Creative Economy: A Feasible Development Option

Table 4.8Proposed categorization of creative goodsDominant use of the productOrganisation of production of the productArtisanalMassAesthetic 1 2Functional 3 4Cell examples1 - A fine-art painting2 - A newspaper or book3 - A handmade ceramic vase4 - Designed furniture (high design content, mass produced)Cells 1 and 2 are most clearly dedicated to creative activities that are exclusive but can be artisanal or mass production. In some cases, it can be difficult todistinguish whether materials are dedicated to artisanal or mass production. For example, in the case of a fine-art item, it is possible to distinguish the trade inhigh-value goods from a more low-level (artistically speaking) reproduction market.Cells 3 and 4 are for creative goods that have not only a creative content but also a functional nature, but the latter dominates. For example, a handmadeceramic vase is a decorative interior article but also has a utility value.Source: UNCTAD in collaboration with A. Pratt4.10 Main considerationsObviously, there are challenges to understanding thescale and nature of international trade in creative goods,services and rights. This chapter argues that it is possible todevelop a first-cut analysis from a combination of modifiedexisting trade data. The resultant taxonomies and the datathat populate them are neither ideal nor perfect. Caution isneeded to draw taxonomies tightly but to develop them withintelligence such that they map — and make visible — theshifting dimensions of creative production.The proposals put forward in the Creative EconomyReports seek to use raw data from verified public sourcesthat are already reported internationally rather than relyupon samples or estimates from sources whose rigour intheir data collection methods is not guaranteed, or to relyupon very costly and time-consuming primary data collection.Of course, the final objective of an accurate audit ofthe creative economy will be achievable only with the adoptionof new taxonomies and with new data collection. Untilthat time, pragmatic solutions such as the one outlined inthis report seems a way forward.There is clearly a need for a better understanding aswell as a measure of the organizational and institutionalforms that have developed in the creative industries. If policyinterventions are to be considered, a baseline is requiredto identify a starting point for evaluating impact and variablesneed to be matched with objectives. The creative industriescommonly seek to achieve a number of contradictoryoutcomes: access and excellence, social inclusion and profitability,etc. For this reason considerable care is needed inthe creation of indicators for comparative work, evaluationand policymaking.The issue is to develop an information base that isrobust, meaningful and flexible. While quantitative statisticshave their use, there is also a place for qualitative information.Most statistical indicators focus on outputs; however,in the arts and culture process, indicators are also critical.Invariably, these describe such things as institutional form,density and competence as well as particular ways in whichpeople are employed or carry out tasks.In summary, this is a step forward of a work inprogress to shape a possible approach by which otherwiseinvisible activities of the creative economy may be made visible.This scheme is intended to reconstruct a productionchainmeasure for physical goods. However, completing thepicture for invisible or copyright transactions is still someway off. Considerable efforts are needed to expand andimprove this visibility.4Towards an evidence-based assessment of the creative economyCREATIVE ECONOMY REPORT 2010119