Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

4. Funding of the cultural sector: national - local resources - the role of local authorities


Sometimes the arts do without money to make things possible; at other times, they manage to interact with business, science, universities, so that they receive funds for bringing into the equation another viewpoint. There is, however, the matter of cultural policy deciding how the available money is going to be distributed and made available to the arts. It would be, therefore, of interest if the arts and culture altogether can subsidize itself and thereby attain self sufficiency. The latter is after all another word for cultural sustainability.

Funding of the cultural sector

Once there is under way a departure from state funding and therefore interventions, it would mean moving away from centralized budgets for culture and towards more community funded cultural projects. Bilbao is perhaps an outstanding example. Once local businessmen and others got together to fund something way beyond their own cultural horizon, but with which they could live and benefit from, a cultural non identity was created since outside the local Basque culture. This was done in order to capitalize off global art business and shows how something can exist side by side.

Private funding

By interlinking a local business community with global arts, an institution of this kind like Bilbao demands and reflects a certain investment. Usually it is not considered to be a novel step in terms of advancing cultural development; rather a search goes on for a way to make cultural business work, and this in an environment which would have little or nothing to do with this other cultural world. To everyone surprise Bilbao turned things up side dow: not only the building became the message and thereby provoked a discussion in the art world but where would this leave the artists, but also the relationship between a strong minded local community with its own cultural identity astonished everyone with this sudden openness and willingness to enter such a kind of venture capitalism in the art world. Bilbao reflected in turn also a shift in managerial thinking within Guggenheim which started to move in the direction of global art seeking different venues to interconnect with the world. It was also a foretaste for what was developing in Dubai.

Impact of funding upon culture

Under the influence and guidance of new concepts of funding for culture, and this in combination with a bottom-up community based initiative, the approach to funding (through specific projects) itself changed as new cultural needs were identified.

How to face budgetary cut-backs

This stands in the tradition of official budgets which seek always cuts from culture and education whenever deficits have been incurred and lack of economic growth forces the government to regulate more tightly spending.

Out of that follows the need to reframe policy, and this on the basis what art and culture offers to society, for justification has to be given if public money is spend on the arts and on culture in general. An extension of that would be development of cultural resources. It sets the tone for what can be consideres as beng substantial investments in the arts and culture, just as cultural investments reflect different spending priorities within the cultural sector e.g. less for the opera and more on life performance theatre to give but one example. Here then several general questions appear to reflect some of the crucial issues incurred:


Funding of the cultural sector

Administrative measures are limited in time horizon and deal most of the time only with cultural matters within their own jurisdiction when in fact the link between culture and locality needs to be re-examined before knowing how to allocate financial to match cultural resources.

Upgrading and upholding a certain level of general literacy goes beyond the usual understanding of ‘level of sophistication’, since a richer culture is more differentiated and forward looking when exploring as much different actions with moral implications (e.g. Ancient Greek plays) as how cultural adaptation to changes can be facilitated by introducing new ideas, values and attitudes. Managing changes has become the main impetus for actions in former industrial regions now experiencing the need to enter the digital culture. That splits automatically spending or funding priorities into traditional domains and the innovative actions. To the former belongs the opera even though it can become innovative the way operas are presented; the latter are the design and media arts along with light installations, urban screens, etc. The opening of the Beijing Olympic Games was a demonstration of such computer simulation and how new technology can be used to create dramatic effects.

European Union

European Union

(Ruffolo report)

The motion for a resolution that is the actual proposal to be discussed among others points out that:

therefore the following actions are highly recommended to be done:


The explanatory statement gives a detailed introduction in the culture sector of EU and national cultural policies

Europe should be considered more than a political-economic-monetary union: culture must not play a secondary role as always. Since 1974 the idea of a common cultural policy has been supported to evolve in the first programmes like Kaleidoscope, Raphael and Ariane incorporated lately into Culture 2000. Limited interest to this field, however, is obvious: in 2000 only 0.1 % of Community budget was allocated to cultural and audio-visual issues even though more weight (means more money) was given to culture in the framework of Structural Funds and other Community actions. Furthermore, the subsidiarity principle that is the strictly expressed demand of "non-intervention between Community and national levels" leads to an impossible phenomenon of needed but not admitted cooperation. In order to expore the above existing gap a survey was carried out with the following results.

Most countries agree with the sort of activities carried out under the definition of cultute eg. visual arts, architecture etc. The only exception was the information sector (radio, TV and the press), the information policy since in some countries it seems to be the competence of an authority other than the cultural ministry.

The objectives of national cultural policies (safeguarding of pluralism, support for artistic creation etc.) also equal only the emphasis placed on them vary.

As for the institutional framework, the "predominant model appears to be the ministerial one"S with numerous countries boasting of arm's length' agencies.

Regarding the levels of competence within the government the key elements turned to be a three-tier administrative system i.e. state-region-municipality and a "general trend towards devolution" of responsibilities.

Cultural funding is still not sufficient and the sectoral distribution is unbalanced, too. In southern Europe heritage is privileged while northern countries "give priority to visual arts, entertainment, cultural industry and libraries". In the majority of countries "cultural expenditure is borne prevalently by local authorities or regions". The role of the private sector is generally twofold: it funds the cultural sector and manages cultural institutions. The incessant development of the third sector shows the determination of citizens to be involved.

Government intervention prevails in four areas of cultural policy:
- ownership and direct management
- financial assistance (eg. tax relief)
- regulations
- granting of rights (copyright).

Tax policies differ substantially. Tax allowances are governed by different rules in each country, taxation on artists moving between countries are regulated bilaterally. VAT rates are of numerous kinds as well. Business sponsorship is widespread.

So much for differences. The "convergences in the priorities of the various cultural policies" are as follows:

Some of the conclusions the report mentions:


Other sources:



A delicate chapter as the foundations are structured very differently.

A determined choice could be good and some of them have a thought through method of presenting their funding system, describing their “receivers” (Fondation de France, Roi Baudouin)

I would suggest to take some names from the list like the Yehudi Menuhin foundation and Royaumont, which don’t give any grant and are more ASBL.

Bertelsmann Foundation could be perhaps added. Certainly the Bosch Foundation, Böll Stiftung, Compania di San Paolo…Kunst en Zaken

Certainly beside CEREC, some of its active members like Promethea




Other sources of funding: Lotto

Seminar of CIRCLE in November 2002 “Gambling on culture: state lotteries as a source of funding for culture – the arts and heritage”.


Paradoxically, the biggest increase in funding into the arts system in the last decade has created leadership problems of its own. Arts CEOs have suddenly found themselves with hugely increased workloads and end up either managing major building projects although they have little or no experience or else were were left with a splendid new building but lacked funds to operate it and fill it with artistic and cultural content.

Naturally for some CEOs it has been a wonderful experience resulting in great success, immense personal achievement and the realisation of a dream. For others it has meant failure, worry and even breakdown. There needs to be paid particular attention to leadership in these circumstances, not only to ensure that the lottery investment is more likely to succeed, but also to send out the right messages to those coming up through the system. At present the signal is ‘you’re on your own, it’s your risk, sink or swim’. That works in the commercial world where the rewards for success are suitably high; it does not encourage people to strive for leadership where the downside is obvious, but the upside limited. To be a leader within the arts world is like having to be an anti leader capable of sharing new decision making modis with others.

See, for example:

Paper prepared by John Holden, on behalf of the Clore Duffield Foundation and the Cultural Management Task Force, January 2002


4.1 European level


EU Funds

There are basically three types of programmes:

1.                               The Structural funds – these aim to address economic imbalances in disadvantaged areas of the European Union and are provided direct to specific geographical locations in the EU (including Objectives 1, 2 & 3, Interreg, Leader Plus, Urban, Equal, etc.)

2.                               The Trans-national funds - to support co-operation or exchange projects involving organisations or individuals from several EU countries (including Culture 2000/7, Media Plus, Leonardo, Socrates, Youth, Life, 6 th Framework, etc.)

3.                               Funds for Third countries – i.e. countries who are not members of the European Union  (incuding Phare, ISPA, Sapard, CARDS, Meda, Tempus, etc.)


The differences between the Structural Funds and the Trans-National Funds can be summarised as follows:

Structural Funds

Trans-National Funds

Specific geographical focus

Pan-European focus

Partners not needed (except for Interreg III )

Partners from different countries are essential

Local decision-making

Decisions in Brussels

Large funds to be accessed

Small to medium size grants

Focus on capital works or people-based activities

Focus on projects (maximum 3 years) – not “revenue” funding

Other Useful Links

CUPID : EU Funded Cultural Projects Database - Online searchable database of EU-funded cultural projects.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 13 April 2006 )                                   An Initiative from EUCLID - www.euclid.info

© Copyright 2006


4.1.1 European agenda for culture and budget

a) European agenda

The European agenda for culture has been developing especially around 2006/7 when the value of the cultural sector for the economy became recognized.

b) Budget allocation for culture:

“Public money spent on culture in the Union"

This is a huge task to comprehend, but there is an adopted proposal now for the next Financial Perspectives (named nicer than a 7-year Plan), as part of the legacy of the EU presidency of the UK. The cultural community is right to feel abandonned with the dire prospect of the budget for culture to be again something in the neighbourhood of €34 million per year, like in the current septennial.

"The total EU sum is 862 thousand million, around 1% of what the 27 members hope to produce between 2007 and 2013. About another 1% in these countries can be estimated to be spent on culture from public coffers. Now why not share our attention more evenly between the 238 million (or so) spent jointly and the 800 000 (or 1 000 000?) million spent separately: nationally, regionally, municipally, and so damned subsidiarily? Why not talk more about the way that money will be used in the 27 countries?”

Budpest Memo, December 2005 http://www.budobs.org/

When it comes to negotiation about the budget for culture in the EU budgetary commitment then some dominant factors have to be considered if there is to be any chances in future:

- the weak legal base

- few know how to argue on behalf of culture

- the combination of Council, Parliament and Commission leaves the Committee of Culture of the European Parliament at the weakest end of the scale of options when it comes to tackle problems of the European Union

- there are several member states which take out their anger over inequalities in net contribution versus net benefactors of EU funds (Holland gives per capita the most while Greece has been a major benefactor) in the area of culture as it deemed still by tradition and structurally speaking the realm where member states want to wield their own sovereign powers i.e. free of any EU interference (see the 25 – 75 or 50 /50 ratio when compared with other programs enjoying if not 100% financing by the EU, then 75/25 % co-financing scheme

- A and B line of budgets e.g. money for the European Youth Orchestra or the Menuhin Foundation means certain organizations are on a nearly permanent budgetary line. The argument to justify this kind of spending is that it gives direct power to the European Parliament to support certain activities within the cultural sector on a direct basis. As these organizations e.g. EFAH, now Europe Culture Action are not nationally based, but operate only at European level, they cannot be eligible as partners in European projects financed by the various programs.

Budgetary debates: how much should (is allowed) the EU to spend on culture?

“70 cents for culture” campaign by EFAH

“The failure of the negotiations on the EU’s next multi-annual budget framework, the “Financial Perspectives”, last July and their limbo state under the current UK presidency, have left the campaign without any way marks around which to organise public activities. Although an upsurge in negotiations is unlikely before the handover of the presidency to the Austrians in January 2006, EFAH has its feelers on the ground to pick up any new developments and to make the campaign visible again: “It ain’t over until its over!” In the meantime, the EP’s Culture committee has used the room of manoeuvre left to it by the “Böge report” (the EP’s adopted negotiating position on the Financial Perspectives) and voted for a 600m Euro budget for Culture 2007, in line with the proposal of rapporteur Vasco Graca Moura (as compared to the Commission proposed 408m Euro).A 600m euro budget for the 7-year programme would amount to 19c per EU citizen (~450m of them!) per year! (Recall that in 2004, it was only 7 cents per citizen). Helga Trüpel’s amendment for a 2.2 bn budget, corresponding to the aim of the campaign, was rejected (preceded by a dispute over whether the Committee was obliged to adhere to the Böge report).”

Source: EFAH Newsletter #7 - September/Septembre 2005

70 Cents for Culture? 17 cents is the preliminary answer from the European Parliament
12 May 2005

Only 500 million Euros will be dedicated to the next 7-year EU culture programme. This is one of the recommendations resulting from the vote on 10 May by the European Parliaments's Temporary Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged EU on the EU's general financial framework for 2007-2013.

This position is likely to get confirmed by the European Parliament as a whole at the beginning of June and then form its negotiating position with the EU Member States. The proposal for 500m Euros over 7 years represents an increase of 22% compared to the Commission's proposal (408 million Euros), but it only means a meager 17 cents per EU citizen per year.
The 70 cents for culture campaign, an initiative of the European Cultural Foundation (ECF) and the European Forum for the Arts and Heritage (EFAH) clearly has a higher goal: to increase the current budget tenfold to 70 cents per citizen, or 340 million Euros, per year. EFAH and ECF maintain that 70 cents is the minimum required to meet the current needs of the European cultural sector.
The proposed 500 million Euros are a low level compromise between the goals set out by the campaign and the proposal of the Commission. EFAH and ECF continue to mobilize the cultural sector to achieve further gains as the EU decision-making process moves ahead. The next biggest campaign challenge is to build support at Member State level for a substantially increased culture budget.

For further information, please visit the ´70 Cents for Culture` section of our site (www.eurocult.org) or visit the site of EFAH, co-organiser of this campaign (www.efah.org).

European Digital Art Project Needs Cash
BusinessWeek, 8/12/2008
"European Commission plans to put Europe's works of art at the fingertips of web users could be up and running by the end of the year—if EU member states are willing to commit more funding. Europe's online cultural library—a digital repository of countries' books, music, paintings, photographs and films, accessed through a single digital archive—is set to go live this autumn, according to the Commission. . . . However, the Commission has called on member states to invest more in the project, after earmarking around €120m of its own funds for 'improving online access to Europe's cultural heritage' between 2009 and 2010."


4.1.2 Culture 2000 – Culture 2007

PROGRAMME GUIDE (as of 2008)

The European Commission has just announced the new Programme Guide for the Culture programme, which can be accessed from: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.htm

This contains all the information anyone needs in order to make an application to this programme from now until the programme ends in 2013.  It also contains a revised set of deadlines, listed below – the deadline for applications for 1-2 year and 3-5 year projects is now 1 October.

For the 1 October deadline, the Application Form (for Strand 1.1 and 1.2.1) is now available from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/culture/guide/funding_en.htm – this form has been considerably simplified from the previous forms – making the submission of an application to this programme one of the simplest procedures of any of the EU trans-national project funds.  There are still a couple of extra forms not yet available for these strands but we expect these will be added to the relevant webpages (accessed from the above link) within the next few weeks.

The application forms for the other strands (Strand 1.2.2, Strand 1.3 and Strand 2) will come out in due course.


These have also now been fixed from now until the programme ends in 2013:

The deadline for Strand 1.1 (3-5 year multiannual projects) and Strand 1.2.1 (1-2 year cooperation projects) will now be 1 October each year.

The deadline for Strand 1.2.2 (literary translation projects) will be 1 February each year.

The deadline for Strand 1.3 (cooperation projects with third countries) will be 1 May each year.

The deadline for Strand 2 (Networks, Festivals and Cultural Ambassadors) will be 1 November each year.

Direct funding opportunities for a certain kind of cultural projects, but never something which could undermine the cultural policies of the member states and how they wish to use culture to sustain a complex identity building process linked to their own statehood and not necessarily a part of the European Union. The subtle question about binding powers as expressed through and in culture have therefore to be reconsidered especially if culture remains largely a domain of national feelings and identification processes e.g. German or French literature a more dominant category than European literature with the latter clearly at a disadvantage since a German writing in English while living in Greece has no chance whatsoever from being promoted or invited to any literary event since outside any scheme unless of world status.

EU cultural programs serve a double purpose:

-         mobility of artists, exchange of experiences and cooperation

-         to qualify they have to be trans national projects

Problem of EU funding programs for culture:

i. only 50% with co-financing posing a main obstacle especially for small NGOs and more so informal groups to which most artists tend towards e.g. poetess Katerina Anghelaki Rooke: “I would like to be more than just an individual, but I do not want to be a part of a formal group”. ii. applications have to follow a certain logic otherwise they will not be accepted and then the selection process has also political interventions which do not guarantee necessarily a wise selection of projects

iii. flow of payment is always delayed and depends on many factors so that the risk undertaken is quite high while artists experience while all others demand to be paid immediately, they will have to wait for payment and when they come they may just cover external costs, but no payment for their own wor

iv. NGOs in the cultural sector have suffered in reputation due to misuse by political parties which want to solicit them and through them the Civil Society to give their support to a specific party in power

v.  EU Commission has externalized responsibility to an agency and therefore has reduced the chances of entering a direct dialogue with the EU projects which receive EU funds so that there is very little learning taking place at both local and European level when it comes to shape future cultural programs.


4.1.3 Special funding priorities

There exist special programs e.g. 2008 ‘year of intercultural dialogue’ and 2009 year of ‘creativity and innovation’ as well as on ‘arts and climate change’. There the funds have the aim to solicit the arts for altering the debate and behavior of people with regards to climate change and its impact upon environmental and not only socio-economic and urban conditions. This latter funding opportunity has been linked to the next four member states which will hold the EU Presidency after France (July – Dec. 2008).


4.1.4 Cross references to the cultural sector

With cross references to the cultural sector, funding for the film industry falls usually under the domain of the Committee on Industry and Trade. A similar trend might set in once the cultural economy domain is seen in dominantly economic rather than cultural terms.

Film sector

Funding for the film industry has always been difficult and is usually curtailed by trade talks i.e. should cultural goods be treated like all other commercial goods or not? Also conditions for fair competition makes it hard for the EU to sponsor directly activities within the film sector. There is a distinction made between production, training and distribution even though with the coming of video on the internet these classical divisions within the industrial sector for the film no longer hold or are as applicable as they used to be. Still, European film makers feel constantly disadvantaged by Hollywood’s power over the network of film distributors but as viable actions set in, this can alter. For instance, Berlin film festival has become a major launching pad for new distribution strategies

Linked to the film sector are, therefore, quite naturally film festivals of all kinds whereby the EU cannot financially support ongoing networks although there are examples of European based networks which do receive over time financial support (A line budget compared to the B line budget made available for funding by specific programmes).

EU indirect funding opportunities for culture or related matters to the Structural Fund:

-         Interreg – e.g. for cultural heritage

Interreg / other forms e.g. Information Society – Access to Cultural and Scientific Resources / Digitalisation of Cultural Heritage

Other sources (besides national funds):

Council of Europe


In the UK many museums were funded through the lottery (see Peter Higgins)

Various political sources e.g. in Germany Heinrich Boell Foundation of the GREENS

Foundations e.g. European Foundation for Culture

Norwegian Fund

4.2 EU Member States: national level

Comparison – which Ministeries / departments / governmental agencies – often interacting with international and European organisations – will get involved in funding cultural actions and actions related to culture e.g. culture and education with promotion of visits by schools to museums and exhibitions for these institutions a stable source of income e.g. Children Arts Museum in Athens with 250 000 annual budget obtains 75% of its income from school classes attending the workshops the museum makes available as compensation of lack of art education in Greek schools.

For instance, in France the overlap exists in following way:

“Ministries other than the Ministry of Culture and Communication participate directly in public cultural development. Those principally concerned are the Ministry of Education and Research, the Ministry of Health, Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A wide range of cultural projects are undertaken by these ministries in the fields of training in the arts; conservation of specialised libraries, national museums, monuments and the historical archives of ministries; and cultural initiatives outside of France.”

“The Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Culture and Communication are implementing a five-year plan covering art and culture in schools. The Haut Comité des enseignements artistiques, installed in September 1988, was replaced by the Haut Conseil de l'éducation artistique et culturelle in 2005. This change aims to broaden the curriculum in arts and cultural education. The objectives of the council are to develop new technologies (access to knowledge); social cohesion through culture and the arts; cultural diversity; contractual policies with the communities; amateur arts; to sensitise students to other cultures in Europe; and to develop services for disabled people.” [1]

4.2.1 Germany

Der Kulturetat Kap. 0405 bis 0407 wurde heute mit folgenden Änderungen gegenüber dem Regierungsentwurf im Bundestag verabschiedet:

•               Der Mehrbedarf gegenüber dem Regierungsentwurf beträgt 3,039 Mio. €.

Die Gesamtausgaben für den Kulturetat belaufen sich damit auf 950,352 Mio. €.

•               Der ausgewiesene Mehrbedarf ist im Wesentlichen auf die Anhebung der Zuschüsse für die Stiftung des sorbischen Volks, der Zuschüsse für die Anna Amalia Bibliothek sowie die Anhebung der Zuschüsse der Feierlichkeiten anlässlich „60 Jahre Kriegsende“ zurückzuführen.

•               Der Etat für die Anna Amalia Bibliothek wurde um zwei Millionen aufgestockt. Die ohnehin beabsichtigten Bauarbeiten an der Bibliothek können somit auf 2005 vorgezogen werden und erfolgen damit zeitgleich mit der Beseitigung der Brandschäden am Gebäude.

•               Für die Einladung ehemaliger Häftlinge des Konzentrationslagers Buchenwald anlässlich des 60. Jahrestages der Befreiung der Konzentrationslager werden eine Million Euro zusätzlich in den Haushalt eingestellt.

•               Der Bundeszuschuss für die Stiftung des sorbischen Volkes wird gegenüber dem Kabinettsentwurf um 500 T€ erhöht. Die Gegenfinanzierung erfolgt durch Einsparungen an anderer Stelle im Einzelplan.


The collapse of the system in Eastern Europe and the unification of Germany in 1989/90 produced new cultural tasks, both within the Federal Republic of Germany and in its relations with European neighbours.

The difficult financial situation of all public funds has been a determining factor in cultural policy discussions on the municipal and Länder level since the mid-1990s, and increasingly so since the turn of the century.

In the past five years, discussions and action (on the part of both public and private actors) have focused on:

  • support for culture institutions in the new capital city Berlin;
  • giving greater competence for cultural affairs to the Federal Government;
  • streamlining and optimising cultural funding among the different levels of government;
  • passing of new laws in the fields of copyright and taxation for foundations as well as re-enforcing social insurance provisions for self-employed artists;
  • repatriation of unlawfully seized cultural assets;
  • UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions;
  • constitutional protection for culture;
  • greater civic commitment to culture;
  • responding to a cultural public with increasingly diversifying needs;
  • migrants, cultural diversity, intercultural co-operation; and
  • outsourcing public sector tasks.

Capital Culture

In the early 1990s, the Bundestag (German Parliament), the Bundesrat (Council made up of representatives from the 16 Länder) and the Bundesregierung (Federal Government) all moved to Germany's new capital city Berlin. The transfer of power from Bonn (former capital) to Berlin underscored the national cultural significance of the new capital and led to a growing commitment on the part of the Federal government to support cultural life in the city.  In this context, a "Capital Culture Contract" was signed between the Federal Government and the Land Berlin which specifies areas of support, namely:

  • the restoration of cultural institutions making up the Museumsinsel Berlin;
  • cultural institutions formerly administered by the Land Berlin, e.g. the foundation establishing the Jewish Museum Berlin, the Academy of Arts, the Memorial to German Resistance during World War II; and
  • cultural events which have been grouped into a limited liability company "Berlin GmbH", encompassing the Berlin Festival, the Martin Gropius Building, the House of World Cultures and the Berlin International Film Festival.

The Capital Culture Fund, set up to support projects in Berlin, is also financed by the Federal Government.

Greater federal competence for cultural affairs

In 1998, the Federal Government was given greater competence in the field of culture through the creation of a Federal Commissioner for Cultural Affairs and the Media (renamed Federal Commissioner for Cultural and Media Affairs) and a corresponding Parliamentary Committee. This was followed in 2002 by the establishment of a Kulturstiftung des Bundes (Federal Cultural Foundation). While the creation of these bodies was initially highly controversial, there is now greater acceptance of these offices. Nevertheless, debates arise from time to time regarding the reach of the Federal Government's involvement in the cultural field, for example: in 2004 the Bundesrat refused to allow the Federal Government to take over the running of the Berlin Academy of Fine Arts and in 2005 it did not agree to the establishment of a Stiftung Baukultur (Federal Foundation for Architecture). For more information see chapter 2.2.

Streamlining and optimising cultural funding

At the time of the establishment of the Kulturstiftung des Bundes (Federal Cultural Foundation) there was an intense debate between the Federal Government and the Länder regarding measures to streamline and optimise the system for funding cultural activities and a merger between the Kulturstiftung der Länder (Cultural Foundation of the Länder) and the Kulturstiftung des Bundes. Negotiations to merge both foundations failed in December 2003, and the Federal Government terminated its commitment to the Cultural Foundation of the Länder at the end of 2005.

Legal regulations

Since 1998, the Federal Government has launched legal reforms in the area of foundation law (especially with regard to taxation), copyright law and the law governing social insurance for artists. It has enacted legislation to safeguard the system of fixed book prices and has extended support to the film sector under the Federal Film Promotion Act.

The Federal Government has broadened the scope of support for: research on German culture and history in Eastern and Central Europe under section 96 of the Federal Expellees Act (see chapter 5.3.10) and; memorials commemorating the victims of dictatorship.

Repatriation of unlawfully seized cultural assets

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, international discussions concerning the repatriation of cultural assets unlawfully seized from their rightful owners during World War II have led to the return of individual objects of art. The Federal Government, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Commissioner for Cultural and Media Affairs, in consultation with the Länder, is negotiating the return of specific items from neighbouring countries. In July 2003, an advisory commission was set up concerning the return of cultural assets, especially Jewish property that had been seized from their rightful owners during the National Socialist Era. Its task is to mediate restitution claims, especially in difficult cases. Its members are renowned scientists and prominent personalities.

UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions

The process to develop a UNESCO convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions as an international legal instrument has been supported by the German Commission for UNESCO with active support from civil society actors, the German Bundestag (resolution of 23 September 2004) and the Federal Commissioner for Cultural and Media Affairs.

A nation-wide "Coalition for Cultural Diversity" was established and met 4 times during the year 2004 to discuss the draft Convention from a German perspective.

The initiative was paramount in raising awareness of the inherent dangers to public support for culture which could arise from WTO international trade agreements (e.g. GATS) or the EU Services Directive.

Constitutional protection for culture

Growing problems of funding public cultural institutions have led to initiatives and discussions calling for more legal protection on the maintenance of cultural infrastructure and on "basic cultural needs". A proposal has been made by an Enquete-Kommission (Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry) to include the protection of and support to culture as an article in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.  For more information see the report of the Enquete-Kommission:


Civic commitment

In the past centuries, public involvement in cultural life was fuelled by civic initiatives in specific disciplines, institutions and projects; such initiatives were particularly strong in those cities that were not residencies of the ruling nobility which had founded their own cultural institutions. Stifled during the National Socialist era and submerged in the decades thereafter, this civic commitment has meanwhile resurfaced, manifesting itself in an increase in, for example, membership to friends'-of-societies, volunteer work, endowments and sponsorship / co-financing. There are also a growing number of cultural activities and institutions which are supported by different kinds of civic initiatives. Cultural policy makers, who have long thought solely in terms of state financing, as well as specialists in the field and the general public, are now adapting to this development.

Responding to a cultural public with increasingly diversifying needs

The members of the culturally interested public are less and less inclined to embrace a narrow approach to culture expressed through specific institutions, their programmes and events. Their receptiveness to and desire for participation in cultural activities vary widely and are highly individualized. As a result, urban cultural institutions, projects and events have multiplied and diversified to a hitherto unheard-of degree in the past two decades. Due to its relatively narrow focus of support - especially in times marked by financial constraints - Länder and municipal cultural policy has been unable to react in a sufficiently flexible manner. Therefore, more demand-driven approaches to state and municipal support to culture have been proposed.

Migrants, cultural diversity, intercultural co-operation

The high number of ethnic groups - whose members in some cases constitute up to 30% of the population in mainly western German cities - has long been acknowledged. Numerous associations for members of different ethnic groups have emerged in urban areas; over 200 during the past ten years in Hamburg alone. Acting on their own initiative, these associations work to further intercultural understanding and co-operation. In many cities there are funding programmes to support and encourage their efforts. This type of cultural work, which has long been practised at the local level, is virtually unknown at the Federal and Land levels. In the interest of national cultural cohesion, efforts to further intercultural understanding will be one of the most important aspects of cultural policy at all levels of government in the years to come.

Outsourcing public sector tasks

In the context of the international "new public management approaches" and the ever greater financial constraints at all levels, efforts have been stepped up to modernise policy administration systems and the structure of cultural institutions. The aims have been to increase efficiency, enhance transparency and proximity to the citizen, reorient services and redefine objectives. To this end, for instance, some public institutions have been privatised, benchmarking procedures tested, and public-sector tasks delegated or outsourced to third parties. Private commercial and voluntary non-profit organisations have been more widely acknowledged as partners of the public sector in the field of cultural policy. Cooperative arrangements and private-public partnerships are being encouraged and civic commitment accorded a more prominent role. In recent years, this reform process has slowed down. Some Länder have even revoked certain reforms, for example, the Land Lower Saxony cancelled the outsourcing of support to socio-cultural projects to a non-government organisation.




Council of Europe/ERICarts, "Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, 7th Edition", 2006


4.2.2 United Kingdom

UK cultural and other related policy:

Inspiring Learning for All www.inspiringlearningforall.org.uk

Accreditation www.mla.gov.uk/action/accreditation/00accreditation.asp

The Renaissance in the Regions report www.mla.gov.uk/action/regional/ren_report.asp


National Lottery [2]

Every year the National Lottery raises well over £1 billion to be shared among good causes.

The arts are one of the core good causes supported by the National Lottery. Since the National Lottery began in November 1994, Arts Council England has invested more than £2 billion of Lottery money into the arts, supporting thousands of projects, both large and small. Audiences around the country enjoy new and refurbished arts buildings, and a huge range of arts activity. Lottery money supports the Arts Councils Grants for the arts funding programme for arts organisations and people using the arts in their work. This includes events, activities for people to take part in, equipment, improvements to facilities and buildings, and touring. Grants are from £200 up, though most are under £30,000.

For further information contact Alex Holdaway on 020 7973 6459 or alex.holdaway@artscouncil.org.uk

2006 Public consultation on the share of National Lottery support to the arts and film, heritage and sport

- to determine what proportion of Lottery money is allocated to the arts and film, sport and heritage after 2009, and what the policy should be on how Lottery money is spent in each of these good causes.

“This consultation is about the shares for the causes of arts and film, and heritage, and sport. The Government has also decided that these causes will continue and that there will be no new good causes added apart from the time-limited cause of the London Olympic Games in 2012. The current shares for the causes of arts and film, heritage and sport are set until January 2009. The present proportion of National Lottery money going to each of the good causes in this consultation is divided in the following way. Heritage, sport, and arts and film all currently receive 16.7%. The remaining 50% which goes to the good cause of “charities, education, the environment and health” has already been decided and is not part of this consultation.”

Evaluation: see consultation paper which sets out in more detail the background to the consultation; explains when and how we are consulting; the timetable for the consultation; and what will happen after the consultation. The Lottery distributing bodies for arts and film, sport and heritage have also set out information about what has been achieved through Lottery spending in their areas in the last eleven years and what this may tell us about the future. Before you answer the consultation questionnaire, you might like to take a few moments to read these supporting documents. Further information on the National Lottery is also available to inform your contribution to this consultation.

Campaigns to draw political parties’ attention to the arts and culture:

Initiatives to alter funding for the arts and culture and to increase the amount spend – example of Campaign for the Arts in the United Kingdom with Victoria Todd leading the campaign.


As the UK's only independent lobbying organisation representing all the arts, the National Campaign for the Arts (NCA) produced an Arts Manifesto for the 2005 General Election. The Manifesto brought together the key political priorities for the arts constituency into a single document, which could then be used to lobby politicians.

The Arts Manifesto was produced through extensive consultation with NCA members and more widely within the arts sector. It represents a large body of expertise and opinion and for this reason has been treated as an authoritative voice by politicians. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, publicly recommended the Arts Manifesto and the Labour Party incorporated 70 per cent of the Arts Manifesto recommendations into its own election manifesto. The Arts Manifesto also received whole-hearted support from spokespeople for other major political parties, and many of its recommendations appeared in their manifestos.

Politicians supported the NCA Arts Manifesto because it presented a set of recommendations that were endorsed by the entire arts sector. Politicians respond well to a united front, and to a clear set of priorities that they can transfer directly to their own manifestos.


The content of the Arts Manifesto was drawn from a national conference, For the Sake of the Arts, held by the NCA at the South Bank Centre on 21 June 2004. Over 130 delegates attended from across the UK in order to contribute to the creation of the Manifesto. By bringing together a group of people from a variety of art forms, professional levels and geographical locations the NCA ensured that its recommendations caught every experience.

Nine breakout groups at the conference discussed key themes, which had been chosen through consultation with NCA members. These were:

  1. Arts for arts' sake
  2. The arts in formal education
  3. Children as participants
  4. Youth arts provision - engaging the 'older young'
  5. The 'greying' population
  6. Disabled participants - promoting and enabling
  7. Promoting sustainable cultural diversity
  8. Continuing professional development (CPD) & training for employment in the arts
  9. Bloody amateurs! Pride, prejudice and the voluntary arts



A pocket-sized summary of the Arts Manifesto was printed in September 2004. This emphasised one priority for each of the themes discussed at the June 2004 conference. Designed to introduce MPs to the main political aims of the arts constituency, it was extremely well-received amongst both politicians and the arts sector.

The Arts Manifesto summary was taken to the Labour and Liberal Democrat party conferences in September and the Conservative party conference in October. Here, it was distributed to politicians and policy makers.

The Arts Manifesto summary was also sent to parliamentarians with an interest in the arts. These were identified through All-Party interest groups, which are cross-party groups of MPs and peers that come together in order to support and promote a particular theme within Parliament.


The full Arts Manifesto was published in December 2004. The full document is divided into nine sections relating to the nine key themes discussed at the June 2004 conference. Each section contains a short briefing for politicians on the theme and its importance to the continued success and sustainability of the arts sector. There are then several recommendations for each theme. These recommendations were designed to be transferred directly into the parties' own manifestos.


In January 2005, the Arts Manifesto was sent to all NCA members along with a special edition of NCA Update. This explained how to get the most out of the Manifesto, and included tips on local level lobbying and advocacy.

The Arts Manifesto was launched to the arts constituency at Tate Modern on 26 January 2005. This provided NCA members and other interested parties with an opportunity to examine and discuss the document. Again, the NCA encouraged attendees to make active use of the Manifesto by raising its recommendations with politicians.

The Arts Manifesto was officially launched to parliamentarians on 1 February 2005 at a meeting of the All-Party Arts and Heritage Group in the House of Lords. This is a group of over 300 MPs and peers from all political parties who share an interest in supporting the arts and heritage in Britain. The NCA distributed the Arts Manifesto to group members and received their comments, which were encouraging.

The NCA sent copies of the Arts Manifesto to key policy makers and the people who will write the party manifestos. Staff also met with party spokespeople on the arts and members of other All-Party interest groups to discuss the Manifesto and ways in which its recommendations might be incorporated into policy.


The NCA election campaign was one of its most successful ever. By combining high level lobbying of policy formers with grass roots local campaigns by NCA members, the NCA ensured that its message had a wide impact. 70 per cent of the Arts Manifesto recommendations were incorporated into the Labour party's own election manifesto. The Conservative party and Liberal Democrats also took on board a significant number of the Arts Manifesto messages when drafting their own manifestos.

The NCA is now working to ensure that the new Labour Government keeps its promises. The Arts Manifesto was never intended to be a short-term initiative. It contains messages that those working in the arts sector believe will support the development of their organisations, regardless of art form, geographical location or professional level. For this reason, the NCA will continue to drive home the Arts Manifesto's recommendations to politicians.

\\SERVER\NCA\Campaigns\Election 2005\VT Greece conference speech 20 Sept 05.doc

Lessons to be learned:

-         lobbying right across the board to include all parties but also other institutions in order to increase the support of the arts and culture

-         effective communication through readable leaflets

-         sustaining a practical discourse in order to enhance the voice of the cultural sector

-         be innovative and practical in further going suggestions on how to improve the situation

-         show an understanding of the arts in appreciating how others view the arts and culture altogether

-         address the issues whereby the central-regional-local context seems to be less important than the spirit of cooperation and kind of development enhanced by the arts

-         link more actively the arts to the making culture a top priority (since the first prime policy reference of the Labour Party to ‘a working culture’)

-         off-set loss of resources due to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as key reasons for a shift in spending priorities


4.2.3 Ireland

Partnership for the Arts, Arts Council Goals 2006 – 2010 provides an overview of the Arts Council’s new approach to supporting the arts. It describes the role of the Arts Council and sets out the five high-level goals that the Arts Council has identified for the five year period 2006 – 2010.

Arts Council Goals:

- Affirm and promote the value of the arts in society.

- Assist artists in realising their artistic ambitions.

- Make it possible for people to extend and enhance their experiences of the arts.

- Strengthen arts organisations countrywide so as to secure the basis of a vibrant and stable arts community.

- Ensure the Arts Council works effectively.
The Arts Council will work towards achieving these goals through a number of strategies which we consider (arising out of extensive consultation) to be the most effective and appropriate. There are 3-5 strategies outlined under each goal.

In Partnership for the Arts, Arts Council Goals 2006-2010 a number of projects have been assigned under each strategy. A total of 52 defined projects of work are identified, enabling the Arts Council to implement these strategies.

This document may be of interest to anyone concerned with the development of the arts in Ireland or to anyone with a general interest in the arts.

Arts Councils


http://www.artscouncil.ie/ Last updated: 17/02/06

As the Irish Government’s development agency for the arts, the Arts Council is the major funder of the arts in Ireland. The Arts Council's grant from the Irish Exchequer in 2006 is €72.3 million.

Each year it provides grants to arts organisations (revenue funding), along with grants for individual artists, or groups of artists (artists’ bursaries). Grants are always made with the objective of promoting artistic excellence and innovation.

Awards for projects

Projects (taking place in 2006)

Panel: Willie Doherty (chair), Cecily Brennan, Roger Doyle, Olwen Grindley, Gill Ogden, Sally Ann O’Reilly.
Projects offers funding for the development and/or production phases of an artist(s)-led creative project. Specifically the aims are to assist artists in devising, exploring and implementing creative ideas in any artform(s)/discipline(s) or combinations of artform(s)/discipline(s). The award also aims to foster the creation of original and new work by encouraging experimentation, innovation and collaboration. The Arts Council also considers proposals which are for the creation of new work from an artist’s original re-interpretation of repertoire.
There were 210 applications for this award representing a demand of €4,076,870. 
90 applications were short-listed and 52 awards were made.

Last updated: 3rd April 2006


4.3 International Comparison

4.3.1 Canada


CultureCanada.gc.ca provides one-stop web access to federal, provincial and municipal government Culture, Heritage and Recreation programs and services.


Department of Canadian Heritage (pch.gc.ca)

pch.gc.ca provides information about the Department of Canadian Heritage, as well as a wide variety of subjects including arts and culture, citizenship and identity, diversity and multiculturalism, international affairs, sport and youth.


Some first conclusions about funding of the cultural sector from a national level:

-         not in all countries exist Ministries of Culture making it difficult to name and to analyse the funding system e.g. Germany has ongoing negotiations between federal and state (Laender) level about funding for the arts and culture

-         where they exist – and the various departments / the priorities set show a cultural policy that has evolved over time and yet is too slow to adapt to changing conditions e.g. Goethe Institutes and the need to cut back in budget at a continual rate has led to all kinds of changes (closing of institutes, doing away with the library, making institutes become revenue sources by teaching the German language only and reducing the amount of money made available for the arts and culture)

-         functional use of culture as identity making industry / sector

Ottawa wages war on culture
Times and Transcript (New Brunswick, Canada), 8/12/2008
In Canada, columnist Alec Bruce takes issue with the Tory government's decision to make "two deep funding cuts in as many weeks. . . . First on the chopping block is PromArt, a $4.7- million program administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which provides travel grants to individual artists and organizations. Second is Trade Routes, a $9-million Department of Heritage initiative designed to support Canadian cultural exports."

4.3.2 United States United States – Endowment for the arts

The United States has not the same experiences as European countries when it comes to funding the arts and culture through the public hand. In the 1960s was established the National Endowment of the Arts to ensure at least some engagement of the federal level. But as trends towards less taxes matched by a Conservative demand that the State should not finance outrageous art (for example, the exhibition ‘Sensation’ at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999 was cited as offending religious feelings – see discussion by Carol Becker) translated itself into George Bush Junior being elected as President in 2000, funding of the cultural sector in the United States is questioned even more vigorously.

The discussion about the Sensation exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999 highlights a controversial exhibition not only because of its content provoking protest especially on the side of those who feel their religious feelings have been offended, but there is made visible a new way to cash in on block buster types of exhibitions which upgrade the collection’s value as a global process and which brings museums, auctioneer house and collector into a new agreement from which everyone seems to profit. It debunks, however, the quality of art and alters the interface Brooklyn citizens had until then with ‘their’ museum. The local collective ownership matters no longer as much as the need for another kind of concept of collections / exhibitions to keep the museum going:

“Central to this discussion is what these events till us about the desperate financial situation of many American museums and society’s unwillingness to adequately fund the making and showing of arts.”  [3]

4.3.3 Australia

Grants 2008

The Australia Council for the Arts offers a wide range of funding programs for Australian artists and arts organisations.

In 2008, we will offer grants in 58 categories and more than 60 initiatives either directly or with partner organisations.

These are for all major areas of arts practice - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts, community partnerships, dance, inter-arts, literature, music, theatre and visual arts.

All Australian artists, groups and arts organisations are welcome to apply to our grant programs and many of our initiatives.

Please note that application forms will be available for download before six weeks prior to the closing date.

Grants pending

Project and professional development (category B) - community partnerships - closing date: 01 September 2008

Project and professional development (category B) grants provide funding up to $20,000 for one-off community arts and cultural development projects that involve a range of collaborating partners and may or may not have a public outcome.

Projects with public outcomes (category C) - community partnerships - closing date: 01 September 2008

Projects with public outcome (category C) grants provide funding from $20,000 to $35,000 per grant, for one-off community arts and cultural development projects that must have a public outcome and involve collaborations with a range of cross-sectoral partners.

International pathways - music - closing date: 08 September 2008

International pathways supports international touring by Australian musicians performing predominantly original Australian music.

International performing arts markets- travel fund - closing date: 12 September 2008

The Australia Council's market development division will co-ordinate an Australian presence at a range of international performing arts markets in 2008/09 to increase international touring opportunities for Australian contemporary performing arts.

Languages other than English (LOTE) publishing initiative - literature - closing date: 26 September 2008

The Languages other than English (LOTE) publishing initative supports the translation and publication of works by authors writing in languages other than English.

Playing the world - theatre - closing date: 01 October 2008

Playing the world aims to assist Australian theatre artists to develop international markets and reach new audiences overseas.

Program - literature - closing date: 01 October 2008

Program grants provide one-year funding to a limited number of significant organisations that contribute to a viable strategic infrastructure for Australian literature

Publishing and promotion - literature - closing date: 01 October 2008

Publishing and promotion grants support activities that foster greater awareness and appreciation of Australian creative writing.

TRACK RECORD - Music Export Development Program - closing date: 07 October 2008

The Australia Council’s market development section aims to create more demand for Australian contemporary arts through supporting the promotion of Australian contemporary arts and the development of new markets and audiences, in Australia and internationally.

Program - artform development - dance - closing date: 03 November 2008

Program - artform development grants provide organisations with funding for programs of activity that develop the artform.

“beyond borders” in Australia because of the very good source of information they provide (and a brilliant newsletter)



4.4 Local resources

4.4.1 UK – performance indicators for various, including the cultural sector at parity with environment – the experience with scaling down to Regional Development Agencies and from there to local authorities / local councils with performance indicators accepted throughout the UK (White Paper Review)

-         while promoting economic development they can contribute to wider government goals including social cohesion and a better environment

-         In part the answer is given by their focus having to be economic.

In terms of performance indicators:

Regional disparities (as measured by GDP per head, productivity, employment rates and R&D expenditure) were recognised as significant and national economic competitiveness must remain an over-riding concern.

The statistics of national economic performance show that while the UK employment rate compares favourably with that of national competitors, UK productivity is significantly lower. The imperative at a regional level is therefore to level up rather than level down. The proposals in the Regional White Paper about the establishment of elected regional assemblies (ERAs) would hold implications for RDAs.

In areas where ERAs were created, the RDAs would retain their current operational independence and their responsibility for developing economic strategies. However, they would become accountable to assemblies who would appoint RDA

Boards (consulting the Secretary of State) and could direct RDAs to make changes to their strategies. The RDA's funding would be determined by assemblies out of their block grants.


They can focus on innovation and development; but they have counterbalancing weaknesses:

Their responsibilities outweigh their powers

They have small budgets

It is not clear that their skills are appropriate to their remits

They remain firmly accountable to the centre rather than to their regions.

The focus of the RDA was on higher education and the exploitation of the science base.

Further development

Significantly, in light of the arguments about the relevance of subregional strategies, the RDA had now established four formal sub-regional partnerships to which 75% of the RDA funding was devolved. Anticipating the thrust of the White Paper, the regional assembly already runs a scrutiny process on the regional strategies.

Sir Jeremy Beecham saw the RDAs predominantly as a delivery mechanism for the policies of central government. They were largely excluded from the issue of setting policy agendas. From the centre, there was rather little concern with genuinely tackling regional inequalities, and the existence of a national framework is more apparent than real. The proposals in the White Paper could therefore be seen as relatively revolutionary. They could help to determine that local priorities come to the fore. Yet, the proposals could have gone further: they would give ERAs direct control over very little expenditure.

Will assemblies be able to affect priorities in the budgets that they do not control for example in the case of the Learning and Skills Councils? One way in which teeth could be added to the regional dimension of governance would be to develop regional Public Sector Agreements. The White Paper was not about local government reorganisation but about democratising an arm of central government.

Clearly, this is simply the beginning of a process – a start to re-writing the governance constitution, even though there is as yet no grand blue-print - indeed, there were even suggestions that the boundaries of the regions are not immutably fixed.

The CBI saw a valid regional dimension to issues such as transport and land-use planning. The business world saw value in the RDAs in terms of their potential to co-ordinate existing programmes.

The Private-sector Perspective

Regional Funding

Public spending is highly complex and can follow many patterns. There is a high degree of centralisation in the determination of expenditure.

The budgets of the RDAs show a significant variation across different regions, but none of them has a budget greater than 1% of the total public expenditure in their region. As English devolution develops it was seen as inevitable that there would be increasing pressure for some form of regional funding formula (similar to the Rate Support Grant settlement).

Most difficult it seems to bring an economic dimension to bear. However, it was felt their problems were:

Regional Development Agencies

- the split of public resources raised through the Treasury as against local authorities – a ratio of 97:3 – and of the determination of expenditure, which remains strongly directed from the centre.

- Their lack of focus Micro-management from the centre

- The need for a new set of skills to make RDAs less risk-averse

- The need to become deal-makers and risk takers

- The potential for doubts about the variable geometry of the proposed ERAs

- The considerable risk for confusion in the relationships between Whitehall, Government Offices, RDAs and Assemblies

- The doubts about the calibre and the relevance of the skills of elected members.

Final Comments

While welcoming the achievements of the RDAs, the lively presentations and discussions during the day returned to four main themes:

  1. a minimalist interpretation that sees Whitehall as being left firmly in charge a more radical view that the White Paper could represent a step change in thinking and could sow the seeds for bigger progressive changes in the future.
  2. The Regional White Paper had to be seen as the start of a process. Where it might lead was as yet uncertain, but it potentially opened up some radical constitutional issues.
  3. The lack of a national framework meant that RDAs would always be climbing a steep hill - regional policy (which we have not got) is a different animal from regional development.
  4. The whole debate about regions somewhat glosses over the distinction between private versus public investment. Do the two operate in quite separate circuits? What mechanisms best ensure that public investment in lagging regions will generate a new geography of private investment across the country?
  5. Much of the linkage between economic, social and spatial strategies still appears to be as much aspiration as achievement. The link between economic prosperity and social inclusion remains a tantalising goal.


Set against this, the recent boost to the RDA budgets and, in particular, the introduction of a 'single pot' principle to their spending both suggest that the regional dimension is taken seriously by the government and Treasury. The fact that the Regional White Paper makes more sweeping proposals than had been expected by many commentators reinforces this view. This was the general thrust of the lively discussion that was prompted by the panel.

The Regional White Paper can be seen as 'constitutionally challenging'. The opposing perspectives are:

The Outside View

There being no national framework of regional policy and of many patterns of public expenditure and investment working counter to the avowed intent of levelling-up regional disparities.

This raised the dilemma of the balance between solidarity versus subsidiarity. On one hand, formal equalisation of spending in relation to needs would lead straight back to central control. On the other hand, could public policy tolerate the increasing inequalities that would accompany any form of devolution that allowed regions to raise more of their own locally-determined resources?

The government's enthusiasm for English devolution has waxed and waned. Even though the government established the RDAs, their freedom to operate has been hedged around with centrally-determined performance indicators and their budgets and powers have remained less than the expectations of what they might deliver.

Policy aim with regards to boost the creative economy

Source: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Published Friday, 4 November, 2005 - 14:42

This seven step programme will tackle the issues that make a real difference to the productivity and growth of the creative economy and focus on the following key areas:

Speaking at the London Business School Media Summit, James Purnell said:

"Our creative industries are a great success. But they have historically suffered from ghettoisation."

"The great wealth of knowledge and creative talent out there is beyond dispute. We need to harness that talent for the good of the whole industry."

"That's why I will bring together a team from the industries to work towards a shared aim - to make Britain the world's creative hub. If the film industry has been particularly successful in working with schools to encourage creativity in their pupils, let's share that expertise with the fashion and music industries."

"This programme is about tapping into the energy that's already running through our creative economy. It's about creating conditions in which we can flourish."

Creative Industries and Tourism Minister, James Purnell today addressed the London Business School Media Summit.

The Creative Industries (in the UK) account for more than eight per cent GDP; more than four per cent of our export income and provide jobs for two million people.



4.4.2 Ireland

Ireland – Arts Council


Contributions by Local Authorities

2006 Local Authorities Offers To Date

Local Authority

Carlow County Council


Cavan County Council*


Clare County Council


Cork City Council


Cork County Council*


Donegal County Council


Dublin City Council


Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council


Fingal County Council


Galway City Council


Galway County Council*


Kerry County Council*


Kildare County Council*


Kilkenny County Council


Laois County Council*


Leitrim County Council


Limerick City Council*


Limerick County Council*


Longford County Council*


Louth County Council*


Mayo County Council*


Meath County Council*


Monaghan County Council*


North Tipperary County Council


Offaly County Council*


Roscommon County Council


Sligo County Council


South Dublin County Council


Waterford City Council*


Waterford County Council*


Westmeath County Council


Wexford County Council


Wicklow County Council








Ealaνon na Gaeltachta






* Indicates funding towards salary costs.

Source: http://www.artscouncil.ie/english.asp?page=funding/main3a.htm


4.5 Funds from the private sector – sponsorship and charity

“The word public is used as an adjective in the title of this conference. I end by calling attention to the noun: the public, the viewers and customers of cultural goods. This kind of private partnership deserves special attention, too, which is manifested by citizens who buy tickets, books, records, handicraft and so on. The yearning for the involvement of businesses and foundations should not suppress the efforts made for the attraction of the public. The contribution of the public constitutes a precious component of cultural finances, not only in the entertainment business and other commercial sectors of culture.

Private support takes various forms. Donations from citizens, from NGOs, including foundations of corporation are one cluster. 'Real' sponsorship, that is money given to cultural projects as part of the marketing activity of a business is another kind - this inquiry mainly focussed on this latter. “

“The two extreme poles of the types of private involvement in culture are represented by sponsorship and charity.

Sponsorship in its pure form fully belongs to business: a marketing tool, in the service of publicity, of branding a firm, its products or services. At the other end of the scale, charity or patronage takes the form of gifts or donations, most often of money, but also of support in kind, including one's time and skills, in case of volunteers. This is the world of philanthropy, of altruism.

Between these two poles there are a number of interim, transitional types of private involvement acts in culture. Some of these types are linked to a specific country, to special cultural traditions and legal environments.

Accordingly, the underlying motives and values that are behind the acts of partnership can also be designated to the two opposite poles: interests at one end and ideals at the other. Counting on the returns for the support on the one hand, and no compensation expected for donations on the other. These two very different combinations are no theoretical abstractions: sponsorship to culture based on business interest is as common as is philanthropic contribution to cultural endeavours.

Nevertheless, more often than not, the values leading to private involvement in culture belong to neither of these pure cases. The underlying motivation is usually more complex, with quite a few crossover types: „dirty" taints can be easily discerned within the motivation of „clean" charity, and "clean" ideals alongside shrewd business motives. The tough interests behind a sponsorship decision are often coloured by softer reasons like personal fondness, attachment to and familiarity with culture on behalf of people in businesses. Also, many (if not most) donations have hidden agenda and second intentions behind. Some of these intentions are benign and legitimate, others not so spotless.

In recent years the notion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has occupied the centre, both of the scale of business partnership types, and of the value chain behind the involvement; which is a very positive development. CSR appears to correspond to the notion of co-responsibility, emphasised by Juan-Carlos Marset in his welcoming speech to this conference, told at the reception in the Alcázar Palace. “

Péter Inkei (2007) Funding culture in Europe: Public and private partnerships

La rencontre de Séville, 8-11 March 2007

Speech by Péter Inkei at the panel on Sponsorship - The contribution of foundations and enterprises


Whenever the private sector gives money, in whatever form, influence is exerted upon the organisers both directly and indirectly. Peter Inkei speaks about the ‘hidden agenda’ but most obvious is if financial backers attempt to influence the artistic event by demanding a certain director, program, people to be presented in public etc. Most of the time these influences are as negative as are political efforts to influence any artistic or cultural event. Repeatedly problems are incurred if either political or private interest intervenes. Only artistic independence from both sides guarantees success in terms of convincing authenticity and in accountability. Already museums have fought out many of these battles between an independent minded director and board members all of which may have brought huge amount of money into the organisation. The same goes for accepting or not certain kinds of donations. Here each museum must carefully screen all donations for possible ‘hooks’ by which those giving the donations wish to gain influence over the functioning and management of the institution or event in one or another way. The solution has to be at all times to be very clear up front that no such donations are accepted which seek to give influence to any potential backer of the event. Arguments and reflections: in the name of what are things justified? If not in the name of the public, then for some philanthropic cause, the real interests behind any financial usage of a specific situation can easily be obscured.


“Coming back to policies vis-à-vis private involvement to culture. Such policies and strategies need to be consciously elaborated and on every level: national, regional and municipal, and also by cultural operations and institutions, big and small. The advisable order is to establish what potential investors and donors need (or might need), that partnership for culture can provide to them. This is the golden rule of fund-raisers: instead of concentrating on what culture needs, point out what culture can offer to funders (donors, investors etc.).

The key notion is recognition; acknowledgement, to use another expression. The significance of which is important, not only in cases of philanthropy, where recognition is the symbolic reimbursement for the support given to culture. Also in cases when the contractual duties towards the sponsor have been fulfilled, recognition should be the bonus for investing in culture.

In fact tax benefits and similar public incentives to certain extent function in this sense. In addition to the immediate reward that the donor or sponsor gains from supporting a cultural act, the fiscal benefit is an additional bonus, a reinforcement of recognition. The symbolic significance of administrative incentives is probably more important than their economic effect on companies and individuals. “

Peter Inkei

Cultural Sponsorship in Europe


In Madrid, Colin Tweedy disclosed the amounts of the 98/99 business investment in cultural sponsorship in some European countries. (Later on we discovered that these had been published by CEREC, edited by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it before.)

These data inspired us to look deeper and try to compare the level of cultural sponsorship in these countries. We found that the sponsorship per GDP in 1999 was the highest in Belgium, and the lowest in Spain and Sweden. The level of sponsorship per capita was the highest in Belgium - at the low end: Spain. See table below:


Cultural sponsorship in 1999, million euros

GDP 1999, billion euros

Population 1999, thousands

Cultural sponsorship per GDP

GDP per capita, euros

Cultural sponsorship per capita, euros
































































Source: Colin Tweedy; OECD

The results of our quick comparison are quite surprising. We could expect that in the United Kingdom, which is often looked upon as the European paradise of cultural sponsorship, its level should the highest - but here it is just a little higher than average. It may seem evident that the amount of business sponsorship per capita is the highest in small countries like Belgium and Austria. But Sweden and Ireland are not much bigger, and this rate there is quite low.

Certainly, this little exercise raises lots of methodological questions. Where do these countries come from? In BO's remit, in east-central Europe judging the amount of cultural sponsorship is a hopeless task. Who could tell it: the tax authorities, the statistical office, the ministry of culture, the chamber of commerce, some specialised ngo or a painstaking journalist? How to differentiate it from the widely applied quasi sponsorship labelled as donation (or donation labelled as sponsorship)? There are of course doubts as to the index of cultural sponsorship related to the GDP of the country but it goes by with some benevolence.




“A recent analysis done by the London based Charity Aid Foundation has pointed at the complexity of motives behind philanthropy. The researchers identified at least five factors that influence charity willingness in a country. Factors that explain why in the USA the value of donations is estimated to be more than twice as much as in the UK, and over ten times higher than in France, in relation to the gross national product. What seems to count most is the general tax burden, and most particularly the social security to be paid by employers in a given country. One can say that in a country either individual charity or collective solidarity is the dominating feature.

The CAF study was about philanthropy in general, not just charity for sake of culture. Which points at another limitation of fiscal measures: rarely do legislators pass measures that are pinpointed to favour culture only. Most instances of tax incentive laws benefit all kinds of "good causes", ranging from education to health services, and from social affairs to the environment.

Where fiscal measures are effectively applied in favour of culture is the area of investment. Several countries have had favourable records of this kind of intervention, e.g. Ireland, France and Hungary, especially in the audio-visual field. Tax credits offered to investors into cultural projects have greater impact than tax incentives to donors and sponsors of cultural projects. (This important distinction was made clear by Vesna Čopič in her comment to my intervention.)”

Funding culture in Europe: Public and private partnerships

La rencontre de Séville, 8-11 March 2007

Speech by Péter Inkei at the panel on Sponsorship - The contribution of foundations and enterprises


Philanthropic motives


In Greece, NGOs with a philanthropic motive have been financed / subsidized heavily by the Ministry of Culture with the aim to build up a linkage between NGOs and Civil Society which would support the current government and in turn favor the Neo Democratia Party as the force in the country to govern. Such political instrumentalization attempts by political parties of NGOs and of Civil Society are not new, but they continue to undermine the status of being independent and accessible to all citizens while working on a non profit basis.

There have to be distinguished NGOs which aim to work in Greece and those who go abroad for philanthropic purposes e.g. building schools in Afghanistan. In the latter case there have to be added those funding opportunities which aim to support the Greek diaspora abroad e.g. financing the restoration efforts of the Orthodox church in Alexandria, a former Greek colony and now nearly abandoned and in need to be sustained. As this can be a link to culture and foreign EU relations, it matters to what extent again national cultural interests perpetuate in the abstract and concrete sense and thereby do not allow for European cultures to flower as if the Maastricht Treaty does not exist.

Philanthropy in Australia


Supported organisation, Kurruru Indigenous Youth Performing Arts’ Nunga Circus performers in Soaring. Image courtesy Kurruru and Come Out Festival.

Philanthropy in Australia is growing.

The most comprehensive national research into philanthropy, the Giving Australia report, showed an increase of 88 per cent in individual giving since 1997. With more philanthropists recognising the benefits of structured giving, the future of philanthropy in Australia is looking bright.

Investing in the arts can bring important social change. Yet in Australia the arts receive a relatively small slice of the philanthropic funding pie.

Philanthropy is a valuable source of income for artists and cultural organisations, allowing new artworks to be created and more community programs to make a difference.

There are many ways individuals, foundations and trusts, corporations and arts organisations can benefit from cultural philanthropy.

Artsupport Australia

The Australia Council for the Arts established Artsupport Australia in 2003 to grow cultural philanthropy in Australia.

Since then, Artsupport Australia has facilitated more than $20 million of philanthropic donations from individuals, foundations and trusts to artists and arts organisations.

The following artists and arts organisations are just some who have benefited from working with Artsupport Australia.

Glen Donnelly

'It started with a leap of faith. With Artsupport Australia's guidance, philanthropy has given me the best head start I could imagine.' Glen Donnelly, viola player.

Milk Crate Theatre

'The connections we've made mean we'll be running theatre with the homeless tomorrow, and for many days after' Beck Ronkson, artistic director, Milk Crate Theatre.

State Theatre Company of South Australia

'Philanthropy mentoring means we're taking risks that are paying off. It's easier to be courageous when you know there's someone supporting you.' Irene Jones, development consultant, State Theatre Company of South Australia.

Tjanpi desert weavers

'The Central and Western Deserts cover 350 000 square kilometres. With brokered funding our weaving workshops are reaching further.' Karin Riederer, manager, Tjanpi desert weavers.


The role of foundations

Foundations to help minority charities
Ventura County Star (CA), 8/8/2008
"More money should flow to Ventura County charities led by minorities now that an unprecedented agreement has been inked by 10 of the state's wealthiest private foundations, officials say. A coalition of big-name foundations plans to invest millions in developing leadership and providing technical assistance to minority-led and other grass-roots organizations, boosting their chances to qualify for grants. . . . The agreement headed off legislation necessitating disclosures that the foundations considered government intrusion into private philanthropy."

Foundations attempt to influence directly and indirectly through the activities they fund governmental policy as viewed by the public at large and prove beyond doubt that they are as independent sources of funding beneficial for primarily individuals, but beyond that make their contributions to the public at large even if objects funded may turn out to be more private or semi-public institutions e.g. Niarchos Foundation funding a new library at the end of Syngrou in Athens.

Mission Statement of Niarchos Foundation


The Stavros Niarchos Foundation, an international philanthropic organization, supports charitable activities in four primary areas: arts and culture, education, health and medicine, and social welfare. The Foundation makes grants to not-for-profit organizations throughout the world. In addition, the Foundation maintains a major commitment to supporting programs in Greece through the guidance of a locally based advisory committee.


The Foundation seeks to provide contributions that have the potential to add value in a significant way. Within each program category, the Foundation supports initiatives that feature strong leadership and sound management and that can demonstrate a tangible impact over time. The Foundation hopes to foster exchange and collaboration among recipient institutions by supporting a broad range of organizations across its target program areas in locations around the world.


The Foundation places particular emphasis on endeavors that address education, social welfare, and health issues for underserved populations, with special attention given to programs for children and the elderly. Selectively, the Foundation also seeks to support programs within and outside Greece that promote, maintain, and preserve Greek heritage and culture.


Foundation grants include, as appropriate, funds for operating and program support as well as funds for select capital projects and endowments. A limited number of grants in areas of long standing interest to the donor or that are deemed to be of special interest to the donor's family are also made.  No grants are made to individuals. 

Since its inception in 1996, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation has provided total grant commitments of US$334,594,887 with 1,561 grants in 85 nations around the world to various not-for-profit organizations.


Source: official website of the Niarchos Foundation [4]

Wallace Foundation

“The Arts: A Public Benefit?”  - a study commissioned by the Wallace Foundation

Christine DeVita, the President of the Wallace Foundation, who will discuss the findings of this groundbreaking study. Among the respondents will be Ben Cameron, Executive Director, Theatre Communications Group; Alfred B. Del Bello, Esq., former Westchester County Executive & Lieutenant Governor of New York State and architect of The Westchester Arts Fund; Ronald Feldman, co-director, Feldman Gallery; Elliot Forrest, Peabody award-winning broadcaster, host of "Breakfast with the Arts" (A&E); weekend morning host (WQXR); Lewis Lapham, Author, Editor Emeritus, "Harper's Magazine" and Jerry Pinkney, Artist / Illustrator, member, National Council on the Arts.

The study - commissioned by The Wallace Foundation - concludes that giving individuals repeated rewarding experiences with the arts over time is a necessary first step before other, more public benefits of the arts can be realized. These other benefits include exposure to new perspectives, sharpened learning skills among young people, expanded capacity for empathy, and stronger social bonds in communities. Based on these findings, the report recommends that federal, state and local policy be refocused to build demand for the arts by introducing more Americans to engaging arts experiences, especially when they are young. This would be an expansion of the current focus on maintaining the supply of the arts.

Source: H-MUSEUM

H-Net Network for Museums and Museum Studies

E-Mail: h-museum@h-net.msu.edu

WWW: http://www.h-museum.net


CSR – Corporate Social Responsibility

Malraux Seminar on Sponsorship


Budapest, 7-8 November, 2004


The Hungarian public got authentic first hand information about the great advances of CSR in France. This or other English acronyms or expressions were hardly uttered - we learned among others that parrainage is not just a softer kind of business sponsorship, an intermediate case between philanthropy and marketing as one thought before, no, it is the French equivalent of sponsorship. This is why it took some time to realise that the seminar is about the celebrated concept of CSR (corporate social responsibility), named mécénat in French. Listeners were impressed by the energy that the French culture ministry has invested into the exploitation of their CSR law (excuse: loi de 1er aout 2003 relative au mécénat); and even more by the result: over 50% of the donated value goes to culture (which figure is typically around 15% in other countries).

The report from the field (what a field: the Louvre) supported the case: getting responsible support from companies is a major column of the annual budget of this major institution.

Caught in the Octopus’ tentacles

A sugar-coated history of the United Fruit Co.’s role in Latin America.

WRITING a positive history of the United Fruit Co. is a lot like writing a happy book about the Vietnam War. Yet that’s what Financial Times reporter Peter Chapman tries to do with “Bananas: How the United Fruit Company Shaped the World.” Thanks to United Fruit, Chapman suggests, “we worry about multinational corporations.” We expect more from them than mere profiteering. We expect “Corporate Social Responsibility.”

Excuse me? It’s been nearly four decades since anyone thought of United Fruit as a model for the new multinational. And corporate social responsibility, while a beautiful ideal, is more often just an empty phrase to make the greedy feel OK about their plundering.

Chapman’s colorful yarn describes a company founded by well-meaning pioneers – swashbucklers and showmen, who knew a good publicity stunt when they saw one. He admits that United Fruit “often strayed across the line between what was officially regarded as right and wrong.” The company’s one small mistake was its tendency to subvert Latin American governments, creating “an atmosphere in which military regimes ruled and their death squads roamed the streets.”

But United Fruit’s reputation as a “nasty trust,” Chapman argues, developed “not because anyone on high had suddenly discovered it had been mistreating the poor and dispossessed” but because the company “had wandered out of the realm of normal business.”

“Bananas” begins with the 1975 suicide of Eli Black, president of United Brands, which had taken over United Fruit five years earlier. Chapman calls Black “a man of exceptional morality.” Perhaps, he speculates, Black killed himself because his colleagues were annoyed with him for his softheartedness in sending aid to Managua, Nicaragua, after the 1972 earthquake. Or perhaps he was distressed at the rumors that people were trying to ease him into retirement.

What Chapman underplays is shame as a reason for Black’s suicide: His company had been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of offering a $1.25-million bribe to Honduran President Oswaldo López Arellano.

A reader can well appreciate the effort to write a history of this powerful American company, El Pulpo – or the Octopus, as United Fruit was called, referring to its tentacles, which reached all over the world. But the saga of United Fruit is more fraught than Chapman’s book might suggest. Its legacy is perhaps better encapsulated by Pablo Neruda, in his poem titled “La United Fruit Co.,” which reads, in part:

The United Fruit Company

reserved for itself the most juicy

piece, the central coast of my world,

the delicate waist of America.

It rebaptized these countries

Banana Republics,

and over the sleeping dead,

over the unquiet heroes

who won greatness,

liberty, and banners,

it established an opera buffa:

it abolished free will,

gave out imperial crowns,

encouraged envy, attracted

the dictatorship of flies… .




Banks and their cultural profiles


BANK specialised in funding NGOs

There is an entirely new chapter relatively unknown to the culture field. This poses the question of the role of the bank as facilitator of “cash flows” and cheap credit. And relay between the institutions giving grants and the associations (idea by a bank specialist)





-         Tsalapatas and Piraeus Bank


“The creation of a museum network away from the capital is a well-designed choice of Piraeus

Bank for the purpose of supporting the Greek regions. It is part of the Group’s Corporate

Social Responsibility, because these museums first, highlight unique, local technological and

industrial developments, and second, become poles of economic and cultural development

in the region they are established. As economic development poles, they help attract

tourists to remote areas of the country and stimulate local economy. As cultural attraction

poles, they attract local communities which grow accustomed to places that except from

centres of education, they also become centres of recreation. The multi-purpose halls in

the museums host scientific, educational, cultural and social events mainly addressed to

the local communities, taking account of their actual capacities. Such events, organized by

PIOP with sensitivity and quality-consciousness, aim at the essential involvement of local

people in the cultural life of their area. The small coffee shops, next to the museum shops,

are effectively conducive to this end.”



An attempt to analyse overall financial systems and funding of culture as special case




Income generation / revenue


Incomes / Revenues / Sources of Funding




NGO Open Horizons – mission against Racism and for Human Rights – financial support by Council of Europe: 50% of the budget covered; obtain 10% up front, and if they manage to prove that they have raised the other 50%, then they will receive the rest of the money (40%). This kind of financing allows the NGO organizing the event to get sponsors and contributions (in kind / volunteer work / free publicity) etc. while having an initial amount of money at its disposal to start working on realizing the year’s festival.


Financial reporting

Categories of expenditures but not recognized in financial terms:

-         in kind contributions (unpaid)

-         other forms of compensation: recognition


Reflections about income developments and returns expected:

-         in the cultural sector often mistakes are made to take the work of artists for granted, and even if they provide their works free of charge, with no one asking how much time and materials they cost to be created, artists need not merely financial compensation but also recognition guaranteed by taking care not only of promotion (posters, way they are presented in the program etc.) but what documentation of the event can be linked to their further going qualification strategy.

-         No compromise should be made in the event with regards to high standards both financially and organizationally speaking, since value over time can be gained by the event remaining over time to be a sound reference point (extra value created after the event is over but by having given recognition to artists for unique expressions made possible a public realm over and beyond the given present)



Diversify possible sources of income in order not to over depend upon public sources of money.


What to finance so that cultural institutions have a stable base for operations over a certain period of time (cultural planning and time set for financial reviews in order to pick up matters were left off in the past – going beyond the cultural calendar of planning events in an effort to create synergies). For example, the Byzantine museum has certain phases of investments (Plans A, B and C with C meaning moving into the multi media realm while B has to do with building extension and A consolidation of the basic administration and museum services). These can overlap with certain measures announced by the Ministry of Culture with preset time tables as dictated by other factors (political, but also spending cycles as set by the EU), so that as outcome of mediation certain funding programs are announced but usually not kept due to a new level of complications e.g. fake announcement of public procurement for ticket vendor machines but played into the hand of one company as pre-agreement (outside any competitive bidding process) so that in the end nothing is realized on time due to conflict of interest making demand of delivery on time impossible. The logic of money or rather the need to cover up devious steps leads to an overcomplicated situation with no transparency, fiscal accountability and responsibility. Politics is then involved in mere cover-ups of real and vested interests and does not serve the public in any of these deliberations steps. The tensions between national measures and plan to be implemented by the museum is then made counter productive as original plans to open up the museum’s grounds to the public alters and thereby the way the museum stands to public interests subdued to a level below public attention (via the media).


How to react to such delays and what measures can be undertaken to ensure a transparent decision making process at all levels? The different structures leading up to competence for culture are brought too much into confusion or chaos as to allow for follow through of even actions which have been decided upon and given a certain amount of money to be realized. Once the time frame no longer is consistent with the spending needs, the arguments shift ground and confuse immediate payments with long term investment strategies. There falls on the way like getting rid of extra ballast the really qualitative inputs in need to be compensated for the sake of just paying off those with leverage of power to be paid. That includes contracts made but also who has a name to go with to the public and can force public opinion to take a stance against this kind of delay.


Financial incentives

Tax breaks



Financial strategies to gain extra revenues have to do with additional activities and organizational implications:

-         training new artists

-         performing in schools and for charities

-         linking with efforts to preserve culture

-         multiple tasks managed by one person (manager and program director in one)

-         need to create own NGO to receive funds and by becoming autonomous take activities to the public under a different premise e.g. in Greece – National Ballet school – NGO – public performances: guest chorographers – exposure to international dancers and chorographers – promotion of talents but facing also very different conditions for financing those with name, those with talent and just at the verge of a break through and those who have abilities but not that something special to make it in a big way and therefore shall earn their incomes by teaching in small schools


Tax base

Sources of revenue for overall budget – how budget for cultural activities is determined – what other spending priorities e.g. culture and sport – how supportive is the overall budget for activities within the city, city and region, city and nation, city and Europe and larger context


Issues related to taxes:


There needs to be undertaken further studies in order to know:

- How the VAT issue and subsequently what other laws apply to NGOs?

- How strong a legal base has the European Commission for funding cultural actions in Europe?


Private Sector Sponsorship

Laws / Public Schemes / Target Sectors

For more information see individual country profiles:

Chapter 5.1.5 "Tax Laws” / Chapter 7.3 "Emerging Partnerships or Collaborations".


Information marked with an * was derived from CEREC members and from a report by Nataly Souvante published in 1999.

Information marked with ** ** are derived from a study undertaken by N.Sievers/B.Wagner and A. J. Wiesand for the German Parliament (2004). Figures include contributions from foundations and other private donors.



Main law which outlines tax deductions to private sponsors of arts and culture

Government scheme to promote business sponsorship in the arts and culture

Main sectors attracting private sponsorship

Estimated value of private sponsorship generated per year


Sponsors’ Ordinance (1987). Regional legislation

Some Regions (Länder) require additional contributions from local communities and private sources.

Fine arts and music

60 million euros**


No law to support private sponsorship of culture and the arts


Information not available

Information not available

Belgium Flemish

Belgian law makes no legal provision for genuine corporate tax deduction for investment in culture.

PPP programme (only attractive for cultural projects with a degree of commercial profitability)

Concerts and festivals of classical music, art exhibitions

54,30 million euros*

Belgium French

Belgian law makes no legal provision for genuine corporate tax deduction for investment in culture.

Information not available

Information not available

Information not available


No law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts


Popular music concerts, publication of literature, theatre performances, festivals

Information not available


No law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts

Information not available

Media, libraries and the performing arts

47.9 million CAD


Law on Capital Gains Tax (NN 177/04) and

Law on Direct Taxes (NN 177/04)


Concerts, festivals, art exhibitions

Information not available


Income Tax Act (1999) allows deduction from taxable income of donations which benefit  public purposes


Private business sector has not yet shown any major interest in sponsoring culture

Information not available


No single law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts but series of tax breaks to encourage business sponsorship of the arts


Information not available

10 million euros


Law on the Development of Sponsorship
Mécenat Law

Projects launched by the Ministry of Culture to attract private sponsorship

Fine arts and music

183,00 million euros*


No single law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts, but series of tax breaks, summarised in a Directive of the Ministry of Finance (BMF-Sponsoring-erlass 1998)

Incentives mainly on the local government level

Fine arts and music

500 million euros**


Tax exemptions for cultural sponsorship (1990)

Information not available


22,4 million euros*


Corporation Tax and Dividend Tax Law


Report on the private sponsorship of the arts in Hungary published in 2004

Performing arts and classical music, large festivals, fine arts

No data available.  Expected in 2005.


No single law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts but series of tax breaks to encourage business sponsorship of artists and arts organisations

Arts2Business Programmes; Arts Sponsor of the Year Award

Information not available

Information not available


Law 342/2000 allowing deduction on donations and sponsorship

Information not available

Cultural heritage

205,70 million euros*


No single law to encourage private sponsorship of culture


Popular music

Information not available


No law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts

Information not available

Information not available

Information not available


Law on Philanthropy and Sponsorship (2002)

Information not available

Information not available

Information not available


NO, but different tax incentive schemes relevant for the arts, media and heritage

Cultural Sponsorship Code

Fine arts and music

50 million euros


Information not available

Patron of Culture Award

Cultural institutions, large scale performances, film productions

Information not available


Law on Sponsorship


Music, Fine arts, large scale events

Information not available


Law on Sponsorship and Donations

Information not available

Information not available

Information not available


Law on Charity and Charitable Organisations (1995), The amended draft law On Maecenats and Maecenat Activities is submitted to the Parliament.

E.g. via signing agreements between State administration and private corporations

Huge and fashionable events, festivals, renown ‘labels’ in culture and the arts

Information not available

San Marino

There are no specific laws encouraging investments in the cultural sector by private individuals. Tax Law n. 91 of 1984 and subsequent amendments establish that donations by individuals in the cultural field are included in deductible liabilities.


Concerts, music and dance festivals, art exhibitions, fine and performing arts, publication of literature, theatre performances, cultural heritage

180,000.00 euro (2005)


Information not available


Cultural centres, theatres, festivals, events

No information available.


No single law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts but series of tax breaks to encourage business sponsorship of the arts


Cultural centres, events and festivals

No information available


Information not available

Information not available

Classical music and painting

59,70 million euros*


No law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts

Culture and Business Forum

Half of all sponsorship goes to museums and art galleries and the rest to theatre and dance.

SEK 93 billion (2002)


No single law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts but series of tax breaks and parliamentary discussions about new regulations**

NO, except on the local level

Companies develop corporate identity by organising their own concerts or theatre tours. They also commission or develop projects with cultural institutions or artists.

320 million euros**


The Law on Charity and Charitable Foundations

includes also private sponsorship of culture and arts among others.


Concerts and festivals, arts exhibitions.

Information not available


No law to encourage private sponsorship of culture and the arts

Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme

Dance, music, theatre, festivals, heritage

226,08 million euros*

Source:  Council of Europe/ERICarts, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, 7th edition, 2006 http://www.culturalpolicies.net/comparisons.htm



[1] Source: Compendium –national comparison: http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/france.php?aid=23&curln=101

[2] http://www.lottery2009.culture.gov.uk/

[3] Carol Becker, (2002) “Brooklyn Museum: Messing with the Sacred” in Surpassing the Spectacle,  p. 45

[4] http://www.snfoundation.org/page/default.asp?la=2&id=1122

^ Top

« 3. Functional, organizational matters or issues, initiatives of local leadership, participation and expression of opinions by citizens and local actors | 5. Financial management and viability of actions in the cultural sector »