Introduction: Advancing the social foundations of anti-corruption in Ukraine through cultural spaces

Anti-corruption in Ukraine has rested on a broad foundation of legal and organisational reforms, including a new set of specialised anti-corruption institutions,a70ff67297be judicial, law-enforcement, and public administrative reform, as well as novel institutional frameworks around digitalisation, decentralisation, and asset declaration.

Sustaining these noteworthy gains remains crucial to democratic resilience under conditions of martial law because anti-corruption efforts are a form of oversight that prevents the concentration of power and reinforces public trust in government. An important part of this will be to advance the social foundations of anti-corruption – that is the broad set of norms, incentives, and infrastructures that condition social actors’ intolerance for corruption, demands for anti-corruption action, willingness to be part of collective action, and adherence to pro-integrity behaviours.

Cultural spaces may contribute to these efforts. ‘Culture’ encompasses both tangible elements (artifacts, practices) and intangible ones (shared meanings and representations).2763c1342896 ‘Cultural spaces’, including libraries, community centres, museums, galleries, and festivals, provide venues where communities can engage in creative practice and build social connections. Cultural initiatives leverage these spaces to strengthen community bonds and foster collective identity.93ab68a30820

Across southern and eastern Europe, cultural initiatives have increasingly been used as a policy tool to mobilise anti-corruption activities through creative practice.0b7954ca47b3 Similarly, the recent expansion of the Ukrainian cultural field indicates the potential for it to be more actively and systematically drawn into the construction of the social foundations of anti-corruption.2d9f07827a82 According to some analysts, the cultural field in Ukraine has witnessed an unprecedented flourishing over the last decade. Pesenti writes that Russian aggression since 2014 has ‘sparked a moment of intense creativity… including the prolific production of new literary works, theatre productions, films, curatorial visual work, music, and large-scale cultural events.’.e729866abd68

While the potential is clear, little analytical attention has been paid to the specific role of cultural initiatives in Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts. This research reveals that cultural initiatives have been more extensively mobilised for anti-corruption work than recognised by international donors and in Ukraine’s policy frameworks. Most importantly, cultural spaces can make distinct contributions to anti-corruption – through capacities and skills that other civil society organisations (CSO) do not have. These unique capacities are: creative visualisation, a neutral ground for coalition building, and the establishment of new community norms and behaviours – embedding integrity through practice rather than compliance. Using cultural initiatives for anti-corruption may matter more than ever as Ukraine works through a broader cultural self-determination and democratic transformation that often resonates more with local communities.

The current use of cultural spaces in Ukraine

Our non-exhaustive mapping of the use of cultural spaces in anti-corruption suggests performing arts has emerged as an important form of cultural expression, accounting for most documented activities and demonstrating remarkable scale and geographic spread. The Worldwide Ukrainian Play Readings initiative (CITD) alone has generated over 580 events across more than 150 theatres in 22 Ukrainian regions. Museums and heritage sites represent another major category, with initiatives such as ‘Museums Strengthen Democracy’ operating across 10 pilot sites.

Community centres and art residencies, though fewer in number, played crucial roles in grassroots mobilisation. Community centres engaged local communities in over ten municipalities and included internally displaced persons (IDPs) through initiatives such as the Veterans’ Centre Poltava or the School of Solidarity in Shpola, while art initiatives and NGOs such as Zapravka work towards international accountability networks.

Cultural platforms and urban/rural spaces added another dimension through initiatives like the Dnipro Centre for Contemporary Culture (DCCC), Kultura Medialna, and IZOLYATSIA, with DCCC operating multiple venues within its Dnipro regional hub for Eastern Ukraine and IZOLYATSIA working with over 100 artists internationally, reaching thousands of participants through extensive exhibition programmes and educational initiatives. This mapping reveals not only the extensive exhibition programmes and educational anti-corruption work but also positions Ukraine as a potential pioneer in mobilising diverse cultural infrastructures for democratisation and anti-corruption work. The table below provides a more detailed breakdown of initiatives, scale, and specific anti-corruption mechanisms for each category identified.

Emerging frameworks of action

Our research highlights certain emerging institutional and policy frameworks that support using cultural spaces for anti-corruption. Following the 2014 Euromaidan, the Ukrainian government established new institutions to harness cultural initiatives as vehicles for democratisation.9a0f8020b62a Two of these, the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation and Ukrainian Institute explicitly reframe culture not as luxury expenditure but as ‘a tool for social change, innovation and economic growth’.42dd8bcc6625

Culture has also taken on an activist edge. Across Ukraine’s regions ‘it has proven to be a starting point for the mobilisation of local communities […] and mature citizenship’.650fc13ee532 Moreover, the professionalisation of the cultural field suggests a solid basis from which to incorporate a greater focus on mobilising for anti-corruption. Out of date state-based management practices have given way to a diverse system that incorporates liberal and national cultural perspectives, as well as professionalisation and long-term planning.cc15f515d67e

Ukraine’s Ministry of Culture explicitly recognises culture as a ‘cornerstone of resilience’ and links the country’s independent cultural identity to national security.d48840cc7fa6 The ministry’s Internal Resilience Plan prioritises to safeguard cultural heritage, ensure a stable cultural sector, foster social cohesion, restore public trust, and strengthen state security.cea173379115 Similarly, Ukraine’s Cultural Strategy 2024–2030 centres on strengthening the role of culture and creative industries as foundational to both national identity and national security1b0cf33c20a8 and creates a policy space for cultural programming to contribute to democratic transformation and integrity-building.1b677f405960

Ukraine’s integration of anti-corruption objectives into cultural policy extends beyond national institutions. The EU Anti-Corruption Initiative (EUACI) has established dedicated funding streams for ‘Supporting cultural projects in the fight against corruption’, recognising culture’s capacity to reach diverse audiences and foster zero-tolerance norms.aad41d1996f3 At the multilateral level, UNESCO has funded resilience projects across most Ukrainian regions, demonstrating significant international investment in Ukraine’s cultural infrastructure for civic purposes.fa062fc58507 At the municipal level, over ten Ukrainian municipalities implemented participatory budgeting for cultural and civic initiatives in 2024, enabling direct citizen engagement in resource allocation decisions through libraries and cultural centres.4d94cf30fe78

This multi-level architecture, spanning national institutions, EU-supported programmes, UNESCO initiatives, and grassroots municipal engagement indicates that Ukraine has the potential to pioneer an integrated approach to cultural anti-corruption work.

Culture for anti-corruption overlooked

However, dots still need to be joined up. Reacting to civil society and cultural frameworks, interviewees noted that smaller cultural organisations, including grassroots initiatives or community arts centres that carry out anti-corruption and democratisation work at community level, remain somewhat overlooked – in particular by international donors,441cd06cfcf7 which limits their funding opportunities.

In fact, most donor strategies supporting Ukraine’s anti-corruption work do not include cultural programming. Interviews revealed that donors are often concerned about governance capacity within the cultural sector itself, viewing it as less professionalised or regulated than other civil society domains.19ce27d7de5d They acknowledge that cultural programming is important for social cohesion and trust-building but argue that culture’s focus on ‘soft issues’ of national identity limits its impact on governance.57ca60d4ea61 This framing positions culture as separate from democratisation and anti-corruption work. However, reclaiming cultural sovereignty from Russian narratives is itself an act of building civic agency and rejecting authoritarian patterns.2c9e36ee69b4 From this perspective, what donors label as ‘soft issues’ can be foundational to the integrity and accountability challenges that anti-corruption programming seeks to address.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that cultural programming is not reflected in Ukraine’s anti-corruption policy landscape. Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021–2025 calls for strengthening a ‘culture of anti-corruption’ and lists ‘formation of society’s intolerance of corruption […] and respect for the rule of law’ as basic principles for anti-corruption reforms, but does not acknowledge how cultural initiatives might contribute to this.ce5baf018041 While formalising grassroots cultural movements within policy frameworks risks stripping them of the authenticity and flexibility that makes them effective, the absence of clearly articulated mechanisms of change contributes to donors and practitioners often overlooking cultural approaches. This limits funding opportunities and cross-sectoral collaboration. Understanding how cultural spaces contribute to anti-corruption, even indirectly, can help donors support these initiatives without co-opting them.

Distinctive contributions of cultural spaces

Contributing in ways many other civil society organisations cannot

Civil society refers to organised and collective civic action independent of the state and market, aimed at advancing shared interests, accountability, and the public good.5e01c1aa256f With a long history of shaping and demanding reforms, civil society will continue to be an important element of anti-corruption progress, with various types of organisations contributing in different ways.d58e1bcf1b1d

Table 1 demonstrates the types, contributions and distinct capacities of CSOs for anti-corruption. To the final row, we add cultural spaces because the research found how cultural spaces can make distinct contributions to anti-corruption – with capacities that other CSOs do not have.

Articulating a policy vision for how cultural spaces add value in Ukraine

We found that cultural spaces offer a distinctive entry point for addressing the persistent trust deficit undermining anti-corruption efforts in transitional contexts such as Ukraine.62bc83d50e12 Where citizens have experienced decades of state institutions serving external powers rather than public interests, conventional anti-corruption approaches often fail to resonate. Research shows that in these settings, people developed informal networks as essential survival mechanisms, not as corrupt practices, but as rational responses to predatory governance.921816e5967e This creates a complex legacy: citizens simultaneously condemn high-level corruption while viewing everyday informal practices as necessary survival mechanisms.3f1341e4ed43 Through arts, heritage, and community programming, cultural spaces provide safe environments where communities can process such historical grievances, build new relationships with public institutions, and develop shared democratic values.fddf7d8e1854

Interview evidence reveals three specific mechanisms – visualisation, coalition-building, and norm development – through which cultural spaces advance anti-corruption goals. Through visualisation, cultural initiatives transform abstract corruption statistics into emotional narratives. As one practitioner explained, their work helps citizens feel rather than just understand corruption’s impact.0b0370ee5341 Through coalition-building, cultural venues function as neutral spaces where diverse community members can engage as equals, creating trust and solidarity across divisions.14adbf312fcc Through norm development, they enable communities to imagine and practice democratic alternatives.

Significantly, interviews revealed that cultural spaces are perceived as less threatening than formal anti-corruption mechanisms, allowing for organic emergence of new practices from the community.4775e6d37fe7 These distinctive capacities position cultural spaces as ‘civic laboratories’ where communities can experiment with collaborative governance approaches, test democratic behaviours in safe environments, and build civic capacity for collective action while avoiding stigmatisation. The table below summarises these mechanisms and functions as an envisioning tool for both policymakers and cultural initiatives, making the case for cultural spaces’ distinctive contribution to democratisation and anti-corruption progress.

Such an identity-affirming approach generates strong resonance, particularly among populations experiencing trauma or marginalisation. Evidence from Bosnia’s ‘Balkan Diskurs Youth Correspondents Programme’, which successfully trained 177+ youth in multimedia storytelling across 30+ cities by framing activities as ‘inter-ethnic cooperation’ rather than formal reconciliation, demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach.43d0c07e68f2

Cultural spaces’ unique anti-corruption contributions – case studies

The research identified the unique contributions of cultural spaces in Ukraine – in terms of both how cultural spaces contribute to anti-corruption, but also the distinct capacities they have relative to other CSOs. The following three case studies illustrate how these operate in practice. Together they demonstrate the distinctive pathways through which cultural spaces advance anti-corruption goals.

Corruption Park Kyiv – Scaling anti-corruption visualisation

The 2018 Corruption Park in Kyiv represents a pioneering model for translating abstract corruption into visceral public experiences. Hosted by EUACI and operated over nine months in Kyiv’s Hryshko National Botanical Garden, the installation comprised nine inflatable domes that transformed corruption statistics into interactive, immersive environments.9c3d4639aec6

Visitors engaged with virtual reality investigations, searching for evidence and arresting suspects, while physical interaction included viewing the former President Yanukovych’s golden loaf and his USD 300,000 BMW.a94a74e8175a A participatory element allowed groups of eight visitors to collectively trigger the collapse of a six-meter statue of a corrupt official by simultaneously pressing buttons, viscerally demonstrating the power of collective action against corruption.986a1e4b015f

This was not an isolated intervention, but part of a sustained cultural campaign. The ‘Ukraine Without Corruption’ exhibition continued throughout December 2018 and January 2019, including exhibitions at America Houseaa1f418f0844 and collaborative events at DumkoFest.Anticorruption, which convened citizens, opinion leaders, and NABU officials.789b3430dbaf The project’s innovative visualisation and “edutainment” approach created a ‘direct relation between top-level corruption and ordinary Ukrainians’.969f5e148e41

While precise attendance figures are unavailable, the sustained programming (nine months for the initial installation, 17-day run for continuation exhibitions) and geographic dispersion suggest significant public reach. Attendance estimates indicate thousands of citizens engaged through these immersive experiences. This demonstrates that cultural anti-corruption programming can extend beyond small-scale artistic interventions to major public installations capable of sustained civic engagement.

Kamianets-Podilskyi Community Library – coalition-formation through cultural infrastructure

Many cultural initiatives conceptualise their work as practice-based, positioning culture as doing rather than just symbols or values. This recognises that shared practice creates shared knowledge and collective identity, and that safe spaces where diverse people can come together across generational, educational, and social divides can fundamentally impact how communities collaborate.3f95a4bde91d Cultural spaces are often experienced as more open and less threatening than formal governance structures or government buildings, making them natural venues for coalition-building between citizens, government, and other stakeholders.

In some cases, traditional cultural spaces, such as libraries or museums, are considered more inviting than newly established community cultural hubs. This is because communities already have emotional attachments to these institutions, which they lack with newly developed ones.2a56ff0ed619 The community library in Kamianets-Podilskyi (Western Ukraine) exemplifies how cultural spaces successfully build diverse coalitions between local government and citizens.

Following the renovation and technological upgrades, the library hosts educational and cultural events and encourages civic participation activities including participatory budgeting, online consultations, and e-petitions.df17b16ed1b1 The library has further become a meeting place for residents of all ages, including internally displaced persons. Interview data reveals that the project’s success stems from multiple factors:

• Long-standing institutional presence: The library’s established role in community life reduces the perception of being a top-down government initiative.
• Cross-generational appeal: The space attracts diverse age groups from across the community.
• Measurable impact: The city council observed increased citizen outreach with community development ideas and ‘more lively interaction’ and ‘opportunities for non-formal conversation between government and people’.
• Safe space dynamics: The library functions as a ‘cultural container for dialogue’,1a06a3603347 where trust can be nurtured through low-stakes interaction.

Beyond adapting existing institutions, some cultural initiatives deliberately create entirely new spaces rather than building coalitions with existing institutions or local government. Practitioners involved in this approach often criticise government as unapproachable and distant from communities.098cc6419e4d Some note that political engagement requires accepting ‘the tools that are already available, the language that is being used, as well as the concepts that are already established’.f14cdfec1d79 Cultural spaces, by contrast, create their own languages and frameworks that feel more accessible to diverse populations, allowing them to bridge divides that formal political discourse cannot.9a5a5a423f0c

This illustrates two distinct pathways for coalition-building through cultural work: one where cultural practitioners leverage existing, trusted cultural institutions, such as libraries or museums for civic engagement; and another, where practitioners build independent venues when government institutions lack legitimacy or accessibility.

IZOLYATSIA – norm development through sustained creative community-engagement

Lastly, cultural initiatives are effectively establishing new community norms through sustained engagement and trust-building that enables bottom-up transformation rather than imposed compliance. This is especially critical in post-authoritarian contexts where conflicts between formal rules and survival strategies undermines traditional anti-corruption efforts.46441f52f5b5

IZOLYATSIA, a platform for cultural initiatives founded in 2010 on the site of a former insulation factory in Donetsk and forced to relocate to Kyiv in 2014 after Russian aggressors seized their premises, exemplifies this. Their mission explicitly frames art residencies as engines of change in Ukrainian society. The initiative’s defining philosophy positions art instrumentally ‘as a tool to empower community’.352e1594c57b They invest significant time researching audience needs before introducing new topics.6c5eccb29923 Through sustained presence and co-creation, inviting artists to work directly with communities and positioning the organisation as learners rather than experts, IZOLYATSIA gradually builds trust that eventually attracts ‘very big numbers’ of participants.72c42af86b10

Working in old coal mining towns in Eastern Ukraine, IZOLYATSIA creates ‘platforms for young generations to develop freedom of speech and freedom of expression’, introducing previously taboo topics not as external mandates but as possibilities to reimagine community life.4f468c12ba0f For instance, it was the first to talk about gender and LGBTQI+ rights in these communities.f9b79d9aeb6c Even after relocation, IZOLYATSIA continues to develop the local art and cultural scene, organise educational programmes, support internally displaced people. It maintains focus on cultural decentralisation, establishing projects in Soledar and using the Gurtobus mobile gallery to reach the most distant places in the country.03d77fc1255e

However, translating these norms changes into governance reforms is challenging. Practitioners observe that (local) governments and cultural initiatives do not “speak the same language”,a824b9007911 with officials often unable to understand how cultural work benefits communities. Cultural initiatives with international partnerships note their strict transparency and accounting rules often conflict with local government practices. Yet practitioners also observe that sustained civil society pressure through cultural channels is helping governmental institutions “grow and transform”.86beedbd493a

The right time for more use, but adapt to context

The use of cultural spaces for anti-corruption can be about the nation asserting agency over the future. Within this ‘white heat’ of identity building such approaches may be even more relevant and powerful. However, contextual conditions should determine the type and role of cultural initiative.

The ‘white heat’ of identity building in Ukraine

Ukraine’s society is currently a crucible of identity building, meaning the distinct contribution of cultural spaces could be amplified. Interviews and case studies revealed how cultural practitioners have come to the fore and cultural interventions have an elevated status: both are part of seeking collective liberation from Russian cultural dominance, a national mission proceeding alongside resistance to violent aggression.89c478958503 Cultural spaces are therefore considered sites of independent state-building and of emancipation from Russian occupation and a historic legacy of Soviet rule.78238aecb209

Part of this national emancipation is about reshaping how Ukrainian society relates to the state. Anti-corruption – forging ideas around how the state should relate towards its citizens – is part of asserting new forms of identity. Following this logic, Russia’s war has highlighted Ukraine’s efforts to reclaim its historical, cultural, and heritage rights after centuries marked by periods of Russian and Soviet dominance.4b3549084d08 The Soviet inheritance of informal practices and petty corruption represent a complex governance legacy that interviewees link to historical patterns of external control and mistrust in the state.

To overcome this, cultural practitioners argue that Ukrainian citizens need to reclaim their past, their national identity, and their agency over the future. As one interviewee explained, overcoming corruption requires not only rebuilding trust in state institutions but also addressing citizens’ ‘disconnection from their cultural roots’.aad1dc22e05a Consequently, they consider democratisation and anti-corruption work as inseparable from Ukraine’s broader emancipatory state-building project.57c80992a667 Cultural practitioners see their work as helping communities reconnect with suppressed heritage traditions, rebuilding civic identity that Soviet and Russian occupation fragmented.

Ukraine can draw inspiration from the Baltic states, where anti-corruption was not just a governance goal but an identity project. These efforts framed the states as part of a ‘clean’, Western Europe, symbolically severing ties with the corrupt, authoritarian Soviet past. In Latvia, for example, groups in power that were ‘antagonistically predisposed toward the former colonial patron’ drove reforms.558a527edd0f This transformation was further reinforced through cultural spaces, institutions, and rituals that projected transparency and civic virtue. Museums served as key sites for negotiating new historical narratives and cultural patterns,b5fa0b9b1f80 while public commemorations of Soviet repression promoted transparency as a core value.4ef68cd8be69 National cultural life became the principal arena for expressing national consciousness and democratic identity, with civic education programmes actively cultivating the norms of civil morality that became widely associated with the Baltic States’ transformation.

Conditions for impact and limitations

The evidence from these cases and insights from other interviews reveals conditions under which cultural anti-corruption initiatives can achieve maximum impact. Contrary to expectations that major urban centres would lead cultural anti-corruption efforts, evidence points to greater innovation in mid-size cities and peripheral areas (see the Museums Strengthening Democracy initiative deliberately targeting mid-size museums or IZOLYATSIA working in small communities in Eastern Ukraine). Similarly, near frontline areas demonstrate intense cultural activity. Here, cultural work’s contribution to maintaining Ukrainian democratic identity against Russian authoritarian models becomes exacerbated.aee304cca9aa Overall, rather than being universally applicable, cultural approaches work best when aligned with governance contexts, community characteristics, and resource environments. Understanding this alignment is crucial.

The relationship between cultural initiatives and local government determines the role and outcomes of cultural spaces. When communities have good relations with their local government, cultural activities that build civic capacity directly translate to improved governance outcomes. As one practitioner noted, successful examples in Vinnytsia and Lviv demonstrate that the combination of ‘good mayors and lively local government members’ with local control over cultural programming enables meaningful community transformation.ced59b0a19c4 Decentralisation and local ownership appear to be key factors in the success of local cultural initiatives. However, in contexts where traditional anti-corruption infrastructure is absent or distrusted, cultural approaches operate differently, not as partners with government, but as alternatives to it. Multiple practitioners emphasised creating ‘parallel institutions’ rather than reforming existing structures. Where formal accountability mechanisms lack legitimacy, cultural spaces offer neutral ground for building civic capacity outside compromised structures. Here, grassroots cultural initiatives enable citizen participation without political co-optation.

Moreover, communities processing collective trauma from conflict, especially those in Eastern Ukraine and closest to the frontline, find activities providing safe spaces for rebuilding social trust can support democratic recovery. Cultural spaces address foundational trust issues that compliance-focused interventions cannot. In this regard, returning veterans represent a unique constituency for cultural anti-corruption work. As one practitioner notes, veterans seek social and political reintegration. Cultural spaces offering both psychological support and civic education can serve a dual purpose here: facilitating healing through creative expression while building the democratic competencies veterans need to influence their communities’ futures.cdf34f336c11 Yet this approach also creates constraints. The deep work of processing authoritarian trauma and rebuilding civic identity cannot be rushed. It requires patient, sustained engagement which is often not provided for in donor strategies. Moreover, cultural anti-corruption approaches function not as uniform interventions but as adaptive strategies responding to local conditions. Their effectiveness depends less on traditional anti-corruption capacity than on alignment between cultural programming and specific community needs, resources, and governance challenges. Though it is not always desirable, streamlining and upscaling them can be difficult.

This geographic and contextual analysis demonstrates that cultural anti-corruption approaches function not as uniform interventions but as adaptive strategies that respond to local conditions. Their effectiveness depends less on the presence or absence of traditional anti-corruption capacity per se, and more on the alignment between cultural programming and specific community needs, resources, and governance challenges. This suggests donors and policymakers should adopt differentiated strategies, investing in cultural approaches where conditions favour their unique mechanisms while recognising their limitations in contexts requiring immediate enforcement or technical compliance measures.

Integrating cultural programming into donor strategies and long-term reform frameworks

Ukraine’s anti-corruption progress has been impressive, but it cannot solely rely on institutional reforms. Research across diverse contexts has found that durable anti-corruption progress emerges when social foundations are stronger, not solely through legal amendments, tougher enforcement, or heightened deterrence.bdca00b944bb The social foundations of anti-corruption rarely emerge organically, but need to be proactively constructed from the bottom up.7b06d31dd35f In Ukraine, a focus on constructively building up the social foundations is particularly relevant because the emphasis on legal compliance and building formal bodies may not confront the deeper social norms and habits that enable corruption.1b33cd950fcc The OECD’s public integrity review of Ukraine, for example, calls for legalistic approaches to be balanced with value-based approaches.fa60e3387d47

Constructing these foundations is long-term and complex, potentially involving a myriad of civil society and governmental actors and policy pathways. This U4 Issue has argued that cultural initiatives have potential to encourage social collaboration capable of embedding new norms and civic identities in Ukraine. European donors have committed to a wide spectrum of support to strengthen civil society and governance in Ukraine, such as the EU’s Ukraine Facility. Sweden, the UK, and Norway have also all earmarked funding streams for governance, media independence, and CSO resiliency in Ukraine.

However, almost no donor strategies supporting Ukraine’s anti-corruption work include cultural programming. Neither do CSOs promote cultural spaces for anti-corruption work. A notable exception is the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative’s recent call for proposals promoting anti-corruption through cultural projects. Greater recognition by the Ukrainian government of how cultural programming contributes to integrity would further help signal to donors that such initiatives are worth funding.

Adding to this disconnect is the fact that cultural practitioners do not frame their work as anti-corruption but as contributing to Ukraine’s broader emancipatory state and identity-building. This distance between cultural and anti-corruption efforts represents a significant missed opportunity. Here are three ways to close the gap.

1. Connect support to enhanced collaboration between civil society and government

Cultural activists involved in the EUACI initiative reported significant challenges in securing support for their projects, noting that both government officials and donors struggled to understand how cultural and artistic work could contribute meaningfully to anti-corruption efforts.d8cb8090d4fa Research on Ukraine’s reform efforts reveals persistent ‘lack of coordination between branches of the state machine, and the absence of a unified plan’,c7b7b44be8ff with civil society organisations prioritising relationships with Western donors over citizen engagement, and obstacles to effective collaboration between state and civil society remaining entrenched.7e50a5778a52 Platforms for cross-sectoral dialogue and joint initiatives could help overcome this disconnect (see Ukrainian Cultural Foundation or local governance forums in pilot municipalities such as Poltava). These could include roundtables bringing together cultural practitioners, anti-corruption CSOs, and local government officials to identify shared goals and complementary approaches; supporting joint projects where cultural and anti-corruption organisations collaborate; and developing peer learning networks where practitioners share experiences and approaches.dcbc7ce8e7a1 The goal is not to make cultural practitioners adopt anti-corruption frameworks, but to help both communities understand how their work intersects and can be mutually reinforcing.

2. Encourage cultural initiatives to document impact in their own terms and adapt funding approaches to cultural timelines and logics

Cultural approaches produce impacts that are difficult to measure using conventional anti-corruption metrics, making it challenging to demonstrate their value to governments and donors.b2ddb72ac5c8 Moreover, cultural approaches to democratisation and anti-corruption operate on fundamentally different timelines than conventional compliance-based interventions.

Rather than forcing cultural initiatives into appropriate measurement frameworks, documenting impact in terms aligned with cultural work can strengthen the evidence base for their democratisation potential. Cultural anti-corruption programming could adopt metrics designed to assess social norm change,10fa78c2fefb combining qualitative and quantitative indicators such as structured reflection meetings, activity observations, interviews, and focus group discussions to assess whether community members perceive harmful norms becoming less common over time, documentation of strengthening social support for acting outside harmful norms, evidence of participants becoming change agents within their communities, and participation numbers, community testimonials, and instances where cultural programming led to civic action.

International donors should develop parallel funding streams specifically designed for cultural programming that recognise these distinct operational logics. Drawing from UNESCO’s CDIS methodology, which examines seven key policy dimensions (economy, education, governance, social participation, gender equality, communication, and heritage),46602ac28626 anti-corruption programmes could adopt variations of the CDIS’ culturally sensitive indicators (see annex) rather than demanding immediate anti-corruption “deliverables” and enable adaptive programming.

This shift would require major anti-corruption frameworks to coordinate through existing platforms, ensuring cultural approaches complement rather than compete with traditional programming, creating a more holistic strategy addressing both immediate compliance needs and long-term democratic resilience. Such approaches would provide funders with tangible indicators while respecting the distinct nature and timelines of cultural interventions.

3. Encourage cross-initiative learning and advocacy within culture

Cultural practitioners often face common challenges, including irregular funding, difficulties explaining their work to (local) governments, disconnect from the anti-corruption community, and lack of recognition in policy frameworks. Collective cultural advocacy could amplify practitioner voices in policy discussions. Effective cross-initiative learning requires both institutional infrastructure and grassroots networks. These platforms can facilitate documentation of best practices, coordinate funding approaches, strengthen advocacy positions, and build bridges between cultural practitioners and anti-corruption frameworks. International donors and bodies like NACP should recognise and support these cultural platforms as essential infrastructure for democratic development, not peripheral activities to traditional anti-corruption work. Ukraine’s post-2014 cultural infrastructure reform provides particularly valuable models and institutions for cross-initiative learning, such as the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation, the Ukrainian Institute, and the Culture of Solidarity Fund – EUNIC Ukraine partnership brings together European co-funders to support Ukrainians culture through pooled resources and coordinated networks of support.8c9e56fec01b

Annex 1: Culturally sensitive indicators

Indicators derived from UNESCO’s Culture for Development Indicators (CDIS) methodology

• Governance and social participation dimensions:
  • Levels of trust in public institutions and cultural organisations
  • Participation rates in civic and cultural activities
  • Strength of civil society networks and cultural associations
  • Effectiveness of traditional/cultural governance mechanisms alongside formal structures
  • Integration of cultural values in policy-making processes
• Communication and heritage dimensions:
  • Access to and diversity of cultural expression platforms
  • Protection and utilisation of cultural heritage in civic engagement
  • Media representations of anti-corruption narratives through cultural frameworks
  • Digital and traditional communication channels for civic dialogue
• Education and gender equality dimensions:
  • Integration of integrity education through cultural pedagogy
  • Gender-balanced participation in cultural and civic leadership
  • Intergenerational transmission of democratic values through cultural practices
  • Cultural literacy programmes that embed anti-corruption principles
• Economic dimensions:
  • Contribution of cultural economy to transparent economic practices
  • Employment in cultural sectors with good governance standards
  • Investment in cultural infrastructure that promotes civic engagement

Annex 2: Interviews

• Interview with representative of local government, 15.08.2025 and 26.08.2025
• Interview with head of library, 26.08.2025
• Interview with cultural practitioner, 04.09.2025
• Interview with cultural practitioner, 14.08.2025
• Interview with cultural practitioner, 16.08.2025
• Interview with cultural practitioner, 30.09.2025
• Interview with policy adviser and cultural practitioner, 01.09.2025
• Interview with head of NGO, 03.10.2025
• Interview with cultural practitioner, 07.10.2025
• Interview with donor organisation, 24.09.2025
• Interview with donor organisation, 26.09.2025

Annex 3: Interview guide

Interview Date (dd/mm/yyyy)

Time Interview Began (hhmm-24hr clock)

Time Interview Ended (hhmm-24hr clock)

Interview outline

Section A: Information about this publication

• Hello, thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. My name is [Name], and I am a __________.
• Before we begin with the interview, I’d like to tell you a little more about the research we’re doing and what we will do with the information you tell us.
• The U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre is …
• Our project explores the role of cultural spaces in supporting Ukraine’s anti-corruption effort and broader democratic transformation. More specifically, we’re interested in how these spaces contribute to what we call the “social foundations of anti-corruption”, the norms, incentives and community practices that build public intolerance for corruption. We want to map how cultural initiatives are already being used for anti-corruption and democratisation work, understand their distinctive contributions compared to other civil society approaches, and identify how international donors and Ukrainian policymakers might better support these efforts.
• Your name and affiliation will be anonymised, and this interview is not recorded. I will take notes on my computer while we speak, if that is okay with you. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.

[If yes, discuss and accommodate the interviewees concerns]

[If no, proceed with the interview]

Section B: Background and definitions

• When I say “cultural spaces” or “cultural programming”, what does that mean to you in your work?
• Can you briefly tell me about your organisation, your role, and how long you’ve been working in this field?
• What geographic areas or communities does your work focus on?

Section C: General

• Given your extensive experience working in and with the cultural sector, how has your professional journey shaped your understanding of culture’s role in civic life?
  • Can you give me a specific example of that?
  • How has this understanding evolved over time?

Section D: Context and approach

• How do you see the relationship between cultural work and community development in Ukraine?
• What makes cultural spaces distinctive as community gathering places, if anything?
  • What did that look like in practice?
• Can you tell me about any experience where cultural programming has intersected with local governance or community issues?
  • How did people respond to that?

Section E: Cultural programming and community issues

• How do you decide what issues or themes to focus on?
• Can you walk me through a specific example of cultural programming you’ve been involved with that addressed community concerns?
  • What was the community response?
  • What surprised you about how it unfolded?
• How do you approach making complex social or political issues accessible to diverse audiences?
• Have you noticed any ways that cultural activities help people understand or engage with community challenges?

Section F: Community engagement

• What kinds of conversations emerge when you bring different community members together through cultural activities?
  • Can you give me a specific example of that?
• How do you see cultural spaces functioning in terms of bringing different groups together?
• Can you describe any unexpected connections or collaborations that have emergee from your cultural programming?

Section G: Community change and impact

• Over your years of cultural work, what changes have you observed in how communities engage with local issues?
• Have you noticed any shifts in what community members expect or demand from local institutions?
  • What did that look like in practice?
• How do you think participation in cultural activities affects people’s civic engagement, if at all?
• How do you measure whether your work is having an impact?

Section H: Challenges and limitations

• What obstacles do you face in your cultural work?
• Can you tell me about a time when cultural programming didn’t have the impact you hoped for? What happened?
  • What did you learn from this experience?

Section I: Funding and support

• What has been your experience working with different types of funders or partners?
• How do various stakeholders (government, donors, community) understand the value of cultural work?
  • How do you explain the impact of your work to different audiences?
• What challenges have you faced in explaining or demonstrating the impact of your work?

Section J: Broader perspective

• From your experience, what unique contributions can cultural work make to community development that other approaches might not?
  • Can you give me a specific example of that?
• How do you see the role of cultural work in Ukraine’s current context?

Section K: Closing

• Is there anything important about your work or cultural spaces in general that we haven’t covered?
• Thank you so much for your time and for the helpful information that you provided. Would you be available for any potential follow-up questions either through another interview or via email? Thank you and have a lovely rest of your day.