The Invisible Value of Cultural Investment
In recent years, the debate over public funding for arts and humanities has returned to the center of the political agenda, albeit in reductive terms. The policies advanced by the Trump administration in the United States — with repeated attempts to cut funds for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), most recently in the 2027 budget — are a prime example of a vision that considers culture as ancillary and expendable in the name of more immediate economic priorities.
The Value of Culture Beyond the Economy
This approach goes counter to a large body of scholarship that has redefined the role of culture in contemporary societies. As David Throsby has highlighted, cultural value cannot be reduced to the economic dimension, but also fundamentally includes symbolic, identity-related and social components. The literature on cultural capital, from Bourdieu onward, also demonstrates how access to culture contributes to the development of critical skills and civic participation.
The Effects of Cuts on Cultural Institutions
From this perspective, cutbacks in spending for culture not only reduce the offer, but also impact the way cultural institutions operate. Reductions in public funding primarily limit the capacity for medium- to long-term planning, leading to reactive rather than strategic management. Added to this is a less intuitive but significant effect: the loss of public support can be interpreted by private donors as a sign of diminished legitimacy, with possible negative repercussions on fundraising.
New Models and Inequalities in the Cultural Sector
This is a call for cultural organizations to strengthen their fundraising capabilities and diversify their revenue sources by experimenting with new business models. However, this process occurs within a context of growing competition for limited resources, which tends to favor the most structured and visible institutions, accentuating disparities within the sector.
Culture, Social Cohesion and the Public Role
The consequences are not limited to the organizational level. There is a documented relationship between cultural participation and civic engagement and identity: access to museums, theaters and heritage sites helps strengthen the collective sense of belonging and democratic participation. Reducing the cultural offer or making it less accessible therefore impacts the quality of life of communities and overall social capital.
The US case has also demonstrated a paradoxical effect: attempts to reduce federal funding have triggered grassroots mobilizations, with foundations and nonprofit organizations called upon to step in the void created by public parsimony, but also the decisions of individuals who, through their taxpayer choices, have decided to actively support these institutions. This phenomenon recalls the theory of the co-production of public goods, according to which culture develops fully through the interaction between institutions and civil society. However, this balance is difficult to maintain without structured public support, which often signifies the reliability and seriousness of the institution itself.
The issue is also central for Europe. Experiences such as that of the FAI — the Italian Environment Fund — demonstrate how civic participation can be a fundamental resource for the protection of cultural heritage, but always within a framework that recognizes culture as a fundamental public good.
In light of these considerations, the issue of cultural funding is not simply a matter of public spending, but a strategic investment choice. In a context marked by growing inequality and social fragility, culture constitutes an essential intangible infrastructure. Weakening it means compromising not only the viability of the cultural sector, but the very foundations of social cohesion and democracy.
