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=°=undergrad&opt=all&cnt=all https://artsadministration.org/programs/?program-filter-degrees=&program-filter-state=°=undergrad&opt=all&cnt=all ARTIVATE 12 29 state=°=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=°=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