26
----???????????????????????
| 26 | The case for keeping museums free – even if you never visit | ----------- | |
| ianVisits | 2026-04-08 16:10 | ????0? | |
| The subsidy that keeps the UK’s major museums free has a wide halo effect, with benefits that extend far beyond their walls. For a start, free entry is part of London’s global appeal. The ability to walk into world-class institutions without a ticket price is a powerful draw, helping to attract visitors who then spend money across the wider economy — on transport, hotels, restaurants and shops. That spending supports jobs and generates tax revenue, more than offsetting a portion of the upfront subsidy.London is rich in having so very many small museums, and they benefit from the spending that might otherwise go to the big hitters, and a change to that might imperil their survival. That could weaken the wide range of things London can offer locals and tourists alike. It’s all very well living in a city with a handful of big museums, but so much nicer to live in one with dozens of little museums catering to pretty much every interest you can think of. From decorative fans to old radios to Victorian dolls to musical instruments to dead animals — no one goes without in London.When charges were introduced at several major museums in the 1980s, attendance fell sharply. By contrast, when free entry was reinstated in 2001, visits surged — rising from 5.3 million to over 7 million in the first year alone, despite a challenging period for international travel. Since then, apart from a few wobbles, numbers have broadly trended upwards.More significant is what free access represents. When museums are free, they are not just affordable but they feel open to everyone. Removing the ticket price removes a psychological barrier as much as a financial one. Evidence following the 2001 changes showed notable increases in visits from older people and those on lower incomes — groups historically underrepresented in museum audiences.The financial case for introducing charges is also less compelling than it might appear. The savings to the government would likely be modest in the context of overall spending — barely noticeable at the individual taxpayer level. But the change in experience would be immediate and tangible: more barriers, more budgeting, fewer spontaneous visits. -- ???????? | |||
|
????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? |
|||
????????????