This collection affords readers a counterview to critiques in academic discourse that have allied applied theatre practice almost completely with market-driven, neo-liberal funding relationships. Such funding relationships, it is argued, tend to muzzle practitioners and hinder the realization of the political and social objectives of the field. The publication discusses how, in the 1980s UK, Margaret Thatcher's government through its neo-liberal policies cut public funding of arts, weighed all social and cultural aspects of life, including arts, on the scale of economic value, and encouraged theatre companies to be entrepreneurial and seek available corporate sponsorship. This instantiates the connection between theatre-making and profit-making. This collection, however, questions the extent to which the agendas of donors have supposedly served to undermine the objectives of the field.

The editor argues that applied theatre practitioners may not have succumbed to the commodification and marketization pull of neo-liberalism to the degree that available literature on the field seems to suggest. Self-funding, crowdfunding and corporate philanthropy, which have received less critical attention, are some of the other types of funding discussed in this publication. The editor distinguishes between corporate sponsorship and corporate philanthropy, the latter being non-obligatory, although still capable of being utilized to the advantage of the corporation. Drawing from the feminist economic theory that sees the economy as a space of diversity, the editor contends that applied theatre practice has benefited not from an economy (understood in the singular), but from diverse economies with different economic narratives.

In light of concerns that applied theatre's heteronomous relationship with neo-liberal economies is increasingly robbing it of its capacity to advocate for political and economic change, this collection espouses the view that applied theatre is still capable of functioning as both a genuine and a critical art form simultaneously.

The contributors exemplify how economic arrangements can be made less impactful on artistic products. Penelope Glass discusses the liberatory objectives of autogestión or autonomous (self-)management, a system that ensures economic freedom for theatre-makers and translates to a positioned resistance to neo-liberalism. Glass's Colectivo Sustento, a community theatre initiative in Chile, supported their theatre projects through farming, thereby exercising control over their theatrical output. Paul Sutton unequivocally asserts that those ‘inspired to work in theatre do so primarily from creative motivations, not because of a love of cash flow forecasts or profit and loss accounts’ (p. 171). Sutton outlines seven mindsets to reframe applied theatre practices. These include the ‘Long Tail’ which tasks applied theatre practitioners to innovatively offer other niche products alongside their projects (just as his company, C & T, does by providing a digital repertoire of online drama applications). Molly Mullen and Bonnie Chan's contribution discusses a Hong Kong self-funded, voluntary theatre company – FM Theatre Power – that operated for ten years before taking a government grant in order to ‘experiment with enacting their political freedom within the relationship’ (p. 161). Conversely, Applied Theatre Consultants Ltd (ATCo), who are ‘funded by determinedly market-driven social policies’ with ‘no apology in regard to operating as a capitalist venture’, understand the precariousness of depending on contractual funding relationships in a neo-liberal economy like New Zealand (p. 135). Peter O'Connor and Brian O'Connor note that such precariousness makes planning almost unfeasible. The publication urges theatre-makers to think of ‘better’ funding not in quantitative but rather in qualitative terms by making themselves less dependent on donors, thus gaining the creative freedom to ply their trade without let or hindrance.

Although the publication draws examples from the UK, the USA, New Zealand and so on, this may be insufficient to guarantee the global applicability of the ideas espoused. Additionally, the practicability of most of the ideas may require further elucidation to gain a wider currency. Nevertheless, the ideas advocated could have the positive effect of curbing competition among theatre-makers who often solicit for funding from the same donor agencies. The strength of the publication seems, therefore, to lie in the insights it provides on other avenues of funding which theatre-makers could exploit. In doing so, the collection assuages the apprehension expressed in various critiques that applied theatre practice may have capitulated to the profiteering magnetism of neo-liberalism and capitalism.