A small theater in Berlin receives multi-year public funding, pays artists union wages, and never relies on ticket sales to stay afloat. Meanwhile, an equally acclaimed company in New York fundraises year-round just to cover its operating costs, often while creatively piecing together earned revenue strategies to stay viable. The difference isn’t artistic ambition; it’s the funding model.
As cultural organizations worldwide face increased pressure to prove their value, diversify income, and build audiences, the question of who pays for the arts is more urgent than ever. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but lessons can be learned from how different countries structure their support for culture.
This article looks at three contrasting approaches to arts funding and what cultural leaders can take from each to strengthen sustainability and advocate for smarter policy.
The State Patron: France and Germany
In much of continental Europe, the arts are considered a public good. Germany’s “Kulturstaat” model enshrines public responsibility for the arts in its constitution. Roughly 80% of arts funding comes from public sources, including federal, state, and municipal levels. France operates similarly, with the Ministry of Culture playing a central role in supporting institutions and artists through grants, subsidies, and infrastructure.
This model provides stability, long-term planning, and national identity building. However, it also requires navigating bureaucracy, and organizations are more vulnerable to political shifts and budget cuts.
Lesson: Public investment fosters artistic risk and cultural equity but must be balanced with mechanisms that protect autonomy and support innovation.
The Market Partner: United States and United Kingdom
In the U.S., public arts funding accounts for only about 7% of non-profit arts organizations’ total revenues. The rest comes from philanthropy, earned income, and sponsorship. The UK, especially since the 2008 financial crisis, has also moved toward a model that prioritizes business skills and fundraising capacity.
This system rewards entrepreneurship, builds strong relationships with audiences and donors, and promotes innovation. But it also favors institutions with existing access to wealth and networks, often exacerbating inequity.
Lesson: Market-driven models can fuel agility and engagement, but they require constant reinvention and often leave small or emerging organizations lacking strong networks behind.
The Hybrid Innovator: Colombia, South Korea, Canada
Some of the most dynamic models today are hybrid: they combine public seed funding with private-sector leverage and incentives. Colombia’s CoCrea framework, for example, encourages private investment in culture through tax incentives and cross-sector partnerships. Québec offers core support to arts organizations while promoting entrepreneurship through provincial innovation funds. South Korea’s cultural “K-Strategy” integrates government support with global export ambitions, blending identity-building with economic development.
These models recognize that cultural funding is not just about preservation, but about strategic growth.
Lesson: Hybrid approaches create resilience by aligning policy, philanthropy, and market logic, especially in rapidly changing cultural landscapes.
What the World Gets Right — and What We Can Learn
There is no perfect model: each system has its strengths and pitfalls. State-driven models offer predictability and cultural cohesion but can lack responsiveness. Market-based models drive innovation but widen gaps between well-connected and emerging players. Hybrid systems encourage cross-sector collaboration, but they require ongoing coordination and accountability.
For cultural leaders, the real opportunity lies in understanding these models not as binaries, but as ingredients that can be adapted to local realities.
How Cultural Leaders Can Use This
Know your policy environment
Many cultural organizations underutilize the policies already available to them — whether it’s tax incentives, creative economy funds, or international cultural diplomacy programs. Stay informed and be proactive in applying.
Design funding strategies like portfolios
Across all models, diversification is key. Don’t rely on a single source — balance core funding, earned income, philanthropy, and partnerships. Look for successful models abroad for inspiration and localize them thoughtfully.
Become advocates, not just applicants
Funding models are shaped by policy, and policy responds to organized voices. Cultural leaders who see themselves as stakeholders in the public conversation, become advocates for systems that reflect the value they deliver.
The Bottom Line
Sustainable culture doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the result of intentional design of funding systems, policies, and values that recognize the arts not just as enrichment, but as infrastructure for our shared future.
So, who pays for the arts? Around the world, the answer varies. But the organizations that thrive are those that recognize the opportunities within their own systems, draw inspiration from global models, and shape what comes next by engaging in the public conversation.
