These are just some of the questions explored during the event organized by Chemnitz and Nova Gorica in Chemnitz to celebrate 40 years of the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC). It was a birthday celebrated not only with a party, but above all by looking to the future.

This formed the backdrop to the White Paper “40 Recommendations from 40 Years of ECoC”, a research project led by Valentina Montalto, conducted in collaboration with Roberta Ferrarini, Camilla Donà dalle Rose, and Mojca Stubelj, with Anely Smida Jeromin as project coordinator.

After various institutional speeches and thematic sessions—some even featuring ironic takes on the past and future of the ECoC—the spotlight turned to the White Paper. The research lead explained the methodology and findings clearly and effectively.From 1985 to 2029, there have been 82 European Capitals of Culture (expected to reach 92 by 2033), with 240 candidate cities, 33 host countries, and around 52 million people involved—a remarkable figure worth remembering.

The program has passed through four distinct phases: the first (1985–2004) marked the birth of the title, originally called “European City of Culture”; the second (2005–2010) saw its institutionalization; the third (2011–2019) introduced a more professionalized structure and a two-part selection process; and the fourth (2020–2033) focuses on celebration and legacy.

So, what will happen after 2033? At this point, no one knows for certain.

Given that uncertainty, the research offers a number of suggestions and recommendations to policymakers aimed at enhancing the ECoC path, correcting past shortcomings, and presenting innovative proposals. To this end, representatives from 64 past and upcoming ECoCs were interviewed. The final report offers extensive food for thought, much of which sparked debate during the event in Chemnitz.

For instance, some propose changing the name from the singular to the plural: from European Capital of Culture to European Capital of Cultures. Others suggest eliminating the evaluation panel’s city visits. Some recommend selecting only cities with a minimum level of cultural infrastructure (libraries, theaters, festivals, etc.), while others propose increasing the number of ECoCs annually or nominating new ones every three years. A few even argue for eliminating the rotating calendar of designated countries.

In our opinion, one of the more interesting proposals is the idea of a joint bid book between two or three capitals in the same year, a suggestion first put forward by Franco Bianchini in one of our interviews. In short, the proposals are many—each intriguing in its own way—and all united by a desire to promote real change to improve the program and raise its profile.

Digging deeper, we find another strong proposal—at least in our view: giving the program a recognizable logo and boosting its visibility at international events such as Eurovision. The debate surrounding the selection criteria—particularly the elusive concept of “European dimension”—was extensive. Despite being central to the ECoC identity, no one has clearly defined what it truly means. Now more than ever, this concept needs to be articulated with clarity, strength, and conviction.

The White Paper serves as a valuable tool for supporting the European Commission, which is also conducting its own evaluation of the program and considering future changes. It’s an excellent piece of work, and we thank the initiators and researchers for their efforts.

The timetable for the process included the completion of an online questionnaire by 7 April—just three days after the report was shared, which may be too short a window. The final presentation is scheduled in Brussels on 12–13 May, although from a communication standpoint, 9 May—Europe Day—would have been a more symbolic choice. A new regulation is expected to be approved by 2027.

However, from our perspective, there are some weak points in the White Paper.

The interview panel included 38 general managers, 19 artistic directors, and 7 who hold both roles, as well as 11 experts and policymakers. This makes for a very specific, technical-organizational perspective—but noticeably absent are the artists themselves. Their creative input could have added a vital layer of perspective on topics like the European dimension, citizen engagement, cultural infrastructure, or even simple experiential elements such as holding opening ceremonies in spring instead of harsh winter. Their creative contributions would have enriched the process.

Another area touched only lightly in the report is communication. While branding, logos, and Eurovision were discussed, it’s easy to confuse marketing with communication—two distinct but connected disciplines. Creating a strong brand is essential, but equally important is the need to extend and enrich the narrative around the ECoC. Forgive us for this corporate example, but perhaps spending a year on Euronews would be more impactful than a few days on Eurovision.

As the White Paper highlights, 50 million people have been engaged in the ECoC over the past 40 years. And yet, if you asked a random European citizen who the 2025 ECoC is, very few would know. Communication remains the Cinderella of the program’s past, present—and, it seems, future. Yet tourism statistics prove that visibility is one of the most immediate and powerful outcomes of an ECoC designation.

Therefore, it might have been beneficial to also include communication experts among the interviewees. They could have offered “recommendations” to help spread not only awareness of the cities involved but also the values behind the program as envisioned by Melina Mercouri.

In 2015—exactly ten years ago—we invited all ECoC communication managers to Matera for a meeting focused on strategies to enhance the program (Attached to this news). That event produced a document for the European Commission. It led to no direct outcomes, but it gave birth to EcocNews, created to give ECoCs a voice. Some of those old proposals may still hold value today.

And speaking of proposals, EcocNews has already published seven of its own (available here). But given the current state of Europe, we’d like to add an eighth. We believe ECoCs should be more grounded, more engaged in what’s happening in our world. They shouldn’t remain confined within national or thematic borders. Instead, they should open up—to the Mediterranean, to Africa, to the far North, to the Middle East. Especially in light of today’s pressing global issues—climate change, war—the ECoCs should stand united in defending the core values of Europe: peace, inclusion, diversity.

In this spirit, we believe ECoCs should feel part of a broader community—a community we might now dare to call the United States of Europe.

If so, and in order to give greater visibility, strength, and meaning to the program, we propose the following:

The ECoC should be nominated every three years through a pan-European selection process. Each country could nominate one city, and an international jury would select one or two winners. This approach would not only allow more preparation time but would create a powerful communication event, shared across all European countries. And the winning city (or cities) would enjoy far greater recognition among citizens.

The debate is open.
There is time to refine these proposals.
But one big question remains:
In light of everything happening in Europe, can we be sure the European Capital of Culture program will still exist after 2033?

We certainly hope so. Because culture remains the strongest antidote to hatred and war.

Here an interview by Mariateresa Cascino, editor in Chief of EcocNews with Pier Luigi Sacco (Professor of Cultural Economics, Guest Professor at Harvard, Advisor at rhe EU Commission) about the research "40 Recommendations from 40 Years of ECoC”.