Why Cutting Arts Funding Makes Zero Economic Sense
The UK government’s decision to reduce funding to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) by 1.4% is short-sighted at best, and economically reckless at worst.
This isn’t just about “the arts” it’s about a £49 billion industry that employs 2.4 million people and makes up 5.7% of the UK workforce. That’s more than the automotive, aerospace, and life sciences sectors combined. Yet somehow, it’s the creative sector that always seems to get left out of the national economic conversation.
Let’s be clear: every £1 invested in creativity delivers £2.50 back to the global economy. If this were any other industry, that return would be championed from the rooftops. But because it’s the arts it is still seen by some as a “nice to have”, it’s first in line for the cuts. That’s not just culturally damaging; it’s economically illiterate.
Art Isn’t a Luxury – It’s Infrastructure
Art isn’t just about what’s hanging on gallery walls. It fuels regeneration, attracts investment, and helps cities thrive. Just look at how the Tate Modern transformed a derelict power station into a global cultural magnet, sparking new business, tourism, and local growth in South London.
Or take ‘arts on prescription’ in Gloucestershire where GP visits dropped by 37% and hospital admissions by 27% among patients engaging in creative activity. That’s a direct NHS saving of £216 per person. Art literally pays for itself.
We’ve Got the Data – So Why Are We Ignoring It?
Creative-led urban planning boosts footfall, supports the night-time economy, and breathes life into underused spaces. Public art projects aren’t fluffy feel-good moments, they’re part of smart city-making.In a study of Londoners, 84% said regular public art improved their wellbeing, and over 60% said they’d pay to see more of it.
It’s no coincidence that areas rich in cultural activity see rising property values, healthier residents, and more cohesive communities. But we can’t just keep relying on artists to work miracles with no funding, no infrastructure, and no support.
Commercial Clutter vs Community Creativity
Walk through any UK high street and you’re bombarded with ads. All profit, no soul. These spaces are being monetised without giving anything meaningful back to the communities that live there. Contrast that with an arts-led approach, which adds value while fostering pride, ownership, identity, and long-term public benefit.
When art takes centre stage, it transforms neglected spaces into shared places of reflection, joy, and conversation. And that’s something commercial content just can’t replicate.
Artists Are Not a ‘Nice to Have’ in the AI Era
As AI continues to disrupt industries, people are asking, “Why do I need a creative for that?” But artists aren’t just producing content, they’re reframing narratives, provoking thought, building empathy, and connecting us to our environments in ways algorithms never will.
Creativity isn’t just entertainment. It’s critical infrastructure. It’s how we design better systems, build stronger communities, and nurture healthier minds. The countries that understand this and invest in it will thrive. The ones that don’t? They'll fall behind economically and culturally.
The Bottom Line
Slashing arts funding isn’t just a cultural loss – it’s a business failure. The creative sector isn’t a drain. It’s a driver. If we want cities that are vibrant, inclusive, healthy, and future-proof, we need to stop treating creativity like an afterthought.
It’s time we valued art not just for its beauty, but for its power to transform people, places, and economies. Because creativity isn’t a luxury. It’s the foundation for a better society.
