UnpackCulture: what's going on with cultural policy in Europe?
The future of European Cultural Policy: a new turn, a decline, or more of the same?
Everything is starting anew in the EU capital, with the new Parliament and the College of Commissioners beginning to shape their priorities and outline their aspirations. A new chapter is also about to unfold for cultural policy, even though it remains absent from high-level agendas. This political neglect of culture is nothing new. What is new, however, is the growing uncertainty about the future of EU support for cross-border cultural cooperation, coupled with an increasing sense of dwindling resources for culture at the national level.
News of funding cuts for culture has recently emerged from across Europe - Italy, Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, and more. Signs of a deepening cultural crisis in Europe are appearing in various ways. For example, in Sweden, the Minister of Culture deliberately does not choose to look like culture’s ‘best friend’ when delivering a speech at a film festival, instead focusing on the commercial value of cinema and expressing concerns about taxpayer spending. Meanwhile, the British Council is considering selling its art collection to stay afloat and to repay their pandemic loan after a decade of declining grant funding. And in Berlin - once celebrated for having a cultural budget larger than that of all of England - the city has scrapped one of its best practices, Free Museum Sunday, slashing overall €130 million from its cultural budget.
Hearing bad news from EU member states (and yes, the UK is no longer one of them), one might be surprised by a recent letter from all 27 EU Ministers of Culture to the European Commission. In this letter, ministers urge the Commission to prioritise artistic freedom and safeguard support for cross-border cultural cooperation - an area where Creative Europe has been a key tool.
While this letter reflects the growing crisis for culture at the national level, it may also be linked to rumors of an upcoming overhaul of the EU budget - the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2027–2034). Some suspect that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wants to shape the next MFF similarly to the European Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which ties national plans to funding. This would mean resources are managed centrally at the national level, with payouts depending on the gradual implementation of key reforms. Whether this will happen remains uncertain, but von der Leyen has officially stated: ‘I want a policy-based budget, not a programme-based budget’ to ensure ‘sufficient and sustainable financing for our common priorities’.
Here comes the simple math that worries us - Creative Europe is a programme, but culture is not a policy priority. So, will there be any cross-border EU instrument to support cultural cooperation, given that Creative Europe, even as one of the smallest EU programmes, has been such a vital boost in the past? What will this instrument look like? What does this ‘new page’ for culture in today’s Europe hold?
The power of the EU’s cultural investment outside the EU borders
What does Europe’s shifting cultural policy landscape mean for the EU’s neighbours? While the development cooperation priorities are shifting towards competitive investments in infrastructure and economic partnerships, the role of the EU’s cultural action in its Eastern neighbourhood, including the EU accession countries, remains unclear. In the meantime, some evidence shows that the EU’s cultural investment has played a vital role in non-EU countries. An academic article by Claske Vos (University of Amsterdam) examines how EU investments in cultural and artistic spaces in the Western Balkans, initially aimed at fostering democratic engagement, have also become spaces of contestation, resistance, and radical imagination. These initiatives shape new forms of civic activism, allowing cultural actors to challenge national governments, dominant economic models, and even aspects of the EU governance itself. Read the article here.
However, cultural investment is only one part of the story when it comes to international cultural collaboration (learn more below).
{Visualisation by Federica Fragapane, Marta Foresti, Otho Montegheza and LAGO Collective}
The decrease in cultural budgets is not the only trend shaping today’s shifting politics in Europe. An increasingly inward-looking and anti-migration political stance is another, affecting cultural cooperation.
Recently, LAGO-COLLECTIVE, visualised the hidden costs of visa inequality using data on rejection rates and the associated costs of rejections for both Schengen and UK visa applications. In 2023 alone, the €80 non-refundable fee for Schengen short-stay visas amounted to an estimated €130M in losses due to rejections. Of this, over €100M was shouldered by applicants from Africa and Asia. Visa rejections, often stemming from systemic inequalities in global mobility, impose significant burdens — both financial and psychological, which are disproportionately borne by applicants from low and middle-income countries. Also, the On the Move report on Schengen Visa Code and Cultural Mobility underscores the impacts of complex visa procedures on cultural professionals and organisations: opaque processes, financial strain, and missed opportunities for networking and visibility among others. Can we speak about fairness and equality in cultural cooperation when we lack even basic means to travel and meet?
Politics Corner: How Political Ideology Shapes Cultural Policy
It is time we say it again: Cultural policy is not neutral. In his PhD thesis (Dutch only), Bart Caron presents a possible typology of cultural policies, categorising them along ideological lines. His framework reveals how different political orientations - from progressive to conservative - approach the role of culture in society, its funding, and its accessibility. We found it useful, what about you?
Progressive-Left: Seeks cultural emancipation with the aim of achieving greater collective well-being. It prefers contemporary art and culture, is open to diverse cultural expressions, and safeguards the autonomy of cultural creators. It adopts a broad cultural policy, extending well beyond just high culture, and strives for cultural democracy. This includes efforts to democratise access to culture and ensure its equitable distribution. The political system develops a general cultural policy framework but delegates its implementation (e.g., evaluations) to committees or organisations (funds) operating at arm’s length. It is open to dialogue and enhances the democratic legitimacy of cultural policy.
Progressive-Right: Values culture, primarily for its contribution to economic growth, emphasising innovation and cultural entrepreneurship, but does not abandon non-profit cultural actors in cases of market failure. The focus is on individual freedom. This perspective places much less emphasis on the democratisation of culture. It maintains a hands-off approach by setting general cultural policy guidelines and outsourcing their implementation to committees and/or funds.
Conservative-Left: Romanticises local culture and small communities. Sometimes aligned with left-wing identity politics and populism. Advocates for a more directive approach to policy. This stance appears in various forms, such as state socialism, populist left movements in the Netherlands, culturally conservative social-democratic and Christian-democratic parties, and some communitarian perspectives. Democratisation is a focus here, as is the autonomy of cultural actors from market forces. Social objectives are integral to cultural policy, as Conservative-Left aims to promote collective well-being.
Conservative-right: Cultural policy for economic and identitarian reasons. A mix of neoliberalism and neo nationalism. There is a strong preference for traditional cultural expressions and for affirming art and culture. The democratisation of access to art and culture is not a focus at all, nor is the use of culture to promote collective well-being. The fact that culture has significant emancipatory potential does not interest this faction. Furthermore, the democratic legitimisation of cultural policy remains lacking (Caron B 2024, Cultuurbeleid en ideologie Kan je het cultuurbeleid politiekideologisch typeren?, p. 200) / translated from Dutch to English with the help of AI.
In the meantime, as political priorities shift and support for culture diminishes, the sector, academia and cultural policy field continue developing new frameworks to capture culture’s impact. Whether these will generate political will to support culture or not, it is interesting to observe the dynamics in this field. For instance, the report by Frontier Economics, Monetising the Impact of Culture and Heritage on Health and Wellbeing, proposes new ways to connect culture’s value to both economics and health at the same time. Similarly, the newly released Guide for Measuring Culture’s Impact in Development Cooperation by the Practitioners’ Network explores effective ways to assess - and just as importantly, articulate - culture’s value in the field of development cooperation.
Have you come across any recent methods for measuring and communicating culture’s impact? Let us know.