More funding, but for what? The case for institutional reform in Europe's cultural sector

30 Nov

On cultural governance, professional competence and public accountability

The debate over the future of cultural funding in Europe frequently revolves around a question that is both legitimate and necessary: how much public investment should be allocated to culture? Cultural organisations, professional associations and independent practitioners have repeatedly drawn attention to the consequences of insufficient resources, including precarious working conditions, limited opportunities for artistic development, unequal access to cultural participation and the difficulties faced by smaller organisations in sustaining their activities. These concerns deserve serious political consideration, particularly at a time when European institutions and national governments must reconcile competing priorities within increasingly demanding budgetary frameworks. Nevertheless, the urgency of defending cultural investment should not prevent the sector from examining another question, one that is considerably less comfortable but equally important: how effectively are the resources already available to culture being administered, and to what extent do the institutions responsible for their distribution possess the professional competence, strategic vision and accountability necessary to fulfil their public responsibilities?

This question does not arise from a belief that cultural organisations are generally inefficient or that public investment in the arts should be reduced. On the contrary, it emerges from the conviction that culture requires sufficiently funded, professionally competent and institutionally responsible structures capable of sustaining artistic creation, preserving heritage, supporting professional development and facilitating meaningful public participation. The distinction matters because criticism of institutional practices is sometimes interpreted as a challenge to the legitimacy of cultural funding itself, particularly when public budgets are under pressure. Yet defending the public value of culture should not require the uncritical defence of every organisational model, appointment procedure or programming decision currently operating within the sector. A cultural ecosystem capable of articulating its importance to society should also be capable of examining the conditions under which its own institutions exercise authority and allocate resources.

The European debate provides a particularly relevant context for this reflection, although it is important to distinguish between the governance of European funding programmes and the responsibilities of national, regional and municipal cultural administrations. These levels of public authority operate through different legal frameworks, competencies and institutional arrangements, and their practices should not be treated as interchangeable. Nevertheless, they form part of an interconnected cultural environment in which European policy priorities, national funding structures, local programming decisions and professional opportunities influence one another. The question of institutional competence therefore extends beyond any single administrative level, inviting a broader examination of whether the cultural sector's demands for increased investment are accompanied by an equally serious commitment to improving the quality of cultural governance.

When cultural policy becomes political administration

One of the most significant challenges facing cultural governance concerns the relationship between political authority and professional competence. Public cultural institutions necessarily operate within democratic systems in which elected representatives establish priorities, approve budgets and exercise responsibilities for public administration. Cultural policy is therefore inseparable from political decision-making, and there is nothing inherently illegitimate about political authorities determining the broad objectives that publicly supported cultural organisations should pursue. Questions concerning cultural access, territorial cohesion, heritage preservation, linguistic diversity, artistic development and the allocation of public resources involve collective choices that properly belong within democratic debate.

The difficulty arises when the legitimate authority to establish cultural priorities becomes confused with the professional competence required to design and implement them. The administration of cultural programmes demands knowledge of artistic practices, production processes, professional networks, audience development, cultural economics, public procurement, evaluation methods and the institutional responsibilities associated with public funding. These competencies cannot automatically be inferred from political affiliation, administrative seniority or previous experience in unrelated areas of public management. When appointments to cultural responsibilities are determined primarily by political convenience, personal relationships or organisational considerations disconnected from the requirements of the position, institutions risk placing individuals in roles for which they have not demonstrated the necessary expertise.

Such concerns are particularly relevant at the municipal level, where cultural responsibilities may be incorporated into broader administrative structures and where the resources available for specialised professional teams can vary considerably. Local cultural programming plays an essential role in providing access to artistic experiences, supporting community participation and connecting cultural activity with the social life of cities and towns. Precisely because of this proximity to citizens, decisions about cultural provision deserve careful professional consideration. A municipal programme is not simply a calendar of events to be filled, but an opportunity to articulate cultural priorities, identify local needs, establish relationships with artistic professionals and contribute to the development of a community's cultural environment.

This does not mean that every person responsible for cultural programming must possess a particular artistic degree or follow a predetermined educational trajectory. Professional competence can be acquired through different combinations of education, experience, research, artistic practice and institutional responsibility. An individual trained in economics, law, technology or another discipline may develop outstanding expertise in cultural management, just as formal artistic qualifications do not automatically guarantee strategic ability or sound institutional judgement. The relevant question is whether those entrusted with cultural responsibilities possess demonstrable knowledge of the field, understand the consequences of their decisions and are capable of exercising their authority through transparent and professionally defensible criteria.

The distinction between political responsibility and professional expertise is therefore essential to effective cultural governance. Democratic legitimacy establishes the authority to define public priorities, while professional competence provides the capacity to translate those priorities into meaningful cultural action. When these functions are insufficiently differentiated, cultural programmes can become vulnerable to short-term political considerations, personal preferences and administrative inertia, limiting their capacity to contribute to sustained artistic and social development.

The difference between organising events and developing cultural policy

The quality of cultural governance cannot be evaluated exclusively through the number of activities organised, the visibility of public events or the immediate satisfaction of audiences. Cultural administrations may present extensive calendars of concerts, exhibitions, festivals and other activities without necessarily articulating a coherent understanding of how those initiatives contribute to broader public objectives. The distinction between cultural activity and cultural policy becomes particularly important when programming decisions are justified primarily through the quantity of events delivered or their capacity to attract large audiences, rather than through their contribution to artistic diversity, professional development, cultural participation or the specific needs of the communities they serve.

A programme designed principally to maximise attendance may fulfil a legitimate public function, especially when it facilitates shared cultural experiences and reaches audiences that might otherwise remain excluded. Popularity should not be regarded as evidence of limited artistic value, nor should cultural institutions assume that experimental or unfamiliar work is inherently more significant than artistic practices with broad public appeal. Such distinctions would reproduce another form of cultural hierarchy, one that risks confusing restricted access or aesthetic complexity with artistic superiority. The challenge is not to oppose popular culture to artistic innovation, but to develop programming strategies capable of recognising the different forms of value that cultural activities can generate.

This requires institutions to move beyond an understanding of programming as the selection of individual events and towards a conception of cultural policy grounded in long-term objectives. A municipality might legitimately seek to increase cultural participation, support local artistic production, introduce audiences to unfamiliar repertoires, strengthen cultural education or create opportunities for collaboration between different communities. Each objective requires different forms of intervention, professional expertise and evaluation. Without a clear understanding of the intended outcomes, cultural activity risks becoming an administrative exercise in which the successful delivery of events is mistaken for the successful development of cultural policy.

The distinction also has consequences for how public resources are distributed. When programming decisions are guided predominantly by familiarity, personal networks or short-term visibility, opportunities may become concentrated among artists and organisations already known to those responsible for cultural administration. Such practices do not necessarily result from deliberate exclusion, but they can reinforce established relationships and reduce the capacity of public institutions to identify proposals that fall outside existing networks. A professionally developed cultural policy should therefore incorporate procedures that allow artistic opportunities to be evaluated according to relevant criteria, while remaining attentive to the diversity of practices and communities that public cultural provision is intended to serve.

Cultural governance and the problem of institutional legitimacy

The relationship between professional competence and institutional authority can be examined through Pierre Bourdieu's analysis of cultural production. In The Field of Cultural Production (1993), Bourdieu explores how artistic legitimacy is shaped through relationships among cultural producers, institutions and other agents capable of distributing recognition and symbolic capital. Although his work does not provide a direct assessment of contemporary municipal cultural administration, it offers a useful framework for understanding why institutional decisions have consequences that extend beyond the allocation of individual opportunities. Cultural authorities participate in determining which artistic practices become visible, which professionals acquire recognition and which forms of cultural expression receive the resources necessary for their development.

From this perspective, the exercise of public cultural authority cannot be reduced to administrative neutrality. Decisions about programming, funding and institutional partnerships influence the structure of opportunities available within the cultural field, particularly where public support represents a significant component of artistic activity. This makes the competence and independence of decision-makers especially important, since their judgements can reinforce existing hierarchies or create possibilities for artistic practices that have not yet acquired comparable recognition. The concentration of cultural authority in individuals or structures whose decisions are insufficiently transparent may therefore produce consequences that remain difficult to identify through conventional administrative indicators.

The question of legitimacy also extends to the relationship between political appointment and professional accountability. Public institutions require mechanisms through which decisions can be justified, reviewed and evaluated, particularly when they involve the distribution of limited resources among competing cultural proposals. The existence of formal administrative procedures does not necessarily guarantee the quality of artistic judgement, just as the possession of professional expertise does not eliminate the possibility of bias, conflicts of interest or institutional complacency. Effective governance depends on the interaction between competence, transparent procedures, ethical standards and meaningful forms of accountability.

These considerations suggest that professionalisation should not be understood simply as the replacement of political appointments with technical positions. Cultural policy involves political choices, and expert authority must itself remain accountable to democratic institutions and the public. The objective should instead be to establish governance arrangements in which political priorities are clearly articulated, professional responsibilities are appropriately defined and decisions affecting artistic opportunities are made through procedures capable of demonstrating their relevance, consistency and public purpose.

The hidden consequences of weak cultural governance

The consequences of insufficient professional competence in cultural administration are not always immediately visible. A programme may be delivered successfully, public events may attract audiences and allocated budgets may be spent in accordance with administrative requirements, while important opportunities for artistic development remain unexplored. This distinction matters because procedural compliance and cultural effectiveness are not equivalent. An institution can fulfil its formal obligations without necessarily demonstrating that its decisions represent the most meaningful or strategically appropriate use of the resources entrusted to it.

Weak governance may also affect the relationship between cultural institutions and artistic professionals. When programming criteria are unclear or decision-making depends excessively on personal familiarity, artists and their representatives may encounter difficulties understanding how proposals are evaluated or what kinds of artistic contributions an institution seeks to support. This uncertainty can discourage professional engagement, particularly among independent practitioners who lack access to established institutional networks. Over time, the absence of transparent criteria may reinforce perceptions that artistic opportunities depend less on the relevance of a proposal than on proximity to those responsible for making decisions.

The resulting environment can encourage a form of professional adaptation in which artists devote considerable effort to navigating institutional relationships rather than developing the artistic substance of their work. Such dynamics connect with the concerns examined in The good musician, where professional legitimacy may become associated with discretion, gratitude and the avoidance of disagreement. When institutional opportunities depend on concentrated networks of authority, the pressure to maintain favourable relationships can influence not only how artists communicate with cultural organisations, but also the extent to which they feel able to question decisions, defend professional conditions or propose alternatives to established practices.

The consequences are therefore both artistic and economic. Institutions that rely on narrow networks or insufficiently developed evaluation procedures may limit the diversity of proposals reaching their audiences, while artists operating outside those networks face additional barriers to recognition and professional sustainability. At the same time, public resources may be allocated through practices that reproduce existing arrangements without sufficiently examining their cultural outcomes. The problem is not necessarily that individual decisions are demonstrably incorrect, but that the institutional conditions required to assess their quality may be inadequate.

Public funding and the meaning of cultural value

The debate over institutional competence is inseparable from the question of how cultural value is understood. Public cultural funding is often defended through arguments concerning economic impact, employment, tourism, urban development and the contribution of cultural industries to broader economic activity. These arguments can be important, particularly when cultural policy must compete with other public priorities for limited resources. Nevertheless, the economic consequences of cultural activity do not exhaust its public significance, and the exclusive reliance on economic indicators risks narrowing the understanding of what cultural institutions are expected to achieve.

David Throsby's Economics and Culture (2001) provides a useful framework for distinguishing between the economic and cultural dimensions of value. His analysis recognises that cultural goods and activities possess economic characteristics while also generating forms of value that cannot be adequately understood through market transactions alone. This distinction is especially relevant to public cultural administration, where decisions must frequently account for artistic significance, heritage, cultural identity, social participation and long-term development alongside financial sustainability. The challenge is not to reject economic evaluation, but to ensure that it remains proportionate to the broader purposes of cultural policy.

A publicly supported concert, for example, may generate ticket revenue, employment and economic activity while also contributing to artistic education, the development of unfamiliar repertoire or the professional opportunities available to musicians. These outcomes may be related, but they cannot necessarily be assessed through identical indicators. An event with modest attendance may fulfil a valuable cultural objective, just as a highly successful commercial activity may make a relatively limited contribution to the specific public responsibilities assigned to an institution. Effective evaluation therefore requires clarity about the objectives being pursued and the forms of evidence appropriate to assessing them.

This distinction becomes particularly important when cultural administrations face pressure to demonstrate efficiency. The responsible use of public resources should not be confused with the minimisation of expenditure or the pursuit of immediate financial returns. An institution may reduce costs while diminishing the quality or diversity of its cultural contribution, just as increased expenditure may fail to generate meaningful improvements when it is not accompanied by competent planning and evaluation. Efficiency in cultural policy should therefore be understood in relation to the public value generated by the resources employed, rather than through expenditure levels considered in isolation.

The responsibilities of publicly supported institutions

The relationship between public resources and institutional responsibility also raises questions about the conditions under which artistic work is produced. Cultural administrations frequently express commitments to supporting artists, encouraging creativity and strengthening the cultural sector, yet these objectives can become difficult to reconcile with practices that systematically undervalue professional labour. The provision of artistic opportunities does not necessarily constitute meaningful professional support when the conditions attached to those opportunities require artists to absorb costs, accept inadequate remuneration or assume risks that institutions are better positioned to manage.

This issue becomes particularly relevant when public cultural programmes rely on performances offered without professional fees or when opportunities for emerging artists are organised primarily around their affordability. Voluntary artistic participation can be legitimate in charitable, community or educational contexts, and there is no reason to suggest that every cultural activity must follow the same economic model. Nevertheless, the use of unpaid or poorly remunerated professional work within established programming structures deserves scrutiny, especially when public resources are available to support other components of production.

The distinction between providing visibility and providing professional support is essential. A cultural institution may offer an artist access to a stage, promotional resources or association with an established public programme, all of which can possess genuine value. Yet these benefits should not automatically be treated as substitutes for remuneration, particularly when the institution itself derives artistic, reputational or economic advantages from the engagement. A public cultural policy that seeks to strengthen the professional ecosystem should consider whether the conditions it establishes contribute to sustainable artistic careers or merely facilitate the continuation of activities whose economic costs are transferred to individual practitioners.

These concerns illustrate why institutional reform cannot be reduced to administrative efficiency or improved programming criteria. The professional conditions under which cultural activities are produced form part of their public significance. An institution that successfully increases audience participation while relying on unsustainable arrangements for artistic professionals may be achieving one objective at the expense of another. Recognising these tensions requires cultural administrations to evaluate not only what they present to the public, but also how their activities influence the working conditions and development of the professionals responsible for making them possible.

From funding demands to institutional accountability

The cultural sector's demands for increased public investment are legitimate, particularly when insufficient resources threaten artistic diversity, professional sustainability and access to cultural participation. However, the strength of these demands should not depend on presenting cultural institutions as structures whose existing practices are beyond criticism. On the contrary, the capacity to identify weaknesses, acknowledge institutional limitations and propose meaningful improvements can reinforce the credibility of arguments for sustained public support.

This requires distinguishing between the defence of culture and the defence of particular organisational arrangements. Cultural institutions are instruments through which public objectives may be pursued, but their continued existence or expansion does not automatically guarantee the achievement of those objectives. Their legitimacy depends in part on their capacity to demonstrate how resources are transformed into cultural opportunities, artistic development, professional sustainability and public participation. Such accountability should not be understood as an externally imposed administrative burden alone, but as an essential component of responsible cultural leadership.

The work of Mark H. Moore on public value provides a useful conceptual perspective for examining this responsibility. In Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government (1995), Moore develops an approach to public management in which organisational performance is considered in relation to the value created for the public, the legitimacy and support necessary to sustain institutional action, and the operational capacity required to achieve its objectives. Although his framework is not specific to cultural policy, it offers a relevant way of examining whether cultural institutions possess the strategic coherence, public legitimacy and organisational competence necessary to translate available resources into meaningful outcomes.

Applied to cultural governance, this perspective encourages a more demanding understanding of institutional success. The question is not simply whether a cultural administration has spent its allocated budget, delivered its planned activities or complied with formal procedures, but whether those activities have contributed to the public purposes that justify its existence. This requires defining objectives clearly, establishing appropriate criteria for evaluating outcomes and recognising that cultural value may be expressed through artistic, educational, social and professional dimensions that cannot always be captured through short-term quantitative indicators.

Such an approach should also avoid turning cultural accountability into an excessively bureaucratic process that consumes resources without improving decisions. Smaller organisations and independent practitioners already face significant administrative burdens, and additional requirements can become counterproductive when they are disproportionate to the scale of the activity being supported. Institutional reform should therefore seek greater clarity, competence and responsibility without reproducing the procedural complexity that often limits access to public funding. Professionalisation must improve the capacity of cultural organisations to fulfil their purposes, rather than simply increasing the administrative demands placed upon them.

Reform is not a substitute for investment

One of the principal risks associated with arguments for institutional reform is that they may be appropriated to justify reductions in cultural expenditure. If existing structures are described as inefficient or insufficiently professionalised, political authorities may interpret such criticism as evidence that cultural funding can be reduced without significant consequences. This would represent a misunderstanding of the argument developed here. The existence of weaknesses in cultural governance does not demonstrate that the sector requires fewer resources, just as the need for increased investment does not establish that existing institutional practices are necessarily adequate.

Investment and reform address related but distinct problems. Insufficient funding can limit the capacity of institutions to employ qualified professionals, sustain long-term programmes, support artistic development and provide appropriate working conditions. Weak governance, by contrast, can prevent available resources from being used effectively, even when funding levels are comparatively favourable. Improving one dimension does not automatically resolve the other, and meaningful cultural development requires attention to both.

Indeed, some institutional weaknesses may be aggravated by financial insecurity. Organisations operating with inadequate staffing, unstable budgets or short-term funding arrangements may struggle to develop strategic plans, evaluate outcomes or retain professionals with specialised expertise. Demanding greater competence and accountability without providing the resources necessary to achieve them would risk creating additional pressures rather than meaningful improvements. Conversely, increasing budgets without examining how responsibilities are assigned, decisions are made and outcomes are evaluated may allow existing deficiencies to persist.

A serious approach to cultural policy should therefore reject the false opposition between investment and institutional reform. Public authorities should be prepared to provide sufficient resources for cultural organisations to fulfil their responsibilities, while also ensuring that governance structures, professional appointments and evaluation procedures are appropriate to the objectives being pursued. Cultural professionals, for their part, should be able to defend increased investment without treating criticism of existing practices as a threat to the sector's legitimacy. The willingness to examine institutional shortcomings is not evidence of hostility towards culture, but an expression of responsibility towards its future.

Towards a more responsible cultural ecosystem

The professionalisation of cultural governance ultimately requires a reconsideration of how authority, expertise and responsibility are distributed within the sector. Political institutions must retain their legitimate role in establishing public priorities, but the implementation of those priorities should depend on professionals capable of exercising informed judgement and understanding the artistic, economic and social consequences of their decisions. Cultural organisations should be encouraged to develop transparent programming criteria, coherent strategies and evaluation methods appropriate to their missions, while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate experimentation and respond to changing cultural environments.

This also requires recognising that professional competence is not a static attribute acquired through a particular qualification or institutional appointment. Cultural fields evolve, artistic practices change and the relationships between audiences, technologies, public policies and professional structures demand continuous learning. Those entrusted with cultural responsibilities should therefore demonstrate not only knowledge of existing artistic and administrative practices, but also the intellectual curiosity and critical independence necessary to question inherited assumptions. An institution that repeatedly reproduces familiar programming models without examining their relevance may be administratively stable while remaining strategically limited.

The responsibilities of cultural leadership also extend to the relationships institutions establish with the professionals and communities they serve. Transparent communication, meaningful opportunities for participation and professionally defensible decisions can contribute to an environment in which artistic proposals are evaluated according to their relevance rather than their proximity to established networks. Such practices do not eliminate disagreement or guarantee that every decision will be universally accepted, but they can strengthen confidence in the legitimacy of institutional authority and reduce the perception that cultural opportunities depend primarily on personal relationships or informal hierarchies.

At a broader level, the cultural sector should develop a more mature understanding of its own institutional responsibilities. Defending the social importance of culture does not require portraying cultural organisations as inherently virtuous, nor does acknowledging their weaknesses diminish the significance of artistic activity. Institutions are human constructions shaped by political decisions, professional practices, economic incentives and established relationships of power. They are therefore capable of reproducing inequalities, resisting change and making decisions that do not always correspond to the values they publicly defend. Recognising this possibility is a necessary condition for meaningful reform.

Beyond the defence of existing structures

The future of cultural policy in Europe should not be reduced to a debate about whether cultural budgets increase or decrease, however consequential those decisions may be. It should also involve a serious examination of the institutional arrangements through which public resources are transformed into artistic opportunities, professional conditions and cultural experiences. The effectiveness of cultural investment depends not only on the amount of funding available, but also on the competence of those responsible for its administration, the transparency of the decisions through which it is distributed and the capacity of institutions to articulate a coherent understanding of the public value they seek to create.

This reflection is especially important because the cultural sector often presents itself as a space of creativity, critical thinking and social transformation. These values should not remain confined to artistic discourse or to the historical achievements celebrated through cultural programming. They should also inform the internal functioning of the institutions responsible for supporting artistic activity. A sector that encourages society to question established assumptions should be prepared to apply the same critical standards to its own structures, particularly when those structures exercise authority over professional opportunities and public resources.

The argument for institutional reform is therefore not an argument against cultural investment, but an argument for taking that investment seriously. Public funding should provide cultural organisations with the means to fulfil their responsibilities, while professional competence, strategic vision and accountability should ensure that those means contribute meaningfully to artistic and social development. The defence of culture becomes stronger when it is accompanied by a willingness to distinguish between the value of artistic activity and the effectiveness of the institutions that administer it, rather than assuming that support for one necessarily requires unconditional support for the other.

Ultimately, the cultural sector cannot expect society to recognise its value while remaining unwilling to examine the practices through which that value is produced, distributed and sometimes undermined. Greater public investment is necessary where insufficient resources prevent cultural organisations and professionals from fulfilling their potential, but investment alone cannot resolve questions of institutional competence, professional responsibility or the quality of cultural decision-making. If European cultural policy is to contribute meaningfully to the future of artistic creation and public participation, it must be prepared to address not only the resources that culture requires, but also the institutional conditions through which those resources acquire purpose. Defending culture should mean defending its capacity to develop, question and transform itself, rather than simply preserving the structures through which it has historically been administered.