Possible consequences of increased private funding

This chapter examines the potential consequences of an increased focus on private cultural funding, both for the cultural sector as a whole and for individual cultural activities. Six main themes have been identified in the literature: 1) opportunities for greater artistic autonomy and room for manoeuvre, 2) risks for decreased autonomy, 3) risks and opportunities linked to projectification and short-termism, 4) a long-term transformation of cultural professions, 5) impact on cultural diversity and accessibility and 6) implications for public cultural policy. In many cases, these themes overlap each other. The discussion primarily draws on research and studies from a Nordic context, but references are made to research and studies conducted in a broader international context.

Opportunities for increased room of manoeuvre

Several Nordic studies highlight the perspective that greater diversity among funders, including more private ones, is fundamentally positive for the autonomy of the cultural sector and individual cultural activities. This is also something put forward by artists and those responsible for cultural activities (see, e.g., Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2021; Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2024a; Ruckstuhl & Schill, 2018). Firstly, it is considered that this could lead to reduced dependence on individual funders. Secondly, it is considered to contribute to increased room for manoeuvre for cultural activities, as different types of funders have different interests and motives and thus provide different types of support. This is highlighted, for example, in studies from Denmark and Finland, where foundation funding is more extensive and has enabled the funding of larger construction or renovation projects, as well as artistic development projects and experiments (Jokivuolle, 2019; Oesch, 2002; Larsen & Norskov, 2013). In Sweden, too, there are examples of projects which only have been realised through private foundation support and crowdfunding (Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2024a). This aspect is also highlighted in broader international research (see, e.g., Jung, 2015; Sherer et al., 2019).

Negative impact on the autonomy and integrity

At the same time, several Nordic studies highlight the risk of various forms of influence on artistic content in relation to the increased focus on private funding. However, the literature provides few concrete examples of private funders directly trying to influence artistic content. Rather, the research highlights how cultural activities may adapt to the interests, motives and driving forces of private actors to receive support. The motives of private actors may be financial, a desire to contribute to social benefit, a desire to influence cultural life, or the funder's particular personal interest in a certain type of art and culture (see, e.g., Gran & Hofplass, 2007; Ikävalko, 2004; Luukkanen-Hirvikoski, 2021; Pedersen & Winther, 2024). Adaptation can therefore involve both the type of activity and the type of artistic content that attracts different financiers (Larsen & Nørskov, 2013; Lidström, 2004; Mahncke, 2016; Oesch, 2002). In some cases, private funders have also been given influence over the design of individual projects, which is described in relation to Danish foundations' funding in the cultural field (Mahncke, 2016; Marker & Rasmussen, 2019, p. 71f). This influence is not always viewed negatively by cultural organisations; in some instances, it is welcomed as a form of engagement that strengthens the projects (Marker & Rasmussen, 2019, p. 71f).

Another example highlighted in studies from Denmark, Finland, and Norway is the influence of individual patrons, particularly in relation to loans and donations of works of art. Due to limited purchasing budgets, museums in the Nordic countries often depend on these loans and donations to display certain works of art. However, donations sometimes come with expectations of specific exhibitions. This means that in some cases, the tastes of private individuals rather than professional judgement influence what is exhibited in public institutions (see, e.g., Bache, 2021; p. 296; Christensen, 2011; Larsen, 2023; Pettersson, 1998; Uppstrøm Berg, 2024; Veiteberg, 2019).

Something that has been highlighted by cultural organisations in Sweden, but also in studies outside the Nordic region, is that private funders often expect explicit social benefits from the cultural activities they support. This can lead to cultural actors adapting their artistic activities so that they are focused on and tailored to specific target groups and their needs (Arts Council England, 2022; Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2024a). Myndigheten för kulturanalys (2024a) report also found that cultural sponsorship was often linked to specific projects related to young people's mental or physical health, or various aspects of social work.

Another issue raised in the literature is cases where private funding has led to protests from the profession or the general public. One example from Norway is the establishment of a sculpture park in Oslo based on an individual donor's art collection, which provoked strong reactions from both the general public and artists (Larsen, 2023; Larsen et al., 2021). Other aspects include when collaborations with private actors are perceived to have negatively affected the integrity of cultural activities. Hodén (2020), for example, writes about the Moderna Museet in Stockholm and its sponsorship collaborations in the 1990s and 2000s, where even members of the museum's board reacted strongly to the prominent placement and visibility given to sponsoring companies and their products in the museum's premises. There are several examples from the international arena where cultural activities' collaborations and sponsorship agreements with actors in, for example, the fossil fuel industry and the pharmaceutical industry have led to widespread protests and criticism of cultural activities, especially in cases where corporate irregularities have been revealed (see, e.g., Illingworth, 2022; Marchall, 2019; Prokůpek & Divíšková, 2023; see also Hodén, 2025).

Increased projectification and short-termism

Studies from the Nordic countries, as well as international research, highlight that much of private funding is directed towards individual projects, specific initiatives or areas of activity, while it is more difficult to secure private funding for the operating costs and core activities of organisations (see, e.g., Hirvi-Ijäs, 2014; Mahncke, 2016; Marker & Rasmussen, 2019). On the one hand, as described above, this can create increased opportunities for specific initiatives and projects that would otherwise not have materialised. On the other hand, cultural activities that must increasingly rely on private funders may need to projectify their activities, which may have a negative impact on their core activities and may hinder long-term artistic development work (Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2021, p. 85; Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2024). This development is also linked to the risk of knowledge and continuity being lost within the organisation. One aspect of the above is that the short-term nature and cyclical sensitivity of funding tends to increase with a greater focus on private cultural funding. This is particularly highlighted in relation to sponsorship and donations from business actors, but also in relation to foundation funding (Lindqvist, 2008; Mahncke, 2016; Oesch, 2002; Olkkonen, 2002).

Transformation of the creative professions

The research also discusses a more fundamental transformation of artistic professions in relation to the trend towards increased private funding. In a study of policy research reports produced by various Norwegian public authorities, Røyseng (2019) examines how expectations of artists have changed over time. According to Røyseng, as art and culture have increasingly come to be seen as a future growth area where private funding is set to increase, new expectations have been created for artists. Above all, policy makers highlight the outdated attitudes and lack of business skills among artists. Government reports criticise artists, for example, for not perceiving themselves sufficiently as entrepreneurs. Røyseng (2019) points to this as part of a shift away from a previous view that artists with public support should be able to independently and exclusively focus on their artistic ambitions. According to Røyseng, what is demanded today is instead a change in attitude among artists towards a more commercial approach.

In this way, artists are expected to act more strategically and market-oriented. Not only should they acquire business competence, they are also asked to develop their desire to make profit and to integrate it into their role in society. The message of the reports is that artists should drastically change their mentality and act more in line with the model of homo economicus. In other words, no small change compared to the role and values that have traditionally guided the work of artists. (Røyseng, 2019, p. 166.)

Similarly, Gran and Hofplass (2007, p. 220) describe this as a transformation of the role of the artist away from a romantic ideal, in which artists can take on a free and questioning role, to a role where they are expected to, to a greater extent, act in harmony with various societal interests. This transformation is most concrete in relation to corporate sponsorship, where the audience also becomes, to some degree, the service or commodity offered to the sponsoring company (see also Larsen & Nørskov, 2013).

The transformation also involves a shift in resources and time devoted to artistic activities towards the various aspects of funding, where knowledge and expertise in fundraising and entrepreneurship are becoming increasingly important within the cultural sector. In relation to this, the focus on audience numbers is often criticised, as it is perceived to shift cultural activities away from their core mission to various forms of audience-attracting side activities. Overall, it is argued that this leads to a shift from bildung and the art to entertainment and experiences (see, e.g., Marker & Rasmussen, 2019, p. 91f; Roschwalb, 1990; Werner, 2018).

However, the development described above is not discussed solely in problematic terms. Kann-Rasmussen and Hvenegaard Rasmussen (2019, 2021) write that the changed expectations for cultural institutions have meant restrictions but have also brought opportunities. For example, they argue that artistic and cultural professions have, in a sense, been able to take an even freer approach to their core mission. New requirements for self-financing and increased audience numbers have, in a sense, contributed to innovative thinking, the initiation of creative processes and more strategic planning.

Cultural diversity and accessibility

Research and studies discuss the consequences that an increased focus on private funding may have on cultural diversity and accessibility of cultural services. For example, it is pointed out that a greater proportion of private funding may contribute to increased diversity in art and culture, as private and public funders tend to support different types of projects and activities (Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2024a). In an international context, Toepler (2013) writes that a greater element of private cultural funding can also reduce the risk of cultural life becoming primarily an expression of the majority's view.

Something that has been highlighted in several Nordic studies, but also in studies outside of the Nordic region, is that the request for increased self-financing, via audience revenue and support from private actors, can contribute to activities becoming more outward-looking. For example, work on marketing, fundraising and audience development contributes to expanding networks and anchoring activities among new audience groups and actors who can also act as ambassadors for the activities (see, e.g., Gran & Hofplass, 2007; Ikävalko, 2004, p. 159; Jelinčić, & Šveb, 2021; Lazzaro & Noonan, 2021; Olkkonen, 2002; Rykkja et al., 2020). At the same time, the risk is also raised that cutbacks and demands for increased earned income could lead to higher ticket prices and a more uniform and commercially viable offering, which could have negative consequences for both diversity and everyone's ability to participate in cultural life. This is raised, for example, in relation to the development of performing arts activities in Norway in connection to the savings in the state administration that were implemented in 2015–2022 (Svalund, 2021; see also Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2024a).

Research and studies also address the question of which cultural areas and cultural actors are in a position to attract private funding and increase their own revenues. Studies indicate that large organisations are better positioned than smaller ones, that certain cultural areas and art forms have an advantage over others, and that there is a risk of geographical imbalance resulting from an excessive focus on private funding.

When it comes to the size of organisations, larger organisations generally find it easier to allocate time, resources and staff to work on increasing private funding (see, e.g., Kolbe, 2022; Marker and Rasmussen, 2019, p. 102ff; Mèndez-Carbajo & Stanziola, 2008; Stanziola, 2007). It is also the lack of time, human resources, knowledge and networks that is often described as the most significant obstacle for many organisations in broadening their funding base (see, e.g., Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2024a, p. 147ff; Oesch, 2002; Svensk Scenkonst & Sveriges Museer, 2025; Wennström et al., 2023, 2025). There is also a risk that inequalities will be reinforced based on art form, artistic expression and geographical location. Studies indicate that prestigious organisations in larger cities, such as opera houses and major art museums, are best positioned to attract private funding, whereas smaller, more niched, and more controversial forms of expression face greater challenges in attracting private funding (Gran & Hofplass, 2007; Rubio-Aropstegui & Villarroya, 2022; Schuster, 1985; Sherer et al., 2019).

At the same time, the picture is not clear-cut. For example, a report by Myndigheten för kulturanalys (2024a) shows that small and medium-sized organisations outside the major cities can be relatively successful in attracting sponsorship and foundation funding. This funding is often based on the local roots of both the funder and the cultural activity, and on the willingness and long-term strategy of, for example, the company to support local cultural development (see also Lidström, 2004).

Consequences for cultural policy

Another topic discussed is the more specific cultural policy implications of an increased focus on private cultural funding. This concerns, for example, how private funding affects public priorities. When, for example, funds and foundations finance major construction and renovation projects, or donate buildings or large collections (which are common forms of private funding), operating costs are generated that tend to burden public cultural budgets at the national, regional and municipal levels (Bache, 2021, p. 296). Private actors also sometimes make their donations and investments conditional on long-term financial responsibility and commitment from the public sector, such as a municipality. At the same time, studies indicate that it takes a lot for a public activity not to accept private funds or donations, even if this means that public resources are tied up (Mahncke, 2016, p. 383ff). At the same time, Mahncke (2016, p. 393) argues that private investments in public cultural institutions, such as renovations or expansions, often lead to an upswing that generates increased revenues. It is therefore not obvious that this type of private investment necessarily leads to increased public operating costs.

Another aspect highlighted in research and studies is that the increased focus on private cultural funding leads to a shift in cultural policy power, with private actors gaining greater influence over what art and culture takes place in the public sphere (Bache, 2021; Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2024a, p. 184ff). This can be positive as it gives several actors influence and reduces the risk of political control over cultural activities. At the same time, it is pointed out that it is primarily resource-strong private actors who are offered influence. Bache (2021, p. 296) points to the discussion in Denmark that the growing influence of foundations is leading to an undemocratic, non-transparent and aristocratic cultural policy, where principles of professional expert assessments and arm's length are being disregarded (see also Marker & Rasmussen, 2019, 73).

Summary

In summary, studies on Nordic conditions discuss a number of both real and potential consequences of increased private cultural funding and an increased cultural policy focus on such funding. The consequences include both positive and negative aspects. In many respects, they are also linked to core cultural policy values in the Nordic countries, such as issues of artistic autonomy, cultural accessibility and diversity, and everyone's opportunity to participate in cultural life. In most cases, there are both potentially positive and negative consequences. However, the consequences will largely depend on the extent to which the balance between public and private funding changes, how public funding develops and how the overall funding of the cultural sector is affected. Several of the specific risks discussed in relation to private funding, such as the risk of control and adaptation of artistic content, increased projectification and transformation of the cultural creation profession, are aspects that have also been problematised in relation to public cultural policy and funding (see, e.g., Kulturanalys Norden, 2022a; Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2021b).