A decisive autumn for European cultural policy

11 Oct

Political commitments, budgetary contradictions and the future of cultural autonomy in the European Union

In June 2026, the presidents of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union signed the Joint Declaration Europe for Culture – Culture for Europe, reaffirming their commitment to artistic freedom, cultural diversity and the sustainability of Europe's cultural and creative sectors. Four months later, more than 200 cultural organisations are calling on the Council to reverse proposed cuts of €31.6 million to Creative Europe in the European Union's 2027 budget. The contrast is difficult to overlook, particularly at a moment when European institutions are preparing to negotiate the financial framework that will determine the Union's priorities until 2034.

This apparent contradiction reflects a broader transformation in European policymaking. Culture is increasingly recognised as a contributor to democratic resilience, social cohesion, economic competitiveness and Europe's international influence. Yet the financial instruments intended to support these ambitions remain subject to recurring reductions, institutional disagreements and uncertain negotiations. As the European Union prepares its next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034, the question is no longer simply whether culture matters to Europe. Its importance has been repeatedly acknowledged. The question is whether that recognition will translate into a coherent and sufficiently funded European cultural policy, and whether the financial architecture currently under discussion will preserve culture as an autonomous field of public intervention.

When political commitments meet budgetary decisions

The disagreement over Creative Europe's 2027 budget offers a revealing starting point. The European Commission proposed approximately €417.35 million in commitment appropriations for the programme, while the Council's position would reduce that amount by €31.6 million, affecting all three strands: Culture, MEDIA and the cross-sectoral strand. The proposed reductions are unevenly distributed, with €23.2 million affecting MEDIA, €7.8 million Culture and €0.6 million the cross-sectoral strand. Meanwhile, the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) has proposed increasing the Commission's allocation by €15 million. The difference between the Council's proposed allocation and the CULT Committee's position therefore amounts to €46.6 million.

These figures represent competing institutional positions rather than a final budgetary decision. Nevertheless, they illustrate the distance between the ambitions expressed in European cultural declarations and the resources that different institutions are prepared to commit. According to Culture Action Europe, this is the fourth budget year within the current seven-year financial framework in which the Council has proposed reductions to Creative Europe. The repetition matters because it suggests that the difficulty extends beyond a single negotiation. European cultural organisations must repeatedly defend financial support for activities that European institutions themselves identify as politically valuable, including cross-border cooperation, artistic mobility, cultural diversity and independent creative expression.

The Council's position must, of course, be understood within a wider budgetary context. The European Union faces competing financial obligations, geopolitical instability and pressure to preserve resources for unforeseen developments. Budgetary restraint is not necessarily evidence of hostility towards culture, and cultural expenditure cannot be examined in isolation from the Union's broader financial responsibilities. However, the recurrence of proposed reductions raises a legitimate question about institutional priorities. If cultural cooperation is increasingly presented as an essential component of European resilience, should its financing remain so vulnerable to annual negotiations?

The timing is particularly consequential. The year 2027 will close the current Creative Europe programme, while its proposed successor, AgoraEU, remains under negotiation. A weakened final year could affect organisations' capacity to sustain cooperation precisely when they need to prepare for a new and potentially unfamiliar funding architecture. This uncertainty is especially significant for smaller organisations and independent cultural actors, whose financial structures often depend on the continuity of projects and the predictability of public support.

AgoraEU: a larger framework, but what place for culture?

The European Commission's proposal for AgoraEU represents one of the most significant structural changes under discussion for the next European budget. Rather than simply continuing Creative Europe as an independent programme, the proposed framework would bring together cultural, audiovisual, media, civic and democratic priorities. Such an approach could create opportunities for cooperation across fields that have traditionally been financed through separate instruments. However, integration also raises questions about visibility, governance and financial protection, particularly when the objectives brought together under a common programme do not necessarily share the same economic characteristics or institutional needs.

The Commission's proposed cultural allocation of approximately €1.8 billion over seven years has become a central concern for cultural organisations. Culture Action Europe has called for at least 25% of AgoraEU's total budget to be dedicated to culture, using the European Parliament's proposed €10.72 billion programme budget as a minimum reference point. If both objectives were achieved, the cultural component would receive approximately €2.68 billion over the seven-year period, substantially more than the Commission's initial allocation. These amounts must nevertheless be understood as proposals and advocacy objectives rather than agreed financial commitments, since both the overall programme budget and its internal distribution remain subject to negotiation.

Beyond the figures, the controversy concerns the conditions under which cultural funding would operate. A distinct and identifiable cultural budget can provide transparency and predictability, allowing policymakers, beneficiaries and citizens to establish which resources are genuinely dedicated to cultural objectives. Without adequate safeguards, a broad programme may offer greater flexibility while making it harder to determine whether culture is receiving sustained support or competing for resources with other policy priorities. Flexibility is not inherently undesirable, particularly because cultural projects frequently intersect with education, digital innovation, democracy and social inclusion. The difficulty arises when flexibility becomes indistinguishable from the absence of protected commitments.

The challenge for AgoraEU is therefore not simply to provide more money, but to reconcile interdisciplinary cooperation with the institutional recognition of culture as a policy field in its own right. A programme can formally include culture without guaranteeing that cultural activities will remain a significant priority throughout its implementation. Conversely, a well-designed integrated programme could preserve dedicated cultural funding while facilitating collaboration with adjacent sectors. The decisive factors will be the final regulatory provisions, financial allocations, governance arrangements and mechanisms for monitoring expenditure.

The cultural budget beyond AgoraEU

Focusing exclusively on AgoraEU would provide an incomplete picture of the next European financial framework. The proposed National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), with an envelope of approximately €865 billion for 2028–2034, could become another major source of investment relevant to cultural development. Unlike centrally managed European programmes, these plans would be prepared by Member States, reflecting national and regional priorities within a common European framework. Their potential significance for culture is considerable, since cultural infrastructure, territorial access, creative employment, heritage, professional training and regional development could all benefit from investments incorporated into national plans.

However, there is an important distinction between eligibility and allocation. The fact that cultural investment may be supported does not mean that governments will necessarily prioritise it. In September, Culture Action Europe called for dedicated cultural chapters within NRPPs and for at least 2% of their general allocation to be reserved for culture. Applied illustratively to an €865 billion envelope, this percentage would represent €17.3 billion over seven years, although neither the allocation nor its precise financial base has been agreed. The scale of the calculation nevertheless demonstrates why the NRPP debate deserves the cultural sector's attention.

Culture Action Europe's recommendations also go beyond financial earmarking. They include integrating cultural needs into the European Semester, involving cultural representatives in national planning processes and ensuring that investment reaches independent organisations and underserved territories. These proposals address a structural problem that European cultural policy has faced for years: the distance between political recognition at European level and implementation within national and regional administrations. A commitment expressed in Brussels does not automatically become a budgetary priority in Madrid, Warsaw, Paris or Helsinki.

The proposed framework may bring investment decisions closer to territorial realities, but it may also increase differences between Member States according to their political priorities and administrative capacities. Cultural organisations operating in countries where culture enjoys strong institutional support could encounter more favourable conditions than those working in contexts where cultural investment receives less attention. The European Union would consequently face the challenge of reconciling national flexibility with its commitment to cultural diversity and territorial cohesion.

This creates a paradox worth examining. The next European budget could make more financial instruments potentially available to culture while simultaneously making its actual financing less predictable. The expansion of eligibility across multiple programmes should therefore not be confused with an increase in guaranteed cultural expenditure.

Research, competitiveness and the fragmentation of cultural support

The same question extends to Horizon Europe and the proposed European Competitiveness Fund, both of which form part of the wider reorganisation of European expenditure around research, innovation, industrial capacity and strategic autonomy. For cultural and creative professionals, these instruments may offer opportunities in areas such as digital technologies, creative innovation, cultural research and interdisciplinary development. However, the availability of such opportunities will depend on programme objectives, eligibility rules, evaluation criteria and the financial resources ultimately assigned to relevant activities.

A cultural research project may be eligible within a broad research programme without cultural research receiving a distinct or predictable allocation. Similarly, an innovative creative enterprise may fit within certain competitiveness objectives without the cultural and creative industries being recognised as a specific investment priority. This distinction is particularly important because the European cultural ecosystem is not composed exclusively of commercially scalable businesses. It also includes independent artists, small cultural organisations, experimental practices, public institutions, non-profit initiatives and research activities whose value cannot always be expressed through conventional indicators of productivity or market growth.

The issue is not whether cultural organisations should participate in research or innovation programmes. Many already do, and such participation can be valuable. Rather, the question is whether access to broader financial instruments can adequately substitute for a cultural policy designed around the particular conditions of artistic production and cultural participation. These are different forms of public intervention, and they should not be treated as interchangeable.

The increasing dispersion of cultural opportunities across multiple financial instruments may also create administrative difficulties. Organisations may need to adapt their projects to different funding priorities, develop specialised application capacities and navigate evaluation systems that do not always reflect the characteristics of cultural activity. For smaller actors, the resources required to identify and pursue these opportunities can themselves become a barrier to participation. A more diversified funding landscape is therefore not necessarily a more accessible one.

From cultural value to strategic usefulness

The wider political context helps explain why these debates are taking place. The Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal established competitiveness, innovation, economic resilience and strategic autonomy as central priorities for European action. Building on the reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, the declaration calls for the mobilisation of European policies and financial instruments towards these objectives. Its underlying premise is that the Union must respond coherently to new geopolitical realities, technological competition and structural economic challenges.

The agenda of the European Council meeting scheduled for 15–16 October 2026 continues this orientation. European leaders will discuss the next long-term budget alongside competitiveness, energy, defence, Ukraine, migration and geopolitical challenges. Culture does not appear as a separate priority in the published summit agenda. That absence does not demonstrate that cultural expenditure will be reduced, nor does it imply that the European Council has rejected cultural objectives. It does, however, illustrate the political environment within which the next cultural budget will be negotiated.

The language of European cultural policy increasingly intersects with concepts such as resilience, security, competitiveness and strategic autonomy. This development is understandable. Cultural expression can strengthen democratic participation, contribute to social cohesion and provide spaces for dialogue across borders. Independent media, cultural diversity and artistic freedom also matter in societies confronting disinformation, political polarisation and authoritarian pressure. Culture is not disconnected from Europe's geopolitical realities, and recognising its contribution to broader public objectives is entirely legitimate.

Yet there is a conceptual distinction between recognising these contributions and making them the principal justification for public cultural support. The former acknowledges the multiple dimensions of cultural value, while the latter risks narrowing the purposes for which culture is considered worthy of investment. A work of art does not need to increase competitiveness to deserve public recognition, just as an independent cultural institution does not need to demonstrate measurable contributions to geopolitical resilience to justify its existence. These activities may contribute to wider European objectives, but their legitimacy should not depend exclusively on doing so.

This is where the financial debate becomes a political and philosophical one. If cultural funding increasingly depends on demonstrating usefulness to other priorities, the European Union may gradually change not only how culture is financed, but also how its public value is defined. The relevant question is therefore not whether culture should contribute to Europe's strategic objectives, but whether its intrinsic value will continue to receive independent recognition within the institutions and financial instruments responsible for supporting it.

Artistic freedom requires more than political declarations

The relationship between financing and artistic autonomy deserves particular attention. European institutions have repeatedly affirmed their commitment to artistic freedom and the independence of cultural organisations, but independence is not secured through declarations alone. It also depends on the conditions under which artists and organisations can develop their work. Funding systems influence which projects become possible, which institutions remain sustainable and which forms of artistic practice can reach the public.

This does not mean that public funding necessarily compromises artistic independence. Well-designed public programmes can protect pluralism and support activities that would otherwise struggle to survive. Nor does private financing inherently threaten autonomy, since philanthropy and private investment can play constructive roles within diverse cultural ecosystems. The essential issue is whether funding arrangements provide sufficient transparency, continuity and safeguards against inappropriate interference.

A cultural organisation dependent on short-term project grants may face difficulties maintaining staff, developing long-term programmes or investing in artistic experimentation. An independent artist required to demonstrate immediate economic or social impact may have fewer opportunities to pursue work whose significance emerges only over time. These are not merely administrative inconveniences; they influence the conditions under which cultural expression is produced.

For this reason, debates about fair remuneration, social protection, structural grants and accessible application procedures are inseparable from debates about artistic freedom. Culture Action Europe's demands for fair pay, social safeguards and more accessible financing should be understood within this wider institutional context. The sustainability of the cultural sector depends not only on the total amount allocated to it, but also on the way resources are distributed and the professional conditions they create.

The Joint Declaration Europe for Culture – Culture for Europe provides an important political reference for these discussions. However, its commitments will acquire practical significance only to the extent that they are reflected in programme design, budgetary decisions and implementation mechanisms. The credibility of European cultural policy will depend less on the number of declarations adopted than on the institutional conditions created to fulfil them.

A decisive autumn for European cultural policy

Several negotiations are now converging. The Council and Parliament must reconcile their positions on the 2027 EU budget, with the proposed Creative Europe reductions still unresolved. The European Council will discuss the long-term financial framework on 15–16 October, while the proposed AgoraEU programme, the NRPP framework, Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund remain subject to legislative and budgetary negotiations. Meanwhile, preparations for the next EU Work Plan for Culture will help define the priorities of cultural cooperation from 2027 onwards.

These processes differ in legal status, institutional responsibility and timetable, and they should not be confused with a single negotiation. Nevertheless, their combined outcome will shape the conditions under which European cultural policy operates during the next decade. The coming decisions will determine more than programme names and financial envelopes. They will influence whether cultural organisations can plan beyond individual projects, whether smaller actors can participate meaningfully in European funding and whether cultural diversity remains a practical objective rather than a recurring institutional commitment.

They will also determine how much responsibility for cultural investment rests with European institutions and how much depends on the choices of individual Member States. This is particularly important in a financial framework that seeks to combine strategic European priorities with greater national and regional involvement in investment decisions. The architecture of funding is never politically neutral: it determines where decisions are made, whose priorities prevail and which activities are most likely to receive support.

What kind of Europe is being financed?

The European Union does not lack declarations recognising the importance of culture. It has acknowledged cultural diversity, artistic freedom, social cohesion and the contribution of cultural and creative sectors to European society. Nor is it inherently contradictory for culture to contribute to competitiveness, innovation or resilience. The difficulty arises when these contributions become substitutes for a clear and independent commitment to cultural development.

A larger European budget does not automatically guarantee a stronger cultural policy, just as more funding opportunities across different programmes do not necessarily provide greater security for cultural organisations. Political recognition does not become meaningful simply because it is repeated in institutional documents. Its credibility depends on the resources, governance arrangements and safeguards established to translate commitments into practice.

The next financial framework offers an opportunity to reconsider the relationship between culture and European public policy. An ambitious approach would not require choosing between cultural autonomy and broader strategic objectives. It would recognise that cultural activity can contribute to economic development, democratic resilience and international cooperation while retaining purposes that cannot be reduced to those contributions. Such an approach would also acknowledge that sustainable cultural ecosystems require both opportunities for innovation and stable conditions for artistic creation, institutional continuity and public participation.

As European leaders prepare to negotiate the Union's financial priorities for 2028–2034, the central issue is therefore not whether Europe can afford to recognise culture as important. It already does. The question is whether its institutions are prepared to give that recognition a durable financial and political expression.

Ultimately, the future of European cultural policy will be measured not by the prominence of culture in institutional declarations, but by the place it occupies in the budgets, regulations and decisions through which Europe defines its priorities. The negotiations now underway will reveal whether culture is being supported as a public good in its own right or increasingly valued according to its capacity to serve objectives established elsewhere.

That distinction matters because a European Union committed to cultural diversity and artistic freedom must do more than recognise the usefulness of culture. It must also preserve the conditions under which culture can remain independent, unpredictable and capable of questioning the very priorities that public institutions establish.

Sources and further reading

European Union institutions

European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing the AgoraEU programme for 2028–2034, COM(2025) 550.
European Parliament, Committees on Culture and Education and on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Draft report on the AgoraEU programme, 7 May 2026, PE787.746.
European Parliament, Committee on Culture and Education, Opinion on the general budget of the European Union for 2027, 29 September 2026, PE791.038.
European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the European Union, Europe for Culture – Culture for Europe, Joint Declaration, 18 June 2026.
European Council, Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal, November 2024.
European Council, European Council meeting, 15–16 October 2026: Agenda highlights.
European Commission, The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028–2034 and legislative proposals concerning National and Regional Partnership Plans.

Cultural sector analysis and advocacy

Culture Action Europe, 150+ organisations call for a more ambitious budget for culture in AgoraEU, 7 July 2026, subsequently updated.
Culture Action Europe, Culture in National and Regional Partnership Plans, September 2026.
Culture Action Europe, Letter calling for culture in National and Regional Partnership Plans, 21 September 2026.
Culture Action Europe, Restore Creative Europe funding in the 2027 EU budget, open letter, 2 October 2026.
Culture Action Europe, 200+ cultural organisations oppose proposed cuts to Creative Europe, 6 October 2026.