Matchfunding goes digital: The benefits of matching policymaking with the crowd’s wisdom

Markets and governments have been increasingly intertwined when it comes to
funding for the arts. This is the case with matchfunding schemes in which
governments explore the crowd’s validation by providing funds to successful
cultural projects. By matching public funds with the “crowd”, four parties benefit
from this process: the artists, the platform, the donors, and the public
institutions. Artists benefit from accessing more funds and credibility signals
for their projects; the platform benefits from enlarging the scope of funds given
to artists; donors benefit from increasing the likelihood of project success; and
public institutions benefit from granting part of the decision-making process on
cultural budget to the crowd and cutting expenses on project management.
This article conceptually explores the benefits, consequences, and the
constraints of matchfunding mechanisms for policymaking. We argue that
while matchfunding brings benefactors closer to policymaking and
governments closer to novel funding models through online means, it also
reduces the role of governments in elaborating cultural policy. It is vital to
ponder the benefits and hindrances of this model given that matchfunding can
potentially shift the structure of policymaking for the arts and culture.