An uncertain period has arrived for the arts. The larger institutions have just submitted their government subsidy applications for the period 2025-2028 at the end of January. The subsidy conditions for that period, including policy goals such as diversity, inclusion, fair payment and participation, have still been determined by the now outgoing cabinet and the old House of Representatives.
But the new House, and the parties that have been negotiating a new government so far, think differently about culture than the previous cabinet. In addition, at the request of former State Secretary Gunay Uslu, the Council for Culture has written an advice on fairly radical changes to the government subsidy system, which is also known as the small bis (direct government subsidy to cultural institutions that form the cultural ‘basic infrastructure’). ) and the big bis (the small bis plus the government funds, such as the Mondriaan Fund and the Performing Arts Fund, which subsidize projects and artists). The situation raises questions:
Is a new cabinet bound to the subsidy conditions, and therefore to an important part of the cultural policy, of the outgoing cabinet?
Yes and no. A new cabinet is always bound to a certain extent by the policy of the previous cabinet, because the government is bound by general principles of good governance, such as the principle of legal certainty: citizens and institutions must be able to count on the fact that established policy will not just happen at random. jump, can be swept aside. In the case of the bis, institutions have applied for subsidies taking into account the currently applicable criteria.
Normally, a decision on subsidy applications will be made next Budget Day, possibly by a new cabinet. Such an application cannot suddenly be assessed according to different criteria if a new cabinet thinks differently about culture, says Tom Barkhuysen, professor of constitutional and administrative law at Leiden University and lawyer at Stibbe. “This applies especially to policy that is laid down in rules, such as a generally binding regulation.” The subsidy scheme for the bis is such a regulation, and for that reason it is unlikely that a new cabinet will tamper with it.
Cutbacks are more complicated. The House of Representatives has budget rights and can choose to spend less money on culture, whether or not on the proposal of a new minister or state secretary for culture. But that is also not possible without good reasons, such as a general round of cuts across all policy areas. Barkhuysen: “If a cutback only applied to this subsidy, it would be a disguised policy change that compromises legal certainty.”
Besides these subsidies, a new cabinet will of course have room to shape its own cultural policy, such as on heritage, libraries, cultural education, National Cultural Funds and money for municipalities.
The Council for Culture has just issued advice on a major revision of cultural policy. Should a new cabinet follow that?
No, it is advice, and not all advice from the Council for Culture is followed. But this is thorough advice, drawn up after consultation with four hundred people from the cultural sector. One of the key points of the advice, more regional distribution, is a thought that has already been expressed lives longer at the council and the ministry. Moreover, that core idea seems to be in line with at least the ideas of the BBB, VVD and NSC.
The PVV consistently states that it has an aversion to subsidized art in general. Yet the arts sector believes that a new cabinet cannot avoid pursuing a sound cultural policy. “The voters of the parties that have been at the information table so far are culture-loving,” says Jeroen Bartelse, co-chairman of advocacy group Kunsten ’92 and general director of TivoliVredenburg. “After all, those voters also go to festivals and concerts, watch films and visit museums. Cultural policy is needed for affordable and accessible offerings, with more attention to regional and local distribution, as the Council for Culture advises.”
He sees more similarities between the council’s advice and the programs of the parties that have negotiated so far. “Security of life and fair pay, for example. And the call for less bureaucracy in the distribution of resources.”
What are the reactions to the advice from the field?
In general, the sector has responded positively to the advice, especially to a legal anchoring of the task of the municipalities and provinces. Many institutions and organizations are now dependent on municipalities for matters such as housing, energy costs and program subsidies. The government now spends approximately 1 billion euros on culture every year. Provinces and municipalities together contribute 2.3 billion euros.
Because municipalities have no formal role in this, culture is vulnerable to cuts, director Gabbi Mesters of the VSCD, the association for performance venues, told ANP. “This legal anchoring of the task of the municipalities and provinces was our most important wish. Because there is currently no legal task at municipal level to provide stages, many stages have fallen into disrepair in recent years.”
The council wants municipalities to become responsible for cultural education, cultural participation and cultural real estate. They must also provide basic facilities and financing to local makers and smaller cultural organizations. The council wants an extra 200 million euros for this. Unlikely? “If you ask municipalities to take on cultural tasks, the money will follow that task,” says Bartelse.
What are the concerns about the advice?
“We are still putting together our response to the advice with Kunsten ’92,” says Bartelse. But most of our questions are about the advice to merge the government funds into one large fund, says Bartelse. Through one fund, which works nationally and regionally, cultural policy should become ‘more clear and coherent’, writes the Council for Culture. “It is not yet sufficiently clear to us whether such a drastic and potentially expensive reorganization will achieve the intended goal. But the council is still talking about a prototype, so that will have to be further developed.”
Another concern is that regional spread will lead to fragmentation, says Bartelse. “Quality and talent development often require a certain concentration of people and resources. Distribution is important, you want cultural education and cultural participation everywhere. But not every region needs to have the same standard of facilities.”
Bartelse also hears questions from makers about the advice. “They lack government policy specifically aimed at artists. Until 2012, there was an independent creator scheme, the Artists’ Work and Income Act (WWIK). When it comes to social security, there is a lot to be said for bringing something like this back.”