ARTS AND CULTURE: CAN THEY DO WITHOUT SUBSIDY? For over two years now the Dutch arts and culture sector has been expressing considerable concern about subsidy cutbacks, imposed by the former centre-right government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte. This concern is being expressed both by the Council for Culture, the legal adviser of the government in the fields of the arts, culture and media, and various cultural institutions, among which are theatre, dance and music groups. According to Jeroen Bartelse, general secretary at the Council for Culture, the cutbacks are planned in such a manner that large prestigious cultural institutions will be spared at the expense of midsized or small institutions, which approach is causing the Council concern. Additionally, various politicians are expressing their concern as well. Mariko Peters, a Member of Parliament for the Dutch Environmentalist Party, states that exclusive funding of cultural institutions that are already largely self-supporting will be disastrous for experimental arts and culture, which, as a result, will no longer be given a chance.1 Moreover, the Performing Arts Fund states that at least seventy cultural institutions will lose their subsidy in the next four years. Consequently, various institutions have become uncertain about their continuing existence.2 Due to this situation a question in the arts and culture debate has arisen as to whether or not arts and culture genuinely need subsidy in order to exist. Various participants in the debate are concerned about whether cultural institutions can withstand a loss of subsidy. In the United States, however, it is already a standard that cultural institutions seek for funding possibilities themselves. According to Glenn Lowry, managing director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, what Europe needs is a more philanthropic culture; one that celebrates sponsors. Lowry says 'I do not want to pass judgment over which system I believe works better, but I do believe that budget cuts do not have to mean the end of the world.'3 What is more is that recent research by order of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science indicates that the arts and culture sector's concern for its continuing existence is based, above all, on a subsidy-dependent behaviour that has turned into a habit. Because of this habit, cultural institutions are likely to push aside market opportunities to finance their activities in more distinct ways.4 On this view, it seems that the problem is to be found within the act of providing subsidies itself, creating a lack of self-sufficiency. On the contrary, several museum directors and scientists, both from the Netherlands as well as abroad, have stated in an open letter to Halbe Zijlstra, State Secretary of Education, Culture and Science, that they believe that a shift to a more self-sufficient system with market forces is not as realistic as one would think. The initiators of the letter say 'the idea of having the private sector and patronage to fill the holes will not be the quick fix that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have in mind. A system in which private donations play an important role cannot quickly get off the ground. Such development takes generations and would require structural fiscal advantages.'5 In addition, Robbert Dijkgraaf, President of the Royal Dutch Academy of Science, states that the reasoning that arts and culture will find their way to the public when subsidy will disappear is causing him great concern. His concern is that market forces will diminish the sector's biodiversity; arts and culture that bring in diversity but which, under the influence of the market, are expected to suffer from decreasing opportunities to yield money that equals their current subsidy. Consequently, for some institutions a shift to a more self-sufficient system will mean the end. Therefore, Dijkgraaf believes that cultural entrepreneurship cannot exist exclusively by virtue of individual creativity.6 In compliance with this statement, the Dutch Federal Trade Union states that investments, also in experimental arts and culture, remain necessary or else it will be difficult for some institutions, if not impossible, to survive.7 In conclusion, what is evident is that the imposed budget cuts on arts and culture are creating considerable concern, the more because it is believed that the budget cuts will endanger cultural institutions' continuing existence. Because of this situation, a question that has held participants of the arts and culture debate occupied is as to whether or not arts and culture genuinely need subsidy in order to exist. In consequence, the question has led to discussing the various arguments in favour of and against market forces in the arts and culture sector. On the one hand, opponents of subsidy argue that accepting money from the government has turned into a habit and is holding the arts and culture sector back from functioning in a self-sufficient manner. Moreover, it is argued that private donors can fulfill a greater role as well. On the other hand, supporters of subsidy argue that a system based on market forces is not desirable since such a system would turn into a survival of the fittest, abandoning forms of arts and culture which institutions are not capable of yielding a similar amount of money as their current subsidy. Additionally, as part of such a system, private donations are not considered as a good alternative either since such a development cannot be established overnight. Having all arguments considered, it seems that arts and culture without subsidy does have possibilities to exist, but this certainly does not apply to all forms of arts and culture. The question what to do with arts and culture subsidies therefore seems more of a political visionary nature. With this in mind it is not surprising that, despite scientific research and extensive discussion, a widely supported solution is not yet in sight. Bibliography Trouw, 'Reacties op bezuinigingen cultuur' (June 10, 2011). [September 19, 2012]. Volkskrant, '70 culturele instellingen verliezen subsidie' (August 1, 2012). [September 19, 2012]. Kerste, M., Poort, J., Rosenboom, N., Weda, J., 'Cultuur naar vermogen' (June, 2011). [September 19, 2012]. Bloemink, S., 'Op zoek naar filantropen: bezuinigen op de kunst' (June 15, 2011). [October 1, 2012]. Sellars, P., ' Bezuinigingsplannen is cultureel vandalisme' (June 20, 2011). [October 1, 2012]. FNV, 'Bezuinigingen op kunst en cultuur' (March 2011). [October 1, 2012]. ANP Pers Support, 'Marktwerking schadelijk voor kunstsector' (March 15, 2011). [October 1, 2012]. 1 Trouw 2011. 2 Volkskrant 2012. 3 Bloemink 2011. 4 Kerste et al. 2011. 5 Sellars 2011. 6 ANP Pers Support 2011. 7 FNV 2011.