Reclaiming Culture in Cultural Policy?

May 20, 2025

Expected impacts of the Culture Compass for Europe

The EU has announced plans to unveil its new cultural policy strategy later this year - the Culture Compass. When first introduced in 2022 as a potential strategic framework, its stated mission was to ‘strategically mainstream the cultural policy perspective and the assets of culture into all relevant EU policies’.

While we’ve grown used to discussing the assets of culture - its contributions to social cohesion, economic growth, and soft power - articulating a distinct cultural policy perspective has become increasingly elusive.

Though the final structure and vision of the Culture Compass remain under wraps, a glimpse into its direction can be found in the public consultation document released by the European Commission. Particularly notable is the section on ‘Likely Impacts’, which outlines five expected areas of positive influence of the Culture Compass: cultural, social, economic, environmental, and external.

The current EU cultural strategy - the New European Agenda for Culture (2018) - primarily emphasises the social, economic, and external dimensions of culture. The addition of environmental impact is no surprise and long overdue. Yet what truly stands out is the inclusion of cultural impact. Listed first among the five areas, it is also the least concretely defined, except for a general ambition to foster the ‘intrinsic value of culture’.

This opens a critical question: Could this be the moment to reclaim and define the cultural impact of cultural policy? No matter how tautological the phrase may sound, this is precisely the conversation we need right now - especially in times of funding cuts for culture, ongoing rumours about merging Creative Europe with other programmes, or, in some cases, like the UK (even though no longer part of the EU), talk of abolishing the Department for Culture, Media and Sport altogether.

Imagine if the cultural dimension of cultural policy were not simply placed on equal footing with its social, economic, environmental, and external dimensions - but recognised as the foundation. Like fertile soil, it is what enables all these other contributions of culture to take root and flourish. Cultural policy, then, would no longer be instrumentalised to serve external goals alone, but would stand on its own terms, focusing on enabling artists and art to thrive. This is not just a rhetorical detail. That would mean - among other things - prioritising the freedom of artistic expression, ensuring fair working conditions in the cultural sector, and advancing the cultural dimension of sustainable development as a priority in its own right.

Can the EU take the lead in championing this much-needed shift?

Art funding: creative freedom or the price of fitting in?

Cultural policy, when allowed to stand on its own - free from political and economic pressures - is, at its core, a commitment to cultural diversity. And here’s why.

This paper by scholars Vieira and Kolbe investigates how in the context of increasingly neoliberal cultural policies public arts funding can influence the kinds of art being produced.

The study finds that many artists tailor their practices to fit funding criteria, suggesting that public funding exerts a strong genre-making effect - favouring clearly defined, easily classifiable art forms over experimental or interdisciplinary ones.
The article refers to earlier research claiming that funding systems shaped by commercial or financial logic can end up reinforcing fixed ideas of ethnic, cultural, or racial identity. Artists from marginalised backgrounds often feel pressured to present their identities in ways that fit existing stereotypes. The funding system often frames these choices as acts of personal agency or empowerment. In doing so, it can mask the deeper structural inequalities and systemic barriers at play.
The authors argue that this encourages artists to behave like ideal cultural workers - self-entrepreneurial and responsive to funders’ aesthetic demands - thus raising concerns about creative autonomy and equity.

This challenges the assumption that public funding operates independently of market logic, revealing instead how it often mirrors commercial pressures by favouring easily ‘packageable’ art. In fact, this aligns closely with the impact Big Tech algorithms have had on culture - pushing creative content into “taggable” and flattened formats, while also shaping people’s tastes and preferences. For a deeper exploration of this phenomenon, Kyle Chayka’s book Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture offers valuable insight (read the review here).

What does a populist cultural policy look like?

The answer is: there’s no simple answer.

In their article, Mikola, Zagórski, Schafer, Cirhan, Suchanek, and Kevický analyse the cultural policies of populist governments in Central and Eastern Europe.

A key takeaway is that, while populist parties across Europe often share broad characteristics, their approaches to cultural policy - and the importance they assign to culture - differ significantly.

The authors distinguish between thin and thick ideological variants of populism. Thick populist ideologies, often aligned with illiberal, nationalist, or religious values, are more common among radical right parties like Fidesz in Hungary and PiS in Poland. In contrast, thin populist parties, such as ANO in Czechia, tend to be more technocratic and less ideologically driven when it comes to culture.

In short, culture matters more to radical right populists than to technocratic ones. While the latter prioritise efficiency and governance, the former frame culture as a battleground for defending national identity, tradition, and civilizational values.

This ideological divide is reflected in policy. ANO has largely avoided introducing big changes in cultural policies, while parties like SMER in Slovakia show growing illiberal tendencies (read the report The Politicization of Arts and Culture in Slovakia). In Hungary and Poland, the cultural sector has been subject to extensive restructuring, institutional capture, or the creation of parallel, ideologically aligned institutions.

The authors conclude that while thin populist approaches to culture are still rare in Western Europe and thick populist is on the rise, the political landscape is changing. Cultural policy is becoming a more contested field across the spectrum.

What audiences think - and why they don’t come

The European Commission has released its latest Special Eurobarometer on Europeans’ Attitudes Towards Culture. While the survey offers valuable insights across a wide spectrum, let’s focus here on the barriers citizens face when participating in cultural events.

Lack of time emerges as the leading reason for non-attendance, surpassing cost, distance to venues, and lack of interest. This issue is particularly pronounced among the most educated, financially secure individuals living in large towns and satisfied with their professional lives. It is also the most frequently cited barrier by cultural workers themselves, more so than any other factor.
The cost of tickets ranks second overall and disproportionately affects women, students, older adults, and - unsurprisingly - those who struggle to pay their bills.
Lack of interest in available activities is more common among men than women, people with lower levels of education, and those living in urban areas. Paradoxically, only a small proportion of urban residents report a lack of cultural or creative offerings in their area, suggesting that the issue may lie more in the relevance or appeal of what’s offered rather than the quantity.
Feeling unwelcome or excluded is ranked only 12th among all barriers, but it is more common among unemployed and financially insecure individuals, as well as those dissatisfied with their personal or professional lives.

A comparison with the 2013 Eurobarometer on Cultural Access and Participation reveals some continuity - and some change. Lack of time was already the top barrier in 2013, and its importance has grown slightly (from 42% then to 45% in 2025). However, the financial barrier has increased more sharply, rising from 29% to 38%.

What is particularly striking is the stability of disinterest: despite numerous shifts in policies and strategies across the cultural sector over the past decade, 28% of people still cite lack of interest - almost unchanged since 2013.

Stay tuned for more analysis of the 2025 Eurobarometer in our future UnpackCulture editions.