The focus of this report is whether, and to what extent, the cultural sector in the respective Nordic countries began to recover from the impact of the pandemic during the year 2022. The purpose is to map and compile any adaptations within cultural policies in the Nordic countries post-pandemic, as well as long-term changes in funding and cultural policy. The assignment has involved examining the signs of changes that can be observed within the cultural sector and cultural policies in the Nordic countries.
The signs of recovery that were present for the national economies and the cultural situation at the beginning of 2022 have been followed by uncertainty and uncertain future scenarios. On February 24, 2022, Russian forces entered Ukraine with the aim of quickly gaining control over the country. Now, one year later, the offensive war continues, and we can look back at a series of accumulated crises that have affected our countries and societies in various ways. The sanctions against Russia have had extensive effects, including inflation, which in turn has diminished households' purchasing power. Inflation and the energy crisis have impacted people's willingness to consume culture in 2022, while at the same time, cultural creators' economic situation has been affected by increased costs. The ongoing social unrest and confusion throughout the year have given the subject of our examination a sense of turbulence.
When conducting a review of the cultural sector's recovery after the pandemic, two central problems arise: it is no longer possible to differentiate between the effects of the pandemic and the effects of other crises, and it is challenging to obtain updated data within a short timeframe – comprehensive statistics for the year 2022 are not yet available. Therefore, our review method emphasizes overarching discursive analysis rather than precise quantitative data. The review of available material is presented in the report's four chapters, followed by a concluding discussion. A brief summary is provided below:
It is not possible to verifiably distinguish which events are direct consequences of the pandemic. Therefore, overarching questions about what the pandemic has revealed within the cultural sector, cultural economy, and cultural policy have become more interesting than attempting to determine direct effects of the pandemic.
The Nordic cultural policy model and the Nordic welfare policy are part of an overarching cultural policy discourse. This discourse evolves in different ways within what we refer to as different cultural policy regimes in various Nordic countries and self-governing areas. These regimes are based on national history, different cultural policy rationalities, different understandings of the boundaries and organization of the cultural sector, as well as different funding and management structures. The regimes also demonstrate variations in the relationship between cultural policy practice and different policy areas and responsibilities.
In several Nordic countries, there are tendencies to link cultural policy to other societal goals, which broadens the practice of cultural policy. Crisis management occurred across policy areas, and the guidelines of different areas had effects on the cultural field as well. The cultural sector was found to be highly integrated rather than separate from other policy areas. In the cultural policy discourse, there are signs that sustainable development is now more relevant than ever and has the potential to change the very political nature of cultural policy practice. Cultural sustainability has been highlighted after the pandemic and the ongoing crises concerning issues of democracy and individuals' ability to influence their future. Cultural sustainability involves both cultural practices and rights, as well as awareness of the importance of culture for the green transition and the role of cultural policy in crisis preparedness issues.
What is categorized as part of the cultural sector varies between the Nordic countries and self-governing areas. Both knowledge production, data collection, and cultural policy delineate and categorize the cultural sector in different ways. There are also significant differences in how the different countries delimit their cultural budgets and which other parts of the state budget fund the cultural sector. There are differences in the significance of the private sector and the third sector as resources for the cultural sector. There are also variations in indirect support for cultural activities and how the support is organized at different administrative levels.
The pandemic further highlighted the need for data collection on the cultural sector at all administrative levels. The review shows that in all countries, there has been a recognized need for increased data collection and knowledge production, as well as an increased need to map the relationship between cultural policy and the creative industries during the pandemic.
The cultural sector in all the Nordic countries and self-governing areas is clearly dependent on public support. The pandemic has further emphasized this dependence. At the same time, there are significant differences between the various countries' economies, which have effects on both public cultural funding and private cultural consumption.
The trend in the cultural policy development in all the Nordic countries is an increased collaboration between the public and private sectors. The government crisis support has been seen as part of national and regional development in several recovery plans, and the creative field is perceived as a sector of growth. However, this does not necessarily mean that public funding will increase; rather, it may imply a focus on more market-oriented funding models seen as sustainable development.
Artists' working conditions have been severely tested across all cultural sectors during the pandemic. Especially audience-based activities have been hit hard economically, and the effects on both production processes and the return of the audience are still significant. Although there are signs of economic recovery, particularly for large cultural institutions, there are many uncertainties regarding the future development of many activities.
One of the main deficiencies in the cultural policy structures that the pandemic has revealed is the fundamental differences that exist among actors in the cultural sector regarding working conditions, the right to compensation through national social security systems, and individuals' financial risk-taking during crisis situations. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed weak structures and inequalities that stand in stark contrast to the Nordic welfare model. This has, among other things, led to an increasing overlap between cultural policy and other policy areas and responsibilities, such as financial and tax policy, as well as employment and labor market policy.
All available statistics show that employment and cultural consumption have recovered to some extent, but many questions still remain. The pandemic caused a disruption in both personal artistic practices and access to professional offerings. There are signs of a return of the audience, but also indications that certain age groups, for example, have not resumed their cultural engagement. Furthermore, the new economic situation has revealed that many individuals have had to reprioritize their consumption habits, leading to changes in cultural behaviors. Traditional cultural structures and expressions have been affected, lifestyle habits have changed, and new social forms are emerging - all of which will impact the development of cultural policy in various ways.
Changes in the economy of culture have been highlighted during the pandemic, including the fact that the economic situation within different cultural and artistic sectors appeared very different in relation to available support and the criteria that applied to such support. The cultural sectors differ in terms of operational and economic logic. Industries with developed ecosystems were better able to benefit from various forms of financial assistance, such as business support. The differences between various production and distribution models were exposed, including the varying opportunities to leverage digitalization during the pandemic. Those who have been able to economically benefit from renewed practices and structures have largely been entities other than individual artistic practitioners.