COMPENDIUM CULTURAL POLICIES AND TRENDS IN EUROPE
Print this Page
Print this Page

Monitoring Public Cultural Expenditure in Selected European Countries 2000-2015

Gross figures in € per capita and in % of total public expenditure or of GDP; all levels of government

State: October 2018; significant (-/+ 10%) cuts are marked red, significant raises green

 

PUBLIC CULTURAL EXPENDITURE

Basis of Comparison
(years; definitions;
sources other than the "Compendium")

 

per capita in EUR

% of total expenditure

% of GDP

Read/ Compare:

mainly horizontal comparisons

mainly verticalcomparisons

Year

Country

2000

2005

2010

Latest figures; 2015 if not specified

 

Austria

225

250

278

295*

1.44*

0.73*

*) 2016

Azerbaijan

1.98

11

31

25

1.4

0.4*

*) 2012

Bulgaria

16

18

29*

58**

2.2*

0.9*

*) 2009 **) 2015: Eurostat data

Croatia

--

--

77*

67**

1.31**

0.68**

*) 2009 **) 2014

Czech Rep.

--

--

105

127*

2.95*

0.89*

*) 2013

Denmark

290

352*

382**

436**

1.6**

0.9**

*) 2006 **) 2010/15: Eurostat data

Estonia

80*

140

189

214**

3.21**

1.5**

*) 2001 **) 2013

Finland

175

168

177*

201**

0.92**

0.47**

*) 2009 **) 2015: Statistics Finland

Georgia

3.6

7.6

9.3

--

N/A

0.46*

*) 2013

Germany

100

97

115

117*

1.68*

0.35*

*) 2013: Source: Kulturfinanzbericht 2016

Hungary

-

36*

56*

134**

2.2**

1.4**

*) 2004/2009 **) 2015: Eurostat data

Ireland

--

34

40

36*

0.30*

0.11*

*) 2013

Italy

101

112

117

90*

0.66*

0.35*

*) 2014

Latvia

3.2

27

94

133*

3.2*

1.2*

*) 2013 (provisional figures)

Malta

--

42

55

75*

0.9*

0.38**

*) 2014 **) 2013

Moldova

1.4

4.5

7.7

15*

1.45*

0.58*

*) 2013

Netherlands

196

229

274

263*

1.48**

0.83**

*) 2012: OCW (incl. media) **) 2011

Norway

296*

380

446

533**

1.54**

0.72**

*) 2002 **) 2014

Poland

18

29

56

53*

0.51**

0.5

*) 2013 **) Only National Govt.!

Portugal

60

76

69

54*

0.7*

0.3*

*) 2015: Eurostat data

Romania

--

--

41

35*

1.2*

0.4*

*) 2015: Eurostat data

Slovenia

83*

115

171

138**

2.95**

0.79**

*) 2001 **) 2013

Spain

78

120

149

102*

0.9*

0.46*

*) 2012

Sweden

234

220

267

278*

1.3*

0.66*

*) 2012

Switzerland

185

183

235

274*

1.7*

0.43*

*) 2013

Ukraine

4.5*

8.3

12.1

5.3**

1.22**

0.34**

*) 2001 **) 2016

Average (Median of shares, latest year, as a
rough indicator for comparisons)

1.46

0.47

(excluding countries with data only for national govt. expenditure!)

                                                    

 

Countries where (parts of) the data cover only central governments budgets:

Greece

38*

32*

--

45**

0.37**

0.23**

*) 2001/2006 **) 2011

Liechtenstein

396

590*

631

602

ca. 3**

ca. 0.65**

*) 2007 **)2010

Lithuania

21

34*

--

57

2.14

0.40

*) 2004

Serbia

16.5

17

18

23

1.39**

0.35*

*) 2011 **) 2013

Source: Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, 20th edition, 2018 (www.culturalpolicies.net), earlier versions of the Compendium and additional sources, where indicated.

Notes: Compendium figures are generally based on official data for gross public expenditure (as defined in: www.culturalpolicies.net/web/files/134/en/compendium_stat_comp_zurich_2010-1.pdf). They include all levels of government in specific cultural domains and sub-domains However, data corresponding to this definition may not always be available (cf. Chapter 6 of the Compendium Country Profiles for details). Countries where only data from national state budgets can be compared are shown separately. In addition, administrative traditions of public involvement in the arts, heritage and media domains can, in some cases, influence results and should be taken into account in comparisons. As well, 2000, 2005 and 2010-13 may not always represent "typical" years for public cultural spending. In some countries, the most "cruel" cuts are not shown in this table, for example in the Netherlands, where national funding decreased by 22% from 2012 to 2013 or Hungary with cuts of -18% in 2012. Obviously, we are forced to "Making Compromises to Make Comparisons in Cross-national Arts Policy Research" (title of a legendary article published 1987 by the late Mark D. Schuster in the Journal of Cultural Economics)!

Additional caveats, especially as regards absolute figures (per capita expenditure): Data could not be adjusted for price changes. In some countries, e.g. in Latvia, Poland or Sweden, parities between national currencies and the Euro changed frequently during the period studied in this table (parities were adjusted for the respective year). As well, lower per capita expenses in most of the East/Central European countries (e.g. Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.) can be partly explained by much lower average costs of main public services in the cultural domain (which also result in lower entrance fees or service rates, cf. the Compendium CUPIX index – www.culturalpolicies.net/web/statistics-markets.php). For these and other reasons, per capita figures should be seen mainly as a rough indicator for trends within a given country!