4. The role of Nordic funding in promoting internationali­sation: The case of independent artistic and cultural actors in Finland

In this chapter, I analyse the role of the Nordic Culture Foundation (NCF) and Nordic Culture Point (NCP) as public funders of cultural activities, especially professional arts and the so-called independent artistic field, stemming from Finnish context. I will also discuss how the allocations of these Nordic level funders correlate with the Finnish system of funding. 

The chapter is based on funding statistics from both NCP and the NCF for the year 2022 (see chapter 2). Other sources include information about the funding provided by different Finnish funders and the text descriptions that NCP and the NCF provide about their funding programmes. Comparison will especially be made with funding allocated by the Arts Promotion Centre Finland (APCF, in Finnish: Taiteen edistämiskeskus TAIKE), since it is the main public funder of individual professional artists and working groups in the field of independent arts in Finland. Promoting internationalisation of the Finnish arts is one of the aims of the APCF, which is especially interesting in comparison to the activities of both NCP and the NCF.

The chapter proceeds as follows. First, I briefly describe the main sources and overall scales of funding for culture in Finland. Secondly, I explain what kind of funding is currently provided for international activities by the ACPF, some other important public funders, and the most important cultural foundations. I will then analyse how the NCF and NCP fund Finnish applicants before discussing the findings and drawing the main conclusions. 

Many activities of cultural life in Finland, as well as in the other Nordic countries, depend on public support (e.g., Sokka & Johannisson 2022). In Finland, the state’s role has been traditionally prominent (e.g., Sokka 2022). Depending on the framing, there are different figures about how much the state of Finland these days allocates funding to culture. The so-called “arts and culture budget”

This refers to the budget chapter 29.80 (“Art and Culture”) in the state budget that is allocated under the supervision of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC).

is often used as a reference point. It covered €744,000,000 in the year 2022.

https://pxhopea2.stat.fi/sahkoiset_julkaisut/kulttuuritilasto/html/engl0009.htm (see category 10.1 in the dataset)

This figure, however, comprises only part of the whole state funding for culture. When allocations through other parts of the state budget are also summed, the amount grows substantially to well over €1 billion (see Jakonen et al. 2021). For this chapter, and for the sake of simplicity, I will nevertheless here content myself with the above-mentioned budget figure of roughly €750 million, which leaves out, for example, funding for the national broadcasting company (YLE) and some important parts of funding that are allocated through the Ministry of Finance (see Jakonen & Sokka 2022).

Besides the state, Finnish municipalities are particularly important ‒ together with the state ‒ as supporters of theatres, orchestras, museums, libraries, basic education in the arts, and civic activities (e.g., Sokka 2022). In the information provided by Statistics Finland for 2022, the operating costs of municipalities in the field of culture by function totalled in €889 million,

https://pxhopea2.stat.fi/sahkoiset_julkaisut/kulttuuritilasto/html/engl0009.htm (see the category 10.5 in the data set)

but this figure contains some overlaps with state funding. Actual costs covered by municipalities’ own funding is closer to 800 million than 900 million.

Personal information from the Development Manager responsible of local government finances in the Association of Finnish Cities and Municipalities (Kuntaliitto).

 The sum covers funding for libraries, museums and exhibitions, theatre, dance and opera, music, basic arts education, culture administration, visual arts, and “other cultural functions”. In principle, it should be somewhat comparable to the sum that the chapter for “Arts and Culture” under the supervision of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) covers. In other words, funding-wise, municipalities are even more important supporters of cultural activities in Finland than the MEC.

In Finland, the regional level is a less important funder of culture and art than the state and municipalities (Renko 2024). They are still not without importance, however, as certain regional actors distribute EU-funding through the EU’s funding programmes, which makes the distributing agencies also cultural political actors. Through the EU funded instruments, important decisions that affect different domains of culture are made in policy fields other than cultural policy. There is nevertheless a notable lack in knowledge about how much of this funding is allocated to culture and arts. According to Statistics Finland, Finnish projects funded from the Creative Europe programme totalled €74 million in the year 2022,

https://pxhopea2.stat.fi/sahkoiset_julkaisut/kulttuuritilasto/html/engl0009.htm (see the category 10.7 in the data set)

but there are also other sources for EU funding to culture. Some projects funded especially by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF)

See https://eura2021.fi/hanketietopalvelu?report=Hanketiedot

involve funding for cultural actions, but the total sum (most likely tens of millions of Euros) distributed to different domains of culture remain to be analysed. What also remains to be analysed is the effect that EU programmes have on culture. We know little, for example, about the meaning EU funded actions has for the internationalisation of art and culture on a regional level.

In addition, private consumption is a very important funder of cultural life. It is difficult to provide comprehensive comparisons between public and private funding whilst the typologies used in the statistics of private citizens’ consumption are not directly comparable to the statistics about public support. According to the statistics provided by Statistics Finland, Finnish households spent over €6 billion on culture in 2022. That sum contains spending on objects like house electrics, games, and amusement parks in addition to the forms of culture usually seen as comprising public cultural policy (e.g., Alasuutari & Kangas 2020). When private consumption is compared to those parts of cultural life that the “nominal state cultural policy” (i.e., the cultural responsibilities of the MEC, see Jakonen & Sokka 2022) mainly covers, private consumption still contained at least €2 billion in the year 2022.

See https://pxdata.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/StatFin__klts/statfin_klts_pxt_12aw.px/ The sum of over two billion totals from consumption on performing arts, movies, libraries, archives, museums, cultural heritage sites, books, works of art, antiques, and video and sound recordings, but excludes many other domains that are nonetheless included in the statistics.

Obviously, private companies also fund culture, but this is yet another area where we lack information. According to the so-called “sponsor barometer” (Sponsoribarometri),

https://www.spot.fi/artikkelit/sponsorointibarometri-2022-kasvun-vuosi

the sum of private sponsorship for culture in Finland was €51 million in the year 2022. What is calculated in the figure of culture is undefined in the barometer, but it seems evident that much of the figure stems from sponsoring different kinds of popular events.

Additionally, private foundations provide significant funding for culture in Finland. The Association of Finnish Foundations (Säätiöt ja rahastot ry)

https://saatiotrahastot.fi/en/frontpage/

has commissioned reports from consulting firms about the funding provided by its 229 member foundations. In 2022, these 229 foundations altogether allocated €295 million to science, 76 million to arts, and 145 million to other sectors of society. Part of the €145 million to “other sectors” also covers funding for cultural heritage (€15 million) and “cultural work” (kulttuurityö, ca. 11 million). The biggest share of the 76 million to arts goes to music (17 million), followed by 15 million to performing arts (theatre, dance, circus), 14 million to visual arts, and 13 million to literature (Gaia Consulting 2023). Altogether, Finnish private foundations thus allocated over €100 million to culture in the year 2022.

Once again, different funders do not apply shared typologies to follow their distribution of money to different domains and functions of art and culture (cf. ESSnet 2012). The shares can thus only roughly be estimated, but even this is enough for the purpose of providing an overall picture of the national funding system under which Finnish cultural actors also seek funding for their international activities.

Table 4.1. Approximated allocations from different funders to culture in Finland in 2022, EUR.

There are many agencies and organisations in Finland ‒ both public and private ‒ that promote the internationalisation of Finnish culture and arts and also distribute funding (some of which comes from the state budget), for example, via specific grant programmes. The overall picture is scattered, to say the least. In addition to the APCF, internationalisation is at the core of actions for both the members of the network of Finnish Cultural and Academic Institutes (Suomen tiede- ja kulttuuri-instituutit)

https://okm.fi/en/finnish-institutes-abroad; see especially https://instituutit.fi/en/what-is-partir-project/

functioning abroad, and the Finnish arts information centres (taiteen tiedotuskeskukset) ‒ of which especially Music Finland,

https://musicfinland.com/en/about-us

Finnish Literature Exchange FILI,

https://fili.fi/en/

and FRAME Contemporary Art Finland

https://frame-finland.fi/en/

focus on the internationalisation of Finnish arts (see Sokka, Renko & Lahtinen 2020). In addition, other organisations and agencies (like AVEK)

https://kopiosto.fi/en/AVEK/funding/avek-grants-and-support-guidelines/

provide funding (of which part is public) for internationalisation. There are also some funding instruments

See especially https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/for-finnish-customers/services/funding/cash-rebate

that function under the supervision of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment instead of the MEC. This scattered landscape cannot be analysed in detail here. Hence, I will mostly concentrate on the most important public funder of individual artists and the field of the so-called “independent art” in Finland, namely the APCF.

The APCF is an expert agency established in 2013. It continues many of the functions that the Arts Council of Finland had. It also has tasks related to cultural activities in a broader sense than that of professional arts. There is a specific law (2023/657)

https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2012/20120657

for the APCF that destinates the main purposes it should fulfil, and one of them is the internationalisation of Finnish art.

Until 2022, the APCF distributed specified mobility grants to support international travel, accommodation, and periods in residence. Through three application rounds in late 2021 and early 2022, altogether €410,000 were distributed for these purposes. Overall, the APCF distributed a little over €49 million to support arts and culture in 2022 (Taike 2023), of which the sum of €410,000 is only about 0.8 percent. 

The size of individual grants awarded via the mobility grants was modest, spreading from €1,000 to €4,000 per individual grantee.

https://www.taike.fi/fi/myonnetyt-apurahat/taiken-viimeiset-liikkuvuusapurahat-jaettiin-taiteilijoille

After the application round in January 2022, the call for mobility grants was let up. Since then, international mobility has been funded through targeted project grants (kohdeapurahat) that can be applied for purposes (for example, organising exhibitions and covering purchases) other than work. The project grants are meant for professional artists and working groups, who are asked to inform the boards about “the value that your project or work would have for a wider audience” and to “explain why your project is good and feasible”, aiming to “convince the decision-maker of your competence and expertise.”

https://www.taike.fi/en/taike-supports/grants-artists/guidelines-grant-applicants

The expertise of art boards (regional boards; national boards) is used in the evaluation of the applications. These boards and their members are appointed ‒ based on the recommendations of recognised experts in the fields of the arts and culture ‒ by the Central Arts Council, which is a body administrated by the APCF. The ministry (MEC) appoints its members. For now, there are six national councils for six different domains of culture: architecture and design, audiovisual art, multidisciplinary art, literature, music, performing arts, and visual arts.

https://www.taike.fi/en/about-us/expert-bodies/national-arts-councils

Furthermore, there are 13 Regional Art Councils, that “make decisions regarding the awarding grants and awards within their own area of responsibility.“

https://www.taike.fi/en/about-us/expert-bodies/regional-arts-councils

The Regional Art Councils are also nominated by the Central Arts Council.

Based on the lists of the targeted project grants awarded, only a few decisions focused on international activities in any country and even fewer activities were taking place in the Nordic countries.

See: https://www.taike.fi/fi/taike-tukee/myonnetyt-apurahat-avustukset-ja-palkinnot

It seems like terminating the specified mobility grants in 2022 led to a further reduced amount of grants for purposes of artistic mobility and internationalisation.

Karttunen, Lahtinen and Seirala (2019, p. 30) have studied the share of international mobility in targeted grants awarded in 2017. According to their analysis, some 14 per cent of awarded applications had an international element in 2017. When altogether €4.5 million was distributed in 2022 via APCF targeted grants (both national and regional), this share of 14 percent comprises around €630,000. In 2022, the share might have been a bit different than in 2017, but it does not change the factual order: international activities are by any means not at the centre of the funding awarded by the APCF. 

The APCF also maintains development programmes that employ some artists and administrators on temporary contracts. One of the programmes is called the “Development programme for cultural diversity and mobility” that “aims to promote the understanding of diversity in the arts, intercultural dialogue, the mobility of artists and international networks.” One of the three objectives of the programme is “to develop international networks with a focus on the Nordic countries and Barents region.”

https://www.taike.fi/en/taike-influences/programmes-and-projects/development-programme-cultural-diversity-and-mobility

The programme is organised through temporary projects that have until now mainly focused on diversity and minorities instead of concrete actions aiming to develop internationalisation and mobility in Finnish arts.

Besides the APCF, the Ministry of Culture and Education itself grants funding for projects focusing on cultural export. In 2022, ca. €1,500,000 were allocated to about 15 different organisations. Typically, the domains of music, film, and audiovisual culture are well represented in the lists of approved applications, which are mainly decided upon with respect to the commercial potential seen in the applied activities.

https://okm.fi/-/hankeavustukset-kulttuuriviennin-edistamiseen

Most of the other agencies that distribute public funding for the internationalisation of independent art and culture actors are private actors (associations or foundations) that have nevertheless been delegated public responsibilities. According to the number of Euros (see Table 4.2), the most important of these is the Finnish Film Foundation (Suomen elokuvasäätiö SES). It has many support programmes, of which three are dedicated to supporting international promotion (project support, material and marketing support, and travel support)

https://www.ses.fi/en/funding/support-guides/

. For these purposes, SES amounted to around €375,000 worth of granted funding in 2022.

https://www.ses.fi/tuenhakijalle/tukipaatokset/#/feed&grantTypes=201324,216,217&years=2022

Frame Contemporary Art Finland (FRAME) has a delegated responsibility to allocate grants for the internationalisation of visual arts. In 2002, it granted around €280,000 (whereas over €2,000,000 were applied for).

https://frame-finland.fi/apurahat/myonnetyt-apurahat/apurahahankkeet-2022/

In the field of music, Music Finland receives state subsidies of which part is channelled to grant schemes. Like the SES, Music Finland also offers support for international promotion.

https://musicfinland.fi/fi/palvelut?&serviceType=grantsMfFi

They do not, however, offer easily accessible information about their funding decisions. In 2023, 71 companies and 46 private people received support for international promotion.

https://musicfinland.fi/fi/vuosikertomus/avainluvut-ja-kohokohdat-2023

Based on this, the sum of granted support should be at least €100,000, but most probably more. In the field of audiovisual culture, AVEK used about €120,000 for its support programme for internationalisation (kansainvälistymistuki).

https://kopiosto.fi/AVEK/tukipaatokset/kansainvalistymistuki/

All the above mentioned compiled less than €1,000,000 of state funding, and this is made applicable for internationalisation outside the Ministry of Education and Culture and the APCF, which works directly under the ministry’s control. Also, the other listed agencies act under the eye of the MEC (at least via the contracts they make with the ministry). It is safe to conclude that, first, public funding for internationalisation of the independent art and culture actors is surprisingly modest in Finland, and second, most of it is distributed under the supervision of the MEC.

Table 4.2. Main distributors of state funding for the internationalisation of independent art and culture actors in Finland in 2022

The biggest Finnish foundations distribute tens of millions of funding to culture and are therefore important actors in Finnish cultural policy. In 2022, the Finnish Cultural Foundation (Suomen kulttuurirahasto ‒ SKR) granted altogether (the grant sums below also include funding for science) over €45 million and used an additional 6 million for culture programmes.

https://skr.fi/vuosikertomus/skr_vuosikertomus_2021-2022/#p=6

 The Kone foundation granted altogether 48 million,

https://issuu.com/koneensaatio/docs/koneen-saatio-vuosikertomus-2023-06-13

and Svenska kulturfonden i Finland almost 45 million.

https://issuu.com/kulturfonden/docs/svenska_kulturfonden_arsbok_2022_web_uppslag?fr=sZTYwZDQyNzYzNzY

Furthermore, the Jane and Aatos Erkko foundation granted almost €37 million (of which approx. 25% was earmarked for art and culture),

https://jaes.fi/saatio/toimintakertomus-ja-tuloslaskelma/vuosi2022/

and the Jenny and Antti Wihuri foundation almost €15 million.

https://issuu.com/jennyjaanttiwihurinrahasto/docs/jaw-vuosikertomus2022

None of these foundations provide information about the share of international, not to mention Nordic, cultural activities in their overall funding. Some foundations have specific funding instruments focused on international activities. The Kone foundation, for example, took part in establishing the Ukraine solidarity residence in 2022 and maintains an international Saari residence

https://koneensaatio.fi/en/saari-residence/

that is open for artists of all disciplines. Both the Finnish Cultural Foundation and the Svenska kulturfonden i Finland take part in the Future challenges in the Nordics programme. The Finnish Cultural Foundation also has a residency programme covering eight countries (two of which are Nordic) and ten cities as well as organises an international singing competition every three years.

https://skr.fi/en/cultural-activities

It even has a yearly application round for mobility grants. In 2022, the Cultural Foundation approved 87 mobility grants that altogether summed up to €279,500.

See https://skr.fi/apurahat/myonnetyt-apurahat/ (choose “Liikkuvuus” in “Erityiskohde”)

Currently, the Nordic Culture Fund (NCF) has four different funding programmes,

https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en (see funding programmes)

whereas Nordic Culture Point (NCP) has as many as 11.

https://www.nkk.org/en/apply-for-funding/

In the year 2022, the NCF allocated about €4.6 million (DKK 34,299,500)

In the year 2022, the average exchange rate for EUR was DKK 7.4396. See https://www.vero.fi/syventavat-vero-ohjeet/ohje-hakusivu/49083/valuuttakurssit-2022/

, and NCP €6 million, to different Nordic applicants. Applicants from Finland were granted €608,899 from the NCF and €1,530,423 from NCP. The success rate (applied amount/​accepted amount) of Finnish applicants who applied to NCP was 36%; the corresponding figure for the NCF was 15%.

Interestingly, Danish applicants were the most successful in applying for funding from the NCF (32% of the funding was allocated to Denmark).

When both funders are counted together, the share of grants awarded to Finnish applicants was around €21 million. This amounts to 19 percent of the total sum of ca. €10.6 million that the NCF and NCP distributed to the Nordic countries. What is striking is that the amount of just over 2,000,000 is big in comparison to what the designated public funding for similar purposes channelled through different actors exercising public authority via their granting decisions (see Table 4.2).

Below, allocation of the funding from the NCF is presented by art form according to the classification agreed upon for this anthology (see chapters 1 and 2)

All in all, both NCP and the NCF collect information in a way where one piece of information (e.g., art form) is spread out over several different variables, depending on the application programmes, which makes it difficult to follow the distribution of funds to different art forms without re-classifying the data.

. Out of the over €600,000 that the NCF granted to Finnish applications, biggest amount went to grantees without any precise art form/​cultural domain (Table 4.3).

The row “Other” in Table 4.3 below also includes funding that was allocated via the NCF funding programmes Puls and Globus. Puls was an initiative that took place in the years 2017‒2022 and aimed to develop the live music scene in the Nordic region.

https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en/news/new-report-sums-up-the-funds-experiences-with-the-nordic-live-music-initiative-puls

An amount of €90,048 (DKK 670,000) was distributed to Finland under Puls

The sum could also have been calculated into the sum of music, but I follow here the agreed upon classification.

. Finnish applicants were awarded 66% of the total sum sought from Puls, and each of the nine Finnish applicants received funding, but the accepted funding was heavily reduced from what was applied for (cut between min. of 28% and max. 48%). In addition, Globus was in 2022 aiming to “give artists and cultural actors new opportunities to engage in wide transnational collaborations and long-term networks that extend beyond the Nordic region.”

https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en/news/the-nordic-culture-fund-launches-a-major-globus-call

Performing arts was the most funded art form, followed by music and visual art. The three most funded are forms are unsurprising, as performing arts, music, and visual arts are generally acknowledged as the three biggest art forms in Finland (e.g., Hirvi-Ijäs et al. 2023). The funding from the NCF to literature, however, differs from the usual Finnish case, where literature is often granted a bigger share

For example, see https://www.taike.fi/fi/julkaisut/taiken-tuki-taiteen-ja-kulttuurin-edistamiseen-2022

of funding than what the NCF awarded in 2022. The column of success rate in Table 4.3 (6% for literature) indicates that low funding of literature cannot be explained simply by a lack of applications. The classification used (dance and theatre calculated into “Performing arts”) hides the fact that it was even harder to receive funding for dance (3% success rate) and other small art forms like media art, and crafts and design (no funding at all).

Table 4.3. Distribution of NCF funding to Finnish applicants in 2022 by art form, EUR

Currently, the NCF informs potential applicants that “Twice a year, you can apply for Project Funding for projects that build on and develop collaborations across the Nordic Region”. Project funding for art and culture projects is the most important NCF funding for independent art and culture actors. It is rather flexible in its funding criteria, but the applied projects must have at least 50% co-financing. Projects may involve partners from other countries. A maximum grant is around €67,000 (DKK 500,000).

https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en/funding-programmes/project-funding-for-collaborations-across-the-nordic-region

In 2022, ca. €1.8 million was applied for from Finland, and €218,266 approved (see Table 4.4).

In 2022, applicants from the domain of performing arts were the most successful at gaining NCF project funding, whereas applicants from the domain of music were less unlikely recipients. Applicants from most of the “smaller” domains of art and culture were unlikely to receive funding at all, but they also did not apply as often. The mean sums of the grants from NCF project funding were comparably big, especially in visual arts and music (around €30,000).

The second important programme for independent art and culture actors is Opstart. It generally funds individual artists instead of larger projects. According to the NCF, Opstart “supports the joint development of new and promising project ideas, with a view to strengthening the Nordic ambitions of the projects”. Funding can be applied for up to DKK 25,000. Co-financing is not required. In the funding decisions under Opstart, performing arts had the highest acceptance rate of all the identifiable art forms, but projects under the label of “Other” comprised the most funded class.

In addition to the Project funding and Opstart, there are “other calls” in Table 4.4 with scattered information in the data sets. These include Globus and Puls, as explained above. Some funding under “other calls” is probably not exactly directed to arts or culture, and activities without knowledge of art forms is the largest among them. 

The NCF secretariat in the table refers to funding decisions made by the secretariat apparently outside any specific call.

Table 4.4. NCF funding from different programmes by art form for Finnish applicants in 2022, EUR

According to the 2022 data sets, NCP funds mostly multidisciplinary actions. Almost half (€692,748/​45% of total sum) of the funding granted for Finnish applicants was allocated to multidisciplinary projects. In addition, around one third (€459,266) of the slightly over €1.5 million funding granted to Finland was distributed without information about art form or cultural domain (“Other” in Table 4.6). The data set does not include much information about the actual content of the projects, but it seems likely that many of the funded projects without information concerning the art form could also fall into a multidisciplinary category. In any case, only about one third of the granted funding was allocated for activities that were strictly focused on some specific art form.

Considering specific art forms, most of the funding was distributed between music (€174,746 ) and performing arts (€169,108). Visual arts (€17,064) and cultural heritage (€14,000) received less, and only a small amount (few thousands) went to films, media, and performance. The classification used in the table does not show the amount granted to dance, but within the category of performing arts, it was the most funded “genre” (€111,270). In fact, dance received a bigger share than theatre (€44,569) and visual arts (€17,064) combined, although considering the domain of visual arts, NCP funded it much less than the NCF.

Table 4.5. Distribution of NCP funding granted for Finnish applicants, EUR

Table 4.6 compresses basic information about the distribution of funding through all 10 programmes NCP ran in 2022. Once again, multidisciplinary projects come up as both the most funded and the most applied to category (85 out of a total 237 Finnish applications fall into this category).

Table 4.6. Funding from different NCP programmes to Finnish applicants in 2022 by art form, EUR

Based on the sums allocated to different purposes, the art and culture programme is the most important NCP funding instrument (45% of funding for Finnish applicants were granted via the art and culture programme). This is reminiscent of the position of project funding among the NCF programmes: funding for professional collaborative projects without an in advance specified focus thus seems to be the most important function of both the NCF and NCP. Another feature of the Nordic funding is that granted projects seem to specifically promote multidisciplinary projects.

The Mobility Programme is the second largest of the NCP programmes. Altogether, €327,862 were granted to Finnish applicants in 2022. There are, however, clear differences between the three parts of the Mobility Programme: the long-term networking was not granted any funding at all in 2022, and only two (2) applications were received, whereas support for short-term networking was by far more often sought after.

Both the NCF and NCP appreciate co-funding from the projects they grant funding for. This is most notable in the funding for projects. Co-funding is a requirement for NCF project funding, and the NCP also sees it “as an important part of the project’s prerequisites.” Only smaller projects (up to €7,000) can be funded from the NCP without other sources of funding, and the biggest (between €40,000 and 100,000) are required to have at least 50% co-funding, just like in the project funding of the NCF.

https://www.nkk.org/en/culture-and-art-programme/

The data set contains lists of the partners that the applicants have mentioned in their applications.

Mobility funding and funding for residencies do not contain information about funding partners.

It seems that many applicants also list partners whose funding is not yet guaranteed: e.g., in some cases possible other funders are only referred to as “Partner 1”, “Partner 2”, “Fund 1”, “Fund 2”, or as “city and state funds in Finland”. In any case, the list of partners tells us which kind of collaborative networks are important for the applicants and may also include funding (in-kind funding is counted as co-funding).

According to the data, there are almost as many different partners as there are different applicants (see Appendix). The APCF is the most often mentioned funding partner, but it is not mentioned more often than 13 times in the whole data set (for both the NCF and NCP). Finnish foundations are the next most important funding partners but mentioned just on few occasions: the Finnish Cultural Foundation is mentioned nine times, and both the Kone Foundation and Svenska kulturfonden five times. Wihuri is mentioned only three times. Also, the bilateral funds that are meant to promote Nordic collaboration are mentioned a few times as sources of co-founding for collaborative and network projects. The network of Finnish cultural institutes abroad is only rarely mentioned as are the information centres in different forms of art – Frame Contemporary Art Finland seems to be the most active of the centres. EU funding is mentioned only rarely.

In principle, the NCF and NCP are fostering funding networks and collaboration between public and private actors through their funding criteria. Some of the biggest cities are mentioned as partnering funders by some applicants, but once again, the amount of such cases is small, especially considering the importance of municipalities for the overall system of Finnish cultural funding.

See https://pxhopea2.stat.fi/sahkoiset_julkaisut/kulttuuritilasto/html/engl0009.htm (category 10.5 in the data set). In the statistics, part of the support for cultural services and funding for different art forms obviously covers similar kinds of support for artists and associations that, for example, private foundations fund.

There are hardly any companies in the lists of funding partners for the approved Finnish projects. Obviously, this may be due the overall lack of interest among Finnish companies, but it may also be telling of the existing networks and perhaps implements a lack of tradition to work with private companies.

The Nordic Cultural Fund aims to “stimulate the development of art and cultural life and ensure flexible frameworks for new transnational collaborations.”

https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en

Nordic Culture Point’s objective is to “support Nordic co-operation within the area of culture and to increase awareness of Nordic culture in Finland.”

https://www.nkk.org/en/

According to my brief analysis, both the NCF and NCP can be said to fulfil their purposes via the funding they provide for the Finnish independent art and culture actors. At the same time, the Finnish government aims to improve the internationalisation of the Finnish creative sector and strengthen culture’s role in the brand of Finland,

https://valtioneuvosto.fi/hallitukset/hallitusohjelma/#/

but the earmarked funding to fulfil these aims are in fact surprisingly scarce. This increases the importance of funding provided by the NCF and NCP for Finnish applicants.

The total sums granted to Finland in 2022 from the NCF and NCP can be described as big when compared to Finnish funding that is specifically meant to support internationalisation.

Altogether, the NCF and NCP allocated over €2 million to Finnish applicants via their different programmes. This is much compared to the total sum allocated by Finnish actors presented in Figure 2. Based on the allocation of funding, internationalisation can be labelled as a marginalised topic in current Finnish cultural policy. Against this backdrop, the Nordic funding provided by the NCF and NCP creates an important source of funding for purposes that Finnish cultural policy otherwise seems to neglect.

The NCF and NCP mostly fund individuals, groups, and associations. Traditionally, and especially in the current situation where cuts are made in public support for culture, any funding available for the field of independent actors is important (e.g., Stenvall et al. 2024). Not all agencies distributing public funding recognise the often-small needs of such actors. This too raises the importance of the NCF and NCP: even though their funding is scattered across many small programmes, it still is not as fixed to established structures as most of the public culture funding in Finland where institutions receive considerably more funding than independent actors (e.g., Sokka 2022; Saukkonen 2014). These institutions could, of course, act as partners for the NCF and NCP applicants, but very few in fact do.

Both the NCF and NCP grant funds to, most of all, projects. Funding for art and culture projects also attracts the most applications from all the different programmes they have. Funded actions often fall into the category of “multidisciplinary” (or, “other”). At first sight, the smallest art forms seem marginalised in the lists of the approved decisions. For example, some small art forms did not receive any funding from the NCF. However, there were also not that many applications from smaller branches of art. The same goes for certain funding instruments, raising the question of the reasonability to maintain so many different programmes, especially in the case of the NCP, with specific application rounds and administrative tasks needed for each of them. Based on my analysis of where the applicants are most active, project grants with flexible application qualifications would make the most effective way of organising the distribution of Nordic funding. Connections between the Nordic and Finnish funding systems seem vague at best. The list of co-founders reveals the random-like nature of co-funding. In many cases, applicants for larger projects list almost everything that they can, including the funding sources that have not (yet) granted them funding. Regarding the effectiveness of many of the most important Finnish funding sources, some are mentioned only once, if at all, in the applications to the NCF and NCP. Even the network of Finnish cultural institutes abroad is only rarely mentioned, just like the information centres in different forms of art. In principle, both the institutes and the information centres should be among the most important instruments for internationalisation of Finnish independent actors.

Despite the importance of the Nordic funders, the analysis also raises some questions about the effectiveness of their actions. In comparison to many Finnish funders, the number of applications for both the NCF and NCP is rather modest. For example, the Finnish Cultural Foundation, which in 2022 granted much less (almost €300,000) than the NCF and NCP via its mobility grants, received over 1,000 applications in 2023 for this call alone

https://skr.fi/ajankohtaista/liikkuvuusapurahaan-511-hakemusta-apurahoja-jaettiin-68

(overall, the foundation receives around 15,000 applications each year). Against this backdrop, the number of applications from Nordic funders remains low, raising the question about how well known their programmes are among Finnish actors. This matter has been recognised in previous research, where need for increased communication about Nordic funding has been emphasised (see Kulturanalys Norden 2022; 2024).

It is striking to acknowledge how rarely EU funding is mentioned by the applicants. Another striking factor is the lack of private partnerships. This may also reveal something about the funding systems. It also almost seems like there is no overall consideration of the differences in the need for funding in different forms of art and culture when funding decisions are made. This is a matter that perhaps could be worth studying further. As stated above, Finnish funding for internationalisation is scattered and seems to lack instruments to fulfil the stated aims for internationalisation. It also lacks coordinated discussion of both the aims and instruments that should be used. For the Nordic funders, this raises the question about which kind of collaborative funding structures could “ensure flexible networks” or create “increased awareness of Nordic culture in Finland.” 

Alasuutari, Pertti & Kangas, Anita (2020). The global spread of the concept of cultural policy. Poetics, 82, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2020.101445

ESSnet-Culture (2012). European Statistical Network for Culture 2012 ESSnet – Culture. Final Report. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/reports/ess-net-report_en.pdf

Gaia Consulting Oy (2023). Säätiöt ja rahastot ry. Jäsensäätiöiden tuen 2022 kohdentuminen. https://saatiotrahastot.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Selvitys-saatiotuesta-2022.pdf

Hirvi-Ijäs, Maria, Sokka, Sakarias, Rensujeff, Kaija & Kurlin, Ari (2019). Taiteen ja kulttuurin barometri 2018: Taiteilijoiden ja taiteen liikkuvuus. Cuporen verkkojulkaisuja 51. Kulttuuripolitiikan tutkimuskeskus Cupore. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/2019/taiteilijoiden_ja_taiteen_liikkuvuus._taiteen_ja_kulttuurin_barometri_2018._v_09.pdf

Hirvi-Ijäs, Maria, Renko, Vappu, Leppänen, Aino & Sokka, Sakarias (2023). As an artist in Finland: Professional artists in Finland in 2019. Cupore Fact Booklet 6. https://www.cupore.fi/en/publications/as-an-artist-in-finland-professional-artists-in-finland-in-2019/

Jakonen, Olli, Kurlin Niiniaho, Ari, Oksanen-Särelä, Katja & Sokka, Sakarias (2021). Mahdollisesti kulttuuria? Valtion kulttuurirahoitus Suomessa vuonna 2019. Cuporen työpapereita 13. Kulttuuripolitiikan tutkimuskeskus Cupore. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/2021/cuporen_tyopapereita_13_mahdollisesti_kulttuuria.pdf            

Jakonen, Olli & Sokka, Sakarias (2022). Finnish cultural policy as public funding: Regime view across policy domains. Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidsskrift, 25(3), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.18261/nkt.25.3.9

Karttunen, Sari, Lahtinen, Emmi & Seirala, Viivi (2019). Selvitys Taiteen edistämiskeskuksen liikkuvuusapurahoista: Tavoitteet, jakautuminen, hallinnointi ja kehittämistarpeet. Cuporen työpapereita 10. Kulttuuripolitiikan tutkimuskeskus Cupore. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/tyopaperit/final_tyopaperi_cupore-liikkuu-1.pdf

Kulturanalys Norden (2022). Kartläggning av gränhinder för nordiskt kulturutbyte. Nordiska ministerrådet – Kulturanalys Norden: Nordisk kulturfakta 2022:06. https://pub.norden.org/nordiskkulturfakta2022-06/nordiskkulturfakta2022-06.pdf

Kulturanalys Norden (2024). Kultursamarbeten och nordisk bidragsgivning. Nordiska ministerrådet – Kulturanalys Norden: Nordisk kulturfakta 2024:02.
https://pub.norden.org/nordiskkulturfakta2024-02/nord2024-014.pdf

Renko, Vappu (2024). Making regional cultural policy possible: construction and practices in Finland contrasted to Sweden. University of Jyväskylä, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. JyU Dissertations 757. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-9955-1 

Saukkonen, Pasi (2014). Vankka linnake, joustava sopeutuja vai seisova vesi? Suomalaisen kulttuuripolitiikan viimeaikainen kehitys. Cuporen verkkojulkaisuja 23. Kulttuuripoliittisen tutkimuksen edistämissäätiö. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/kulttuuripolitiikankehitys.pdf           

Sokka, Sakarias (2022). Aims and allocations of public funding for culture in Finland. In: Sokka, S. (ed.), Cultural policy in the Nordic welfare states: aims and functions of public funding for culture. Nordisk kultrufakta 2022:01. Nordic Council of Ministers. https://pub.norden.org/nordiskkulturfakta2022-01/#91691

Sokka, Sakarias & Johannisson, Jenny (2022). Introduction: Cultural policy as a balancing act. In: Sokka, S. (ed.), Cultural policy in the Nordic welfare states: aims and functions of public funding for culture. Nordisk kultrufakta 2022:01. Nordic Council of Ministers. https://pub.norden.org/nordiskkulturfakta2022-01/#92287

Sokka, Sakarias, Renko, Vappu & Lahtinen, Emmi (2020). Toimialojen edistäjät ja toiveiden tynnyrit: Taiteen tiedotuskeskusten toiminta ja asema. Cuporen verkkojulkaisuja 60. Kulttuuripolitiikan tutkimuskeskus Cupore. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/2020/raportti_toimialojen_edistajat_ja_toiveiden_tynnyrit.pdf 

Stenvall, Jari, Vesala, Paula, Kivilehto, Mirkka, Pöntinen, Sanni & Rönkkö, Kaisa (2023). Jaksakaa vielä. Kulttuuripolitiikkaa korona-ajan Suomessa. https://musicmedia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Jaksakaa_viela_Korona_ajan_kulttuuripolitiikka_tutkimus_FINAL_12042024.pdf

Taike (2023). Taiken tuki taiteen ja kulttuurin edistämiseen 2022. Taiteen edistämiskeskus. https://www.taike.fi/fi/julkaisut/taiken-tuki-taiteen-ja-kulttuurin-edistamiseen-2022

Table A.1. Finnish funding partners mentioned in the applications to the NCF and NCP