This anthology adopts a multilevel approach to cultural policy. More specifically, the anthology aims to provide knowledge about the interplay between public funding systems for the arts and culture at different levels of governance, primarily between the national and the Nordic level, but also between the national level, on the one hand, and the European Union and subnational levels on the other.
Cultural policies in the Nordic countries have over the last 50 years established themselves as seemingly independent and stable policy areas. While the cultural policies of each Nordic country and self-governing area are distinct and include important differences, research by both Nordic and international scholars show that Nordic cultural policies display important similarities to the extent that there are empirical grounds to identify a specific ‘Nordic cultural policy model’ (e.g., Duelund, ed. 2003; Mangset et al. 2008; Rius-Ulldemolins et al. 2019). One such similarity is that cultural policies in the Nordic countries are welfare-oriented, that is, during the 20th century they developed within a more general policy framework that implied extensive state intervention to promote social equality and universal access to welfare services. In the Nordic countries, the arts and culture have been included amongst such services, and the governments of each country have used public funding to promote similar goals. One important priority has been to provide access to artistic and cultural activities across the country, to make it possible for everyone to participate in cultural life. This priority not only includes the possibility to enjoy the results of professional artistic activity as the member of an audience, but also the possibility of self-engagement in artistic and cultural activities. An equally important priority in public funding has been to facilitate the professional artistic and cultural production of individual artists, including an ambition to improve their access to the social security systems of the welfare state.
A research anthology published by Kulturanalys Norden in 2022 shows that this welfare-oriented ‘Nordic cultural policy model’ is relatively stable over time and that it is still evident in today’s cultural policies, including current priorities in public funding for the arts and culture (Sokka ed. 2022). However, the anthology also shows that this model faces several challenges, for example, in terms of recognising and adjusting to the consequences of technological developments and demographic change. An additional challenge concerns the consequences of globalisation (Sokka & Johannisson 2022). While globalisation refers to processes of internationalisation – permeating not only cultural policy and the cultural sector but policymaking and society in general – it also includes processes of decentralisation (Mitchell 2003). Even if such processes do not substitute the nation state for supranational bodies such as the European Union or subnational bodies such as municipalities or regions, empirical research has shown that “… we have gone from a compartmentalized distribution of responsibilities to the interpenetration of these levels” (Bonet & Négrier 2011, p. 587). Taken together, globalisation thus points to the necessity of including a multilevel approach to understanding contemporary prerequisites for cultural policy.
The relevance of a multilevel approach is perhaps particularly obvious from the perspective of the Nordic countries, which display an additional similarity in their choice of a highly decentralised model of policymaking and policy implementation (e.g., Mangset et al. 2008). While the Nordic welfare model implies a strong state level, municipalities in all Nordic countries play a decisive role in implementing welfare policies, also for the arts and culture. In some of the countries, perhaps most notably Sweden, the regional level also plays an increasingly important role in cultural policy (e.g., Lindqvist 2022; Renko et al. 2022). That the organisation of political decision-making in the Nordic countries includes one or several subnational levels of government makes this organisation potentially well equipped to implement measures aiming at decentralisation, not only in fiscal terms, but also in cultural and political terms of promoting citizens’ participation in cultural activities as well as political decision-making (Kawashima 1997). While existing research on the actual results of decentralisation in the Nordic countries points in different directions (Sokka & Johannisson 2022), one direction is clear: while the state level still plays the central role in Nordic cultural policies, it is important to recognise and analyse cultural policymaking at other levels. From the perspective of the Nordic countries, this includes subnational levels, but also supranational bodies of government such as the European Union. From the perspective of the Nordic countries and self-governing areas, Nordic collaboration through the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Nordic Council is both a unique and, seemingly, equally important international political body in the cultural field.
Within both Nordic and European collaboration, cultural policy goals and funding systems for culture have developed that could either actively support or run parallel with goals and funding systems in each Nordic country and self-governing area. The analysis of cultural policies from a multilevel perspective has hitherto been rare in cultural policy research, resulting in a knowledge gap that is problematic from an academic perspective since it hampers the in-depth and nuanced understanding that research strives for. But this knowledge gap is also potentially problematic from a policy perspective (e.g., Kellgren 2022). If cultural policy goals at different levels basically align, it seems reasonable to assume that policymakers at different levels would wish to promote these goals by measures that actively support one another, perhaps most notably through their different funding systems. Learning more about how successful they are in achieving this supposed aim could potentially improve cultural policymaking at all levels.
It should be emphasised, however, that this anthology does not provide an evaluation of specific funding systems or funding programmes within such systems, but a more general research-based analysis of the relations between funding systems and programmes at different levels. To achieve this aim in a way that promotes progression in research-based knowledge about cultural policies in the Nordic countries, the same group of researchers that explored public funding in relation to cultural policy as welfare policy was also invited to participate in this anthology. The following researchers have thus contributed with a chapter on each Nordic country: Trine Bille from Copenhagen Business School (Denmark), Sakarias Sokka from Cupore (Finland), Erna Kaaber and Erla Rún Guðmundsdóttir from Bifröst University (Iceland), Ola K. Berge from Telemarksforsking (Norway), and Katja Lindqvist from Lund University (Sweden). In addition, Erik Vestin, statistician at Kulturanalys Norden, has provided a chapter on Nordic funding, based on a unique and limited dataset. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to include specific chapters and analyses on the self-governing areas of the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland, but they are made visible in the chapter on Nordic funding as well as in several of the chapters on specific Nordic countries.
In the following, the main characteristics of funding systems at the national, Nordic and European Union levels are summarised, after which the methodological framework of the anthology is briefly introduced. The chapter ends with a presentation of the main conclusions to be drawn from the anthology as a whole.
1.1 Funding systems at different levels of governance
Previous research shows that national public funding systems in each Nordic country are relatively stable over time, both in terms of goals set for the funding system as a whole and in terms of allocated funding (Sokka ed. 2022). This implies that national funding systems in the Nordic countries aim at promoting both professional artistic activity and everyone’s access to and participation in artistic and cultural activities. Within each national system, the state level gives priority to artistic and cultural institutions, such as theatres and museums, but also to application-based funding awarded to individual artists or artistic organisations channelled through specific arms-length bodies. At subnational levels, the municipalities give priority to citizens’ participation, but also include support to institutions such as public libraries. In Sweden, where regional authorities play an important role, the main bulk of regional funding goes to artistic and cultural institutions, but it also includes other activities that promote citizens’ participation (Myndigheten för kulturanalys 2023). In terms of public funding, the welfare-oriented ‘Nordic cultural policy model’ thus seems intact, where, not least, the fact that all Nordic countries established specific support programmes to alleviate the dire consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic in the cultural sector could be taken as a case in point (Kulturanalys Norden 2021; 2023).
However, previous research also identifies cracks in the façade. For example, individual artists and cultural workers are not gaining full access to the social security systems of the welfare state, perhaps primarily due to such systems being based on the working conditions of full-time employees, rather than the ‘patchwork economy’ of artists combining part-time employment with free-lance work (Berge 2022; Kulturanalys Norden 2021; 2023). In addition, high inflation and the high priority currently given in all Nordic countries to security policy are examples of developments that make it less than likely that national public funding systems for the arts and culture will see any dramatic increase in the foreseeable future. Nordic countries with a longer tradition of private foundations as important funders, for example Denmark and Finland, are now a source of inspiration to countries such as Sweden, which has hitherto relied more heavily on public funding but is currently exploring other possibilities (Myndigheten för kulturanalys 2024; Sokka ed. 2022). But high inflation and increased threats against national security also affect the private sector. Alternative funding opportunities at all levels of governance are therefore very relevant from the perspective of the cultural field. In this context, there is a particular need for more knowledge about the role of application-based funding for individual artists and artistic organisations, and this is therefore the focus of this anthology.
At the Nordic level, the public funding system for the arts and culture made possible by the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers was established from the 1950s and onwards, running parallel to the establishment of national funding systems in the Nordic countries (Duelund ed. 2003; Kellgren 2022; Lundgren 2022). The Nordic system confirms the basic goals of the national funding systems in each Nordic country, while adding the important goal of Nordic collaboration and making the Nordic region the “… most sustainable and integrated region of the world by 2030” (Nordic Council of Ministers 2021, p. 15). It includes prestigious prizes in several art forms and funding of institutions, such as the Nordic houses and institutes in Faroe Islands, Greenland, Reyjkavik and Åland, as well as funding bodies such as the Nordisk Film & TV fond, the Nordic Culture Fund and the Nordic Culture Point. Strengthening Saami cultural production and collaboration as well as Nordic-Baltic mobility are also important priorities. While the Nordic system as a whole thus includes several funding bodies and bilateral funds open for applications from individual artists and artistic organisations (Forrai Ørskov ed. 2024), the main bulk of application-based funding for the arts and culture is channelled through the Nordic Culture Fund and the Nordic Culture Point (Lundgren 2022; Nordiska Ministerrådet 2023, p. 78).
Within the European Union, cultural policy goals and funding programmes for the arts and culture are of a later date and were not introduced in any systematic way until after the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 (Gordon 2010). Establishing the subsidiarity principle as foundational for any cultural policy activities of the union, measures directed explicitly at the arts and culture constitute a small part of the union budget (EPRS 2021). In its New Agenda for Culture, the European Commission (2018) highlights the importance of supporting culture to promote social cohesion and wellbeing, as well as cultural creativity and enterprise as means to economic growth, but also the importance of showcasing European arts and culture to other parts of the world. These “strategic goals” are mirrored in the EU work plan for culture 2023–2026 where listed priorities include improved working conditions for artists and cultural professionals as well as increased participation in cultural life (Council Resolution C 466/1). Important measures to achieve these goals – which also confirm the basic cultural policy goals of the ‘Nordic cultural policy model’ – include, for example, the European Capitals of Culture and the European Heritage Label. Since the 1990s most of the European Union application-based funding for the arts and culture has been channelled through the Creative Europe programme and regional structural funds (EPRS 2021; Gordon 2010).
1.2 To make a multilevel approach possible: methodological remarks
Little empirical research has been done on the interplay between public applications-based funding for individual artists and artistic organisations at different levels of governance, which leaves the range of options on how to investigate the issue quite wide and open. As always in the cultural field, the lack of high-quality data continuously provides an obstacle to in-depth empirical studies. The group of researchers thus warmly welcomed the opportunity given to us by the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point to use applications to their funding programmes during 2022 to establish a joint empirical dataset. The dataset was finalised by Kulturanalys Norden, and each researcher used it as an important empirical building block in their analyses, together with national data of each researcher’s choice. As far as we know, this generous contribution by the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point makes the analysis presented in this anthology the first of its kind. The Nordic dataset is introduced and analysed in more detail in chapter 2, and the analyses of the Nordic dataset in relation to different national contexts are presented by the researchers in chapters 3–7.
Here, definitions of key concepts and joint delimitations of the different analyses are briefly introduced. These definitions and delimitations are based in what kind of analysis the Nordic dataset enabled, but also in decisions by the group of researchers to make it possible to trace the interplay between funding systems at different levels within each national context, and, to some extent, also make it possible to compare results across national contexts. In that vein, when the Nordic dataset is put into play in relation to national data, all amounts have been translated to Euro. It is, however, important to underline that what is presented in the anthology are not the results of a fully comparative study between the Nordic countries, but rather the results of a partly similar methodological approach applied in relation to each country in tracing the interplay between public funding for the arts and culture at different levels. How contributing authors have chosen to adapt this methodological approach to different national contexts is further described in their respective chapters.
Firstly, the analyses take the different national contexts as their starting point and give priority to the interplay between funding made visible in the Nordic dataset, on the one hand, and national funding systems on the other. The Nordic dataset only includes public funding programmes that are open for application from individual artists and artistic organisations, and only programmes that do not cover operating expenses, and this delimitation has also been applied when data on Nordic funding is put in relation to national data. In this context, ‘national funding system’ and national data include funding at both the state and subnational levels, where the possibility to trace regional and municipal data varies across different Nordic countries.
Secondly, the analyses primarily concern the interplay between money streams, rather than the interplay between actors at the Nordic and national level. Therefore, ‘interplay’ is primarily investigated in terms of overlap between different funding systems, that is, the identification of instances where funding from different systems coincides (or not). The analyses also make visible application strategies rather than financial results. Except partly in the case of Iceland, it was not possible to trace all actors included in the Nordic dataset, which, in addition, only includes applications submitted during 2022. Since the dataset only includes one year, not all applications could be followed up in terms of decisions made by other funders than the Nordic ones. While it would have been very relevant to include data from several years in the dataset to make the identification of more stable patterns possible, it was a significant enough task to systematically organise data for one year only.
Thirdly, the issue of which art forms are given more or less priority in funding systems and funding programmes at different levels has been used as a point of analysis in all chapters. This is because the distribution between different arts forms is a central aspect of a more general analysis of the relation between application-based funding for individual artists and artistic organisations at different levels. To make such an analysis possible, the research group developed and applied a joint typology of art forms when tracing different kinds of interplay between the Nordic dataset and national data. As always, such a joint typology could potentially make nuances within each national funding system less visible.
Finally, the results of the analysis of the Nordic dataset in relation to national context in each Nordic country made it possible to identify particular themes in the Nordic-national interplay. These themes are developed further by the researchers in their respective chapters. In her chapter on Denmark, Bille particularly highlights the role of Nordic funding in promoting multidisciplinary artistic projects, while Sokka specifically explores its role in promoting internationalisation in Finland. Kaaber and Rún Guðmundsdóttir point to the importance of Nordic funding at the regional level in Iceland, while Lindqvist from the Swedish perspective investigates similarities and differences in goals for public funding at different levels. Finally, Berge ties several of these themes together in his analysis of coherence between funding systems at different levels from the perspective of artistic and cultural actors in Norway. In their analyses of these more particular themes, the researchers identify the potential consequences of interplay between different funding systems in terms of overlap as defined above. In the following, conclusions will be drawn based on the results of the researchers’ contributions as a whole.
1.3 Conclusions: integrated or parallel funding systems?
As previously stated, it would seem as if public funding systems for the arts and culture at the national, Nordic and EU level are generally framed to achieve similar goals. At all levels, cultural policy goals include both improved working conditions for professional artists and increased participation in cultural life. Providing application-based funding for individual artists and artistic organisations has been an important element within these goals. Whether the opportunities that funding systems at different levels provide are integrated or run parallel is a key research question that this anthology provides at least some preliminary answers to.
In several ways, it seems as if specific funding programmes set up and implemented by policymakers and administrators at different levels are partly integrated, perhaps primarily in terms of supplementing each other. While the national public funding systems in the Nordic countries seem relatively stable over time, they are possibly facing the limit to further expansion of public expenditure for the arts and culture. From such a perspective, public funding at other levels of governance could become even more important for artists and artistic organisations. The analysis of applications submitted to the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point show that the included funding programmes play a crucial role in making possible specific activities that are maybe more difficult to prioritise within national funding systems. Many contributions to this anthology, perhaps most notably Sokka in his chapter on Finland, confirm that Nordic funding programmes attract applications that promote internationalisation. While funding to this end also exists in national funding systems, it seems to be generally quite marginal. In being directed at one of the key goals for Nordic collaboration in cultural policy, that is, international co-operation, the Nordic funding programmes thus seem to partly address needs that cannot be fully met in the different national contexts within the Nordic region.
The Nordic funding programmes included in this anthology also seem to play an important role in transgressing other borders than those between Nordic countries. In her chapter on Denmark, Bille shows that a substantial share of applications submitted for Nordic funding concern activities that are multidisciplinary in engaging several different art forms in a single project. As shown by Sokka, this also seems to be the case in Finland. In addition, in several Nordic countries, it would seem that Nordic funding programmes give priority to art forms that are less prominent in the national funding systems. Again, the results point to Nordic funding programmes playing a supplementary role in relation to national funding systems that could be crucial for individual artists, artistic organisations, and art forms. It is perhaps surprising, then, that the number of applications submitted to Nordic funding programmes is generally quite low when compared to the number submitted to national funding programmes. This could be due to the need for heightened awareness of the existence of Nordic funding programmes as pointed out in other studies (Kulturanalys Norden 2022; 2024b). Nevertheless, it could also be related to the share of Nordic funding being quite small when compared to that of national funding systems, and, as Berge concludes in his chapter on Norway, the ‘cool pragmatism’ of artists and cultural workers in profiling their applications to specific funders, thereby excluding others.
However, the results also show that while there seems to be no indication of funding systems at different levels explicitly contradicting one another, potential tensions are evident. Kaaber and Rún Guðmundsdóttir show that the Icelandic regional development funds are increasingly important in funding the arts and culture outside the capital area, while promoting goals that are not only generated from cultural policy, but also from other policy areas such as regional development policy and industrial policy. In this approach, the domestic regional development funds are similar to the European Union structural funds, as shown by Lindqvist in her chapter on Sweden. To include goals that are external to cultural policy potentially diverges from ‘the Nordic cultural policy model’. In this model, it has not only been assumed that public funding is crucial for achieving cultural policy goals, but that such funding must be distributed in a specific way in order for the goals to be fully met (Duelund ed. 2003; Sokka ed. 2022). The arm’s length principle, that is, that politicians should only make decisions about general policies and overall budget and refrain from decisions involving artistic and cultural content, is thus presented as a cornerstone in cultural policies of both Nordic countries and in Nordic collaboration. While goals in policy areas other than cultural policy might not always be explicitly contradictory to the arm’s length principle, they could potentially reduce the value of the arts and culture to values external to the cultural field (Kulturanalys Norden 2024a). But, as pointed out by Kaaber and Rún Guðmundsdóttir and also by Lindqvist, little is known of whether these potential conflicts are indeed realised from the perspective of artistic and cultural actors.