Figure 1. Nan Goldin staging a “die-in” at the Harvard Art Museums. Photo: TW Collins.
The globally evolving museum landscape, shaped by shifts in the social, cultural, and political environment and constrained by limited resources, has compelled museums to adapt to common funding challenges.[4] Drawing on an interdisciplinary literature review, in this chapter I traverse the positioning of Dutch museum funding within this intricate stakeholder environment, structuring the discussion around implications for their financial stability, democratic accountability, and effective governance.
The rationale for public support is firmly established in scholarly discourse, which recognizes that museums not only contribute to economic prosperity but also yield cultural and societal value.[5] Hence, the rationale for public support has received much attention by cultural economists, who identify various inefficient dynamics that failing markets produce.[6]
The supply side may deviate in four significant aspects from the principles of an effectively functioning market, including declining costs, productivity lag, unequal income distribution, and imperfect competition, as the market for museums is characterized by monopolistic actors.[7] On the demand side, too little art is supplied if individuals’ preferences for enjoying art is not fully reflected in the markets. This includes art as a public good, nonmarket demand (where people value the option of visiting the museum, but never do so themselves), and external benefits in production and consumption. Moving to aspects beyond efficiency, additional arguments for government support stem from the prevalent lack of consumer awareness regarding the supply of art, individuals underrating the utility provided by culture, and the need to ensure inclusivity of cultural goods across various socioeconomic classes.
Ultimately, market failures dominate nearly all sectors in society to a significant extent, albeit that even the most generous cultural support from governments pales in comparison to that of other sectors, such as agriculture, transport, and defense. Therefore, the level of public support for the cultural sector depends on the political perspective regarding how such support enhances the well-being of the population.[8] Accordingly, political scientist Kevin Mulcahy argues that cultural policies need to be understood as reflections that “defines the character of a society,” which is ultimately determined by the citizens themselves.”
Consequently, public funding, directly or through tax-deductible philanthropy, generates expectations for the democratic accountability to the diverse audiences that museums serve. When public museums rely primarily on funding from a limited subset of individuals, foundations, or corporations whose private perspectives shape museum offerings, the inclusive use of public resources diminishes, and societal responsibilities remain unfulfilled.[10] This prompts the question whether the publics’ interest in cultural affairs is best served by the preferences of philanthropists (fig. 2).
Figure 2. Guerrilla Girls, History of Wealth and Power, 2016, poster, 45.7 x 61 cm. © Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
Art historian David Joselit describes philanthropy as a perverted symptom of structural and growing inequality, by arguing against naturalizing reliance on private donations for public art institutions. Instead, museums should demand access to the arts be not a gift, but a right. He argues that the acts of dedicated and sustained collective activism against philanthropy have given us the chance to recognize its toxicity.[11] More generally, three dynamics of philanthropy can be problematized. Firstly, many cultural patrons and corporations have amassed their wealth through polluting or unethical practices, such as exploitative heavy industries or speculative financial markets, making their philanthropy, into a form of what is commonly understood as “artwashing,” a bad reputation.[12] Secondly, curator Nato Thompson addresses how “charity lays bare the imbalances of power operating in any exchange, and results in a sort of potlatch which keeps the donor in a position of power. As opposed to heightening the capacity of those being helped, the relationship is often one-sided.”[13] Lastly, and most fundamentally, philanthropy benefits from tax deductions. Consequently, funds that could have been allocated by the state to promoting equality of opportunity remain in the hands of philanthropists. Hence, political scientist Rob Reich clarifies that the call for scrutiny should not be driven by the inherent negativity of philanthropy but rather by its exercise of power, contending that in a democracy any concentration of power warrants scrutiny, not gratitude.[14]
When institutional worlds collide, there is significant pressure on museums to shape their governance structures in a way that influences their relationships effectively.[15] Museums are now required not only to seek financial support but also to establish social legitimacy to secure public funding, all while transitioning into more outward-focused institutions that deeply engage with their communities.[16] As has become evident, this arrangement presents museums with paradoxical challenges stemming from divergent logics and expectations regarding developing and managing financial support. This imperative is underscored by the code of ethics adopted by the International Council of Museums (ICOM), which asserts that “the [museum’s] governing body should ensure that there are sufficient funds to carry out and develop the activities of the museum.”[17] At the same time, however, the code emphasizes that “museums should create a process through which they may decide whether or not to accept financial support that is offered to them” and “should consider whether to exclude any specific business or kind of business because of the business’ products and services” such as “fossil fuel extractors.”[18] ICOM’s explicit concerns about corporate philanthropy invites a deeper analysis of the impact artwashing can have on climate change.
Scholars have long recognized the significance of corporate self-interest in organizational decisions to support museums, prioritizing public relations and publicity value over the art itself.[19] Accordingly, many of the arts’ biggest corporate funders in the Netherlands, such as ING, AkzoNobel, KLM, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (Dutch Petroleum Company), and GasTerra have controversial reputations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasizes that fossil fuel giants’ visibility poses a significant challenge in combating climate change. Additionally, a study commissioned by the Ministerie Economische Zaken en Klimaat (Ministry of Economic and Climate Affairs) underscores the harmful impact of fossil fuel advertisements, which not only encourage unsustainable behaviors but also undermine the sustainable aspirations of individuals aiming to make eco-friendly choices. Brand visibility erodes confidence in sustainable actions, suggesting futility in the face of widespread unsustainable practices.[20] According to the calculations of Purpose Disruptors, a group of British advertisers, the advertising industry was responsible for 32 percent of the greenhouse gases in the United Kingdom in 2022 (up 10 percent since 2019).[21]
With cultural institutions putting in place fundraising governance codes and environmental activists holding museums accountable for their unethical sponsorship ties (fig. 3), museum professionals must be aware of the need to cease facilitating artwashing. However, under tremendous pressure due to financial precarity, divestment becomes a privilege. Accordingly, scholars Colin Sterling and Asiaa Komarova suggest that the ICOM codes and museum definition do not outline the functioning of museums so much as they reveal the desired image that museum professionals aim to project.[22] While further cuts to funding may indeed necessitate more, not less, reliance on philanthropy, I aimed in this literature review to unpack that this presents museum professionals with a funding dilemma, inviting an exploration of their perspectives.
Figure 3. Fossil Free Culture, Beyond Insanity, 2016, performance view, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam. Courtesy of Fossil Free Culture. Photo: Laura Ponchel.
The theoretical framework presented here aims to open up an intraorganizational lens on navigating conflicting institutional pressures, offering a toolbox to unpack both the implications of ambiguous demands and potential productive approaches to embrace the paradoxes they create. Specifically, I predict in this section how the interplay between resource contingencies and ethical outlooks shapes variations in funder selection strategies, before exploring institutional and ecosystemic structures that could help resolve these tensions.
Noninstitutional forces, like political conflicts, social movements, and reliance on external funding play a role in driving institutional change.[23] At the same time, organizational ethics, structure, and individual characteristics collectively establish shared meanings and behavioral norms within an organization and therefore play a significant role in shaping the organization’s reality.[24] Hence, the ultimate test of accountability for a nonprofit organization lies in whether its leadership can responsibly interpret and passionately promote the organization’s mission, even when environmental, stakeholder, and governance pressures steer toward more comfortable and secure paths (fig. 4).
Figure 4. Illustration for “Six Theses toward the Liberation of Arts Philanthropy,” Platform BK, 2024.
To take accountability in museum funding, museum professionals must thus translate their interpretation of responsibility into concrete choices regarding which parties to engage with. Given this, the main question in forming a strategy for funder selection is: By what criteria should museums evaluate? Since there is no universal answer that applies to all museums, how can each institution provide direction? Therefore, I propose a typology of three main approaches to engaging with philanthropy, which will be compared against interview findings in the discussion chapter: The brown strategy aligns the moral compass with national law and government; the gray strategy diverges from politics and legislation, instead following the average socioenvironmental transition; and the green strategy goes beyond list making, creating a responsive moral compass to align with the most critical voices in society.
If some funder selection strategies are more aligned with ethical fundraising than others, these methods can be analyzed as mediators for the extent to which effective governance is realized in practice. However, it has become clear that, in navigating ethical fundraising, striving for purity can be paralyzing, while inaction compromises the museum’s democratic accountability. Simultaneously, committing to a consistent middle-ground approach risks a focus on incremental efforts to balance trade-offs, rather than pursuing the radical visions necessary to embrace the paradox and achieve harmony. To address this issue, the concept of ambidexterity has the potential to take on such ambiguities, with implications for museum leadership and structure.
In their seminal article, business management scholars Charles O’Reilly and Michael Tushman explain how ambidextrous organizations encompass two fundamentally different types of activities: leveraging existing capabilities for revenue and experimenting with new opportunities for growth.[25] They found that organizations with such structures are nine times more likely to develop breakthrough innovations while sustaining their traditional activities. An ambidextrous approach to leadership can contribute to avoiding zero-sum thinking, which results from the assumption that funds are constrained.[26] Allocating resources to a single objective often leaves other goals neglected, leading to conflicts among managers and partners with competing priorities. However, leaders who welcome paradoxes see resources differently—as abundant and capable of generating more value. Instead of thinly spreading external funds, museum professionals might focus on expanding their potential by forging new partnerships, leveraging innovative technologies, and adopting flexible timelines.
Crucially, initiatives to improve ethical fundraising are unlikely to succeed with one-size-fits-all solutions. Rather, the challenge lies in reconciling a recognition of the plurality of socioeconomic museum profiles and the need for shared norms on ethical fundraising. From this standpoint, the funding dilemma imposes new demands not only on the institution but also on its surrounding ecosystem. In short, taking an integrative perspective, solidarity in the museum sector can move beyond the analogy of a classroom where only a few play an exceptional role. Instead, shifting the comparison to building a team, the focus turns to allocating a repertoire of critical actions to specific museum profiles that fits with their resources and capabilities.
Scholars Mark Kramer and Marc Pfitzer identify five key elements necessary for organizations to initiate “collective impact” efforts, involving all players in their ecosystems: a common agenda, a shared measurement system, mutually reinforcing activities, constant communication, and dedicated “backbone” support from independent organizations.[27] This aligns with sectorial solidarity, emphasizing that diverse stakeholders should engage in mutually reinforcing activities, with each organization focusing on what it does best. Hence, this approach might prove productive to resist making arts’ funding a competitive process between institutions.
The research employs a dual-method design of a case study approach with a grounded theory lens. The Netherlands was chosen as the area of focus because the funding dilemma was particularly prevalent in this country. The unit of analysis comprises museum professionals selected from eight museums with development departments. For the case study, the focus narrows to employees of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, exploring how its reputation for innovation and experimentation might support its transition to sustainable partnerships. To accommodate time constraints, a cross-sectional study was conducted, involving the collection of data through theoretical sampling of 13 one-hour-long semistructured interviews. I continuously compared these to facilitate an in-depth investigation, and questions were consistently refined to delve deeper into the dilemma that museum professionals encountered amid conflicting external pressures on philanthropy. Given the sociopolitical sensitivity of the subject, the full transcripts are in possession of the researcher and peer reviewers only. Additionally, the approach ensures the anonymity of participants and protects the identities of the discussed parties.
The findings from sector-wide interviews indicate that varying ethical outlooks underpin the extent to which museum professionals might perceive societal critique on philanthropy as a dilemma for their operations. Two ideal types of interpretation arise from the data, conceptualized here as demarcating and claiming responsibility. Typically, museum professionals are oriented somewhere in between the spectrum of these ideal types.
The demarcating approach is characterized by clearly and confidently confining the museums’ responsibility to what it primarily stands for: the art collection and education. This approach suggests that, in a democracy, the responsibility for attracting ethical funding and ensuring democratic accountability lies more with political entities than with museums. These professionals strongly trust in and uphold the ideals of public support for the arts. They relativize the museums’ eroding independence compared to other countries. This is exemplified by director of museum B stating:
We almost never push back. We almost never say, what nonsense, that’s not our responsibility. It’s great that you think we should solve societal problems, but those really lie with the government. [ . . . ] I don’t mean that as passing the buck. But we have opted for a democracy. In that case, I actually think that this should be done through politics.
Alternatively, the claiming approach is characterized by taking on a broader societal responsibility that is projected onto museums. They stress the importance of philanthropy to face these financial challenges and recognize a growing package of demands projected onto museums, such as diversity, inclusion, accessibility, and sustainability. However, contrary to demarcating responsibility, efforts are exerted to claim responsibility in ethical fundraising that societal pressures demand from museums, embracing the new expansive ICOM museum definition, as illustrated by managing director of museum A:
Often, it’s said, “You just dance to the tune of the municipality.” Then I think, well, these are clearly themes that we collectively consider important. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be on a political agenda. [ . . . ] The time when museums were a sort of ivory tower, doing their own thing alongside society, is over. And I think that’s justified. A lot of public money goes into them. And then you simply get societal challenges along with it.
To outline the practical implications of claiming responsibility, the case of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam proved productive. Here, the main challenge in attracting sustainable partners to the museum is that these groups may be uninterested in traditional museum fundraising methods, which typically involve leveraging cultural capital to enhance the reputation of large companies. Socially or environmentally oriented businesses usually have fewer reputational issues and less need to improve them without a clear direction or identity strategy. This is evidenced by a lawyer of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam:
We still have very traditional sponsors. We need to show that we are also here for other parties. If we say we want to be innovative and cutting edge, then we should collaborate with those kinds of parties.
The task in forming such partnerships then lies in museum professionals finding attractive reciprocative resources to contribute to support networks. This interest may vary by sector. What is clear is that museums have a lot more to offer, from societal impact and education to international networks of meaning. Attention could be directed to the transition from traditional corporate philanthropy to creating shared value, as the managing director of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam underscores:
[There are] a lot of opportunities on other types of sponsorship. But then you really have to go back to the drawing board, preferably with parties [ . . . ] you would like to know. Have a conversation and sit down with a blank sheet [ . . . ] What can we make together? What is relevant?
The potential of such conversations lies in their ability to be genuinely two-sided from the outset, thereby dissolving the unequal power dynamics often present in traditional corporate philanthropy. By fundamentally rethinking partnerships, museum professionals can seize the opportunity to exert greater control over what they seek from private funding. Accordingly, the artistic director of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam reflects:
Earmarked funds are fantastic, but you often come up with projects for it. That then actually also cost more and are then covered by the sponsorship funds that come in. [ . . . ] So you are actually also looking for things that you already do from your core business and perhaps can do a little better.
Despite the significant advantages of a fundraising transition toward sustainable partnerships in the long term, the precarious financial stability of the museum paradoxically contrasts short- and long-term needs. Considering this, implementing an ethical fundraising transition requires museum professionals to both leverage traditional funders where necessary and explore new opportunities and structures where possible. To embrace the tensions between today and tomorrow, sustaining and innovating, the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam must become ambidextrous by creating distinct development units tightly integrated at the senior executive level.
For museum leaders, this demands an ambidextrous tone at the top. In a world that presents its leaders with contradictory challenges, the necessity to dispute the assumption that consistency and stability are what museums need in the long term is captured by the managing director of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam:
Nothing is set in stone. And, I know, that’s difficult for our society, isn’t it? Because people think more and more absolutely. Either something is right, or something is wrong, black or white, zero or one. [ . . . ] Let’s give ourselves the space to not take a stance immediately.
Managers adopting paradoxical leadership shift from seeking stability and certainty to embracing dynamism and change. They engage in conflicting strategies simultaneously, accept and value multiple cultures, adopt multiple identities, tolerate uncertainty, and learn from failure and multiple perceptions.[28]
For fundraisers there is a need to expand their skills. Whereas primary fundraiser skills previously focused on negotiating effectively and attending the right meetings, today the position requires someone with vision, courage, and persuasive abilities to deliver as well. Taken together, the evolving fundraiser demands include possessing keen social perceptiveness and being able to understand various perspectives rather than a single viewpoint. Practical understanding is crucial, but fundraisers must also adeptly facilitate discussions around dilemmas. They should manage conversations internally and externally, engaging potential donors calmly and effectively. At a departmental scale, redefined positions should bring in fresh perspectives. Connecting the need for paradoxical leadership with new fundraising demands, museums aiming for an ethical fundraising transition should establish separate traditional and exploratory fundraising units, while leaders relentlessly communicate a clear and compelling vision.[29] Specifically, the exploratory unit should focus on growth, adaptability, radical innovation, entrepreneurial competencies, a loose structure, and a culture of risk-taking, speed, flexibility, and experimentation. Leaders should hold the different alignment of both units together through a shared mission, values, and senior team rewards. Hence, as museums gradually phase out traditional fundraising practices and phase in innovative ones, this structure supports the need to embrace consistent inconsistency.
From a sector-wide perspective, the findings from eight museums in the Netherlands reveal that, contrary to existing literature, museum professionals do not inherently view soliciting philanthropic support as a legitimate and strategic fundraising practice. Instead, their ethical outlooks are notably shaped by their interpretations and knowledge of issues related to philanthropy. While the professionals generally believe reliance on philanthropic demands carries the risk of facilitating artwashing, there are considerable differences in their perspectives on how a politics of clientelism might compromise the inclusive democratic accountability of museums through power imbalances. Therefore, a key takeaway is that museum professionals could benefit from further education on how fundraising practices may facilitate the exertion of private power. Museums might consider offering tutorials, publications, panel discussions, symposia, and collective learning sessions on this topic. Furthermore, the findings confirm that funder selection strategies fall into the proposed brown, gray, and green categories, with most museum professionals adopting a gray strategy. I will now discuss the implications of the resulting asymmetry in synthesis with the literature, alongside the concept of museum profiles as an alternative explanation.
Since all public museums safeguard collections of artworks owned by the Dutch government or municipalities, their collective collections and missions could be seen as a whole. With this incredibly dense network, there is an incentive to specialize and diversify. As the director of museum B reflects:
All those museums started to look alike. It’s the same syndrome you see in America. That’s not really fun. Now, focus on your own profile. Concentrate on that. Strengthen it. Define it. And if that’s the case not all museums need to deal with every issue. You might choose an issue that makes sense or fits your museum.
Thus, sector-wide solidarity does not entail all museums marching in lockstep. Instead, its potential involves each museum focusing on its unique strengths. Broader initiatives and recommendations should therefore center on creating an overarching agenda for the sector as a whole, rather than imposing a single agenda on all. At the same time, institutional initiatives aimed at ethical fundraising should acknowledge that all museums excel in certain areas and encounter challenges in others.
Drawing on both the theoretical framework and research findings on the selection strategies, various museums can leverage their unique strengths to act as a springboard in the broader transition.
First, museums with a contemporary, ecological, or scientific profile could adopt a green strategy to pioneer new partnerships, aligning their progressive values and missions with those of innovative companies. They can focus on enhancing partnership engagement by developing models for cluster or branch engagement to compensate for the relatively smaller financial power of social and environmental scale-ups. As illustrated in the case of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, the most significant challenge here may be radically changing their reciprocal actions to appeal to new sponsors. Therefore, exploring digital fundraising tools, to better translate their impact into terms that resonate with funders, may enhance the efforts of professionals pioneering new partnerships.[30] A recent Dutch example can be found in the Discovery Museum’s collaboration with MAEX to quantify their social contributions based on selected sustainable development goal indicators and express them in terms relevant to their societal shareholders.
Figure 5. Gudskul banner from ruangrupa, Fridericianum, Kassel, June 11, 2022. Photo: Nicolas Wefers.
Second, for monumental, historically profiled museums, severing ties with traditional sponsors may present significant challenges. Consequently, they might adopt a gray strategy. Nevertheless, they can take greater responsibility by leading the way in establishing equitable models for redistributing private funds, including sharing resources and leveraging their significant fundraising power to support the broader museum ecosystem. Importantly, scholars argue for the need to include non-Western perspectives on museum funding and patronage.[31] As such, a principle that might inform such practices is embodied in the central concept of the lumbung that Jakarta-based collective ruangrupa initiated for documenta 15 (fig. 5). Literally translating to “rice barn,” lumbung is a traditional agrarian practice in Indonesia where villagers deposit and store their surplus crops. Crucially, it also functions as “a space to meet, celebrate, and share appreciation for the previous harvest.”[32] This potential is captured by a fundraiser from museum E, reflecting on the large size of their department compared to the smaller museums they collaborate with:
I am very afraid of what will happen, especially to the smaller institutions. They have no money to hire more fundraisers. We have a team of approximately [X] people. And a lot of other organizations also benefit from this.
From that perspective, large museums could aim to pioneer a more active role in forging alliances with museums of various sizes and types.[33]
Lastly, small-scale museums can be heavily dependent on external funding and therefore be under pressure to conform to a brown strategy. Yet, precisely when meeting financial demands necessitates compromising ethical fundraising practices, these extreme cases provide opportunities to pioneer transparency about the private funding dependency created by subsidiary cuts. Hence, these museums might innovate forms of facilitating public discussion and creating alliances to build support for endowments. Besides, they might pioneer a reimagination of costly museum practices altogether, as a fundraiser from museum D reflects on their primary partnership:
“[It] is really focused on the most expensive programming, and [those] are usually not the most sustainable either.”
At the same time, smaller museums can reduce dependence on subsidies by nurturing smaller donations from a vastly larger audience, thereby relying less on a handful of major donors.[34] For, unlike large museums, their smaller budgets allow quick benefits from funding diversification (fig. 6).[35] Crucially, this presents an opportunity to engage diverse audiences, including those who have historically undervalued museums, which could be facilitated by involving minority fundraising professionals.[36] Practices such as building connections with local community members, incorporating their perspectives into fundraising approaches; diversifying fundraising leadership; and understanding varied giving patterns while remaining culturally sensitive can address community needs and boost visitor numbers, potentially fostering future growth.[37]
Figure 6. Aiwen Yin and commons.art, analytical diagram of art funding ecosystems, 2022 , illustration, On Curating, “Another Currency, Another Speculation: Reflections on Art and Economies Projects at documenta fifteen,” March 2024. The diagram sketches alternative possible loops of exchange, funding distribution, and accountability, if the art funding ecosystem is diversified.
My interest in navigating museum funding has been twofold. First, exploring the academic, artistic and activist scrutiny of the power dynamics behind cultural philanthropy has been particularly captivating, as it prompted an interdisciplinary review asking fundamental questions. Second, from an infrastructural standpoint, my interest lay in understanding how museum professionals navigate funding amid further subsidiary cuts, particularly in situations where institutional worlds collide. Employing the lens of new institutional theories in the theoretical framework proved productive to underscore the paradox faced by museum professionals, before I suggested avenues to manage the resulting ambiguities.
The findings from 13 interviews with museum professionals suggest that variations in museum profiles and ethical outlooks on increasing philanthropic reliance result in notable sector-wide differences in fundraising practices, as became evident in the conceptualization of two ideal types of responsibility. A case study of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam then revealed how the evolving fundraising landscape imposes new demands on museum leaders and fundraisers, as well as on their institutional and infrastructural assemblies. Taking an integral perspective on the sector as a whole, the discussion drew on a developed typology, identifying three methodologies shaping funder selection strategies to allocate a range of strategic actions tailored to specific museum profiles, while creating structures to embrace tensions.
I acknowledge some limitations. Primarily, as the outlined ideal types, typology, and patterns aim to capture, clarify, and organize the main findings, they may appear linear and imply a deterministic, sometimes dichotomous view of ethical fundraising, which is in fact characterized by iterations, interdependencies, and dualities. Indeed, if this study emphasizes one overarching implication for scholars, policymakers, and practice, it is that the fundraising dilemma defies the purity and consistency of univocal responses. The institutional split invites a consideration of rethinking private funding altogether. As physicist Niels Bohr knew: “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” In the process, navigating museum funding requires an ambidextrous structure and leadership from the sector. Fortunately, if there is any field that should be comfortable with ambiguity, it is the arts.
Ischa Borger is an editor and development associate at Simulacrum with an interest in the intersection of art, politics and economics. He is currently pursuing the Research Master Critical Studies in Art and Culture, where his focus is on discovering alternative lenses through which to look at the world and its various institutions.
[1] For a vivid analysis of such activist collectives claiming and reauthoring museum spaces, see Emma Mahony, “Opening Spaces of Resistance in the Corporatized Cultural Institution: Liberate Tate and the Art Not Oil Coalition,” Museum & Society 15, no. 2 (2017): 126–41; Emma Mahony, “From Institutional to Interstitial Critique: The Resistant Force That Is Liberating the Neoliberal Museum from Below,” in The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Art, Visual Culture, and Climate Change, ed. T. J. Demos, Emily Eliza Scott, and Subhankar Banerjee (New York: Routledge, 2021), 409–17.
[2] Some important contributions include Kathryn Brown, “When Museums Meet Markets,” Journal of Visual Art Practice 19, no. 3 (2020): 203–10; Nato Thompson, “Sounding the Trumpet: Charity and the Image of Doing Good,” in Culture as Weapon: The Art of Influence in Everyday Life (London: Melville House, 2017), 155–80; Olav Velthuis, “The Contemporary Art Market Between Stasis and Flux,” in Contemporary Art and Its Commercial Markets: A Report on Current Conditions and Future Scenarios, ed. Maria Lind and Olav Velthuis (Berlin: Sternberg, 2012), 17–50.
[3] Carmen Camarero, María-José Garrido, and Eva Vicente, “Social and Financial Signaling to Increase Fundraising Revenue in Museums,” Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 35, no. 2 (2023): 144-164.
[4] Francesca Manes Rossi, Alessandra Allini, and Francesco Dainelli, “Innovations in the Measurement of Cultural Value: The British Museum,” in The Public and Nonprofit Sector: A Public Solutions Handbook, ed. Patria De Lancer Julnes and Ed Gibson (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2015), 35–55.
[5] Key contributions include Michael Hutter and David Throsby, eds., Beyond Price: Value in Culture, Economics, and the Arts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Arno Klamer, ed., The Value of Culture: On the Relationship Between Economics and Arts (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997).
[6] For an overview, see Bruno S. Frey and Stephan Meier, “The Economics of Museums,” in Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, ed. Victor A. Ginsburgh and David Throsby (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006), 1017–47.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Edwin van Meerkerk and Quirijn Lennert van den Hoogen, Cultural Policy in the Polder: 25 Years Dutch Cultural Policy Act. Cultural Policy in the Polder (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018), 1–324.
[9] Kevin V. Mulcahy, Public Culture, Cultural Identity, Cultural Policy: Comparative Perspectives (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), viii.
[10] Yuha Jung, “Diversity Matters: Theoretical Understanding of and Suggestions for the Current Fundraising Practices of Nonprofit Art Museums,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 45, no. 4 (2015): 255–68.
[11] David Joselit, “Philanthropy and Plutocracy,” October 162 (2017): 31–38; David Joselit, “Toxic Philanthropy,” October 170 (2019): 3–4.
[12] Mel Evans, Artwash: Big Oil and the Arts (London and New York: Pluto Press, 2015), 13.
[13] Thompson, “Sounding the Trumpet,” 128.
[14] Rob Reich, Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020).
[15] Carmen Camarero, María-José Garrido, Eva Vicente, and María Redondo, “Relationship Marketing in Museums: Influence of Managers and Mode of Governance,” Public Management Review 21, no. 10 (2019): 1369–96.
[16] Clive Gray, The Politics Of Museums (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
[17] ICOM, ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Paris: International Council of Museums, 2017), Section 1.9.
[18] ICOM, ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, Section 1.9.
[19] See for instance, John O’Hagan and Denise Harvey, “Why Do Companies Sponsor Arts Events? Some Evidence and a Proposed Classification,” Journal of Cultural Economics 24, no. 3 (2000): 205–24; Hubertus Butin, “When Attitudes Become Form: Philip Morris Becomes Sponsor; Arts Sponsorship in Europe against the Background of Developments in America,” Society of Control, 1998; Chin-Tao Wu, Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s (London and New York: Verso, 2003); Jane Trowell, Take the Money and Run?: Some Positions on Ethics, Business Sponsorship and Making Art, A Live Art Development Agency Study Room Guide (London: Platform, 2013).
[20] T. Bouman et al., Wetenschappelijk Advies: Een verbod op fossiele reclame; Essentieel, maar niet voldoende (2023), commisioned by Ministerie Economische Zaken en Klimaat.
[21] Purpose Disruptors, Advertised Emissions: The Temperature Check 2022, accessed January 2024.
[22] Colin Sterling and Asia Komarova, “Forgotten Worlds: Cultivating Museums Otherwise,” Stedelijk Studies 13 (2023).
[23] See Anne-Claire Pache and Filipe Santos, “When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands,” Academy of Management Review 35, no. 3 (2010): 455–76.
[24] Paul J. DiMaggio, “The Museum and the Public,” in The Economics of Art Museums, ed. Martin Feldstein, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 39–50; Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review 48, no. 2 (1983): 147–60.
[25] Charles A. O. Reilly and Michael L. Tushman, “The Ambidextrous Organization,” Harvard Business Review 82, no. 4 (2004): 74–83.
[26] Wendy K. Smith, Marianne W. Lewis, and Michael L. Tushman, “‘Both/And’ Leadership,” Harvard Business Review 94, no. 5 (2016): 62–70.
[27] Mark R. Kramer and Marc W. Pfitzer, “The Ecosystem of Shared Value,” Harvard Business Review 94, no. 10 (2016): 80–89.
[28] Wendy K. Smith, Marianne W. Lewis, and Michael L. Tushman, “‘Both/And’ Leadership,” Harvard Business Review 94, no. 5 (2016): 62–70.
[29] Profiles of ambidextrous organizations that may be useful to museum professionals can be found in sources such Reilly and Tushman (2004), as developed in the theoretical framework. I have synthesized various relevant characteristics from these sources and insights from the 13 interviews conducted with Dutch museum professionals here.
[30] Hasan Bakhshi and David Throsby, “New Technologies in Cultural Institutions: Theory, Evidence and Policy Implications,” International Journal of Cultural Policy 18, no. 2 (2012): 205–22.
[31] Ellen Loots et al., “New Forms of Finance and Funding in the Cultural and Creative Industries: Introduction to the Special Issue,” in “New Forms of Finance and Funding in the Cultural and Creative Industries,” ed. Ellen Loots et al., special issue, Journal of Cultural Economics 46, no. 2 (2022): 205–30.
[32] ruangrupa and Nikos Papastergiadis, “Living Lumbung: The Shared Spaces of Art and Life,” e-flux Journal 118 (2021).
[33] Carmen Camarero, María-José Garrido, and María Redondo, “Social and Financial Signaling to Increase Fundraising Revenue in Museums,” Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 35, no. 2 (2023): 144–64.
[34] Benjamin Boeuf, Jessica Darveau, and Renaud Legoux, “Financing Creativity: Crowdfunding as a New Approach for Theatre Projects,” International Journal of Arts Management 16, no. 3 (2014): 33–48.
[35] For more on funding diversity, see Jordi Baltà Portolés, “When Art Opens Spaces of Possibilities: Policies, Tensions, and Opportunities,” in Forces of Art: Perspectives from a Changing World, ed. Carin Kuoni et al. (Amsterdam: Valiz, 2020).
[36] Janice Gow Pettey and Lilya Wagner, “Introduction: Union Gives Strength—Diversity and Fundraising,” International Journal of Educational Advancement 7, no. 3 (2007): 171–75; Stephen G. Greene and Julie Murawski, “New Faces in Fundraising,” Chronicle of Philanthropy (1996): 37–38.
[37] Yuha Jung, “Diversity Matters: Theoretical Understanding of and Suggestions for the Current Fundraising Practices of Nonprofit Art Museums,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 45, no. 4 (2015): 255–68.
[38] As quoted in Ruth E. Moore, Niels Bohr: the Man and the Scientist, (London: Hodder & Stoughton: 1967): p. 140.
