Since the end of the Cold War, sharp cutbacks in U.S. government-sponsored cultural initiatives overseas have underscored the importance of private foundations in supporting artistic dialogue between the United States and the rest of the world. Globalization, political turmoil and rising anti-Americanism are creating new rationales and a new sense of urgency behind such programs. But how committed are private foundations to fostering artistic interactions with other countries?

This study contrasts grantmaking by leading American foundations in the years 2001 (the most recent year for which comprehensive data were available) and 1990, the first full year after the Cold War.1 The conclusions are sobering: among the minority of foundations that support the arts, international exchange grants – that is, grants that directly encourage artists, productions or arts experts to cross America’s borders – rank among the lowest of funding priorities. When measured at the height of American philanthropic activity, total direct grants for international arts exchange programs amount to far less than one percent of foundation disbursements. (Indirect support through general programming grants adds to that figure.) Although the total value of international arts exchange grants has more than doubled in real terms over the past decade – along with similarly impressive gains in foundation assets – the overall number of exchange grants and their share of the funding pool has remained more or less constant. The scarcity of exchange grants is particularly notable in the Middle East, an area that received only minimal support for qualifying activities in 2001. At a time of lively debate about the uses of “soft power” in promoting America’s values and interests, grantmakers have yet to fully embrace the arts as a means of stimulating a more open and reciprocal engagement with the world.

Even if global tensions weren’t looming large, the muted philanthropic support for international exchanges contrasts with the value of such programs. At the risk of stating the obvious, these activities merit support because they benefit artists (by stimulating their creativity and enhancing their visibility) and because they benefit audiences (by exposing them to other cultures and connecting them to a diverse cultural heritage). For artists, international exposure is an economic lifeline – these days, many dance and music groups earn most of their touring income abroad.

Over the long term, international artistic interactions enhance knowledge and correct stereotypes. They build trust between artists, arts professionals and audiences in different countries, and as a result foster a more open environment for diplomatic and political relations. Exchanges help to tie cultures together, and also exhibit their differences – aims that are equally important, given rising concerns about cultural homogenization. Much is made these days about the value of global citizenship in an interconnected world. Familiarity with other cultures is not just a hallmark of a rounded human existence. It translates into tangible skills and advantages inside an increasingly diverse global economy.

The largest foundations showcased in this study face unique opportunities in the field of international arts exchange. They have the staff and fiscal resources to make a difference in the international arena, and by doing so, they can address growing imbalances in perceptions about American culture at home and abroad. The largest U.S. corporations – including the media conglomerates that overwhelmingly shape America’s image overseas – have successfully globalized their operations in recent years, boosting America’s popular culture to unprecedented worldwide prominence. Meanwhile, U.S. philanthropy – especially cultural philanthropy – focuses most of its energies at home. As an institutional system, on the whole, the grantmaking sector has yet to embrace the global realities of our time. This has serious consequences for artists and arts organizations that are sustained through nonprofit funding mechanisms. To rethink foundation commitment to arts exchange, then, is an occasion not only to consider a relatively marginal area of support, but also to imagine a new mandate for philanthropy in future years. [Introduction]

This study contrasts grantmaking by leading American foundations in the years 2001 (the most recent year for which comprehensive data were available) and 1990, the first full year after the Cold War.1 The conclusions are sobering: among the minority of foundations that support the arts, international exchange grants – that is, grants that directly encourage artists, productions or arts experts to cross America’s borders – rank among the lowest of funding priorities. When measured at the height of American philanthropic activity, total direct grants for international arts exchange programs amount to far less than one percent of foundation disbursements. (Indirect support through general programming grants adds to that figure.) Although the total value of international arts exchange grants has more than doubled in real terms over the past decade – along with similarly impressive gains in foundation assets – the overall number of exchange grants and their share of the funding pool has remained more or less constant. The scarcity of exchange grants is particularly notable in the Middle East, an area that received only minimal support for qualifying activities in 2001. At a time of lively debate about the uses of “soft power” in promoting America’s values and interests, grantmakers have yet to fully embrace the arts as a means of stimulating a more open and reciprocal engagement with the world.