서울시립 박물관․미술관

재정자립도 향상 방안 연구

2019년 5월

박민호

목차

국외훈련 개요-------------------------------------------------------------- 2

훈련성과보고서 요약서------------------------------------------------------ 3

한글요약서 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5

영어 원문 보고서 -------------------------------------------------------- 20

국외훈련 개요

1. 훈 련 국 : 미국

2. 훈련기관명 : 뉴욕시립대 버룩칼리지 (City University of New York, Baruch College)

- 행정대학원 (Marxe School of Public and International Affairs)

3. 훈련분야 : 경제·문화(문화체육)

4. 훈련기간 : 2017. 6.23.~2019. 6.22.

훈련성과보고서 요약서
성 명	박민호	파견연도		2017
훈련분야	경제·문화(문화체육)
훈련과제	문화시설 자립도 확보 방안 연구
훈 련 국	미국
훈련기관	뉴욕시립대 버룩칼리지, 행정대학원 (City University of New York, Baruch College - Marxe School of Public and International Affairs)
보 고 내 용
제 목	서울시립 박물관․미술관 재정자립도 향상방안 연구		보고서 매수		60매
내용요약	한국 정부는 국민들이 더 많은 문화생활을 즐길 수 있도록 지원하기 위해 공공문화시설을 확대시켜 왔으며, 서울시내의 박물관․미술관 또한 2007년 158개소에서 2015년 211개소로 크게 증가했다. 서울시는 현재 운영 중인 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관 외에 추가적인 공공 박물관․미술관 5개소를 2021년에 개관할 것이라고 발표했다. 이러한 시립 박물관․미술관의 확대는 시민들이 일상생활 속에서 문화예술을 좀 더 즐길 수 있도록 지원하기 위한 것이다. 그러나, 무료입장 정책 및 기부금품 모집의 법적 제한 하의 시립 박물관․미술관은 재정적으로 정부에 크게 의존하고 있으며 재정자립도가 약 5%에 불과한 상황에서 추가적인 공공 박물관․미술관의 개관 및 운영은 기존의 시립 박물관․미술관의 지속가능성을 저해할 우려가 있다. 정부지원을 제외한 수입원을 발굴하고 그 금액을 향상시키기 위해 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관은 미국의 박물관․미술관 운영모델을 모범사례로 삼을 수 있다. 미국의 경우, 평균적으로 비영리 박물관․미술관은 민간기부금 (36%) 및 사업수입 (28%)이 정부지원 (24%)보다 큰 비중을 차지한다. 문헌검토와 미국 박물관․미술관들의 재정구조 분석을 통해 도출한 세 가지 대안을 제시하고자 하며, 이는 입장료 부과, 마케팅 팀 신설, 그리고 법인화 및 기부금품 모집 활동 강화 방안이다. 효능성, 효율성, 형평성, 정치적 실행 가능성의 네 가지 기준에 따라 세 가지 대안을 평가한 결과, 마케팅 팀 신설을 통해 수익사업을 활성화하는 방안이 최적대안인 것으로 나타났다. 특히, 이 대안은 형평성과 정치적 실행가능성이 높은 것으로 평가되었다. 미국의 운영모델을 시립 박물관․미술관 운영에 바로 적용하는 것은 쉽지 않다. 왜냐하면 미국과 한국은 기부문화, 박물관․미술관의 대중성, 모금개발활동의 전문성 등의 측면에서 다른 점이 있기 때문이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 서울시 공공 박물관․미술관은 재정자립도가 높은 미국의 박물관․미술관의 더 나은 운영모델을 참고할 필요가 있다.

한글요약서

연구배경

극장, 박물관, 도서관 등의 문화시설 이용률이 점차 증가하고, 정부는 국민들의 문화활동을 적극적으로 지원하고 있다. 문화체육관광부의 2016년 문화향수 실태조사에 따르면 15세 이상 국민의 64.8%가 문화시설을 방문했으며, 이는 2008년보다 20%P 이상 높게 나타난 것이다. 문화시설에 대한 국민들의 수요가 증가함에 따라 2000년대에 국내 박물관․미술관 또한 많이 증가하였다.

특히, 서울시내에 박물관․미술관이 크게 늘었는데, 2007년에 총 158개소에서 2015년에는 총 211개소로 증가하였다. 또한, 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관을 소유․운영해 온 서울시는 새로운 박물관․미술관 5개소 (서울사진박물관, 돈화문민요박물관, 서울생활사박물관, 서울공예박물관, 서서울미술관)가 2021년에 문을 연다고 발표했다.

공공박물관․미술관의 증가는 시민들에게 더 많은 문화향유의 기회를 제공하지만, 정부재정에는 무거운 부담을 주게 된다. 왜냐하면 한국의 공공미술관들은 유럽이나 아시아 국가들의 경우와 마찬가지로 재정의 많은 부분을 정부지원에 의존하고 있기 때문이다. 서울시립 박물관․미술관의 경우, 정부지원은 연간 운영수입의 94%를 넘는다. 이들은 공유재산임대료, 주차장사용료 등으로부터 아주 적은 운영수입을 올리고 있다.

이러한 서울시립 박물관․미술관이 낮은 재정자립도를 갖게 된 이유는 무료입장 정책, 비효율적 수익사업 모델, 그리고 지방자치단체의 기부금품 모집을 금지한 법적 제약 때문이다. 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관은 관련 조례에 따라 관람료 무료를 원칙으로 하고 있으며, 멤버십 프로그램 및 후원회 조직으로부터 얻는 수입이 크지 않다. 또한, 기부금품 모집 및 사용에 관한 법률에 따라 시립 박물관․미술관은 민간영역으로부터의 기부금 모집을 제한받고 있다.

서울시립 박물관․미술관의 낮은 재정자립도는 서울시의 재정건전성을 저해할 위험이 있다. 행정안전부의 2017 회계연도 지방자치단체 재정분석 결과에 따르면, 8개 특별시․광역시 중 서울시는 ‘건전성’ 분야에서 가장 낮은 ‘다’ 등급을 받았다. 서울시립 박물관․미술관이 계속 낮은 재정자립도를 유지한다면, 서울시의 재정건전성 하향에 악영향을 줄 것이다.

비영리 박물관․미술관에 대한 정부지원 감소라는 세계적 추세는 서울시립 박물관․미술관이 다양한 수입원을 발굴할 것을 요구하고 있다. 자유시장경쟁의 가치를 중시하던 신자유주의 하의 1980년대 영국과 미국에서는 비영리 박물관․미술관 운영방식이 관리중심에서 사업중심으로 변했고, 세계의 유명 박물관․미술관들은 더 많은 후원자를 끌어들기이기 위해 적극적인 수익모델 발굴을 위해 경쟁해왔다.

특히, 미국의 박물관․미술관은 정부지원의 감소 하에서 성공적인 수익모델을 발달시켜 왔다. 미국의 박물관․미술관은 평균적인 연간 수입 중에서 정부지원이 24%에 불과하고, 가장 큰 비중은 민간기부로부터 수입이 차지하고 있으며 (36%), 그 다음으로 큰 비중이 입장료, 프로그램 참가비, 판매 및 대여료 등을 포함한 사업수입 (28%), 가장 작은 비중을 차지한 것은 기금 투자수입 (11%)으로 조사되었다. 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관이 약 5%의 재정자립도를 갖고 있는 것에 비하면, 전반적인 미국의 박물관․미술관은 정부로부터 재정적으로 상당히 독립적인 것을 알 수 있다.

공공 문화시설을 확대하는 것은 ‘시민들의 삶의 질 향상’이라는 서울시의 주요 정책목표 중 하나이다. 그러나 시립 박물관․미술관의 낮은 재정자립도는 서울시의 재정건전성을 위협할 수 있다. 따라서 서울시의 공공 박물관․미술관은 정부지원으로부터 재정적으로 독립성을 향상시키기 위해 미국의 박물관․미술관의 경우와 같이 다양한 수입원을 발굴해야 한다.

방법론

서울시립 박물관․미술관의 재정독립성 향상을 위한 해결책을 찾기 위해 서울시청 정보소통광장, 서울시의회 자료실, 문화체육관광부 홈페이지, 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관 홈페이지 등을 통해 기초자료를 수집하고, 신문기사, 국가법령센터 및 서울시 법무행정서비스, 각종 통계자료 등을 온라인으로 수집했다.

서울시 공공 박물관․미술관에 적용할 수 있는 모범사례를 찾기 위해 관련 문헌 및 해외의 박물관․미술관 운영사례를 검토했다. 이를 통해 미국의 박물관․미술관들이 영국보다 평균적으로 정부지원이 적고 사업수입 및 기부금수입이 많다는 것을 알게 되었다. 따라서 서울시의 벤치마킹 사례로 미국의 스미소니언 박물관 (Smithsonian Institution), 메트로폴리탄 미술관 (Metropolitan Museum of Art), 미국 자연사박물관 (American Museum of Natural History)을 선택했는데, 이들은 입장료가 무료이거나 자율적 기부방식을 택하고 있음에도 불구하고 재정자립도 매우 높기 때문이다.

구분	Smithsonian Institution	American Museum of Natural History	Metropolitan Museum of Art
사진
설립연도	1846년	1869년	1870년
위치	Washington D.C.	New York City, Manhattan	New York City, Manhattan
연간 방문객	28.8백만 명	5백만 명	7.4백만 명
입장료	무료 (Cooper Hewitt Museum은 유료)	권장 입장료 ($23~33/ Pay-what-you-wish)	타 지역 주민, 외국인 등 : $25 뉴욕주민 등: 권장 입장료 ($25/ Pay-what-you-wish)
연간 운영수입	$1,563,500,000 (정부지원 63%, 수익사업 및 기타 24%, 기부금 13%)	$19,507,055 (입장료 28%, 기부금 16%, 수익사업 16%, 정부지원 9%, 멤버십 3%, 기금투자 및 기타 28%)	$369,251,000 (기부금 46%, 수익사업 24%, 입장료 및 멤버십 21%, 정부지원 7%, 기타 2%)
특징	19개 박물관, 9개 연구기관 및 국립동물원으로 구성된 세계 최대의 박물관 복합체	세계에서 최고의 과학문화 박물관 중 하나	여행자가 뽑은 세계 최고의 미술관으로 선정 (’17, TripAdvisor)

또한, 서울시립 박물관․미술관과 비슷한 규모의 미국 박물관․미술관인 미국 민예 박물관 (American Folk Art Museum), 뉴욕시 박물관 (Museum of City of New York), 퀸즈 미술관 (Queens Museum)의 사례도 검토했다.

구분	American Folk Art Museum	Museum of City of New York	Queens Museum
사진
설립연도	1961년	1923년	1972년
위치	New York City, Manhattan	New York City, Manhattan	New York City, Queens
연간 방문객	124,601명	약 153,278명	250,000명
입장료	무료	$18	권장 입장료 ($8/ suggested contribution amounts)
연간 운영수입	$4,339,652 (기부금 및 멤버십 60%, 수익사업 23%, 정부지원 8%, 기타 9%)	$24,391,096 (기부금 70%, 정부지원 7%, 입장료 및 멤버십 5%, 투자수입 12%, 기타 6%)	$14,872,007 (정부지원 72%, 기부금 25%, 입장료 2%, 기타 1%)
특징	18세기부터 현재까지의 초상화, 퀼트 등 미국 민속예술 작품 등 전시	뉴욕시와 관련된 인물, 회화, 사진 등을 전시․교육하는 박물관	인종적․문화적 다양성을 가진 커뮤니티인 퀸즈 지역 주민을 위한 비주얼 아트 작품 전시 및 교육

서울시립 박물관․미술관의 재정자립도 향상을 위한 최적의 방안을 찾기 위해서는 대안을 평가할 명확한 기준이 필요하다. Bardach는 효율성 (efficiency), 형평성 (equity), 자유 (freedom), 적법성 (legality), 정치적 용인성 (political acceptability) 등을 정책대안의 평가기준으로 제시하고 있으며, Kraft 및 Furlong은 효과성 (effectiveness), 효율성 (efficiency), 형평성 (equity), 정치적 실행가능성 (political feasibility)의 4가지 기준을 제안했다. Guindo는 효능성 (efficacy)과 효과성 (effectiveness)의 차이를 다음과 같이 구분하였는데, 효능성은 정책대안이 이상적 환경에서 얼마나 잘 문제를 해결할 수 있는지를 나타내며, 효과성은 그 대안이 일상적인 환경에서 얼마만큼 문제를 해결할 수 있는지에 관한 것이라고 설명했다. 이 보고서에서는 서울시립 박물관․미술관의 재정자립도 향상을 위한 정책대안 3가지를 제시하고, 각 대안을 효능성, 효율성, 형평성, 정치적 실행가능성의 4가지 기준으로 평가하여 최적대안을 제시하고자 한다. 효능성은 각 대안 실행시 예상되는 시립 박물관․미술관의 수익향상 정도로 평가하고, 효율성은 각 대안 실행에 따른 투입비용 및 산출수익의 비율로 측정하며, 형평성은 각 대안 실행이 시민들의 박물관․미술관 접근성에 미치는 영향으로 분석하고, 정치적 실행가능성은 각 대안 실행에 대한 시립 박물관․미술관의 이해관계자들의 동의 정도로 평가하고자 한다.

정책대안 제시 및 분석

대안 1: 입장료 부과

서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관은 서울시 조례에 따라 입장료 무료를 원칙으로 한다. 이 무료입장 정책은 시립 박물관․미술관의 낮은 재정자립도에 영향을 미치는 요인 중 하나이다. 이들의 재정자립도를 향상시키기 위해 조례개정을 통해 입장료를 부과하는 방안을 검토하고자 한다.

미국의 박물관․미술관의 경우를 보면, 방문자에게 입장료를 부과하는 방식이 다양하다. 먼저, 대부분의 박물관․미술관과 같이 모든 방문자에게 입장료를 부과하는 방식이다. 뉴욕현대미술관 (Museum of Modern Art)의 경우, 성인 입장료로 $25를 부과한다. 두 번째는 권장입장료 (Pay-what-you-wish admission)를 부과하는 방식이다. 미국 자연사박물관의 경우, 일반전시만 보고자 하는 성인의 권장입장료는 $33이지만 원하는 만큼만 내면 되기 때문에 $1만 지불해도 전시 관람이 가능하다. 반면에 특별전시를 보고자 할 경우에는 권장입장료 $33을 반드시 지불해야 한다. 세 번째 방식은 해당 지역민에게는 전시를 무료로 개방하고 지역 외 방문자에게는 입장료를 부과하는 것이다. 메트로폴리탄 미술관의 경우, 뉴욕주 거주자 및 뉴욕․뉴저지․코네티컷 지역 학교에 재학 중인 학생은 권장입장료를 적용받아 내고 싶은 만큼 지불할 수 있으나, 그 외의 방문자들은 성인의 경우 $25의 입장료를 지불해야 한다.

미국 자연사박물관과 메트로폴리탄 미술관은 이러한 탄력적인 입장료 정책으로 많은 수입을 올리고 있다. 2018 회계연도에 미국 자연사 박물관은 5백만 명의 방문자로부터 $54백만의 입장료수입을 거둬들였는데, 이는 방문객 1인이 평균적으로 $10.82의 입장료를 지불한 셈이며, 이러한 입장료수입은 연간 총수입의 28%에 해당한다. 메트로폴리탄 미술관 역시 2018 회계연도에 7.4백만 명의 방문자로부터 $78백만의 입장료수입을 얻었는데, 이는 연간 총수입의 21%에 해당하는 금액이며, 각 방문객이 $10.43의 입장료를 지불한 것과 같다. 메트로폴리탄 미술관은 기존에는 모든 방문객에게 권장입장료를 허용했으나 2018년 3월부터 뉴욕주 거주민 등에게만 권장입장료를 허용함에 따라 외국인 방문객이 2017 회계연도 2.6백만 명에서 2018 회계연도 2.5백만 명으로 감소했고, 뉴욕주 거주민 등 권장입장료 혜택을 받는 방문객은 2017 회계연도 2.9백만 명에서 2018 회계연도 3.3백만 명으로 증가하였다. 그 결과, 표 1에서 보는 바와 같이 2017 회계연도에 비해 2018 회계연도의 총 방문객 수, 총 입장료수입, 방문객 1인당 평균 지불액이 늘어났다.

<표 1 : 메트로폴리탄 미술관 방문객 수 및 입장료 변화>

구분	2017 회계연도		2018 회계연도
총 방문객 수	7,000,000		7,360,000
외국인 방문객 수	2,590,000	37%	2,502,400	34%
뉴욕주 거주 방문객 수	2,100,000	30%	2,355,200	32%
뉴욕, 뉴저지, 코네티컷 학생 방문객 수	840,000	12%	956,800	13%
기타 방문객 수	1,470,000	21%	1,545,600	21%
평균 지불 입장료	$10.03		$10.43

미국 자연사박물관과 메트로폴리탄 미술관의 사례는 모든 방문객에서 강제적인 입장료를 부과하지 않고도 많은 입장료수입을 얻을 수 있다는 것을 보여준다. 이 두개 기관은 방문객에게 입장료를 내고 싶은 만큼 낼 수 있는 선택권을 주고도 모든 방문객이 정해진 입장료를 지불했을 때 얻을 수 있는 최대 입장료수입의 30~40%를 거둬들이고 있는 것이다. 그러나 이러한 권장입장료 정책을 서울시 공공미술관에 적용했을 때 얼마만큼의 수익향상 효과가 있을지는 불확실하다. 왜냐하면 한국인들이 문화예술기관에 기부하는 비율은 총 기부금 중 겨우 0.2%에 불과하기 때문이다. 따라서 이 보고서는 서울시 공공미술관의 모든 방문객에게 의무적으로 입장료를 내게 하는 방안의 효과를 검토해 보고자 한다.

서울역사박물관이 한국 박물관․미술관의 평균 입장료인 4,000원을 입장료로 책정할 경우, 평균 연간 방문객이 1.8백만 명이므로 한 해에 총 72억 원의 입장료수입을 얻을 수 있을 것으로 예상되며, 이는 연간 운영수입의 절반 이상(52%)에 해당하는 상당히 큰 금액이다. 서울시립미술관의 경우, 평균 연간 방문객이 1.3백만 명이므로 52억 원의 수입을 올릴 수 있으며, 이는 연간 운영수입의 45%에 해당한다. 따라서 서울역사박물관의 재정자립도는 5.3%에서 57.3%로, 서울시립미술관의 재정자립도는 5.7%에서 50.5%로 크게 향상될 것이다. 다만, 관련 조례가 7세 이하의 어린이, 65세 이상의 노인, 장애인, 국가유공자 등에 대한 무료관람 조항을 포함하고 있기 때문에, 이 무료관람 대상자들을 입장료 부과 대상에서 제외할 경우에는 입장료수입의 금액을 줄어들 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 입장료 부과는 서울시 공공박물관․미술관의 재정자립도 향상에 큰 기여를 할 수 있는 방안이므로, 매우 유효하다고 평가할 수 있다.

이 대안의 효율성을 평가하기 위해 입장료 부과시 한 기관에 1명씩, 총 2명의 매표원이 필요하다고 가정하고, 평균 매표원 월급인 170만 원을 투입비용으로 산정했다. 이 경우, 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관의 연간 총 투입비용은 408만 원이며, 투입비용 대비 수익 비율은 304로 나타났다. 따라서 입장료 부과 방안은 매우 효율적이라고 할 수 있다.

그러나 입장료 부과는 저소득층의 공공 박물관․미술관에 대한 접근성을 제한할 우려가 있다. Lin (2018)의 연구결과에 따르면, 공공 박물관․미술관의 입장료 부과로 인해 저소득층은 중산층 및 상위계층에 비해 더욱 방문을 주저하게 된다. 서울시립 박물관․미술관 운영 조례가 무료관람 대상을 명시하고 있기는 하나, 공공박물관․미술관 방문에 관심이 있으면서 관련 조례의 무료관람 대상에 포함되지 않는 저소득층이라면 이 입장료 부과 정책에 따라 문화향유 활동에 제약을 받게 될 것이다. 따라서 이 대안은 형평성이 낮은 것으로 평가하고자 한다.

입장료 부과 방안은 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관의 이해관계자들의 동의를 얻기가 어려울 것으로 보인다. 서울시립미술관 후원회 조직인 ‘세마인’은 이 대안을 환영할 것이다. 왜냐하면 이들은 시립미술관의 재정자립도 향상에 관심이 있기 때문이다. 그러나 시의회는 이 대안을 반대할 것으로 보이는데, 이는 2010년에 시립 박물관․미술관의 입장료 부과 정책을 위한 조례 개정안을 발의하고 통과시킨 시의원들이기 때문이다. 입장료 부과를 위해서는 또 한 번의 조례 개정이 필요하며, 시의회의 동의가 필요한데, 공공 박물관․미술관의 무료개방을 추진한 시의원들이 이 대안에 동의할 것이라고는 예상되지 않는다. 서울시장 역시 이 대안에 대해 긍정적일 것으로 보이지는 않는데, 시립 박물관․미술관의 재정자립도 향상만큼이나 시민들의 공공 문화시설 접근성 향상에 관심을 기울이고 있기 때문이다. 시립 박물관․미술관 방문객들 또한 입장료 부과를 금전적 부담으로 여길 것이기 때문에 아무리 그 금액이 적다고 하더라도 부적정인 반응을 보일 것으로 예상된다. 그러므로 이 대안은 정치적 실행가능성이 낮다.

대안 2: 마케팅 팀 신설

서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관은 그들이 가진 자원을 최대한 활용함으로써 수익을 향상시킬 수 있다. 이 기관들은 아직 수익모델 발굴․활용의 초기 단계에 머물러 있기 때문에 사업수입이 연간 총 운영수입의 약 5%에 불과하다. 현재 조직에는 없는 마케팅 팀을 신설하여 아트상품 판매, 카페테리아, 레스토랑, 예술서점 등의 마케팅 총괄 업무를 담당하게 하면 역사박물관 및 시립미술관의 재정자립도 향상에 도움이 될 것이다.

미국의 경우, 스미소니언 박물관이 수익활동을 통해 많은 수입을 거둬들이고 있다. 스미소니언은 세계에서 가장 큰 박물관․교육․연구 복합기관으로 19개의 박물관․미술관, 9개의 연구기관과 국립동물원을 운영하고 있는데, 입장료가 무료임에도 불구하고 (Cooper Hewitt Museum 제외) 재정자립도가 37%로 높은 편이다. 스미소니언 엔터프라이즈 (Smithsonian Enterprises) 라는 특별 조직이 박물관의 수익활동 총괄 업무를 담당하고 있는데 총 350명의 직원이 근무 중이다. 이 조직은 2018 회계연도 총 수입의 12% ($183백만)를 8백만 명의 독자를 가진 잡지 발간, 29개 뮤지업 숍 운영, 온라인 뮤지엄 숍, 2개의 극장, 80개 회사와의 협업을 통한 상품 개발 등의 활동을 통해 벌어들였다. 스미소니언은 이러한 다양한 수익모델을 통한 사업수입 덕분에 입장료를 부과하지 않고도 재정자립도 높게 유지하고 있는 것이다. 다만, 서울시 공공박물관․미술관은 거대한 스미소니언 조직에 비하면 규모가 상당히 작기 때문에 벤치마킹 대상으로 바로 적용하기에는 무리가 있다.

미국 민속예술 박물관 (American Folk Art Museum)은 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관과 비슷한 소규모 규모의 박물관으로 입장료가 무료이면서도 수익활동을 통해 많은 수입을 올리고 있다. 연간 방문객은 124,601명, 2017 회계연도의 총 운영수입은 $4.3백만에 불과한 작은 규모의 박물관이지만, 미국 민속예술 박물관의 재정자립도 (92%)는 스미소니언 (37%)보다도 높다. 이 박물관에는 총 45명의 직원이 있는데, 마케팅 팀 직원은 3명 (시간제 2명 포함), 뮤지엄 숍 판매 및 방문자 서비스 팀에는 6명 (시간제 4명 포함)이 근무하고 있다. 2017 회계연도의 기념품 숍 판매 수입은 약 $1백만으로 연간 총 수입의 23%에 해당하는 큰 금액이다. 미국 민속예술 박물관은 방문자 수, 직원 수, 연간 운영예산의 규모 면에서 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관보다 작은 조직이지만, 수익활동으로 벌어들인 수입은 서울시 공공 박물관․미술관보다 1.3배 이상 많다.

재정자립도 향상을 위해 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관은 입장료 부과 없이도 수익사업으로 많은 수입을 올리고 있는 스미소미언 및 미국 민속예술 박물관의 사례를 모델로 삼을 수 있다. 서울시 공공박물관․미술관은 기념품 숍, 예술서점, 식당의 운영을 민간사업자에게 위탁하고, 사용료를 받고 있는데, 8개 예술서점 중 한 곳은 낮은 수익성을 이유로 문을 닫은 상태이다. 스미소니언 및 미국 민속예술 박물관의 경우와 같이 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관도 다양한 민간기업과의 협업을 통해 예술상품을 만들고 상품판매에 따른 저작권을 받을 수 있을 것이다. 또한 미국 박물관․미술관이 하듯이 서울시립 박물관․미술관도 온라인 뮤지엄 숍을 열어 제작상품을 판매하면 사업수입 향상을 기대할 수 있다. 마케팅 팀을 신설하면 박물관․미술관의 수익사업 전략 수립에 도움이 될 것이다.

미국 민속예술 박물관이 방문자 수가 적고, 레스토랑이나 카페테리아가 없다는 점을 고려하면, 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관은 그보다 더 큰 영업수익을 기대할 수 있다. 그러나 1961년에 문을 연 미국 민속예술 박물관은 수익활동을 포함한 박물관 관리에 대해 서울시립 박물관․미술관보다 더 긴 역사와 더 깊은 지식을 갖고 있다. 따라서 미국 민속예술 박물관만큼의 영업수익을 올리는 것만으로도 서울시립 박물관․미술관의 재정자립도 향상에 큰 도움이 될 것이다. 서울시 공공박물관․미술관이 각각 미국 민속예술 박물관만큼의 사업수입을 벌어들인다면 서울역사박물관의 재정자립도는 5.3%에서 7.1%로, 서울시립미술관은 5.7%에서 8.4%로 향상될 것이다. 이 재정자립도 향상률은 대안 1에 비하면 상당히 작은 수치이지만, 아무리 작더라도 재정자립도가 향상될 수 있다는 것이 중요하기 때문에 대안 2는 효능성이 있다고 볼 수 있으며, 그 정도는 중간으로 평가하고자 한다.

스미소니언 엔터프라이즈는 350명의 직원이 2018 회계연도에 28.8백만 명의 방문객으로부터 $48백만의 순수익을 거둬들였다. 미국 민속예술 박물관은 3명의 마케팅 팀 직원이 124,601명의 방문객으로부터 $155,713의 순수익을 올렸다. 두 기관을 비교하면 미국 민속예술 박물관의 마케팅 팀이 스미소니언 엔터프라이즈보다 더 효율적인 영업활동을 한 것으로 보인다. 만약 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관이 각각 3명의 마케팅 전문가를 채용해 미국 민속예술 박물관만큼의 영업수익을 올린다면 투입비용 대비 수익 비율은 1.2로, 효율적인 재정자립도 향상 방안이 될 것이다. 다만, 이는 대안 1의 비용/산출 비율 (304) 보다 훨씬 낫기 때문에, 대안 2의 효율성은 중간으로 평가하고자 한다.

무료입장 정책을 유지한 채 마케팅 팀을 신설하고 수입원을 다양화하면 방문객의 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관 접근성은 제한되지 않는다. ‘공공 문화예술 공간 확대를 통한 시민들의 삶의 질 향상’이 이들 기관의 설립 목적이라는 점을 고려하면, 대안 2는 재정자립도 상승폭이 크지 않아도 시민들의 시립 박물관․미술관에 대한 자유로운 방문을 보장한다는 측면에서 의미가 있다. 따라서 대안 2는 형평성이 높다고 볼 수 있다.

서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관의 이해관계자들은 대안 2에 적극 찬성할 것이다. 마케팅 팀 신설은 서울시장이 원하는 공공 박물관․미술관의 재정자립도 향상과 시민들의 무료입장 두 가지를 동시에 충족한다. 또한, 시의원들은 좀 더 많은 시민들이 질 높은 뮤지엄 숍의 아트상품을 사용하기를 바라기 때문에 이 대안에 동의할 것이다. 방문객들은 기념품 숍이나 온라인 뮤지엄 숍에서 쉽고 편하게 더 다양한 아트상품을 즐기게 될 것이다. 서울시립미술관 후원회 조직도 재정자립도 향상에 도움이 되는 수익창출 모델에 긍정적으로 반응할 것이다. 마케팅 팀 신설을 통한 조직 확대는 박물관․미술관 직원들에게 승진기회의 희망을 줄 수 있다. 따라서 이 대안은 정치적 실행 가능성이 높다.

대안 3: 법인화 및 기부금품 모집 활동 강화

서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관의 민간기부 수입 확대를 위해 법인화를 고려할 수 있다. 기부금품 모집 및 사용에 관한 법률에 따르면 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관과 같은 지방자치단체의 소속기관 및 공무원은 기부금품 모집을 할 수 없다. 그러나 법인화를 통해 비영리조직이 된다면 기부금품 모집 활동이 가능해진다.

대부분의 미국 박물관․미술관은 민간의 비영리 조직이며, 운영수입의 가장 큰 부분 (36%)을 민간기부로부터 거둬들인다. 미국 박물관․미술관에 대한 민간기부가 많은 것은 예술에 대한 자선활동의 전통이 잘 자리 잡았기 때문이다. 또한 이 기관들이 특정 프로젝트 지원을 위한 기부자 모집 또는 20대부터 50대까지의 후원자 프로그램 신설 등의 다양한 모금 방안을 발달시켜 왔기 때문이다.

서울시립 박물관․미술관의 법인화는 적극적인 기부금품 모집을 금하는 법적 제약을 극복할 수 있는 방안이다. 법인화를 통해 서울시 공공 박물관․미술관은 비영리조직으로 대부분의 미국 박물관․미술관이 하듯이 모금 전문가를 채용해 모금개발 팀 (development team)을 만들고 다양한 모금 활동을 전개할 수 있을 것이다.

미국의 박물관․미술관은 큐레이터 업무만큼이나 모금활동에 큰 비중을 두고 있다. 예를 들어 뉴욕시 박물관 (Museum of City of New York)은 큐레이터 팀에 14명의 직원이 있고, 모금개발 팀에는 13명의 직원이 근무 중이다. 이 모금개발 팀의 노력으로 연간 총 운영수입의 70%를 민간기부로부터 거둬들였다. 뉴욕시 박물관은 방문객 수가 2년 동안 306,556명에 불과하지만, 기부금 수입은 2015 회계연도에 $18만, 2016 회계연도에는 $12만에 달했다.

미국 민속예술 박물관 또한 운영수입의 많은 부분을 민간기부금이 차지하고 있다. 이 기관은 2017 회계연도 총 운영수입의 60%를 모금활동을 통해 벌어들였다. 그 중 개인기부와 멤버십이 37%, 모금 이벤트가 13%, 그리고 재단 및 기업의 기부가 10%를 차지했다. 미국 민속예술 박물관에 근무하는 총 3명의 모금 전문가들이 모은 기부금수입이 한 해에 총 $2.6백만이다. 특히, 입장료를 부과하지 않는 박물관임에도 불구하고 멤버십 프로그램을 통해 기부금수입을 올린다는 점에서 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관의 멤버십 프로그램 운영에 시사하는 바가 크다. 미국 민속예술 박물관은 멤버십 가입자에게 다양한 특별 이벤트 초대, 교육 프로그램 참가비 할인, 다양한 잡지 구독, 기념품 숍 10% 할인의 4가지의 혜택을 기본적으로 제공하고 있으며, 멤버십 가입비는 추가적 혜택 여부에 따라 학생용 $60부터 $2,500까지 다양하게 구성되어 있다. 이러한 멤버십 정보는 박물관 홈페이지 첫 화면의 눈에 띄는 곳에 배치되어 있어 쉽게 찾을 수 있다.

서울역사박물관은 이미 멤버십 프로그램을 운영하고 있으며, 연간 회원권은 10,000원이다. 멤버십 혜택은 연 1회 음악회 초대, 문화정보 잡지 ‘SeMU’ 구독, 뮤지엄 숍 및 카페테리아 10% 할인으로 미국 민속예술 박물관에 비하면 매우 적다. 또한, 역사박물관의 멤버십 정보는 홈페이지 첫 화면에서 찾을 수 없고 ‘박물관이용’ 배너 하단에 숨겨져 있는데, 이는 대부분의 미국 박물관․미술관들이 ‘Support’ 및 ‘Membership’ 배너를 홈페이지 첫 화면의 가장 눈에 잘 띄는 곳에 배치하는 것과 차이가 있다. 이러한 점으로 보아 서울역사박물관의 멤버십 프로그램은 개발의 필요성이 상당히 크다.

민간 후원자와 관련하여, 서울시립미술관은 ‘SeMA人(in)’이라는 특별한 후원회 조직을 가지고 있다. 이 후원회는 2014년에 서울시립미술관의 발전을 위해 사회 지도층 인사 및 기업가 등이 자발적으로 형성한 민간조직이며, 회원등급은 연간 가입비용에 따라 일반회원 (12만원)부터 메세나 (5천만 원 이상)까지 총 6개로 나눠져 있다. 세마인은 멤버십가입비를 모아 시립미술관과의 특별이벤트 공동개최 및 무료 교육프로그램 공동운영 등의 공익활동을 했으나, 2017년부터는 활동이 중단된 상태이다.

이와 같이, 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관은 민간기부금 수입 향상을 위해 노력을 했으나 법적 제약 때문에 소극적 모금 활동에 머물러 있다. 시립 박물관․미술관의 법인화는 인력 운영과 예산 운용에 있어 좀 더 유연한 비영리 조직으로서 적극적인 모금 활동을 펼칠 수 있게 할 것이다.

다만, 서울역사박물관과 서울시립미술관이 모금활동을 통해 기부금을 많이 모으기 위해서는 기관의 조직적․법적 상태의 변화뿐만 아니라 한국 사회의 자선활동에 대한 사회적 규범의 변화도 필요하다. 영국의 비영리 기부 전문단체인 Charities Aid Foundation의 보고서 (2017)에 따르면, 미국인의 56%가 자선단체에 기부를 하는 반면, 한국인은 41%만 기부활동을 하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 한국인들은 대부분 사회복지기관에 기부를 하고, 문화예술기관에 기부하는 비율은 0.2%에 불과하다. 이렇듯 문화예술기관에 대한 기부활동이 소극적이 환경에서 서울시립 박물관․미술관이 법인화만으로 많은 기부금을 모으기는 어려울 것으로 보인다.

대안 3의 효능성과 효율성을 평가하기 위해, 퀸즈 미술관 (Queens Museum) 수입구조를 이용하고자 한다. 퀸즈 미술관은 권장 입장료 (suggested admission) 정책을 가지고 있는데, 성인의 경우 권장 입장료가 $8이지만 방문자가 원하는 만큼의 입장료를 지불할 수 있다. 2014 회계연도의 총 운영수입 ($18백만) 중 정부지원은 72% ($12.8백만)로 다른 뉴욕의 비영리 미술관에 비해 상당히 높은 편이다. 기부금수입이 차지하는 비중은 25%로 미국 박물관․미술관의 평균 기부금수입 비중(28%)보다 살짝 낮다. 무료에 가까운 선택적 입장료 정책, 높은 정부의존도, 총 예산규모, 그리고 상대적으로 낮은 기부금수입 측면에서 다른 미국 박물관․미술관에 비해 서울시의 공공박물관․미술관과 유사한 면이 있다.

앞에서 본 바와 같이, 개별적인 한국인들은 비영리 예술문화기관에 기부를 많이 하지 않는다. 그러나 몇몇 대기업은 비영리 박물관․미술관에 기부를 할 것으로 예상되는데, 이는 대기업들이 문화예술 사회공헌 프로그램에 기부한 사례가 있기 때문이다. 퀸즈 미술관이 기업으로부터 모은 기부금 ($3,298,604)만큼의 금액을 법인화된 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관이 민간기업으로부터 모을 수 있다면, 서울역사박물관의 재정자립도는 29%, 서울시립미술관의 재정자립도는 34%가 될 것이며, 이는 상당히 효능성이 높다고 할 수 있다.

퀸즈 미술관의 모금개발 팀에는 총 3명의 모금 전문가 (Director of Development, Grant Writer & Research Associate, and Development Manager)가 근무하고 있다. 이들의 연봉정보는 비공개 상태이기 때문에 한국의 모금전문가 연봉을 투입비용으로 적용하고자 한다. 비영리 서울역사박물관 및 서울시립미술관이 각각 3명의 모금 전문가를 채용하여 퀸즈 미술관만큼의 기업 기부금을 모은다면, 투입비용/모금수입 비율은 61%가 될 것이며, 이는 상당히 효율적인 방안이다.

대안 3은 공공박물관․미술관의 무료입장료 정책을 유지할 수 있도록 돕기 때문에 방문자들의 문화예술시설 접근성을 제한하지는 않는다. 그러나, 기부자들만을 위한 특별 이벤트 개최, 교육 프로그램 참가비 할인 등의 혜택은 기부를 할 수 없는 일반 방문자들에게 상대적 박탈감을 줄 수 있다. 따라서 대안 3의 형평성은 중간수준으로 평가하고자 한다.

법인화 및 기부금품 모집활동 강화는 정치적 갈등을 불러일으킬 것으로 예상된다. 박물관․미술관 후원회는 이 대안을 환영할 것이다. 그러나 정부조직의 법인화는 논쟁의 대상이 될 것이고, 결정까지 장기간이 소요될 것이다. 제한된 임기 내에 공약을 실천해야 하는 선출직이나 신분의 변화에 부정적인 공무원 노조는 이 대안에 부정적일 것이다. 따라서 대안 3의 정치적 실행가능성은 낮다.

결론

입장료 부과, 마케팅 팀 신설, 그리고 법인화 및 기부금품 모집활동 강화 이 3가지 대안에 대하여 효능성, 효율성, 형평성, 정치적 실행가능성의 4가지 기준으로 평가한 결과, 마케팅 팀 신설 방안이 서울시립 박물관․미술관의 재정자립도 향상에 가장 적합한 대안인 것으로 판단되었다. 입장료 부과 방안은 효능성과 효율성이 높지만 형평성과 정치적 실행 가능성이 낮은 것으로 평가되었고, 법인화 및 기부금품 모집활동 강화 방안 역시 효능성과 효율성은 높지만 정치적 실행 가능성이 낮게 나타났다. 마케팅 신설 방안은 효능성과 효율성은 중간 수준이지만 형평성과 정치적 실행 가능성이 높기 때문에 최적대안이라고 볼 수 있다.

한국과 미국은 문화예술에 대한 시민들의 태도, 법과 조례, 사회적 규범 등의 측면에서 많은 차이가 있기 때문에 서울시립 박물관․미술관과 미국의 박물관․미술관을 단순 비교하여 모범사례로 삼는 것이 시립 박물관․미술관의 재정자립도 향상을 위한 최적의 방안이 아닐 수도 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 미국의 박물관․미술관은 수입원 다양화를 통해 정부로부터의 재정적 독립성을 높여 왔기 때문에 서울시립 박물관․미술관이 추구해야할 운영모델이라고 할 수 있다. 재정자립도를 향상시킴으로써 서울시의 공공 박물관․미술관은 더 많은 시민들에게 더욱 다양한 문화적 경험의 기회를 제공하게 될 것이다.

The City University of New York

Baruch College

School of Public and International Affairs

A Study for Improving Financial Independence of Seoul City Museums

Minho Park

Capstone Seminar PAF 9190

Thesis

Professor Joselyn Muhleisen

May 17, 2019

Index

Executive Summary ----------------------------------------------- 22

Methodology ------------------------------------------------------- 23

Proposal ------------------------------------------------------------ 25

Literature Review -------------------------------------------------- 29

Stakeholders Assessment

Seoul City Mayor -------------------------------------------- 31

Seoul City Council ------------------------------------------ 32

Seoul City Museum Visitors -------------------------------- 33

Seoul City Employees Union ------------------------------- 34

Seoul Museum Supporter Groups ------------------------- 35

Comparison of Five Stakeholders -------------------------- 37

Three Solutions

Solution 1: Impose an Admission Fee -------------------- 38

Solution 2: Build A Marketing Team ---------------------- 42

Solution 3: Privatize the Museums ------------------------ 46

Best Solution ------------------------------------------------ 51

Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------- 52

Executive Summary

Korean government has supported Korean people to enjoy more art and cultural activities in theaters, museums, and libraries by expanding the number of cultural facilities. Seoul City, the capital of South Korea, is the place where a number of museums increased from 158 in 2007 to 211 in 2015. Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) has owned and managed Seoul Museum of History (SMH) and Seoul Museum of Art (SeMA), and will manage an additional five public museums in 2021.

The aim of establishing the city museums is to help citizens feel art and culture in their daily life. Under the circumstance that the city museums have a quite low financial independence rate (5%) and a high government dependence rate (95%) with free admission policy and limitation of fund-rising activities, opening new public museums causes adding financial burdens on SMG, which may threaten the sustainability of SMH and SeMA.

To raise more revenue sources except for government support, Seoul city museums can follow the models of American museums that earn more money from private giving (36%) and earned income (28%) than government support (24%). Through the literature review and analyzing financial structures of the US museums, the three solutions are found: imposing an admission fee, building a marketing team, and privatizing the city museums.

Based on four criteria of efficacy, efficiency, equity, and political feasibility, raising earned income from more commercial activities with a marketing team is evaluated as the best solution. Particularly, this solution is highly equitable, and is expected to get the consent of the five stakeholders of Seoul city museums: the mayor, the city council, the visitors, the support groups, and the employees union. It is not easy to apply the American model to Seoul city museums because Korea and the USA have different characteristics in aspects of donation culture, museums’ popularity and development. However, Seoul city museums must try to be a better one like the US museums.

Methodology

To answer the research question of how Seoul city museums in South Korea can improve their financial independence, one needs to collect primary sources about the information of museums in South Korea and Seoul City. The information is collected from the online information disclosure services of Seoul Metropolitan Government, the online resource center of Seoul Metropolitan Council, and web site of the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism of Korea. Also, news articles, national/local laws, statistics related to museums and other art and cultural centers in Korea are found through online sources.

To find best practices that Seoul city museums can adopt to raise their revenues, it needs to search abroad cases of museums who have collected lots of money from private sector. So, I review the relevant literature on operational strategies of museums in other countries.

Through the literature review, I can obtain the fact that American museums have lower government supports and higher earned income revenues and contributions than UK museums on average. So, the Smithsonian Institution, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and American Museum of Natural History are selected to be benchmarking models of Seoul city museums because they have a high level of financial independence rate with free or flexible admission policy. Also, other smaller-sized US museums such as the American Folk Art Museum and Museum of City of New York are examined. Information including annual reports and financial statements of the US museums is collected from their websites. After the analyses about the US museums’ operational strategies, three solutions are presented as the recommendations for enhancing the revenues of Seoul city museums.

To figure out the best solution for Seoul city museums, clear evaluation criteria are required. Bardach (2007) offers evaluative criteria such as efficiency, equity, freedom, legality, political acceptability, and robustness and improvability. According to the author, efficiency is about how the alternatives maximize the sum of individuals’ welfare; equity shows how the alternatives pursue fairness and justice to members of society; political acceptability means how the alternatives can be politically acceptable with support and little opposition.

Kraft and Furlong (2004) give four criteria for evaluating the policy alternatives. effectiveness, efficiency, equity and political feasibility. They explain effectiveness is about how the alternatives are likely to work in fields, which is related to the alternatives’ technical or administrative feasibility; efficiency is a criterion that tells how much the alternatives cost and benefit to society; equity is about how the government’s spending related to the alternatives is fairly distributed; political feasibility is a criterion that concerns how each alternative can draw stakeholders’ agreement.

Guindo et al (2012) show the difference between efficacy and effectiveness as decision criteria. According to them, efficacy is about how well a solution works in ideal circumstances while effectiveness is about how well a solution works under usual circumstances.

In this paper, the three solutions for improving the financial independence of Seoul city museums are evaluated by four criteria: efficacy, efficiency, equity, and political feasibility. Efficacy of the solutions is rated by the predicted increase of the city museums’ revenues. The input cost/output revenue ratio evaluates efficiency of the solutions. Visitors’ accessibility to the city museums rates equity of the solutions. And political feasibility of the solutions is evaluated by level of stakeholders’ support for the museums.

Proposal

More and more Koreans have enjoyed cultural facilities such as theaters, museums, and libraries, and Korean government has supported their participation in art and cultural activities. According to a survey of cultural enjoyment conducted by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism of Korea (2016), the cultural and art center visit rate for Koreans aged 15 or older in 2016 was 64.8%, which is almost 20%P higher than the rate in 2008 (45.2%). As Koreans’ needs for enjoying culture and art centers have grown, the number of museums in South Korea have also increased since the late 2000s.

In particular, there has been a huge growth in museums in Seoul City, the capital of South Korea; the total number of museums in Seoul increased from 158 in 2007 to 211 in 2015 (Baek & Ra, 2015). In addition, Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) who has owned and managed both Seoul Museum of History (SMH) and Seoul Museum of Art (SeMA) announced that five new public museums including Seoul Museum of Photographic Arts, Donhwamun Museum of Folk Songs, Seoul Living History Museum, Seoul Craft Museum, and West Seoul Museum of Art will be open by 2021 (SMG, 2018).

Though the increase of public museums provides citizens with more opportunities for cultural enjoyment, it adds the heavy burden on the government finance. This is because government support has been a major source of funding for public museums in South Korea like many European and Asian countries. In the case of museums owned and managed by SMG, government support makes up more than 94% of their total annual operating revenues as Table 1 shows; SMH and SeMA raise only a small amount of earned income from rental fees and parking fees (SMH, 2018; SeMA, 2018).

<Table 1. Funding Sources for the Seoul Museum of History and the Seoul Museum of Art>

(Amounts in USD)

Sources of Revenue	SMH		SeMA
Earned Income (Rental Fees and Parking Fees)	729,091	5.3%	667,401	5.7%
Government Support (Seoul Metropolitan Government)	13,110,000	94.7%	10,954,735	94.3%
Total	13,839,091	100.0%	11,622,136	100.0%

Source: 2018 Major Action Plan of SMH; 2018 Major Action Plan of SeMA

The reason why public museums of Seoul City have a low financial independence rate is because of the city’s free admission policy for public museums, the public museums’ ineffective business model, and legal limitations on government agencies’ fund-raising activities. According to Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Management of City Museums of 2017, SMH and SeMA should be opened to the public for free of charge. So, they cannot earn admission revenues at all. Though these museums have business models such as SMH’s membership program and a private supporter group for SeMA, revenues from the programs are almost zero (SMH 2018; SeMA 2018). Also, Act on Collection and Use of Donations of 2017 prohibits government agencies from collecting money, so the public museums owned and managed by SMG cannot raise revenues from private giving.

The low financial independence rate of Seoul city museums can lower the SMG’s fiscal soundness. Among eight metropolitan governments in South Korea, SMG was ranked last in the fiscal soundness category in the Financial Analysis of the Local Government conducted by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety of Korea in 2017; Seoul City has less revenue and more debt than other metropolitan cities. If new and existing public museums of Seoul City maintain the low financial independence rate under the free admission policy, the ineffective business model generating little profit, and legal limitation on collecting money from private giving, the SMG’s financial soundness will become much lower.

The global trend of decrease of government support for nonprofit museums also requires the public museums in Seoul City to develop diverse revenue streams. In the UK and the US in the 1980s, management of nonprofit museums shifted from the curator museum to the entrepreneurial museum under the dominance of neo-liberalism emphasizing the value of free market competition, so museums have competed for the title of the world best museum with their progressive business model to attract more patrons (Vivant, 2011).

In particular, the US museums have developed successful business models to survive under the decline of federal support; government support makes up only 24% of total annual operating revenues of American museums on average; the largest share of museum operating revenue (36%) is contribution from private donors; the second largest operating revenue segment is earned income (28%) including admission fees, program fees, retail sales and rentals; and the smallest share is investment income (11%) from endowments (Bell, 2016). Compared to public museums in Seoul City that have only 5% of financial self-sufficiency rate, the overall US museums are highly independent from government support.

Expanding public cultural and art spaces is one of the important missions that city government should pursue for the improvement of citizens’ quality of life. But the low self-sufficiency rate of public museums in Seoul City can threaten their sustainability by impairing the local government’s financial soundness. To be financially independent from government aid, Seoul City’s public museums should find diverse revenue sources like the cases of the US museums. Even a small amount of revenue increase would be welcomed.

Literature Review

“A Delicate Balance: Museums and the Market-place (Alexander, 1999)” shows how the US federal government support for museums has changed since the mid-1960s, and identifies key success factors of American museums, compared to the UK’s cases. The author argues that American museums encouraging individual donations and charging admissions are more conducive to a market model than British museums. This article helps me to figure out solutions for the problem, but the differences in laws and social customs between the US and South Korea should be considered.

“Admission Charges and Public Museum (Lin, 2008)” shows how the imposition of admission charges of public museum affects visitors’ behavior. The author claims that admission fees of public museums serve as a deterrent for low-income groups who want to visit museums. Thus, this article gives me an implication that if the public museums in Seoul City impose admission fees to raise revenues, they should provide difference tickets with visitors to encourage low-income class to visit the facilities.

“Museums and Other Nonprofits in the Current Recession: A Story of Resilience, Innovation, and Survival (Geller, Salamon, & Mengel, 2010)” presents how the US museums and nonprofits coped with the Great Recession in the late 2000s. The authors state that the organizations developed new fundraising approaches, learner operations, and much more entrepreneurial activities to earn revenues during the recession period. This article gives useful examples of entrepreneurial expansions that can be applied to the public museums in Seoul City.

“Smithsonian Institution Financial Statements FY 2017 (2018)” shows that it has much higher independence rate than public museums in Seoul City. Of the total annual operating revenues in FY 2017 ($1,514.7 million), slightly more than half (53.2%) was raised from government support, and other incomes were gathered from private sector such as contributions and private grants (17.7%) and business activities (11.7%). Considering the Smithsonian Institution (SI) has a free admission policy like Seoul City museums, this report supports that SI can be the type of model the Seoul City museums need to follow.

“Annual Report for the Year 2017-2018 of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (2018)” presents that museum can achieve the highest number of visitors (7.35 million) and significantly improved financial status at the same time, even though it has imposed admission fees through the change of its admission policy since March 1, 2018. This report is helpful for my paper because the Met’s changed admission policy can be a good example to amendment of admission policy of the public museums in Seoul City.

“Exhibiting Public Value: Government Funding for Museums in the United State (Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2008)” collects data of public funding sources from more than 1,000 museums across the US, and analyzes them at the federal, state, and local levels. So, this report helps me to understand the relationship between each level of public funding source and museums in the US. Also, the US’s federal-state partnership model can be a new public funding strategy for Korean museums.

Stakeholders Assessment

The stakeholders involved in improving the financial independence of Seoul City Museums are five: Seoul City Mayor, Seoul Metropolitan Council, Seoul City Museum visitors, Seoul City Employees Union, and Seoul Museum supporter groups.

[Seoul City Mayor]

Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) Park, Won-soon has been highly interested in improving financial independence of public facilities in Seoul including Seoul City Museums. He has pledged to improve the city’s financial soundness because Seoul City had a huge amount of debt ($18 billion) when he was a mayor candidate in 2011, and promised to expand cultural facilities to let all citizens enjoy art and culture more often (Office of Seoul Mayor, 2019). To show citizens his sincerity by fulfilling the campaign promises, building more museums without hindering the city’s financial soundness is very important for the mayor.

As an authorized representative of Seoul by the Local Autonomy Act of 2017, Seoul City Mayor has powerful tools like the rule-making authority, the right to draw up the budget, and the power to appoint city officials including the museum executives. With these tools, he can build diverse plans to lead the city museums where he wants it to go. In addition, Mayor Park is a major figure in Korean politics to be nominated for President (Lee, 2019). So, Mayor Park has a high level of power.

Seoul City Mayor who is elected by the popular vote of 10 million citizens is believed to do the right thing for the city and the citizens. The fact that Mr. Park has served three times in office since 2011 (Office of Seoul Mayor, 2019) proves that he has earned the citizens’ trust in his government. Thus, Mayor Park has a high level of legitimacy regarding the city museums’ financial independence.

Though there is no specific time limit for improving the city museums’ financial independence, Mr. Park wants to increase the museums’ revenues before his third term ends in 2022 to keep his campaign promises as mentioned above. So, Mayor Park has a medium level of urgency with the museums’ financial issue.

[Seoul City Council]

Seoul Metropolitan Council (SMC) is a major player functioning with the Park administration through checks and balances in the local governance. The council consisted of 108 members elected from local constituencies (98 members) and proportional representation (10 members) is interested in the overall policies and services of the city government; of them, 12 members of Culture, Sports & Tourism Committee are especially involved in the policies about the city museums (SMC, 2019).

Based on the Local Autonomy Act of 2017, the city council has the autonomous legislative authority to enact, amend and abolish the ordinances of Seoul City Museums, as well as the autonomous financial authority to examine and approve the annual budget of the museum. So, the council has a high level of power that can control the policies about the museums.

The council is the symbol of grass-roots democracy that consists of members elected from each constituency. Though each member of the council may have different interests that can fulfill each constituency’s advantages, they try to make a decision to maximize all citizens’ benefits. Thus, the council has a high level of legitimacy.

The city council prioritizes all citizens’ access to art and culture rather than the city museums’ financial independence. Members of Culture, Sports & Tourism Committee agree with the idea of increasing revenues from a museum shop, but they seem to be more interested in expanding citizens’ access to art and culture with more expenses and employees (SMC, 2017). So, the city council has a medium level of urgency with the museums’ financial issue.

[Seoul City Museum Visitors]

Seoul City Museum visitors are highly interested in the museums’ admission policy. Under the free admission policy, about 3.1 million people visit the city museums a year, on average (Seoul Museum of History, 2018, & Seoul Museum of Art, 2018). According to a visitor satisfaction survey of Seoul Museum of History (2019), visitors consider the museum’s contents of exhibition, location and condition of the facility, admission fees, and so on, when they decide to visit the museum. Thus, if the city museums change their admission policy due to their financial issue, the number of visitors will be affected.

Museum visitors are the reason why the city museums exist. Seoul City Museums aim to provide chances to feel and experience art and culture with citizens in their daily lives (Seoul Museum of History, 2018, & Seoul Museum of Art, 2018). So, the museum visitors have a high level of legitimacy about the museums’ financial issue and admission policy.

When the visitors are not satisfied with the museums’ policies or services, they can express their displeasure by filing a civil complaint, and the museums should response the visitors’ demands in a short period, according to the Charter of Public Service of SMG (2019). However, the visitors cannot control the museums directly because they are just the organizations’ customers. So, the museum visitors have a medium level of power.

Museum visitors feel the city museums’ admission fees are important for their visit behavior as well as the quality of exhibitions and condition of the facilities as seen in the visitor satisfaction survey above. However, the city museums may not keep the present level of the services if their low financial independence gets worse and the city government cannot provide full financial support with the museums. Thus, museum visitors have a medium level of urgency regarding improving the city museums’ financial independence.

[Seoul City Employees Union]

Seoul City Employees Union is an official organization representing the city officials’ interests based on the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials’ Trade Unions of 2014. The union is especially interested in the city agencies’ reorganization since it is related to the employees’ working condition and promotion.

The union often uses coercive power to get its demands when the city government attempts to begin new policies against the union members’ interests. For example, in 2007, the prior mayor Oh, Se-hoon implemented a new policy that 3% of total civil servants were forced to expel from the city hall to make a more competent organization, and the union held a demonstration against the plan and demanded a meeting with Mr. Oh (Shin, 2007). If the city museums set a plan that can hinder the museum employees’ job security and benefits, the union will refuse the change through protests and negotiation with the city executives. However, the union’s resistances are not always successful because 60 city officials were kicked out under the downsizing policy of Oh administration despite the union’s efforts to save their peers (Kim, 2010). Thus, the city official union has a medium level of power.

The City Employees Union prioritize its members’ interests rather than others. To the union, the well-being of employees working in the city museums are more important than the museums financial independence or visitor satisfaction. So, the union has a low level of legitimacy and urgency regarding the city museums’ financial issue.

[Seoul Museum Supporter Groups]

Seoul Museum of History (SMH) and Seoul Museum of Art (SeMA) have membership programs. Subscribers of the membership are more interested in the museums’ financial status and management because they give a certain amount of money to the organizations despite the free admission policy. SMH has runs its own membership program that requires $10 of the membership fee a year (SMH, 2019), and SeMA has been helped by a private supporter group named “SeMA-in” that was formed by social leaders and businessmen in 2014 (SeMA, 2019).

The subscribers of the city museums’ membership programs express their affection and attention to the museums through giving money. Though SMH has not raised additional revenue from its membership program, SeMA has received support from SeMA-in that has collected $235,000 from 125 members with membership fees from $110 to $45,000 since 2014; the money has been used to run joint cultural programs such as free art class and art competitions held by SeMA and SeMA-in (SeMA-in, 2019). Thus, the museum supporter groups have a high level of legitimacy about the museums’ financial issue.

The supporter groups’ commitment is a valuable asset, but their size and activity are relatively small compared to the museum’s annual visitors and budget; SMH has no subscribers in its membership program; 125 members of SeMA-in gathered $235,000 for three years while SeMA attracted 1.8 million visitors with the operational budget of $11,622,136 in 2018 (SeMA, 2018); and the members of SeMA-in has not gathered since 2017 due to its unknown internal matters (SeMA-in, 2019). Thus, the supporter groups have a low level of power regarding the museums’ financial issue.

The supporter groups help the city museums improve its financial independence. However, the supporters have not demanded the museums to eliminate the obstacles weakening their financial soundness. So, the supporter groups have a low level of urgency regarding the financial issue of the city museums.

[Comparison of Five Stakeholders]

The assessment about the five stakeholders of Seoul City Museums shows that all of them are important to address the problem of the museums. As shown in Table 2, among the stakeholders, Seoul City Mayor is the most salient stakeholder that has a high level of power, legitimacy, and urgency; the second is Seoul Metropolitan Council; the third is Seoul City Museum visitors; the fourth is Seoul City Museum supporter groups; and the last is Seoul City Employees Union. Though each stakeholder has different level of power, legitimacy, and urgency, the city museums’ problem will not be easily solved if any of the five stakeholders disagree with the recommendations.

<Table 2. Comparison of Three Attributes of Stakeholders Involved in Seoul City Museums>

Stakeholder	Power	Legitimacy	Urgency
Seoul City Mayor	High	High	High
Seoul Metropolitan Council	High	High	Medium
Seoul City Museum Visitors	Medium	High	Medium
Seoul City Employees Union	Medium	Low	Low
Seoul City Museum Supporter Groups	Low	High	Low

The Three Solutions

Solution 1. Impose an Admission Fee

The museums owned and managed by Seoul city government have free admission policy because the city ordinances require the museums to be open to the public for free of charge. This free admission policy is one of the reasons why the city museums have a low financial independence rate. To improve the museums’ financial independence, the city museums can impose an admission fee through an amendment of the city ordinances.

Looking at the case of US museums, there are several ways to impose an admission fee to the visitors. First, Seoul city museums can sell tickets to all visitors like most museums that require all adult visitors to pay a certain amount of money. For example, Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) imposes an admission fee of $25 for adults. Second, the museums can offer tickets under the recommended admission policy like American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). In AMNH, visitors can pay what they wish if they are satisfied with only permanent exhibitions, but they should pay a general admission fee of $33 for an adult if they want to enjoy all special exhibitions, film, and show. Third, the city museums can let Seoul citizens pay what they wish and others pay a general admission fee like the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met). To enjoy the Met’s exhibitions, New York State residents and New York, New Jersey, Connecticut students can pay what they wish, but other visitors should pay a general admission of $25 for adults.

With the flexible admission policies, AMNH and the Met have raised lots of earned income from the admission fees. In fiscal year 2018, AMNH raised $54 million with five million visitors (AMNH, 2018), so it is the same as each of visitors paid $10.82 as the admission fee. Though AMNH has the recommended admission policy that allows all visitors to pay what they wish when they enjoy the permanent exhibitions, the museum earned 28% of the total annual operating revenues from visitors’ contributions and admissions.

The Met also raised $78 million from admission fees with 7.4 million visitors in FY 2018, which is 21% of the museum’s total annual operating revenues. It is as if every visitor paid $10.43. As the Met changed its admission policy in March 2018 from recommended admission to selective recommended admission, fewer international visitors came to the museum in FY 2018 (2,590,000 persons) than in FY 2017 (2,502,400 persons). And the share and number of visitors who can pay what they wish increased from 42% (2,940,000 persons) in FY 2017 to 45% (3,312,000 persons) in FY 2018. As a result, as shown in the Table 3, the total number of visitors, the total amount of admission revenues, and the average admission fee of the Met slightly increased after the admission policy updated.

<Table 3. The Met’s Change in the Total Number of Visitors and Average Admission Fee>

Visitors/Admission Fees	FY 2017		FY 2018
Total number of visitors	7,000,000		7,360,000
International visitors	2,590,000	37%	2,502,400	34%
Residents from NY	2,100,000	30%	2,355,200	32%
NY's tri-state	840,000	12%	956,800	13%
Other visitors	1,470,000	21%	1,545,600	21%
Average admission fee	$10.03		$10.43

Source: Annual Report for Year 2017-2018, and Annual Report for Year 2016-2017 of the Met

AMNH and the Met show that museums can earn lots of revenues without charging a mandatory full admission fee to all visitors. By giving visitors the right to choose the ticket options, the two museums raised 30% to 40% of maximum possible admission revenues from visitor contributions and ticket sales. However, it is not sure whether the recommended admission policy works in Seoul because donating the money to art and cultural centers is not common in Korea. In fact, only 0.2% of Koreans donate to art and cultural organization (Art Council Korea, 2011). So, this paper examines the impact of charging a mandatory full admission fee to all visitors of Seoul city museums.

If Seoul Museum of History imposes an admission fee of $4 that is the average admission fee of Korean museums (the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism of Korea, 2018) to its average annual visitors (1.8 million), it will collect $7.2 million which is over half (52%) of the museum’s total annual operating revenues. By charging admission fees, Seoul Museum of Art is also expected to raise $5.2 million which is almost 45% of the museum’s total annual operating revenues with its annual visitors (1.3 million). With solution 1, the financial independence rate of SMH is projected to increase from 5.3% to 57.3%, and that of SeMA is also expected to go up from 5.7% to 50.5%. So, this solution is highly efficacious way of improving the financial independence of Seoul city museums.

Imposing an admission fee needs to hire two employees working at each of the museum ticket windows. In Korea, usual ticket counter employees draw a salary of $1,700 a month (SaraminHR & CareerNet, 2019), so hiring two staff members for two Seoul city museums costs $40,800 in total. The input cost/output revenue ratio is over 304, thus this solution is highly efficient to help Seoul city museums more financially independent from SMG.

However, charging admission fees can restrict the access of low-income people to the city museums. Lin (2008) argues low-income people are more likely to be discouraged by admission fees than middle- and upper-class. Though the city museums allow visitors who are under seven years old, 65 or older, welfare recipients, and the disabled to visit them for free based on the city ordinances, other people who are in low-income groups and interested in attending the city museums will be deterred from the cultural activities. Thus, this solution is projected to have low equity.

Also, this solution is likely to be opposed by more than half of the five stakeholders of Seoul city museums. Of the stakeholders, the city museums’ supporter groups would welcome the solution because they are interested in raising the financial independence of the museums. However, the city council will not agree with the solution because the council members proposed an amendment of the city museum ordinances and passed them in 2010 to abolish the museums’ entry fee (Seoul City Council, 2010). This solution needs another amendment of the city ordinances, but the bill would not be passed by the city council. Also, the city mayor seems to set importance on enhancing citizens’ access to art and culture as much as raising the city museums’ financial independence. In addition, Seoul city museum visitors would not agree with this solution because of the monetary burden on them, although the admission fee is not so big. Thus, the imposition of admission charges has low political feasibility.

Solution 2. Build A Marketing Team

Seoul city museums can raise the revenues through fully utilizing their resources. They are at the early stage of revenue-making business with the least market-friendly organizational structure, and the museums’ earned income is only about 5% of the total operating revenues. For example, in Seoul Museum of History, only two out of 88 employees are in charge of the museum marketing assigned in General Affairs Division (SMG, 2019). Building a marketing team that is in charge of developing the museums’ retail operation including museum shops, café and restaurant, and bookstores will increase the museums’ financial independence.

In the case of US museums, Smithsonian Institution (SI) is one of the best museums that raise a large amount of money from commercial activities. SI has a special division named Smithsonian Enterprises (SE) that oversees the organization’s revenue-making activities; 350 full-time employees of SE raise $183 million (12% of the total operating revenues) in fiscal year 2018 through magazines publishing with 8 million readers, retail operation with 29 museum stores, an online shop, two theaters, and consumer and education products collaborated with 80 companies (SI, 2018). With these great resources and efforts, SI can earn a huge amount of money from the earned income without charging admission fees. But Seoul city museums have quite fewer commercial resources, compared to SI, so benchmarking the mega-sized cultural complex is not so easy for the city museums to practice.

There is a small nonprofit museum that has free admission policy and collects lots of money through business activities. It is American Folk Art Museum (AFAM). Though this small-sized museum attracted only 124,601 visitors and raised over $4 million in FY 2017 (AFAM, 2017), it has a much higher financial independence (92%) from government support than that of SI (37%). Of AFAM’s 45 employees, three marketing experts (one full-time Director of Communications and Marketing, one part-time Director of Publications and Website, and one part-time Graphic Designer and Production Manager) work in Marketing, Publishing, Social Media, and Public Relations Team, and six employees who consisted of a full-time Director of Retail and Visitor Services, a full-time Shop Manager and Weekend Gallery Manager, and four part-time Shop Associates work in Museum Shop. With efforts of these staff members, AFAM earned $978,698 in FY 2017 from the revenues of auxiliary activities which consist of sales of goods at its gift shop. In comparison to Seoul city museums, AFAM raised money from commercial activities over 1.3 times more than the city museums, despite AFAM’s smaller organizational size in the number of visitors and employees, and the size of annual operating revenues.

To enhance the financial independence rate, Seoul city museums can follow the examples of SI and AFAM that earn lots of revenues from business activities without charging admission fees. Seoul city museums have outsourced operations their gift shops, bookstores and restaurants to private operators, and have received just rental fees from the private sector. One bookstore of the museums’ eight shops closed last year due to its thin profit margins (Seoul Metropolitan Council, 2018). The city museums need to fully utilize their resources that can earn more revenues. Like SI and AFAM, Seoul city museums can collaborate with various companies to make art products and receive royalties from the sale of goods. As SI and AFAM do, launching an online gift shop is a way to raise earned income of Seoul city museums. A marketing team would help the museums to establish profitable strategies.

Considering AFAM has a smaller number of visitors and has not restaurant and cafeteria, Seoul city museums can earn more auxiliary revenues than AFAM. But AFAM, which was founded in 1961, has a longer and deeper history of managing the museum including profitable activities than Seoul city museums that were open in the late 1980s and the early 2000s. So, drawing the same amount of earned income with AFAM is quite a good way to enhance the city museums’ financial independence. If each of Seoul city museums raises $978,698 from auxiliary activities in a year as AFAM did in FY 2017, it will increase the financial independence rate of SMH from 5.3% to 7.1%, and that of SeMA from 5.7 to 8.4%. This increase is quite smaller than that of the solution 1 (57.3% and 50.5%). However, any gain of revenues is important to the city museums, no matter how small. Thus, the efficacy of solution 2 is medium.

Smithsonian Enterprises earned the net gain of $48 million from commercial activities with 28.8 million visitors and 350 employees in FY 2018 (Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 2019). AFAM raised the net gain of $155,713 with 124,601 visitors and three employees. The financial performances of the two museums show that AFAM does more efficient business activities than SE. If each of Seoul city museums hires three marketing experts and raises the same amount of revenues with AFAM, the input costs/output revenues ratio of the city museums will be 1.2. This ratio means solution 2 is efficient way to increase the city museums’ financial independence, but it is much lower than solution 1’s ratio (304). Thus, solution 2 has a medium level of efficiency.

Building a marketing team and diversifying profitable strategies with free admission policy do not restrict the museum visitors’ access to Seoul city museums. The increase of revenues gained from solution 2 may be a small, but ensuring the right to enjoy the city museums for all visitors is meaningful, considering the mission of Seoul city museums that is to improve of citizens’ quality of life through expanding public cultural and art spaces. So, solution 2 has high level of equity.

All the stakeholders of Seoul city museums are expected to agree with the new marketing team. This solution can increase the museums’ financial independence and allow all visitors to enjoy the museums free of charge as the city mayor wants. Also, the city council members want more people use museum shops because they think there are good quality products. The museum visitors will enjoy more diverse art goods at gift shops or through online shop. The museum supporter groups will also agree with the revenue-making business model because they want to help increase the museums’ financial independence. Establishing a team can give the museum employees more opportunities for advancement as the organizational size of museums becomes bigger, so the city employees union will support the new team. Thus, this solution has a high level of political feasibility.

Solution 3. Privatize Seoul City Museums

Seoul Metropolitan Government can privatize the city museums to improve competitiveness and collect money from private giving. According to Act on Collection and Use of Donations of Korea, government agencies like Seoul city museums cannot raise revenues from private donors, but nonprofit museums can fund raising activities.

Most American museums are private, non-profit organizations (Rosenstein, 2010), and they earn the largest share (36%) of operating revenues from private giving. The reason why the US museums have a high level of private contributions is because of the well-established philanthropic tradition for the arts (Alexander, 1999). Also, the museums have developed diverse fundraising approaches such as seeking donors to support specific projects or launching a patron program for people aged 20 to 50 (Geller, Salamon, & Mengel, 2010).

Privatization of the city museums is a way to overcome the legal prohibition of progressive fund-raising activities. After privatization, the city museums having legal status as a nonprofit organization can make a development team with fund-raising experts and hold diverse fund-raising events like most American museums do.

US museums place great importance on fundraising activities as well as curatorial affairs. For instance, Museum of City of New York (MCNY) has 14 employees in Curatorial Affairs Team and 13 staff members in Development Team. The fundraising experts of Development Team drew almost 70% of the total annual operating revenues from contributions (MCNY, 2016). Though MCNY attracted only 306,556 over the past two years, it gathered $24 million in FY 2017 and $16 million in FY 2016 from contributions.

American Folk Art Museum (AFAM) is another good example of collecting lots of money from private giving. According to the museum’s financial statements in FY 2017, AFAM raised 60% of the total annual operating revenues from contributions and membership (37%), support from foundations and corporations (10%), and special events. (13%). With three fund-raising experts, the museum gathered $2,606,013. Particularly, as a museum who offers free admission, membership program of AFAM implies many useful things to Seoul city museums. On the Home Page, AFAM shows that its membership provides subscribers with four kinds of benefits; special opportunities for private events; learning opportunities with discounted admission to educational programs; subscriptions to diverse magazines; and 10% discounts at the gift shops. Each membership level has different admission fees; from the cheapest membership with $60 for student to the most expensive membership $2,500 for supporters who want name recognition on a museum display.

Like AFAM, Seoul Museum of History (SMH) runs membership program that anyone can subscribe with $10 per year. However, the benefits of SMH’s membership are much less than AFAM; SMH offers 10% discounts at the museum shop and cafeteria, subscription of cultural information magazine “SeMU”, and invitation for special music event a year. On the Home Page of SMH, information about the membership is hidden under a banner, unlike most American museums that put “support” or “membership” banner in a place where all can see them on their Home Page. So, the program of SMH seems like a membership in name only, and it draws little money.

Regarding private supporters, Seoul Museum of Art (SeMA) has a special supporters group named “SeMA-in”. This group was founded as a private gathering with good intentions to help SeMA raise more money from private giving. SeMA has cooperated with SeMA-in such as holding special events or running free education programs, but SeMA-in has suspended the fund-raising activities since 2017.

Likewise, SMH and SeMA have tried to draw money from private giving, but their fund-raising activities have remained low because of the legal limitation. The privatization of Seoul city museums will help the city museums to do progressive activities for raising money from private donors with more flexible organizational structure than government agencies in personnel and budget management.

Besides the change of organizational and legal status, Seoul city museums need the change of social norms about charity in Korea. According to the Charities Aid Foundation (2017), 56% of American people gave money to charities, while only 41% of South Koreans donated to charity. Unlike the US that has the long history of philanthropy, Korea is in its early stage of establishing a donation culture. Also, the majority of Koreans donating to charities are interested in helping poor people through social welfare nonprofits. Contributions for the arts are only 0.2% of the total private giving (Art Council Korea, 2011). Under the circumstance that giving money to art and cultural institutions is not encouraged, Seoul city museums would not raise lots of revenues from contributions only after privatization.

To evaluate the third solution’s efficacy, the income structure of Queens Museum can be used in this paper. Queens Museum has suggested admission policy, so visitors can pay what they wish though the museum recommends them to pay $8 admission fee for adults. The museum earned almost 72% ($12.8 million) of the total annual operating revenues ($18 million) from government support in FY 2014 (Queens Museum, 2014), which is relatively bigger than any other nonprofit museums in New York City. The share of revenues from private giving of Queens Museum in FY 2014 was 25%, which is lower than the average share of contribution (28%) of American museum revenues. Queens Museum has similarities with Seoul city museums in the aspects of the size of total annual operating revenues, high dependence on government support, low flexible admission fee, and relatively low contribution revenues.

As seen above, lots of individual Koreans do not like to donate nonprofit museums. But several large corporations in Korea are expected to give money to the privatized nonprofit museum because there are some social contribution projects related to art and culture supported by them (Art Council Korea, 2011). If Seoul Museum of History and Seoul Museum of Art raise $3,298,604 from corporations as Queens Museum collected the same amount of money in FY 2014, the financial independence of SMH and SeMA will be 29% and 34%. So, the efficacy of Solution 3 is high.

Regarding the evaluation of efficiency of this solution, it needs to know how many employees should be hired in development team, and how much annual salary they receive. Queen Museum has three employees in Development Team consisted of a Director of Development, a Grant Writer & Research Associate, and a Development Manager. Because the salary information of the fund-raising experts is not revealed, the input cost for solution 3 is rated by the annual salary ($18,000) of Korean fund-raising specialists (Korea Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2019). Hiring three fund-raising specialists costs $54,000 a year. If the SMH and SeMA earn corporation contributions as the same amount of money with Queens Museum with the three experts, the museums input cost/ output revenues ratio will be 61%, so the third solution is efficient.

This solution does not restrict visitors’ access to the museum because it allows the city museums to maintain free admission policy. However, providing too much benefits such as exclusive invitation for special events only for donors can make ordinary visitors who do not give money to the museums feel the sense of deprivation. Thus, equity of the third solution is medium.

There will be political conflicts over the nonprofit city museums. The museum supporter groups will welcome the privatization because it can improve the financial independence. However, privatizing a government agency causes controversy, and needs long-term process. So, Mayor Park and the city council seem not to change the operating body of the city museums. Also, the city employees union will oppose the solution because privatizing the museums can hinder the union members’ job security. Thus, the privatization of Seoul city museums has a low level of political feasibility.

Best Solution: Build A Marketing Team.

Based on the result of the evaluation for three solutions with four criteria of efficacy, efficiency, equity and political feasibility, building a marketing team is selected as the best solution for improving Seoul city museums’ financial independence.

By establishing a marketing team like Smithsonian Enterprises and American Folk Art Museum, Seoul city museums are expected to enhance the financial independence rate of SMH from 5.3% to 7.1%, and that of SeMA from 5.7 to 8.4%. The second solution shows only around three percentage points of increase in earned income, but it is efficacious improvement for the city museums. This solution requires hiring three marketing specialists, and they are predicted to raise revenues from business activities by fully utilizing the resources of Seoul city museums. The input costs/output revenues ratio is 1.2, so the second solution is efficient. This solution secures the visitors’ right to enjoy public museums without admission fees, and satisfies the needs of visitors who want buy unique art products at the gift shop. Thus, solution 2 is highly equitable. This solution can obtain all the five stakeholders of Seoul city museums. It is the way to meet the needs of both increasing financial independence the museums and expanding access to art and culture of citizens. Therefore, building a marketing team is the best solution with the high level of equity and political feasibility and the medium level of efficacy and efficiency, which is better than other two alternatives, as shown in Table 4.

<Table 4. Comparison of Three Solutions>

Evaluation Criteria	Imposing an admission fee	Building a marketing team	Privatizing Seoul city museums
Efficacy	High	Medium	High
Efficiency	High	Medium	High
Equity	Low	High	Medium
Political Feasibility	Low	High	Low

Conclusion

Establishing public museums is a good way to encourage more citizens to enjoy art and cultural activities. Particularly, free entry to the museums can increase the citizens’ access to art and cultural spaces. However, the free admission policy and legal limitation of fund-raising cause quite a high government dependence rate of Seoul city museums. Under the limited budget, five public museums will open in Seoul city within two years. Thus, the city museums should find the way to enhance their financial independence rate to provide citizens with high quality exhibitions and education programs.

According to the result of evaluation with four criteria, imposing an admission fee is not a proper solution for Seoul city museums because it has too low level of equity and political feasibility despite the high level of efficacy and efficiency. Privatizing the city museums is not the best solution for improving financial independence rate of Seoul city museums considering its low political feasibility. Building a marketing is selected as the best solution for the city museums with a high level of equity and political feasibility, though it has a medium level of efficacy and efficiency.

There are differences between Korean and the USA in terms of citizens’ mind toward art and culture, and laws and social norms, so finding benchmarking models through the simple comparison of Seoul city museums and American museums may not a perfect way to search the best solution for the city museums. Lots of American people give money to nonprofit museums based on the country’s long and traditional charity culture, and many museum experts try to develop more revenue sources. However, Korean people are not likely to donate to art and cultural organizations, and national/local laws limit revenue-making activities of public museums. Nevertheless, Seoul city museums should follow the model of USA museums because it is the way to reduce government dependence and diversify the revenue streams. With a high financial independence rate, Seoul city museums can provide more diverse cultural experience with citizens.

References

Act on Collecting and the Use of Donations of 2017, Pub. L. No. 14839. National Law Information Center. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=195069&efYd=20170726#0000

Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials’ Trade Unions of 2014, Pub. L. No. 12844. National Law Information Center. (2014). Retrieved from http://law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=162508&efYd=20141119#0000

Alexander, V.D. (1999). A Delicate Balance: Museums and the Market-place. Museum International, April 1999, Vol.51(2). pp.28-34. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0033.00201

American Folk Art Museum. (2017). Annual Report Fiscal Year 2017 American Folk Art Museum. Retrieved from https://folkartmuseum.org/content/uploads/2018/06/AFAM_AR2017_Final_all.pdf

American Folk Art Museum. (2017). Financial Statements Year Ended June 30, 2017 and 2016. Retrieved from https://folkartmuseum.org/content/uploads/2018/06/AFAM_AR2017_Final_all.pdf

American Museum of Natural History. (2018). AMNH Annual Report 2018. Retrieved from https://www.amnh.org/about/annual-report

Art Council Korea. (2011). A Study of Strategies for Donation Brand of Art and Culture. Retrieved from https://viewer.nanet.go.kr/view/sd;streamdocsId=72059142108632448;currentPage=1;certificationId=0695a7b5-4cab-439a-a519-f83343dc4cff;searchWord=

Baek, S.H., & Ra, D.S. (2015). A Study on Characteristics and Regional Distribution of Seoul’s Cultural Resources. Seoul: the Seoul Institute. Retrieved from https://www.si.re.kr/sites/default/files/2015-BR-02_0.pdf

Bardach, Eugene. (2007). A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis. Fourth edition, United State of America.

Bell, F.W, (2016). How Are Museums Supported Financially in the U.S.? United States Department of State Bureau of International Information Program. Retrieved from https://static.america.gov/uploads/sites/8/2016/03/You-Asked-Series_How-Are-Museums-Supported-Financially-in-the-US_English_Lo-Res_508.pdf

CareerNet. (2019). Job Posting of Art Museum Ticket Counter Employees. Retrieved from http://www.career.co.kr/jobs/view/?id_num=18195654&mode=cl

Charity Aid Foundation (2017). CAF World Giving Index 2017. Retrieved from https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/cafworldgivingindex2017_2167a_web_210917.pdf?sfvrsn=ed1dac40_10

Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. (2019). Independent Accountant’s Report on the Smithsonian Enterprises Net Gain for Fiscal Year 2018 (OIG-A-19-04). Retrieved from https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/OIG-A-19-04.pdf

Geller, S.L., Salamon, L.M., & Mengel, K.L. (2010). Museums and Other Nonprofits in the Current Recession: A Story of Resilience, Innovation, and Survival. Journal of Museum Education, Summer 2010, Vol.35(1). pp.129-140. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/stable/25801342?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Guindo, L.A., Wagner, M., Baltussen, R., Rindress, D., Til, J.V., Kind, P, & Goetghebeur, M.M. (2012). From Efficacy to Equity: Literature Review of Decision Criteria for Resource Allocation and Healthcare Decisionmaking. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2012, 10:9. Retrieved from https://resource-allocation.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1478-7547-10-9

Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2008). Exhibiting Public Value: Government Funding for Museums in the United State. Retrieved from https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/MuseumPublicFinance.pdf

Kim, S. H. (December 10, 2010). Mayor Oh, Se-hoon Announced the Abolish of Three Percent of Expulsion of Incompetent Civil Servants. The Munhaw Il-bo. Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid=021&aid=0002058022

Korea Association of Fundraising Professionals (2019) Job Posting for Fund-Raising Specialists. Retrieved from https://www.kafp.or.kr/archives/7390

Vivant, Elsa. (2011). Who Brands Whom? The Role of Local Authorities in the Branching of Art Museums. Liverpool University Press. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/stable/27975982?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S.R. (2004). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives. Third edition, United States of America.

Lee, E.J. (February 1, 2019). Poll on Voters’ Favorite Candidates with the Next Presidential Election. The Munhwa Il-bo. Retrieved from https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=100&oid=021&aid=0002380556

Lin, Y.N. (2008). Admission Charges and Public Museums. International Journal of Arts Management, January 2008, Vol.10(2), pp.56-67. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/docview/205807340?accountid=8500&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Local Autonomy Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 14839. National Law Information Center. (2017). Retrieved from http://law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=195113&efYd=20170726#0000

Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, (2016). The Survey of Cultural Enjoyment. Retrieved from http://www.korea.kr/archive/expDocView.do?docId=37531

Ministry of the Interior and Safety of Korea. (2018). Financial Analysis of the Local Government. Retrieved from https://www.mois.go.kr/frt/bbs/type010/commonSelectBoardArticle.do;jsessionid=IfuSkuMUT8qkDPpPCA2OQtpT.node50?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000008&nttId=68032

Museum of City of New York. (2016). Biennial Report 2015/2016. Retrieved from https://www.mcny.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/MCNY%20FY15%20&%20FY16%20Biennial%20Report.pdf

Office of Seoul Mayor. (2019). Resume of Mayor Park, Won-soon. Retrieved from http://mayor.seoul.go.kr/app/wonsoon/story.do

Office of Seoul Mayor. (2019). The List of the Campaign Promises of Mayor Park, Won-soon. Retrieved from http://mayor.seoul.go.kr/app/seoul/manifestoData.do

SaraminHR. (2019). Job Posting of Modern Art Museum Ticket Counter Employees. Retrieved from http://www.saramin.co.kr/zf_user/jobs/relay/view?isMypage=no&rec_idx=36059723&recommend_ids=eJxNzkESAyEIRNHTZA80DbLOQeb%2Bt4hWjYHl8ysCVkoYH9b65BeDj5%2BDkFDEuj0kIQubfKswpEkxzR4G1ao%2Fs5jqXV0c0pOhTB9cFG3qcuSoZspmpCMGlRxvIzzHRwr1cxmXZnK5t3Kp7Op02qi5Fzn8ASDuRFU%3D&view_type=search&searchword=%EC%A0%84%EC%8B%9C+%EB%A7%A4%ED%91%9C&searchType=seo&gz=1&t_ref_content=generic&t_ref=search&paid_fl=n#seq=0

Seoul Metropolitan Council. (2010). The Minutes of the Meeting of Committee of Education and Culture. Retrieved from http://ms.smc.seoul.kr/CLRecords/Retrieval/frame.php?hfile=7C1600222011.html&daesu=7&fchk=0#;

Seoul Metropolitan Council. (2017). Reports of 2017 Questions on Civic Affairs of Culture, Sports & Tourism Committee. Retrieved from http://ms.smc.seoul.kr/CLRecords/Retrieval/frame.php?hfile=9J16302770012.html&daesu=9&fchk=0&keyword=%B9%CC%BC%FA%B0%FC&mode=multi&nw1#w1

Seoul Metropolitan Council. (2018). Review of 2018 Budget of Seoul Museum of Art, Retrieved from http://ms.smc.seoul.kr/CLRecords/Retrieval/viewer.appendix.php?dir=a10&aFile=43583

Seoul Metropolitan Council. (2019). Election of Council Members. Retrieved from http://www.smc.seoul.kr/foreign/view.do?lang=english&menuId=002001002

Seoul Metropolitan Council. (2019). Standing Committees. Retrieved from http://www.smc.seoul.kr/foreign/view.do?lang=english&menuId=002003001

Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2019). The Charter of Public Service of Seoul Metropolitan Government. Retrieved from http://eungdapso.seoul.go.kr/Gud/Gud03/Gud0302/Gud0302_not.jsp

Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2018). 2018 Major Action Plan of Culture Headquarter. Retrieved from http://news.seoul.go.kr/culture/files/2017/03/58dcc92737c751.35450467.pdf

Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Management of City Museums of 2017. Pub. L. No. 6651. National Law Information Center. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.law.go.kr/DRF/lawService.do?OC=poweresca&target=ordin&MST=1302111&type=HTML&mobileYn=

Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2019). Organizational Chart of Seoul Museum of History. Retrieved from http://org.seoul.go.kr/bonbu/orgChartView.do

Seoul Museum of Art. (2018). 2018 Major Action Plan of the Seoul Museum of Art. Retrieved from http://www.smc.seoul.kr/skin/doc.html?fn=T18187810562798B&rs=/files/trans/board/98/12/

Seoul Museum of Art. (2019). Introduction of SeMA-in. Retrieved from http://sema.seoul.go.kr/it/museumsupport/supportclub

Seoul Museum of History. (2018). 2018 Major Action Plan of the Seoul Museum of History. Retrieved from http://www.smc.seoul.kr/skin/doc.html?fn=T18187710562698B&rs=/files/trans/board/98/12/

Seoul Museum of History. (2019). Introduction of Membership Program. Retrieved from http://www.museum.seoul.kr/www/guide/mem/guideMemInfo.jsp?sso=ok

SeMA-in. (2019). Activities of SeMA-in. Retrieved from http://semain.or.kr/sub.php?menu_number=475

SeMA-in. (2019). The Member List of SeMA-in. Retrieved from http://semain.or.kr/sub.php?menu_number=377&PHPSESSID=cc668c87637394cb1b6bb8c1ddf3b12e

Shin, J. H. (March 10, 2007). The Three Percent of Expulsion of Incompetent Civil Servants Should Be Abolished. Segye Il-bo. Retrieve from https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid=022&aid=0000214053

Smithsonian Institution. (2018). Smithsonian Institution Financial Statement FY 2017. Retrieved from https://www.si.edu/Content/OIG/Audits/2018/OIG-A-18-04.pdf

Smithsonian Institution. (2018). Carol LeBlanc Named President of Smithsonian Enterprises. Retrieved from https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/carol-leblanc-named-president-smithsonian-enterprises

Rosenstein, Carole. (2010). When Is A Museum A Public Museum? Considerations from the Point of View of Public Finance. Retrieved from https://web-a-ebscohost-com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=ebe280ee-b836-4165-bf5c-5c193c523800%40sdc-v-sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=55116172&db=a9h

Queens Museum. (2014). The Queens Museum Fiscal Year 2014 Audited Financial Statement. Retrieved from https://www.queensmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FY14-Queens-Museum-Financial-Statement.pdf

The Metropolitan Museum of Art. (2018). Annual Report for the Year 2017-2018. Retrieved from https://www.metmuseum.org/-/media/files/about-the-met/annual-reports/2017-2018/annual-report-2017-18.pdf

The Ministry of Culture, Sport and Tourism of Korea. (2018). The Result of the Survey on the Operation Status of Museums in Korea 2017. Retrieved from https://www.gov.kr/portal/gvrnReport/view/1**************31?srchOrder=&pageIndex=3&policyType=G00302&streamYn=&blgCd=G00&slgCd=G02&srchBlgCd=G00&srchSlgCd=G02&srchOrgGroup=&srchOriginOrg=&srchPeriodOption=1years&srchStDtFmt=2018.04.05&srchEdDtFmt=2019.04.05&searchField=3&srchTxt=&srchTxt2=