The article presents a comparative analysis of three main approaches underlying the complex of instruments used in different countries to support arts and culture. The approach viewing culture as a patronized good corresponds to paternalistic model of the support for culture, the model implies making compensation of the objectively defined revenue deficit in the cultural institutions with the aid of budgetary allocations. Viewing culture as a factor of human capital development entails investment model to support cultural sector. The investment model means increasing government investment in the humanitarian field to ensure the transition to the innovation and knowledge-based economy and to sustainable social and economic growth. The third model views culture as the core of creative economy and corresponds to the stimulating support model. The stimulating model implies creating conditions for the creative industries development and creative class attraction, providing international competitiveness of the nations and cities in the global economy. The system of the support measures is analyzed for each of these approaches, using Russian and international practice.
funding for culture , patronized goods , human capital , government support , creative economy