Maurice Davies explains how the regional imbalance in cultural funding is playing out in the museums sector.
An enticing new theme emerged at the Museums Association (MA) conference in Liverpool this week – a widespread recognition of the huge inequity in the balance of funding between London and the English regions.
Thanks to the Rebalancing our Cultural Capital report, no one can deny that there’s around 14 times as much cultural funding per head in London as elsewhere in England.
This inequity was skilfully demonstrated by the MA's president David Anderson, who highlighted similar discrepancies between London and the regions in levels of philanthropic and corporate funding.
The most astonishing statistic in Anderson’s presidential address is that even though London funding levels are so much higher, public participation in culture is pretty much the same in London as it is in the rest of England. Remarkably, all the extra money spent in the capital doesn’t appear to make much difference to whether people are likely to regularly visit or not.
This shows it’s not just about the money, said Anderson – it’s about what you spend it on. I agree and the data appears to suggest that away from the capital public money has a far greater impact on local audiences.
So how can we address the disparity between public funding in London and elsewhere? The authors of Rebalancing our Cultural Capital suggest, gently and reasonably, that for the next five years lottery money for the arts should be distributed on a per capita basis, with London getting no more than its fair share.
An enticing new theme emerged at the Museums Association (MA) conference in Liverpool this week – a widespread recognition of the huge inequity in the balance of funding between London and the English regions.
Thanks to the Rebalancing our Cultural Capital report, no one can deny that there’s around 14 times as much cultural funding per head in London as elsewhere in England.
This inequity was skilfully demonstrated by the MA's president David Anderson, who highlighted similar discrepancies between London and the regions in levels of philanthropic and corporate funding.
The most astonishing statistic in Anderson’s presidential address is that even though London funding levels are so much higher, public participation in culture is pretty much the same in London as it is in the rest of England. Remarkably, all the extra money spent in the capital doesn’t appear to make much difference to whether people are likely to regularly visit or not.
This shows it’s not just about the money, said Anderson – it’s about what you spend it on. I agree and the data appears to suggest that away from the capital public money has a far greater impact on local audiences.
So how can we address the disparity between public funding in London and elsewhere? The authors of Rebalancing our Cultural Capital suggest, gently and reasonably, that for the next five years lottery money for the arts should be distributed on a per capita basis, with London getting no more than its fair share.