NEW RECESSION, OLD DEAL: A LOOK BACK AT THE GREAT RECESSION

 Research Column | Brooke Downey

---

Introduction

Remember the early days of the pandemic, when it seemed like every email began with the phrase “in these unprecedented times”? It was annoying and, frankly, untrue. We’ve experienced global health pandemics and economic recessions before. Yes, you can argue about their scale or severity, but I wonder if we’re letting decision-makers off too easily by thinking these times are unprecedented.

For this week’s edition of the Research Column, I’m going to look back at the Great Recession of 2008 and review how it impacted the cultural sector in Canada. I know that living through the current crisis can make it hard to think back on another, but I’m hoping we can find some precedence — good or bad — to help think through our current times. 

New York Times front page about the Coronavirus
and a recession | Source

The Cultural Sector in the early 2000s

The early 2000s saw the GLAM sector in Canada on the rise. Museum admissions passed the $500 million mark in 2005. The ROM and the AGO both saw major expansions to their sites. The concept of the creative class gave rise to more culturally focused policies, particularly for municipalities. The first new national museum in over four decades was approved.

Then, the Great Recession hit.

For those too young to remember, or if you don’t know the intricacies of the U.S. housing market, check out the video below. Blue-chip companies disappeared, life savings vanished, and governments around the world bailed out millionaires and banks over working-class people. During this turmoil, museums still had collections to care for, employees to pay, and buildings to manage.

The Great Recession | Source

So what did they do? Well, the tactics may sound familiar. They sold off parts of their collections, instituted hiring freezes, extended current exhibits instead of offering new ones, and cut operating budgets. Government funding also started to dry up.

In Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper characterized arts funding as a “niche issue” that “ordinary working people” didn’t care about. Unsurprisingly, the 2009 federal budget did little for the GLAM sector. Catherine Murray highlighted those shortcomings in a 2009 lecture at the Canadian Museum Association. There was no mention of the GLAM sector in the $12 billion infrastructure fund. The $160 million recovery funds marked for culture and $300 million for tourism were well below what those sectors contribute to the GDP — even though other sectors, like forestry, received money well above their GDP contributions. As Murray puts it: “there is little that implies a full-blown creative economy vision. Roads and rinks still come before museums and galleries.” (2009, p.16).

If we could bail out banks, why couldn’t we bail out GLAMs?

Now what?

The recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic will be different than the 2008 recession. For the GLAM sector, two major differences are the frequent closures and visitor limitations. These changes reduce revenues from admissions, shops, and other on-site programs (e.g. school trips) and services (e.g. cafeterias). Yet, we still seem to be plagued (sorry) by the same problem as before: a lukewarm response from the government, a lack of long-term planning, and an unwillingness across the board to centre recovery efforts on GLAM workers.

What all of this shows is that museum workers need to be heard at decision-making tables — whether at their own organizations or in government. Continually, the Canadian Museums Association has advocated for an updated national museum policy, which was most recently ignored by the federal government in the September Speech from the Throne. A new model that protects GLAM workers is sorely needed, as this cycle of recession we find ourselves in is harmful to the people who make our arts, cultural, and heritage organizations worthwhile.