Conclusion and discussion

This literature review has described the Nordic countries' approach to private cultural funding, the prevalence of such funding, and the consequences associated with an increased focus on private cultural funding in the Nordic countries. Based on this review, Kulturanalys Norden draws three overall conclusions:

The funding structures for culture in the Nordic countries show overall similarities but also several differences. One significant difference is that private foundation funding for culture is particularly high in Denmark and particularly low in Sweden. The difference is considered to have mainly historical origins, but it contributes to Danish museums currently having a larger share of private funding compared with the other Nordic countries. Sponsorship is generally of little significance for museums and performing arts activities in the Nordic region. There are large differences between separate museums and performing arts organisations in terms of the proportion of private funding. Throughout the Nordic region, households’ cultural expenditures accounts for a significant proportion of private cultural funding.
Over the past few decades, cultural policy in the Nordic countries has gradually shifted towards a clearer emphasis on the need for private cultural funding, and the countries have, to varying degrees, implemented measures to achieve increased funding of this kind. In terms of cultural policy, this change has been partly motivated by the same core cultural policy values that have formed the basis for public funding, but also by references to limited public resources.
The increased emphasis on private cultural funding entails several important cultural policy considerations in the Nordic countries. These considerations are linked to the countries' core cultural policy values, such as the autonomy of culture, the diversity of cultural life, and the opportunity for everyone to participate in cultural life, but also to questions about how the dynamics between public and private cultural funding work.

A cultural policy model under renegotiation?

Kulturanalys Norden's assessment is that there has been a change in the perception of private funding in the cultural policy of the Nordic countries. This change has occurred gradually over several decades and has, to some extent, developed in parallel with, and in harmony with, an increased emphasis on the importance of art and culture for economic development — for example, through a growing focus on the experience economy and the cultural and creative industries.

The report shows that there are differences between countries in how the process of change has unfolded. Some countries, such as Denmark and Norway, have been quicker to establish concrete incentives to increase private funding, while Sweden has more recently appointed several committees to propose specific measures. When it comes to emphasizing the development of cultural and creative industries as a way of framing efforts to increase private funding, Finland's latest cultural policy report is perhaps the clearest example.

However, the development is not clear-cut, and in concrete policy, different perspectives continue to compete depending on which parties are in power. One example is that in 2022, the Norwegian government discontinued the match-funding system known as Gaveforsterkningsordningen. This decision was justified by the argument that the measure primarily benefited cultural actors with the capacity to attract private funds and that the matching system had created a geographical imbalance in the distribution of public funds. Furthermore, all countries continue to emphasise the importance of public funding for various parts of the cultural sector.

Whether this development represents a major shift in the cultural policy of the Nordic countries is thus hard to tell. Much depends on the extent to which the countries will shift the balance between public and private cultural funding. However, the development to some extent challenges the perspective that part of the arts and cultural sector should be protected from a need to commercialise cultural activities or become dependent on private actors. At the same time, politicians continue to emphasise the traditional core values of Nordic cultural policy, arguing that increased private funding can help strengthen aspects such as cultural autonomy, cultural diversity, and cultural accessibility.

Important cultural policy considerations

The consequences of an increased focus on private cultural funding depend largely on the extent of the changes made to the funding structure and how the overall funding of the cultural sector is affected. However, Kulturanalys Norden considers two different types of cultural policy considerations to be particularly relevant for the Nordic countries. These considerations concern: 1) the core values of cultural policy in the Nordic countries and 2) aspects of the dynamics between public and private funding.

Considerations in relation to autonomy, diversity and participation

More funders of culture, both public and private, can in many ways have a positive effect on the autonomy and development of culture. A more heterogeneous funding structure can create greater room for manoeuvre for cultural activities and provide space for a wider range of cultural expressions. It can also enable projects and initiatives that are difficult to finance through public funding.

At the same time, research highlights risks associated with the fact that certain art forms and activities find it easier to attract private funding and increase their earned income. In general, larger organisations in major cities are often considered to have an advantage, as they possess the resources to engage with private funding and, in many cases, enjoy a status that attracts private capital to a greater extent. Research studies also highlight that working towards increased earned income can lead to increased ticket prices, which in turn can affect the accessibility to cultural activities.

Private funding is also more project-based and often more short-term, which can create challenges for core activities and the long-term development of cultural organisations. An important aspect for cultural policy to consider is therefore that private and public funding are often based on different principles and logics. Public funding is guided by politically defined objectives, which is generally not the case for private funding. Private funding is therefore not necessarily embedded within systems designed to meet such objectives. Examples include systems for expert assessment and arm’s-length distance, which aim to safeguard artistic and professional autonomy. The same applies to requirements for publicly-funded cultural institutions to ensure geographical distribution and broadened participation.

The fact that the principles and logic differ means that cultural organisations face partly new demands in terms of resources and expertise when they need to finance their activities to a greater extent through private funds. This applies both to obtaining financial support from private actors and increasing earned income through larger audiences, sales, or ancillary revenue. Both require expertise in relationship building, networking, marketing, and entrepreneurship. This, together with the increased cultural policy focus on the economic benefits and significance of art and culture, forms the background to the discussion in research regarding a gradual transformation of artistic and cultural professionals. This development is considered to include a shift from aesthetics to entrepreneurship, which is also believed to influence how cultural organisations engage with their artistic and cultural content. Important cultural policy issues in this context include how this affects the fundamental mission of cultural institutions, as well as the ability of cultural activities to assume a relatively free and independent role in relation to societal development.

The dynamics between public and private funding

The issue of the dynamics between public and private cultural funding involves several different aspects and considerations. Firstly, the question of when and how public funding can inhibit or promote private funding is highly complex. For example, public cutbacks and requirements can, on the one hand, create pressure for change that leads to increased private funding, but on the other hand, excessive pressure can make it difficult for organisations to survive. In addition, cultural organisations may require public support both to equip themselves to pursue increased private funding and to gain legitimacy in relation to private funders. Secondly, cultural policy needs to consider the relationship between publicly-funded cultural infrastructure and the development of commercial cultural life. This includes, for instance, considerations regarding the importance of publicly-funded cultural infrastructure for the growth of commercial cultural activities.

Thirdly, cultural policy needs to consider how the demands and expectations for increased private funding of publicly-funded cultural institutions can affect cultural activities that do not receive any public funds, for example because they are considered outside the scope of cultural policy. There is criticism in the literature that publicly-funded performing arts institutions, under pressure to increase their earned income, have begun to offer a more commercially viable repertoire, albeit at prices that commercial providers cannot match. The fact that publicly-funded cultural activities are increasing their private funding is therefore not necessarily indicative of an increase in private cultural funding in the cultural sector as a whole.

Areas for further study

The report highlights the need for further knowledge in the area of private cultural funding. Firstly, further mapping is needed with regard to statistics on private cultural funding. One example of this is statistics on household expenditure, where better understanding is required of the significance of this funding for cultural activities closely related to cultural policy in the Nordic countries. Secondly, there is a need for increased knowledge and a deeper understanding of the dynamics between public and private funding, as well as between publicly-funded cultural infrastructure and commercial cultural life.