Openness, Priority, and Free Museums

ABSTRACT This article develops a fairness‐based criticism of the UK's policy of promoting free admissions at major museums. With a focus on geographic inequalities and per‐capita museums spending, I argue that free admissions can be a surprisingly bad way of promoting cultural opportunities for disadvantaged groups. My criticism emphasises the fact that free admissions consume resources without necessarily providing targeted benefits to disadvantaged groups and addressing background inequalities. Given that museums vary in their location, visitor profile, and operating costs, this critique does not apply to all museums. It applies to the largest and most popular museums in the most advantaged areas, which can expect to keep drawing significant numbers while charging. If we are aiming to prioritise the interests of less advantaged groups, we should be in favour of charging at London's major museums, to finance ‘levelling up’ across regions, and more direct access‐promoting measures in targeted outreach, collaboration, and programming.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Published
2025-03-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.70001
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Museums and Cultural Heritage
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
31.57
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Openness, Priority, and Free Museums

Jack Hume
2 citations
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Museums and Cultural Heritage
31.57
article

Openness, Priority, and Free Museums

Jack Hume
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article develops a fairness‐based criticism of the UK's policy of promoting free admissions at major museums. With a focus on geographic inequalities and per‐capita museums spending, I argue that free admissions can be a surprisingly bad way of promoting cultural opportunities for disadvantaged groups. My criticism emphasises the fact that free admissions consume resources without necessarily providing targeted benefits to disadvantaged groups and addressing background inequalities. Given that museums vary in their location, visitor profile, and operating costs, this critique does not apply to all museums. It applies to the largest and most popular museums in the most advantaged areas, which can expect to keep drawing significant numbers while charging. If we are aiming to prioritise the interests of less advantaged groups, we should be in favour of charging at London's major museums, to finance ‘levelling up’ across regions, and more direct access‐promoting measures in targeted outreach, collaboration, and programming.

Journal of Applied PhilosophyVol. 42(3)
University College London (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Museums and Cultural Heritage
31.57
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.