Private and public funding – a brief history of cultural policy

This chapter describes how the Nordic countries' cultural policy approach to private and public funding has developed historically. The chapter begins with the establishment of the first modern cultural institutions and then provides an overview of developments up to the beginning of the 21st century.

The early history of cultural policy

The early history of cultural policy and the establishment of the first modern cultural institutions vary across the Nordic countries, largely because the process of modern state formation occurred at different times in the region. In Denmark and Sweden, the first institutions were founded in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, whereas in Norway and Finland, comparable institutions were not established until the 19th century.

In Denmark and Sweden, the royal families and the nobility acted as early patrons and initiators of national cultural institutions. On the initiative of the Danish and Swedish royalties, opera houses, theatres and libraries were established, while the church was an important funder of visual arts activities (Bache, 2021, p. 15; Bakke, 1988; Frenander, 2014; Kleberg & Forsell, 2019; see also Dahl & Helseth, 2006, p. 27ff). The involvement of the royal houses in Denmark and Sweden can be seen as an early form of public funding, but also as a form of individual patronage, which also included support for individual artists (see, e.g., Rasch, 1968). During the 19th century, the patronage broadened as an increasingly influential bourgeoisie emerged, engaging themselves as collectors, philanthropists and initiators of cultural institutions. At around the same time, control over the royal cultural institutions also began to gradually shift to the political assemblies (see Bakke, 1988; Lunde Jorgensen, 2016; Frenander, 2014).

In Norway, the church in particular, but also the military, the educational system and the judiciary, played important early cultural policy roles. For example, the church was an important early client and employer of visual artists and musicians. The military bands that emerged in the late 18th century also provided employment and training opportunities for musicians in Norway (see Mangset & Hylland, 2017). The establishment of modern cultural institutions took place mainly from the beginning of the 19th century. These were often started as private initiatives, but in many cases, they rather soon received public support, mainly from the municipalities. This was often due to the difficulties in making the activities financially viable.

Dahl and Helseth (2006, p. 80ff) describe cultural funding in Norway as being based on three sources during the second half of the 19^th century: the municipalities, the savings banks and spirits associations. The savings bank system developed from the 1820s at the municipal level and often existed under the influence of local political assemblies. Savings banks donated funds to, among other things, the development of local museums, libraries, exhibition activities, performing arts activities and the establishment of public art. This funding was important for several of the cultural activities that later became publicly-owned institutions. The savings banks also gradually developed foundations that, until today continue to be funders of art and cultural activities in Norway.

Cultural funding from private spirits associations stems from Norwegian alcohol policy in the late 19th century. In short, the policy meant that private production and sale of spirits was permitted but linked to the requirement that profits from sales should be reinvested in public benefit purposes, such as art and culture. This continued until the early 20th century, when the state gradually monopolised spirits sales (Dahl & Helseth, 2006, p. 84f; see also Spjøtvold, 2019).

In Finland, the establishment of major cultural institutions came later than in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. With a few exceptions, the first major theatres were founded in the second half of the 19th century. For example, the Helsinki Symphony Orchestra was founded at the end of the 19th century and the National Opera House at the beginning of the 20th century (Olkkonen, 2002, p. 191; Unesco, 1972). In Finland, initiatives by private actors were also of great importance, but public funding became significant as early as the second half of the 19th century (Unesco, 1972, pp. 36, 51). Yet another important source of funding is reported to have been revenue from alcohol sales, in this case from municipally-owned alcohol companies. (Helminen, 2007). A difference between Finland and especially Denmark and Sweden are that Finland lacked a strong domestic aristocracy that could act as patrons and initiators of the establishment of cultural institutions. In Finland, the state is therefore described as more important during the 19th century when comparing with the other Nordic countries (Kangas, 2003, p. 82).

Another trend during the 19th century was the emergence of art collectors who donated their collections to existing institutions, such as the National Gallery in Norway, or established private institutions based on private collections, such as the with the Glyptotek in Copenhagen (Stenseth, 2005; Pedersen, 1942). There were also cases where the public sector established new museums as a way of preserving and making public collections donated by private individuals (Stenseth, 2005, p. 30f). Several of today's art museums in the Nordic countries were originally built with the help of private donations in combination with various types of public commitment and support.

Another part of cultural funding that emerged in the Nordic countries at the end of the 19th century is funding from private foundations. However, the development of foundation funding differs between the Nordic countries. In Denmark, Finland and Norway foundations that distribute funds for cultural purposes have, throughout the 20th century and well before that, enjoyed tax benefits. In Denmark in particular, financially strong foundations focusing on art and culture were established. Denmark is also described as having had particularly permissive legislation for foundations that combine support for public benefit purposes with profit-making business activities (see, e.g., Dahl & Helseth, 2006; Lund & Berg, 2016, p. 12f; Lunde Jørgensen, 2016; Mahncke, 2016; Pedersen, 1942). In Sweden, however, tax legislation developed in a more restrictive direction regarding foundations' opportunities to allocate funds for cultural purposes. Christensen (2020) therefore describes how such funding declined in Sweden from having been more significant in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (see also Finlex, 1043/1974; Lunde Jørgensen, 2016; Olsson, 1996, p. 116ff; SOU 1939:47, p. 36f; SOU 1995:63 p. 346f; Wijkström, 2001).

In the political debate over the respective responsibilities of the public and private sectors in financing culture, an increasing number of voices called for state support as early as the 19th century. At the same time, there were critics who argued that funding should primarily be left to the market (see, e.g., Gran & Gjӕrum, 2019, p. 45). The argument for public funding was initially driven from an identity and nation-building perspective (Bakke, 1988; Dahl & Helseth, 2006). Denmark's Minister of Church and Education, Johan Nicolai Madvig, commented on the discussion in 1850 as follows:

… if Denmark wants to have a national literature, and if it wants to have something that resembles national art, this will entail expenses, because our circumstances, given the size of our population, are such that national literature and art cannot bear itself in the same way as elsewhere. (Rasch, 1968, p. 44 (Translation by Kulturanalys Norden)

This argument was gradually supplemented by the ideal of bildung, which became particularly important for the emerging labour movement and social democracy in the Nordic countries. Gradually, the public responsibility for financing public libraries therefore grew. Public support for individual artists also existed already in the 19th century, albeit on an ad hoc basis (Duelund, 2003, p. 33ff; Heikkinen, 2003; Kangas, 2003, p. 82ff; Mangset & Hylland, 2017, pp. 27–40). Another development in the early 1900s was that Norway, Finland and Denmark established a structure with national lottery operations to finance cultural activities (see, e.g., Mangset & Hylland, 2017, p. 38; Sokka & Kangas, 2007).

Increased public responsibility for cultural funding

From the 1930s and onwards, policies in the Nordic countries hence developed towards the idea that the public sector should take an overall responsibility for funding culture. This development was closely linked to the objective of democratising culture. This ambition was about making art and culture accessible to all residents. This, in turn, was linked to the emergence of the welfare state and the view of art and culture as an area associated with positive values that politicians wanted to convey to citizens. The education and values that had previously been reserved for the upper social strata would now be spread to broader sections of the population (see, e.g., Bjurström, 2021; Dahl & Helseth, 2006, p. 266f; Duelund, 2003, p. 35; Frenander, 2014; Harding, 2015; NOU 2013:4; Vestheim, 1995, pp. 152–157).

During the first half of the 20^th century, a form of redistribution was also introduced in the cultural sector. This meant that certain types of culture were taxed more heavily, while other types of culture received public support. A clearer distinction was therefore made between what was considered commercial and potentially harmful culture, and what was considered good culture that should be made more easily accessible to the population (see, e.g., Mangset & Hylland, 2017, p. 38; NOU 2013:4, p. 34; see also Dahl & Helseth, 2006, p. 147f; Kulturanalys Norden, 2024).

Before cultural policies were formalised in the Nordic countries in the 1960s and 1970s, an expansion of the cultural infrastructure occurred. With public support, theatres, art galleries, city libraries, concert halls and touring activities were established to a greater extent than before. In Sweden, the touring Riksteatern was founded in 1933 as a non-profit association but with state support, and in Norway, the government established a corresponding institution in the late 1940s. In Denmark, the touring theatre Det Danske Teater was created with state support in 1963. Riksutställningar (National Exhibitions) was also established as a government agency in both Norway and Sweden in the 1950s and 1960s (Blomgren, 2007b; Bäckström, 2003). During the same period, Rikskonserter (National Concerts) was founded in Sweden as a wholly state-owned foundation and in Norway as a state-owned cultural institution.

In Finland, these types of publicly-funded touring cultural institutions were not established until the 1970s when the regional theatre reform was implemented, a reform which involved the establishment of regional theatres in different parts of the country. However, a network of smaller theatres had emerged in Finland during the first half of the 20th century, largely as a result of private initiatives (see, e.g., Teaterhögskolan, n.d.). During this period, many private cultural activities also began to receive public support in all the Nordic countries (Bache, 2021; Bakke, 1988; Gran & Gjӕrum, 2019; Mangset & Hylland, 2017; Kleberg & Forsell, 2019; Sokka, 2022; Vestheim, 1995).

As already mentioned, public support for individual artists dates back at least to the first half of the 19th century. This support continued at a fairly modest level in the Nordic countries during the period up to the 1960s. Much of the funding and scholarships revolved around support for retired artists, but structures were also developed to increase artists' incomes through investments in public art (Heikkinen, 2003, p. 14). Two examples are the establishment of the Public Arts Agency Sweden in 1937 (SOU 2009:16, p. 120) and the State Art Commission in 1956 in Finland. In Denmark, the first state fund to support individual artists was also established in 1956, with a focus on public art (Bakke, 1988, p. 49). Other examples include the development of systems for state library compensation to individual authors in Denmark and Norway during the 1940s. In Finland and Sweden, similar systems were developed in the 1950s and early 1960s (Heikkinen, 2003; Rasch, 1968, p. 161ff).

In the library sector in particular, legislation was also developed with the aim of strengthening access to libraries for the general public, which in practice led to further public responsibility in the cultural sphere. Finland adopted its first library law in 1928, while legislation mandating compulsory municipal public libraries was introduced in Norway in 1947 and in Denmark in 1964 (Byberg, 2009; Dyrbye, 2009; Dyrbye et al., 2009; Thomas, 2009). Another significant development was that popular education—through folk high schools, lecture associations, and study associations that had emerged in the mid- to late 19th century—began receiving increasing levels of public support during the 20th century (Dahl & Helseth, 2006, p. 36f, 166; Mangset and Hylland, 2017, p. 30; SOU 2009:16, p. 109; SOU 2024:42).

As previously noted, private actors continued to play a significant role in the development of cultural life in the Nordic countries, both as funders and as initiators of cultural organisations and institutions, particularly in the performing arts and museum sectors (see, e.g., SOU 2009:16, p. 121). It should also be noted that commercial cultural life expanded during the 20th century in the Nordic countries, particularly in the fields of film, literature and music.

The formalisation of cultural policy and criticism of commercialism

From the 1960s and 1970s onwards, clearer structures were established to ensure public engagement in the cultural sphere of the Nordic countries. Ministries, arts councils, cultural funds, and various forms of funding authorities were established. As a result, the countries' cultural policies were brought together in institutional structures, and the public funding of the cultural sector was formalised and further expanded (see, e.g., Duelund, 2003).

In this context, cultural policy was also assigned the task of providing alternatives to, and counteracting the spread and dominance of, commercial culture (Bache, 2021, p. 28f; Heikkinen, 2003, p. 42; Kyrkje- og undervisningsdepartementet, 1973, p. 60; prop. 1974:28). The cultural policy of the Nordic countries was thus not only about the public sector’s responsibility to support cultural activities that could not survive on commercial terms, but also about acting "in direct competition with the private cultural sector", as expressed in the report that formed the basis for the first Swedish cultural policy bill (SOU 1972:66, p. 187f; see also prop. 1974:28, p. 298). In Sweden, this view was also expressed in the cultural policy bill where one objective was formulated as follows: “[c]ultural policy shall counteract the negative effects of commercialism in the cultural sphere” (prop. 1974:28, p. 295). Similar formulations can be found in early cultural policy documents of other Nordic countries. The distinction between non-commercial and commercial culture was often framed as one between independent, autonomous cultural production, on the one hand, and market-oriented cultural production on the other. It was pointed out that commercial cultural activities were allowed to dominate cultural life in a problematic way; for example, in the Norwegian cultural policy report from 1974 it is stated that:

In the long term, this alternative would lead to a sharp increase in cultural commercialisation, with all the unfortunate consequences that such a development could entail. One consequence would be a serious cutback in many valuable cultural activities, and first and foremost, a wide range of cultural offerings would to a much greater extent become a privilege for certain high-status groups in society. (Kyrkje- og undervisningsdepartementet, 1974, p. 68 (Translation by Kulturanalys Norden)

The 1981 Norwegian cultural policy report also addressed this development and described the situation in the music sector as follows:

Many freelance musicians and artists are currently dependent on private employment agencies for work, and this has led to an unfortunate commercialisation, where financial considerations, and not quality assessments, are largely decisive in determining who gets the job. (Kyrkje- og undervisningsdepartementet, 1981, p. 196) (Translation by Kulturanalys Norden)

The role of cultural policy was thus to both compensate for and counteract the commercialisation of culture and what was perceived as aggressive marketing from abroad (Kyrkje- og undervisningsdepartementet, 1981, pp. 16, 36ff). Considering this, strong public funding was seen as a prerequisite for artistic freedom, and public funding therefore increased significantly, especially in the second half of the 20th century, also in relation to the levels of private funding (see, e.g., Lund & Berg, 2017, p. 160).

An important aspect in Finland – and to some extent in Norway – compared with Sweden and Denmark during the 1960s and 1970s, was that criticism of commercialism was more explicitly linked to the goal of safeguarding national identity and the country's linguistic sphere. In Finland in particular, the task of cultural policy to protect various aspects of Finnish culture is described as having been a more dominant motive than the desire to counteract commercial cultural expressions. However, connections were made between the two, not least because smaller language areas were considered to have greater difficulty asserting themselves without public support (Koski, 2022; Unesco, 1972).

Increasing market thinking from the 1980s onwards

Cultural policy documents in the Nordic countries during the 1980s and 1990s continued to be characterised by tension between publicly-funded culture and the commercial cultural sector. In practice, however, there was a gradual change in the cultural policy debate. In Norway, the need for increased private funding in the cultural sector was highlighted already in the 1981 cultural policy bill. This need was repeated in a supplementary bill in 1983, which emphasised the desire for increased sponsorship and advertising revenue in the cultural sector, for example among performing arts organisations and museums (Kyrkje- og undervisningsdepartementet, 1981, pp. 54, 138; Kultur- og vitskapsdepartementet, 1983, p. 23). The emphasis on increased private funding was further reinforced in the 1992 cultural policy bill, in which the government stated that it “looks positively on the business community's collaboration with artists and cultural institutions” and individual companies’ investments in art and culture (Kulturdepartementet, 1992, p. 69). However, the same report also raises concerns that the trend towards private funding may go too far:

The business sector's contribution to art and culture will therefore always have to be an extra contribution to increased activity and special events. This underlines the importance of state-supported cultural institutions not becoming dependent on sponsorship income to carry out their ordinary activities. Contributions from the business sector cannot replace the public sector's responsibility for maintaining a diversity of high-quality cultural offerings. (Kulturdepartementet, 1992, p. 70) (Translation by Kulturanalys Norden)

The same tension between the desire to see increased private funding and concerns about the risks associated with such funding can be identified in the work on the cultural policy bill in Sweden in the 1990s (see prop. 1996/97:3, pp. 58, 61; SOU 1995:84, p. 347f). In Finland, policy development is described in a similar way, but also as taking a less problematic approach to private cultural funding (Häyrynen, 2012).

A significant cultural policy trend during the 1980s and 1990s was the shift towards an increased focus on the socio-economic benefits of art and culture. This change included expectations and sometimes demands for increased self-financing among cultural institutions, but above all a view of art and culture as an area for investment and entrepreneurship. This means that cultural policy makers are increasingly arguing that culture can generate economic returns. This is expected to happen through the attractiveness that cultural life creates for tourism, businesses and existing as well as potential residents, but also through the export revenues that the cultural sector can generate. During this period, the foundations were therefore laid for today's investments in the development of cultural and creative industries, which are also expected to contribute to strengthening the economic conditions of the artistic professions (see, e.g., Arnestad, 2010; Bache, 2021; Duelund, 2008; Gran et al., 2016; Hauge et al., 2023; Häyrynen, 2012; Jakonen & Pyykkönen, 2023; Kangas, 2001; Mangset & Hylland, 2017; Pyykkönen & Stavrum, 2018; Skot-Hansen, 1999).

The beginning of the 21st century is in many ways a continuation of the development that began in the 1980s and 1990s. Cultural policy documents emphasise the economic benefits of arts and culture, as well as a desire for cultural activities to increase their own revenues and their ability to attract funding from private financiers (see, e.g., Det Kongelige Kulturdepartement, 2002, 2018; Kulturministeriet, 2000; the Ministry of Education, 2009; Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2013; Prop. 2009/10:3; Regeringen, 2003, p. 14; Statsrådet, 2024). At the same time, the public responsibility for funding the cultural sector is consistently emphasised and justified on the grounds of equal access, the preservation of cultural diversity and the social and economic welfare of artists and cultural creators. In an international context, the Nordic countries are still regarded as belonging to the so-called architect model.

Finally, it is important to note that, while the overall trend is consistent, the extent to which different Nordic governments emphasise the need for increased private funding for culture varies. For example, liberal and conservative governments tend to place greater emphasis on the need for increased private cultural funding than do social democratic governments.

Summary

In summary, cultural policy in the Nordic countries has undergone major changes. From a situation where funding was largely a concern for the market and private actors, the trend during the 20th century was to gradually expand public funding and view private funding and commercially viable culture with scepticism. During the 1980s and 1990s, this scepticism gradually changed towards a more positive attitude towards private funding. This development has taken place in parallel with the countries increasingly arguing for the economic value and benefits of art and culture. The next chapter offers a more detailed and concrete account of how the Nordic countries aim to achieve increased private funding for culture.