7. Nordic public funding for independent arts and culture:
A comparison with Sweden and the European Union

This chapter presents Sweden’s national public funding of independent arts and cultural activities and compares it to Nordic grant schemes and the funding of arts and culture at the European Union level. The aim of the chapter is to compare the orientation of funding at the various levels. Specifically, the chapter describes and discusses differences and similarities in the goals for, and scope and conditions of, public funding at the three levels.  The questions guiding the chapter are as follows: What monetary resources are available for independent arts and culture in Sweden from national, Nordic and European Union sources? Moreover, what are the conditions of access to such resources, beyond those adhering to artistic freedom of expression and diversity, which are central to Swedish and Nordic cultural policy? In addition, the chapter discusses the concept of Nordic added value and its significance in the field of arts and culture. Given the Nordic cultural policy tradition, the concept seems out of place, and therefore its operationalisation in steering documents at the Nordic level is also explored in the chapter. This investigation can only give a first insight into these complex matters, and the chapter ends with conclusions and suggestions for further research.

The chapter focuses on the independent arts and cultural field. The reason for this is that Nordic funding is primarily distributed to this part of the arts and cultural sector. Much of national Swedish funding goes to cultural and arts infrastructure in the form of institutions and intermediary organisations, but in this chapter the focus is on independent actors to allow for comparisons across public funding levels for this group. The chapter is based on statistical data published by Swedish agencies, Nordic bodies, and European Union websites, in turn based on statistical data collected by official statistics agencies (SCB, The Nordic Council of Ministers, and European Union agencies, respectively). Other material consulted for the chapter comprises previous research, formal policy documents of Swedish, Nordic and European Union policy actors, and a small number of digital conversations with civil servants at the Nordic and Swedish national level. The purpose of the digital conversations was to gain experienced views on the overall matter of relationships between the Nordic, Swedish national and the European Union level of funding of independent arts and culture. As the conversations were orientational, the author only took notes, and the information and reflections given by civil servants was related to and triangulated with available website information, formal evaluations of Nordic support schemes such as the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point as well as with experiences with recent research on European Union-level funding of the cultural and creative sectors and industries (Lindqvist 2024). Questions regarded the civil servants’ perceptions and reflections on the overall development and challenges and upsides of the Nordic and European Union level funding of culture, as well as on the relationship between these levels and the national Swedish funding of independent arts and culture. One focus was thereby on the governance and administration of the three levels of support rather than on relationships between areas of arts and culture. Due to the unstructured nature of the conversations with civil servants, their names are not published. They have, however, had the opportunity to read the chapter before its publication and have thereby had a chance to comment on information they referred to. Consulted documents have been listed in the bibliography to the extent that they have been directly referred to in the chapter. Documents other than those listed have been consulted for orientational purposes, and the year for which data have been collected and compared is 2022.

As one of the Nordic welfare states, Sweden has an elaborate infrastructure for funding culture and the arts throughout the country. National support targets both public institutions and independent (non-profit as well as for-profit) organisations. In the last two decades, public funding of the arts and culture has been stable, and there have been few substantial changes in national cultural policy (Lindqvist 2022). The main change in Swedish national funding of arts and culture has been the introduction of a decentralised model for distribution of national funding to regional and local arts and culture, the Cultural Collaboration Model, in 2010. Arts and culture as a sector are supported to a high extent through direct public subsidies, as distributed through the national, regional and municipal levels. However, household expenditure also constitutes a significant amount of total spending on culture. A large part of direct public subsidies goes to the infrastructure of the cultural field, including education, cultural policy programmes, and individual institutions at national and subnational levels (Lindqvist 2024). Table 7.1 shows the total sum of public funding to the arts in Sweden in 2022 in Euro (€).

Conversion rate EUR / SEK: 10.63, as calculated average annual rate, information retrieved from the European Central Bank for 2022, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-sek.en.html (2024-10-28)

Table 7.1. Total expenditure for culture by the Swedish state, municipalities and regions in 2022, in EUR at the 2022 annual average conversion rate (see note 76).

An important but substantially smaller part of total public funding of arts and culture goes to independent arts and cultural activities through, for example, individual artist grants. The goals of public expenditure for culture, as stated in the Swedish cultural policy goals approved by the Riksdag, are to enable access throughout the country to high quality culture beyond the market, to secure the independence of culture as a force in society and a variety of cultural expressions (Lindqvist 2022).

Public funding for arts and culture in Sweden is based on cultural policy goals, but in recent decades, cultural and creative professionals have increasingly also been a target of enterprise policy. In 2024, the Minister of Culture launched a strategy for businesses in the cultural and creative sectors (Kulturdepartementet 2024). It is still unclear if the new strategy means that business policy will become part of Swedish cultural policy in the future, or if the enterprise-supporting activities and schemes suggested will be part of national enterprise policy. If the former will be the case, the foundations of Swedish cultural policy as support to cultural expressions and activities beyond the market will be challenged, and goal conflicts within cultural policy may emerge in an unprecedented way. The next steps in the implementation of the new national cultural and creative sector strategy of Sweden will be fundamental in pointing to the direction of tomorrow’s cultural policy.

In order to put Swedish public funding opportunities in context, the number of artistic professionals will first be explored. According to a recent study made by Myndigheten för kulturanalys (the Swedish Agency of Cultural Policy Analysis) and Konstnärsnämnden (Swedish Arts Grants Committee) (Myndigheten för kulturanalys 2024a), there were 55,642 individuals with an artistic profession in Sweden in 2021. These are individuals with artistic jobs in the cultural and creative field and represent the creative core of this larger labour market, where many individuals are both employees and self-employed with portfolio careers. The distribution of artistic professionals across the cultural field is presented in Table 7.2. Out of a total of more than 5 million individuals working in Sweden in 2021, according to official national statistics (SCB not dated), this means that professionals in the independent arts and cultural fields roughly comprise one percent of the working population in Sweden. It is difficult, however, to know exactly how many professionals there are in the independent arts and cultural field, as there are no clear statistical categories that match its diversity. Therefore, the figures in Table 7.2 should be considered as an indication rather than a fact. Depending on what statistical data are used, for example, based on industry codes or taxation information, respectively, different categories, and thereby differing figures, apply.

The income of artistic professionals varies according to their field of activity. The median income for artistic professionals in 2021 was one percent above the median income of all professionals, SEK 390,900 compared to SEK 385,200. However, the median income of industrial designers, SEK 537,400, was almost double that of visual arts professionals (bild och form), the professional groups with lowest median income in 2021. Their median income was SEK 248,900. What these figures show is that the independent arts and cultural field is diverse and small, and the conditions for making a living are very different both across groups and across individuals within one and the same area. Furthermore, earnings are generated both as self-employment and employment, often in parallel or alternately.

Table 7.2. Number of artistic professionals, employed and self-employed, in the cultural and creative field in Sweden in 2021.

There is a country-wide infrastructure for access to high-quality and varied culture in Sweden supported through the taxes at the national as well as subnational level. The complexity of this system will not be described here but is discussed in recent research (Lindqvist 2024). At the national level, Statens kulturråd (the Swedish Arts Council) is the main agency supporting independent arts and culture actors in Sweden. Statens kulturråd does not distribute individual artist grants. This is instead done by Konstnärsnämnden (the Swedish Arts Grants Committee). Other sources of public funding for independent arts and culture are Sveriges författarfond (the Swedish Authors’ Fund) and Svenska filminstitutet (the Swedish Film Institute). The amounts dedicated to independent arts and culture will not be compared to amounts to infrastructure and institutions, as it is not relevant to compare these two differing types of funding. There is an ongoing discussion in Sweden regarding the balance between the public funding of institutions and infrastructure of the cultural field and the arts, on one hand, and independent actors on the other. The question of this balance is complex, and partly relates to the issue of access to cultural expressions for future generations (Throsby 2010), but this will be disregarded here.

In Table 7.3, different types of grants distributed by Statens kulturråd targeting independent arts and culture in Sweden are listed, and in Table 7.4 the goals and amounts distributed to independent actors in 2022 from the main grant distributing agencies are listed. Table 7.3 displays the diversity of types of grants available, and Table 7.4 shows that Statens kulturråd has a significantly broader scope in its distribution of grants compared to other agencies with quite specific target groups.

Table 7.3. Types of grants and target groups for grants distributed by the Swedish Arts Council targeting independent arts and cultural actors.

Table 7.4. Types of scholarships and grants national agencies in Sweden have awarded to independent arts and culture.

* incl. COVID 19-grants.

** SEK/EUR conversion rate: 10.63, based on the annual average rate for 2022 as calculated by the European Central bank, see note 1.

Municipalities have a significant role in the financial support of independent arts and culture in Sweden, in addition to the state, whereas regions play a complementary role as an intermediate level policy actor between the other two. Municipalities and regions have substantial autonomy in relation to the state, but cultural policy at the subnational level tends to follow the national cultural policy goals closely. One of the reasons for this is a national model for distributing funds to culture at the subnational level, which requires regions to produce culture plans where priorities for public support are stated (Lindqvist 2022). The regional culture plans are produced in dialogue with municipalities.

As a conclusion of the Swedish national section of this chapter, some particular characteristics of funding of independent arts and culture in Sweden will be mentioned. Firstly, Sweden has substantially fewer foundations distributing grants to the arts and culture than other Nordic countries. This has both historical and legislative roots. Secondly, lottery proceeds as a private source of funding for arts and culture is very limited in Sweden today. Revenue from the national lottery and gambling monopoly in Sweden mainly goes to civil sector associations including grassroots-level sports, and only some private lottery proceeds are distributed to the field of culture (Statens offentliga utredningar 1992:33; Statens offentliga utredningar 1992:130). Historically, however, there have been royal and state lotteries funding in particular visual arts (Statens offentliga utredningar 1937:4). Expenditure for culture has, since the termination of traditional lotteries for more modern versions, been covered through the state budget directly.

The Nordic cooperation and collaboration of today developed from ideas in the aftermath of the Second World War and has both formal and informal elements. Internationally, the Nordic cooperation, which is based on full national integrity, has become something of a role model for regional development work (Etzold 2013; Etzold 2020). But the Nordic cooperation has, according to several authors on the topic, had to reinvent its purpose since its establishment following changes in the geopolitical environment of the Nordic countries. For example, what is now Nordic Culture Point distributes grants to the cultural field for collaboration, but it succeeded a long-lived venue for contemporary arts and exhibitions in Helsinki, Finland. Although well-known, the venue and curator-based activities were abandoned in favour of grants to facilitate mobility and networking in the Nordic region in 2009. In the last decade, ideas of Nordic added value have become more prominent in communication from the Nordic Council of Ministers in particular. This concept will be discussed in a subsequent section. First, analysis of applications to the two Nordic bodies distributing grants to culture and arts in the Nordic countries will be presented, with an emphasis on Swedish participation. The two bodies, the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point, are presented more in detail in Chapter 2 in this volume.

Table 7.5 summarises the distribution of applications to both the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point in 2022. There was a total of 1,453 applications to the Nordic Culture Fund, of which around half, 676 applications, had main applicants or partners from Sweden. Out of the total number of applications with Swedish participants, around half were in the role of main applicant (335) and half (341) were partners in projects led by an actor in another country. For Nordic Culture Point, the number of applications for all types of funding in 2022 amounted to 1,822, of which Swedish participants were engaged in 613. Swedish participants had the role of main applicant in 316 projects, and partner in 297, or roughly half of the total applications.

Table 7.5. Distribution of number of applications with Swedish partners in 2022.

In Table 7.6, total amounts granted and number of approved applications in 2022 within the Project Funding programme are listed and specified according to artform. The artform named Other contains both programmes (Globus and Puls) and projects defined as “art and cultural policy”, “curatorial projects”, and “place and time specific art”.

Table 7.6. Total amounts granted and number of approved applications within the Project Funding programme of the Nordic Culture Fund in 2022, specified by artform.

* EUR/DKK exchange rate based on annual average for 2022 based on European Central Bank.

The exchange rate EUR/DKK based on the annual average for 2022 of 7.44, based on European Central Bank. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-dkk.en.html

In Table 7.7, the distribution of granted amounts and number of projects receiving grants for the Nordic Culture Fund Opstart programme in 2022 are grouped according to artform in DKK and EUR (see note 77). The number of granted projects and the respective amounts are significantly lower than for the Project Funding programme.

Table 7.7. Total amounts granted and number of approved applications within the Opstart programme of Nordic Culture Fund in 2022, specified by artform, in DKK and EUR (see note 2).

* Currency exchange rate based on annual average for 2022 based on European Central Bank.

The exchange rate EUR/DKK based on annual average for 2022 of 7.44, based on European Central Bank, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-dkk.en.html

Table 7.8 summarises amounts and number of projects granted support from the Nordic Culture Point Culture and Art programme in 2022, divided by artform.

Table 7.8. Amounts and number of projects granted support from the Nordic Culture Point Culture and Art programme in 2022, divided by artform.

Tables 7.5–7.8 contain a specification of applications with Swedish actors as the main applicant and the role of partner in a project with a main applicant from another country. This separation was introduced in order to be able to more easily find potential differences between success patterns, artform bias and similar. Overall, the result of this analysis is that Swedish actors are more numerous than the number of main applicants. This is not surprising, as there are requirements for inclusion of partners from other Nordic countries in most of the programmes. Table 7.9 and 7.10 further display the number of projects that have stated co-funding from Nordic as well as national Swedish and other sources.

Table 7.9. Cross-funding in successful applications to Nordic Culture Point and share of specific types of additional funding in these projects.

Table 7.10. Cross-funding in successful applications to Nordic Culture Fund and share of specific types of additional funding in these projects.

From analysis of data in Tables 7.9 and 7.10, it can be concluded that there is strong interest in collaborative projects in the cultural field across the Nordic countries and outside them. Based on an analysis of Swedish funding sources compared to Nordic sources, co-funding is essential to Nordic projects, and it seems that the national location of the main applicant conditions in which Nordic country most national and partner funding originates. More projects applying for Nordic Culture Point grants are also applying for Nordic Culture Fund grants than the other way around. In the budgets of individual projects, foundations are stated more often for non-Swedish applicants than for Swedish main applicants. This reflects the fact that foundations contribute more to cultural projects in a Nordic as well as national context in Denmark, Finland and Norway than in Sweden. For Swedish applicants, the figures indicate a rather low level of Swedish co-funding for Nordic projects besides partner contributions.

Nordic funding of the arts and culture has been a central element of the Nordic cooperation since the establishment of the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers. In recent years, formal communication from the Nordic Council of Ministers has emphasised Nordic added value as a central principle for cooperative policy and activities (Liimatainen 2023).

Regarding Nordic added value, Strang (2013) notes that the emphasis on the Nordic has been criticised, but at the same time has largely defined the purpose of the collaboration as such. More recently, with increasing global tensions, the so-called Nordic model seems to have won in popularity among politicians in the Nordic countries as a brand for the characteristics of the approach to international relations of the five countries of the region. In this kind of diplomacy, culture and arts have and continue to play a central role. The capacity of the arts and culture to support a sense of cultural community in the Nordic region has been recognised, and this is probably a reason for the continued Nordic support in this field, without stipulating too much what kind of arts and culture should be eligible for public support (Strang 2013).

For applications to the Nordic Culture Fund, statements of this Nordic added value must be included, and assessments are partly based on these statements. In the Nordic Council of Ministers Strategy for Cultural Co-operation 2013–2020 (Nordiska ministerrådet 2017, p. 3), Nordic added value is defined as a principle:

The principle is mentioned also in the Co-operation Programme on Culture Policy 2021–2024 (Nordic Council of Ministers 2020, p. 4):

When it comes to applications for the funding of Nordic cultural and arts projects, Nordic added value needs to be specified, and there are specific goals and steering documents to keep in mind, but more so for applicants to Nordic Culture Point programmes compared to applicants for Nordic Culture Fund funding.

Applications for Nordic Culture Fund funding are assessed according to three criteria: artistic/cultural content and ambitions (emphasis on innovation and development), Nordic relevance and collaboration (including partner commitment), and a relevant and realistic project budget. Regarding the Nordic relevance, the Nordic Culture Fund’s website (2024) specifically points out that it assesses:

Applications for Nordic Culture Point funding are assessed (Nordic Culture Point not dated a) as to their collaborative dimension (focus on added value), artistic and contributive qualities, sustainability (social, economic and ecological), and Nordic dimension. Regarding the Nordic dimension, the Nordic Culture Point website for the Culture and Art Programme (Nordic Culture Point not dated) specifies that:

In comparison, applications to the art and culture programme of Nordic Culture Point are assessed in relation to the cultural-political co-operation programme of the Nordic Council of Ministers 2021–2024 and The Nordic Council of Ministers’ policy for mainstreaming sustainable development, gender equality, and a children’s rights and youth perspective. There is thus a substantial difference in the autonomy between Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point in relation to political decision-makers.

Both the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point have a mission to support independent art and culture in order to enable increasing contact among actors across the Nordic countries while promoting sustainability. A recent study (Kulturanalys Norden 2024) highlights the challenges these combined goals pose for the Nordic level bodies as well as for the arts and cultural actors applying for Nordic funding. Challenges to achieving collaboration relate to collaborative traditions that differ according to arts field, and sustainability may be a challenge for projects depending on the geographical locations of partner organisations and individuals. Furthermore, actors in self-governing areas and in more peripheral regions may have less access to national co-funding for Nordic projects, and projects including peripheral actors and regions create higher costs for transport and accommodation, et cetera. Also, when it comes to the coordination of Nordic cultural policy through the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point, it seems to face challenges similar to those affecting Nordic cooperation in general, namely that actors struggle to formulate their relevance “in a squeeze between” the national and European Union levels (NORDERA 2010).

Sweden’s entry into the European Union in 1995 had substantial impact on policymaking in Sweden, albeit to a limited degree in the domain of culture. Regions emerged as central actors with increasing responsibility for regional attractiveness and economic development (Lindqvist 2023). On the whole, the European Union has very limited competence in the field of culture; cultural policy is largely left to member states. An exception is the European Capital of Culture programme launched in 1985 and the expanding programme funding for mobility of artists and translation of cultural literature, film, et cetera within and outside Europe, which today carries the name Creative Europe.

Since 2000, the European Union has invested increasingly in the cultural and creative sectors and industries, and support schemes have developed and expanded. The core of support is on enabling the collaboration and mobility of cultural and creative professionals and goods within the European Union, and the European Union’s external export of cultural and creative goods. The main programme supporting the independent arts and cultural field is Creative Europe, but the field also benefits from other programmes such as the European Capital of Culture and programmes within the Social and Structural Funds of the European Union. The European Union does not have a cultural policy similar to that of member states, as it is primarily an organisation for a common market. Nevertheless, funding of the cultural and creative field has expanded drastically in the last two decades with the recognition of their importance for economic as well as social development and cohesion.

The aims of the Creative Europe programme are to “foster artistic creation and innovation, support the promotion and the distribution of European content across Europe and beyond, help artists find creation and performance opportunities across borders, and stimulate the digital and environmental transition of the European Culture and Creative Sectors” (European Commission not dated b). The Culture strand offers funding opportunities for European cooperation projects, platforms and networks, and the dissemination and mobility of artists/cultural professionals and literary works, as well as pan-European entities (European Commission not dated a). The MEDIA (mesures pour encourager le développement de l’industrie audiovisuelle) strand specifically targets media companies, whereas the Cross-sectoral strand of Creative Europe supports collaboration across cultural and creative sectors in order to find solutions to shared challenges. Prioritised activities are transnational policy cooperation, product and process innovation, and related support activities. The focus of support is to allow better access to markets and competitiveness due to technological and other types of innovation.

In Table 7.11, the number of granted projects from Creative Europe in the period 2021–2023 are listed for each of the three strands. The table clearly shows that the strand that gathers the largest number of granted projects is the MEDIA strand. The MEDIA strand is the most industry-oriented strand of Creative Europe. Given the specific categories of support within Creative Europe, European Union support seems to complement Swedish national support, although there are some national support types for the translation of literature, for example. As projects seeking European Union support in general need to be in larger constellations or networks than Swedish national funding of independent arts and culture, there is probably no substantial overlap between European Union and national Swedish funding to arts and culture.

Table 7.11. Number of Swedish participants and received grants from Creative Europe 2021–2023.

Cohesion Policy targets all European Union regions and cities in order to support job creation, business competitiveness, economic growth, sustainable development, and improve citizens’ quality of life. European Union Cohesion Policy is implemented through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (focus on social and economic development of regions and cities), the Cohesion Fund (CF) (focus on environment and transport in less prosperous European Union countries), the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) (focus on jobs and fair and socially inclusive society), and the Just Transition Fund (JTF) (focus on climate neutrality transition). Grants for regional development are also distributed through the European Union’s common agricultural policy, specifically the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), and under the common fisheries policy, specifically the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. The European Union generally supports regional projects with between 60 and 80 percent of total costs.

Table 7.12. Projects receiving grants from the European Union structural and investment funds with cultural elements in 2022: number, share and sums in EUR thousands.

* Sums calculated in the source (Myndigheten för kulturanalys 2023b, 7) from EUR to SEK using the exchange rate of € 1 = SEK 10 as regulated by law (SFS 2022:268).

** Exchange rate used is 10,63, the average for 2022 according to the European Central Bank, see note 76.

º The sum contains two different exchange rates, see * and **.

In 2022, a total of 226 Swedish projects with a cultural link received European Union structural fund grants for a total of SEK 106 million. Several of the projects that received funding in 2022 were focused on tourism development. Most of the projects receiving grants were within the rural programme and locally led development, with a majority of projects being about maintenance of buildings and other cultural environments. In reporting on successful Swedish applications for regional funds from the European Union, Myndigheten för Kulturanalys has defined culture as art, culture, design, gaming culture and cultural heritage (Myndigheten för kulturanalys 2023b). The distribution of the number of projects across programmes is found in Table 7.12.

In Table 7.13, the goals directing the grant-giving of the Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point, Swedish cultural policy bodies, and the European Union Creative Europe programme are specified in order to allow for comparison across levels. The table also contains a statement of the budgets available in 2022 at the respective levels, again in order to allow for comparison across levels. What Table 7.13 highlights are the differences between the various types of public funding to independent arts and culture, where the different types of goals between Swedish national cultural policy goals and strategies and the other types of goals is particularly significant. Where the Swedish national cultural policy goals depart from the recognition of culture as a value in itself in society as a basis for public policy schemes, the Nordic and European Union programmes and bodies reflect a more instrumental role in the support to cross-national cultural activities. This could be interpreted as a necessity in order to not create tensions between different national policy priorities and regulations. When it comes to budgets, the significant differences between the Nordic bodies, on one hand, and the Swedish national and European Union levels on the other are clear. Whereas the Nordic bodies Nordic Culture Fund and Nordic Culture Point distribute around €10 million annually together, the Swedish national budget for the cultural sector is around €500 million, even though a substantial share of this sum is allocated to cultural infrastructure. The European Union funding within the Creative Europe programme is also substantial, but considering the number of inhabitants in Europe, it is quite small compared to national public funding in Sweden. The amounts budgeted reflect the different roles that public support at the various levels play in relation to national public funding for culture. The Nordic and European Union level funding complements national public funding to arts and culture.

Table 7.13. Comparison of goals for grants to culture and the arts at the Swedish national level, and Nordic and European Union levels. Sources: European Commission (n.d. a; n.d. b); Nordic Culture Fund (n.d.); Nordic Culture Fund (2023, p. 41–50); Nordic Culture Point (2023, p. 16); Statens kulturråd (n.d. b).

* EUR/SEK exchange rate as annual average for 2022 by the European Central Bank, see note 76.

** Comment provided at the website: “The overall budget has been frontloaded, with a third of the creative Europe budget to be committed in the first 2 years of the programme, in order to address the difficult situation of the sector hardly hit by the COVID-19 crisis. In 2022, the creative Europe programme benefited from an overall increase close to €100 million compared to 2021, representing a budget increase of 33% compared to the previous year.” 

The questions guiding this chapter have been what monetary resources are available for independent arts and culture actors in Sweden from national, Nordic and EU sources, and what the criteria are for access to those resources. In addition, the chapter has highlighted how the concept of Nordic added value is operationalised in Nordic level public funding calls targeting the field of independent arts and culture. Some patterns are clearly discernible in the statistical data consulted and summarised in this chapter.

Firstly, the national and subnational level of public funding to independent arts and culture is the most substantial and diverse in form compared to the Nordic and EU levels of funding. Besides direct public funding in the form of grants and scholarships, which are the focus of this chapter, cultural policy budgets allow for professionals in the independent arts and cultural field to have a complementary income from employment as teachers in leisure-time municipal culture schools and similar or to be involved as self-employed in institutional cultural activities such as exhibitions, performing arts productions, and similar. National public funding of culture in Sweden comes in many shapes and allow for independent professionals in this field to benefit from it in both direct and indirect forms. Such diversity is not available at the Nordic and EU levels for the independent arts and cultural field.

Secondly, EU level support is more oriented towards enabling distribution and the exchange of cultural experiences, actors and goods within the field of culture in the case of the Creative Europe programme, and towards regional development and cohesion using cultural elements in the case of the European structural and investment funds. In Sweden, there are corresponding opportunities to access regional development funds for actors in the independent field of arts and culture through national support for regional development. Whereas national funding of arts and culture goes to culture and arts in Sweden (somewhat generalised), Nordic support goes to arts and culture that takes place in the Nordic region, whereas EU support is accessible for actors within the European Union. Swedish cultural policy has a national scope. Nordic funding focuses on projects targeting either Nordic cultural producers or consumers. EU funding targets a range of purposes of cultural activities, some of which are economic or social in purpose. As regards EU level public funding, cultural organisations can either apply for funds from some of the Creative Europe programmes for mobility or exchange, or for the export of cultural goods or professionals. Funds can also be sought for industry-oriented support from the Creative Europe programme for activities that aim to develop the markets of European creative productions or related activities. Furthermore, funds can be sought in larger consortia for regional development through various social funds within the EU. Social funds grants can be sought for rural and regional development, and funds for cultural and creative activities can also be sought from the Smart Specialisation Strategy programme.

Thirdly, for funds at the national level in Sweden, there are no demands for a specifically Swedish approach in terms of artistic or cultural content or demands on collaboration. At the Nordic level, some programmes have collaboration as a criterion for eligibility. At the EU level, there is generally a demand on collaboration across richer and poorer areas of Europe for grants, but the available amounts of support are significantly higher than at the Nordic and national level. National and Nordic funds, on the other hand, allow for collaborations and applications for funding in a much less bureaucratic manner than EU funding does, and also probably offers less fierce competition.

Fourthly, when it comes to the Nordic added value principle in steering documents for Nordic funding of promotion of collaboration across the Nordic region, it seems that this principle is a result of the pressure to elaborate accountability structures and criteria rather than a wish to promote any specific idea of the Nordic. Reports and evaluations of Nordic cultural support seem to indicate that the formulation of a goal of Nordic political cooperation to promote Nordic interaction beside and beyond regional, national and international interaction has resulted in a system-level need for criteria by which to measure this Nordic added value in ways that go beyond the original needs of governance. When applying, cultural actors need to articulate the Nordic added value of their proposed activity. A similar pattern is traceable at the European Union level, where arguments for increasing funding of development of individual actors, organisations and businesses as regards their cultural and artistic production have resulted in policy documents seeking to balance formulations about a European identity and its simultaneous diversity without stepping out of line politically (Littoz-Monnet 2016). As regards governance aspects of Nordic level funding, it is noteworthy that the Nordic Culture Fund, which is a foundation that is more independent in its decision-making than Nordic Culture Point, is a formal Nordic administrative body. This difference in governance is a clear reflection of the legal status of the respective organisations, where foundations have a strong autonomy in relation to external stakeholders, whereas administrative bodies constitute part of the public sector. It should be noted, however, that the autonomy of foundations is intimately linked to the existence of an endowment, since it is generally this that guarantees the effective autonomy of a foundation.

Etzold, Tobias. (2013). The case of the Nordic Councils. Mapping multilateralism in transition no. 1. New York: International Peace Institute.

Etzold, Tobias. (2020). The Nordic Council of Ministers: Aspirations for more political relevance. Politics and Governance, 8(4), 11–20.

European Commission. (Not dated a). Creative Europe Culture strand, webpage. Brussels: European Commission.  https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/creative-europe-culture-strand (2024-10-29)

European Commission. (Not dated b). Creative Europe Programme – Performance, webpage. Brussels: European Commission.  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/creative-europe-programme-performance_en#budget (2024-10-29)

Konstnärsnämnden. (Not dated). Om Konstnärsnämnden, webpage. Stockholm: The Swedish Arts Grants Committee. https://www.konstnarsnamnden.se/om-konstnarsnamnden/ (2024-10-28)

Konstnärsnämnden. (2022). Årsredovisning 2022. Annual report, dnr KN2022/9153. Stockholm: The Swedish Arts Grants Committee. https://www.konstnarsnamnden.se/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ar-2022--konstnarsnamnden-ny.pdf (2024-10-28)

Kulturanalys Norden. (2024). Kultursamarbeten och nordisk bidragsgivning. Nordisk kulturfakta 2024:02. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. https://pub.norden.org/nordiskkulturfakta2024-02/ (2024-10-07).

Kulturdepartementet. (2024). Ny strategi för företag i kulturella och kreativa branscher, pressmeddelande, daterat 9 april. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet. https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/04/ny-strategi-for-foretag-i-kulturella-och-kreativa-branscher/

Liimatainen, Tuire. (2023). Nordic added value in Nordic research co-operation. Concept and practice. Oslo: NordForsk.

Lindqvist, Katja. (2022). Public funding for culture in Sweden. In Sakarias Sokka (Ed.), Cultural policy in the Nordic welfare states: Aims and functions of public funding for culture. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. https://www.norden.org/en/publication/cultural-policy-nordic-welfare-states-aims-and-functions-public-funding-culture

Lindqvist, Katja. (2023). Utvecklingsarbete kring kulturella och kreativa näringar. Drivkrafter, processer och samspel. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.

Lindqvist, Katja. (2024). Cultural and Creative Industries Policymaking: Sweden in the European Context. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lindqvist, Katja. (2025 (in press)). Government as guarantor of artistic freedom? Public governance of the arts in Sweden. In Ruth Rentschler, Wendy Reid and Chiara Carolina Donelli (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Governance in the Arts World, Chapter 21. Oxon: Routledge.

Littoz-Monnet, Annabelle. (2015). Encapsulating EU cultural policy into the EU’s growth and competitiveness Agenda: Explaining the success of a paradigmatic shift in Brussels. In Psychogiopoulou, Evangelia (eds.), Cultural governance and the European Union: Protecting and promoting cultural diversity in Europe, 25-36. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Myndigheten för kulturanalys. (2023a). Kulturområdets finansiering. En kartläggning med fokus på icke-offentliga aktörer. Gothenburg: Myndigheten för kulturanalys. https://kulturanalys.se/publikation/kulturomradets-finansiering/ (2024-10-07).

Myndigheten för kulturanalys, (2023b). Projekt med kulturanknytning i EU:s struktur- och investeringsfonder 2022. Gothenburg: Myndigheten för kulturanalys. https://kulturanalys.se/publikation/denna-rapport-redovisar-kulturprojekt-inom-eus-struktur-och-investeringsfonder-2022/ (2024-10-08).

Myndigheten för kulturanalys. (2024a). Hur ser inkomsterna ut för konstnärligt yrkesverksamma? En pilotstudie om inkomster utifrån yrkes- och näringskoder. Gothenburg: Myndigheten för kulturanalys. Available at https://kulturanalys.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Hur-ser-inkomsten-ut-for-konstnarligt-yrkesverksamma.pdf (2024-10-07).

Myndigheten för kulturanalys. (2024b). Kulturanalys 2024. En lägesbedömning I relation till de kulturpolitiska målen. Report 2024:1. Gothenburg: Myndigheten för kulturanalys.

Möller, Marianne. (2021). Konst, kultur och kullerstenar. Kort historik över nordiskt samarbete och kulturinstitutionerna på Sveaborg sedan 1978. Helsingfors: Nordisk kulturkontakt.

Nordic Culture Fund. (Not dated). The voice of the Nordic region on a global stage, webpage. Copenhagen: The Nordic Culture Fund. https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en/the-voice-of-the-nordic-region-on-a-global-stage (2024-10-29)

Nordic Culture Fund. (2023). Nordisk Kulturfond Årsberetning 2022. Annual report. Copenhagen: Nordic Culture Fund.  https://d2typry64h97y6.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/09104422/Nordisk-Kulturfonds-arsberetning-2022.pdf (2024-10-29)

Nordic Culture Fund. (2024). Nordic Culture Fund Annual Report 2023. Copenhagen: Nordic Culture Fund. https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en/news/nordic-culture-funds-annual-report-for-2023 (2024-10-09).

Nordic Culture Fund. (2024). Project Funding for collaborations across the Nordic region, webpage. Copenhagen: Nordic Culture Fund. https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en/funding-programmes/project-funding-for-collaborations-across-the-nordic-region (2024-09-08).

Nordic Culture Fund. (Not dated). The voice of the Nordic region on a global stage, webpage, https://nordiskkulturfond.org/en/the-voice-of-the-nordic-region-on-a-global-stage (2024-08-13).

Nordic Council of Ministers. (2023). The Nordic Region – a sustainable and integrated region? Our vision 2030 – Status Report 2023. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Nordic Culture Point. (Not dated a). Culture and Art Programme, webpage. Helsinki: Nordic Culture Point. https://www.nkk.org/en/culture-and-art-programme/ (2024-09-08).

Nordic Culture Point. (Not dated b). Nordic Culture Point, webpage. Helsinki: Nordic Culture Point. https://www.nkk.org/en/nordic-culture-point/ (2024-10-29)

Nordic Culture point. (2023). Årsrapport 2022 Nordisk kulturkontakt. Annual report. Helsinki: Nordic Culture Point. https://www.nkk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NKK_arsrapport_2022.pdf (2024-10-29)

NORDERA. (2010). Nordic R&I cooperation: Achievements and challenges. Oslo: NORDERA. urn:nbn:se:norden:org:diva-2996

Nordiska ministerrådet. (2017). Välkommen till Nordiska rådet – arbete och arbetsformer. Copenhagen: Nordiska rådet. http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/ANP2017-713

SCB. (Not dated). Arbetsmarknad, webpage. Örebro: SCB. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/arbetsmarknad/ (2024-11-04)

SFS 1999:710. Förordning (1999:710) om valutakurs vid stöd från EU-budgeten. Stockholm: Finansdepartementet. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-1999710-om-valutakurs-vid-stod-fran_sfs-1999-710/

SFS 2022:268. Förordning om ändring i förordningen (1999:710) om valutakurs vid stöd från EU:s struktur- och investeringsfonder. Stockholm: Finansdepartementet. https://svenskforfattningssamling.se/doc/2022268.html

Statens kulturråd. (Not dated a). Hitta rätt bidrag, webpage. Stockholm: Swedish Arts Council. https://www.kulturradet.se/sok-bidrag/ (2024-10-28)

Statens kulturråd. (Not dated b). Swedish cultural policy, webpage. Stockholm: Swedish Arts Council.  https://www.kulturradet.se/en/about-us/swedish-cultural-policy/ (2024-10-28)

Statens kulturråd. (2022). Svensk medverkan i EU-programmet Kreativa Europa 2021. Stockholm: Statens kulturråd. https://www.kulturradet.se/publikationer/svensk-medverkan-i-eu-programmet-kreativa-europa-2021/

Statens kulturråd. (2023). Svensk medverkan i EU-programmet Kreativa Europa 2022. Stockholm: Statens kulturråd. https://www.kulturradet.se/publikationer/svensk-medverkan-i-eu-programmet-kreativa-europa-2022/

Statens kulturråd. (2024a). Svensk medverkan i EU-programmet Kreativa Europa 2023. Stockholm: Statens kulturråd. https://www.kulturradet.se/publikationer/svensk-medverkan-i-eu-programmet-kreativa-europa-2023/

Statens kulturråd. (2024b). Årsredovisning 2023. Annual report. Stockholm: Statens kulturråd. https://www.kulturradet.se/publikationer/kulturradets-arsredovisning-2023/

Statens offentliga utredningar 1937:4. Statslotteriutredningen. Betänkande med förslag rörande svenskt penninglotteri. Statens offentliga utredningar 1937: 4. Stockholm: Handelsdepartementet. https://weburn.kb.se/metadata/748/SOU_1378748.htm (2024-10-29)

Statens offentliga utredningar 1992:33. Kasinospelsverksamhet i folkrörelsernas tjänst? Delrapport av lotteriutredningen. Statens offentliga utredningar 1992:33. Stockholm: Civildepartementet. https://weburn.kb.se/metadata/803/SOU_7264803.htm (2024-10-29)

Statens offentliga utredningar 1992:130. Vinna eller försvinna? Folkrörelsernas lotterier och spel i framtiden. Slutbetänkande av Lotteriutredningen. Statens offentliga utredningar 1992:130. Stockholm: Civildepartementet. https://weburn.kb.se/metadata/997/SOU_7264997.htm (2024-10-29)

Strang, Johan. (2013). Nordic Communities: a vision for the future. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. DOI: 10.6027/Nord2013-002

Svenska Filminstitutet. (2024a). Swedish Film Institute – we promote film, webpage. Stockholm: The Swedish Film Institute. https://www.filminstitutet.se/en/about-us/swedish-film-institute/mission-and-organisation/ (2024-10-28)

Svenska Filminstitutet. (2024b). Årsredovisning för Stiftelsen Svenska Filminstitutet. Räkenskapsåret 2023. Annual report. Stockholm: The Swedish Film Institute. https://www.filminstitutet.se/globalassets/_dokument/arsrapporter/arsredovisning-2023.pdf (2024-10-29)

Sveriges författarfond. (2024). Verksamhetsberättelse för år 2023. Annual report, dnr 150-00166-24. Stockholm Sveriges författarfond (the Swedish Authors’ Fund). https://www.svff.se/pdf/Verks23boksl.pdf (2024-10-28)

Throsby, David. (2010). The Economics of Cultural Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.