The Value of Culture and Cultural Recovery

The value of culture

What is the value of culture? This is both an extremely simple and also an extremely difficult question to answer. Does the value of culture equate simply to monetary and economic value? Is it something more intangible and ethereal? This question has been rehearsed in various different ways over the course of history, but it is of particular interest in the present context of cultural recovery in a post-Covid world. This piece will draw on this concept, firstly by outlining contemporary developments in cultural policy, focusing on the United Kingdom, before analysing some of the data regarding the regional breakdown of cultural recovery.

Since the period of lockdowns and enforced closure has come to an end, the cultural sector has a key role in economic development and has seen a recovery. It is pertinent to assess this recuperation, and it is topical to visit and understand the value of the arts in that light.

Figure 1: Olichon, Adrien. (2020). Brown Wooden Chairs Near White Wall. https://www.pexels.com/photo/brown-wooden-chairs-near-white-wall-3709371/

The question of the value of the arts has been discussed in academia for many years (Klamer, 1996), especially in the economic aspect (BOP Consulting, 2010; Chen and Lin, 2021; Flew, 2013; KEA European Affairs, 2025; Schiuma, 2011). Is art something to which a price tag can be applied, or is it something more? If it is purely economic, then the value is easy to identify: it is whatever it can sell at the auction house for. If it is more than that, however, then it is much more difficult to quantify. We all know what types of art, music, or theatre we like, which will vary from one person to the next, but that is not something that can be quantified. A painting which one person may be willing to spend a substantial amount of money on will be of no interest to another person. In that sense, value is a highly subjective concept.

Cultural policy implications

How one understands or views the value of culture impacts cultural policy, which has varied across the decades. In the context of the United Kingdom, for example, cultural policy in the immediate postwar years was about the preservation of national heritage, and ideas around what might be considered the ‘high arts’. In the modern era, this can also relate to areas such as ‘soft power’, using the arts and heritage of a nation towards diplomacy and the international reputation of a country (Klaic, 2012; Nisbett, 2025; Schanke, 2007; Turnbull, 2008; Upchurch, 2016; Wu, 2002). In other periods, the focus was more on the arts for social good, using the power of culture for the purposes of education or welfare, and improving local communities. In other periods again, such as during the 1980s, and 1990s under the premierships of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, there was the economic power of the arts, and the concept of the creative industries in the 1990s and 2000s under Tony Blair and New Labour (BOP Consulting, 2010; Chen and Lin, 2021; Flew, 2013; KEA European Affairs, 2025; Schiuma, 2011), in some ways a problematic term given its sheer breadth, encompassing not simply the arts but a far broader array of industries. In this sense, an understanding of the value of the arts and what the purpose of the arts actually is directly affects the direction of cultural policy. If one understands the value of the arts to be purely economic, then policies will be built around utilising the sector for its economic power. If one takes a broader view of cultural value, then policies may be designed to also draw in elements such as social and educational improvement.

This understanding of value is also of interest within the political landscape. There are what one might view broadly as four identifiable directions in cultural policy: left-liberal, right-liberal, left-conservative, and right-conservative. A left-liberal approach to culture may be focused on free expression, challenging the status quo, and questions pertaining to social purposes. A right-liberal—or libertarian—approach may be focused more on the economic benefits of the cultural sector. A left-conservative approach may take a more communitarian approach, focusing on traditional forms of culture whilst engaging within local communities. A right-conservative approach may be focused on questions of national identity and preserving national heritage (Polivtseva, 2024). Whilst it is understandable that the cultural sector feels the need to justify its existence in economic terms, as well as through other benefits such as tourism and soft power diplomacy, by purely focusing on these benefits, or perceived benefits, there is a danger that the broader benefits of the arts and culture may be lost. There is also a risk, when focused on purely financial elements to culture, that art is disregarded when it is not deemed to be directly profitable or useful.

The cultural policy landscape of the United Kingdom in a post-Covid world

When considering this in the British context, an understanding of the value of culture in relation to cultural policy is topical. In February 2025, the Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy delivered a lecture on cultural policy to mark the 60th anniversary of the first white paper for the arts, by Jennie Lee in 1965 (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Nandy, and Rayner, 2025; Nandy, 2025). This lecture was held at the Other Place in Stratford-upon-Avon and celebrated sixty years since Jennie Lee, the first ever Arts Minister in the UK, put together the first and only white paper on the arts, A Policy for the Arts – The First Steps (Lee, 1965; Royal Shakespeare Company, n.d.).

During this lecture, Lisa Nandy outlined her ideas of making the vision of Lee a reality with a new Creative Foundations Fund of £85 million for the support of urgent capital works as part of the Government’s Plan for Change (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Nandy, and Rayner, 2025; Royal Shakespeare Company, n.d.), and with a £270 million Arts Everywhere Fund for arts venues, museums, libraries, and the heritage sector (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Nandy, and Rayner, 2025).

Figure 2: Stebnicki, Mark. (2025). Charming Street View in Stratford-upon-Avon. https://www.pexels.com/photo/charming-street-view-in-stratford-upon-avon-31125279/

There is also an open question as to the extent to which the arms-length principle can apply to the cultural sector. Cultural organisations pride themselves on their independence, and their ability to critique politics and society, and speak freely on issues of relevance without fear of censorship. If they are receiving government funding, however, there may be requirements attached to this funding. The organisations may not wish to have their independence and ability to speak freely impeded by restrictions, and the funder may not be willing to fund organisations which do not align with their values. This would make the libertarian case against funding—that the organisations would be free to make their artistic contributions to society without restrictions. This problem does not go away with only receiving funding from private donations, however. Private funders and philanthropists may also have their own requirements for funding. Ultimately, the organisations may need to get their funding from somewhere and have to make a judgement as to which requirements best fit their values. It is not necessarily sustainable for an organisation to attempt to be completely artistically independent and financially sustainable whilst also receiving funding.

The Wigmore Hall, for example, has announced in 2025 that it no longer requires public subsidy, and will not take subsidy from the Arts Council England from 2026, having achieved financial independence through its successful campaign of raising £10 million from individuals and the private sector (Guardian staff, 2025; Kelly, 2025; Sanderson, 2025). Also mentioned were wider concerns over abandonment of excellence and deploying artists as social workers, with a criticism being that in an attempt to mask the downgrading of arts and music subjects in schools, musicians are sent into classrooms in this capacity rather than actually addressing the problems with music in classrooms (Sanderson, 2025). The focus is rather on the opera and music itself (Sanderson, 2025), different to other work, and that is an argument which arts organisations might make against public funding—that it ties them to areas, or makes them fill in the gaps in the public sector, whilst financial independence frees them to pursue their art.

In policy terms, the British Government has announced that museums and libraries are set to receive more than £30 million in order to improve access to the arts and culture and the museums and libraries invited to apply for funding (Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Bryant, 2025). This will be part of the aforementioned £270 million as part of an Arts Everywhere Fund, with this component dedicated to arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage buildings.

The Museum Estate and Development Fund is a fund which is open to museums in England which are accredited by the Arts Council but not directly funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In the fourth round of funding, worth £28.8 million, there was funding provided for 29 local museums.

Table 1: Funding of the Museum Development Fund

Region	Museums
North West	·       Queen Street Mill, Burnley, Lancashire - £813,115 ·       Furness Abbey, Barrow-in-Furness, Lancashire - £457,795 ·       Fusilier Museum and Learning Centre, Bury, Lancashire -  £81,244
North East	·       Weardale Museum, Weardale, County Durham - £499,665 ·       Sunderland Winter Gardens, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear -  £488,705 ·       Preston Park Museum, Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham - £366,300 ·       Hartlepool Art Gallery, Hartlepool, County Durham - £302,383
Yorkshire	·       Museum of North Craven Life, Settle, North Yorkshire -  £798,500 ·       Land of Iron, Skinningrove, North Yorkshire  - £655,907 ·       Bankfield Museum, Halifax, West Yorkshire - £441,978 ·       Pickering Beck Isle Museum, Pickering, North Yorkshire - £388,023  ·       Millennium Gallery, Sheffield, South Yorkshire - £315,684
Midlands	·       Tamworth Castle, Tamworth, Staffordshire - £1,716,238 ·       Wolverhampton Art Gallery, Wolverhampton, West Midlands - £1,695,75 ·       Newstead Abbey, Ravenshead, Nottinghamshire - £1,482,882  ·       Creswell Crags, Worksop, Nottinghamshire - £499,999
East	·       Peterborough Museum & Art Gallery, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire - £137,745  ·       Sainsbury Centre, Norwich, Norfolk - £1,276,711  ·       Bressingham Steam Museum, Diss, Norfolk - £429,719 ·       Colchester Castle, Colchester, Essex - £1,293,625 ·       Southchurch Hall, Southend-on-Sea, Essex - £423,105
South East	·       Bletchley Park, Bletchley, Buckinghamshire - £2,451,350  ·       The Lightbox, Woking, Surrey - £319,000
South West	·       Russell Cotes Art Gallery and Museum, Bournemouth, Dorset - £1,500,817  ·       Nothe Fort, Weymouth, Dorset - £1,374,763   ·       Dorset Museum and Art Gallery, Dorchester, Dorset - £940,500  ·       Wheal Martyn Clay Works, St Austell, Cornwall - £707,200
London	·       London Museum of Water and Steam, Brentford, London - £2,626,277 ·       The Foundling Museum, Camden, London - £319,000

Table 1: Gunson, Jonathan (2025). Funding of the Museum Development Fund. Figures based on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Nandy, L, and Rayner, A (2025).

Given the focus on creative skills for young people and boosting pride in place, this can be seen beyond the initial economic value of the art and towards a broader and perhaps more social, educational, and even communitarian concept of value. Further, public libraries can apply for a share of the Libraries Improvement Fund, at £5.5 million, and accredited museums can apply for part of £25 million for areas such as infrastructure projects, maintenance backlogs, the protection of collections and buildings, improved visitor experience, and the resilience of museums. In addition, grants worth £50,000 to £5 million will be available, the focus mentioned as being the stories of the regional and national heritage. All of this points to a broader understanding of value beyond the economic, drawing on the social and educational value of culture, yet also bringing in the concept of national heritage. In this sense, the dividing lines between cultural policy on left and right, or liberal and conservative lines, may not be wholly useful in all instances. There may be an intersection between them.

Post-Covid funding developments

When considering this funding breakdown in the post-Covid cultural landscape, venue-based organisations were more likely to receive a higher volume of private investment and income overall than those which were not operating as a venue. Music (32%), theatre (25%), and visual arts organisations (17%) received the highest proportion of private investment, with combined arts (10%) and museums and heritage organisations (8%) further down. This can be related to the above table regarding museums funding—the share of private investment is lower for museums and heritage organisations than other artforms. This can also link to the aforementioned discussion about the value of culture and the purpose of cultural policy—in the case of the performing arts, a higher proportion of funding can be seen in earned income and private investment, with the focus being on areas surrounding tourism and visitor numbers, the economic value of culture. In the case of heritage and museums, a focus on the preservation and conservation of national heritage is more evident. The following four tables outline the breakdown of funding according to artform.

Table 2: Private investment by artform, £millions (2017/18)

Artform	Business investment	Individual giving	Trusts and foundations	Total	Percentage of private investment	Percentage of total income
Visual arts	24	70	54	£148 million	27%	16%
Museum	17	61	50	£128 million	23%	21%
Music	17	47	33	£96 million	18%	17%
Theatre	14	37	31	£82 million	15%	21%
Combined arts	18	10	21	£49 million	9%	13%
Dance	2	6	8	£16 million	3%	5%
Literature	3	2	6	£11 million	2%	2%
Non artform specific	3	2	3	£8 million	2%	2%

Table 2: Gunson, Jonathan (2025). Private investment by artform, £millions (2017/18). Figures based on data from the Arts Council England and MTM (2019).

Table 3: Private investment distribution by artform 2020/21

Artform	Private investment distribution by artform
Music	32%
Theatre	25%
Visual arts	17%
Combined arts	10%
Museums and heritage	8%
Dance	6%
Literature/spoken word/library	2%
Non artform specific	0.2%

Table 3: Gunson, Jonathan (2025). Private investment distribution by artform 2020/21. Figures based on data from the Arts Council England and AEA Consulting (2022).

Table 4: Private investment mix by category of private investment source per artform 2018/19

Artform	Trusts and foundations	Corporate giving	Individual giving
Music	49%	17%	34%
Museum	48%	13%	39%
Visual arts	47%	16%	37%
Theatre	45%	17%	37%
Dance	29%	32%	39%
Non artform specific	29%	32%	39%
Literature	21%	23%	56%
Combined arts	20%	36%	44%

Table 4: Gunson, Jonathan (2025). Private investment mix by category of private investment source per artform 2018/19. Figures based on data from the Arts Council England and MTM (2019).

Table 5: Private investment mix by category of private investment source per artform 2020/21

Artform	Trusts and foundations	Corporate giving	Individual giving
Combined arts	33%	24%	43%
Dance	53%	9%	35%
Museums and heritage	70%	8%	19%
Literature/spoken word/library	77%	7%	15%
Music	43%	9%	45%
Theatre	34%	13%	43%
Visual arts	52%	14%	32%
Non artform specific	45%	40%	6%

Table 5: Gunson, Jonathan (2025). Private investment mix by category of private investment source per artform 2020/21. Figures based on data from the Arts Council England and AEA Consulting (2022).

There is also an important regional dimension to this funding breakdown. As might be expected, London has by far the largest amount of private investment, at 65% in 2020/21. This is followed by the Midlands, the North, the South East, and the South West—a change compared to the distribution on a regional basis in previous years, with the overall proportion of private investment increasing in the Midlands from 6% in 2017/18 to 15% in 2020/21. The growth in the figures in the Midlands can be explained by a number of larger organisations generating higher levels of private investment and also as a result of the completion of several capital campaigns in the region. The following three tables outline the regional breakdown of funding in England.

Table 6: Private investment by region 2017/18

Region	Trusts and foundations	Business investment	Individual giving	Percentage of total private investment	Percentage of total income
North	47%	26%	27%	12%	17%
Midlands	51%	23%	26%	6%	12%
South East	40%	17%	43%	10%	10%
South West	51%	19%	30%	6%	8%
London	34%	16%	50%	66%	54%

Table 6: Gunson, Jonathan (2025). Private investment by region 2017/18. Figures based on data from the Arts Council England and MTM (2019).

Table 7: Income breakdown by region, as percentage of total income in each region 2020/21

Region	Percentage of the sector	Public Funding	Earned Income	Private Investment
North	15%	67%	17%	16%
Midlands	19%	58%	20%	22%
South East	9%	48%	28%	23%
South West	3%	61%	17%	22%
London	54%	53%	15%	32%

Table 7: Gunson, Jonathan (2025). Income breakdown by region, as percentage of total income in each region 2020/21. Figures based on data from the Arts Council England and AEA Consulting (2022).

Table 8: Private investment by region 2020/21

Region	Percentage of total private investment	Percentage of total income	Percentage of the data sample
North	9%	15%	23%
Midlands	15%	19%	11%
South East	8%	9%	19%
South West	2%	3%	12%
London	65%	54%	29%

Table 8: Gunson, Jonathan (2025). Private investment by region 2020/21. Figures based on data from the Arts Council England and AEA Consulting (2022).

Five years after the first lockdown in the UK, Rochdale Town Hall hosted the second national Cultural Development Fund (CDF) Network symposium, Cultural Development Gathering-25, on Wednesday 26th March, 2025 (Jones-Hall, 2025). Jones-Hall (2025), referring to Lisa Nandy’s recent lecture, and her emphasis on local heritage and reviving culture in places where it is disappearing, makes the point that the public cannot simply expect the Government to invest in these areas if they are not prepared to visit them themselves—and that in this theme of cultural devolution, the best solution is to visit these areas, including ones that people may not have visited before or don’t immediately think of as in this cultural sphere. Gatherings, meeting in person, connecting in a physical space, celebrating the value of culture in towns and cities, is the exact opposite of lockdown, and emphasises the importance of place and space, rather than consuming culture only from behind a screen (Jones-Hall, 2025).

Encouragingly, visitor numbers in the post-pandemic years appear to have largely recovered (Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, 2025; Jowett, 2025a). There were 157.2 million visits to sites of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, an increase of 3.4% from the previous year, although still a decline of 8.8% from the 169.7 million visits in 2019 to the top 386 sites of the organisation (Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, 2025). The biggest increase in visitors was in sites that are combination of both indoor and outdoor elements, with an increase of 2.4% compared to a 1% increase in outdoor only attractions. The British Museum saw the most visits, and whilst the typical attraction in London saw an increase of 3%, Scotland and Northern Ireland both saw an increase of 3.2%. The East Midlands, at 4.5%, and Yorkshire & Humberside, at 4.2%, saw the biggest increase of regions outside of London (Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, 2025). Despite this, however, freelancers continue to struggle, with the majority of freelancers continuing to get less work post-pandemic (Jowett, 2025b). This continues to be an area to remain conscious of.

Concluding thoughts

This piece has attempted to outline the value of culture and some of the present discussions around cultural policy in three particular ways. The first component addressed some of the concepts surrounding what is meant by culture and value. The second discussed that in relation to cultural policy, looking at some of the dynamics present in the European Union, and then focusing on the United Kingdom. Finally, the piece assessed this concept of value in the light of post-Covid recovery, breaking down some of the data regarding arts funding on the basis of artform and region. In this light, it is hoped a thought-provoking discussion can continue—as to what culture means, what the value of culture actually is, how this relates to cultural policy—to consider some of the implications of this within the concept of cultural recovery.

Bibliographical References

Arts Council England & AEA Consulting. (2022). Arts Council England Private Investment in Culture Survey Report 2022 (pp. 2–4). Arts Council England and AEA Consulting. https://catalogus.boekman.nl/pub/P22-0502.pdf

Arts Council England and MTM. (2019). Private Investment in Culture Survey. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-file/Private%20Investment%20in%20Culture%20Survey%202019.pdf

BOP Consulting. (2010). Mapping the Creative Industries: A Toolkit. Creative and Cultural Economy Series ⁄ 2. The British Council. https://creativeconomy.britishcouncil.org/media/uploads/files/English_mapping_the_creative_industries_a_toolkit_2-2.pdf

Chen, S., & Lin, N. (2021). Culture, productivity and competitiveness: disentangling the concepts. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-02-2020-0030

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, & Bryant, C. (2025, March 25). Museums and libraries set to receive a share of over £30 million of funding to improve access to arts and culture [Press release]. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/museums-and-libraries-set-to-receive-a-share-of-over-30-million-of-funding-to-improve-access-to-arts-and-culture

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, & Nandy, L. (2025, February 20). Jennie Lee lecture - Arts for Everyone. In Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has today (Thursday 20 February 2025) made an inaugural lecture marking the 60th anniversary of the first ever arts white paper. Jennie Lee Lecture - Arts for Everyone, the Royal Shakespeare Company, Stratford upon Avon, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/jennie-lee-lecture-arts-for-everyone

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Nandy, L., & Rayner, A. (2025, February 20). Major investment to boost growth and cement Britain’s place as cultural powerhouse [Press release]. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-investment-to-boost-growth-and-cement-britains-place-as-cultural-powerhouse

Flew, T. (2013). Global Creative Industries. Polity Press.

Guardian staff. (2025, March 26). Wigmore Hall says it no longer requires public funding. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/mar/26/wigmore-hall-london-public-funding-arts-council

Jones-Hall, J. (2025, March 10). The devolution will not be televised. Arts Professional. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/feature/the-devolution-will-not-be-televised

Jowett, P. (2025a, March 21). Visitor attraction numbers draw closer to pre-pandemic levels. Arts Professional. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/visitor-attraction-numbers-draw-closer-to-pre-pandemic-levels

Jowett, P. (2025b, March 25). Majority of freelancers getting less work post-pandemic. Arts Professional. Retrieved March 26, 2025, from https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/majority-of-freelancers-getting-less-work-post-pandemic

KEA European Affairs. (2025, February 10). Wrap-up: KEA’s January Cultural Policy Digest. Retrieved February 20, 2025, from https://keanet.eu/wrap-up-keas-january-cultural-policy-digest/

Kelly, L. (2025, March 26). Wigmore Hall boss on dropping Arts Council funding: ‘They’ve lost the confidence of classical music.’ The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/classical-music/wigmore-hall-john-gilhooly-arts-council-classical-music/

Klaic, D. (2012). Resetting the Stage : Public Theatre between the Market and Democracy. Intellect Ltd.

Lee, J. (1965). A Policy for the Arts: The First Steps. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. https://collective-encounters.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/A-Policy-for-the-Arts-Jennie-Lee.pdf

Nisbett, M. (2025, February 13). Soft power: The role of culture in a hyper-globalised world. Arts Professional. Retrieved February 18, 2025, from https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/feature/soft-power-the-role-of-culture-in-a-hyper-globalised-world

Polivtseva, E. (2024, October 1). Culture after the EU elections: what to expect? Culture Policy Room. Retrieved March 27, 2025, from https://www.culturepolicyroom.eu/insights/culture-after-the-eu-elections-what-to-expect

Royal Shakespeare Company. (n.d.). Secretary of State delivers first Jennie Lee Lecture at RSC. Retrieved March 26, 2025, from https://www.rsc.org.uk/news/secretary-of-state-delivers-first-jennie-lee-lecture-at-rsc

Rushfield, R. (Ed.). (2021). Stemming the Tide: Global Strategies for Sustaining Cultural Heritage through Climate Change. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.14750727

Sanderson, D. (2025, March 25). Wigmore Hall refuses Arts Council money in row over community work. The Times. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/london/article/wigmore-hall-refuses-arts-council-money-in-row-over-community-work-vdpdmd5fr

Schanke, R. A. (Ed.). (2007). Angels in the American Theater: Patrons, Patronage, and Philanthropy. Southern Illinois University Press.

Schiuma, G. (2011). The Value of Arts for Business. Cambridge University Press.

Turnbull, O. (2008). Bringing Down the House: The Crisis in Britain’s Regional Theatre. Intellect Books.

Upchurch, A. R. (2016). The Origins of the Arts Council Movement: Philanthropy and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan.

Wu, C. (2002). Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s. Verso.

Tables

Visual References