing from knowledge in the business school but translated and 

applied within an arts college or department—may be more effective than simply mo-

tivating artists to take business classes. 

Additionally, this study proposes that further research is needed to fully understand 

how institutions might deliver the most effective approaches to leveraging entrepreneur-

ial, management, and business content in the curriculum. First, how might exposure to 



ARTIVATE 12 

16 

business training impact the ability of artists to launch and sustain businesses? Given that 

artists are 3.6 times more likely to be self-employed than other workers (“Artists and 

Other Cultural Workers,” 2019, p. iii), the ability to generate income independently may 

be as important as, if not more important than, employability in terms of the longevity of 

artist careers. Further study is also required to understand the degree to which exposure 

to business training impacts the longevity of new artistic enterprises and whether curric-

ular or co-curricular training modalities better serve those ends. In order to understand 

the latter question, additional research is also needed to further explore which factors 

motivate artists to pursue business classes, the degree to which courses advertised as de-

livering arts entrepreneurship, arts management, and music business do, in fact, encapsu-

late business training, and what other barriers exist that limit access to business training. 

Finally, questions remain about the factors that might influence which specific 

courses might more directly impact future earnings amongst artists. For example, cur-

ricular content may be blended, combining business training with more generalized 

career services content such as how to find employment, how to prepare application 

materials, how to negotiate, and other ancillary training. It is yet unclear whether such 

a blended approach would enhance effectiveness in terms of employability and future 

earnings. Nonetheless, we show that curricular business education, when delivered 

effectively, can have tangibly positive impacts on the outcomes of arts graduates and 

positions that work as important to explore further as an essential component of ar-

tistic training today. 

 

  



ARTIVATE 12 

17 

Appendix 

Table A: Top Universities with and without Arts Business Curricula 

 

Rank University Has Arts Entrepre-

neurship Certifi-

cate 

Has Curricular 

Requirement 

(Coursework of 

some kind) 

1 Harvard University No No 

2 Massachusetts Insti-

tute of Technology 

No No 

3 Stanford University No No 

4 University of Califor-

nia--Berkeley 

No No 

5 University of Oxford No No 

6 Columbia University No No 

7 University of Washing-

ton 

No No 

8 University of Cam-

bridge 

No No 

9 California Institute of 

Technology 

No No 

10 Johns Hopkins Univer-

sity 

No Yes 

11 University of Califor-

nia--San Francisco 

No No 

12 Yale University No No 

13 University of Pennsyl-

vania 

No No 

14 University of Califor-

nia--Los Angeles 

Yes No 

15 University of Chicago  No No 

16 Princeton University No No 

17 University College Lon-

don 

No No 

18 University of Toronto No No 

19 University of Michigan-

-Ann Arbor 

Yes No 



ARTIVATE 12 

18 

20 Imperial College Lon-

don 

No No 

21 University of Califor-

nia--San Diego 

Yes Yes 

22 Cornell University No No 

23 Duke University No No 

24 Northwestern Univer-

sity 

No No 

25 University of Mel-

bourne 

No No 

26 Swiss Federal Institute 

of Technology Zurich 

No No 

27 Tsinghua University No No 

28 University of Sydney No Yes 

29 National University of 

Singapore 

No Yes 

30 New York University No Yes 

31 Washington University 

in St. Louis 

No No 

32 University of Edin-

burgh 

No No 

33 King's College London No No 

34 Nanyang Technological 

University 

No No 

35 British Columbia Insti-

tute of Technology 

No No 

36 University of Queens-

land Australia 

No No 

37 University of Copenha-

gen 

No No 

38 University of Amster-

dam 

No No 

39 University of North 

Carolina--Chapel Hill 

No No 

40 Monash University No Yes 

41 University of New 

South Wales 

No No 

42 University of No No 



ARTIVATE 12 

19 

Pittsburgh 

43 University of Texas--

Austin 

Yes No 

44 King Abdulaziz Univer-

sity 

No No 

45 Peking University No No 

46 Sorbonne Universite No No 

47 University of Munich No No 

48 Catholic University of 

Leuven 

No No 

49 Karolinska Institute No No 

50 Utrecht University No No 

51 McGill University Yes Yes 

52 Ohio State University--

Columbus 

No Yes 

53 University of Wiscon-

sin--Madison 

Yes No 

54 Heidelberg University No No 

55 University of Minne-

sota--Twin Cities 

No Yes 

56 Australian National 

University 

No Yes 

57 Icahn School of Medi-

cine at Mount Sinai 

No No 

58 Georgia Institute of 

Technology 

No No 

59 University of Manches-

ter 

No No 

60 Universite Paris Saclay No No 

61 University of Mary-

land--College Park 

Yes Yes 

62 Erasmus University 

Rotterdam 

No No 

63 University of Colorado-

-Boulder 

Yes No 

64 University of Zurich No No 

65 Boston University No No 



ARTIVATE 12 

20 

66 University of Adelaide No No 

67 Universite  de Paris No No 

68 University of Califor-

nia--Davis 

No No 

69 University of Califor-

nia--Santa Barbara 

No No 

70 E cole Polytechnique 

Federale of Lausanne 

No No 

71 University of Southern 

California 

No Yes 

72 University of Illinois--

Urbana-Champaign 

Yes Yes 

73 Vanderbilt University No No 

74 Emory University No No 

75 Technical University of 

Munich 

No No 

76 University of Hong 

Kong 

No Yes 

77 University of Tokyo No No 

78 Humboldt-Universita t 

zu Berlin 

No No 

79 University of Western 

Australia 

No No 

80 Pennsylvania State Uni-

versity--University 

Park 

Yes Yes 

81 Wageningen University 

and Research Center 

No No 

82 Chinese University 

Hong Kong 

No Yes 

83 Leiden University No No 

84 University of Glasgow No No 

85 Vrije Universiteit Am-

sterdam 

No No 

86 University of Califor-

nia--Irvine 

No No 

87 University of Barcelona No No 

88 University of No Yes 



ARTIVATE 12 

21 

Groningen 

89 Rockefeller University No No 

90 University of Oslo No No 

91 University of Birming-

ham 

No No 

92 Ghent University No No 

93 University of Bristol No No 

94 University of Helsinki No No 

95 Freie Universita t Berlin No No 

96 Lund University No No 

97 King Abdullah Univer-

sity of Science and 

Technology 

No No 

98 University of South-

ampton 

No No 

99 University of Arizona No No 

100 University of Florida No No 

101 University of Geneva No No 

102 Carnegie Mellon Uni-

versity 

Yes No 

103 Aarhus University No No 

104 University of Califor-

nia--Santa Cruz 

No No 

105 Hong Kong University 

of Science and Technol-

ogy 

No No 

106 Shanghai Jiao Tong 

University 

No No 

107 Radboud University 

Nijmegen 

No No 

108 Michigan State Univer-

sity 

Yes Yes 

109 University of Cape 

Town 

No No 

110 Queen Mary, University 

of London 

No No 

111 University of Science & No No 



ARTIVATE 12 

22 

Technology of China, 

CAS 

112 University of Virginia No No 

113 Uppsala University No No 

114 University of Bern No No 

115 Universidade de Sa o 

Paulo 

No No 

116 Zhejiang University No No 

117 University of Bologna No No 

118 University of Auckland No No 

119 Brown University No No 

120 University of Bonn No No 

121 University of Padua No No 

122 Weizmann Institute of 

Science 

No No 

123 Stockholm University No No 

124 Hong Kong Polytechnic 

University 

No No 

125 Sapienza University of 

Rome 

No No 

126 University of Texas 

Southwestern Medical 

Center--Dallas 

No No 

127 Kyoto University No No 

128 Purdue University--

West Lafayette 

No No 

129 University of Technol-

ogy Sydney 

No Yes 

130 London School of Hy-

giene and Tropical 

Medicine 

No No 

131 Rutgers, The State Uni-

versity of New Jersey--

New Brunswick 

Yes Yes 

132 Seoul National Univer-

sity 

No No 

133 McMaster University No No 



ARTIVATE 12 

23 

134 University of Gothen-

burg 

No No 

135 Baylor College of Medi-

cine 

No No 

136 Nanjing University No No 

137 University of Alberta Yes No 

138 University of Basel No No 

139 University of Sheffield No No 

140 Texas A&M University-

-College Station 

No No 

141 City University Hong 

Kong 

No No 

142 Fudan University No No 

143 Indiana University--

Bloomington 

No No 

144 Autonomous Univer-

sity of Barcelona 

No No 

145 Case Western Reserve 

University 

No No 

146 University of Warwick No No 

147 University of Alabama-

-Birmingham 

No No 

148 University of Massa-

chusetts--Amherst 

Yes No 

149 University of Go ttingen No No 

150 University of Leeds No No 

151 Oregon Health and Sci-

ence University 

No No 

152 University of Montreal No No 

153 University of Notting-

ham 

No No 

154 University of Utah No No 

155 University of Liverpool No No 

156 Curtin University No No 

157 University of Newcas-

tle 

No No 

158 University of Hamburg No No 



ARTIVATE 12 

24 

159 Sun Yat-sen University No No 

160 University of Chinese 

Academy of Sciences 

No No 

161 Technical University of 

Denmark 

No No 

162 University of Rochester No No 

163 University of Exeter No No 

164 University of Sussex No No 

165 Arizona State Univer-

sity--Tempe 

Yes No 

166 Cardiff University No No 

167 Rice University No No 

168 University Catholique 

of Louvain 

No No 

169 University of Calgary No No 

170 University of Califor-

nia--Riverside 

No Yes 

171 University of Milan No No 

172 Tel Aviv University No No 

173 University of Freiburg No No 

174 Delft University of 

Technology 

No No 

175 University of Iowa Yes No 

176 Huazhong University of 

Science and Technol-

ogy 

No No 

177 Northeastern Univer-

sity 

No No 

178 Queensland University 

of Technology 

No No 

179 University of Colorado 

Anschutz Medical Cam-

pus 

Yes No 

180 Eberhard Karls Univer-

sity, Tu bingen 

No No 

181 Universite Grenoble 

Alpes (UGA) 

No No 



ARTIVATE 12 

25 

182 University of Aix-Mar-

seille 

No No 

183 University of Bergen No No 

184 University of Lausanne No No 

185 Technical University of 

Dresden 

No No 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ARTIVATE 12 

26 

References 

2022-2023 best universities in the world - US news and world report. 
(n.d.). Retrieved August 20, 2022, from https://www.us-

news.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings   

A brief history | Berklee. (n.d.). Retrieved September 88, 2023, from 
https://www.berklee.edu/about/brief-history 

Archino, S., Lanier, M., & McClain, R. (2020). Reframing the arts 
within the liberal arts community: Teaching an arts entrepre-
neurial mindset to achieve transdisciplinary outcomes. Arti-
vate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 9(2). 
https://doi.org/10.34053/artivate.9.2.138  

Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait. (2019). 
National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved September 11, 
2023, from https://www.arts.gov/impact/research/publica-
tions/artists-and-other-cultural-workers-statistical-portrait 

Ashley, A., & Durham, L. (2021). Universities as arts and cultural 
anchors: Moving beyond bricks and mortar to entrepreneur-
ship, workforce, and community development Approaches. 
Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 10(2). 
https://doi.org/10.34053/artivate.10.2.150  

Baumol, W. J., & Baumol, H. (1994). On the economics of musical 
composition in Mozart’s Vienna. Journal of Cultural Economics, 
18(3), 171–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01080225  

Barnet, R. D., & Dixon, D. (2014). Directory of music business de-
grees: Undergraduate and graduate: College Music Industry De-
gree Programs. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.  

Beeching, A. M. (2005). Beyond talent: Creating a successful career 
in music. Oxford University Press. 

Beckman, G. D. (2007). “Adventuring” arts entrepreneurship curric-
ula in higher education: An examination of present efforts, ob-
stacles, and best practices. The Journal of Arts Management, 
Law, and Society, 37(2), 87–112. 
https://doi.org/10.3200/JAML.37.2.87-112  

Beckman, G. D. (2011). Disciplining the arts: teaching entrepreneur-
ship in context. Rowman &   Littlefield. 

Beckman, G. D. (2022). The new arts entrepreneur: navigating the 
arts ecologies. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 

Bolz Center for Arts Administration. (n.d.). Wisconsin School of Busi-
ness. Retrieved September 18, 2023, from https://busi-
ness.wisc.edu/centers/bolz/  

Boyle-Clapp, D., Brown, M., & Gard, M. (2016). Fundamentals of arts 
management. Arts Extension Service, University of Massachu-
setts Amherst.  

Bryan, T. S. S., & Harris, D. (2015). The aesthetic value exchange: A 
potential framework for the arts entrepreneurship classroom. 
Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1). 
https://doi.org/10.46776/jaee.v1.29  

Cascone, S. (2018, September 12). Fine arts majors have the worst 
job prospects in the US, says    a new study. ArtNet News. Re-
trieved September 20, 2023, from https://news.art-
net.com/art-world/art-majors-worst-job-prospects-us-
1347035 

Chang, W. J., & Wyszomirski, M. (2015). What is Arts Entrepreneur-
ship? Tracking the Development of its Definition in Scholarly 
Journals. Artivate, 4(2), 33–31. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2015.0010  

Cooper, P. (2022, May 12). Is college worth it? A comprehensive 
return on investment analysis. Medium. Retrieved September 3, 
2023, from https://freopp.org/is-college-worth-it-a-

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
https://www.berklee.edu/about/brief-history
https://doi.org/10.34053/artivate.9.2.138
https://www.arts.gov/impact/research/publications/artists-and-other-cultural-workers-statistical-portrait
https://www.arts.gov/impact/research/publications/artists-and-other-cultural-workers-statistical-portrait
https://www.arts.gov/impact/research/publications/artists-and-other-cultural-workers-statistical-portrait
https://doi.org/10.34053/artivate.10.2.150
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01080225
https://doi.org/10.3200/JAML.37.2.87-112
https://business.wisc.edu/centers/bolz/
https://business.wisc.edu/centers/bolz/
https://doi.org/10.46776/jaee.v1.29
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-majors-worst-job-prospects-us-1347035
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-majors-worst-job-prospects-us-1347035
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-majors-worst-job-prospects-us-1347035
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2015.0010
https://freopp.org/is-college-worth-it-a-comprehensive-return-on-investment-analysis-1b2ad17f84c8


ARTIVATE 12 

27 

comprehensive-return-on-investment-analysis-1b2ad17f84c8  
Cowen, T., & Tabarrok, A. (2000). An economic theory of avant-

garde and popular art, or high and low culture. Southern Eco-
nomic Journal, 67(2), 232–253. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2000.tb00335.x  

Cutler, D. (2009). The savvy musician: building a career, earning a 
living & making a difference. Helius Press. 

Deming, D. J. (2017). The growing importance of social skills in the 
labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(4), 
1593–1640. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx022  

Essig, L. (2009). Suffusing entrepreneurship education throughout 
the theatre curriculum. Theatre Topics, 19(2), 117–124. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/tt.0.0075  

Essig, L. (2015). Means and ends: A theory framework for under-
standing entrepreneurship in the US arts and culture sector. 
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 45(4), 227–
246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2015.1103673  

Essig, L., & Guevara, J. (2016). A landscape of arts entrepreneurship 
in US higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: Alliance for the arts in 
Research Universities. Alliance for the Arts in Research Uni-
versities. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35204.73606 

Essig, L., & Guevara, J. (2016). A Landscape of Arts Entrepreneurship 
in US Higher Education.  

Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: 
The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepre-
neurship education research. International Small Business Jour-
nal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(7), 895–904. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616649250  

Feder, T., & Woronkowicz, J. (2022). Reluctantly independent: Mo-
tivations for self-employed artistic work. Journal of Cultural 
Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-022-09464-5 

Feist, J. (2013). Project Management for musicians: Recordings, con-
certs, Tours, studios, and more. Berklee Press.  

Frenette, A. (2020). Which skills do founders and freelancers need? 
Unpacking the entrepreneurial skills gap. Databrief, 8(1). Re-
trieved September 8, 2023, from https://snaaparts.org/find-
ings/databriefs/which-skills-do-founders-and-freelancers-
need-unpacking-the-entrepreneurial-skills-gap  

Frenette A., & Tepper S. (2016). What difference does it make? As-

sessing the effects of arts-based training on career pathways. In 

Comunian R., Gilmore A. (Eds.), Higher education and the cre-
ative economy: Beyond the campus (pp. 83-101). New York: 

Routledge. 

Guo, W., & McGraw, D. J. (2023). The arts alumni have spoken: The 
impact of training in higher education on entrepreneurial ca-
reers. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 6(3), 410–
435. https://doi.org/10.1177/25151274221120071  

Hanson, J. (2021). Best practices for mentoring in arts entrepre-
neurship education: Findings from a delphi study. Entrepre-
neurship Education and Pedagogy, 4(2), 119–142. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420964120  

Hart, J. D. (2018). Classroom exercises for entrepreneurship: A cross-
disciplinary approach. Edward Elgar Publishing. 

Hastings, J., Neilson, C., & Zimmerman, S. (2013). Are some degrees 
worth more than others? Evidence from college admission cutoffs 
in Chile (w19241; p. w19241). National Bureau of Economic 
Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19241  

Hausmann, A. (2010). German artists between bohemian ideals 
and entrepreneurial dynamics:     Reflections on cultural entre-
preneurship and the need for start-up management. 

International Journal of Arts Management, 12 (2), 17-29. 

https://freopp.org/is-college-worth-it-a-comprehensive-return-on-investment-analysis-1b2ad17f84c8
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2000.tb00335.x
https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx022
https://doi.org/10.1353/tt.0.0075
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2015.1103673
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35204.73606
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616649250
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-022-09464-5
https://snaaparts.org/findings/databriefs/which-skills-do-founders-and-freelancers-need-unpacking-the-entrepreneurial-skills-gap
https://snaaparts.org/findings/databriefs/which-skills-do-founders-and-freelancers-need-unpacking-the-entrepreneurial-skills-gap
https://snaaparts.org/findings/databriefs/which-skills-do-founders-and-freelancers-need-unpacking-the-entrepreneurial-skills-gap
https://doi.org/10.1177/25151274221120071
https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420964120
https://doi.org/10.3386/w19241


ARTIVATE 12 

28 

Hausmann, A., & Heinze, A. (2016). Entrepreneurship in the cul-
tural and creative industries: Insights from an emergent field. 
Artivate, 5(2), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2016.0005  

History of NYU arts administration programs. (n.d.). Retrieved Sep-
tember 11, 2023, from https://wp.nyu.edu/artsadmin50/his-
tory/history-of-nyu-arts-administration-programs/  

Lindemann, D. J., Tepper S. J., Gaskil S., Jones, S. D., Kuh, G. D., 
Lambert, A. D., Lena, J., Miller, A. L., Kendall P., Rudolph, E. B., 
& Vanderwerp, L. (2012). Painting with Broader Strokes: 
Reassessing the Value of an Arts Education (Special Report 
No.1). Strategic National Arts Alumni Project. Retrieved Sep-
tember 12, 2023, from https://snaaparts.org/uploads/down-
loads/Reports/SNAAP-151617-Recent-Grads-Aggregate-
Report.pdf  

Makridis, C. (2020, September 15). The expansion of art and cul-
tural programs will diffuse political polarization. Forbes. Re-
trieved September 2, 2023, from 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christosma-
kridis/2020/09/15/the-expansion-of-art-and-cultural-pro-
grams-will-diffuse-political-polarization/  

Makridis, C. A., Guan, K., Ludington, E. R., Hopkins, M., & Parassidis, 
S. (2022). The role of arts and music in early childhood educa-
tion. In A. L. Betts & K.-P. Thai (Eds.), Advances in Early Child-
hood and K-12 Education (pp. 290–316). IGI Global. 
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8649-5.ch013  

Makridis, C. A. (2023). The Labor Market Returns of Being An 

Artist: Evidence from the United States, 2006-2021. Journal of 
Cultural Economics, October. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-
023-09490-x. 

Menger, P.-M. (1999). Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual 
Review of Sociology, 25(1), 541–574. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.541  

New York Foundation for the Arts | Mission & History. (n.d.). Re-
trieved September 11, 2023, from https://www.nyfa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/NYFA-Mission-and-History-
brief.pdf    

Nytch, J. (2018). The entrepreneurial muse: Inspiring your career in 
classical music. Oxford University Press. 

Oates, M. I., & Baumol, W. J. (1972). On the economics of the theater 
in renaissance london. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 74(1), 
136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3439014  

Passman, D. S., & Glass, R. (2023). All you need to know about the 
music business (11th Edition). Simon & Schuster.  

Piano, E. E. (2022). Specialization and the firm in renaissance ital-
ian art. Journal of Cultural Economics, 46(4), 659–697. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-021-09434-3  

Piano, E. E., & Al-Bawwab, R. (2023). The artist as entrepreneur. 
The Review of Austrian Economics, 36(1), 23–41. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-021-00547-8  

Popović, M., & Ratković, K. (2013). Oversupply of Labor and 

Other Peculiarities of Arts Labor Market, ZBW. Deutsche Zen-
tralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Leibniz-Infor-

mationszentrum Wirtschaft, Kiel und Hamburg. 

Preece, S. B. (2011). Performing arts entrepreneurship: Toward a 
research agenda. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and So-
ciety, 41(2), 103–120. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2011.573445  

Programs Archive—Association of Arts Administration Educators 
AAAE. (n.d.). Retrieved September 2, 2023, from 
https://artsadministration.org/programs/?program-filter-de-
grees=&program-filter-

https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2016.0005
https://wp.nyu.edu/artsadmin50/history/history-of-nyu-arts-administration-programs/
https://wp.nyu.edu/artsadmin50/history/history-of-nyu-arts-administration-programs/
https://snaaparts.org/uploads/downloads/Reports/SNAAP-151617-Recent-Grads-Aggregate-Report.pdf
https://snaaparts.org/uploads/downloads/Reports/SNAAP-151617-Recent-Grads-Aggregate-Report.pdf
https://snaaparts.org/uploads/downloads/Reports/SNAAP-151617-Recent-Grads-Aggregate-Report.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christosmakridis/2020/09/15/the-expansion-of-art-and-cultural-programs-will-diffuse-political-polarization/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christosmakridis/2020/09/15/the-expansion-of-art-and-cultural-programs-will-diffuse-political-polarization/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christosmakridis/2020/09/15/the-expansion-of-art-and-cultural-programs-will-diffuse-political-polarization/
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8649-5.ch013
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.541
https://www.nyfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NYFA-Mission-and-History-brief.pdf
https://www.nyfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NYFA-Mission-and-History-brief.pdf
https://www.nyfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NYFA-Mission-and-History-brief.pdf
https://doi.org/10.2307/3439014
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-021-09434-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-021-00547-8
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2011.573445
https://artsadministration.org/programs/?program-filter-degrees=&program-filter-state=&deg=undergrad&opt=all&cnt=all
https://artsadministration.org/programs/?program-filter-degrees=&program-filter-state=&deg=undergrad&opt=all&cnt=all


ARTIVATE 12 

29 

state=&deg=undergrad&opt=all&cnt=all  
Rabideau, M. (2018). Creating the revolutionary artist entrepre-

neurship for the 21st-century musician. Rowman & Littlefield. 

Radbill, C. F. (2017). Introduction to the music industry: An entre-
preneurial approach. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 

Rapisarda, N., & Loots, E. (2021). A closer look into the scope of arts 
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship 
Education, 3(2), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.46776/jaee.v3.85  

Roberts, J. S. (2012). Infusing entrepreneurship within non-busi-
ness disciplines: Preparing artists and others for self-employ-
ment and entrepreneurship. Artivate, 1(2), 53–63. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2012.0005  

Ruggles, S., Flood, S., Goeken, R., Schouweiler, M., & Sobek, M. 
(2022). IPUMS USA: Version 12.0 (12.0) [dataset]. Minneapolis, 
MN: IPUMS. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V12.0  

Skaggs, R., Hoppe, E., & Burke, M. (2022). How COVID-19 Has Im-
pacted the Needed Skills of Arts Graduates. Databrief, 9(2). Re-
trieved June 2, 2023, from https://snaaparts.org/find-
ings/databriefs/how-covid-19-has-impacted-the-needed-
skills-of-arts-graduates  

Strategic National Arts Alumni Project. (n.d.). 2015, 2016, & 2017 
Aggregate Frequency Report: Recent Graduates. Retrieved June 
2, 2023, 
from https://snaaparts.org/uploads/downloads/Reports/SNA
AP-151617-Recent-Grads-Aggregate-Report.pdf 

Strategic National Arts Alumni Project. (2012). A diverse palette: 
What arts graduates say about their education and careers—
annual report 2012. Annual Report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana 
University Center for Postsecondary Research.  

Taylor, E. A., Bonin-Rodriguez, P., & Essig, L. (2015). Perspectives 
on arts entrepreneurship, Part 1. Artivate, 4(1), 3–7. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2015.0001  

Toscher, B. (2019). Entrepreneurial learning in arts entrepreneur-
ship education: A conceptual framework. Artivate, 8(1), 3–22. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2019.0003  

Throsby, D. (2010). Economic analysis of artists' behaviour: some 

current issues. Revue d'économie politique, 120: 47-56.  

Tuominiemi, K., & Benzenberg, S. (2021). Entrepreneurial path-
ways in art: An introductory course for undergraduate stu-
dents in arts entrepreneurship. Artivate, 10(1). 
https://doi.org/10.34053/artivate.10.1.106  

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) | Arts and Culture. (2022). 
Retrieved September 3, 2023, from 
https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/arts-and-culture  

Valletta, R. (2016). Recent Flattening in the Higher Education Wage 
Premium: Polarization, Skill Downgrading, or Both? Working 
Paper 22935. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Re-
search.  

White, J. C. (2013). Barriers to recognizing arts entrepreneurship 
education as essential to professional arts training. Artivate, 
2(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2013.0002  

White, J. C. (2015). Toward a theory of arts entrepreneurship. Jour-
nal of Arts Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1). 
https://doi.org/10.46776/jaee.v1.33 

 
Cover image: Photo by Marvin Meyer on Unsplash, 

www.unsplash.com/photos/people-sitting-down-near-table-
with-assorted-laptop-computers-SYTO3xs06fU 

 
 
 

https://artsadministration.org/programs/?program-filter-degrees=&program-filter-state=&deg=undergrad&opt=all&cnt=all
https://doi.org/10.46776/jaee.v3.85
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2012.0005
https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V12.0
https://snaaparts.org/findings/databriefs/how-covid-19-has-impacted-the-needed-skills-of-arts-graduates
https://snaaparts.org/findings/databriefs/how-covid-19-has-impacted-the-needed-skills-of-arts-graduates
https://snaaparts.org/findings/databriefs/how-covid-19-has-impacted-the-needed-skills-of-arts-graduates
https://snaaparts.org/uploads/downloads/Reports/SNAAP-151617-Recent-Grads-Aggregate-Report.pdf
https://snaaparts.org/uploads/downloads/Reports/SNAAP-151617-Recent-Grads-Aggregate-Report.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2015.0001
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2019.0003
https://doi.org/10.34053/artivate.10.1.106
https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/arts-and-culture
https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2013.0002
https://doi.org/10.46776/jaee.v1.33
http://www.unsplash.com/photos/people-sitting-down-near-table-with-assorted-laptop-computers-SYTO3xs06fU
http://www.unsplash.com/photos/people-sitting-down-near-table-with-assorted-laptop-computers-SYTO3xs06fU

