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.