I wasn't in the UK when Maria Miller expounded her intention as newly-appointed Culture Secretary to "focus on economic impact' and 'demonstrate the healthy dividends' that investment in the arts brings into the economy,' creating a brand identity of Britain overseas'. The Guardian article summarising her speech arrived on Facebook with a kite-tail of angry comments.  The Arts Council responded with a 113 page dossier to show it generates more than four times the amount received in Government grants - but as that's a pitiful 0.1% of their spending, the figures aren't exactly bankers' bonuses.  Examples used to highlight their artistic success are all theatrical: War Horse, Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, and Matilda the Musical.  "Everybody agrees you don't put money into the arts primarily for economic benefit," says Sir Peter Bazalgette, new chair of the Council: "What it does for our quality of life and how it fires our imaginations, the fantastic contribution to education and our sense of identity is clear."  I haven't trawled all these shows' prices, but tickets for a family of four to see any matinee of Matilda would cost over £300, which suggests that economic benefit is coming rather higher up the scale than education, imagination, and cultural identity.

But if it isn't the role of theatre to make profit for those not involved in (and possibly antipathetic to) its production, should we even be arguing its effectiveness in that role? Theatre makes a direct, dynamic, contribution to communities, creating insightful, thought-provoking stories about ourselves ~ past, present and future ~ which evoking every human experience from life-affirming to socially-challenging.  Danny Boyle in the Olympics opening ceremony showed that. Surely the sparkling fallout from that event should be more about taking the theatrical experience into the community than 'researching the relationship between publicly funding arts and how talent feeds into the commercial sector.'

Lyn Gardner, the Guardian's voice on all things theatrical, seems to feel that way in a recent blog:
 'One of the most encouraging developments in recent years is the increased understanding from theatres and companies that education and participatory initiatives must be at the heart of their work. They are core activities, not add-ons, because for many in the local community it is these, not another revival of A Midsummer Night's Dream, that make a real difference to their lives – and which, crucially, they will be willing to defend.'
(I like this particularly because it appears a covert swipe on the recent mish-mash production of The Dream at the Bristol Old Vic - a stunning misuse of budget that could have put on scores of small productions around the city. As a comment I overheard in the interval put it: 'All that money on those Thunderbirds puppets? They'd have done better giving it to a voice-coach.')

I googled why theatre. It seemed a good place to find someone who wouldn't start with economics. I found Howard Shalwitz, who in 1978 'had an idea for a new kind of theatre that would shake up the nation':
The idea was simple—pull together a group of exceptionally talented actors, mold them into a company, seek innovative scripts with something challenging to say, and find fresh approaches to acting, directing, and design. Above all, don't be afraid to take risks. 
      This simple idea proved revolutionary. The new company caught on immediately with local audiences and critics and... continued its explosive growth in artistry, audience, and impact for 13 years. Plays premiered on the Woolly stage began to be produced in New York and across the country... 
      Responding to the neglect of its historic 14th Street neighborhood, Woolly Mammoth also launched an award-winning outreach program to make a difference in the lives of young people. It offered low-cost acting classes and pioneered the idea of "Pay-What-You-Can" nights at the theatre. People of all backgrounds and all ages responded to the exceptional creativity of Woolly's plays and programs.

Howard Shalwitz does include a reference to the economy - specifically to revitalise neighbourhoods - in his list of Ways That Theatre Makes Our Lives Better, concluding with one that is surely more useful to the health and wealth of a community:

"Theatre influences the way we think and feel about our own lives and encourages us to take a hard look at ourselves, our values, and our behavior."