Financing Africa’s creative economy: From policy commitments to practical investment

On 12 August, South Africa’s Minister of Small Business Development, Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams, announced plans for a R150 million (approximately S$9.4 million) Creative Sector Fund during the current financial year. The proposed fund is expected to support businesses in music, film, fashion, design, animation, gaming, digital content and visual arts. Its significance lies not only in its size but also in the recognition that creative businesses may require financing instruments designed around the realities of their industries.

Many creative enterprises struggle to access conventional finance because traditional lending models often rely on physical assets, collateral and predictable cash flows. Yet a substantial proportion of a creative business’s value may lie in intellectual property, catalogues, copyrights, audiences, brands and contracts. The challenge, therefore, is not simply increasing the amount of money available, but developing financing mechanisms that recognise these assets and the different risk profiles of creative enterprises.

The proposed fund comes as South Africa’s Department of Sport, Arts and Culture launches 17 Cultural and Creative Industry clusters aimed at improving coordination, representation, professionalisation and access to markets and funding. It is too early to assess the impact of either intervention, but the combination is significant. Capital is more likely to have a lasting effect when it operates alongside organised sectors, functioning institutions and markets capable of supporting growth.

The broader public expenditure picture provides useful context. South Africa’s 2026/27 national budget allocates approximately R4.72 billion ($295.4 million) to arts, culture and heritage programmes within the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture. Against consolidated government expenditure of about R2.67 trillion ($167 billion), this represents roughly 0.18%.

Ghana provides a useful comparison because its 2026 budget identifies funding for specific areas of the creative economy. It provides GH¢20 million for the Creative Arts Fund and a further GH¢20 million for the Film Fund. The National Film Authority has subsequently opened the Film Development Fund across 10 financing windows covering areas such as development, production, distribution and marketing, cinema infrastructure, training and research. The fund uses a combination of grants, recoverable finance and technical support.

In August, Ghana’s Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts reported the release of GH¢5 million to each fund. This highlights an important distinction in discussions about public financing: a budget allocation does not necessarily mean that the money has been released, disbursed to beneficiaries or translated into measurable economic outcomes. Advocacy around creative-sector financing therefore needs to examine all four stages.

Ghana’s Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts has a 2026 budget of GH¢255.13 million, against projected central government expenditure of GH¢302.46 billion. This is equivalent to approximately 0.084% of projected national expenditure. Within the ministry, the Culture, Creative Arts and Heritage Management programme receives GH¢142.71 million, or roughly 0.047% of projected national expenditure. In 2025, the corresponding programme received GH¢115.59 million, equivalent to about 0.043%.

These figures should not be interpreted as representing total public expenditure on culture in either country. Funding can also be administered through other ministries, agencies and subnational governments. They nevertheless illustrate the scale of identifiable national investment in the sector. Both South Africa and Ghana are introducing mechanisms intended to expand financing for creative activity, but the identifiable share of national expenditure remains relatively modest when compared with the wider economic ambitions attached to the sector.

That gap becomes more significant when viewed against commitments made at continental level. The idea that culture should form part of national development policy is not new in Africa. Senegalese poet and statesman Léopold Sédar Senghor was among the continent’s most influential advocates of culture as a component of national development and international engagement. The First World Festival of Black Arts, held in Dakar in 1966, reflected an approach to cultural policy that placed artists, writers and intellectuals within a broader national and international development project.

That thinking subsequently found expression in continental policy frameworks. This year marks 20 years since the Charter for African Cultural Renaissance was adopted in Khartoum on 24 January 2006. The Charter went beyond recognising the importance of culture, calling on states to create conditions for cultural development and strengthen the sector through financial, fiscal and legislative measures. Among its recommendations were appropriate institutional frameworks, national funds for arts and culture, fiscal incentives for African cultural goods and services, and stronger protection of intellectual property rights.

Two decades later, those provisions can be read as a practical financing agenda. The African Union has reinforced this direction, including through its call for Member States to allocate at least 1% of national budgets to arts, culture and heritage by 2030.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether governments should spend more on culture, but how that money should be used. Public expenditure will continue to support museums, heritage institutions, cultural programmes and artistic activity, but investment also needs to strengthen the economic infrastructure of the creative industries. This includes production and distribution infrastructure, copyright administration, market development and business finance.

Different creative businesses will also require different forms of capital. Early-stage artists and enterprises may benefit most from grants, while established businesses may require working capital, guarantees, recoverable finance, debt or equity. Treating the creative industries as a single category risks overlooking the substantial differences between, for example, an emerging musician, a film production company, a games developer and an established music rights business.

Public finance is only one part of the equation. Sustainable creative economies also require development finance and private investment that can accommodate different stages of growth. Ghana’s $2.92 million Sankofa II programme, financed by the European Union and implemented by Expertise France, supports heritage, innovation and professionalisation. At a larger scale, Afreximbank’s move to spearhead an Africa Film Fund of up to $1 billion signals growing interest among development finance institutions in treating creative industries as an investment opportunity rather than solely as recipients of cultural funding.

Meeting the 1% continental ambition will also require better systems for tracking cultural expenditure. Without a consistent approach to identifying spending across ministries and different levels of government, it remains difficult to compare investment between countries or determine whether funding is producing the intended results.

Governments could strengthen accountability by reporting not only allocations and releases, but also who receives the funding, how much additional capital it attracts, the jobs and revenues generated, the intellectual property commercialised and whether supported enterprises remain viable after the funding period. This means that finance ministries, development finance institutions, banks and private investors need to be part of the conversation alongside culture ministries.

South Africa and Ghana are therefore worth watching, although it would be premature to present either country’s current approach as a model. The more important test will be implementation: whether announced funding reaches viable enterprises, whether financing instruments are suited to the realities of creative businesses, and whether programmes continue beyond individual budget cycles.

Twenty years after the adoption of the Charter for African Cultural Renaissance, Africa has much of the policy language needed to recognise culture as a component of development. The next challenge is more practical: building the financing systems, institutions and accountability mechanisms capable of turning those commitments into sustainable economic opportunities for the continent’s creative industries.

Lucy Ilado is a cultural policy specialist, researcher and programme manager working across Africa’s cultural and creative industries. Her work focuses on cultural policy, research, ecosystem building and programme design.

Source note: Figures and policy references were sourced from official documents and releases by the Government of South Africa, Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, National Treasury, Ghana Ministry of Finance, National Film Authority, Ghana News Agency, African Union, Expertise France and Afreximbank. USD equivalents are approximate, based on 25 August 2026 exchange rates.