• Governmental Expenditure and Public Funding for Culture in the EU
• Public Programs and Private Funding Supporting Culture in the EU
• Important Documents on the State of Culture and its Future Development

The report consists of three sections.

The first section compiles data on governmental expenditure in EU countries over the last 3 years, highlighting the budget cuts at both federal and local level.

It begins with the link to Eurostat data table, however this source only provides information up to 2023. Data for the period 2024-2025 has been collected from local sources with the help of Perplexity AI, all the figures in the report have been manually varified.

Due to the differences in data collection and aggregation methods, the figures from Eurostat and local sources can be not fully consistent.

Key deliverables of the first section are as follows:

• At this stage, we can identify four categories of countries based on the trends observed in cultural public funding:
  • Countries experiencing significant cuts in cultural public funding (Germany, France, Sweden, Finland)
  • Countries where cultural public funding remains consistently low (Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Romania)
  • Countries where cultural public funding is increasing, but the growth does not keep up with inflation (Netherlands, Ireland)
  • Countries where cultural public funding is growing steadily (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Poland, Slovenia, Austria, Hungary)
• Since 2022, several factors have contributed to the reduction in public spending on culture:
  • Inflation, triggered by additional monetary injections into the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Economic and political instability, including fiscal crises — for example, in France and Germany, where governments are attempting to restructure spending amidst economic stagnation
  • A shift in public policy priorities toward increased funding for defense and security, driven by the war in Ukraine — for instance, Sweden and Finland, which have joined NATO in 2023 and 2024
  • Given the uncertainties and challenges in economy, politics, and security that Europe is currently facing, this trend may rapidly expand to other countries.
• The complex structure of cultural funding distribution between national and local budgets proves to be extremely sensitive to any major fiscal reforms — mostly because culture is not recognized as public welfare, and cultural funding is not included in the list of services that local budgets are required to provide (as seen in the Netherlands Ravin year of 2026).
• In the vast majority of cases, public funding is concentrated on supporting institutions and large cultural heritage sites, while smaller organizations and independent creative groups are systematically left without support.
• This trend is taken to the extreme in Hungary — a country that spends more on culture than any other European nation, with investments steadily increasing. Under Viktor Orbán, culture has become one of the key ideological tools of the regime: the majority of funding is directed toward monuments of national identity, while independent cultural institutions are stripped of support and face discrimination. Similar tendencies can be observed in other right-wing governments — such as in Slovakia, Flanders, and among AfD at the regional level in Germany — where governments seek greater control over the cultural narrative.

The second section is devoted to analysis of funds and programs that invest in cultural development, which can have public, private or blended (hybrid) sources of funding.

Key deliverables of the second section are as follows:

• As of today, there is only one EU-wide public program fully dedicated to supporting culture — Creative Europe — and only one pan-European private foundation focused exclusively on cultural investment and the support of cultural projects — the European Cultural Foundation. All other major public and private funds operate across multiple sectors, with cultural initiatives being just one possible area of support.
• When it comes to private funding, the most significant source is households, through ticket sales and membership fees. In comparison, sponsorships and philanthropy play a relatively minor role.
• Small independent institutions and the creative sector rely more heavily on private funding, whereas large institutions and cultural heritage projects are primarily supported by the state. Independent creatives remain underfunded and can rely almost exclusively on private sources.

The third section compiles valuable ideas and concepts from influential public groups that respond to marginalization of culture in European policies both on EU and national levels, especially in the light of the up-to-date political and economical challenges.

Key deliverables of the third section are as follows:

• Funding and policy frameworks
  • Culture must be positioned as a core pillar of sustainable development. This requires its formal inclusion in global agendas (e.g. UN Goals) and integration into EU and national budget planning frameworks.
  • “Cultural Deal for Europe” is a document, published in February 2025, presents the core policy recommendations and advocacy points from leading European cultural organizations—Culture Action Europe, Europa Nostra, the European Cultural Foundation, and Bozar. It calls for dedicating 2% of the EU’s long-term budget to culture, which would mean approximately €24 billion over the 2028–2034.to culture, which would mean approximately €24 billion over the 2024–2034. Each euro invested in EU cultural action could generate up to €11 in GDP. Increasing EU culture spending to 2% could generate €38 billion annually
  • Culture is increasingly instrumentalized, undermining its role as a public good. When treated solely as a means to economic growth or social cohesion, culture’s intrinsic value is overlooked. Robust, dedicated policy frameworks are essential to address this imbalance and ensure culture is protected, funded, and positioned as a core driver of sustainable development.
• Culture investment and political threats
  • Cultural policy in the EU faces a growing paradox: underinvestment vs. authoritarian expansion. While the far-right increasingly prioritizes culture, pushing for leadership in the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, the EU fails to match the scale of investment seen in authoritarian regimes. Russia, for example, allocated over €1.1 billion to cultural and media propaganda in occupied Ukrainian territories in 2024, compared to the EU’s Creative Europe budget of just €335 million. Authoritarian regimes use culture as a direct tool of power, while the EU, despite claiming culture as foundational to its values, struggles with a fragmented and weak cultural policy. The rise of political polarization, particularly with the US’s shift under Trump, signals that culture will be more militarized and politicized, reinforcing the need for decisive action in the EU.
  • Artistic freedom is under threat from political and socio-economic pressures. Political forces often use culture to consolidate national identity or ideology, while self-censorship and insecure working conditions further stifle creativity. Current policy focuses on heritage and shared history but overlooks culture’s potential to imagine and shape a unified European future.
  • Culture is seen as a tool to support democracy, but it can only play this role if it is itself democratic, pluralistic, and inclusive. The promotion of European cultural content is a strategic defence against disinformation, hybrid threats, and psychological warfare from authoritarian regimes.
• Accessibility of culture
  • Public perceptions shape national approaches to arts and culture. To serve public welfare, access to cultural and artistic activities must be expanded beyond socially and economically privileged groups.
  • Supporting arts and culture sector for government is mostly seen as an educational tool to enhance public interest to arts, culture, and histories of fine arts of a country. Therefore, the support not only incentives artists and organizations to add value to the sector, but also it incentives the public, who are the indirect recipients of this relationship, to show higher interest to arts.
  • Reduced government funding could lead to fewer productions, raising concerns about how artists and art groups will survive and how the art-loving public will maintain access to cultural experiences. In this context, private sector involvement could help fill the gap, sustaining both the artistic community and public interest in the arts.
• Culture and innovation
  • Incentivizing creativity through artistic and cultural values can drive innovation, regardless of the sector in which it occurs. By fostering a connection between creativity and innovation, the impact extends beyond arts and culture, benefiting various industries.
  • The more arts institutions are directly governed by the state, the greater the degree of etatism in cultural policy. Private funding can enhance the freedom of artists and cultural organizations, fostering broader participation through new artists, organizations, and audiences. This expansion, in turn, promotes innovation as part of artistic development.

The section presents data on public spending on culture in the EU overall, as well as detailed information on most EU member states, classified according to observed trends. Countries exhibiting growth in cultural expenditure are generally not described—except for Hungary, whose increase is closely linked to ideological pressure. Several countries—Belgium, Slovakia, Estonia, Malta, and Luxembourg—are omitted due to either data insufficiency or controversy, but they can be included if necessary.

Eurostat data table includes data on:

1. General governmental expenditure in cultural services for all EU countries in mil.euro, %GPD, % of total budget from 2019 to 2023,

2. Share of investment grants in general governmental expenditure for all EU countries from 2019 to 2023

A group of countries undergoing significant cuts in cultural funding is facing economic strain driven by political instability, fiscal pressure, and shifting priorities — such as prioritization of major institutions over independent/experimental arts or a growing focus on national security.

The cultural budget is shared between Federal, Regional (Länder) and Local (Kommunen) levels. In 2024 and 2025, the federal government's share remains the smallest, while Länder and Kommunen contribute the majority.

Substantial budget cuts in more recent years on Federal level:

• The budget of 2025 includes controversial cuts to independent cultural funds (e.g., halving the Federal Cultural Fund and eliminating support for the Alliance of International Production Houses)
• The 2025 budget emphasizes institutional support (e.g., film, heritage sites) over independent arts, sparking protests from the "Freie Szene" (independent scene), redistributing funds toward commercial sectors (e.g., film industry) undermines grassroots cultural diversity
• Structural Imbalance: Germany’s subsidiarity principle places the heaviest burden on Kommunen, which fund ~40% of cultural activities despite fiscal constraints
• Budget cuts:
  • Funds:
    • significant cuts are targeted at six federal funds supporting independent cultural projects, reducing their budgets by €14 million. This shift prioritizes areas like the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, German filmmaking, and Deutsche Welle while scaling back support for experimental and non-commercial initiatives;
    • a petition from independent artists against cuts of funding for funds who support independent cultural production received 36000 signatures
    • Fonds Soziokultur, which supports projects for children and youth, whose budget is set to drop from €5.25 million to €2.9 million
    • The Fonds Darstellende Künste also faces a 46% cut in funding, threatening projects such as those at Hamburg's Fundus Theater
  • Regional cuts
    • Berlin: faces drastic cuts of €130 million in its cultural budget for 2025, representing a disproportionate reduction given that culture accounts for only 2.1% of the city's total budget. Programs like the Stiftung Kulturelle Weiterbildung und Kulturberatung (SKWK) are at risk of being entirely dismantled
    • Cologne: For 2025, Cologne plans to cut 27% of its music budget, severely affecting the independent scene, especially early music ensembles.
    • Munich: the planned savings in the cultural sector for 2025 account for around 8.5% of the total austerity measures, even though cultural spending accounts for only 3% of the entire budget. In this context, strict targets exist for the Munich Philharmonic, among others.

The cultural funding is shared between national budgets (30%) and local budgets (70%)

National budget on culture (Ministry of Culture) - bln euro

• France has faced significant reductions in cultural funding at both national and local levels over the past three years. These cuts are part of broader austerity measures aimed at addressing the country's budget deficit, which reached 6.1% of GDP in 2024
• Regional budget cuts
  • Pays de la Loire - A dramatic 73% reduction in cultural funding was implemented, threatening thousands of jobs and cultural initiatives. Subventions for institutions like the FRAC (regional contemporary art fund) were slashed by 22%, and projects such as Écrin (inclusive cultural establishments) lost funding entirely
  • Hérault - Cultural spending was cut by 48%, limiting funding to mandatory programs like libraries, music schools, and specific venues (e.g., Domaine d’O). Non-essential initiatives were eliminated entirely.
  • Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes - A 12% decrease in cultural funding affected numerous arts organizations, including renowned companies and emerging music venues (cancellation of the free symphonic concert planned for the Parc de la Tête d'Or, cancellation of the circus program at the Parc de Saint-Genis-Laval for the 2025 edition of the Nuits de Fourvière, etc).
  • Grand Est - The region reduced its cultural investment budget by 15%, focusing only on essential expenses while cutting discretionary funding.
  • Nouvelle-Aquitaine - A 5.5% cut in cultural spending affected education initiatives, mediation programs, and agency operations like ALCA (Agency for Books, Cinema, and Audiovisual)

• Sweden and Finland (NB! Both joined NATO in 2023&2024, which is likely one of the main reason of budget cuts on culture)

Substantial cuts in state funding of culture

• Finland’s cultural funding and the share of the creative industries in Finland’s exports are currently below the EU average.
• Future planned cuts—up to €75 million by 2026 (25 million euros in 2025 and 50 million euros in 2026)—pose even greater risks to the sector's viability and Finland’s cultural policy goals
• The democratization of access to arts and culture is under threat as fewer free programs are available, shifting cultural participation from a right to a privilege for wealthier groups

• Budget cuts
  • Funds and institutions:
    • a €4.6 million cut in grants from the Arts Promotion Centre, which impacts particularly the independent arts field and small arts organisations. In the visual arts, The Finnish Artists’ Studio Foundation, the Union of Finnish Art Associations, the Ostrobothnia Photo Center POVA, Fotocentrum Raseborg, Art School Maa, and the Free Art School lost their operational funding.
    • Many organizations, including Frame Contemporary Art Finland and Music Finland, have faced substantial reductions in operational funding. For example, Frame’s funding decreased by 15% in 2025, resulting in reduced program activities, temporary layoffs, and diminished international collaborations
    • Cuts have undermined Finland’s ability to promote its arts internationally. For example, Frame’s grants supporting international exhibitions were reduced by 36%, affecting over 160 projects annually
    • The Arts Promotion Centre Finland (Taike) experienced a €4.6 million cut in discretionary grants, which particularly affected independent arts organizations and small-scale projects
  • Regions
    • Cultural "dead zones": Rural areas risk losing access to professional cultural services, with activities concentrating in Helsinki, Turku, and Tampere.
    • In sparsely populated areas like Northern Finland, reductions in public funding have a pronounced impact, as there are fewer alternative sources of funding and less private sector involvement compared to more urbanized regions

Federal budget funding

• The nominal increase does not account for inflation, and the share in the overall budget is still decreasing.

• Budget cuts
  • Funds and institutions
    • Sweden has a dynamic local music scene and has been one of the best European music exporters internationally. One of the reasons behind this success is the role that study associations have played in helping young Swedish musicians learn their craft and starting their musical journey while providing an arena for artists to play in front of an audience. In 2023, the right-wing Swedish government decided to cut down on the budget allocated to study associations by 500 million Swedish Crowns (around €43,5 million) over a period of 3 years, starting in 2024. This was motivated by a shifted focus to education that leads to “real jobs”, by Minister of Education Mats Persson. One of the study associations had to cease their activities altogether. Kulturens Bildningsverksamhet shut down at the turn of 2024. It consisted of six national cultural organisations such as the Chamber Music Association, Swedish Jazz, the Swedish Folk Dance Ring, and Sweden's Choral Association.
  • Regions
    • In Umeå region the music house in Umedalen, one of Umeå’s biggest and oldest rehearsing studios was closed down.
    • In Västra Götaland, the largest cultural budget among Swedish regions is under strain due to stagnant funding levels despite inflation. This region exemplifies how local governments are forced to make difficult decisions about which programs to prioritize.
    • In Malmö, plans for a new culture house with rehearsal spaces were canceled due to funding shortages caused by state budget cut

In this group of countries, cultural projects often rely on EU structural funds and revenue from cultural attractions, rather than stable domestic funding.

Example:

• Italy
  • Italy's cultural spending has been modest compared to other European countries, consistently below the EU average. In 2022, Italy allocated €8.9 billion to cultural expenditure, representing 0.8% of total public spending—significantly less than countries like France (1.5%) and Germany (1.4%)
  • Despite some increases in funding for specific initiatives, such as a 26% rise in cultural ministry spending since 2019 and the Art Bonus program disbursing €121.6 million in 2023, Italy's overall investment in culture remains constrained
  • While Italy's cultural sector has historically been underfunded compared to European peers, recent budget cuts threaten further setbacks across regions. Southern Italy faces the greatest risks due to economic vulnerabilities, while Northern regions may leverage existing strengths but still encounter challenges in adapting to reduced funding. The austerity measures reflect broader fiscal priorities but raise concerns about the long-term sustainability of Italy's rich cultural heritage.
  • Budget cuts:
    • The 2025 budget law introduces significant cuts to cultural funding as part of broader fiscal consolidation efforts aimed at meeting medium-term financial goals. The Ministry of Culture faces reductions of €147 million in 2025, €178 million in 2026, and €204 million in 2027. These cuts primarily affect programs related to the protection and promotion of cultural heritage
• Cyprus
  • General government expenditure on cultural services accounted for only 0.4% of total expenditure, one of the lowest shares among EU countries
• Greece
  • The Greek government's expenditure on culture from 2022 to 2025 reflects a consistent trend of low prioritization, with spending remaining one of the lowest in the European Union (0,4% of of total expenditure).
• Portugal
  • cultural spending remains a small fraction of Portugal's total state budget (around 0.44% in 2025), far from the long-term goal of allocating 1% to culture
  • While Portugal's national cultural budget has increased for 2025, regional disparities persist. Cities like Braga (the the Portuguese Capital of Culture for 2025) are thriving due to targeted initiatives, but other areas face challenges related to limited local resources or historical underfunding.
• Romania
  • The share of cultural spending relative to GDP has remained low throughout the period (0.07%-0.1%), highlighting the sector's relatively low prioritization within Romania's overall fiscal policy

In this group of countries the public expenditure on culture has shown nominal increases in recent years but real-term declines when adjusted for inflation.

Examples:

• Netherlands
  • While nominal expenditure hovered around €3.6-3.9 billion from 2021-2025, real purchasing power declined significantly due to high inflation.
  • Municipalities bear the largest funding responsibility (53-58%), but their prioritization of culture is waning proportionally.
  • Cuts targeting "living art production" (e.g., performing arts and visual arts) undermine the ecosystem that supports emerging talent and experimental work, threatening long-term innovation in Dutch culture
  • These budgetary measures reflect a broader political narrative that frames culture as an elitist or non-essential sector, rather than a vital part of public life. 
  • Ravine year 2026
    • In 2026, the government is cutting billions from the municipal fund.
    • Municipalities face legal mandates to fund essential services like youth care (jeugdzorg), social support (WMO), and public housing.
    • Cultural expenditures, classified as niet-wettelijke taken (non-statutory tasks), lack this protected status.
    • Research by the Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (VNG) indicates that 68% of planned 2026 cuts target discretionary budgets, disproportionately affecting arts and heritage programs.
    • A Zorgsubsidiekalender analysis predicts a 22–35% reduction in cultural subsidies nationwide, with rural municipalities facing up to 40% decreases due to weaker alternative funding networks

• Ireland
  • Arts and culture are categorized among smaller programs in Ireland's budget framework. These programs represent less than 1% of total public spending
  • Ireland remains a highly centralized state where most expenditure decisions are made at the national level. This centralization may limit localized initiatives in arts and culture

• Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Poland, Slovenia
• Hungary
  • Since 2018, Hungary has consistently ranked first in the EU for cultural spending as a share of GDP. Hungary had the largest share of government expenditure on recreation, culture, and religion, amounting to 2.6% of GDP. (NB! the chart from EUROSTAT shows expenditure in cultural services only)
  • There has been an increasing centralization of cultural initiatives, with major investments in Budapest's museum district and restoration projects like the Buda Castle District. The government emphasizes national traditions over European integration in its cultural policies
  • Cultural institutions have been consolidated under centralized bodies like the National Cultural Council, which determines funding priorities based on ideological alignment with the government
  • Independent voices in arts and media have faced suppression through funding cuts, bureaucratic control, and censorship. Artists opposing government narratives often struggle to secure financial support or face self-censorship

The section examines public, private, and blended funding programs, as well as investment funds operating either across the EU or within individual countries. Corporate sponsorship mechanisms are explored in depth for France and Germany. The section concludes with an overview of the types and proportions of private funding in Europe.

Several major European Union (EU) programs provide significant funding for cultural initiatives across Europe. While Creative Europe is the only EU program solely focused on culture and the creative industries, it is relatively modest in size compared to other major EU funding programs that support cultural initiatives as part of broader objectives

Creative Europe Programme (EU Level)

• 2022: The Creative Europe budget reached a record €385 million, approximately €100 million more than in 2021, supporting recovery from the COVID-19 crisis and new sectoral challenges1.
• 2023–2024: The total Creative Europe budget for 2021–2027 is €2.44 billion, averaging about €348 million per year. The 2024 calls funded dozens of networks, platforms, and projects, with significant allocations (e.g., €44.3 million for networks, €49.5 million for platforms in 2024 alone)
• Creative Europe’s budget for 2021–2027 is 63% higher than in the previous cycle
• Despite this increase, Creative Europe still represents a small fraction of the total EU budget—only about 0.14% in the previous cycle and it remains modest compared to other EU funding stream
• Additional funding for culture is available through other EU programs (Horizon Europe, Cohesion Policy, Erasmus+, etc.), but these are not exclusively for culture and are harder to quantify precisely for the sector

Summary Table

• Creative Europe is the main dedicated cultural funding program, with €2.44 billion allocated for 2021–2027
• Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe provide much larger overall budgets, with significant but not exclusive focus on culture.
• CERV and Interreg also fund cultural initiatives, particularly those linked to civic engagement, rights, and regional cooperation.
• Digital Europe supports digital cultural transformation and skills.

• The Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Fund (CCS GF) is a specialized financial instrument established by the European Commission and managed by the European Investment Fund (EIF). Its primary objective is to improve access to finance for micro-businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating within the cultural and creative sectors, which traditionally face significant challenges in securing affordable loans and credit.
  • While the EIF itself is a public-private partnership, with the European Investment Bank and the European Commission as majority shareholders, the CCS GF is specifically a public initiative, not a private-sector fund. It operates by providing guarantees and counter-guarantees to financial intermediaries (such as banks), which then lend to eligible businesses and public entities in the cultural and creative sectors.
  • The CCS GF supports a wide range of cultural and creative industries, including architecture, museums, libraries, artistic crafts, audiovisual (film, TV, video games), music, design, performing arts, festivals, publishing, radio, and visual arts
  • In addition to financial guarantees, the CCS GF includes a capacity-building program for financial intermediaries. This program provides technical assistance and training to help banks and other lenders better understand the specific needs and risk profiles of cultural and creative sector projects
  • The CCS GF provides guarantees to banks, loan funds, and other financial intermediaries, reducing the risk they face when lending to CCS businesses. This encourages them to offer more loans and better terms to creative sector SMEs. The facility can also offer counter-guarantees to guarantee institutions, further expanding the reach and impact of the program
  • No Direct Funding: The CCS GF does not provide direct grants or loans to businesses; instead, it works through financial intermediaries who then extend EU-backed loans to eligible companies.
  • The capacity building scheme broadened the reach of the facility, involving financial institutions from up to 33 European countries
  • Since its 2016 launch, the CCS GF has evolved from a new guarantee instrument with a €600 million loan target to a cornerstone of EU support for creative SMEs, expanding its financial reach, introducing capacity building, adapting to pandemic challenges, and aiming for €2 billion in loans by 2024.

• EIF Guarantee Agreements for Cultural and Creative Sectors (2024) In 2024, the European Investment Fund (EIF), backed by InvestEU, announced a series of guarantee agreements specifically targeting cultural and creative businesses, including the audiovisual sector. These agreements, involving financial intermediaries in France, Germany, and Finland, are expected to mobilize around €141 million in new financing for cultural and creative SMEs and projects across Europe
  • Provides portfolio guarantees to financial intermediaries (such as banks and specialized funds), allowing them to lend more to CCS SMEs, small mid-caps, and small public enterprises that often struggle to access traditional finance.
  • Expected to mobilize around €141 million in new financing for cultural and creative businesses and projects across Europe, with initial agreements involving intermediaries in France, Germany, and Finland46.
  • Special focus on high-risk sectors like audiovisual, where traditional lenders may lack expertise in assessing project risks and cashflows.
  • Supports a wide range of cultural and creative sectors, including film, television, video games, music, design, performing arts, publishing, and more.
  • Encourages financial intermediaries to develop tailored credit assessment approaches and provides capacity-building support to better understand the needs of creative businesses.

• MediaInvest is a dedicated equity investment instrument created by the European Commission to support and strengthen the European audiovisual sector, including film, television, video games, and immersive content. It is managed by the European Investment Fund (EIF) and is financed through a combination of Creative Europe MEDIA resources and the InvestEU programme
  • The primary goal of MediaInvest is to bridge the financial gap in the audiovisual sector by attracting private investors and supporting total investments of up to €400 million between 2022 and 2027, with ambitions to unlock up to €145 billion in support for the creative sector by 2030 through leveraged private investment,
  • The mechanism works by the EIF investing public funds alongside private investors in the same risk class and on market terms, thus "crowding in" private capital that might otherwise not enter the sector
  • MediaInvest itself is a public investment initiative, but it is specifically structured to stimulate and leverage additional private investment into the European audiovisual industry

• CreatiFI – the Cultural and Creative Industries Financing Initiative – is the first EU initiative specifically designed to boost investment in the cultural and creative industries (CCIs) of African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries through financial instruments. Its core aim is to improve access to both equity and debt finance for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in these sectors, thereby strengthening culture’s role in sustainable socio-economic development. CreatiFI leverages EU funds alongside public and private co-financing, while also building the capacity of local financial institutions and creative entrepreneurs to foster job creation, cultural diversity, and economic growth.
  • Total budget of €50 million, with €20 million from the European Development Fund (EDF) and the remainder from co-financing partners.
  • Supports access to both equity and debt finance for creative MSMEs, addressing a key barrier to growth in the sector.
  • Aims to mobilize additional public and private financial resources through the EU’s catalytic “blending” approach.
  • Provides technical assistance and capacity building for local financial institutions and creative entrepreneurs to improve the design and uptake of tailored financial products.
  • Enhances knowledge about CCI value chains and clusters in ACP countries, supporting evidence-based policy and market development267.
  • Contributes to job creation, youth employment, and the international presence of ACP artists and cultural products.
  • Operational period of 10 years, with indirect management by multilateral, regional, and national financial institutions

Comparison of CCS GF, MediaInvest, EIF Guarantee Agreements for Cultural and Creative Sectors, and CreatiFI

• Key Points of Comparison
  • Geographic Focus:
    • CCS GF, MediaInvest, EIF Guarantee Agreements: Primarily support EU Member States.
    • CreatiFI: Targets ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific) countries, expanding EU support for CCIs beyond Europe.
  • Financial Instruments:
    • CCS GF, EIF Guarantee Agreements: Provide loan guarantees to reduce risk for lenders and improve SME access to debt.
    • MediaInvest: Provides equity investments, aiming to scale companies and attract private investors.
    • CreatiFI: Offers both equity and debt finance; also focuses on capacity building and knowledge-sharing for local financial institutions and entrepreneurs.
  • Budget/Scale:
    • CCS GF: Over €227 million in guarantees, leveraging €2.3 billion in loans.
    • EIF Guarantee Agreements: €141 million mobilized in 2024.
    • MediaInvest: €400 million target (2022–2027).CreatiFI: €50 million total, with €20 million from EDF, over a 10-year period.
  • Recent Developments:
    • CCS GF: Remained active through 2023–2025, supporting thousands of SMEs and jobs, especially in audiovisual.
    • MediaInvest: Actively investing in European audiovisual funds and companies.
    • EIF Guarantee Agreements: New InvestEU-backed guarantees launched in 2024.
    • CreatiFI: Launched in 2024 as the first EU action specifically using financial instruments for CCIs in ACP countries, with a strong focus on leveraging additional resources and building local capacity.

• EIT CCI
  • EIT CCI refers to EIT Culture & Creativity, the ninth Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) established by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). Its mission is to strengthen and transform Europe’s Cultural and Creative Sectors and Industries (CCSI) by fostering collaboration among stakeholders from education, research, business, and culture.
  • EIT Culture & Creativity (EIT CCI) was officially announced on 23 June 2022, following a call for proposals published in October 2021 and a selection process that concluded in March 2022. The start-up phase of the initiative began on 1 October 2022.
  • EIT CCI is primarily funded by public sources, specifically through the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, which is an EU body. The initial funding for EIT CCI comes from the EIT budget under Horizon Europe, the EU’s research and innovation framework programme. For the 2021–2027 period, EIT CCI is expected to receive up to EUR 300 million in EIT funding.
  • However, EIT CCI is also designed to attract additional investment from both private and public sources. Over time, the expectation is that the KIC will diversify its funding base and become financially sustainable by leveraging:
    • Contributions from partner organisations (public and private)
    • Voluntary contributions from Member States, associated or third countries, and public authorities
    • Revenue from its own activities (e.g., intellectual property, product sales, consulting)
    • Donations, endowments, and other forms of private support
• European Cultural Foundation (ECF)
  • The European Cultural Foundation (ECF) is an independent, Netherlands-based foundation that operates on a pan-European scale, not as a national fund. Its mission is to foster cultural exchange, creative expression, and a sense of European belonging across the continent. ECF achieves this through advocacy, partnerships, events, grant programs, and support for cross-border cultural initiatives.
  • Its funding structure is composed of several key sources:
    • Lottery Funding: ECF receives significant funding from Dutch lotteries, specifically the Vriendenloterij (formerly BankGiro Loterij) and Nederlandse Loterij, often in partnership with the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds.
    • National Lottery and Football Pools: Since 1973, ECF has received allocations from the Dutch football pools and the National Lottery, which have historically made up a substantial portion of its income.
    • External Contracts and Partnerships: ECF secures additional funding through contracts with outside sources for specific scientific and cultural activities. These can include private, governmental, or international organizations that co-finance joint projects. Financial contributions from these partners often account for about half the budget of each project
    • In-kind Contributions: The Foundation also benefits from in-kind support, such as office space provided by governments or support from research organizations.
    • Collaborations and Grants: ECF works closely with other foundations and international organizations (e.g., UNESCO, EEC, Council of Europe), which may provide project-based funding or collaborative grants

Chart source:

• Culture of Solidarity Fund is not a fully separate legal entity but operates as a distinct, pooled funding mechanism within the European Cultural Foundation (ECF). It is managed and administered by ECF, but its budget is raised and allocated separately from ECF’s core operational and grantmaking budget.
  • The Culture of Solidarity Fund is uniquely crisis-driven, pan-European, and flexible, with a strong focus on solidarity, rapid response, inclusivity, and support for marginalized or underserved communities—differentiating it from more traditional, programmatic European cultural grant schemes
  • The Culture of Solidarity Fund is a grant mechanism launched by the European Cultural Foundation in 2020 as a rapid response tool to support cross-border cultural initiatives, particularly in times of crisis (e.g., Covid-19 pandemic, war in Ukraine)45. Its funding structure is characterized by:
    • Public-Philanthropic Partnership: The fund operates as a pooled fund, combining resources from both public and philanthropic partners across Europe.
    • Co-Funding Partners: Since its inception, the fund has attracted more than 20–24 co-funding partners, including foundations, governmental agencies, and cultural institutions. These partners contribute financially to specific rounds or thematic editions of the fund.
    • Thematic and Regional Editions: Each round of the fund may have different co-funders, depending on the focus (e.g., democracy resilience, just transition, Ukraine crisis). For instance, special editions have been co-financed by organizations like the Evens Foundation, Allianz Foundation, EUNIC, Goethe-Institut, Institut français, Instituto Cervantes, and governmental bodies from Flanders, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
    • Flexible and Responsive Funding: The fund is designed to be agile, with the ability to quickly mobilize resources from its network of partners to address emerging crises and support cultural actors across Europe.
    • Scale: Since 2020, the Culture of Solidarity Fund has supported nearly 250 projects with more than €5.3 million, demonstrating the significant leverage achieved through its collaborative funding model.

Summary Table

Chart source:

Private and blended foundations 

Cross-European Foundations focused on culture

Cross-European or Global Foundations partially supporting culture

National Foundations fully focused on culture

National Foundations partially focused on cultural

Several private investment funds in the European Union focus on culture and the broader cultural and creative sectors (CCIs).

FRANCE

• France has the most substantial private cultural funding in Europe due to its Mécénat Law (2003), which offers tax deductions for corporate sponsorships. This has led to significant investments in museums, music, and performing arts. France’s structured tax incentives make it a leader in corporate cultural sponsorship, while Germany’s approach is more reliant on voluntary CSR initiatives
• Corporate sponsorship remains a vital but challenged pillar for cultural funding in France. While the absolute number of sponsors and total declared sponsorship is rising, the share going to culture has declined in favor of sports, especially in the Olympic context. Music and visual arts remain the favored subfields, and cross-sectoral projects are increasingly common. Most sponsorship is local, and companies are seeking more tangible returns on their cultural investments.

.Key Figures and Trends

• Share of Corporate Sponsorship for Culture In 2023, 17% of all corporate sponsorship (mécénat d’entreprise) in France was allocated to culture and heritage, amounting to approximately €2.9–3 billion in total declared sponsorship, with culture receiving about €493 million. This share has declined by 5 points compared to previous years, reflecting the strong pull of sports sponsorship due to the Paris Olympics, which now leads in both the number of sponsors and total funds.
• Number and Profile of Sponsors
  • 171,900 companies declared sponsorship in 2023, a 55% increase since 2021.
  • 28% of sponsoring companies supported culture in 2023, down 9 points from previous years.
  • The vast majority (97%) are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), though their individual contributions are smaller than those of large corporations.
• Types of Support
  • Financial support remains dominant, but 28% of sponsoring companies also provide in-kind support (donation of goods or spaces), and 16% offer skills-based sponsorship (mécénat de compétences), such as making staff available for cultural projects.
  • 40% of companies supporting culture did not use any benefits or counterparties from their sponsorship in 2023, while 26% used them partially and 25% fully. These benefits often include tickets, event invitations, or use of cultural spaces for employees.
• Focus Areas within Culture
  • Music attracts the largest share of cultural sponsorship (28% of cultural budgets).
  • Visual arts receive 17%, theatre 14%, writing/reading 17%, heritage/patrimoine 8%, and crafts 6%156.
  • 71% of cultural sponsorship volume is concentrated in music, visual arts, theatre, and literature.

Geographic and Strategic Shifts

• Local and Regional Focus
  • 88% of companies acted at the local or regional level in 2023, up 12 points from 2021, indicating a strong territorial anchoring of cultural sponsorship.
  • Only 25% operated at the national level, and 13% internationally.
• Decline in Support for Public Structures
  • 90% of sponsors supported private non-profit organizations in 2023, while support for public cultural institutions declined, mirroring the overall decrease in cultural sponsorship4.

GERMANY

• Corporate sponsorship remains a crucial, though challenged, pillar of cultural funding in Germany. While the overall volume is stable, companies are signaling caution for the future, even as cultural organizations look to sponsorship to fill potential gaps from shrinking public funds.
• Corporate sponsorship for culture in Germany has remained relatively stable in recent years, with no significant changes in the overall annual volume between 2019 and 2023. The average sponsorship volume provided per company per year was €38,239 in 2023 (across all company sizes).

Total Market Size:

• Estimates from sector studies put the annual total of corporate cultural sponsorship in Germany at €250–300 million
• Sponsorship volumes range widely:
  • 34.6% of sponsorships are between €5,000–€50,000
  • 18.4% between €100,000–€500,000
  • 7.5% exceed €1 million
• Deutsche Börse Group is a leading example, spending €1.63 million on cultural sponsorship in 2024, with major museum and art partnerships.

Future Outlook:

• Companies expect their cultural sponsorship budgets to decrease by 25.3% for 2024–2028 compared to 2019–2023, while cultural organizations expect a moderate increase of 12% in sponsorship income. This divergence reflects both caution among businesses and optimism among cultural providers, who anticipate public funding cuts and see sponsorship as increasingly vital.

Areas of Focus

• Most Supported Sectors:
  • Festivals, cultural education, and classical music are the most popular sponsorship targets, followed by theater and special exhibitions.
  • Innovative, regional, inter-cultural, social, and digital cultural offerings are increasingly favored, especially those with sustainability or climate action themes.
  • Support is given to both large (over 500,000 visitors/year) and small cultural organizations.
• Forms of Support:
  • Sponsorship (82%) is the most common form, followed by donations (75%).
  • Long-term partnerships are typical: 73% of companies sponsor over several years, while 21% are one-off partners.
  • Large companies are more likely to engage in institutional support and even run their own cultural projects.
• Recipients:
  • Main recipients are cultural institutions (71–88% depending on company size) and art/culture associations (48–65%).There is a growing demand for sustainable and future-oriented projects.

COMPARISON OF CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP TRENDS IN CULTURE IN FRANCE AND GERMANY

In 2023–2024, private funding of culture in Europe is led by households (53%), followed by corporate sponsorships (25%), philanthropic foundations (19%), and charity lotteries (3%). Households remain the backbone of private cultural support, while corporate and philanthropic contributions are evolving through digitalization, impact orientation, and cross-sector partnerships.

Households Household support for culture in Europe encompasses

• Direct spending: Tickets, subscriptions, memberships, and cultural goods/services.
• Philanthropic giving: Donations and bequests to cultural organizations.

Trends and Data:

• Expenditure Growth: In 2023, household spending on recreation, sport, and culture in the EU grew by 3% compared to 2022, and by 23.5% compared to 2021, reflecting a strong post-pandemic rebound.
• Top Spenders: France led with €29.32 billion, followed by Italy (€24.87B), Spain (€22.2B), and Germany (€16.22B) in 202318.
• Share of Household Budgets: In 2020 (latest detailed breakdown), households in the EU spent an average of 2.6% of their total expenditure on cultural goods and services, with Denmark (3.9%), Germany (3.7%), and Austria (3.5%) at the top12.
• Composition: About 13.7% of household cultural spend goes to attendance and entertainment (tickets, memberships), while the rest is on equipment, books, and subscriptions12.
• Philanthropic Role: Households (including bequests) are the largest source of philanthropic contributions to culture, accounting for about 53% of total private cultural giving in Europe.

Corporate Sponsorships Corporate support for culture includes:

• Cash sponsorships: Funding for events, institutions, or projects.
• In-kind support: Goods, services, or use of spaces.
• Skills-based sponsorship: Employee time and expertise.

Trends and Data:

• Market Size: The total European sponsorship market reached €30.9 billion in 2023, with the non-sport (including culture) sector valued at €8.88 billion, up 6.2% from 2022. By 2024, non-sport sponsorship grew further to €9.49 billion.
• Cultural Share: Culture and the arts are a major part of the non-sport segment but remain below pre-pandemic highs, as sport dominates sponsorship budgets.
• Corporate Share: Corporate sponsorships make up about 25% of all private philanthropic contributions to culture in Europe.

Philanthropy (Foundations, Lotteries, Bequests): Philanthropic support for culture comes from:

• Private and family foundations
• Corporate foundations
• Charity lotteries
• Bequests (testamentary gifts)

Trends and Data:

• Charitable Giving Market: The European charitable giving market was valued at €13.7 billion in 2023, with strong growth prospects and an increasing role for digital donations and cross-border philanthropy.
• Foundations' Role: Foundations (including family, corporate, and community) account for about 19% of total private giving to culture.
• Lotteries: Charity lotteries contribute about 3% of total private cultural giving, with €22 billion raised for public good (including culture and heritage) in 2022 across Europe.

Summary Table: Shares of Private Funding of Culture in Europe (2023–2024)

Key Trends (2023–2024)

• Household spending on culture is rising, especially in countries like France, Germany, and Spain, with digital and experiential services gaining ground.
• Corporate sponsorship is recovering post-pandemic, but sport still dominates; cultural sponsorship is growing but has not yet reached pre-pandemic levels.
• Philanthropy is diversifying, with digital giving, cross-border initiatives, and impact-driven strategies becoming more prominent.
• Lotteries remain a stable but small share of total private cultural funding, with some countries leveraging them more than others.

The section provides summaries and notes from the documents that appear to be valuable for the overall discussion

Culture2030Goal Roadmap 2025

• the Culture2030Goal Roadmap 2025 is a coordinated effort to ensure that culture is recognized, measured, and integrated as a fundamental component of sustainable development, both now and in the future.
• The Culture2030Goal Roadmap 2025 is an advocacy and strategic framework developed by the #Culture2030Goal campaign, a coalition of global cultural networks. Its central aim is to secure the explicit recognition of culture as a core pillar in global sustainable development agendas, both in the implementation of the current UN 2030 Agenda and in shaping the post-2030 development framework.
• The campaign envisions culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development, alongside the economic, social, and environmental pillars. Its mission is to mainstream culture across all aspects of the global development agenda
• The campaign is rooted in previous manifestos and statements, such as the #culture2015goal Manifesto and the #CultureCOVID19 Statement, emphasizing the essential role of culture in resilience, recovery, and sustainable futures
• Strategic Goals:
  • Strengthen the role of culture in the ongoing implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda.
  • Achieve the adoption of a dedicated global goal for culture in the development agenda that will succeed the 2030 Agenda.
  • Promote the creation of a comprehensive global agenda for culture.
• Actions and Tools:
  • Launch of a multilingual survey to gather input from stakeholders worldwide.
  • Mapping and development of indicators for the 10 proposed targets of a potential Culture Goal, aiming to provide both qualitative and quantitative measures of culture's contribution to sustainable development.
  • Advocacy for the inclusion of culture from the outset in national development planning and reporting, especially through Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs).
  • Calls for broader consultation and participation in SDG reporting processes, and for a High-Level Meeting on Culture within the UN's reporting cycles.
• Evidence and Reporting:
  • Reports produced by the campaign highlight the diversity of how local and regional governments integrate culture into their sustainable development strategies. Many Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) now include substantive narratives and practical examples of cultural policies and actions.
• Stakeholder Engagement:
  • The roadmap actively encourages the participation of cultural actors, institutions, and organizations at all levels, recognizing their crucial role in achieving the SDGs and in shaping future global agendas.

"State of Culture Report" by Culture Action Europe (2024)

• The "State of Culture Report," commissioned by Culture Action Europe (CAE) and authored by Elena Polivtseva, provides a comprehensive analysis of how culture is framed and valued within national and European policies. It also reflects on the perspectives of stakeholders across the cultural and creative sectors, aiming to provoke critical discussion and shape future advocacy strategies for culture in Europe
• The report calls for a recalibration of how culture is valued and supported in Europe. It urges the sector to reclaim its agency, articulate its intrinsic and societal value, and become an equal partner in shaping Europe’s future. Only by doing so can culture fulfill its potential as a driver of democracy, sustainability, and social transformation

Purpose and Scope

• The report serves as a mirror for the cultural sector, prompting self-reflection on how it is perceived by policymakers and society, and how it perceives itself.
• It is intended as a conversation starter and a guide for tailored advocacy, helping the sector collectively imagine new paradigms of action in a rapidly changing political and social landscape.

Methodology

• The research included a review of cultural policy documents from all 27 EU member states, analysis of EU cultural policy evolution, a sector-wide survey (579 responses), interviews with 17 representatives from various cultural sub-sectors, and desk research on academic and policy literature.
• The findings synthesize both quantitative and qualitative insights, though the report acknowledges some limitations in sectoral and local representation.

Key Observations

Strategic Recommendations

• Restore Sectoral Self-Worth: The sector must define and assert its own values, moving beyond externally imposed agendas.
• Ecosystem Approach: Culture should be recognized and supported as an interconnected ecosystem, not just a collection of projects or products.
• Policy Frameworks: Build a "scaffolding" of policies that ensure autonomy, fair working conditions, and sustainable support for culture as a public good.
• Pluralism and Democracy: Foster pluralistic narratives and democratic practices within the sector to reinforce culture’s societal role.
• Long-Term Thinking: Advocate for policies that value culture’s long-term, transformative impacts, rather than just short-term, quantifiable results.
• Protect Human Creativity: Assert the unique value of human creativity in the face of technological disruption, especially from AI.
• Empower Creative Workers: Ensure specific protections and fair working conditions for artists and cultural professionals.

The Future of EU Culture Funding" (Culture Action Europe, Feb 2025)

• The document advocates for a significant increase in European Union funding for the cultural and creative sectors (CCS) in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028–2034. Culture Action Europe (CAE), representing a cross-sectoral network of cultural organizations, artists, and stakeholders, presents policy recommendations and economic justifications for raising the EU’s culture budget to 2% of the total MFF. The recommendations call for integrating culture across all major EU funding streams and aligning cultural investment with broader EU policy objectives for competitiveness, sustainability, and social inclusion

Key Points

• Current Context and Ambition
  • The EU’s competence in culture is limited to supporting, coordinating, or supplementing national actions, not legislating directly. However, CAE argues this should not restrict financial support.
  • CAE calls for dedicating 2% of the EU’s long-term budget (MFF) to culture, which would mean approximately €24 billion over the 2028–2034 period.
• Economic Rationale
  • Each euro invested in EU cultural action could generate up to €11 in GDP, according to the European Parliamentary Research Service.
  • For every euro invested in initiatives like the European Capitals of Culture, the return is estimated at €8–10.
  • Increasing EU culture spending to 2% could generate €266 billion in additional GDP over the MFF period, or €38 billion annually.
• Proposed Funding Structure
  • The 2% target should apply across the main MFF pillars:
    • Competitiveness Fund (standalone programme for culture, e.g., Creative Europe)
    • National Plans (linking reforms and investments)
    • External Action funding
  • The next MFF is expected to shift from a programme-based to a policy-based budget, reducing the number of funding programmes and focusing more on strategic outcomes.
• Strategic Recommendations
  • Embed culture in broader EU policy priorities, including social rights, youth, democracy, and intergenerational fairness.
  • Ensure dedicated funding for culture within each main MFF pillar, not just through Creative Europe but also via national and external action plans.
  • Use culture as a lever for competitiveness, innovation, social cohesion, and international relations.
  • Maintain and expand support for cross-border cultural cooperation, digital transformation, and sustainability in the sector.
• Advocacy and Next Steps
  • CAE urges the European Commission, Parliament, and Council to consider these recommendations in the development and negotiation of the MFF 2028–2034.
  • The first proposal for the new MFF is expected by July 2025, and CAE’s analysis is based on current political guidelines and budgetary priorities.

"Cultural Deal for Europe: Key Messages" (February 2025)

• The "Cultural Deal for Europe: Key Messages" document, published in February 2025, presents the core policy recommendations and advocacy points from leading European cultural organizations—Culture Action Europe, Europa Nostra, the European Cultural Foundation, and Bozar. These messages were developed in the context of the annual policy conversation "Culture: The Compass for Europe’s Future," held in Brussels as the EU prepares to set new strategic directions and budgets.
• It is a call to embed culture at the heart of the EU’s policies and funding, recognizing its fundamental role in democracy, security, sustainability, and economic growth. It advocates for a minimum 2% budget allocation for culture, the creation of a strategic "Culture Compass," and comprehensive support for cultural workers and institutions across Europe

Main Themes and Calls to Action

• Culture as a Pillar of Democracy
  • Culture is essential for strengthening democratic engagement, civic participation, and defending fundamental rights.
  • The document calls for culture and cultural heritage to become central to the European Democracy Shield, supporting international cultural cooperation (especially with Ukraine and vulnerable regions), and combating the use of culture as a weapon by authoritarian regimes.
• Culture and Security
• Culture is positioned as a pillar of resilience in international relations, with cultural actors on the frontlines defending freedom, particularly in conflict zones like Ukraine and Georgia.
• The policy calls for integrating culture into Europe’s security, diplomacy, and international relations, promoting job safety for artists, addressing the impact of artificial intelligence, and safeguarding digital security and cultural heritage in crisis zones.

• Culture and Sustainability
  • Culture is highlighted as a driver of social cohesion, sustainable development, and well-being.
  • The document advocates for recognizing culture and cultural heritage as a standalone UN Sustainable Development Goal beyond 2030, and for investing in cultural infrastructure to support a fair and green transition, especially in city regeneration and post-industrial context.
• Funding: 2% for Culture and Heritage
• A central demand is that at least 2% of the EU’s future Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) be earmarked for culture, cultural heritage, and creative sectors, with a dedicated culture programme similar in ambition to Erasmus.
• The document cites research indicating that every euro invested in the cultural sector generates up to €11 in GDP, underlining the economic and social value of increased investment.

• Strategic Framework: The Culture Compass
• The document supports the creation of a "Culture Compass," a new EU strategic framework to guide cultural policy, announced by the European Commission for 2025.
• This framework should embed culture across all major EU policies, from security and competitiveness to sustainability and digital transformation, ensuring that culture is not an afterthought but a guiding force for Europe’s future.

• Key Policy Recommendations
  • Embed culture and heritage in the EU’s Democracy Shield and Green Deal.
  • Ensure fair working conditions and pay for cultural workers, especially young and emerging artists.
  • Address the challenges and opportunities posed by new technologies, especially AI, for cultural professionals.
  • Foster external action and enlargement policies with culture as a bridge to neighboring regions.
  • Support the autonomy of cultural organizations and the sustainability of grassroots projects.
  • Develop a flagship EU cultural programme, akin to Erasmus, to promote inclusion, belonging, and youth engagement

Notable Quotes

"Culture is not the fifth wheel but the steering wheel!" — André Wilkens, Director, European Cultural Foundation1

"Europe needs a reliable compass — not just for security or competitiveness, but above all, a Cultural Compass, one that guides and connects all other strategic priorities.” — Sneška Quaedvlieg-Mihailović, Secretary General, Europa Nostra1

Cultural Creative Sector Guarantee Faciltiees Market Fiches Report

• The "CCS-GF Market Fiches" report provides a country-by-country overview of the Cultural and Creative Sectors (CCS) across 29 countries—covering all EU Member States, Norway, and Iceland. It complements broader EU-level analyses by offering detailed national snapshots, focusing on sector size, structure, and funding sources.
• The report is a comprehensive reference on the size, structure, and funding of the CCS across Europe, highlighting both the sector’s economic significance and the diversity of national approaches to supporting cultural and creative industries. The report was created in 2024, but it primarily relies on data no later than 2021. 

Key Features:

• Scope and Data Sources: The report compiles selected data on CCS Gross Value Added (GVA), employment, and enterprise numbers, mostly from Eurostat, national statistics, and specialized mappings. It also highlights public and private funding mechanisms, including subsidies, tax relief, sponsorship, and EU-backed financial instruments.
• Sector Overview: CCS play a significant role in national economies, with the sector’s contribution to total GVA and employment varying widely. For example, Cyprus and Malta have the highest CCS share of total GVA, driven by strong audiovisual and multimedia subsectors, while larger economies like Germany, France, and Italy lead in absolute value added.
• Enterprise and Employment: The number and share of CCS enterprises differ by country size and policy environment. Italy and France host the most enterprises, while smaller countries like Iceland and Luxembourg have fewer than 5,000. On average, CCS enterprises represent 12.4% of all enterprises, but this is skewed by outliers such as the Netherlands, where freelance-friendly policies boost the figure to 23.2%. CCS employment averages 6.5% of total employment, with Malta reaching over 10%.
• Recent Trends:The sector saw a 4.3% compound annual growth rate in GVA from 2013 to 2020, though the COVID-19 pandemic caused declines in some countries. Employment in CCS dropped by 2.8% in 2020, but some countries (e.g., Latvia, Romania) bucked the trend with growth.
• Funding Landscape: The fiches detail main funding sources for CCS in each country, including:
  • Direct public support (subsidies, grants, cultural budgets)
  • Indirect support (tax incentives, social security measures)
  • Private funding (sponsorship, donations)
  • EU-level instruments such as the Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility (CCS GF), which improves access to finance for CCS SMEs by providing guarantees to financial intermediaries
• Comparability: Definitions and statistical classifications of CCS vary by country, reflecting national priorities and policy frameworks. This limits direct comparability but offers a nuanced view of sectoral strengths and funding structures1.

Structure:

• Each fiche introduces the national CCS context, presents key statistics (GVA, employment, enterprises), and outlines the main public and private funding mechanisms. The report aims to support policymakers, financial intermediaries, and sector stakeholders with up-to-date, granular information on the CCS landscape in Europe.

Influence of Innovation in Arts on Value Creation in Cultural Organizations

Bilge Irem Aydiner, Master's Dissertation, University of Padua

The dissertation is devoted to the concept of innovation in the arts, with a separate section dedicated to Arts funding, providing interesting insights, a literature review and observations. Some of those are given below:

• Considering the fact that policies of each voted-for government are mostly public during their election campaigns, it may be possible to say that the preference towards bargaining the entire arts and culture sectors in a country is directly the result of the public perspective towards the sector. This would be one way to describe the actions of policymakers. On the other hand, economically, each voted-for government takes these decisions beforehand, regarding their political standing on public welfare, and state grants.

• As far as the arts & culture sector is concerned, organizations are often directly funded and operating as government agents, connected to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs. In many states today, we observe public museums, artistic facilities, and protection of cultural heritage by the state. In Italy, there are more than five hundred museums and cultural sites that are under the protection of Direzione generale Musei, connected to the Ministry of Culture (Ministero della Cultura). Each of these sites and organizations can be considered as sources of tourism activities, under the cultural tourism dimension. Therefore, they are in organizational level bounded by the policies made by the state.

• Supporting arts and culture sector for government is mostly seen as an educational tool to enhance public interest to arts, culture, and histories of fine arts of a country. Therefore, the support not only incentives artists and organizations to add value to the sector, but also it incentives the public, who are the indirect recipients of this relationship, to show higher interest to arts. Considering this relationship as a main factor in strengthening the sector in a country, budget cuts by the government will therefore show the opposite effect. Art audiences are built by availability of arts production.
• Less government spending could mean fewer productions, and what then could happen to the art-loving population? How will artists and art groups survive? As a consequence of funding cuts from the government, the entrance of the private sector could answer the second question, and as a natural effect of the entrance of private sector to the funding scheme, the public that carries interest towards art is rescued from the voidness of losing their arena of interest.

• As a return of such policy that highlights the importance of subsidization of the sector for enhanced creativity and higher participation, one may expect innovations in the sector to also be triggered by increased support for creativity.

• The organizational operations of such as museums, exhibitions, and the activities of artists, will be likely to be under the influence of the directions set or desired for the cultural sector to move towards by the governmental control mechanism that provides them the sources, and platforms to exist.

• In an ideal scenario for this thesis, the state should foster and motivate the innovational works of artists and organizations in order to improve the creative scheme of the arts and culture world, opening new possibilities of activity, and ensuring a wider field for new artists to feel safe to enter, or the existing artists to broaden their perspectives. On the contrary, as stated in Zimmer & Toepler, “The more arts institutions are directly governed by the state (at municipal, state, and federal levels), the higher the degree of etatism in the cultural policy field.” (Zimmer & Toepler, 1996, p.173).

• Governments, by funding the arts and culture sector, aims to share the educational benefits of the sector to a wider audience, including those who might not have specialization or ongoing interest in arts. This educational component tends to foster creativity and not solely towards the arts and culture sector, but also includes the general creativity for all. To set an example, being under the influence of creative sources from an early age for one may contribute to the innovative skills within their personality, that will further in life may contribute to the economic scheme of a country.

• Between 2020 and 2021, the total economic value added by arts and cultural industries grew by 13.7 percent. This surpasses the increase of the total U.S. economy, which grew by 5.9 percent in the same period.” (National Endowment for the Arts, 2023)

• Growth in household final consumption on recreation and culture also outpaced total household consumption, increasing by 20% compared to 10% between 2011 and 2019 in G20 countries with available data.” (OECD, 2021, p.8).

• Building the connection between creativity and innovation, one could mention that such incentivization of creativity through artistical and cultural values may result with increases in innovation, regardless the sector that those take place is arts and culture or not.

• One can state that for social development, accessibility of arts and culture activities is significant. Cultural welfare policies aim to induce social integration and to train citizens by allowing the whole nation, as well as the socially underprivileged bracket, to experience cultural enjoyment and participation by cultivating cultural emotionality and creativity.

• It is significant for the public welfare to ensure expansion of arts and culture to the majority of public rather than leaving it to the hegemony of a social group, who can afford to benefit from cultural and artistic activities

• The existence of private fundings may expand the freedom of the artists and artistical and cultural organizations, while at the same time broadening the participation to the arts world in terms of new organizations, new artists, and as a natural result new audience. Such expansion will therefore promote innovation, as part of artistical development.
• In order to achieve a point in which the artistical and cultural organizations benefit from freedom of their own expression and the state experiencing the economic and social development benefits of arts and culture, it is critical that there is a balanced use of both state and private fundings instead of preferring one over the other, therefore favoring a harmonical approach that will embrace the importance of both methods to boost sectoral development.