Culture as infrastructure and the invisible risks facing Europe
Among the many risk maps that guide public policy — from natural disasters to the demographic crisis — one is missing: that of the cultural and social disintegration of local areas. It highlights the disappearance of the places and relationships that hold a community together. A museum closing its doors, a library reducing its opening hours, or an organisation ceasing its activities are not merely lost services. They are encounters that fade away, bonds that are severed. Their cost does not appear in public budgets, but communities pay the price: in isolation, mistrust and a loss of cohesion. It is from this perspective that we should consider the issue of European funding for culture. The EU budget for 2028–2034 prioritises competitiveness, security and technological innovation. These priorities raise a question: what sort of society do we want to make more competitive and secure? The proposed cut to AgoraEU, the programme dedicated to culture, media and democratic participation, has been described as a ‘monstrous cut’. It is not merely a question of figures. If we regard culture as just one sector amongst many, it will always be in competition with other pressing needs. If we recognise it as part of the infrastructure that enables society to function, the way we assess it changes. This is the perspective that Fondazione Cariplo brought to the European Parliament during the meeting on socially engaged arts and the EU’s next budget: culture as ‘adaptive civic infrastructure’ – a civic infrastructure capable of evolving alongside people.
Because Europe is changing. The younger generations are growing up with different cultural references; the population is ageing, and many small towns are losing residents and services. We cannot design cultural policies for a society that no longer exists. Nor is it enough to invite citizens to take part in programmes that have already been decided upon: they must be able to help shape the future. A study on museums in Italian municipalities with fewer than five thousand inhabitants, commissioned by the Fondazione Industria e Cultura and carried out by Bocconi University, helps us understand what is at stake. With minimal resources, they are bastions of citizenship: they preserve memories, but above all they keep relationships and the capacity for initiative alive. This is where the Italian paradox emerges. We possess an extraordinary cultural heritage, an asset whose economic and social value we do not yet fully recognise. But it is not enough to recognise it: we must enable it to generate new value. A restored museum without people, research, educational activities and links with the local community risks remaining nothing more than a shell. Heritage is the capital we have inherited; culture is what brings it to life and passes it on to the future. The decline in public and philanthropic resources goes far beyond mere budgets. We call on culture to combat isolation, promote inclusion and heal social divisions. But an infrastructure, however adaptable, needs energy. Without funding, expertise and continuity, it does not become more efficient: it simply dies out. Whilst discussions are taking place in Brussels about cutting cultural funding, in Italia the Budget Bill proposes a tax increase for banking-backed foundations, estimated at 60–70 million euros. Giovanni Azzone, president of Acri and Fondazione Cariplo, has highlighted the potential social cost of this: fewer initiatives for young people who are neither in education nor employment, for people with disabilities, and for vulnerable communities. Philanthropy is not a reserve from which to draw without consequences. It does not replace the state: it tests solutions, identifies emerging needs, and supports organisations and local areas at risk of being left behind. Reducing its capacity to act also means taking away opportunities from those who need them most. Finally, there is the time factor. Cultural funding is often sporadic, tied to short-term projects, whilst trust and relationships take years to build. A community copes better with crises if it has already forged solid bonds: it cannot invent them at the moment of emergency. Europe should therefore recognise the importance of culture within its cohesion, territorial development and welfare policies, not just in sector-specific programmes. And it should learn to measure not only the cost of keeping a cultural institution alive, but also the cost of losing it.
Perhaps it is time to draw that missing map – the map of cultural and social fragility. Because what we fail to see today may well be precisely what we will no longer be able to rebuild tomorrow.
Horizon Europe Cluster 2 Expert Programme – Culture, Creativity and an Inclusive Society
