Artrepreneurs and the autonomy paradox

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Artrepreneurs and the autonomy paradox © 2022 the Authors Published version Pyykkönen, Miikka; Sokka, Sakarias; Kurlin Niiniaho, Ari Pyykkönen, M., Sokka, S., & Kurlin Niiniaho, A. (2022). Artrepreneurs and the autonomy paradox. Cultural Trends, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2022.2082865 2022 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccut20 Cultural Trends ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccut20 Artrepreneurs and the autonomy paradox Miikka Pyykkönen, Sakarias Sokka & Ari Kurlin Niiniaho To cite this article: Miikka Pyykkönen, Sakarias Sokka & Ari Kurlin Niiniaho (2022): Artrepreneurs and the autonomy paradox, Cultural Trends, DOI: 10.1080/09548963.2022.2082865 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2022.2082865 © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 02 Jun 2022. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Artrepreneurs and the autonomy paradox Miikka Pyykkönen a , Sakarias Sokka b and Ari Kurlin Niiniaho b a Cultural Policy, University of Jyväskylä, Jyvaskyla, Finland; b Center for Cultural Policy Research (CUPORE), Helsinki, Finland ABSTRACT In this article, we examine the views that young (under 35 years) freelancers and entrepreneurs who work as professional artists in Finland have of their work. We refer to them as artrepreneurs. Our data sample is composed of the responses of entrepreneurs and freelancers (n= 209) from a survey data on young artists (n= 565) collected in 2017. By using a set of quantitative methods we study the impact of different factors on the job satisfaction experienced by freelancers and entrepreneurs, the nature and motivation factors of their work, as well as their status and livelihood. In our interpretative framework, central concepts are the “hybridity”and “precarity”of artists’work and “autonomy paradox”. The most important results of our study are that artrepreneurs’work is more multidisciplinary and they have more sources of income than other young artists. They also handle the uncertainties of precarious working life better than other artists. KEYWORDS Artrepreneur; hybridity; precarity; autonomy paradox; young artists; art work Introduction In Finland, as elsewhere, artists’work is characterised by a discrepancy between expectations and reality. On the one hand, administrative strategies include expectations that link artists’work to economic growth, employment, entrepreneuriality and regional development (Gielen et al., 2018; Heian & Hjelbrekke, 2017; Pyykkönen & Stavrum, 2018). On the other hand, research on working conditions suggests that there are many problems related to the work of artists and the economic impacts of their work. Compared to other highly-educated professions, the income level of artists is very low (Mangset et al., 2018; OSF, 2019; Pärnänen & Sutela, 2014; Rensujeff,2015; Throsby & Petetskaya, 2017). In terms of the Gross Domestic Product, the value added by the cultural sector 1 has slightly decreased over the last decade in Finland, contrary to expectations. Employment in the cultural sector fell in the early 2010s but after that, the number of people working in cultural occupations has steadily increased (OSF, 2018). Nevertheless, young people in Finland are interested in becoming artists and working in the cultural sector 2 , but not because of economic factors. Earlier studies, as well as the survey data on which our research is based, indicate that young artists choose to become © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Miikka Pyykkönen miikka.pyykkonen@jyu.fiCultural Policy, University of Jyväskylä, Jyvaskyla 40014, Finland CULTURAL TRENDS https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2022.2082865 artists, because they want to work with things that interest them, to fulfil their creativity and determine their working hours. Other reasons include making a societal impact and offering experiences to other people (Ansio et al., 2018; Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2018). At the same time, many young artists end up working as entrepreneurs because they have little choice (Sutela & Pärnänen, 2018). In national strategies, cultural activities have been regarded more and more intensively from employment and business policy perspectives during the past 20 years (Jakonen, 2016; Pyykkönen & Stavrum, 2018). As a result, new foci of strategic and focused funding have been developed where individual professionals have been encouraged to adopt business models. Similar kinds of focus shifts have been detected in arts education curricula (Pyykkönen et al., 2019). Market-oriented strategic governance speech has not, however, decreased the basic funding of arts –but it has not grown either (Sokka, 2022). At the same time the number of professional artists has grown steadily, leading to “oversupply”of labour, leading to increasing amount of artists having to survive without salaried jobs or grants. Consequently, many have become, at least part time, freelancers and entrepreneurs (e.g. Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2018,2020; cf. Menger, 2002). In this paper, we focus on the work, working conditions and income of young artist entrepreneurs and freelance artists. Our research task is to study entrepreneurship among young artists and find out how they view the option of being an entrepreneur or freelancer from the point of view of work, working conditions and livelihood. We examine the impact of different factors on their job satisfaction as well as differences within this group. In this article, our research questions are: (1) How do young artist entrepreneurs’and freelance artists’work and livelihood differ from those of other young artists 3 ? (2) How do they describe their work and working conditions? (3) What kinds of income and income sources do they have? Our data consists of the survey responses of artists aged under 35 years who identify themselves as entrepreneurs or freelancers by their own definition (n= 209) 4 , which were selected from a set of survey data on young artists (n= 565) collected by the Center for Cultural Policy Research Cupore and the Arts Promotion Centre Finland (Taike) in 2017. The respondents are defined as artists based on their own identification. As our primary methods of analysis, we examined frequency distributions and cross-tabulations with chi-square tests and correlation coefficient tests. Although the data dates few years back, the case is extremely valid in Finnish cultural policy now, because Covid-19 crisis has raised the weak position of private actors into the spotlight (Luonila et al., 2022). Artrepreneurs –the new normal in artistic work? In this article, the term “entrepreneur”refers to a person who is engaged in business activities with the purpose of making enough profit to pay him/herself a salary. There are various legal or tax- or labour policy-related categories for entrepreneurship such as self-employed person and own-account worker (“selling their expertise”), practitioner of a sole proprietor (“selling goods or products”) and company (general partnership, limited partnership, limited company and cooperative). The term “sole entrepreneur”usually refers to selfemployed persons who work for themselves and who do not employ other people in their business. Self-employed persons receive all the income generated by their work but also bear all the work-related risks alone (Bögenhold & Klinglmair, 2016). 5 2M. PYYKKÖNEN ET AL. In Finland, freelancers are classified as self-employed persons, who are self-employed by contracts with several employers and suppliers, but not committed to any long-term relationships with a single employer/supplier. They can find jobs and sell their labour independently or through temporary agencies and co-operatives, for instance. Their status closely resembles that of a sole entrepreneur who practises a trade and whose work and income are primarily based on assignments. Freelancers, too, sell their work to clients, and each order is governed by a separate contract. The price of their work is not fixed but may vary according to each contract. The difference between freelancers and other forms of sole entrepreneurship is that freelancers do not need to be registered entrepreneurs; instead, they are hired for short assignments by one or more buyers and receive either a salary or payment (Bögenhold & Klinglmair, 2016; Hesmondhalgh & Baker, 2010). We use the term “artrepreneur”(Harvey, 2013, pp. 62–107) to mean both artist entrepreneurs and freelance artists, because in our study their employment status is similar. Their work is typically entrepreneurial in nature, and its meaningfulness and success are linked to their ability to control their own work. On the other hand, they also share similar problems and challenges. Both entrepreneurs and freelancers working in the arts field must cope with the uncertainty and instability of work and income. Besides their main occupation, most of them work on other assignments at least occasionally and the “other work”locates often in another sector than arts and culture. This diversity of jobs and statuses has been called “hybrid work”(Ansio et al., 2018; Bille et al., 2017;De Bruyne & Gielen, 2009; Oakley, 2009). According to Eurostat (2019, p. 83), in most European, the proportion of self-employ- ment and entrepreneurship in the cultural sector is higher as in other sectors. In Europe, approximately half of self-employed people working in the cultural sector are entrepreneurs or freelancers. The recent statistics from Finland show that 28% of people working in the cultural sector are entrepreneurs, while in other sectors this figure is 12%. As many as half of those who work in music are entrepreneurs (OSF, 2017). Angela McRobbie (2016) argues that entrepreneurialism is becoming a “new normal” of the artistic work in the UK. Pyykkönen (2015) has proposed that in Finland too, not only entrepreneurialism but also entrepreneurship is becoming the new “normal”of work in the cultural sector, and that this development is related to a more general trend of entrepreneurialisation of society (see also Menger, 2002; Oakley, 2009; Pyykkönen & Stavrum, 2018). Pierre-Michel Menger (2002;2015) suggests that one reason for the increase in entrepreneurship in the cultural sector is the oversupply of labour. According to him, other reasons are the general requirements of individual creativity and flexibility of work, which are typical especially in cultural sector. According to Annette Naudin (2017) and Susan Marlow et al. (2017) artists often start enterprises for being able to do arts and pursue their creative ideas professionally as multiple ways as possible in today’s versatile cultural labour markets. Sometimes entrepreneurship also makes income flows flexible in changing conditions (e.g. in the case of unemployment). While artists’work has become more entrepreneurial, it has simultaneously become more hybrid. Consequently, artistic work now takes place in various contexts and on various platforms (Abbing, 2002; Casacuberta & Gandelman, 2012). In a Finnish survey conducted in 2018, one-third of artist respondents had had only one employment status whereas a second third had had two employment statuses, and the last third CULTURAL TRENDS 3 more than two employment statuses (Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2019). Artists move between work assignments, funding sources and services in the private, public and third sectors (Markusen et al., 2006). Therefore, it is nowadays common that artists have various overlapping art-related jobs and assignments as well as education and occupations outside the arts (Dujardin & Volont, 2014; Woronkowicz & Noonan, 2017). Another feature that characterises artistic work is precarity. By precarity, we mean uncertainty related to work and working conditions, which is usually manifested as short and insecure employment relationships, poor employment terms and low income (Diaz & & Gielen, 2018; Kalleberg, 2009; Oakley, 2009). According to many researchers, in the cultural sector, this uncertainty is most often experienced by young people who work as entrepreneurs or freelancers (e.g. Dujardin & Volont, 2014; McRobbie, 2016). Precarisation and hybridisation are linked to one another (de Peuter, 2011); for example, in Finland artists engage in multiple assignments simultaneously to avoid the income losses and other risks related to their insecure position (Ansio et al., 2018). When artists talk about their work motivation factors and job satisfaction, they all mention positive and negative aspects of their precarious but “addictive work”(about the term: Rowlands & Handy, 2012). The positive aspects are those that inspire and stimulate them in their work. We refer to these as “intrinsic motivation factors”, which in the work-life are usually personal non-economic rewards of work, and which increase the commitment to and persistence at work significantly (Fishbach & Woolley, 2022). Finnish artists are motivated by the freedom of their work, their autonomy, and the ability to use their creativity and do “art for art’s sake”(Ansio et al., 2018). At the same time, their working life is overshadowed by temporary work assignments, financial insecurity and, in some cases, the fact that not much time is left for the actual artistic work (e.g. Herranen et al., 2013; Jokinen, 2010; Karttunen, 2020). However, because of the positive aspects of their work and strong intrinsic motivation, they tolerate the uncertainties surprisingly well (Ansio et al., 2018; cf. Ellmeier, 2003; Rowlands & Handy, 2012). Our respondents fit the idea of increasingly self-managed mode of work that leads to paradoxical feelings about autonomy and flexibility (cf. Cañibano, 2019; Pérez-Zapata et al., 2016), leading to apparent validity of the concept of “autonomy paradox”, understood as workers’perception of autonomy in some parts of the work paradoxically coming together with a lack of autonomy in other aspects of work. Data and methods Our data consists of the Arts and Culture Barometer 2017 survey responses, from which we selected those relevant to our study. The Arts and Culture Barometer is an annual survey with a different set of respondents each year. Its purpose is to observe current attitudes, experiences opinions among artists, and it has been carried out in collaboration between the Center for Cultural Policy Research and the Arts Promotion Centre Finland since 2015. 6 The theme of the 2017 barometer survey was young artists, and the respondents were artists aged under 35 years. 7 Various methods were applied to collect the data: a link to the questionnaire was sent to all persons aged under 35 years who had applied for a grant from Taike in 2016; three major grantor foundations disseminated the questionnaire link; art schools distributed it to their alumni; several artists’organisations included information about the 4M. PYYKKÖNEN ET AL. questionnaire in their member communications; Taike’s regional artists distributed the link to their networks; and Cupore and Taike disseminated it through their websites and social media channels. There is no knowledge of the total number of artists aged under 35 years in Finland, because the number of artists working in Finland can only be estimated. 8 Being an artist is a free occupation that is subject to no official control and there are no official statistics or registers about the number of professional artists. However, compared to previous studies and grant applicants, the data in our study seems to represent the group of Finnish artists aged under 35 years: When looking at Taike’s grant applicants in 2016, our data has a similar share of artistic fields and gender. The Status of the Artist in Finland 2010 survey, which included a large set of data, also pointed to similar numbers (Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2018, pp. 9–10; see Rensujeff,2015). Altogether 565 young artists responded to the 2017 barometer survey. In total, the survey included nearly 50 questions. Most of them were presented as statements which were answered on a five-point Likert scale. In this paper, we focus on those sections of the survey that concern artists’work and livelihood and those respondents who chose “entrepreneur”or “freelancer”as their employment status (209 respondents, 37% of all respondents). We analysed these artrepreneurs in relation to those respondents who stated that their employment status was something else 9 (356 respondents, 63% of all respondents –out of them, 37% were employees, 30% full-time students and 30% free artists 10 ) with the help of frequency distributions, cross-tabulations and measuring the dependencies between variables. We used correlation analyses and chi-square tests to determine the significance of the differences between categorical groups, namely between the artrepreneurs and other young artists. Any differences mentioned in this article are statistically significant. 11 After each thematic set in the questionnaire, the respondents also had the opportunity to write a complementary, open-ended answer. This provides also complementary qualitative data for our analysis. Citations presented in this article are based on these open-ended answers of the 2017 barometer. The 2017 barometer survey did not include questions about the respondents’annual income. To obtain an approximate idea of artrepreneurs’livelihood, we complemented our data with data on the annual income of artists aged under 35 years derived from the 2019 barometer survey (see Figure 1), which focused on artists’livelihood (see Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2020). Artrepreneurs among young artists Based on our data, young artists hold a more positive attitude towards entrepreneurship compared to the entire body of artists: 40% of them hoped that an entrepreneurial attitude would become more widespread in different art fields (see Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2017; cf. 2018). This supports the argument proposed in previous studies that entrepreneurialism is increasing in the field of culture and art (e.g. Menger, 2002; Pyykkönen, 2015). Many researchers have explained young people’s attitude by changes in education (Essig, 2017; McRobbie, 2016; Pyykkönen et al., 2019). To describe the background of our focused group, those who work as artrepreneurs largely resemble the rest of young artists. There are, however, a few significant differences. Artrepreneurs were slightly older compared to other young artists. 64% of them CULTURAL TRENDS 5 were over 30 years old, while 53% of other . 12 Those with an arts-related master’s degree work as an artrepreneur more often than other young artists (46–33%), but this difference is not statistically significant. Many young artists combine several ways of work, and this also includes mixing artistic work and studies. However, our data indicates that gender is not a significant factor affecting the level of artrepreneurship. An analysis of our target group by artistic field revealed that many of them were performing artists. Those working in music (46%) and theatre (48%) were most likely to work as an entrepreneur or freelancer. In the other fields, the share of entrepreneurs or freelancers was 34%. Those living in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area were slightly more likely to work as an entrepreneur or freelancer than those living elsewhere in the country. This was particularly clear in the field of music, in which the share of artrepreneurs was 67% in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area and 15% in the rest of the country. 13 Their share was also fairly high among those who work in the audiovisual sector and live in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, but the number of respondents from the rest of the country was not large enough to make a comparison. In visual arts, the corresponding figures were 43% and 21%. 14 In literature, those who live outside the Helsinki Metropolitan Area appear to be more likely to work as entrepreneurs (18–25%), but the difference is not statistically significant. Working as an artrepreneur Those artists who primarily identify themselves as an entrepreneur or freelancer are often also engaged in other types of employment part-time. 34% of artrepreneurs in our data also worked as an employee at some point of 2017, the year of study. In performing arts, this figure was as high as 47%. During 2017, one-third (34%) of those who worked as Figure 1. The total income, before taxes, of artrepreneurs, employees and other artists aged under 35 years in 2018. The Arts and Culture Barometer 2019. 6M. PYYKKÖNEN ET AL. artrepreneurs had also worked as free artists, and 13% had also been unemployed jobseekers and 12% students. The share of employees is partly explained by the employment of artrepreneurs in jobs in the arts sector. For example, they may have temporary jobs in art institutions simultaneously with or in between working as an entrepreneur or freelancer. However, young artists also work in other sectors in jobs not related to art. In our sample, nonart-related employment was even more common than what has been suggested in previous studies: as many as 72% of young artrepreneurs reported that they also worked in other jobs in addition to their artistic work. In performing arts, as many as 88% of entrepreneurs and freelancers answer that they also have other jobs. Teaching, event production and photography are the most common other occupations, but respondents also mention babysitting, massage and restaurant and construction work in their openended answers. Being an artist is a real oddity among other occupations. While many people want to earn a living making art, the current funding system only supports a small portion of artists, and many work in other jobs to be able to continue working as an artist. Perhaps the idea of a full-time artist who makes a living from art and builds a career in it is an outmoded ideal and instead, we should acknowledge the diversity of people working as artists and look for ways to support artistic activities that arise from different social positions and life paths. (A multidisciplinary artist) Neither artrepreneurs nor other respondents in our data would want to work solely as entrepreneurs –of each group, mere 5% wished that they could work as entrepreneurs only. Various studies show that entrepreneurs and freelancers in arts and culture combine employment possibilities simply because they do not have the option of working as artists full-time or with permanent contracts (Gielen et al., 2018; Oakley, 2009), and that entrepreneurial mindset may mitigate the risks of precarity, but it also “intriques”artists to take risks and imagine the precarious conditions more bearable as they are (Diaz & Gielen, 2018; McRobbie, 2016). Especially artrepreneurs but also other groups in our data hold a positive attitude towards combining different modes of employment. 59% of them expressed that they would like to combine different modes of employment in their future working life while employees (52%), unemployed jobseekers (44%) and grant recipients (32%) felt this way less often. It can therefore be said that young artrepreneurs are quite accustomed to navigating between various jobs, assignments and projects, and handling the temporary and fragmented nature of work. It seems that they have adopted a hybrid working practice, which means that they seek their livelihood through actual entrepreneurship as well as other types of employment. Hence, it also seems that they can deal with the “autonomy paradox”better than the employees, grant holders or unemployed young artists. When it comes to working as an artist, full-time employment is an absurd notion; when an artist makes art, it doesn’t cease to be art if the artist earns their living partly or even mainly from other sources. (A performing artist) Karttunen (2020), too, has examined the barometer data and drawn the conclusion that artistic work is characterised by both precarity and hybridity. The link between them arises from the tension between the idea of “artistic freedom”and CULTURAL TRENDS 7 de Peuter, G. (2011). Creative Economy and labor precarity: A contested convergence. Journal of Communication Inquiry,35(4), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859911416362 Diaz, G., & & Gielen, L. (2018). Precarity as an artistic laboratory for counter-hegemonic labour organization. Frame,30(2), 41–59. https://www.frameliteraryjournal.com/30-2-precarious-work- precarious-life/1458/ Dujardin, A., & Volont, L. (2014). The start of a career as artist/creative professional: A sinecure? Definition, determinants, motives.’. In A. De Brabandere, & J. De Boe (Eds.), Starting a Creative Career (pp. 18–33). Lannoo. Ellmeier, A. (2003). Cultural entrepreneurialism: On the changing relationship between the arts, culture and employment. The International Journal of Cultural Policy,9(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1028663032000069158a Essig, L. (2017). Same or different? The “cultural entrepreneurship”and “arts entrepreneurship”constructs in European and US higher education. Cultural Trends,26(2), 125–137. DOI: 10.1080/ 09548963.2017.1323842 Eurostat. (2019). Culture Statistics –2019 edition.https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/productsstatistical-books/-/KS-01-19-712 Fishbach, A., & Woolley, K. (2022). The structure of intrinsic motivation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,9(1), 339–363. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-orgpsych-012420-091122 Gielen, P., Volont, L., & Van Andel, W. (2018). Creativity under pressure: The effects of marketization and de-institutionalization on creative labor. Art & Identity Politics,19(2), 15–43. Harvey, J. (2013). Fair Play —Art, Performance and Neoliberalism. Palgrave Macmillan. Heian, M. T., & Hjelbrekke, J. (2017). Kunstner og entreprenør? Norske kunstneres holdninger til egen økonomi, entreprenørskap og kommersiell suksess. Norsk sosiologisk tidskrift,1(6), 415–435. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-2515-2017-06-01 Herranen, K., Houni, P., & Karttunen, S. (2013). ‘Pitäisi laajentaa työalaansa.’Kuvataiteilijan ammattirooli ja osaamistarpeet tulevaisuuden työelämässä. Cupore, Foundation for Cultural Policy Research: Cupore publication 21. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/kuvataiteilijan_ ammattirooli_ja_osaamistarpeet.pdf Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2010). “A very complicated version of freedom”: Conditions and experiences of creative labour in three cultural industries”.Poetics,38(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.poetic.2009.10.001 Hirvi-Ijäs, M., Kautio, T., Kurlin, A., Rensujeff, K., & Sokka, S. (2020). Taiteen ja kulttuurin barometri 2019. Taiteilijoiden työ ja toimeentulon muodot. Cupore web publication 57. Center for Cultural Policy Research Cupore. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/2020/taiteen_ja_kulttuurin_ barometri_2019.pdf Hirvi-Ijäs, M., Rensujeff, K., Sokka, S., & Koski, E. (2017). Taiteen ja kulttuurin barometri 2016. Taiteilijan työskentelyedellytykset muutoksessa. Cupore web publication 42. Center for Cultural Policy Research Cupore. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/2017/cupore_barometri_2016_13.pdf Hirvi-Ijäs, M., Rensujeff, K., Sokka, S., & Koski, E. (2018). Taiteen ja kulttuurin barometri 2017. Nuoret taiteentekijät. Cupore web publication 47. Center for Cultural Policy Research Cupore. https:// www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/2018/cupore_barometri_2017_final.pdf Hirvi-Ijäs, M., Sokka, S., Rensujeff, K., & Kurlin, A. (2019). Taiteen ja kulttuurin barometri 2018. Taiteilijoiden ja taiteen liikkuvuus. Cupore web publication 51. Center for Cultural Policy Research Cupore. https://www.cupore.fi/images/tiedostot/2019/taiteilijoiden_ja_taiteen_ liikkuvuus._taiteen_ja_kulttuurin_barometri_2018._v_09.pdf Houni, P., & Ansio, H. (2014). Taiteilijan ammatti tänään –tietoja, taitoja, diskursseja. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka,79(4), 375–387. http://urn.fi/YRN:NBN:fi-fe2014120852200 Jakonen, O. (2016). Kulttuuripolitiikka ja nationalismi kilpailuvaltio-Suomessa: Innovatiivinen luova talous. Kulttuuripolitiikan tutkimuksen vuosikirja,2(2), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.17409/kpt.60100 Jokinen, E. (2010). Vallan kirjailijat: Valtion apurahoituksen merkitys kirjailijoille vuosituhannen vaihteen Suomessa. Avain. Kalleberg, A. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review,74(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400101 14 M. PYYKKÖNEN ET AL. Karttunen, S. (2020). Self-precarization and structural poverty: The case of Finnish grant-oriented visual artists. Recherches Sociologiques & Anthropologiques,50(2), 27–51. https://doi.org/10. 4000/rsa.3424 Luonila, M., Renko, V., Jakonen, O., Karttunen, S., & Kanerva, A. (forthcoming, 2022). The effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on the field of Finnish cultural and Creative Industries: Revealing and challenging policy structures. In E. Salvador, T. Navarrete, & A. Srakar (Eds.), Creative Industries and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Routledge Research in the Creative and Cultural Industries series. Mangset, P., Heian, M. T., Kleppe, B., & Løyland, K. (2018). Why are artists getting poorer? About the reproduction of low income among artists. International Journal of Cultural Policy,24(1), 539–558. DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2016.1218860 Markusen, A., Gilmore, S., Johnson, A., Levi, T., & Martinez, A. (2006). Crossover. How Artists Build Careers across Commercial, Nonprofit and Community Work. Commisioned by the Williams and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation and Leveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC). Marlow, S., Swail, J., & Naudin, A. (2017). Cultural Entrepreneurship. The Cultural Worker’s Experience of Entrepreneurship. Routledge. McRobbie, A. (2016). Be Creative. Making a Living in the New Culture Industries. Polity Press. Menger, P.-M. (2002). Are there too many artists? The “excess supply”issue: A measurement puzzle, an increasingly flexibility-driven functional requirement and an unavoidable mismatch effect in creative activities. International Symposium on Culture statistics, October 21–23, Montreal. Menger, P.-M. (2015). The market for creative labour. Talent and inequalities. In C. Jones, M. Lorenzen, & J. Sapsed (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (pp. 148–170). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199603510.013.025 Naudin, A. (2017). Cultural entrepreneurs: Identity and ‘becoming’a cultural entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing,9(3), 209–226. DOI: 10.1504/IJEV.2017.086495 Oakley, K. (2009). ‘Art Works’–Cultural Labour Markets: A Literature Review. London: Creativity, Culture and Education. http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 10/CCE-lit-review-8-a5-web-130.pdf Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2017). Cultural Employment in Finland 2017. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/klt/2017/01/klt_2017_01_2018-08-31_tie_001_en.html Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2018). Cultural Employment in Finland 2018. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/klt/2018/01/klt_2018_01_2019-06-10_tie_001_en.html Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2019). Labour force survey 2019. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved April 9, 2020, from http://www.stat.fi/til/tyti/index_en.html Pärnänen, A., & Sutela, H. (2014). Itsensätyöllistäjät Suomessa 2013. Statistics Finland. Pérez-Zapata, O., Pascual, A. S., Álvarez-Hernández, G., & Castaño Collado, C. (2016). Knowledge work intensification and self-management: The autonomy paradox. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation,10(2), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.10.2.0027 Pyykkönen, M. (2015). Kulttuuripolitiikan uusi vaih(d)e: Luovaa taloutta ja yrittäjyyttä’. In M. Jakonen, & T. Silvasti (Eds.), Talouden uudet muodot (pp. 122–143). Helsinki. Pyykkönen, M., Kumpulainen, K., & Vierimaa, S. (2019). Työn muutoksen haasteet kulttuurialan korkeakoulutuksen työelämäpedagogiikalle. Ammattikasvatuksen aikakauskirja,21(4), 45–61. Pyykkönen, M., & Stavrum, H. (2018). Enterprising culture: Discourses on entrepreneurship in Nordic cultural policy. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society,48(2), 108–121. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10632921.2017.1391726 Rensujeff,K.(2015). Taiteilijan asema 2010. Taiteilijakunnan rakenne, työ ja tulonmuodostus. Arts Promotion Centre Finland (Taike). Rowlands, L., & Handy, J. (2012). An addictive environment: New Zealand film production workers’ subjective experiences of project-based labour’.Human Relations,65(5), 657–680. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0018726711431494 Sokka, S. (2022). Aims and allocations of public funding for culture in Finland. In S. Sokka (Ed.), Cultural Policy in the Nordic Welfare States: Aims and Functions of Public Funding for Culture (pp. 48–67). Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordisk kulturfakta 2022:01. https://pub.norden.org/ nordiskkulturfakta2022-01/#91691 CULTURAL TRENDS 15 Sokka, S., & Johannisson, J. (2022). Introduction: Cultural policy as a balancing act. In S. Sokka (Ed.), Cultural Policy in the Nordic Welfare States: Aims and Functions of Public Funding for Culture (pp. 8– 19). Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordisk kultrufakta 2022:01. https://pub.norden.org/ nordiskkulturfakta2022-01/#92287 Sutela, H., & Pärnänen, A. (2018). Yrittäjät Suomessa 2017. Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/tup/ julkaisut/tiedostot/julkaisuluettelo/ytym_201700_2018_21465_net.pdf Throsby, D., & Petetskaya, K. (2017). An Economic Study of Professional Artists in Australia. Department of Economics, Macquarie University. https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/ files/making-art-work-throsby-report-5a05106d0bb69.pdf Woronkowicz, J., & Noonan, D. (2017). Who goes freelance? The determinants of self-employment for artists. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,43(4), 651–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1042258717728067 16 M. PYYKKÖNEN ET AL.