This paper addresses what the author considers controversial policy recommendations reported in the American Assemblys 1997 publication, The Arts and the Public Purpose.

Knowing who plays a part in American public policy formation tells us a lot about who sets the agenda for the policy argument, who actually makes public policy, and who provides the financial and political support for policy formation, implementation, and evaluation. Public policy in the arts---like all other public policies---involves government intervention into private interests.

Dorn explains that the actual control of the policy making process is invested in an informal but enduring series of "iron triangles" linking executive bureaus, congressional committees, and interest-group clienteles with a stake in particular programs.

The authors opinion is that the American Assembly failed to define clear policy goals and offer alternatives to develop newer and more effective policy direction for the National Endowment for the Arts. He claims that the Assembly recommendations focus mostly on single, narrow policy alternatives, such as collaborations between for-profit and the not-for-profit arts industries. Dorn hopes that the Assemblys efforts at forming a new arts policy will broaden the discussions to include other public-interest groups which would improve the outcomes and chances for gaining even wider public support.

This paper addresses what the author considers controversial policy recommendations reported in the American Assemblys 1997 publication, The Arts and the Public Purpose.