On 2 November, Die Linke, the Greens and the SPD began coalition talks in Berlin. The state budget was on the agenda from the outset; according to the parties, the timetable runs until Christmas. For cultural associations, this is a critical window: what goes into the coalition agreement could determine in the years ahead whether funding remains predictable – or once again becomes a bargaining chip when budgets come under pressure.
The German Cultural Council is calling for culture not to be left until the end of the talks. This is an advocacy position, not a neutral assessment. The association points to the Berliner Kulturkonferenz, which has gathered proposals for a cultural funding law through a participatory process. The crucial question is not simply whether there should be a law, but what binding provisions it could actually contain.
Rules do not amount to funding
A law could establish the principles and procedures by which the state funds culture: for example, how juries are appointed, how decisions are justified and what say the cultural sector is given. For independent artists, who often depend on fixed-term project grants, transparent processes and reliable deadlines would be tangible improvements. A multi-year funding outlook could also make planning easier.
The Berliner Kulturkonferenz is also calling for measures including minimum fees, consideration of culture in urban development and an allocation of at least three per cent of the total budget to culture. These are proposals from the alliance of associations, not objectives already agreed by the negotiating parties. An entitlement to a specific sum would have particularly far-reaching political implications: the budget is approved annually by the Berlin House of Representatives. A cultural funding law could set guidelines, but could not simply take the annual budget decision out of future parliaments’ hands.
Nor would a law be immutable. A subsequent parliament could amend or repeal it through new legislation. More binding procedures and reporting requirements could make decisions easier to scrutinise; they would not offer protection against every cut or change of political direction. That would also require political majorities, specific budget allocations and an administration that applies the rules consistently.
The independent sector and institutions have different needs
For the independent sector, the immediate benefit of possible rules is clear: those working from project to project often have to organise fees, spaces and production schedules amid uncertainty. The Kulturkonferenz therefore identifies minimum fees, spaces and more transparent funding procedures as priorities. Whether these issues could be resolved through legislation is not equally certain in every case, however. In the debate, a lawyer commissioned by the Greens points out that social protection cannot be provided through cultural funding legislation alone; the welfare state also has a role to play. Brandenburg’s State Secretary for Culture, Tobias Dünow, counters the idea of a protective law by noting that a subsequent majority could amend such a law too.
Institutions receiving core funding have different planning horizons: they need reliable grants for staff, operations and buildings, as well as funding for artistic work. A general law would have to reflect these structural differences rather than impose uniform rules on very different organisations. Procedural certainty can help both sides; it is no substitute for adequate budgets or a political decision about which infrastructure Berlin wants to preserve and develop.
Federal support is no substitute for state policy
Through the Capital Funding Agreement for 2028 to 2037, the federal government has pledged a total of 2.9 billion euros for culture in Berlin. This provides an important outlook for several institutions, but concerns federal cultural funding under the agreement. It is not a blanket grant that relieves the state of its own responsibility. The German Cultural Council also stresses that Berlin must safeguard its cultural infrastructure itself.
The timing is therefore about more than symbolic politics: the current two-year budget for 2026/27 has been approved, and the next coalition must reconcile its plans with the available resources and the state’s responsibilities. At the start of the talks, it remains unclear what specific commitments the three parties will make on cultural funding. A viable agreement would therefore need to contain more than a promise to consider legislation: a timetable, clear responsibilities, rules for independent funding decisions and a transparent link between objectives and financing.
A cultural funding law can make cultural policy less arbitrary and more open to scrutiny. It cannot guarantee that funding will be fixed permanently or that art will be fully protected from political interference. Berlin’s most binding commitment would therefore be twofold: fair and transparent procedures – and a willingness to back them with real resources in the budget.
Original reviewed by the editors · 3 November 2026
