1 Introduction

Culture, as a set of material and immaterial elements that determine the meanings of human interactions (Knopp & Darbilly, 2007) has a relationship with democracy, insofar as cultural aspects can contribute to the success of democratic regimes. Democracy, in this context, understood as a system of government where the population participates in collective decisions, through voting or other means (Tavares, 2018; Netto, 2015), has among its ideals the guarantee of providing access to knowledge and communication, to support the participation of individuals, while access to art and culture is a democratic value (Mannheim, 1974).

In Brazil, the main financing mechanisms for the cultural sector are the laws of culture incentive, which operate by deducting part of the taxes of individuals and companies that sponsor cultural projects approved by government agencies. Based on these laws, which have precedents at the federal, state, and municipal levels, the decision about which cultural productions will be benefited is made by the business community, and the State is responsible for mediating and regulating the dynamics between the players that operate in the mechanism. Law 8313 of 1991, the Culture Incentive Law (LIC), known as the Rouanet Law, operates through tax deductions in the Income Tax (IR). It is the main source of funding for the cultural sector in Brazil, and has as a premise that cultural projects promote the democratization of access to cultural products and accessibility for people with disabilities or limited mobility. It is emphasized that democratization consists of the set of efforts made to make access to cultural products more democratic.

An issue that generates discussions about this law is the fact that the selection of which cultural production will benefit from it falls on the business community, since they claim a return on image and there are no requirements aligned with the needs and demands of the population that weigh in the decision to direct incentives. Thus, companies select productions with greater potential return on image and located in strategic places, as an instrumental alternative of cultural marketing (Miszputen, 2014), which may prevent cultural projects that do not fit this market profile from receiving incentives.

In this aspect, it is interesting to understand the changes in the results of the law overtime on the panorama of resource distribution through this mechanism, in order to investigate whether there is a promotion of cultural pluralism through the LIC, in the fulfillment of its democratic function. Cultural pluralism can be understood as the diversity of the basal views and reasons of cultural processes and the understanding of multiple cultures, which would be composed of different rationalities, with constant clashes among themselves, but focused on generating harmony among the different cultures (Lopes, 1999).

Cultural pluralism is intrinsically related to democracy, to the extent that the democratic environment allows multiplicities and rational debates to occur. Besides, cultural pluralism is ensured by the existence of effective argumentative process in the environment, so that the population can enjoy the right to participate and the necessary means to exercise this right (Lopes, 1999). The possibility that individuals or companies have, through the LIC, to propose cultural projects, as well as to direct a portion of their taxes to support cultural productions, represents a democratic form of participation in the national cultural scenario.

Along these lines, the achievement of cultural pluralism through the LIC could be achieved by means of a resource distribution that includes the various types of cultural production and cultural producers, located in various geographical areas of the country, in order to facilitate the access of the population to these productions. To this end, this article sought to verify whether the LIC contributes to the democratization of access to and dissemination of different cultural manifestations, by promoting cultural pluralism in the distribution of resources among cultural productions and proponents.

The literature on this topic focuses on the analyses of the effectiveness of the LIC for its projects (Piccoli, Ferreira & Siqueira, 2020), the distribution of resources in proponents and supporters (Costa, Medeiros & Bucco, 2017; Varella, Santos & Najberg, 2020), in specific cultural areas (Bem, Waismann & Araujo, 2017; Ficheira & Hollanda, 2018). This article differs from previous studies by presenting the distribution of resources in all cultural areas comprised by the law and the main fundraisers per cultural area. In this sense, in practical and academic terms, the article contributes with the discussion of the results of the LIC, shedding light on existing problematics in the functioning of the mechanism. In practical terms, the article presents the targeting and concentration of resources in certain areas and cultural players. Regarding the academic contributions, this article conducts an unprecedented analysis in the literature in terms of the areas served by the culture funding mechanism, by analyzing the LIC through a democratic lens, seeking to understand how it promotes cultural pluralism.

2 Democracy and Culture

Democracy is a political regime based on the participation of the population in government decisions, directly or indirectly, either in the proposition of laws or the selection of representatives through voting. The concept of democracy emerged in Greece in the sixth century BC. The word derives from demokratia, where demos means people and kratos comes from government, that is, it is a form of government exercised by the people, who participate in collective decisions (Gonçalves, 1996; Tavares, 2018).

In its contemporary form, the concept of democracy has infinite understandings, encompassing issues related to civilization, law, ethics and politics (Nancy, 2012). Its understanding revolves mainly around two aspects, as an element related to a political corpus, which is guided by its relationship with the law, and the form of government, guided by its administrative characteristic (Agamben, 2012). Some principles came to be related to democracy as a form of government, such as citizenship, equality, freedom, security and private property, in addition to the orientation in the Rule of Law, which aims to guide and enable coexistence in society. Certain elements are considered in the distinction between democratic states and other regimes, such as political representation, electoral competition and popular participation in elections through universal suffrage (Netto, 2015).

Moreover, the contemporary concept of democracy is related to the idea of mass democracy, which refers to a large-scale political system intrinsically supported by the formation of rights to order in modern societies (Lacerda & Gomes, 2013). In this aspect, the democratic rule of law is supported by the idea of guaranteeing and protecting the rights of individuals, thus configuring a state whose action is limited by a set of laws present in a constitution, aiming to prevent abuses of power by the state machine in the private lives of citizens. That is, democracy goes beyond a regime of government to the extent that, from the institution of rights, it comes to represent a form of social order that directs and limits the power of rulers and state action (Chaui, 2008).

In several occasions, the meaning of culture manifests itself as a reaction to the conceptions of industry and democracy, which materialize in the general changes in common life, and the effort to qualitatively evaluate the nature of the changes that characterize the idea of culture (Willians, 2011). The relationship between democracy and culture, the latter in its multiple aspects, is treated in the literature from classical to contemporary authors. It is an orientation initially based on the understanding of whether there would be an influence of cultural elements on the success of democracy in certain localities. In this logic, culture is understood as something endowed with certain generality, comprising ways of life, customs, traditions and religions (Przeworski, Cheirub, & Limongi, 2003).

Montesquieu (2015) was the first to discuss that certain forms of government needed certain cultural characteristics to be successful. Some aspects raised by the author relate to forms of government and characteristics of the population. The successful republican form, for example, requires that part of the population be virtuous; for the monarchy, the honor would be necessary, and in the case of despotism, fear in the population would be necessary (Montesquieu, 2000). Rousseau advanced this discussion by considering that for democratic institutions to be able to develop, they would need to be compatible with the culture, in the form of customs of the society in question (Przeworski et al., 2003).

Thus, the concept of Democratic Culture emerges as a set of elements that favor the existence of the democratic regime, which represents a way of understanding the world through the participatory perspective, having democracy as a practical reference (Gonçalves, 2007; Przeworski et al., 2003). Democratic Culture presupposes that the will of the population is represented in the cultural policies made by the elected government, so that people feel they are participants in the cultural decisions made by the state (Blomgren, 2012).

A democratic ideal, from this perspective, refers to unrestricted access to communication through access to knowledge, arts and cultural products. However, even in Democratic Cultures, it is complex to make these elements circulate across all population scales. Knowledge is ordinarily accessed by a restricted part of the population, usually specialists, and a democratic state must allow cultural products to reach a considerable part of the population (Mannheim, 1974). Access to these elements is provided in different forms, either physical access, in direct contact with the cultural product; economic access, by the financial capacity to produce cultural elements; and intellectual access, which is the capacity to understand and learn by contact with cultural products (Coelho, 1997).

Considering the character of guaranteeing the rights of citizens in the Democratic State of Law, some rights are regarded as fundamental, which did not arise simultaneously, but passed through different generations, in different phases of the emergence of civil, political and social rights. Social rights of the third generation arose from new demands related to the treatment of human beings by the State. It started to treat humans as bearers of various stages of life instead of abstract beings (Bobbio, 2004). Thus, services such as health, education, social security and culture began to be considered in the development of public policies (Lacerda & Gomes, 2013).

Cultural rights are part of social rights and refer to the freedom of production, transmission and enjoyment of cultural goods (Silva & Araújo, 2010). In this logic, the support, recognition and protection of cultural autonomy are relevant factors for the preservation of the collective identity of a particular region or country (Cuche, 1999). Several processes have been developed to protect and legitimize access to culture, given that cultural rights are even supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Bier & Cavalheiro, 2015).

Cultural rights represent guarantees of access and protection to collective memory, arts or knowledge about the past, to allow interventions in the present and support future decisions, thus ensuring human dignity (Cunha Filho, 2000). To this end, some rights have been conquered, including copyright; the right to cultural identity and protection of cultural heritage; and the right to participation in the cultural life of the country, which implies freedom of creation, access to culture and participation in decisions related to cultural policies (Mata-Machado, 2007).

The actions aimed at promoting cultural rights are called Cultural Policies, which are carried out either by the State or public, civil or private organizations (Coelho, 1997). Public cultural policies, a byproduct of post-World War II social welfare policies, are actions structured by authorities in the cultural sector (Mangset, 2018). In democratic regimes, cultural policies represent useful tools for promoting cultural diversity and pluralism, since access to and enjoyment of cultural goods are inherent values of a democracy (Mannheim, 1974). Countries that disregard pluralizing and increasing the scope of the reach of their cultural policies tend to unequally distribute the set of symbolic riches elemental to the identity of a nation (Ficheira & Hollanda, 2018).

From the democratic perspective, cultural policies focus on the quest to distribute capabilities among individuals, so as to enable the interpretation of expressions and the formation of culture among them (Jones, 2010). Therefore, cultural policies aim to coordinate the democratic dynamics of access to culture, so as to guarantee access to cultural rights. In this aspect, they are based on two paradigms: the democratization of culture and cultural democracy. The democratization of culture refers to cultural policies that focus on providing everyone with access to culture, especially high culture, or erudite culture. Cultural democracy, on the other hand, aims to provide autonomy for all to produce their own culture, considering that all cultural forms can be produced and accessed (Barbosa & Freitas Filho, 2015; Langsted, 1989).

The democratization of culture focuses on ensuring access to culture, while cultural democracy aims to ensure cultural diversity and pluralism. Cultural diversity refers to both elements that distinguish certain groups and the interaction between these differences. This parameter comprises different habits, ways of life, religions, languages and groups (Barros & Angelis, 2018). In the democratic environment, diversity is recognized in a community with the power of the majority, in the quest to provide the essential equality of being, manifested in the appreciation of diverse cultural forms (Willians, 2011). Cultural pluralism is an aspect of cultural diversity (Carvalho, 2016), which manifests itself in the possibility of dialogue and interaction between different cultures isonomically treated, and the recognition of the importance of each culture, which is encouraged and protected (Lopes, 1999). Living in culturally plural societies is one of the main values of democratic organizations, and the state must ensure participation and cultural belonging (Requejo, 1999).

3 Functioning of the Culture Incentive Law

On December 23, 1991, Law 8313 was instituted, the LIC, which became known as the Rouanet Law, in honor of the Secretary of Culture Sergio Paulo Rouanet. The LIC instituted the National Program to Support Culture (PRONAC), which operates in three ways: patronage with tax incentives, through tax deduction for sponsors of projects approved by the competent federal body of Culture; National Culture Fund (FNC), which has approximately 2% of the resources invested by the law; and the Cultural and Artistic Investment Fund (FICART), which was never implemented (Dowlatyari, 2017; Ficheira & Hollanda, 2018).

Regarding the operation of LIC, proponents submit proposals to be evaluated by the competent body of the cultural sector. Proposers can be individuals active in the cultural sector, such as artists and cultural producers; public legal entities active in this sector, such as foundations and city halls; or private legal entities active in the cultural area, such as cooperatives, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other organizations (Dowlatyari, 2017).

The cultural projects submitted may address some cultural areas: Performing Arts, Visual Arts, Integrated Arts, Audiovisual, Humanities, Museums and Memory, Music and Cultural Heritage. The Incentive foresees that the cultural projects must fit into articles 18 or 26, which provide for the forms of deduction from income tax (Law n. 8313, 1991). It must be observed that the classification of the project does not depend on the proponent, but rather on the agency responsible for evaluating the project to classify it.

In order to fit into article 18, the project must belong to the following areas: performing arts; classical instrumental music; visual arts exhibitions; donations of collections to public libraries, museums, public archives and film archives; staff training and acquisition of equipment to maintain collections; production of short and medium length cinematographic and video phonographic works; preservation of the material and immaterial heritage; construction and maintenance of movie and theater facilities that can also function as community cultural centers in municipalities with less than 100,000 inhabitants. The sponsor of cultural projects under this article can deduct up to 100% of the amount invested, as long as this amount does not exceed 6% of the income tax payable by individuals and 4% of the income tax payable by companies, so that the total amount invested will be deducted from the income tax without the sponsor having to bear additional expenses (Law 8313, 1991).

The projects that do not fit into the modalities listed above are framed in article 26, which provides a tax incentive for legal entities with a waiver of 40% of the investment made by donation, and 30% of the investment made by sponsorship. For individuals, the waiver is 60% in cases of sponsorship and 80% in donations. These percentages fall on the total invested, and, in the case of article 26, this value can be deducted and accounted for as operational expenses (Law 8313, 1991).

4 Methodological Procedures

This article sought to verify whether the LIC contributes to the democratization of access to and dissemination of different cultural manifestations, thus promoting cultural pluralism in the distribution of resources. For such, it started with a qualitative and quantitative approach, using tools from both types of research, operating with secondary, textual and numerical data. This is a longitudinal study, covering information about the LIC from 2009 to 2018, which refers to the projects requested, approved and encouraged, as well as information about the promoters and proponents of cultural projects through the LIC. Such a time-lapse was set due to the availability of complete data about the projects evaluated and carried out in this period, considering a period of 10 years of the LIC information disclosure through the Portal of Visualization of the Culture Incentive Law Support System (VerSalic).

The research is characterized as descriptive, given that it sought to describe the facts and phenomena of the cultural financing framework carried out by the LIC in Brazil. The descriptive research is relevant, in this context, due to the volume of unsystematized information about the results of the LIC. Therefore, it allowed us to unveil the situation of the financing carried out by the instrument. Regarding data collection, we worked with secondary data on cultural projects, collected from the VerSalic platform, where further information about the LIC cultural projects is available.

Cultural projects refer to a set of cultural activities aimed at achieving specific objectives, within a certain time frame and following a stipulated budget. After having their proposal approved by the Ministry/Secretariat of Culture, the projects receive a Pronac registration number and can be directed to the fundraising mechanism of the National Fund for Culture (FNC) or through cultural patronage. The present article focused on patronage projects.

It is noted that the data were deflated using the accumulated 2018 National Wide Consumer Price Index (IPCA), since, according to Sá-Earp, Kornis, Estrella and Joffe (2016), the data made available by the agencies responsible for Culture in Brazil have the lag of not considering the increase or decrease of their monetary value over time.

Regarding the data analysis strategy, in order to reach the established objective, we used Documentary Analysis and Descriptive Statistics instruments, based on the use of tools such as tables, graphs and descriptive measures (Medri, 2011), so as to demonstrate the resource distribution according to the types of production benefited by the LIC and among cultural producers throughout the analyzed period. The data were systematized using Microsoft Excel software. The results are discussed by cultural area and positioned in the discussion in alphabetical order.

5 Analysis and discussion of results

There are 61,464 cultural projects available on the VerSalic platform, registered within the time frame of this research, from 2009 to 2018, which sought incentives through Patronage and generated a total fundraising equivalent to R$ 14,541,037,308.57. Figure 1 illustrates the division of the number of these projects available in VerSalic over the years.

Among the proposals for Patronage, 59,957 had some amount approved, which corresponds to 97.55% of the proposals. Out of the total number of approved projects, 18,959 managed to raise funds, corresponding to 31.62% of the approved projects.

Regarding the framework of the projects, according to the specifics of the legislation, 49,184 cultural projects fit in article 18 of the LIC, which means that investors can deduct up to 100% of their investments. Out of the remainder, 10,070 fit into article 26.

It is possible to observe that most of the projects that were approved and raised funds fall under Article 18, which uses only public resources as the incentive. There is a need to balance private and public interests in the conduct of LIC, given the excessive use of public resources at the mercy of the market decision as an inducer of the directions of the culture fostered in the country (Ficheira & Hollanda, 2018).

Cultural projects of any proponent can be candidates to raise funds through LIC, and these proponents can be Individuals or Legal Entities. Among the 61,464 applications, 47,487 (77.26%) were from Legal Entities, while 13,977 projects (22.74%) were submitted by Individuals. Among the 56,957 approved proposals, 77.37% were from legal entities, while 22.63% were from individuals, which is proportional to the distribution of the requested projects. As for the fundraising, among the 18,959 projects, 85.72% were from legal entities and 14.28%, from individuals, which reveals a higher percentage among legal entities when compared to the percentage of submission and approval. This variation may be explained by the institutional level that sponsoring companies demand to support the projects, with potential effects both on the execution and the dissemination of the project, which consequently expand the image gains of the sponsors (Miszputen, 2014).

The difference between Legal Entities and Individuals is accentuated when we observe the percentage of each of them in the number of funds raised, since the first group accounts for 96.93% of the amount. Although the law allows any individual to propose cultural projects, it is possible to observe by the numbers of the law that legal entities have greater fundraising capacity. It reveals the emergence of a cultural market since the consolidation of the laws to encourage culture, with the appearance of public or private organizations focused on culture, having as their main source of funding the resources from tax incentive, in addition to changes in existing organizations (Belem & Donadone, 2013; Silva & Dellagnelo, 2004).

Political aspects and changes in the legal framework of the law can influence the results of LIC over the years. Table 1 shows the amounts requested, approved and raised in the analyzed period.

The year 2010 stands out as one with the highest percentage of fundraising. On the other hand, in the comparison between the amount raised and the amount approved, the year 2009 stands out for presenting the second lowest amount of approved resources. In this aspect, out of the total approved, only 22.76% of the resources were raised, which reveals a certain underutilization of the resources directed to the area of culture, considering that the LIC resources correspond to about 90% of the amount directed to culture in Brazil (Costa et al., 2017). The 2018 projects have low participation in the total raised, but it is noteworthy that fundraising for these projects may have increased, since the LIC provides that projects can submit requests for an extension of the funding period for up to three years.

5.1 Analysis of Cultural Pluralism at LIC

Cultural projects can be from diverse cultural areas, which are grouped into specific segments. In order to understand the specificity and nature of the objects present in cultural projects, they are produced following some rules, which are direct results of the existing regulatory structure (Thiry-Cherques, 2006). Table 2 illustrates the number of resources and the prominence of some areas in approval and fundraising (Sá-Earp et al., 2016).

Performing Arts and Music stand out in the number of resources approved and raised. The literature on this topic points out that the concentration of resources in these areas may be related to their ability to mobilize larger audiences and increase the return on image for project sponsors (Ficheira & Hollanda, 2018; Miszputen, 2014). The area with the lowest fundraising amount is Museums and Memory, which was instituted in 2017 by Normative Instruction No. 1.

Among the areas shown in Table 2, the Performing Arts account for 31.42% of the total funds raised. With 17,942 approved projects, 6,243 projects in this area were carried out through the LIC. The area is divided into a few cultural segments (Table 3).

By segment, the Theater and Dance areas stood out, together accounting for over 88% of the funds raised. Considering the market character of LIC, the highlight of Theater and Dance can be explained by their potential to provide the private initiative with increased public visibility, which consequently leads to the conquest of new consumers and increased profit for sponsors (Mega, 2015).

Mega (2015) points out the occurrence of a market censorship in Performing Arts, which makes productions related to controversial issues and divergent from social conventions unable to raise funds, as well as experimental theater productions, given their unpredictable character in terms of financial returns and audience reception. According to the author, this favors the concentration of resources in productions and directors who are established in this field.

The analysis of the proponents that have raised funds in the Performing Arts area indicates that this concentration is consolidated. We identified 2,825 different bidders, 3.86% of which concentrated 50% of the total funds raised, thus corroborating Mega's arguments (2015). To illustrate this concentration, it is noted that 90% of the total resources raised in this area are concentrated in 31.93% of the bidders. The company T4F Entretenimento S. A. stands out as the largest fundraiser in this area and presents projects with the highest fundraising amount in eight out of the ten years analyzed (except in 2010 and 2018).

Regarding the cultural productions that concentrated most resources annually, it is noteworthy that the majority referred to musical theater shows, many of which in a Broadway format, mainly concentrated in the Southeastern capitals. Besides, these productions are not very accessible to the low-income population, given the high ticket prices (Mega, 2015).

The Integrated Arts area accounts for 5.29% of the total funds raised, with 2,202 projects approved, 668 of which were approved. It is noteworthy that the cultural projects in this area were supported through Patronage until 2011, and in subsequent years, all projects in the area are registered to receive resources from the FNC. The segments of Integrated Arts are presented in Table 4.

As Integrated Arts is a hybrid cultural area, composed of projects that fit into more than one artistic strand, a considerable part of the projects belongs to the Integrated Arts segment. Besides this segment, the areas of Multifunctional Cultural Equipment stand out for being relevant instruments for the cultural dynamics of the municipalities, which can make cultural policies present better returns, thus facilitating the realization of cultural events (Lopes, 2000).

Regarding the cultural proponents, 541 of them raised funds through the LIC. Out of the total, 4.44% concentrated around 50% of the resources in the area, and 43.62% of the proponents raised 90% of the resources. The Instituto Itaú Cultural, Museu de Arte Moderna de São Paulo and Fundação Bienal de São Paulo have concentrated most resources and together account for 22.68% of the resources raised in the area.

The Visual Arts area accounts for 13.83% of the total funds raised, with 4,764 projects approved, of which 1,585 raised funds through the law. Table 5 shows the Visual Arts segments.

The Visual Arts Exhibition segment concentrates most of the funds raised. It is explained that this segment is growing in Brazil in terms of audience apprehension and quality demands, and many professionals specialized in designing exhibitions in this niche (Razuk, 2011).

The growth of Visual Arts in Brazil has been indirectly influenced by the LIC, since a considerable part of the exhibitions in this area is made possible by tax incentives. There are distortions in the law that cause resources directed to Visual Arts to be concentrated mainly in the Southeast region, where most of the companies opting for the tax waiver are located (Razuk, 2011). However, the concentration of resources in an area like this, historically located in major centers, is one of the factors that make the democratization of access to resources unfeasible, insofar as the level of institutionalization required is an entry barrier for new cultural players.

In this area, 2,617 proponents had their projects approved, 843 of which managed to raise funds. The concentration of resources in certain proponents is greater than in the areas presented above, whereas 1.90% of the cultural proponents concentrate 50% of the resources raised, and 28.94% of these concentrate 90% of the total raised. The Fundação Bienal de São Paulo and the Instituto Tomie Ohtake stand out for raising, together, 14.43% of the resources in this area.

The Audiovisual area raised 7.72% of the total resources, totaling R$1,122,420,175.62. There were 5,386 approved projects, 1,757 of which were successful. Table 6 presents the cultural segments of this area.

The segment of Dissemination of audiovisual collection stands out, which indicates that LIC resources are used mainly for dissemination, to the detriment of the creation of audiovisual content, a fact that can be explained by the existence of another tax incentive mechanism aimed at this sector, Law 8.685 of 1993, known as the Audiovisual Law, which may have been used mainly to promote national cinematographic creations (Sarkovas, 2011).

Regarding the proponents, in the Audiovisual area, 3,223 producers had their projects approved, 921 of which managed to raise funds. The concentration of resources in this area indicates that 3.26% of the producers concentrate 50% of the resources. In general, 33.44% of the producers concentrate approximately 90% of the total resources directed to this area. We highlight the companies Fundação Pe. Anchieta Centro Paulista Rádio e TV Educativas and D+3 Produções Artísticas Ltda. Together, they concentrate 14.28% of the total resources of the area.

The Humanities area raised 7.60% of the total resources. There were 9,249 approved projects, 3,071 of which were approved. For Ficheira and Hollanda (2018), considering the period of existence of the LIC, Humanities is the cultural area with the lowest fundraising amount. However, it is not the smallest area in terms of the volume of cultural actions carried out, referring to the promotion of reading and literature in the country. According to the authors, this indicates that the projects in this area require fewer resources to be executed. Table 7 illustrates the segments of the area.

Literary Events and the Publication of Books stand out as segments with the highest share in the volume raised. Since the area is characterized by the desire for literature, the two highlighted segments represent forms of creation and dissemination of literary cultural products.

Concerning the cultural proponents of Humanities, it can be observed that out of the total of 5000 proponents of the area, 1.646 have captured resources. The productions with the highest fundraising amount correspond to projects related to the publication of books or literary events, such as the biennials, which are relevant for the literary field in the country.

The Museums and Memory area was established in 2017. In Brazil, museums represent "places of memory", since they allow recollecting the events of the past, based on the expectations of the present (Vieira, 2017). There were 92 projects approved, 27 of which raised funds.

Initially, Brazilian museums aimed to present aspects that described the national history. Eventually, they started to exhibit artistic collections of patrons (Vieira, 2017). In the LIC, this area is divided into some cultural segments (Table 8). The segment of Annual activity plans and Museum plans stands out for the volume of funding obtained, which accounted for 67.46% of the total raised. It demonstrates that the LIC contributes to the maintenance of institutions in this area.

In this area, 84 proponents had their projects approved, and 25 of them raised funds. Out of these, 25.32% of the proposals raised about 90% of the resources. It is noteworthy that the Associação Pinacoteca Arte e Cultura - APAC concentrates, with only one project, 35.49% of the resources.

The Music area is second in terms of volume of funding, with 22.63% of the total resources. In this area, 15,700 projects were approved, 4,884 of which managed to raise funds. Instrumental Music and Classical Music stand out among the cultural segments in the area (Table 9).

The prominence of the Instrumental and Classical Music segments can be explained by the fact that they are framed in Article 18 of the LIC, which allows a 100% deduction of the resources intended for the incentive. On the counterpart, segments such as Popular Music are framed under Article 26, which allows a 30% deduction and may be less attractive to sponsors (Costa, 2011). The classification of the classical and instrumental music segments in Article 18 favors the viability of cultural productions of this niche, which represent legitimized spheres of cultural production. Conceptually, Popular Music in Brazil is all music that differs from so-called Classical Music. The term "popular" refers to regional, folkloric and traditional productions. A significant part of the productions considered Popular Music in the national context is not produced by the subaltern classes, which makes the use of this term confusing (Chaui, 2008).

In this area, 8,479 proponents had their projects approved, 2,269 of which raised funds. Out of these, 3.13% raised the equivalent to 50% of the total resources of this area, while 30.76% of the proponents raised 90% of the resources. It is important to highlight the Brazilian Symphony Orchestra Foundation and the State of São Paulo Symphony Orchestra Foundation, which together raised 10.23% of the total resources in the area.

The Cultural Heritage area accounts for 11.32% of LIC's resources. This area comprises cultural assets related to traditions, landscapes, architecture, documents/acquis, gastronomic and archaeological aspects, among others (Rodrigues et al., 2017). There were 1,622 approved projects, 724 of which raised funds. In Brazil, the preservation and defense of this area began in the 1930s, which places it among the pioneer areas benefited by cultural policies (Calabre, 2009). The segments of this area are shown in Table 10.

Material Heritage Preservation stands out, with 15.54% of the resources. There were 1,062 proponents whose projects were approved, and out of these, 444 raised resources, while 4.51% concentrate around 50% of the area's resources, and 29.28% concentrate 90% of the resources. For Bem, Waismann and Araujo (2017), the LIC has contributed significantly to the preservation of the Brazilian cultural heritage, and despite the oscillations in terms of resources and projects with funding over the years, this cultural area has great potential to expand, considering the total amount provided.

6 Conclusions

This article verified that LIC contributes to the democratization of access and dissemination of cultural manifestations, by promoting cultural pluralism in the distribution of resources. For such, qualitative and quantitative research was conducted, considering the data collected in the VerSalic platform referring to cultural projects from 2009 to 2018, which were analyzed and presented by means of documentary analysis and descriptive statistics instruments.

Based on the panorama presented, it is possible to observe that a significant part of the resources made available for LIC - 77.24% - through approved cultural projects were not used, due to projects that failed to raise funds from incentive providers. Another highlight refers to the participation of legal cultural proponents, who raised 96.93% of the total LIC resources. It demonstrates that, although the law allows the participation of the most diverse types of actors as proponents, seeking to be a democratic instrument for the promotion of culture, the formal nature of the mechanism shifts to the professionalization of culture becomes a type of privilege, which can result in the maintenance of resources for proponents already established in the cultural market.

Regarding the cultural areas that receive incentives, it is possible to observe that, in all areas, resources tend to concentrate in certain proponents who stand out for the number of resources raised, compared to the others. The data reveal that federal cultural funding through the LIC concentrates public resources in few proponents, which can generate distortions among the Brazilian regions in terms of the exploitation of the cultural assets provided and the concentration of income for large cultural producers.

The analysis of this scenario of concentration of resources from the perspective of cultural pluralism indicates that, despite the fact that individuals may become cultural proponents, even with approved projects, the effectiveness of these projects depends on the market sieve in fundraising. Besides, the ability to generate a return for the company image of the project tends to prevail over the culture that it aims to promote, since the business sector decides which productions will be made possible. In this aspect, the promotion of cultural pluralism seems to be neglected, since the State can only guarantee public interest in cultural projects up to the stage of evaluating the proposals.

It is concluded that tax incentive is fundamental for the promotion of cultural activities. However, considering the cases of concentrations presented, it seems legitimate to reflect on the LIC as the main form of culture financing in the country. The mechanism presents difficulties in democratizing culture in terms of the distribution of resources by cultural area and the formal aspects of the functioning of the LIC. Demanding the institutionalization and professionalization of the proponents to compete in the dynamics of fundraising represents strong barriers to cultural democracy by perpetuating the concentration of resources in certain proponents. This discussion reveals the need for the State to consider not only fiscal renunciation, but promote the training of cultural agents and mapping of potentialities, especially in cultural fields historically marginalized due to low institutionalization and professionalization, such as immaterial culture, so as to increase the possibilities of approval and fundraising. In addition, it is necessary to think of redistributive forms to mitigate the concentration of resources in certain productions, proponents and geographic areas.

The results of this research provide to all interested parties a descriptive picture of the volume of resources made available by LIC, seeking to present general aspects of the instrument and ground discussions about the law, which is constantly demonized due to ignorance about its history, operation and results. As for the limitations of this research, we highlight that the methods used allow us to present a description of the use of the instrument, but with restricted capacity to infer the effect of LIC on the municipalities where it enabled cultural projects to be performed.

References

Agamben, G. (2012). Introductory Note on the Concept of Democracy. In G. Agamben et al. (Eds.), Democracy in what State? Columbia University Press.

Barbosa, F., Freitas Filho, R. (2015). Financiamento Cultural: Uma visão de princípios. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).

Barros, J. M., Angelis, M. (2018). Diversidade Cultural e processos de mediação. Em J. M. Barros J. H. Bezerra. (Orgs.). Gestão Cultural e diversidade: do pensar ao agir (119–137). Editora UEMG e Observatório da Diversidade Cultural.

Belem, M. P., Donadone, J. C. (2013). A Lei Rouanet e a construção do “mercado de patrocínios culturais.” Norus , 1(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.15210/NORUS.V1I1.2761

Bem, J. S. de, Araujo, M. P., Waismann, M., Rodrigues, N. F. (2017). Patrimônio cultural e recursos da Lei Rouanet de 2007 a 2016. Políticas Culturais Em Revista, 10(1), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.9771/PCR.V10I1.22068

Bier, C. A., Cavalheiro, R. A. (2015). Lei rouanet x crowdfunding: fomentando os empreendimentos culturais. Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo Em Administração, 9(2), 47. https://doi.org/10.12712/RPCA.V9I2.457

Blomgren, R. (2012). Autonomy or democratic cultural policy: that is the question. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(5), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2012.708861

Bobbio, N. (2004). A era dos direitos. Elsevier.

Calabre, L. (2009). Políticas Culturais no Brasil: dos anos 1930 ao século XXI. Editora FGV.

Carvalho, A. (2016). Diversidade Cultural: da Periferia para o Coração dos Museus. Boletim ICOM Portugal, 3(5), 8–12.

Chaui, M. (2008). Cultura e democracia . Crítica y Emancipación, 1, 53–76.

Coelho, T. (1997). Dicionário crítico de política cultural: cultura e imaginário. Editora Iluminuras Ltda.

Costa, C. F. da, Medeiros, I. B. de O., Bucco, G. B. (2017). O financiamento da cultura no Brasil no período 2003-15: um caminho para geração de renda monopolista. Revista de Administração Pública, 51(4), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612162254

Costa, E. (2011). Entrevistas. In A. C. Abdalla (Ed.), Lei Rouanet: Percursos e Relatos. Atitude Brasil.

Cuche, D. (1999). A noção de cultura nas Ciências Sociais. EDUSC.

Cunha Filho, F. H. (2000). Direitos culturais como direitos fundamentais no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Brasília Jurídica.

Dowlatyari, M. (2017). The Rouanet Law: Funding cultural projects or a creative industry in Brazil? (Dissertação de mestrado). Fundação Getúlio Vargas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Ficheira, C. M. H., Hollanda, H. H. O. B. de. (2018). Política Cultural por meio do incentivo fiscal, 26 anos de caminhada: retrato da captação global e setorial no campo das humanidades. Políticas Culturais Em Revista, 11(1), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.9771/PCR.V11I1.25343

Gonçalves, J. W. (2007). A cultura democrática ou a democracia cultural. Biblos, 10, 63–71.

Jones, S. (2010). Culture shock. Demos.

Knopp, G. da C., Darbilly, L. V. C. (2007). Reflexões sobre Políticas Culturais para o Desenvolvimento Local. XXXI Encontro Da ANPAD.

Lacerda, A. P. de, Gomes, E. J. dos S. de F. (2013). Sentidos da Democracia e dos Direitos Culturais no campo das Políticas Culturais. Políticas Culturais Em Revista, 6(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.9771/1983-3717PCR.V6I1.8258

Langsted, J. (1989). Double Strategies in a Modern Cultural Policy. Journal of Arts Management and Law, 19(4), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07335113.1989.10593788

Lei n. 8313, de 23 de dezembro de 1991. (1991). Restabelece princípios da Lei n. 7.505/1986, institui o Pronac e dá outras providências. Planalto. Brasília, DF.

Lopes, A. R. C. (1999). Pluralismo Cultural e Políticas de Currículo Nacional. Currículo: Políticas e Práticas, 4, 59–80.

Lopes, J. T. (2000). Em busca de um lugar no mapa: Reflexões sobre políticas culturais em cidades de pequena dimensão. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 34, 81–91.

Mannheim, K. (1974). Sociologia da Cultura. Perspectiva.

Mata-Machado, B. N. (2007). Direitos Humanos e Direitos Culturais. SESC.

Medri, W. (2011). Análise Exploratória de Dados. UEL.

Mega, V. M. (2015). Lei Rouanet: a visibilidade do produto cultural como critério de patrocínio à produção artística (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Miszputen, F. (2014). Patrocínio à cultura: do marketing cultural à responsabilidade social (Dissertação de mestrado). Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Montesquieu. (2000). O Espírito das Leis. Martins Fontes.

Montesquieu. (2015). Cartas Persas. Tinta-da-China.

Nancy, J.-L. (2012). Finite and infinite democracy. In G. Agamben et al. (Eds.), Democracy in what State? Columbia University Press.

Netto, J. V. R. (2015). Gestão de políticas de cultura e qualidade da democracia: São Paulo, 10 anos de um modelo ainda em construção. Revista de Administração Pública, 49(4), 1011–1038. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612126964

Piccoli, C., Ferreira, A., Siqueira, J. (2021). Avaliação de Políticas Públicas Culturais – Modelo de Análise da Efetividade da Lei de Incentivo à Cultura. Sociedade, Contabilidade e Gestão, 15(3), 166-184. https://doi.org/10.21446/scg_ufrj.v15i3.40970

Przeworski, A., Cheibub, J. A., Limongi, F. (2003). Democracia e Cultura: uma visão não culturalista. Lua Nova, 58, 9–35.

Razuk, A. (2011). Entrevistas. In A. C. Abdalla (Ed.), Lei Rouanet: Percursos e Relatos. Atitude Brasil.

Requejo, F. (1999). Pluralismo cultural e cidadania democrática. Lua Nova, (47), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-64451999000200006

Rodrigues, N. F., Bem2, J. S., Bernd, Z. (2017). O projeto Resgate do Patrimônio Histórico e Cultural da UFRGS - contribuições da Lei Rouanet. Colóquio - Revista Do Desenvolvimento Regional, 14(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.26767/COLOQUIO.V14I1.565

Sá-Earp, F., Kornis, G., Estrella, L. M., Joffe, P. S. (2016). Dois estudos sobre a Lei Rouanet . In IE-UFRJ Discussion Paper (pp. 1–26).

Sarkovas, Y. (2011). Entrevistas. In A. C. Abdalla (Ed.), Lei Rouanet: Percursos e Relatos. Atitude Brasil.

Silva, R. C. da, Dellagnelo, E. L. (2004). Redes de organizações sociais: a inserção da lógica de mercado e a formação de gestores. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 2(3), 01–11. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-39512004000300006

Silva, F. A. B., Araújo, H. E. (2010). Cultura Viva: avaliação do programa arte educação e cidadania. IPEA.

Tavares, A. L. S. (2018). Democracia e orçamento participativo: um estudo de caso do município de Vila Velha (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória, ES, Brasil.

Thiry-Cherques, H. R. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu: a teoria na prática. Revista de Administração Pública, 40(1), 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122006000100003

Varella, A. C. N., Santos, R. T., Najberg, E. (2020). O Novo Serviço Público e a Lei de Incentivo à Cultura: Uma Oportunidade. Revista de Economia da UEG, 16, 107-122. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4012337

Vieira, G. L. (2017). O museu como lugar de memória: o conceito em uma perspectiva histórica. Mosaico, 8(12), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.12660/RM.V8N12.2017.65900

Williams, R. (2011). Cultura e Sociedade: de Coleridge a Orwell. Editora Vozes.

IR