By Stu at SJI Creative
Author’s note: Uses of “Ireland” in this piece exclusively refers to the Republic of Ireland/Eire
Beginnings
A trial scheme which gave €325 (£284) a week to 2000 eligible artists in the Republic of Ireland – Basic Income for the Arts – (BIA) is set to provide 2000 artists the same in three-year cycles for the foreseeable future.
First trialled from October 2022 to July 2023 in the wake of the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts sector, the scheme was then followed by an additional three-year pilot from 2022 to 2025. On the 19th of June 2025, the scheme was extended for 6 months to February 2026. The scheme’s success saw €1.39 generated for every €1 spent, more than recouping the €76m the Irish government allocated to finance the initiative.
Scope and economic impact
This is not a Universal Basic Income scheme, as discussed in a previous article, but rather a guaranteed income scheme for a particularly vulnerable sector of the working population to economic shocks. However, as with the previously mentioned UBI pilots, BIA not only produces a significant return on investment but also encourages individuals on the scheme to pursue work they want to do.
Some may dismiss the arts as an economic contributor, but according to data from a report produced for The Arts Council of Ireland, the sector generated €382m in tax revenue for FY 2025, accounting for over 95 thousand jobs (of 2.82m people counted as employed in Ireland), with the creative sector as a whole adding a gross value of €5.479 billion to the Irish economy. The nominal GDP for Ireland in 2025 was €501.55 billion. The creative industries, therefore, accounted for approximately 0.11% of Irish GDP last year. Impressive for a sector employing approximately 3.37% of the working population.
The full text of the report is available here if you wish to read it.
Worthy cause
0.11% may not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, but art has more than just economic value. Art, and the creative sector as a whole, are, in my opinion, a sign of a flourishing culture and a fundamental part of what makes us human. Any endeavour to protect that unique element of our species is a noble one as far as I’m concerned.
Great works encourage tourism, and can act as symbols of soft power – take, for example, the Bayeux Tapestry’s indelible link with France, or indeed the Works of Shakespeare with that of England, the art of Jackson Pollock, and Andy Warhol with the United States – not to mention the film industry – the list of benefits to a healthy creative sector is near endless.
Potential pitfalls
But should such an important support act like a lottery? Only 2000 artists at a time who meet the eligibility criteria:
Artists with a professional artistic practice who are:
- Based in the Republic of Ireland at time of application and can
- Evidence their creative practice is primarily based in Ireland.
The 2000 recipients (the last tranche had 8000 applicants) continue to receive the payment for the three-year duration unconditionally, (as long as they can demonstrate continued professional practice) which is admirable, and as one recipient put it in an article for The Guardian, “funding art might seem superficial. But creative work offers new understandings of the world, strengthening communities and speaking important truths.” But she also noted the problematic aspects of the scheme including “despite the scheme paying for itself, the Irish government has decided not to expand it to all artists, promising it to only a few thousand, limited to three-year cycles and with mandated three-year gaps.”
Additionally, disabled artists may also see a reduction in any means-tested payments should they accept the basic income, and, in the midst of a housing crisis, not expanding the scheme to all eligible artists seems cruel for a nation that proudly proclaims itself a “global leader” in prioritising basic income for artists. Certainly, the work is pioneering, but does it amount to a half measure for positive headlines? Or is it a genuine harbinger for real systemic change? Only time will tell. If similar schemes are implemented elsewhere with genuine seriousness, and if basic income or minimum guaranteed income policies are expanded and become reality, then history will doubtless look back upon these decisions fondly. If they do not, then the analysts of the future will probably not be as magnanimous in their assessments as the architects of the programme might have wished.
In an increasingly precarious work environment, coupled with increasing negative attitudes towards welfare, up to and including outright demonisation of the recipients of state assistance, such things shouldn’t be taken lightly or treated simply as a noble experiment. If Ireland wants to be the torchbearer for the future, perhaps its leaders should consider a broader approach and develop a new model.
