This chapter discusses the use of the term cultural entrepreneurship in strategic documents produced by Dutch government and cultural institutions. I specifically focus on recent history (2012-2016), starting off with a historical sketch from the early 1980s onwards. In this sketch, I identify a dichotomy of values that can still be observed in recent sources: a narrow, economic interpretation of the term versus a broad, cultural interpretation. The government frames entrepreneurship as having to do with creating societal connections. In strategic plans, cultural institutions show considerable awareness of societal issues but do not label these concerns as belonging to entrepreneurship. Instead, the term is predominantly reserved for financial strategic deliberations. I do not introduce an a priori definition of cultural entrepreneurship but look at the construction of meaning in written documents. Finally, I extrapolate a possible conundrum of cultural entrepreneurship in the Netherlands based on the suggestion that attempts to connect culture to transnational societal agendas may be hindered by a provincialising effect of Dutch cultural policy.

Some Background

Since Christian-Democrat Elco Brinkman became Minister of Culture in 1982, Dutch cultural policy has become more aware of the business side and the market mechanisms of culture (Kuypers 1999: 12). State museums were privatised, and budget financing was introduced (Van Puffelen 2000: 155). From this point onwards, institutions had to make do with a fixed yearly subvention instead of one based on a deficit. This approach provided organisations with some freedom and ‘led to a situation in which potential profits can be kept, while possible loss had to be compensated, for instance by generating more extra income, or requesting more government support’ (Ministerie van WVC 1993: 209 and Elshout 2015: 170, also Boogaarts 1989: 93). In her 1989 report for the Scientific Council for Government Policy, Inez Boogaarts also observed a fundamental remark made by the cultural sector (and one that would return several times in the years to come), which is that increased financial risks for ‘culture entrepreneurs’ cannot be taken if institutions are not allowed to create a starting capital or strategic financial reserves.

Pim van Klink has observed that, generally, arts institutions considered it to be an improvement that the new system allowed them to plan four years ahead (2005: 160).