International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2015

Vol. 21, No. 5, 529–553, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2014.931380

Public funding of culture in the Czech Republic since the fall of

the iron curtain: contemporary dilemmas
Kateřina Vojtíšková* and Radmila Lorencová

Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic
(Received 9 May 2013; accepted 8 May 2014)

The article deals with explicit cultural policy and its outcomes in the post-com-
munist Czech Republic. In the first part, the authors look at the organisational
and conceptual impact on culture of the transition from a centrally managed
economy to a pluralist parliamentary democracy following the collapse of the
Eastern Bloc. The cultural sector experienced privatisation, property restitution,
commercialisation, globalisation, decentralisation and devolution, as well as the
emergence of the private sector and the non-governmental non-profit sector
(NGO). Although the process of societal transformation is now complete, cer-
tain key issues of cultural policy remain unresolved. The authors focus on three
contemporary issues in theatre, namely: political intervention in the manage-
ment of public cultural institutions, the persistent debate on funding through
grant systems and the lack of trust culture professionals have in the creators of
cultural policy. As a result, even though after 1989 it was expected that the pri-
vate or NGO sector would dominate in the area of culture, there still exists a
relatively dense network of public cultural institutions (contributory organisa-
tions) characterised by a resistance to proposed organisational and funding
changes.
Keywords: Czech Republic; explicit cultural policy; post-communist
transformation; direct public support; theatre

Introduction
The Czech Republic (CR), formerly Czechoslovakia (until its dissolution in 1993)
has been experienced a series of tumultuous and fundamental transformations over
the past century, most recently from a state socialism to a liberal democracy with a
market economy (capitalism). These changes had a profound effect on explicit and
implicit cultural policies (Ahearne 2009, Throsby 2009). Explicit cultural policy is
‘any cultural policy that a government labels as such’ (Ahearne 2009, p. 143) and
involves deliberate government strategies and activities applied to heritage, the arts
and the humanities (Mulcahy 1991). After 1989, the CR, like other post-communist
countries, was faced with the task of creating a new cultural policy.
Straussman (1996) has described the existence of a discrepancy between ideals
and reality in the support and public funding of culture in the CR during the first
years after the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE):

*Corresponding author. Email: katerina.vojtiskova@soc.cas.cz

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

530 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

(.) the government has not yet developed clear policy in terms of what would be
subsidized, how much the subsidy will be, the most effective relationship between the
central government and local government, and the role of nongovernmental organiza-
tions in financing cultural activities. (Straussman 1996, p. 92)

We would argue that these issues have remained relevant even two decades later.
Over the past several decades, European governments have increasingly been
faced with the need to justify public funding for culture (Belfiore 2004, Ratiu
2009), determine the optimum levels of financial support for different sectors, and
identify the best means and avenues for allocating financial support (Throsby 2010,
p. 9). After 1989, the CR suddenly found itself at the same crossroads. The prevail-
ing liberal approach of the 1990s, wherein the cultural sector too was assigned the
right to freedom, was gradually transformed into a political programme demanding
independence at all costs. As became apparent, it is not possible to privatise whole
cultural sector. Thus, traditional ‘privatisation’ has been replaced by what
McGuigan (2004, p. 49–50) calls ‘autonomisation’, whereby a state organisation is
converted into a more independent organisation, public agency model or private
funding. Even though explicit cultural policy represents a certain commitment, such
policy can produce contradictory outcome, and in the Czech context, it has hitherto
produced questionable experiments yielding inconsistent results.
The aim of our study is to identify the ideals that are reflected in the explicit
cultural policy of the CR and the real implicit outcomes of such policy, particularly
in the performing arts and even more specifically in theatre. Research activities
included focus groups comprising policy-makers and representatives of cultural or-
ganisations on a local and regional level.1 The authors also participated in public
debates on the theme of the funding and organisation of Czech theatres and culture
in general and conducted interviews with the directors of two Prague theatres. The
study is based on analyses of policy documents and a content analysis of media
coverage and the financial and budgetary statements of public institutions. While
we aim to provide a comprehensive overview, we were faced with the problem that
some information (especially, pertaining to the 1990s) is simply unavailable – a
problem similarly encountered by the authors of a comparative study on the culture
of post-communist countries (e.g. Klamer et al. 2006, Ratzenböck et al. 2012) –
owing either to the non-existence of certain documents or difficulty in gaining
access to them. Statistics obtained from different sources are incompatible and the
collection of data on culture is only gradually beginning to improve. However, for
the formulation of our conclusions, we consider these data to be convincing.
The first part of this paper briefly describes developments in the sector of cul-
ture during the post-communist transition, the aim being to provide an understand-
ing of the specific conditions in the CR at that time. Geir Vestheim has rightly
noted that official ideologies are always located in specific historical, political and
social contexts and therefore must be analysed and interpreted in those contexts
(Vestheim 2007, p. 226). We shall then briefly summarise notions about how the
cultural sector should function and should be organised have fundamentally chan-
ged. We aim to describe the ideas about direct support for culture that became
influential during the dynamic process of democratisation. While the cultural poli-
cies of free European states underwent visible changes during the second half of
the twentieth century, the CR only began to undergo similar changes in the past
two decades. As Duelund (2008) has shown, Scandinavian cultural policy went
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 531

from initially supporting artistic freedom, to a focus on equal access to culture for
all citizens, and cultural democratisation and decentralisation, to the onset of eco-
nomic instrumentalism, which has led to the interlinking of art and culture to com-
merce and social policy. All these paradigms and their residues manifested
themselves in Czech ideas about culture and the discourses of culture after 1989.
In the second part of the study, we will look closely at political decisions and
public expenditure on culture to describe some general trends in the field of the
performing arts and theatre in particular. As in other post-communist CEE coun-
tries, in the CR cultural policy has focused primarily on the preservation of cultural
heritage (Ratiu 2009, p. 29, Ratzenböck et al. 2012). This is reflected in the rela-
tively large share of state budget funding this area of activity receives. By contrast,
funding for contemporary art and grants for non-governmental and non-profit or-
ganisations (NGOs) are among the first things to be cut when there is a lack of
funds in the budget. While certain other areas of culture are regulated by specific
legislation, this is not the case of theatre, nor has been since 1995, and the sector
operates without clear rules. As regards professional theatres, the competences of
the state were to a large extent transferred to the local self-government (municipali-
ties), the notable exception being the National Theatre (NT), established2 by the
Ministry of Culture (MoC). In view of the financial demands, tradition and the
location of audiences, most theatres are supported by large- and medium-sized
towns with at least 50,000 inhabitants, and they spend the largest part of their cul-
ture budget on this area (Lorencová 2012, p. 183–184).
In the final part of this paper, we aim to assess the current situation in the area
of theatre and discuss the key dilemmas. These include the persistence of critical
links between political power, public funds and cultural organisations, which tend
to produce conflicts between those involved and, paradoxically, strengthen the
paternalistic nature of the relationship between political power authorities and
cultural professionals. One type of organisation is particularly affected by this prob-
lem – COs3, which are established and subsidised by governments. We will focus
on assessing the disparity between the ideals and the reality of cultural policy
(Straussman 1996) as the basis for cultural/artistic resistance (McGuigan 2004).

Concepts about the position of culture during the renewal of Czech democracy
Cultural factors have always played a fundamental role in the formation of Czech
identity, especially at historical crossroads. The democratic interwar period
(1918–1938) was one in which the arts, volunteer civic organisations and public
enlightenment programmes prospered. Culture was supported by the central and
local governments, but more importantly, by private donors and philanthropists
(Jírový 2005). After the communist coup d’état in 1948, cultural life was centra-
lised, property nationalised and cultural activities made dependent on state subsidies
(Mockovčiaková et al. 2006, p. 3). The communist regime produced an ‘official
culture’, which consisted of cultural and artistic activities that were compliant with
its demands, and suppressed and censored oppositional and alternative production
that did not conform to the dominant ideology, and among other things by impos-
ing bureaucratic obstacles (Mulcahy 1991, Knapík 2006). Anti-regime authors
responded to these pressures by two main strategies: external exile – major waves
of emigration followed the years 1948 and 1968; and internal exile – artists partici-
pated in an alternative ‘underground’ cultural sphere (e.g. samizdat publications;
532 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

dissident authors; apartment theatre) (Eyal 2000, p. 68, Šmejkalová 2001, Beck
2009, Možný 2009 [1991]).
Dissident intellectuals and strong personalities of the Czech culture (Kopecek
2011) became the most visible leaders of the Velvet Revolution in 1989 which top-
pled the communist regime. Along with students, artists were the first to go on
strike (Oslzlý 1990) and public debates were organised in playhouses and commu-
nity centres. Playwright Václav Havel was elected the first President of Czechoslo-
vakia (1989–1992) and subsequently of the CR (1993–2003). During the post-
communist transition, cultural elites were marginalised by technocratic-managerial
elite (Eyal 2003, p. 78–86).
In the 1990s, Czech national governments were dominated by right-wing coali-
tions (1992–1997) led by Civic Democratic Party (ODS), a liberal-conservative
party founded by economist Václav Klaus, the main figure of the radical economic
reforms (Eyal 2003, p. 150–156).4 The government brought about a quick transition
to democracy and capitalism (‘market economy’) through mass privatisation, a
special voucher privatisation scheme, a free trade policy and support for private
enterprise (Klaus 2006; for more on the Czech transition to capitalism, see Eyal
2000). Inspired by Thatcherism, the government emphasised the role of the free
market and the private sector. Like in other CEE countries, these changes were
accompanied by much slower changes at the level of culture and civilisation
(norms, values, rules and codes) and a slower pace of development of civil society
(culture-building) (Dahrendorf 2005 [1990], Sztompka 1996). Klaus’ favouring of
the economy over culture in the early 1990s can be illustrated by a quote from
him: ‘when the apartment is being redecorated, you move the library out on to the
balcony’ (Hájek 1994, p. 138). The problem with this attitude is that if it prevailed
culture would probably be left in the background ‘on the balcony’ forever.
In the early 1990s, the MoC envisaged the state ceding its control over culture,
instituting decentralisation and relinquishing its role in the cultural sector to private
institutions, foundations and sponsors. Playwright and Minister of Culture Milan
Uhde (Civic Forum, 1990–1992) was convinced that quality art and culture could
withstand the test of the free market. The following quote aptly illustrates the
liberal discourse of the early 1990s: ‘The market is the breeding ground for free-
dom and freedom is the breeding ground for culture’ (Uhde 1993, p. 11). Disagree-
ment with this perspective and attempts to defend continued public support for
culture were deemed nothing more than lobbying on the part of cultural profession-
als, as applying any restrictions to the market was considered obsolete and
counterproductive.
The free market and open borders brought in ‘Western’ cultural imports, which
had been scarce under the previous regime and were primarily commercial in nat-
ure, and which, under the effects of globalisation, began to seem omnipresent (for
more on the globalisation of culture, see Ritzer 1993, Throsby 2001, Griswold
2008, Labadi and Long 2010). The public generally welcomed these innovations,
as they sought relaxation and happy endings, and no longer had such a need for
art’s cathartic dimension and an autonomous cultural sphere (Königsmark 1993,
p. 3). Suddenly, the cultural sphere seemed to lose its critical tone, which had been
an essential attribute of the quality under the communist regime. Intellectuals par-
ticipated in discussions about ‘the crisis of culture’ and the effects of the consump-
tion of artistically inferior cultural production on the future development of
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 533

democracy and individual freedom in the country. The question arose as to whether
Czech culture could survive if the state and audiences turned their backs on it.
Economic neoliberalism did not take over entirely. President Havel and former
dissidents were proponents of the ideas of ‘antipolitical politics’ and the main advo-
cates of civil society liberalism, the ideology of an open and multi-layered civil
society with a dense network of volunteer and NGO organisations that are neither
state controlled, nor see to make a profit (‘third sector’) (Havel 1997, p. 142–151,
Marada 1997, Kopecek 2011, p. 250). However, because public and private support
for cultural NGOs developed at a slow pace, they played a rather minor role in
Czech society (Smolíková 2003).
Furthermore, following the economic crisis in 1997, a more protective approach
to culture began to hold sway as the Social Democrats (ČSSD) began to be the rul-
ing party (1998–2006).

The development of an explicit cultural policy

Despite the predominance of economic discourse during the 1990s, the MoC took
inspiration from the countries of Western Europe rather than the United States in
the reorganisation of its cultural sector. Measures for the decentralisation of the cul-
tural sector were influenced by the Dutch model (Jírový 1994a, 1994b, 1994c), and
subsidiarity principles, codified by the Maastricht Treaty on European Union and
encouraged by international donor and lending institutions (WB, IMF), were taken
as a fundamental element of the country’s call for a ‘return to Europe’. As the role
of state apparatus was reduced, local government was given greater financial
responsibility, greater autonomy and property was transferred to its ownership
(Straussman 1996, Kawashima 2004; for a comparison of different cultural policy
models with regard to centralisation, see Ahearne 2003), and it also assumed
responsibility for supporting most local cultural activities and organisations. The
public sector continued to play a fundamental role in the production of public
cultural services and commodities mainly thanks to the approach taken by
municipalities.
It is important to note that after 1989 the term ‘cultural policy’ was considered
an anachronism and only gradually did the idea of the need to define a new state
cultural policy come to the fore. Minister Pavel Tigrid’s White Paper titled ‘The
Relationship of the State to Culture – Cultural Policy in the Countries of Europe’
(1996) and Minister Martin Stropnický’s (independent, 1998) study ‘The Main
Principles of Cultural Policy’ (1998) formed the basis of the first official policy
document adopted by the Czech government (MoC 1999). In 1998, the caretaker
government made a commitment to improve the institutional and legal protection
of artistic activities and intellectual property. Minister Stropnický sought to formu-
late an ‘apolitical’ cultural policy that would last beyond the term in office of a sin-
gle government (Nekolný et al. 2006, p. 20–22). He initiated a discussion on
cultural policy that included professional associations, unions, cultural institutions,
and communities and municipalities, the assumption being that the state’s task is to
create favourable conditions for the arts/culture to thrive. He was one of the first
figures to introduce a broader view of culture encompassing cultural industries and
their contribution to economic growth, and to recommend the collection of
comprehensive and reliable statistical data, as to that time only fragmentary data
534 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

was available on the economic aspects of cultural goods and services and the
outcomes of cultural organisations.
In 2000, when Prague was the European City of Culture, it hosted a conference
entitled ‘Economy and Culture: a Partnership for the twenty-first Century’ (Kesner
2001). A broad range of participants attended the conference and discussed the cur-
rent profound changes in the discourse and praxis of the relationship between cul-
ture and economics, an issue which had been the subject of discussion for more
than a decade in western countries (Throsby 2001). The organisers’ aim was to
establish a dialogue between the domains of finance, politics and the arts and cul-
ture. However, this dialogue failed to materialise because the issue was not consid-
ered a priority by Czech politicians or by the media (see Nekolný 2000,
p. 169–174, Nekolný et al. 2006, p. 34–35).
The time for a pragmatic approach to culture had not as yet arrived. The first
two Czech cultural policy documents were approved by the Social Democratic gov-
ernment in 1999 and 2001, respectively (MoC 1999, 2001). Both were drafted in a
traditionalist fashion (focusing on cultural heritage preservation, creative freedom).
Although the documents include mention of such concepts as cultural tourism and
cultural industries, they did not fully acknowledge the economic potential of cul-
tural and creative industries and set out the main aims as being:

 ensuring continuity: the protection and preservation of cultural heritage, sup-

port for education and raising awareness about the creation and use of cul-
tural goods;
 the production and consumption of creative art: creative freedom for artists
and creators, establishing conditions for exercising this freedom, advancing
the cultural activities of citizens, ensuring citizens’ equal access to cultural
values and facilitating access to culture for disadvantaged groups of citizens;
 supporting diversity: to curb the negative effects of the commercialisation of
culture;
 implementing new tools: cultural and economic decentralisation, independent
decision-making (introducing the peer review principle), providing free access
to information, the exchange of information and defining public cultural ser-
vices in legislation.

An emphasis on defining cultural identity (one of the main cultural aims according
to Throsby (2010, p. 41–45) was associated with the culture of ethnic minorities.
An identitarian concept of culture is inextricably linked with the conservation of
cultural heritage, which was given the highest priority. This has also been the case
in other post-communist countries of CEE and Southern Europe (Ratiu 2009, p. 30,
Ratzenböck et al. 2012, p. 85).
In 2003, the centre-left government issued a Statement on Cultural Support, in
which it declared the need to ensure effective co-operation between municipalities,
regions and the MoC (multi-source financing) and highlighted the unique role of
culture in supporting the creativity of citizens.5 The same government pushed
through the adoption of the Act on Certain Forms of Support for Culture,6 which
defined the concept of public cultural services and introduced arts scholarships, but
otherwise proved to be ‘toothless’.
After the year 2000, Czech governments adopted a number of policy docu-
ments: Heritage Conservation (2002, 2011), Movable Cultural Heritage (2003,
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 535

2010); Traditional Folk Culture (2003, 2011); Libraries (2004, 2011), Library Inter-
netisation Project (2004); Arts Policy (2006); and Cinematography/Czech Film
Industry (2010) (Petrová 2012, p. 76–77, Vojtíšková 2012). The Arts Policy (MoC
2006) has not been updated and planned evaluations of the document were can-
celled by the government in 2007, which reduced the potential of public oversight
and effective implementation of the document (Smolíková 2011, p. 5). In accor-
dance with the Arts Policy, the MoC did establish an expert Council for the Arts as
an advisory, initiatory and co-ordinating ministerial body in 2008, but it was short
lived.
The current general document, ‘National Cultural Policy of the CR 2009–2014’
(MoC 2008), adopted by a recent right-wing coalition government, follows foreign
trends in the reorientation toward instrumental cultural policy characterised by per-
vasiveness of market reasoning, and a commodified view of culture and the arts
(on the instrumental cultural policy of developed countries, see Belfiore 2004,
Hesmondhalgh and Pratt 2005, McGuigan 2004, Throsby 2010, p. 61, Vuyk 2010).
It resurrects the concept of cultural industries as an important economic sector that
employs a highly qualified workforce, and culture is conceived as an instrument for
national competitiveness and prosperity. The traditional justifications for an arts pol-
icy (intrinsic arguments of cultivation and education) are no longer considered to
be sufficient arguments for public expenditure. While this ‘pragmatic justification’
of the socio-economic impact appeals more to new governments in new times
(compare with the case of Romania in Ratiu 2009), it is telling that ‘the economic
potential of the cultural and creative industries has been marginalized or unknown
(.)’ in most Czech strategy documents (Žáková 2013, p. 8).
Cultural policy objectives in this document were (MoC 2008, p. 11–12):

 to provide direct and indirect support for maintaining existing cultural values
and creating new values;
 the purposeful utilisation of the cultural values of the arts, cultural heritage
and creativity in order to achieve competitive strength in tourism, external
relations and intellectual property;
 to emphasise the role of culture in the individual professional and personal
development of citizens (cultural participation, creativity, the cultivation of
democratic values, increased responsibility for inherited and newly created
values);
 to create a transparent and non-discriminatory environment for cultural
activities and their support at the levels of state, region and municipality
(multi-source financing).

The MoC can be considered the author of explicit national cultural policy, for
which the background material was prepared by specialised institutions established
by the MoC (Arts and Theatre Institute, NIPOS, National Folk Culture Institute).
The Czech state has retained a role in the funding of national institutions, in cul-
tural diplomacy and in direct funding (MoC programmes and European funds). The
decrease in the number of COs established by MoC had to do with the fact that
they were transferred to fall within the authority of municipalities and regions. The
majority of public cultural institutions are established by self-governing regions and
municipalities, which have become very important participants in public cultural
policy (compare to Great Britain, see Belfiore 2004, p. 194).
536 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

Cultural policy documents have rarely been brought to the attention of the pro-
fessional community; only in few instances have such documents been widely
debated, reflected on or evaluated, and ambitious objectives have not been consis-
tently implemented. Nevertheless, in recent years, the cultural public sphere has
increasingly begun to refer to political statements and commitments to provide
arguments in support of claims for public financial support for culture, which is
under threat owing to fiscal restrictions.

The organisation and public funding of the cultural sector

As has already been mentioned, one of the most important objectives of the transi-
tion was to ensure creative freedom and to desetatisation of culture (compare with
Poland (Murzyn-Kupisz 2010) and Romania (Ratiu 2009)). Important former state
enterprises, such as film studios and publishing houses, were privatised (see Hájek
1994, Šmejkalová 1998), and other state property was returned to its original own-
ers (or their heirs) in an effort to rectify the moral and economic injustices of the
communist regime. The principle of subsidiarity was applied in public administra-
tion, including the administration of culture. Czech public administration underwent
two stages of reform, which resulted in three levels of government: central, regio-
nal (14 regions as of 2000) and local (6253 in 2013). Devolution was accompanied
by the transfer of most cultural institutions and competences from the central gov-
ernment to the municipalities and regions. As in many other CEE countries, the
Czech central government focused primarily on the area of cultural heritage preser-
vation (monuments, historical buildings, castles, etc.) (Klamer et al. 2006, p. 50)
and the state COs (‘national culture’).
In order to implement the objectives of national cultural policy, ministerial
expenditure was set at a minimum of 1% of the state budget. This target was set
repeatedly by ministers from Pavel Tigrid (1996) onwards, and it was reiterated in
cultural policy documents (MoC 1999, 2001, 2008) and in the government policy
statements (2006, 2007), yet it has remained unfulfilled even in times of economic
growth. The largest amount of state budget expenditure of the MoC was recorded
back in 1999 (0.77%,7 see Table 1). Total public expenditure on culture between
2001 and 2010 ranged between 0.66% and 0.74% of GDP, and in 2009 expenditure
was €100 per capita (Petrova 2012, p. 53), which was still considerably more than
in other Visegrad countries (Ratzenböck et al. 2012, p. 26, 34, 57, 69).
While local (and district) self-government expenditure on culture represented
two-thirds of the total public expenditure on culture and heritage protection in the
late 1990s, the share of expenditure at subnational level has now risen to almost
three-quarters (Figure 1). After the year 2000, the regions assumed responsibility
for regional libraries and the network of regional museums and galleries, the run-
ning of which makes up by far the largest share of regional expenditure on culture.
Municipal funding has been directed mainly towards libraries, local cultural events
and (in medium-sized and large cities) theatres.
Most central and regional government expenditure on culture has been directed
at financing COs. COs, deemed a relic of socialism, were expected to be trans-
formed8 into bodies governed by public law. The number of COs was decreased on
the grounds of the need to reduce expenditure. However, this was more a matter of
cultural policy rhetoric on the part of the MoC. Even though the number of COs
operated by the MoC has decreased noticeably; the total ministerial CO budget has
Table 1. Central government (MoC) expenditure on culture.
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total Ministry of 175.899 209.763 214.869 190.412 192.373 249.339 261.969 259.892 283.804 332.017 317.626 313.769 308.254
Culture
expenditure
(€ million)
Ministry of 147.604 182.851 183.286 152.495 151.937 201.344 209.693 206.179 219.040 267.508 253.678 252.235 249.919
Culture
expenditure-
excluding
churches and
religious
societies
(million)
Proportion of 0.65 0.77 0.73 0.55 0.51 0.62 0.61 0.56 0.54 0.61 0.59 0.54 0.53
Ministry of
Culture
expenditure-
excluding
International Journal of Cultural Policy

churches and
religious
societies in the
State Budget
Source: IPOS (2001), NIPOS (2010). Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 25 CZK.
537
538 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% regional government
50% local government
40% central government
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 1. Public funding of culture by government level, 2001–2010.

Source: IPOS (2001), NIPOS (2010).

not been reduced accordingly (see Table 2). The share of the subsidies allocated to
COs out of total expenditure tends to shrink at regional and local levels.
The supply of cultural services became much more differentiated and stratified
with the arrival of for-profit and non-profit cultural organisations. Since the early
1990s, there have been plans to gradually move on from subsidies to competitive
grants, to expand the role of NGOs and to ensure a high quality of cultural services
by instituting an Evaluation Policy (Nekolný et al. 2006). Innovativeness and flexi-
bility are seen as the advantages of NGOs. However, the cultural third sector has
developed more slowly than expected due to limited funding (Nekolný et al. 2011,
p. 71–79). The emergence and operations of NGOs have in most cases been sup-
ported by charitable trusts, often using foreign resources, the Foundation Invest-
ment Fund (Nekolný et al. 2011, p. 71) or lottery proceeds. Nevertheless, a
substantial share of support still comes from public resources (Prouzová et al.
2013). Ministerial grants for the arts and cultural activities are generally scarce, rel-
atively marginal and fluctuate from year to year. The explicit cultural policy has
repeatedly (MoC 2008, Policy Statements) prioritised the enactment of transparent,
objective rules for the support of culture, but this still remains a mere intention.
The total amount of public expenditure on grant programmes reached its peak in
2007 and has decreased in recent years in response to the economic crisis (private
expenditures decreased even more dramatically). Austerity measures (expenditure
cuts, increased VAT) have had an especially strong impact on the arts. Since 2009,
expenditure in this area dropped below the optimum level recommended in the Arts
Policy (Smolíková 2011, p. 7–9, Smolíková 2012). There were severe financial cuts
in 2012 and 2013 when allocations for grant programmes fell to their lowest ever
share of the MoC’s budget (53% of the optimum level proposed in the Arts
Policy).
The state also originally planned to secure extra-budgetary sources of funding
for culture. One such resource was to be the State Cultural Fund (1992). However,
these hopes were soon dashed due to problems with financing the Fund that persist
to this day. As a result of mistakes made by management of fund and the Ministry
of Finance, the lottery (‘Lotynka’) whose profits, together with proceeds from
Table 2. Expenditure on culture for COs established by governments.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001–2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Central Total 151.052 175.899 209.763 214.869 249.339 261.969 259.892 283.804 332.017 317.626 313.769 308.254
government expenditure
Regional (€ million) 51.734 56.122 60.813 55.595 73.269 81.340 93.090 102.985 107.106 113.065 116.128 116.670
government
Local 254.190 264.602 282.253 308.353 373.934 428.251 436.594 506.247 473.316 497.585 597.777 641.579
government
Central Share of 53.90 48.08 47.62 46.50 Change in the 52.68 52.49 53.13 52.47 49.24 55.67 59.79 59.22
government COs arrangement
in total of central and
expenditure regional
(in %) government*
Regional 54.08 51.45 53.16 70.19 85.37 77.84 79.71 75.83 76.79 71.80 71.49 68.00
government
Local 39.49 39.24 40.07 42.64 46.55 43.74 44.00 39.15 42.70 42.14 36.34 33.34
government
International Journal of Cultural Policy

Source: IPOS (2001), NIPOS (2010).

*During this period, the district level of government was eliminated and the regional level was established in its place. Responsibility for COs was transferred from the
Ministry of Culture to the new regional administrations; parallel funding from different budgets existed.
539
540 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

Table 3. The financing of selected cultural sectors from the EU Structural Funds (in thou-
sands EUR).
2009 2010 2011
Historical monuments 1924.12 3396.56 1200.40
Museums and galleries 3171.72 5113.68 3184.96
Theatres 15.4 290.92 2826.44
Culture in total 9990.16 16227.92 14889.28
Source: ČSÚ, NIPOS (2011, 2012, 2013).

letting lucrative properties, were supposed to serve as a source of income for the
fund, fell through. The state paid the debts that were incurred in this scheme in the
form of a loan (in 1998) and subsequent income from the leasing of property was
used mainly to repay the state loan instead of going to culture. The mistakes of the
early 1990s have had a long-term effect, as between 2000 and 2011 a mere €1.8
million was allocated to culture.
Following its accession to the EU in 2004 the CR was able to apply for EU,
EEA and Norway grants. According to Ratzenböck et al. (2012), these funds
became an important factor in motivating and enabling investment in cultural infra-
structure in CEE countries in recent years. In the CR, these grants have mainly
been used for the renovation of cultural monuments and digitisation (Žáková
2013). The construction of a new theatre in Pilsen to coincide with the city being
named European Capital of Culture for 2015 (this is the first new theatre to be built
in 30 years) significantly increased the amount of money spent on theatre in 2011
(see Table 3). However, the inflexible bureaucratic system in the CR has meant that
grant funding has remained low. In August 2013, the Minister of Culture, Jan Bal-
vín (independent), admitted that only somewhere between 4% and 22% of grants
from the Integrated Operational Programme had been allocated and that the total
sum for allocation would probably not be used. The Ministry for Regional Devel-
opment therefore took over the responsibility for the administration of grants from
the MoC.

The organisation and public funding of theatre

Professional theatres have almost entirely been decentralised. Most theatres are now
the responsibility of municipalities, and only two such institutions were made the
financial and administrative responsibility of the regional authorities.
The number of theatres has tripled over the last two decades (from 50 to 153).
The number of performances has risen significantly, and audiences numbers, follow-
ing a decline in the early 1990s (with a minimum of 4.3 million in 1993), have
remained above 5.5 million since 2007. In 2012, 5.7 million theatregoers watched
28,000 performances (542 theatregoers per one thousand inhabitants) (NIPOS 2013,
p. 8). The number of publicly established theatres decreased from 44 in 2008 to 39
in 2012; since 2008, they have on average been approximately 30% financially self-
sufficient. There has been a slight increase in the total number of new productions
(671 premieres in 2012, of which 344 were by COs) (NIPOS 2013, p. 10–13).
Less encouraging indicators include the decline in the number of productions
touring abroad since 2008 (down by almost one-quarter, and in the case of COs by
as much as almost one-half; NIPOS 2013, p. 15). For several years now,
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 541

Table 4. Public funding for the theatre by funding source.

In thousands EUR %
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011
Central government 32332.68 30405.16 28470.4 14.49 15.48 14.07
Local and regional 96710.04 92844.24 106665.8 43.33 47.28 52.71
government
Public sector in total 129042.7 123249.4 135136.2 57.81 62.77 66.78
Households 52278.44 44131.48 47384.08 23.42 22.47 23.42
Private enterprises 36610.04 28640.76 16941.68 16.40 14.59 8.37
NGOs 5233.88 x x 2.34 x x
Private sector in total 94122.36 72772.24 64325.76 42.17 37.06 31.79
ESF 15.4 290.92 2826.44 0.01 0.15 1.40
Other foreign sources 34.12 45.6 69.16 0.02 0.02 0.03
Foreign sources in total 49.52 336.52 2895.6 0.02 0.17 1.43
TOTAL 223214.6 196358.2 202357.5 100.00 100.00 100.00
Source: ČSÚ, NIPOS (2011, 2012, 2013).

non-investment contributions for COs have remained at the same level or even
fallen despite an increase in operating costs. As a result, the wages of employees at
these theatres have stagnated and the number of new productions has decreased.
The Capital City of Prague occupies a privileged position in the sphere of the
contemporary arts and particularly theatre. It has four times as many seats per
capita of its population compared to the Czech average (CSÚ, NIPOS 2012,
p. 23–24) (68 theatres or theatre companies in 2010). It is home to more than one-
quarter of all public theatrical institutions (NIPOS 2013), and it is estimated that
the share of non-governmental theatre entities is even higher (exact figures are
unavailable).
If we focus on the public expenditure intended for ‘theatres’, the MoC contrib-
utes approximately one-quarter of the total public funding they receive. The propor-
tion contributed by the regions is marginal (approx. 4%). The largest share of
public funding comes from the budgets of the municipalities/towns (approx. 70%;
more than half if we include private sector expenditure and foreign resources, see
Table 4) (ČSÚ, NIPOS 2013).
About 80% of the MoC’s expenditure on theatre went to COs, while only
approximately one-tenth went to the municipalities, regions and NGOs to cover the
operational costs of professional theatres.9 The remainder is used as resources for
investment. Examples of close collaboration between the various levels of the pub-
lic administration are as yet rare and isolated.
In the following section, we look at the theatre scene in Prague. In view of their
continuing significance, we shall particularly focus on: the NT as the only state the-
atre CO; and the network of CO theatres established by Prague City Hall.

An analysis of the current state of the theatre sector and the principal issues
facing it
The extensive network of COs still accounts for a large part of public spending on
culture. In spite of this, from the very start, the state has been considering
transforming budgetary and COs into entities governed by public law, with funding
based on bids for grant aid, which would be decided on by expert panels or
542 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

intermediary bodies. The implementation of such a vision proved to be more com-

plicated than it seemed at first. As Jeffrey Straussman (1996) points out, this is not
merely a technical issue, but a multi-layered quality issue. And so, after almost a
quarter of a century of the existence of a free state we encounter problematic issues
connected with an inconsistency in implementing cultural policy, problems that
determine the conditions in which Czech cultural institutions operate:

 political intervention in the management and operation of COs;

 the unresolved nature of the funding and organisation of theatres in Prague;
 the lack of trust that cultural professionals have in politicians and decision-
makers owing to the gulf between ideals and reality.

Political intervention in the management and operation of COs

Insensitive political intervention by establishing institutions (MoC, municipalities)
into the management and operation of COs is a serious violation of the implementa-
tion of the ideas promoted after 1989 and is a frequent argument for transforming
COs. The critics of COs argue against the restriction of creative freedom in these
organisations, which are dependent on politicians (Nekolný et al. 2006, Škarabelová
et al. 2007). According to them, culture and art cannot be free as long as cultural
institutions do not exercise fully independent control over their own management.
The desired goal is to decrease government influence and bring culture ‘closer to
society and further from the state’. Experience under the former regime and its tight
control over culture still makes the interference of political bodies in the operations
of cultural organisations an extremely sensitive issue and can still trigger a political
crisis, as it has in the case of the NT.
The unique case of the NT, and the State Opera Prague (SOP), probably best
demonstrates the incompleteness of project of autonomisation of cultural institu-
tions. As the flagship of Czech culture, the main problem of the NT lies in the dif-
ficult interconnections between political, organisational and economic demands and
interests that are not easily reconciled.10
In this prominent, huge institution, the state has overtly intervened in the selec-
tion and appointment of the Director of the NT (Nekolný et al. 2011, p. 207).
There have been eight Ministers of Culture over eight years (2006–2013), during
which time three Directors of the NT were dismissed.
Minister Martin Štěpánek justified his decision to dismiss Director Daniel
Dvořák in 200611 on the grounds of poor management and accounting discrepan-
cies. In 2007, Ondřej Černý12 was appointed Director by Minister Helena Třeští-
ková, who remained in office for only two weeks. She was followed by Minister
Jiří Besser, who assigned Černý with the task of merging the NT and the SOP, two
large institutions comprising several artistic ensembles, into one institution, effec-
tive January 2012, by which time Alena Hanáková was the new Minister, as Minis-
ter Besser had to resign in December 2011 when the media revealed that he had
business dealings with a man convicted of bribery.
The controversial political decision to merge two ministerial COs into one, in
effect to subordinate the SOP to the NT, was met with much apprehension and
media coverage. An official document referred to the ‘process of transformation’ as
justified in order to achieve ‘greater efficiency, control, quality and diversity of
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 543

cultural supply’ (MoC 2011, p. 3). The process was to involve reorganisation, the
streamlining of management and a centralised management of the ensembles (a
merging of the ballet and opera ensembles). The authors of the document argued
that the SOP was not producing adequate artistic and economic results (although
the rate of return was 50%, it generated a deficit). The document criticised the lack
of creativity and innovation, and the repeated staging of traditional works to please
audiences (often tourists) and ensure basic economic survival (‘war-horse produc-
tion’) (MoC 2011, p. 5).
Surprisingly, only a few months after the merger started, Director Černý was
dismissed without warning by Minister Hanáková. This was allegedly due to his
‘inadequate procedural management’ of the transformation. The statement the Min-
ister issued to the media was generally perceived as implausible, which brought
into question her professional competence in this area, particularly given her back-
ground as a nursery school nurse. The ensembles at the NT and SOP went on strike
and rejected the appointment of the Deputy Minister as the NT’s interim Director.
While two economic audits allegedly identified management flaws, the arts commu-
nity speculated on the political motives behind the decision. The dismissed Director
spoke of ‘the arrogance of power’.
The MoC established a ‘Team of Experts’, who drafted rules for the selection
procedure and appointment of the NT’s Director. In January 2013, the MoC
accepted the recommendations made by the Team and appointed Jan Burian the
new Director. However, in the meantime, there had been a change of government
and the Minister of Culture Jiří Balvín (independent) dismissed Burian on his first
day in office in August 2013. The Minister’s sudden and poorly justified dismissal,
paradoxically allegedly owing to a lack of transparency in the selection procedure,
of a renowned Director caused uproar not only within the cultural sector (strong
protest from the NT’s management, numerous resignations by artists and the heads
of the artistic ensembles) but also amongst people who do not otherwise closely
follow the cultural scene. The Minister took back his decision and within three
days, Burian took up the post of Director for a second time, but with several pre-
conditions. These were: that he receive the official approval of the expert selection
committee and the NT’s Guarantee Board (a new body established for communica-
tion between the MoC and the NT), acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the
selection procedure by the MoC that the artistic management be allowed to return
to their posts, and that the MoC no longer violate the NT’s autonomy and cease to
interfere in decision-making areas that lie within the competence of the Director.
Members of the Team of Experts and the Guarantee Board recommended the adop-
tion of new legislation that would ensure the NT a more suitable legal status than
that of CO.
The conditions created by politicians’ unpredictable interventions were
described by Eva Kejkrtová Měřičková, a member of the NT Guarantee Board and
a theatre director, as follows:

For many years, the position of NT Director has resembled the situation where the
Director of the number one theatre is expected to cross the street but doesn’t know
whether crossing is permitted on the green light or on the red light. First he gets fired
for crossing on the green light, then on the red light. He has no idea which colour to
cross on, he only knows that he has to cross the street and he is lucky not to have
been run over by a car yet.13
544 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

In interviews, theatre professionals concur that whether or not their theatre has
favourable conditions to work in and whether or not it will suffer as a result of
inconsistent political decisions in terms of management and financial support
depends nowadays on the interests and intentions of politicians and how attuned
they are to culture. Despite all the declarations about ‘de-politicising culture’, it is
still politicians who make the decisions, and do so with varying degrees of compe-
tence and influenced by particular interests, and who are unable to justify publicly
their decisions and their disrespect for expert recommendations (for ‘the peer
review principle’ that was stipulated in the first cultural policy document; MoC
1999). This results in decisions that seem to be guided by economic, personal or
ideological motives. The politicisation of cultural sphere is presumably a more
common feature of CEE countries owing to the limited autonomy and dependence
of these institutions on public subsidies.

The financial support and organisation of theatres in Prague

The dependence on subsidies, i.e. political decisions, and the lack of flexibility that
stems from the bureaucratic procedures of COs are generally perceived as undesir-
able. In spite of this, some theatre professionals favour this legal form, as behind
autonomy lurks the danger of uncertainty in terms of theatres being left dependent
on financial support from grants or the commercialisation of their work.
Research on the cultural sector has until recently received little attention. There
has been a lack of analysis of market efficiency and failures, and the needs and
impacts of the public programme or its socio-political context (as proposed in
Hamerníková 1996). Public support has been based on the assumption of market
failure in traditional areas of culture (Hudeček 1995) and the same arguments have
been used to justify the existence of COs (for a discussion on market failure, see
Ratiu 2009, p. 34–36).
The market-oriented opponents of COs argue that cultural institutions are
funded under unequal conditions, depending on the type of business entity, which
violates free market principles as privileged COs obtain annual subsidies without
the obligation to justify the quality of their work before a professional committee
(Nekolný et al. 2006, Škarabelová et al. 2007).
Representatives of COs and their proponents counter by presenting COs as a
guarantee of cultural diversity, and providing a public service in the cultural sector
that could not be provided by the commercial sector or independent projects
(Mockovčiaková et al. 2006). Subsidised institutions adjust their price policies in
order to provide access for disadvantaged audiences e.g. children from lower socio-
economic backgrounds. The directors of COs also point out the intrinsic value of
the arts and their educational role in fostering a taste for art in young audiences (for
similar arguments see Mulcahy 2003). In their view, it is first necessary to create
adequate conditions for ensuring the existence of independent non-commercial
organisations.
Grant systems for cultural activities still have to contend with inconsistency,
changing rules, a fluctuation in the volume and level of allocated resources, the
failure of politicians to adhere to promises and decisions that are not always well-
informed or free from the influence of lobbying. Well-established COs have no
intention of entering into this kind of environment as they are not familiar with it
and they perceive the decision-making processes as being insufficiently transparent
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 545

or reliable. Therefore, such an environment would not provide them does not
provide them with more security or the ability to plan ahead. Fears of clientelism
in bidding for public funds still persist, and consequently the managerial staffs of
COs strive to maintain the status quo.
Prague City Hall was originally the establishing institution of thirteen theatre
COs. Since the 1990s, experts and Prague politicians have been advocating the
transformation of COs into a more independent form of organisation in terms of
their management and retaining only a few core theatres (Černý et al. 2001, Černý
et al. 2004, Nekolný et al. 2006, p. 23–26, 47–59, Černý et al. 2013). In spite of
this, in 2012, Prague City Hall was still the establishing institution of ten theatres,
support for which accounts for approximately three-quarters of the total city budget
for theatre (Černý et al. 2013, p. 41).
After 2000, a team of experts led by Ondřej Černý analysed the network of the-
atres in the city and put forward a detailed proposal for the transformation of three
entities (Černý et al. 2001). The first round of transformation successfully took
place between 2002 and 2003 when the Archa Theatre, the Drama Club, and Sema-
for Theatre were ‘transformed’, i.e., re-established as different legal entity with the
promise of four-year grant support. The as yet unclear economic and artistic conse-
quences of this process and growing concerns about the sustainability of indepen-
dent theatres in the context of funding uncertainty have all made theatre
professionals reluctant to undertake the second round of the transformation process.
Since 2004, the process of grant allocation for culture has been the subject of open
criticism, which resulted in the creation of a revised version of the Prague’s cultural
and grants policy in 2006. In 2007, the owners of private theatres and entrepreneurs
in this sector became involved in the debates. They criticised what they called dis-
crimination in the city’s grant competition. In their opinion, the grant committee had
given certain theatres unjustified advantages over other both for-profit and non-profit
theatres. Petr Kratochvíl therefore lodged a complaint with the European Commission
against the unlawful distortion of competition. Prague City Assembly quickly
approved an unusual solution to this, whereby they were to allocate a quarter of the
grant budget on the basis of the number of tickets a theatre sold to its performances,
without making any distinctions between commercial and non-commercial compa-
nies. While entertainment businesses and the tourist industry received generous sup-
port, subsequent cuts in the grant programme’s budget and a delay in the payment of
grants in 2008 brought several theatres to the verge of bankruptcy, most notably
Semafor Theatre, which had been part of the first round of transformation.
Owing to the continuing lack of transparency and accountability in grant com-
petitions, a substantial part of the arts community became increasingly active in
protests and discussions about Prague’s cultural policy. They demanded that the
city’s leaders initiate the creation of a new cultural and grant policy and resume the
conceptual and supervisory activities of the Mayor’s Advisory Board in decisions
concerning the allocation of funds. The activists also criticised the lack of expert
evaluation of the achievements of the first round of the transformation. They suc-
ceeded in getting the transformation process postponed, the policy of providing
subsidies per ticket sold abolished, and the cultural and grant policies updated. In
addition, the grant committee was dissolved and a new committee was set up with
greater participation of experts. However, the initiatives did not achieve the desired
dismissal or resignation of the two politicians (both ODS) who were accused of de-
stabilising and jeopardising the development of culture and the arts in Prague.
546 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

One evident result of the lack of a conceptual approach to the allocation of

funds in the grant system was the closing down of the highly regarded Prague
Chamber Theatre, Ltd.14 In 2009, the theatre company was allocated four-years of
support, but at a reduced level. The theatre’s Director, Dušan Pařízek, tried to
secure the full amount required in order to maintain the high level of artistic quality
at that theatre and its planned (co-production) programme. He strived to make pol-
icy-makers respect the management of theatres as equal partners and guarantee ade-
quate support for renowned arts projects. Failed negotiations led to the dissolution
of that theatre company, thus creating a certain precedent for others.
The deferred round of CO transformation was supposed to take place in the
election year of 2010, but following heated discussions with theatre professionals it
was not even considered by the City Council. The issue was reopened by the new
right-wing City Council at the end of 2012, which commissioned the expert team
led by O. Černý to draw up an updated analysis of public support for theatre in
Prague (Černý et al. 2001), and propose new strategy how to ‘optimise’ the net-
work of CO theatres (Černý et al. 2013). The authors of the study proposed trans-
forming the public theatres into a new legal type of organisation, in accordance
with several possibilities provided for in the new Civil Code that would come into
effect in 2014. Only two theatres are to form the ‘backbone of the city’s culture’
and to retain institutional ties to Prague City Hall and be part of a continuous sys-
tem of funding: Vinohrady Theatre and the Musical Theatre Karlín (Černý et al.
2013, p. 73–74).
With hindsight, the Directors of two institutions that have already been trans-
formed on the whole evaluate the experience positively as they have acquired eco-
nomic freedom (less bureaucracy); and new Board of Directors that they perceive
easier for them to communicate with than with officials. However, they too draw
attention to the pitfalls of having to enter into new contracts (leases, for example),
the absence of investment grants and economic uncertainty. According to them, this
must be offset by ‘relatively fairly set grant system criteria’ (Černý et al. 2013,
p. 43).
Conflicts surrounding Prague’s cultural policy have persisted, whether latently
or visibly, for more than a decade. Extensive discussions led to the revisions of pol-
icy documents and considerable improvements in the grant system criteria (most
recently, in 2011). The Directors of those theatres that are to be transformed are
understandably resistant to this change. They consider the proposed models to be
non-sensical as they jeopardise the existence of theatres that have a long history
and enjoy audience support.
Theatre as a non-industrial cultural sector is costly and, with few exceptions,
not self-sufficient. Public support appears to be necessary in order for theatre com-
panies that offer non-commercial and accessible cultural activities to survive. Public
funding of the performing arts is also a significant problem in western countries
(e.g. Throsby 2010, p. 68–69).

The deficit of trust that has resulted from the gulf between ideals and reality
Despite all the promises that have been made and the numerous discussions that
have taken place, there still exists an evident gulf between ideals and reality, a gap
that Straussman referred to as early as 1996. Whilst conceptual documents are in
principle consistent (they affirm the autonomy and political independence of
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 547

cultural institutions, and a transparent and non-discriminatory system of funding),

the implementation of these concepts is changeable and seemingly chaotic.
On a central level, cultural professionals’ mistrust of politicians is intensified by
the latter’s failure to adhere to the target of a minimum of 1% of state budget
expenditure for culture and by the repeated decrease in the volume of funds allo-
cated through grants for cultural activity. ‘The current grant system is described as
insufficient, unstable and often non-transparent’, argue professionals (MoC 2009,
p. 49). The prevailing public funding strategy impedes the development of multi-
year projects as most grants are awarded for one year or for a specific cultural
event.
Inadequate support of the third sector within culture and the low level of co-
operation between ministries, regions and towns persist. Although the central gov-
ernment committed itself to drafting legal regulations that would provide the basis
for promoting multi-source financing and multi-year funding of cultural projects
(2003), no such rules have been adopted to date. Regional theatres and municipali-
ties have called (without success) for a larger redistribution of ministerial funding
to regional theatres (outside Prague) as they cannot rely on receiving much money
from cultural patronage from the business sector, which tends to support sports,
prestigious institutions in the capital city or entertainment events with media cover-
age. The Matthew effect is at work here, analogously to the way R. K. Merton
described it in the domain of science (Merton 1968, compare with Mulcahy 2003,
p. 171). Corporate sponsorship is not disinterested; it takes the form more of adver-
tising than of philanthropy (Mulcahy 2003, p. 172, McGuigan 2004, p. 58).
Grant programmes are even more vulnerable to political instability, so organisa-
tions and organisers have no guarantee that a programme will publish a call for
proposals in the next year, that the rules will not change, or that priorities will not
shift (Smolíková 2003). In the CR, only one minister, Pavel Dostál (ČSSD), ever
served longer than one government’s term of office (1998–2005). The average term
in office of ministers of culture since 1993 was approximately one year. This turn-
over of ministers does not seem exceptional in other post-communist countries
either (see Yosifova 2011, p. 15).
Cultural professionals’ experiences indicate that even the well-meant intentions
of policy-makers may not be implemented. The Director of one of Prague’s CO
theatres described how in the past she received an offer from the Councillor
responsible for culture to transform her theatre under extremely favourable condi-
tions. The theatre was to serve as an example to other theatres. The Director
refused the transformation of CO on the grounds that the Councillor’s successor
might not honour the advantages she was being offered and the existence of a the-
atre with a history of over 60 years would thus be jeopardised.
The mistrust of politicians and the suspicions that privatisation is the hidden
agenda behind ‘transformation’ or ‘optimisation’, have repeatedly resulted in criti-
cism of the proposed parameters of the process intended to give theatres more inde-
pendence from politics. Critics of the ‘transformation’ consider it in actually to be
about commercial subjects trying to obtain better access to public resources. With-
out making the requisite distinction between commercial and non-commercial activ-
ities, the process will result in their opinion in narrowing the access to public
cultural services and a decline in their diversity and aesthetic quality. Critics have
succeeded in postponing the implementation of this process in Prague and defend-
ing the public theatre CO network.
548 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

Some experts, scholars and independent theatre professionals perceive this more
as an attempt to maintain the status quo, which restricts the young generation’s
opportunities for professional fulfilment, limit the development of a more indepen-
dent third sector and inhibit artistic innovation. Those in favour of neoliberal ideas,
on the other hand, see it as a breach of free market competition and the continua-
tion of the alleged economic inefficiency of COs.

Conclusion
The aim of our study has been to show the development of ideas in the area of cul-
tural policy and their implementation in the changing environment of a transition
country undergoing democratisation. The text represents the first comprehensive
review of the situation in the theatre sector in the CR and should provide the basis
for understanding the current situation. We have attempted to describe the key con-
cepts of the explicit cultural policy and direct public support for the theatre and,
based on this overview, to analyse the main dilemmas for future research and schol-
arly debate.
The situation of culture in the CR can serve as an almost textbook example of
various reversals and the responses to them. One of these reversals, the paradig-
matic shift from ‘official culture’ to ‘public culture’, took place seemingly over-
night. Under the communist regime, audiences had access to official state culture,
which was supposed to give people the illusion that they were living in an ideal
society. Only a small share of the population had access to alternative ‘under-
ground’ culture. The dichotomy of pro- and anti-regime culture fell apart with the
fall of the Iron Curtain. After 1989, the open borders led to an influx of cultural
previously restricted cultural products from the West, and the underfinanced cultural
sector became more responsive to audiences’ demands for entertainment. From the
perspective of public intellectuals, former dissidents and cultural professionals,
Czech culture and the arts found themselves in crisis and had to fight for a new
identity during the 1990s. The original modernist hopes of an autonomous cultural
sector liberated from both politics and the market (Kesner 1991, Vuyk 2010) were
replaced by a search for a desirable kind of relationship between the public, com-
mercial and non-commercial sector, culture, entertainment and the arts.
The situation of the performing arts in the CR is complex. Positive develop-
ments include continued high levels of theatre attendance after a short-term decline
at the beginning of the 1990s, an increase in the diversity and number of (theatre)
entities and a functioning ministerial programme that supports regional theatre.
However, the level of ministerial support is inadequate, as has been pointed out by
towns, which bear the largest part of the responsibility for covering the costs of
running theatres.
The neoliberal ideas that spread rapidly in the early 1990s were not realised to
their full extent in theatre. There is evidence of strong path dependency in this sec-
tor: the implicit cultural policy has been pre-defined by the existence of subsidised
network of institutions inherited from the previous period that provide public cul-
tural services (see, for instance, the Polish situation as described in Murzyn-Kupisz
2010). Dependency on public funding became even stronger in times of economic
hardship when fiscal austerity measures exacerbated existing problems in the man-
agement of cultural organisations. The current situation does not favour the trans-
formation of COs to more economically vulnerable entities. Public cultural
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 549

institutions are more motivated towards adopting a strategy of maintaining their

subsidies, and paternalistic attitudes are still strong. The absence of a consistent
government strategy towards the cultural sector as a whole, and the failure to fulfil
long-term political promises, has fuelled resistance to transformation perceived by
some in the theatre community as the threat of introduction of unrestrained cultural
capitalism, even if resistance means remaining dependent on the will of politicians
in an environment where they are widely mistrusted.
Despite initial efforts to shape cultural policy apolitically, freely and openly,
after decades of restrictions on artistic freedom, today’s cultural sector is paradoxi-
cally again becoming politicised. As a result, Czech cultural policy is still far from
achieving the original ideals of free-market (neo-liberal) fundamentalism and inde-
pendent business entities that freely compete to meet consumers’ cultural needs, or
of civil society liberalism about creating a mature civil society with a flourishing
non-profit sector providing public cultural services.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers of for their
careful reading, suggestions and helpful comments that helped to improve the text.

Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic [grant number
DF11P01OVV032].

Notes
1. The focus groups took place in: Prague, 30. 5. 2012; Jihlava, 27. 6. 2012; Ústí nad
Labem, 18. 6. 2012; Zlín, 13. 6. 2012. The groups of participants were recruited from:
policy-makers (regional and local government), managers of COs, and members of
NGOs and for-profit organisations active in the fields of cultural heritage, culture and
tourism.
2. The terms ‘establish’ ‘establishing institution’ are used in this article to translate the
Czech words ‘zřizovat’ and ‘zřizovatel’, which refer to the act of and the institution
responsible for legally establishing a contributory organisation (CO), approving its
deeds of establishment, funding the CO and providing it with property for its use, over-
sight of the CO’s financial management, the appointment and dismissal of a CO’s
director and its dissolution.
3. ‘COs’are governmental non-profit organisations operating in public services (health-
care, social services, education and culture) and established and subsidised by the gov-
ernment (Morávek et al. 2012). The first COs originated from budgetary organisations.
They derive budget funding from several sources: an annual financial contribution from
establishing institution that goes towards operational costs, revenue from their activities
(e.g. earned income), projects, donations and sponsorship.
4. Václav Klaus has been one of the most important political figures throughout the first
twenty years of the CR: he was Minister of Finance in 1989–1992, Prime Minister in
1992–1997, Chairperson of the Chamber of Deputies in 1998–2002 and President of
the CR in 2003–2013.
5. Resolution of the Government of the CR No. 344 of 7 April 2003 on the Government
Statement on Cultural Support.
6. Act No. 203/2006 on Certain Forms of Support for Culture and Amendments to
Certain Related Acts.
550 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

7. This includes funding for churches and religious societies, which accounts for about
one-fifth of the MoC’s budget – €60 million in 2010 (the MoC was responsible for
providing funding to cover the salaries of ministers of religion, the operational costs of
churches and religious societies, and the restoration of church property).
8. ‘Transformation of a CO’ does not exist as a concept in Czech law. In practice, the
organisation is dissolved and a successor organisation established as a new legal entity.
9. From 1996 to 2003, the MoC invited applications for the Programme for the Support
of Czech Theatres, after 2004 the Programme of State Support of Professional Theatres
and Permanent Professional Symphony Orchestras and Choirs. Between 2002 and 2012
this amounted annually to between €1.4 and €2.6 million for 30–35 theatres.
10. The NT is one of the symbols of Czech national identity (‘The Nation unto Itself’ is
the motto inscribed above the stage). After it burnt down in 1881 the building was
quickly rebuilt when Czech patriots took up a collection across the nation (Rak 1994,
Císař 2005). In 2012, the NT comprised five stages: (1) The National Theatre, (2) The
New Stage (since 1983), (3) The Estates Theatre (since 1920), (4) The Kolowrat The-
atre (since 1991) and (5) the State Opera (which was part of the NT from 1948 to
1992 and is again since 2012). The NT’s annual budget was approximately €38.5 mil-
lion (approximately two-thirds of which came from a contribution from the MoC).
11. D. Dvořák was Director of the SOP from 1998 to 2002 and then of the NT in Prague
from 2002 to 2006. After his dismissal, he was selected in a competition and became
the Director of the NT in Brno from 2007 to 2012. He resigned in response to the the-
atre’s increasing underfunding, attempts at political interference in its operations, and
the unwillingness of its establishing institution – the City of Brno – to seek systemic
solutions to problems.
12. Between 1997 and 2007 Černý was the Director of the Theatre Institute (since 2007
the Arts and Theatre Institute), a state CO established by the MoC that focuses on
research.
13. Political talk show ‘Václav Moravec’s Questions’ (Czech TV), 16 September 2012.
14. The company charted the various crossroads in Central Europe’s modern history; it
tried to define Central European cultural identity by staging a combination of classic
and contemporary works by Czech, German and Austrian authors (R. W. Fassbinder,
T. Bernhard, T. Brussig, P. Handke, K. Kraus).

References
Ahearne, J., 2003. Cultural policy in the old Europe: France and Germany. International
journal of cultural policy, 9 (2), 127–131.
Ahearne, J., 2009. Cultural policy explicit and implicit: a distinction and some uses.
International journal of cultural policy, 15 (2), 141–153.
Beck, D.C., 2009. Gray zone theatre dissidence: rethinking revolution through the enactment
of civil society. Journal of dramatic theory and criticism, XXIII, 2, 89–110.
Belfiore, E., 2004. Auditing culture. The subsidised cultural sector in the New Public
Management. International journal of cultural policy, 10 (2), 183–202.
Císař, J., 2005. The National Theatre is still on fire. In: J. Gajdoš, ed. Disk I/2005 –
Selections from the czech journal for the study of dramatic art. Praha: AMU, 37–50.
Černý, O., et al., 2001. Analýza transformace příspěvkových organizací – divadel
zřizovaných Hlavním městem Prahou [Analysis of the transformation of contributory
organisations – theatres established by Capital City of Prague]. Praha: Divadelní ústav.
Černý, O., et al., 2004. Transformace divadelního systému v České republice [The transfor-
mation of the theatre system in the Czech Republic]. Praha: Divadelní ústav.
Černý, O., et al., 2013. Návrh systémové optimalizace pražské divadelní sítě – 1. verze
[Proposal on systematic optimization of theatre network in Prague – 1st version]. Praha:
Institut umění – Divadelní ústav.
ČSÚ, NIPOS, 2011. Výsledky účtu kultury za rok 2009 [The results of the account of the
culture of the Czech Republic for 2009]. Praha: ČSÚ, NIPOS.
ČSÚ, NIPOS, 2012. Výsledky účtu kultury za rok 2010 [The results of the account of the
culture of the Czech Republic for 2010]. Praha: ČSÚ, NIPOS.
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 551

ČSÚ, NIPOS, 2013. Výsledky účtu kultury za rok 2011 [The results of the account of the
culture of the Czech Republic for 2011]. Praha: ČSÚ, NIPOS.
Dahrendorf, R., 2005 (1990). Reflections on the revolution in Europe. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Duelund, P., 2008. Nordic cultural policies: a critical view. International journal of cultural
policy, 14 (1), 7–24.
Eyal, G., 2000. Anti-politics and the spirit of capitalism: dissidents, monetarists, and the
czech transition to capitalism. Theory and society, 29 (1), 49–92.
Eyal, G., 2003. The origins of postcommunist elites. From Prague Spring to the breakup of
Czechoslovakia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Griswold, W., 2008. Cultures and societies in a changing world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Hájek, I., 1994. Czech culture in the cauldron. Europe-Asia Studies, 46 (1), 127–142.
Hamerníková, B., 1996. Veřejná podpora neziskovým kulturním a mediálním činnostem –
ano, či ne? [Public support of non-profit cultural and media activities: to be or not to
be?]. Finance a úvěr, 46 (3), 158–167.
Havel, V., 1997. The art of the impossible: politics as morality in practice: speeches and
writings, 1990–1996 (translated from the Czech by P. Wilson). New York: Knopf.
Hesmondhalgh, D. and Pratt, A.C., 2005. Cultural industries and cultural policy.
International journal of cultural policy, 11 (1), 1–13.
Hudeček, J., 1995. Politické rozhodování činí z památek veřejné statky [Public Choice
Transforms the Architectural Heritage into Public Goods]. Finance a úvěr, 45 (7),
396–408.
IPOS, 2001. Financování kultury z veřejných rozpočtů 1991–2000 [Public funding of culture
1991–2000]. Praha: IPOS.
Jírový, Z., 1994a. Co to je, když se řekne nizozemský model [What does the Dutch model
mean]. Místní kultura, 8, 2–5.
Jírový, Z., 1994b. Co to je, když se řekne nizozemský model [What does the Dutch model
mean]. Místní kultura, 9, 3–7.
Jírový, Z., 1994c. Co to je, když se řekne nizozemský model [What does the Dutch model
mean]. Místní kultura, 10, 4–6.
Jírový, Z., 2005. Osvětou k svobodě: jedna z cest české kultury k současnosti [Through
education to freedom: the way of Czech culture into present]. Praha: NIPOS.
Kawashima, N., 2004. Planning for equality? Decentralisation in cultural policy [online].
Centre for Cultural Policy Studies. Available from: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/
theatre_s/cp/research/publications/centrepubs/ccps_paper_1.pdf [Accessed 4 February
2013].
Kesner, L., 1991. Ohrožené umění a jiné mýty dneška [Arts in danger and other contemporary
myths]. Přítomnost, 2, 26–27.
Kesner, L., ed., 2001. Economy and culture: a partnership for the 21st century. Proceedings
of the international conference on the development of cultural assets and cultural
capital, organized as part of the “Prague – European city of culture” program in
Prague, 22–23 September 2000. Praha: Praha – Evropské město kultury 2000.
Klamer, A., Petrova, L. and Mignosa, A., 2006. Financing the arts and culture in the
European union. Brussels: European Parliament.
Klaus, V., 2006. The economic transformation of the Czech Republic: challenges faced and
lessons learned. CATO Institute. Economic development bulletin, 6 (14), 1–2.
Knapík, J., 2006. V zajetí moci. Kulturní politika, její systém a aktéři 1948–1956 [In the
captivity of power. Cultural politics, its system, and participants 1948–1956]. Praha:
Libri.
Königsmark, V., 1993. Divadlo v pasti? [Theatre trapped?]. Divadelní noviny, 2 (5), 3.
Kopecek, M., 2011. The rise and fall of Czech post-dissident liberalism after 1989. East
European politics and societies, 25, 244–271.
Labadi, S. and Long, C., 2010. Heritage and globalisation. London: Routledge.
Lorencová, R., 2012. Ekonomický rámec kultury v krajích České republiky [The Economic
Framework of culture in the regions of the CR]. In: V. Patočková, D. Čermák and K.
Vojtíšková, eds. Kultura v krajích České republiky [Culture in the regions of the CR].
Praha: SOÚ AV ČR, v.v.i., 171–210.
552 K. Vojtíšková and R. Lorencová

Marada, R., 1997. Civil society: adventures of the concept before and after 1989. Czech
sociological review, 5 (1), 3–22.
McGuigan, J., 2004. Rethinking cultural policy. Maidenhead: Open University.
Merton, R.K., 1968. The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems
of science are considered. Science, 159 (3810), 56–63.
MoC, 1999. Koncepce kulturní politiky v ČR. Strategie účinnější státní podpory kultury
[Cultural policy in CR. Strategy of effective state cultural support]. Praha: Ministerstvo
kultury.
MoC, 2001. Kulturní politika v České republice/Cultural Policy in the Czech Republic.
Praha: Ministerstvo kultury.
MoC, 2006. Koncepce účinnější podpory umění na léta 2007–2013 [Concept for more effi-
cient support of the arts in 2007–2013] [online]. Praha: Ministerstvo kultury. Available
from: http://www.mkcr.cz/assets/umeni/Koncepce___inn_j___podpory_um_n__na_l_ta_
2007-2013.doc [Accessed 7 August 2012].
MoC, 2008. National cultural policy Czech Republic 2009–2014 [online]. Praha: Ministry
of Culture. Available from: http://www.mkcr.cz/assets/kulturni-politika/National-Cultural-
Policy_final.pdf [Accessed 4 February 2013].
MoC, 2011. Koncepce transformace státních příspěvkových organizací Státní opera Praha a
Národní divadlo [Concept of transformation of state-funded COs Prague State Opera
and Prague National Theatre] [online]. Praha, Ministerstvo kultury. Available from:
http://www.mkcr.cz/assets/zpravodajstvi/zpravy/Koncepce-transformace.pdf [Accessed 4
February 2013].
Mockovčiaková, A., et al., 2006. Analýza vývoje decentralizace rozhodování o kultuře v
České republice po roce 1993 se zaměřením na analýzu vlivu reformy veřejné správy na
strukturu výdajů veřejných rozpočtů v oblasti kultury [An analysis of decentralization
process of decision-making about culture in the Czech Republic after 1993 with focus
on analysis of influence of public sector reform on structure of public expenditures in
culture]. Praha: NIPOS.
Morávek, Z., Mockovčiaková, A. and Prokůpková, D., 2012. Příspěvkové organizace
2012–2013 [Contributory organisations 2012–2013]. Praha: ASPI.
Možný, I., 2009 (1991). Proč tak snadno … Některé rodinné důvody sametové revoluce.
Sociologický esej [Why so easy ... some family reasons of the Velvet Revolution. A
sociology essay]. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON).
Mulcahy, K.V., 1991. The public interest in public culture. Journal of arts management and
law, 21 (1), 5–27.
Mulcahy, K.V., 2003. Entrepreneurship or cultural Darwinism? Privatization and American
cultural patronage. Journal of arts management, law, and society, 33 (3), 165–184.
Murzyn-Kupisz, M., 2010. Cultural policy at the regional level: a decade of experiences of
new regions in Poland. Cultural trends, 19 (1–2), 65–80.
Nekolný, B., 2000. Česká kultura v roce 2000 [Czech culture in 2000]. Praha: Barrister &
Principal.
Nekolný, B., et al., 2006. Divadelní systémy a kulturní politika [Theatre systems and
cultural policies]. Praha: Divadelní ústav.
Nekolný, B., et al., 2011. Studie současného stavu podpory umění II [Study on contemporary
state of support of the arts II]. Praha: Divadelní ústav.
NIPOS, 2010. Financování kultury z veřejných rozpočtů 2001–2010 [Public funding of cul-
ture 2001–2010] [online]. Praha: NIPOS. Available from: http://www.nipos-mk.cz/?
attachment_id=13795 [Accessed 31 July 2012].
NIPOS, 2013. Základní statistické údaje o kultuře v České republice 2012 [Basic statistical
data about culture in the Czech Republic in 2012]. Praha: NIPOS.
Oslzlý, P., 1990. On stage with the Velvet Revolution. The drama review, 34 (3), 97–108.
Petrová, P., 2012. Compendium. Cultural policies and trends in Europe: country profile
Czech Republic. Council of Europe/ERICarts, 14th ed. Available from: http://www.cultur
alpolicies.net/down/czechia_072012.pdf [Accessed 14 March 2013].
Prouzová, Z. and Almani Tůmová, K., 2013. Rozbor financování nestátních neziskových or-
ganizací z veřejných rozpočtů v roce 2011 [Analysis of funding for NPOs from public
budgets in 2011]. Vláda ČR. Available from: http://www.vlada.cz/assets/ppov/rnno/do
kumenty/rozbor_2011.pdf [Accessed 2 February 2014].
 International Journal of Cultural Policy 553

Rak, J., 1994. Bývali Čechové: české historické mýty a stereotypy [Czechs of old: Czech
historical myths and stereotypes]. Jinočany: H & H.
Ratiu, D.-E., 2009. Cultural policy and values: Intrinsic versus instrumental? The case of
Romania. The journal of arts management, law and society, 39 (1), 24–44.
Ratzenböck, V., Okulski, K. and Kopf, X., 2012. Cultural policy landscapes: a guide to
eighteen central and South East European Countries. Vienna: ERSTE Foundation a
österreichische kulturdokumentation. internationales archiv für kulturanalysen.
Ritzer, G., 1993. The Mcdonaldization of society: an investigation into the changing
character of contemporary social life. Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Škarabelová, S., Neshybová, J. and Rektořík, J., 2007. Ekonomika kultury a masmédií
[Economics of culture and mass media]. Brno: MU ESF.
Šmejkalová, J., 1998. Unbinding books: publishing in the Czech Republic. In: P.B.
Boorsma, A. van Hemel and N. van der Wielen, eds. Privatization and culture:
experiences in the arts, heritage and cultural industries in Europe. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 142–159.
Šmejkalová, J., 2001. Censors and their readers: selling, silencing, and reading Czech books.
Libraries & culture, 36 (1), 87–103.
Smolíková, M., 2003. Kulturní neziskové organizace v ČR a podpora umění [Non-profit cul-
tural organisations in CR and support of the arts] [online]. Proculture. Available from:
http://www.proculture.cz/cultureinfo/nevladni-neziskovy-sektor/marta-smolikova-kulturni-
neziskove-organizace-v-cr-a-podpora-umeni-32.html [Accessed 4 February 2013].
Smolíková, M., 2011. Zpráva o státní podpoře umění 2011, naplňování Koncepce účinnější
podpory umění pro léta 2007–2013 a teze pro období let 2014–2020 [Report on govern-
mental support of the arts in 2011, the implementation of Concept for more efficient
support of the arts in 2007–2013 and outline for 2014–2020]. Praha: Institut umění-Div-
adelní ústav.
Smolíková, M., 2012. Rok 2012 prověří životaschopnost nestátních kulturních organizací
[The viability of non-governmental cultural organizations will be examined in the year
2012] [online]. Proculture. Available from: http://www.proculture.cz/proculture-watch/
rok-2012-proveri-zivotaschopnost-nestatnich-kulturnich-organizaci-2951.html [Accessed
28 November 2012].
Straussman, J., 1996. Ideals and reality in the evolution of fiscal reform in central and
eastern Europe. Public budgeting & finance, 16, 79–95.
Sztompka, P., 1996. The year 1989 as a cultural and civilization. Communist and
post-communist studies, 29 (2), 115–129.
Throsby, D., 2001. Economics and culture. Port Chester, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Throsby, D., 2009. Explicit and implicit cultural policy: some economic aspects.
International journal of cultural policy, 15 (2), 179–185.
Throsby, D., 2010. The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Uhde, M., 1993. Rozhovor s M. Uhde [Interview with M. Uhde]. Divadelní noviny, 2 (3),
11.
Vestheim, G., 2007. Cultural policy and democracy. Theoretical reflections. International
journal of cultural policy, 13 (2), 217–236.
Vojtíšková, K., 2012. Kulturní politika a koncepční dokumenty na národní úrovni [National
cultural policy]. In: V. Patočková, D. Čermák and K. Vojtíšková, eds. Kultura v krajích
České republiky [Culture in the regions of the CR]. Praha: SOÚ AV ČR, v.v.i., 51–86.
Vuyk, K., 2010. The arts as an instrument? Notes on the controversy surrounding the value
of art. International journal of cultural policy, 16 (2), 173–183.
Yosifova, D., 2011. Towards decentralized cultural policy in transition countries. The
case of Bulgaria. Central European University. Available from: www.etd.ceu.hu/2011/
yosifova_diyana.pdf [Accessed 4 February 2013].
Žáková, E., 2013. Culture and the structural funds in the Czech Republic. EENC Paper.
Available from: http://www.eenc.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/EZakov%C3%A1-Cul
ture-and-the-Structural-Funds-in-the-Czech-Republic.pdf [Accessed 4 September 2013].
Copyright of International Journal of Cultural Policy is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.