Last month, we found out that there is a huge disparity in public and private funding between cultural organisations in London and the rest of the UK. The shocking facts speak for themselves (see this month's news analysis).
Of course, as the capital of England, London could be expected to get a larger slice of the funding cake. But the inequity is about more than just the raw data.
The distribution of funding is doubly unfair because while the very communities that need access to cultural resources most are getting less funding per head, they are more likely to be contributing to the coffers of funding bodies by playing the lottery.
So what can be done to address this unethical imbalance? I don’t think the suggestion of moving London nationals out of the capital is a goer.
It is not only impractical, it is also not what is needed – ask regional museums and galleries whether they want a national organisation superimposed on their cultural infrastructure and see what the answer is.
Parachuting national organisations into the regions would divert funding away from institutions that have a long history of working with their communities and that are struggling to survive in the face of local authority cuts.
Rebalancing our Cultural Capital, the independent report that gathered and analysed the funding data, calls for a redistribution of funding per head of population and a decentralised approach to funding decisions. This would mean redrawing the funding map and could put decision-making about spending closer to local communities.
The report is a good starting point for a debate about the funding structure. There have long been anomalies, with whole regions missing out on vital funding.
At last month’s Museums Association’s conference in Liverpool, the call was made for a discussion about what a new funding structure might look like. It will take some brave soul searching to imagine what the sector and the public need and then to create it. But it must be done.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
Of course, as the capital of England, London could be expected to get a larger slice of the funding cake. But the inequity is about more than just the raw data.
The distribution of funding is doubly unfair because while the very communities that need access to cultural resources most are getting less funding per head, they are more likely to be contributing to the coffers of funding bodies by playing the lottery.
So what can be done to address this unethical imbalance? I don’t think the suggestion of moving London nationals out of the capital is a goer.
It is not only impractical, it is also not what is needed – ask regional museums and galleries whether they want a national organisation superimposed on their cultural infrastructure and see what the answer is.
Parachuting national organisations into the regions would divert funding away from institutions that have a long history of working with their communities and that are struggling to survive in the face of local authority cuts.
Rebalancing our Cultural Capital, the independent report that gathered and analysed the funding data, calls for a redistribution of funding per head of population and a decentralised approach to funding decisions. This would mean redrawing the funding map and could put decision-making about spending closer to local communities.
The report is a good starting point for a debate about the funding structure. There have long been anomalies, with whole regions missing out on vital funding.
At last month’s Museums Association’s conference in Liverpool, the call was made for a discussion about what a new funding structure might look like. It will take some brave soul searching to imagine what the sector and the public need and then to create it. But it must be done.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal