


































103-Article Text-327-3-11-20200511


 

VOL. 9, NO. 1 
SPRING 2020 

 

The Roots of Great Innovation  
State-Level Entrepreneurial Climate and Sustainability of Nonprofit 
Arts and Culture Organizations 

B. Kathleen Gallagher 
Southern Methodist University 

ABSTRACT: What is the interaction between a city’s entrepreneurial climate and the 
sustainability of arts and culture nonprofits? Business, the arts, and innovation do not 
exist in isolation. New York Times writer David Brooks (2011) opined, “The roots of 
great innovation are never just in the technology itself.” The global economy has 
transitioned from one driven by manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy 
(Powell & Snellman 2004). Public policies support growth of innovative businesses 
(Thurik & Audretsch 2013). Concurrently, the arts have been leveraged to generate 
instrumental benefits in areas such as education, social cohesion, and economic 
development (Belfiore, 2004; McCarthy, Ondaatje, Zakaras, & Brooks 2004). 
Particularly, there has been significant developments around the power of the arts to 
produce economic benefits through urban revitalization, economic impact, and 
advancing the appeal of a place to the creative class, corporations, prospective 
residents, and tourists (Grodach 2017). Richard Florida (2004, 2009) famously 
positioned the arts as being of significant value for the “creative class.” This 
interaction has been portrayed as one-way in which the arts benefit cities economic 
pursuits. Such characterization fails to consider open systems theory whereby 
internal and external conditions influence the operations of organizations. This paper 
asks, “Do entrepreneurship levels affect the population dynamics of arts and culture 
nonprofits?” The interactions between the formation and exit of nonprofit arts 
organizations and entrepreneurial climate of the fifty US states for the period from 
1989 to 2011 are analyzed using negative binomial regression. Higher 
entrepreneurial climates are associated with fewer nonprofit arts and culture 
formations and fewer exits. The implications of this and opportunities for additional 
research are discussed. KEYWORDS: Cultural Policy; Nonprofit Arts; Arts 
Management; Organizational Ecology. 



ARTIVATE 9.1 

 

 

68 

Business, the arts, and innovation do not exist in isolation. New York Times writer David Brooks 
(2011) opined, “The roots of great innovation are never just in the technology itself.” The global 
economy has transitioned from one driven by manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy 
(Powell & Snellman 2004). Public policies support growth of innovative businesses (Thurik & 
Audretsch 2013). Concurrently, the arts have been leveraged to generate instrumental benefits 
in areas such as education, social cohesion, and economic development (Belfiore 2004; 
McCarthy et al. 2004). Particularly, there has been significant developments around the power 
of the arts to produce economic benefits through urban revitalization, economic impact, and 
advancing the appeal of a place to the creative class, corporations, prospective residents, and 
tourists (Grodach 2017). Richard Florida (2004, 2009) famously positioned the arts as being of 
significant value for the “creative class.” This interaction has been portrayed as one-way in 
which the arts benefit cities economic pursuits. Such characterization fails to consider open 
systems theory whereby internal and external conditions influence the operations of 
organizations.  

Nonprofit arts and culture organizations (NPACOs), those organizations identified in the 
United States by the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) as group A – arts, culture, 
and humanities – have been assessed as vulnerable in the past. NPACOs were traditionally 
established to provide access to and deliver education, arts, and cultural material (Garber 2008; 
Larson 1983). Insufficient access to resources is the most probable cause of organizational 
demise (Kaufman 1991). NPACOs must acquire the assets needed to remain operational and 
continue serving organizational mission and multiple goals of public policy. As a group, 
NPACOs have responded to threats and diversified sources of revenue, integrated 
entrepreneurial methods, and modified program schedules (J. Lowell & Ondaatje 2006; J. F. 
Lowell 2008). What has not been addressed is the effect of entrepreneurial activity on the arts 
and culture sector.  

Analyzing longitudinal data on populations of NPACOs in all fifty of the United States for 
the period 1989 to 2011, I explore the interaction of entrepreneurial activity and the population 
dynamics of arts and culture nonprofits. My findings suggest that higher entrepreneurial 
activity is associated with fewer nonprofit arts and culture formations and fewer exits. The 
implications of this and opportunities for additional research are discussed.  

Knowledge Work, Entrepreneurship, and Creative Places 
The importance of manufacturing in the global economy was surpassed by knowledge work in 
the late twentieth century. Powell and Snellman (2004, 201) define the knowledge economy as, 
“ . . . production and services based on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to an 
accelerated pace of technical and scientific advance, as well as rapid obsolescence.” Researchers 
have endeavored to understand the dimensions and dynamics of knowledge work while 
politicians and public administrators have developed policies and initiatives that support 
growth of the knowledge industries (Faria 2016; Leyden & Link 2014). Two byproducts of 
changes in the global economy have been the shift to an entrepreneurial economy (Thurik & 



  ARTIVATE 9.1 

 69 

Audretsch 2013) and the growth of creative places strategies (Grodach 2017). The 
entrepreneurial economy describes when economic performance derives from growth of 
innovative enterprises (Audretsch & Thurik 2000, 2001; Thurik & Audretsch 2013). Creative 
place strategies leverage the arts as development tools to foster revitalization and replace 
manufacturing activity (Grodach 2017). This research was undertaken to investigate the 
interaction of these phenomena.  

Entrepreneurship  
The rise of the entrepreneurial economy spurred the development of policies designed to 
encourage start-up and survival of entrepreneurial ventures (Thurik & Audretsch 2013). 
Entrepreneurship is the development of a business from idea to profitable enterprise (C. Brooks 
2015). Firms with fewer than 20 employees make up 98 percent of US businesses and 17.9 
percent of private sector payrolls (Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council 2015). They 
account for 63 percent of new jobs created between 1993 and 2013 (Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Council 2015). Recognized as an important contributor to the US economy, 
it is important that entrepreneurship declined from 5.78 million self-employed in 2008 to 5.31 
million in 2013 (Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council 2015). Theory highlights the 
vulnerability of young and small organizations (Hannan & Freeman 1977, 1989). Data further 
underscores the vulnerability of new organizations. Approximately half of firms survive five 
years and about one-third survive ten years or more (Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
Council 2015). Entrepreneurship is an important, vulnerable component of the economy and 
policy makers and scholars are attending to fostering, incubating, attracting, and supporting 
entrepreneurs with public policies.  

The Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity (KIEA) is an indicator of new business 
creation in the United States and explores demographic and geographic variables of new 
business formation (Fairlie 2013). The entrepreneurship index is the percentage of adults, aged 
twenty to sixty-four, who started a new business and worked fifteen or more hours in the first 
month of business. State-level index scores revealed sub-national variations from 1996 to 2013. 
Fairlie (2013) reports that entrepreneurial activity varied significantly across states, and that the 
activity follows strong geographical patterns. By moving from the national level to the sub-
national, it is possible to see differences related to geography. For example, in 2013 Montana, 
Alaska, South Dakota, California, and Colorado had the highest entrepreneurial rates (Fairlie 
2013). Iowa, Rhode Island, Indiana, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin had the lowest. 
Elazar (1972) noted the significance of geography in political culture, and Wolpert reported on 
geographic variation in philanthropic giving (Wolpert 1988, 1997). This is consistent with open 
systems theory which recognizes that organizations are heavily influenced by their contexts or 
local environments (Bastedo 2006).  



ARTIVATE 9.1 

 

 

70 

Creative Places Policies and the Arts and Culture Sector  
Creative places research and policies gained prominence in the 1990s and 2000s. Markusen 
(2014, 567), observed:  

Internationally and in the U.S., academics, urbanists and advocates have charted new agendas 
for the intersections of arts, culture, and place. The roles of artists and cultural organizations as 
urban change agents have come to the fore. 

Richard Florida underscored the importance of arts and culture as community assets that 
attract and help to retain diverse, talented, and knowledge workers (Florida 2004, 2009). In 
addition, arts and culture amenities are sought by companies concerned with employee quality 
of life, favorably contribute to tourism, make positive contributions to academic outcomes, and 
more (Arts Education Partnership 2013, n.d.; Colorado Department of Education & Colorado 
Council on the Arts 2008; Evans 2003; Florida 2004, 2009, 2017; Hargrove 2014; Kouri 2012; 
Markusen 2014; Petroman et al. 2013).  

Creative places strategies are common across levels of government (Americans for the Arts 
2017; Grodach 2017; Leyden & Link 2014; National Governors Association 2019; NGA Center 
for Best Practices 2001, 2003, 2008, n.d.; Phillips 2010). There is no singular formula or universal 
solution to creative places initiatives (Curridd-Halkett & Stolarick 2010). The local 
environment, resources, and conditions must be considered (Curridd-Halkett & Stolarick 2010; 
Grodach 2008; Grodach, Curridd-Halkett, Foster, & Murdoch 2014). Examination of 
geography and clustering have proven that place and innovation are connected in important 
ways (Delgado, Porter, & Stern 2010; Florida 2004, 2009, 2017).  

Arts and culture organizations are central to creative places initiatives. Research has 
demonstrated that NPACOs exist with increased threats to their survival. Specifically, 
NPCACOs must acquire assets needed to remain operational and continue serving 
organizational mission and multiple goals of public policy. Economists have identified multiple 
challenges in achieving this aim. The costs of delivering programs has risen faster than ticket 
prices (Baumol & Baumol 1985; A. C. Brooks 2000). Private donations have not increased to 
match the difference. These donations may be influenced by government subsidies, but it is not 
clear whether they do so positively or negatively (A. C. Brooks 2003; Dokko 2009). Financial 
ratios have been utilized to assess risk of failure (Hager 2001; Tuckman & Chang 1991). As a 
group, NPACOs have responded to threats and diversified sources of revenue, integrated 
entrepreneurial methods, and modified program schedules (J. Lowell & Ondaatje 2006; J. F. 
Lowell 2008). These measures have not eliminated threats to NPACOs. Kaiser (2015) predicted 
the demise of the nonprofit arts and culture sector as we know it by 2035 unless funding and 
participation trends change dramatically.  

Economic conditions have given rise to policies supporting entrepreneurship and the 
development of the arts and cultural assets of communities. This relationship between arts and 
culture and knowledge-based industries has been assessed unidirectionally, wherein the arts 



  ARTIVATE 9.1 

 71 

favorable contribute to innovations. It is appropriate to assess the impact of high 
entrepreneurship on the nonprofit arts and culture sector.  

Organizational Ecology 
The world is populated by organizations and they are the means by which humans cooperate to 
achieve shared goals (Hannan & Freeman 1977). However, basic demographic figures have 
attracted limited scholarship and attention (Carroll & Hannan 2000). Some organizational 
theorists have criticized and dismissed the theory as a process of counting (Carroll & Khessina 
2005; Lawrence 1997; Perrow 1986). Additionally, scholars working in fields are often unable 
to identify common lifespans, stability, or turmoil in the field, and speak to the longitudinal 
fluctuations (Carroll & Hannan 2000). Organizational ecologists reject the possibility that 
chance drives survival or demise and studies the ecology to identify influences and causes.  

The theory of organizational ecology derives from the natural sciences and is employed by 
social scientists. Ecology investigates the influence of environmental conditions on populations 
of biological organisms, whereas organizational ecology applies these principals to the study of 
populations of organizations (Hannan & Freeman 1977, 1989). The ecology of organizations 
includes such variables as public policies, the economy, populations of other types of 
organizations, and human demographics and behavior. Social scientists test and evaluate how 
conditions influence population dynamics such as formation (organizational birth) and exit 
(organizational failure or death).  

The application of ecology to organizations requires the adaptation of concepts, such as 
birth and death. Organizations are not born; instead they are formed, founded, or enter the 
market (Bowen, Nygren, Turner, & Duffy 1994; Hager 2001). Scholars have applied different 
definitions of organizational birth. Among nonprofit studies the standard has been to use the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule date recognizing the organization as a charitable nonprofit 
as a proxy for birth (Bowen et al. 1994; Hager 2001). And, as organizations are not born, they 
do not die. They exit the marketplace and cease operations. Again, the IRS is useful in 
establishing the exit of nonprofit organizations. This paper relies on Hager’s (2001) definition 
of organizational exit. An organization is considered to have exited when it fails to file the IRS 
form 990 for three or more consecutive years. This is consistent with current IRS policy that 
revokes a nonprofit’s tax-exempt status when the appropriate 990 forms have not been filed for 
three consecutive years (Internal Revenue Service 2013).  

Populations under investigation must be bound in some way. The organizations included 
must share common features including history, politics, social structure, geography, and 
vulnerability. NPACOs operating in the United States in the twentieth- and twenty-first century 
numbers in the tens of thousands. They share status as tax-exempt entities, a mission to deliver 
arts and culture programming or education, and the general funding system of direct and 
indirect subsidies, private donations, and earned income. Many studies of this population have 
used a national lens (A. C. Brooks 2004, 2007; P. N. Hughes & Lukestich 1999; P. N. Hughes & 
Lukestich 2004; National Endowment for the Arts 2012; Smith 2007). This overlooks the 



ARTIVATE 9.1 

 

 

72 

significance of state and local variations in the environment. Schuster (2002) identified the rich 
opportunity in studying sub-national arts policies. The ecology of states varies. Using 
organizational ecology to study the population of ACOs at the state level enhances information 
of the circumstances under which forms emerge, persist, and cease to exist.  

Organizational ecology has been used in previous studies to assess the growth and 
contraction of NPACOs in the United States (Bowen et al. 1994), the significance of financial 
ratios in predicting the survival of NPACOs in Minnesota (Hager 2001), and how mechanisms 
for funding state arts agencies (appropriations, taxes, fees, trust funds, revenue from lotteries 
and gaming) contribute to the environment and influence the population dynamics of NPACOs 
(Gallagher 2019). Studies of the arts and culture sector have raised the legacy and significance 
of entrepreneurship among artists (Jensen 1994; Kriedler 1995; Miller 1974; White & White 
1965/1993). To date, entrepreneurship has not been incorporated as an ecological variable that 
may influence the sustainability of NPACOs.  

Data and Methods 
The theory of organizational ecology is rooted in the study of populations. To understand the 
interaction of entrepreneurship and the population of NPACOs it is necessary to observe 
patterns of organizational formation and exit. In biology, these are recognized as births and 
deaths. In the United States the IRS requires tax exempt organizations to file financial 
information annually (National Center for Charitable Statistics n.d.). Annual filings are 
commonly used as a census of nonprofit arts and culture organizations (Hager 2000; Hager, 
Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, & Pins 1996). Until recently, not all nonprofits were required to 
annually file an IRS 990. As a result, some newer and/or smaller organizations were not required 
to file and may have been excluded (Hager 2001). The data is then easily tabulated by state.  

The data set used for this paper was modified from a previously constructed data set 
(Gallagher 2014). That set utilized the core data files from the National Center for Charitable 
Statistics, The State Arts Agency Public Funding Sourcebook, and data on the population, 
education, and gross domestic product of the states. The National Center for Charitable 
Statistics at the Urban Institute compiles and maintains core files from the IRS 990 Forms. These 
files include more than sixty variables drawn from the IRS annual Return Transaction Files 
(RTF) for all nonprofit organizations required to file since 1989 (Urban Institute 2006). This 
provides researchers with information such as organization name, employer identification 
number (EIN), National Taxonomy Exempt Entities (NTEE) classification, address, rule date 
(when the tax-exempt status of an organization was recognized), and financial details, such as 
total revenues. It also documents the last year of filing, used to establish years of entry and exit. 
The data set was brought up to date with support from SMU Data Arts. Observations were made 
for each state for the years 1996 to 2011. These include the Kauffman Entrepreneurial Activity 
Index (reviewed earlier in this paper), the number of NPACOs at the start of the year (the 
population density), the number of new NPACOs, and the number of NPACO exits, total state 
legislative appropriations to the state arts agency (inflation adjusted to 2019), region, human 



  ARTIVATE 9.1 

 73 

population, state unemployment, educational attainment of the population twenty-five and 
older, and political party dominance in the state legislature.  

Research has demonstrated that key characteristics drive support for and participation in 
the arts. Educational attainment, income, and population size are among these (A. C. Brooks 
2001; Rushton 2005, 2008; Wolpert 1997). Control variables for population by state were 
retrieved (U. S. Census Bureau n. d.-a, n. d.-b, n.d.-a). Annual state unemployment rates (not 
seasonally adjusted) were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Bureau of Labor Statistics 
n. d.). Education attainment was operationalized as the percentage of the population over 
twenty-five who had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (U. S. Census Bureau n.d.-b).These 
decennial data for educational attainment were transformed to annual estimates by dividing the 
amount of change by the ten years in the period to find an estimated annual rate of change. 
These rates were then multiplied by the time period and added to the base to approximate an 
annual rate of educational attainment using the process of linear interpolation. Density is the 
number of organizations in the marketplace and is recognized in organizational ecology for 
impacting the population of organizations. This is captured in this data set with the number of 
NPACOs present at the beginning of the year.  

The data for the analysis of organizational entries and exits were organized as annual time 
series for the years from 1996 to 2011 for all variables. This combination of data produced 800 
observations. The vital statistics of interest in this study are the annual counts of entry and exit 
of NPACOs. The year of entry is defined as the year in which the organization received IRS 
recognition (Bowen et al. 1994; Hager 2001). The number of entries is calculated as the number 
of organizations formed in a year (Bowen et al. 1994; Hager 2001). Consistent with existing 
research, exits are identified when an NPO fails to file with the IRS several consecutive years 
during the time period studied (Bowen et al. 1994; Hager 2001). The exit count is the number 
of organizations that failed to file an IRS 990 for three consecutive years. Stata was used to 
identify the last year an organization in the data filed the 990 form. If the organization did not 
file for at least three consecutive years, the exit year was the year after the final filing.  

Population studies lend themselves to the use of count data, capturing the number of 
entries, or births, and the number of exits, or deaths. The selection of linear or logistic is at odds 
with this type of data. Poisson regression is commonly used to analyze count data but assumes 
equidispersion and that the counts are independent of one another (Hilbe 2007; Piza 2012). 
Longitudinal counts of populations, entries, and exits violates these assumptions. Negative 
binomial regression can be used for over-dispersed count data where the mean exceeds the 
variance. It is a generalization of Poisson regression with parameters included to model for over-
dispersion. The model was fit using Stata version 12.  

To analyze whether state entry counts are improved by the higher entrepreneurship, the 
following model is hypothesized: 

State entry count = f (Kauffman Entrepreneurial Activity Index, organizational population 
density, total legislative appropriations to state arts agency (inflation adjusted to 2019 $), region, 



ARTIVATE 9.1 

 

 

74 

human population (1000s), rate of unemployment, educational attainment of the population 25 
or older, and political party dominance in the state legislature. 

Exit counts were substituted as the dependent variable to explore the relationship between exits 
and entrepreneurship.  

Organizational ecology emphasizes the significance of a population’s complete history. 
Missing and disaggregate sources of data creates challenges in assembling this for many 
populations. This standard would exclude many populations from study, including ACOs in 
the United States. The data used for this paper span the years 1996 to 2011. This may reduce the 
depth of analysis possible for individual organizations but still produces an overview of 
population dynamics. Furthermore, nonprofits with gross receipts less than $25,000 were not 
required to file annually with the IRS prior to 2007. Smaller organizations, while part of the total 
population, were not documented in the NCCS data. Organizational ecology identifies 
increased liability for small organizations (Hannan & Freeman 1977, 1989). Commonly, they 
do not have resource surpluses that enable them to continue operation following unanticipated 
financial events (Hager 2001; Tuckman & Chang 1991). Their exclusion from this study may 
understate the incidence of exit in the population. However, the NCCS data set is the most 
comprehensive source of information on the nonprofit sector and is routinely used by scholars 
in this field, making it an appropriate source of data.  

Findings 
The significance of the entrepreneurship and the arts have individually attracted the attention 
of policymakers. They are benefitting from public policies that seek to cultivate and encourage 
them independently. Prior to this research they have received limited exploration as they relate 
to each other. This research sought to explore if there is a synergistic relationship. 

The formation of new organizations is one of the measures of interest to organizational 
ecologists. Using the IRS ruling year as a proxy for entry, this study found that 31,835 ACOs 
entered the nonprofit sector in the United States between 1996 and 2011. The number of new 
entrants per year ranged from 935 in 2011 to 2,465 in 1999, with an annual average of 1,989 

0
1000
2000
3000

19
96

19
97

19
98

19
99

20
00

20
01

20
02

20
03

20
04

20
05

20
06

20
07

20
08

20
09

20
10

20
11

Entry Exit

Figure 1. Nonprofit arts entries and exits (1998-2012).  



  ARTIVATE 9.1 

 75 

new organizations. This was matched by rates ranging from 3.99% to 6.47%and an average entry 
rate of 5.38%. This is depicted in Figure 1.  

Entries varied across states and years. Rates of entry varied from 0.00% in Delaware in 2011 
to 16.61% in Oregon in 2006. Average entry rates for the period ranged from 3.02% in North 
Dakota to 8.42% in California. The negative binomial regression of entrepreneurship against 
the counts (not rates), controlling for year, density of ACOs, population, unemployment, 
education, and the Kauffman Entrepreneurial Index was performed to evaluate how 
entrepreneurship impacts formation of new a NPACOs. The results are in Table 1. 

The coefficients in negative binomial regression are the log of the expected count.  
 

Table 1: Negative Binomial Regression Model of Nonprofit Entries and Entrepreneurship. 

Variable Coefficient IRR Std. Error  
Density 0.0002305*** 1.000231*** 0.0000206 
Populations 1,000s 0.0000577*** 1.000058*** 2.72e-06 
Unemployment 0.0369103** 1.0376** 0.0129199 
Educational attainment 0.0440638*** 1.045049*** 0.0040859 
State entrepreneurship  -0.9762403*** 0.3767428*** 0.0666529 
Observations 800  0.1652171 
Wald Chi Sq. 6012.70   
Degrees of freedom 5   

* p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01 
 
Researchers may choose to report the incident rate ratio (IRR) to interpret the findings. 

The IRR represents a percent change, increase or decrease, in the dependent variable 
determined by the amount it is above or below one (Piza 2012). Density and population have 
limited, positive influence on the formation of nonprofit ACOs. Unemployment is associated 
with a 3.76% increase in the formation of nonprofit ACOs. Educational attainment has the 
largest positive effect, increasing the number of arts formations by 4.5%. This is consistent with 
research highlighting the importance of educational attainment on arts participation and 
support (A. C. Brooks 2001, 2004). The variable of interest, the entrepreneurial index, is 
associated with a large and statistically significant decrease in the number of nonprofit, arts and 
culture entries. The IRR is 0.376, which indicates an almost 62% decrease in the number of 
nonprofit arts and culture entries for every unit increase in the KEAI.  

The rate at which organizations exit the market is equally important, as it reveals what 
forms are not surviving in the current environment. Between 1996 and 2009, 24,560 nonprofit 
ACOs exited the market. Annual exits ranged from 723 in 1996 to 3,578 in 2009, as depicted in 
Figure 2, below. These are matched to rates of 1.97%to 14%. The annual, national average was 
1,625 exits per year or 5.21% of the population per year. Among states, average exits for the 
period ranged from 1.79%in Nebraska to 9.73% in Utah.  



ARTIVATE 9.1 

 

 

76 

All state annual exit counts were analyzed with negative binomial regression to test the 
relationship with the rate of entrepreneurship. The results are reported in Table 2. The IRR is 
also reported. As with entries, density and population at the state-level present negligible 
increases in the number of exits. Unemployment prompts a 4.23% increase in the number of 
exits and educational attainment produces a 4.6% increase in exits. As with entries, the 
entrepreneurship IRR is less than one and represents a decrease in the number of exits of 
approximately 68%.  

 
Table 2: Negative Binomial Regression Model of Nonprofit Arts and Culture Exits and Alternative 
Mechanisms.  

Variable Coefficient IRR Std. Error  
Density 0.0002458*** 1.000246*** 0.000019 
Populations 1,000s 0.0000544*** 1.000054*** 2.54e-06 
Unemployment 0.0415178*** 1.042392*** 0.0112616 
Educational attainment 0.04500059*** 1.046034*** 0.0037548 
State entrepreneurship  -1.13483*** 0.3214767*** 0.0559592 
Observations 800   
Wald Chi Sq. 5942.86   
Degrees of freedom 5   

* p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01 

Discussion and Conclusion 
Business, innovation, and the arts have been identified as central to the dynamics of the 
knowledge economy. Public policies have been developed around the world to create economic 
opportunity and build prosperity. The entrepreneurial economy and creative places policies are 
two areas that have attracted increased attention since the 1990s (Audretsch & Thurik 2001; 
Grodach 2017). NPACOs demonstrated increased vulnerability and probability of demise in the 
past (Bowen et al. 1994; Hager 2000; Hager et al. 1996) but have diversified their revenue 
streams, built diversity in their organizations and audiences, and entered into cross-sector 
collaborations. Consequently, NPACOs have been linked to a wide-array of instrumental 
benefits (Belfiore 2004; McCarthy et al. 2004). While research positioned arts and cultural 
amenities as beneficial to knowledge workers, innovation, and economic growth (Florida 2004, 
2009) exploration of the inverse of the relationship – whether knowledge and entrepreneurial 
trends in the economy benefit the arts – had not previously been undertaken.  

Scholars and research institutes are examining data in order to better understand and 
facilitate sustainability for arts organizations. Among the methods employed, organizational 
ecology analyzes population dynamics as they respond to changes in the ecology. The attention 
to entrepreneurship in society, generally, and the arts, specifically, is worthy of additional 
exploration. This paper posited that the relationship between entrepreneurship and arts 
organizations is deserving of examination. Negative binomial regression of the Kaufman 



  ARTIVATE 9.1 

 77 

Entrepreneurial Index (Fairlie 2013) against the formation and exit counts of nonprofit ACOs 
indicate that entrepreneurially favorable environments decrease both the entry and exit of 
nonprofit ACOs within states. There are several important implications and limitations to these 
findings.  

Organizational formation, or birth, is one indicator of sectoral health. States with higher 
entrepreneurial activity had fewer NPACO entries during the period studied. If the arts good 
for fostering innovation and entrepreneurship, it appears the converse is not necessarily true 
for nonprofit arts and culture organizations. Lower formation of NPACOs might result from 
lower demand. Do entrepreneurs make time to engage with NPACOs in their communities? Do 
programming offers align with consumer demands? On the other hand, the data used can’t tell 
us the population dynamics in the for-profit arts. Perhaps, innovative communities also foster 
new artistic products, audience experiences, and organizational forms. While this study 
examined the relationship between entrepreneurial climate and nonprofit arts, the lack of data 
on for-profit arts creates an important limitation and an opportunity for additional research.  

Organizational exit, or death, is another indicator of sectoral health. States with higher 
entrepreneurial activity also had lower NPACO entries during the period studied. This means 
that NPACOs are less likely to exit than other places. Reduced incidence of death is generally 
considered a positive indicator. And, given the vulnerability of NPACOs this might appear an 
almost utopian solution – if it were not for the low entry rate. Organizational ecology reports 
the tendency for larger and older firms to dominate an environment (Hannan & Freeman 1989). 
This produces a semi-monopolistic environment in which larger firms secure the majority of 
resources. Furthermore, older organizations have a greater difficulty introducing change and 
innovation. Again, as with organizational formation, the ability to interpret this is limited by 
data only from NPACOs.  

The purpose of organizational ecology is to observe the development of new, organizational 
forms (Hannan & Freeman 1989). Kriedler (1995) presents the evolution of the nonprofit arts 
organizational form and concludes that the arts will be forced to continue to adapt to 
environmental conditions. Ellis (2007) posits that innovation is less likely in the centralized, 
hierarchical systems common in the nonprofit arts. These positions point to challenges faced 
by 501(c)(3)s. The data here may indicate that there is a shift away from the 501(c)(3) form 
among arts organizations. Population dynamics of for-profit arts organizations would be 
necessary to come to any conclusions.  

Limitations and Opportunities 
The data used includes several important limitations. These limitations are accompanied by 
opportunities to further advance our understanding of the interaction between 
entrepreneurship and the arts.  

• This analysis presented only the nonprofit segment of the arts sector. Due to data 
fragmentation there is not a comprehensive source for the arts sector. This is a 
significant limitation. A research opportunity exists for a sector-inclusive source of 



ARTIVATE 9.1 

 

 

78 

population data for arts and culture.  
• No variables were included to capture NPACO size or age. Age and size are important 

variables to organizational behavior. Future analysis incorporating the organizational 
traits of size and age affords the opportunity to consider trends within organizational 
generations and size.  

• The data represents a sixteen-year time-period from 1995 to 2011. More recent data, 
including the population changes that resulted from the economic shock of the global 
economic crisis and recovery, have the potential to provide a more current and 
accurate report of the population dynamics.  

The economy has been transformed, and governments have promoted entrepreneurship 
and creative places for their suitability to new conditions. The arts are beneficial to innovation 
and entrepreneurship. The influence of entrepreneurship on the nonprofit arts had not been 
explored. Entrepreneurship is associated with lower rates of formation of NPACOs and lower 
rates of organizational exit.  

References 

Americans for the Arts. 2017. “Arts & Economic 
Prosperity 5.” Retrieved from Washington, DC: 
http://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default
/files/aep5/PDF_Files/ARTS_AEPsummary_loRe
s.pdf 

Arts Education Partnership. 2013. “Preparing 
Students for the Next America.” Retrieved from 
Denver, CO: https://www.aep-arts.org/wp-
content/uploads/Preparing-Students-for-the-
Next-America_The-Benefits-of-an-Arts-
Education.pdf 

Arts Education Partnership. n.d. “Making the Case 
for Arts: How and Why the Arts are Critical to 
Student Achievement and Better Schools.” 
Retrieved from Denver, CO: https://www.aep-
arts.org/wp-content/uploads/Making-a-Case-
for-the-Arts_How-Why-the-Arts-are-Critical-to-
Student-Achievement-Better-Schools.pdf 

Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. 2000. "Capitalism 
and Democracy in the 21st century: From the 
Managed to the Entrepreneurial Economy." 
Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10, no. 1-2: 
17-34.  

Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. 2001. "What is the 
New Economy: Sources of Growth in the 
Managed and Entreprenurial Economies." 
Industrial and Corporate Change 10, no.1: 267-
315.  

Bastedo, M. N. 2006. “Open Systems Theory.” In F. 
W. English ed. The SAGE Encyclopedia of 
Educational Leadership and Administration 
(360). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 

Baumol, H., & Baumol, W. J. 1985. "The Future of the 
Theater and the Cost Disease of the Arts." 
Journal of Cultural Economics 9: 7-31.  

Belfiore, E. 2004. "Auditing Culture: The Subsidiesed 
Cultural Sector in the New Public Management." 
International Journal of Cultural Policy 10, no. 2: 
183-202. doi:10.1080/1028663042000255808. 

Bowen, W. G., Nygren, T. I., Turner, S. E., & Duffy, 
E. A. 1994. The Charitable Nonprofits. San 
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Brooks, A. C. 2000. "The 'Income Gap' and the Health 
of Arts Nonprofits." Nonprofit Management & 
Leadership 10, no. 3: 271-286. 
doi:10.1002/nml.10304. 

Brooks, A. C. 2001. "Who Opposes Government Arts 
Funding?" Public Choice 3, no. 4: 355-367.  

Brooks, A. C. 2003. "Do Government Subsidies to 
Nonprofits Crowd Out Donations or Donors?" 
Public Finance Review 31, no. 2: 166-179. 
doi:10.1177/1091142102250328. 

Brooks, A. C. 2004. "In Search of True Public Arts 
Support." Public Budgeting & Finance 88-89.  

Brooks, A. C. 2007. "Income Tax Policy and 
Charitable Giving." Journal of Policy Analysis and 
Management 26, no. 3: 599-612. 
doi:10.1002/pam.20267. 

Brooks, C. 2015. "What is Entrepreneurship?" 
Business News Daily. January 5, 2015. Retrieved 
from http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2642-
entrepreneurship.html. 

Brooks, D. 2011. "Where are the Jobs?" New York 
Times. Retrieved from 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/br
ooks-where-are-the-jobs.html?_r=0. 



  ARTIVATE 9.1 

 79 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. n. d. "Local Area 
Unemployment Statistics." Retrieved from 
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?la+01. 

Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 2000. 'Why 
Corporate Demography Matters: Policy 
Implications of Organizational Diversity." 
California Management Review 42, no. 3: 148-
163. doi:10.2307/41166046. 

Carroll, G. R., & Khessina, O. M. 2005. 
"Organizational and Corporate Demography." In 
D. Poston & M. Micklin eds. Handbook of 
Population (451-477). New York: Kluer 
Academic. 

Colorado Department of Education, & Colorado 
Council on the Arts. 2008. "The Arts, Creative 
Learning, and Student Achievement: 2008 Study 
of Arts Education in Colorado Public Schools." 
Retrieved from Denver, CO: 
http://www.coloarts.org/programs/education/stu
dy/ColoradoArtsEdStudyStatisticalReportFinal.p
df. 

Curridd-Halkett, E., & Stolarick, K. 2010. "Cultural 
Capital and Metropolitan Distinction: View of 
Los Angeles and New York." City, Culture, and 
Society 1: 217-223. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2011.01.003. 

Delgado, M., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. 2010. "Clusters 
and Entrepreneurship." Journal of eEconomic 
Geography 10, no. 4: 495-518. 
doi:10.1093/jeg/lbq010. 

Dokko, J. 2009. "Does the NEA Crowd Out Private 
Charitable Contributions to the Arts?" National 
Tax Journal 62, no. 1.  

Elazar, D. J. 1972. American Federalism. New York: 
Crowell. 

Ellis, A. 2007. "The Changing Place of the 501(c)(3)." 
Grantmakers in the Arts Reader 18, no. 3: 16-20. 
Retrieved from 
https://www.giarts.org/article/changing-place-
501c3. 

Evans, G. 2003. "Hard-Branding the Cultural City - 
from Prado to Prada." International Journal of 
Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 2: 417-440.  

Fairlie, R. W. 2013. "Kauffman Index of 
Entrepreneurial Activity 1996-2013." Retrieved 
from Kansas City, MO: 
https://www.kauffman.org/historical-kauffman-
index/reports/ 

Faria, J. R. 2016. "Location Clusters, FDI and Local 
Entrepreneurs: Consistent Public Policy." Journal 
of the Knowledge Economy 7: 858-868. 
doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0272-5. 

Florida, R. 2004. The Rise of the Creative Class. New 
York: Basic Books. 

Florida, R. 2009. Who's Your City? How the Creative 
Economy is Making Where to Live the Most 
Important Decision of Your Life. New York: Basic 
Books. 

Florida, R. 2017. The New Urban Crisis: How Our 
Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening 
Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class-and 
What We Can Do About It. New York: Basic 
Books. 

Gallagher, B. K. 2014. "How We Pay the Piper: The 
Impact of Sources of Government Funding on 
Arts and Culture Nonprofit Organizations." PhD 
diss. University of Colorado Denver, Denver, 
CO.  

Gallagher, B. K. 2019. "Passing the Hat to Pay the 
Piper: Alternative Mechanisms for Publicly 
Funding the Arts." Journal of Arts Management 
Law and Society 50, no. 1: 16-32. 
doi:10.1080/10632921.2019.1664690. 

Garber, M. 2008. Patronizing the Arts. Princeton: 
Princeton University Press. 

Grodach, C. 2008. "Looking Beyond Image and 
Tourism: The Role of Flagship Cultural Projects 
in Local Arts Development." Planning, Practice & 
research 23, no. 4: 495-516. 
doi:10.1080/02697450802522806. 

Grodach, C. 2017. "Urban Cultural Policy and 
Creative City Making." Cities 68: 82-91. 
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2017.05.015. 

Grodach, C., Curridd-Halkett, E., Foster, N., & 
Murdoch, J., III. 2014. "The Location Patterns of 
Artistic Clusters: A Metro- and Neighborhood-
level Analysis." Urban Studies 51, no. 13. 2822-
2843. doi:10.1177/0042098013516523 

Hager, M. A. 2000. “The Survivability Factor: 
Research on the Closure of Nonprofit Arts 
Organizations.” Retrieved from Washington, DC: 
https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-
program/reports-and-data/legislation-
policy/naappd/the-survivability-factor-research-
on-the-closure-of-nonprofit-arts-organizations 

Hager, M. A. 2001. "Financial Vulnerability Among 
Arts Organizations: A Test of the Tuckman-
Chang Measures." Nonprofit and Voluntary 
Sector Quarterly 30, no. 2: 376-392.  

Hager, M. A., Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Pins, J. 
1996. "Tales from the Grave: Organizations’ 
Accounts of Their Own Demise." American 
Behavioral Scientist 39, no. 8. Retrieved from 
http://abs.sagepub.com/proxy.libraries.smu.edu 

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. "The Population 
Ecology of Organizations." American Journal of 
Sociology 82, no. 5: 929-964. Retrieved from 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777807. 

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1989. Organizational 
Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 
Press. 

Hargrove, C. 2014. "Cultural Tourism: Attracting 
Visitors and Their Spending." Retrieved from 
Washington, DC: 
https://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/defaul
t/files/CulturalTourismAttractingVisitors.pdf 

Hilbe, J. M. 2007. Negative Binomial Regression. New 
York: Cambridge University Press. 

Hughes, P. N., & Lukestich, W. A. 1999. "The 
Relationship Among Funding Sources for Art 
and History Museums." Nonprofit Management 
& Leadership 10, no. 1: 21-37. 
doi:10.1002/nml.10103. 

Hughes, P. N., & Lukestich, W. A. 2004. Nonprofits 
arts organizations: Do funding sources influence 



ARTIVATE 9.1 

 

 

80 

spending patterns? Nonprofit Voluntary Sector 
Quarterly 33, no. 2: 203-220. 
doi:10.1177/0899764004263320. 

Internal Revenue Service. 2013. "Annual Electronic 
Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations." Retrieved from 
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-
Profits/Annual-Electronic-Filing-Requirement-
for-Small-Exempt-Organizations--Form-990-N-
(e-Postcard). 

Jensen, R. 1994. Marketing Modernism in Fin-de-
Siecle Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 
University Press. 

Kaiser, M. 2015. Curtains?: The Future of theArts in 
America. Boston: Brandeis University Press. 

Kaufman, H. 1991. Time, Chance, and Organizations: 
Natural Selection in a Perilous Environment. 
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc. 

Kouri, M. 2012. "Merging Culture and Tourism in 
Greece: An Unholy Alliance or an Opportunity 
to Update the Country's Cultural Policy?" Journal 
of Arts Management Law and Society 42: 63-78.  

Kriedler, J. 1995. "Leverage Lost: The Nonprofit Arts 
in the Post-Ford Era." GIA Newsletter 6, no. 2. 
Retrieved from 
http://www.giarts.org/article/leverage-lost. 

Larson, G. O. 1983. The Reluctant Patron: The United 
States Government and the Arts, 1943-1965. 
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Lawrence, B. S. 1997. "Perspective - The Black Box of 
Organizational Demography." Organization 
Science 8, no. 1: 1-22. Retrieved from 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.1.1. 

Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. 2014. "Research Risk and 
Public Policy in a Knowledge-based Economy: 
The Relative Research Efficiency of Government 
Versus University Labs." Journal of the 
Knowledge Economy 5: 294-304. 
doi:10.1007/s13132-012-0145-0. 

Lowell, J., & Ondaatje, E. H. 2006. "The Arts and 
State Governments: At Arm's Length or Arm in 
Arm." Retrieved from Santa Monica, CA: 
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/m
onographs/2006/RAND_MG359.pdf 

Lowell, J. F. 2008. "State Arts Policy: Trends and 
Future Prospects." Retrieved from Santa Monica, 
CA: 
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/m
onographs/2008/RAND_MG817.pdf 

Markusen, A. 2014. "Creative Cities: A 10-year 
Research Agenda." Journal of Urban Affairs 36, 
no. 82: 567-589.  

McCarthy, K., Ondaatje, E. H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, 
A. C. 2004. "Gifts of the Muse." Retrieved from 
Santa Monica, CA: 
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/m
onographs/2005/RAND_MG218.pdf. 

Miller, L. B. 1974. Patrons and Patriotism: The 
Encouragement of the Fine Arts in the United 
States 1790-1860. Chicago: University of Chicago 
Press. 

National Center for Charitable Statistics. n.d. 'What 
Is the Form 990? What Is the History? (FAQ)." 
Retrieved from 
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/knowledgebase/det
ail.php?linkID=106&category=13&xrefID=2334. 

National Endowment for the Arts. 2012." How the 
United States Funds the Arts." Retrieved from 
http://www.nea.gov/pub/how.pdf. 

National Governors Association. 2019. "Rural 
Prosperity through the Arts & Creative Sector: A 
Rural Action Guide for Governors and States." 
Retrieved from Washington, DC: 
https://www.nga.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/NGA_RuralArtsReport
.pdf. 

NGA Center for Best Practices. 2001. "The Role of the 
Arts in Economic Development." Retrieved from 
Washington, DC: https://nasaa-arts.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Role-of-Arts-in-
Economic-Development2001.pdf  

NGA Center for Best Practices. 2003. "How States are 
Using Arts and Culture to Strengthen their 
Global Trade Development." Retrieved from 
Washington, DC:  

NGA Center for Best Practices. 2008. "Promoting 
Film and Media to Enhance State Economic 
Development." Retrieved from Washington, DC: 
https://www.nga.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/0807_08_PROMOTIN
GFILMMEDIA.pdf  

NGA Center for Best Practices. n.d. "Arts & the 
Economy: Using Arts and Culture to Stimulate 
Economic Development." Retrieved from 
Washington, DC: 
https://www.americansforthearts.org/node/1009
16. 

Perrow, C. 1986. "Economic Theories of 
Organizations." Theory and Society 15, no. 1/2: 
11-45. Retrieved from 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/657174 . 

Petroman, I., Petroman, C., Marin, D., Ciolac, R., 
Vaduva, L., & Pandur, I. 2013. "Types of Cultural 
Tourism." Scientific Papers: Animal Science and 
Biotechnologies 46, no. 1: 385-388.  

Phillips, R. J. 2010. "Arts Entrepreneurship and 
Economic Development: Can Every City be 
'Austintatious'?" Foundations and Trends in 
Entrepreneurship 6, no. 4: 239-313.  

Piza, E. L. 2012. Using Poisson and Negative 
Binomial Regression Models to Measure the 
Influence of Risk on Crime incident Counts." 
Retrieved from Newark, NJ: 
http://www.rutgerscps.org/docs/CountRegressio
nModels.pdf. 

Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. 2004. "The Knowledge 
Economy." American Review of Sociology 30: 199-
220. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037. 

Rushton, M. 2005. "Support for Earmarked Public 
Spending on Culture: Evidence from a 
Referendum in Metropolitan Detroit." Public 
Budgeting and Finance 25, no. 4: 72-85. 
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5850.2005.00374.x. 



  ARTIVATE 9.1 

 81 

Rushton, M. 2008. "Who pays? Who benefits? Who 
decides?" Journal of Cultural Economics 32: 293-
300.  

Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council. 2015. 
"Small Business Facts & Data." Retrieved from 
http://www.sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-
data/. 

Smith, T. M. 2007. "The Impact of Government 
Funding on Private Contributions to Nonprofit 
Performing Arts Organizations." Annals of Public 
and cooperative Economics 78, no. 1: 137-160.  

Thurik, A. R., & Audretsch, D. B. 2013. "The Rise of 
Entrepreneurial Economy and the Future of 
Dynamic Capitalism." Technovation 33, no. 8-9: 
302-310. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.0
7.003. 

Tuckman, H. P., & Chang, C. F. 1991. "A 
Methodology for Measuring the Financial 
Vulnerability of Charitable Nonprofit 
Organizations." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector 
Quarterly 20, no. 4" 445-460. 

U. S. Census Bureau. n. d.-a. "State Intercesnal 
Estimates (2000-2010): Annual Population 
Estimates. Retrieved from 
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/s
tate/state2010.html. 

U. S. Census Bureau. n. d.-b. "State Population 
Estimates: Annual Time Series, July 1, 1990 to 

July 1, 1999." Retrieved from 
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/1
990s/tables/ST-99-03.txt. 

U. S. Census Bureau. n.d.-a. "Resident Population of 
States (by 5-year age groups & sex) (1980-1990). 
Retrieved from 
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/asrh/19
80s/tables/s5yr8090.txt. 

U. S. Census Bureau. n.d.-b. "Table 6. Percent of the 
Total Population 25 Years and Over with a 
Bachelor's Degree or Higher by Sex, for the 
United States, Regions, and States: 1940 to 2000." 
Retrieved from 
http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education.
d.ata/census/half-century/tables.html. 

Urban Institute. 2006. "Guide to Using NCCS Data." 
Retrieved from 
nccs.dataweb.urban.org/kbfiles/468/NCCS-data-
guide-2006c.pdf. 

White, H. C., & White, C. A. 1965/1993. Canvases 
and Careers: Institutional Change in the French 
painting World. Chicago: University of Chicago. 

Wolpert, J. 1988. "The Geography of Generosity: 
Metropolitan Disparities in Donations and 
Support for Amenities." Annals of the Association 
of American Geographers 78, no. 4: 665-679.  

Wolpert, J. 1997. "The Demographics of Giving 
Patterns." In D. Burlingame, ed. Critical Issues in 
Fund Raising. New York: Wiley.



 


