Although I have no mandate whatsoever, I make an attempt to convey the ‘message' from the east on the subject of cultural sponsorship. This can be condensed roughly in three sentences:

• The states have abandoned their obligations to finance culture in a proper way, therefore it is the duty of businesses to fill the gap;
• However, this does not take place in a sufficient measure, partly because of the lack of adequate tax laws (differently from America);
• And because our businessmen are less cultured and enlightened than their colleagues in the west.

Yes, this is more or less the prevailing mood about the relationship between business and culture in east-central Europe. Allow me to spend some time about the problems contained in each of the three statements.

ONE

In spite of the painful cuts of various natures, the states in east and central Europe still keep spending a good deal on culture, on the average and in relative terms higher than actual EU members. Most countries devote over 1%, some over 2% of their government budget to this sector. They do so by necessity and by habit.

By necessity, because notwithstanding the radical transformations, a certain number of institutions: infrastructure and professionals, remain in charge of the state. Furthermore, the prices are the same as in the west, thus they represent a higher relative burden: stage equipment, printing paper, travel expenses etc.

By habit, as culture has enjoyed a different respect than in the west. Not simply higher or more, but of a different nature. In western Europe culture is an essential dimension of life, while in the east it is often the essence itself. Culture has had a stronger symbolic role in national identity and pride, which compels the political powers to respect. This is why the support given to culture is considered as a national obligation, more so than in the west; although common sense accepts that the primary social obligation of businesses is to pay taxes. An excessive appeal to social responsibility and obligation recalls similar appeals in yesteryears by the party to the people which resulted lots of ‘voluntary' sacrifices.

Furthermore, it was a product of a false concept of society that the state (or the party) used to expect gratitude for everything it did for, and spent on culture (or related goods). This is regrettably reinforced by overly emphasising gratitude for private assistance to culture. 

TWO

It is tempting to dwell long on the widespread fallacy around the reasons of the high rate of private support to arts in the USA. It is a fact that private support to culture is much higher over there, both in absolute and relative terms. However, this has already been the case a hundred years ago, before modern income tax was invented. Attributing high level philanthropy to clever tax laws is a mistake. A glance at the tax systems of the states of US and of EU shows that there is and was no real difference in philosophy and rates.

The Budapest Cultural Observatory compared a number of European tax systems and related it to the available figures on cultural sponsorship. (These are particularly hard to find in Eastern Europe.) No real evidence was found of strict correlation between beneficial tax regimes and amounts of sponsorship. Indeed, the polls conducted in this subject show, that tax exemption is rarely one of the main motives in corporate sponsorship. Nevertheless, such legal measures have been demanded by all actors in the game. Apparently a feeling for justice is at work, and favourable tax regimes in fact act as well-deserved rewards rather than upfront incentives. It is in case of wealthy individuals where tax evasion might count as a primary motivation to spend on culture.

THREE

Concerning the criticism addressed to the hearts and minds of eastern business people, this was entirely unfair and unrealistic in the 1990s, when

• National production fell all over the region by 30-60%
• New businesses were preoccupied with primary accumulation of capital
• Being first generation rich people, their first concern was their own family
• Only few of the foreign investors came to conquer and please local markets; the real big ones came to produce goods for the richer countries, so they, too, were not inclined to raise the image of their companies by sponsoring local culture.

Luckily, this has been changing lately. Economic transition having been completed almost to the full, in spite of the poor economic climate in the world, cultural sponsorship has shown signs of consolidation in the east. In the absence of hard data, one can estimate that private sources add between another 3-5% to what the governments spend on culture. Again, as part of this consolidation process, sponsorship in kind (free or preferential travel, accommodation, advertising etc.) has gone lower, compared to actual financial contribution.

Yet it is still a significant feature that personal relationship is the most important factor in deciding about sponsorship, to a higher degree than in the west. One has the uncomfortable déjà vu feeling from the times, when it was crucial to have good personal links to a bureaucrat in the ministry or the party centre. Now PR managers tend to play the role of il principe, the rich benefactor.

* * *

Availing of this opportunity, allow me to call your attention to four things to remember while advocating the cause of cultural sponsorship. When formulating them, I had in mind the specific conditions in the eastern half of Europe.

ONE

There is a lack of clarity among the many concepts of sponsorship, charity, patronage etc. I would invite you to take a closer look at the virtues of classic corporate sponsorship. Which is no philanthropy, it is a marketing tool. In an ideal, or normal case, it is a deal between equal partners, where both parties gain. At such ideal, or normal instances, individual caprices play a limited role, the potential value of a cultural act is assessed in a more ‘objective' way.

TWO

With regard to the flow of money from businesses to culture as charity, I would favour to give preference to corporate foundations. These can also perpetuate the name and image of a business firm; however, decisions are made by boards, with the involvement of artists and intellectuals.

This, and the previous proposal aims at 'depersonalising' financial contributions, which has a special significance in countries, where informal structures still have a higher role in social transactions, than it is desirable.

THREE

With regard to the discourse used in the issue of corporate sponsorship to culture, I would prefer it to be less emphatic, directed less to the heart than to the mind. The tone that actually prevails is conducive to unnecessary level of gratitude and humiliation at the one end, and remorse, heroism and command position at the other.

There are a number of equally important and sensitive areas, where the language used is not typically that heart-breaking, the measures and instruments are more matter-of-fact: for example the issues of low birth rate, clean air and water, endangered species etc.

Again, this has special significance in the east, where culture has maintained an unnecessarily high degree of ‘sacred' content, and where still some more modernisation is the agenda.

FOUR

The existing fiscal benefits to sponsors and donors to culture are limited to the confines of the respective countries. There are many cultural operations in the poorer countries in the east that would deserve more financial assistance coming from western corporations and individuals. The European institutions should devise instruments that encourage and reward such trans-border acts.

Thank you for putting the theme of cultural sponsorship on your agenda, and for giving me the opportunity to speak to you on this occasion.