Creative Economy: A Feasible Development Option

The early development of industrial statistics and censusesof economic activity were undertaken in the early twentiethcentury. Not surprisingly, the classifications adopted bystatisticians at that time reflected the dominant industrialstructure in Northern Europe and North America andindustrial production practices. This period preceded thetime when extensive, mechanized mass production (Fordism)became widespread, and the taxonomies that were developedreflected the emphasis on primary resources and manufacture;little attention was paid to services. Effective statisticalcollection requires stability in taxonomies and categoriesused for collection and analysis. In addition, internationalcorrespondence tables have been developed for such classifications.Accordingly, change in classifications takes placevery slowly and is resisted.The nature and structure of most economies haschanged over the last century. Some classifications detailareas of economic activity that now play only a minor partin contemporary society, while areas that are critical to currenteconomic growth may be ignored. A general example isthe service sector and, more specifically, the creative economy.Second, economic change has occurred quickly, particularlywith respect to areas based on technological change.Again, the creative economy is in the vanguard. It is for thesereasons that the creative economy is invisible when one looksat national statistical tables. For instance, industry outputand sales data suggest that the computer games industry isnow as important as the film industry, but if one looks forinformation in national statistics it will not appear. Changesare being made to taxonomies, and industrial classificationsare being revised as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, owingto their historically low profile, these areas are considered alow priority.This is not to suggest that no information is available.Clearly, older creative industries such as cinematography arebetter represented; however, the coverage is still partial. It ispossible to collect and then classify survey information onparticipants in the creative economy. However, much creativeeconomy activity is shifting to the virtual field of onlinetransactions. This shift presents a substantial problem fortrade data, as only physical goods enter the audit, so completelynew methods of reporting and surveying will berequired to capture this activity. Again, it is a problem sharedwith many service industries, but perhaps it is more criticalfor the creative economy.In recent years, many agencies and governments havesought to collect data on the creative economy.Unfortunately, these approaches have been predominantlyopportunistic in the sense that such measures reflect thestructure of national databases rather than a systematic basisfor comparison. In any case, they have played a significantrole in promoting the case for, and the significance of, thecreative economy. What is needed now is a more systematicapproach. Some independent data are available on the creativeeconomy, but much of the data does not fit the currentpurpose. The reasons are related to the previous formulationof cultural and creative economy policy, which was framedby public welfare economics and operated on a subsidy, orgrant-in-aid, model. Under such systems there is little callfor economic evaluation, as the emphasis is usually on thefulfilment of service criteria rather than economic output.Thus, there is neither a culture nor a tradition of collectingor using such data about the creative economy.The Creative Economy Reports argue that it is possibleto use existing taxonomies of trade to partially describethe dynamics of the creative economy. This by definitionresulted in an underestimate of world trade of creativeindustries. Yet UNCTAD made a start in 2008 by creatingthe basis for a systematic collection and trade analysis ofdata on the creative economy, highlighting critical areas.Now, in 2010, a further step is being taken by revisiting andsharpening the list of creative goods, providing expandeddata for creative services and deepening the trade analysiswith a greater focus on its South-South dimension.Recent debates and studies have yielded divergentviews over terminology as well as greater convergence aboutthe concept and definition of the “creative economy”. Inpart, this is evidence of a political struggle that the culturalfield has been experiencing, reflecting the desire of States togovern their economies in different ways. Shifts in modes ofgovernance have placed economic evaluation of all activitiesand value for money at centre stage.What then are the objectives of such an exercise? First,there is a need to organize data collection and collation alongcommon lines with agreed core concepts. Even if this doesnot necessarily result in one single definition, the UNESCOInstitute for Statistics suggests that a flexible definition orframework be adopted. This means that there is a core set ofactivities alongside an optional set defined but not requiredby all nations. In this way, data collection can be efficient,4Towards an evidence-based assessment of the creative economyCREATIVE ECONOMY REPORT 2010105