Eesti teatrite riigieelarveline rahastamine 2009. ja 2010. aasta languse taustal

Abstract

The Governments program for years 2011–2015 provides the renewal of the Fundamentals of the Estonian cultural policy. Consequently there are shortcomings in the current theatre system, which need to be revised. The problems come forth at the most difficult times. Reading articles from time of the biggest drop in state subsidizing of theatres in 2010, there is one circumstance, which comes forth – the opinion of the arbitrary operating officials and politicians who act in the field of subsidizing theatres from state budget. Therefore, at the present work, the author wishes to examine these accusitions by close examination of the Estonian theatre system, highlighting the occuring problems forthcoming in the period of recession in 2009 and 2010 and offering solutions. For the cause, the author uses mainly three different types of sources: the legal basis of the financing of theatres in the first chapter; theatre interest groups opinions in media, concerning the facts and problems about the recession of theatres subsidizing in the second chapter; theories of funding the culture and examples at the global context in the third chapter. The study revealed following aspects of the financing of Estonian theatres during the crisis: 1) Theatres state subsidize is mostly based on the declarative level agreements, which makes possible the arbitrary action of officers and politicians, who are responsible for financing theatres from state budget. Theatre interest groups have no other grounds for challenging those decisions than to refer to the promises made, due to their incapability to refer to the violations of the law. The problem could be solved by strenghtening the legal framework of subsidizing theatres from state budgets, which would ensure theatre interest group protection in the matter of unjust state subsidizing. 2) The AITA system, not fixed by the law, makes it possible for politicians and officials to create values arbitrary within AITA system. Therefore legitimation of the AITA system would help. 3) Estonia, with its culture financing system belongs among the Architect States, which are prevalent in Europe. The Architect state funds the fine arts through a Ministry of Culture. Which tends to support arts not by professional standards but rather the majority of people. In case of Estonia this is eased by the Cultural Endowment of Estonia, which role in subsidizing theatres could be increased. 4) The scarcity of the lobby among theatre interest group effaces their opinion on the legislative level of planning theatre subsidies. It would be useful to increase that matter. 5) The fact of marginalisation of culture and theatres was implemented by bigger recession in the case of subsidizing theatres from the state budget compared to other fields. The solution in that case would be strenghtening the position of culture in the society. That would be promoted by the elections of keen ministers of culture in the head of the field of the culture.