• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Arm’s length arts councils can fall into institutional stasis, are more vulnerable to government cutbacks than culture ministries and are relatively expensive, according to a report on the independence of government arts funding, published by the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies (IFACCA). However, they are also a means for artists to avoid political ‘censorship’ and influence, they promote artistic freedom and innovation, and recognise “a fundamental aspect of art – that of critiquing government and society”. The report finds fewer advantages and more disadvantages for countries which rely solely on a culture ministry for arts policy and support, including instability, poor decision-making, a lack of arts expertise and nepotism. Among IFACCA members, 59% have an arts funding system which is ministry only (or ‘short arm’); 40% have a mixed system of a ministry and an arm’s length agency and only 1% have only an agency. Of the 41 agencies which fed data into the report, 22 (54%) have a peer review system. The report, which is written by the Australia Council’s Research Analyst Christopher Madden, concludes that “cultural policy analysts have noted a growing ‘mixed approach’ to arts support around the world: the arm has grown shorter in countries that have had a ‘long arm’, and vice versa.” The report is the result of work going back to the first World Summit on the Arts and Culture in Canada in 2000. It has been released in preparation for the fourth World Summit in Johannesburg in September.