A CRE8TV Project Deliverable

DEL: 1.0.1(R)

A Review of the Existing Definitions of the

Cultural and Creative Industries

Bruce Tether and Mickael Benaim

Manchester Institute of Innovation Research and Manchester Business School

Work Package #

and Title

1.0: Developing a Harmonised Approach to the Mapping and Measuring the CCIs, their Innovations, and Connections to the Wider Economy

Activity Type RTD

Task Task 1.1: Review the Existing Definitions of the Cultural and Creative Industries.

A variety of different definitions have been proposed and developed to identify the CCIs. We will undertake a review of these, and their underlying logics. In so doing, we will draw on and make connections with groups who have already been working on this and related topics, including (amongst others) the EU/EUROSTAT – Working Group on Cultural Statistics in the EU; WIPO – Creative Industries Division; UNCTAD’s Creative Economy & Industries Programme; and the OECD’s group for the International Measurement of the Economic and Social Importance of Culture. We will also engage with national statistical agencies and other FP7 SSH projects dealing with these topics, with leading academics in this area, and with other agencies (e.g. NESTA in the UK). The primary aim of this task is to review the conceptual grounding for definitions of the cultural and creative industries.

Deliverable 1.0.1 (R) Task 1.1 report reviewing the existing definition of the creative and cultural industries [MoD: 12]

Acknowledgements: Support from the 7th European Framework Program

(Grant Agreement no. 320203) is gratefully acknowledged.

This Version: April, 2014

Checked by: Bruce Tether, July 2014

2

Contents

1.1 Introduction 3

1.2 Reviewing the CCI’s definition in the literature 5

1.3 Rethinking the CCIs: a new conceptual model 16

References 22

Appendices 24

3

1.1 Introduction

At least in Western countries, a consensus has emerged that the Cultural and Creative Industries

(hereafter CCIs) offer significant prospects not only for individual growth and fulfilment, and for

social cohesion, but also for business development and national prosperity and wealth (e.g., KEA,

2006; UNCTAD, 2008). The concept of the ‘cultural and creative industries’ (CCIs) is however a

relatively recent one, with some attributing its emergence to Australia’s (1994) Creative Nation

Report. Others see and evolution of terminology, and the scope of the concept, from ‘The Arts’,

through ‘The Cultural Industries’ to ‘The Creative Industries’.

Several big challenges arise with regard to the CCIs. These include (1.) Developing an agreed or

harmonised (and conceptually grounded) understanding of what these activities or industries are;

and (2.) Obtaining statistical data to understand their size, shape, dynamics, and inter-relations with

other sectors and activities. To add to the complexity, these issues are interconnected, and not

independent, because most of the definitions use extant statistical classifications, and especially

standard industrial and/or occupational codes, that are intended for purposes other than defining

and measuring the CCIs.

In essence, without the development of new statistical approaches, there is a trade-off between

developing a strong conceptual grounding based in understanding creativity and culture, and

engaging in pragmatic exercises which rely on extant statistical categorisations to identifying the

‘creative’ and/or ‘cultural’ industries.

First, what are the cultural and creative industries (CCIs)?

The (conceptual) definition of the cultural and creative industries has provoked considerable debate,

but in recent years, the term ‘Creative Industries’ or ‘Creative Economy’ has gained political currency,

sometimes being combined with ‘Cultural Industries’ or the ‘Cultural Economy’. The recent UNCTAD

report (2010) on the Creative Economy for example highlights four different models of “The Creative

Industries”:

1. The UK’s Department for Culture Media and Sport: DCMS model (DCMS, 1998), which is a

relatively straightforward selection of 13 industries which are considered to be based on individual

creativity, skill and talent, and which were considered to have potential for growth through the

exploitation of intellectual property.

2. The Symbolic Texts Model, which derives from the critical-cultural studies tradition

(Hesmondhalgh, 2002) and puts the ‘high arts’ at the core, separately categorising other activities as

peripheral and ‘borderline’.

3. The Concentric Circles Model, which places cultural goods and value at the core, but also identifies

wider cultural- and related-industries (Throsby, 2001).

4. The Copyright Model, developed by WIPO, which is primarily concerned with industries directly

involved with, or which support, the creation, manufacture, production, broadcast and distribution

of copyrighted works.

4

This is certainly not the totality of models of the CCIs, but we highlight them here to show how what

is included, and not included, varies with different understandings of the CCIs (See Table A in

appendix).

There is clearly more agreement about some activities than there is about others. For example, film,

music and the performing arts are always considered to be Creative and Cultural Industries or

activities, whereas activities like architecture and design are sometime central and sometimes

peripheral. Layer models (e.g. Frontier Economics, 2007) are particularly interesting, as they highlight

different functions and inter-relationships.

Although UNCTAD (2010, p.7) declares, “There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ model of the creative

industries, simply different ways of interpreting the structural characteristics of creative production.

The attractiveness of the various models may therefore be different, depending on the analytical

purpose”, we consider that the definitions developed in the literature present some weaknesses that

we will consider here, and which raise questions that lead the way for future research.

The second issue is more pragmatic and will be stressed as a challenge in the second part of this

Work Package: A Review the Existing Methodologies that use Extant Data-sources to Map and

Measure the CCIs. For practical purposes the CCIs are usually identified by using standard industrial

or NACE codes, while creative and cultural occupations can also be identified in Labour Force Surveys

using agreed ISCO codes that pertain to occupations considered to be creative and/or cultural.1

However, even if we can agree upon the list of industries and occupations to include, problems arise

with the granularity of the data that is available. For example, the LEG-European Leadership Group

on Cultural Statistics (Eurostat, 2001) identified 8 sectors as CCIs in the “LEG Model”. Some of these

are identified at the 4 digit SIC code level, data for which is often difficult to obtain on a harmonised

basis. This hinders the analysis of these activities, and forces the use of estimates. Eurostat (2007),

for example, states that: “Economic indicators on cultural sectors can be found using harmonised SBS

(Structural Business Statistics) data collected by Eurostat. Unfortunately, only one sector of the

cultural industries can be analysed practically at the moment: publishing.” Meanwhile, in relation to

trade in creative and cultural goods, Eurostat (2011) states that: “these statistics concern only

tangible goods and do not include external trade in licences or copyrights, although such intellectual

property rights are important in the literary, musical and audio-visual fields. Unfortunately, data on

trade in licences and copyrights are not available”. Since the conceptual definitions concerning how

the CCIs are identified and measured vary with the different nomenclatures, these practical

considerations cannot be ignored. However, the main goal of this section (1) is to review the existing

literature defining the CCIs and to propose some ways to explore and to overcome the challenges of

identification and measurement.

Section 1.2 reviews the different models and their underlying logics. Section 1.3 then proposes a new

typology of the industries that encapsulates the CCI activities from our point of view, which

highlights the role of three types of activity: progressive activities; preservative activities; and

provocative activities. We also compare the selection of industries based on the different models

definition and our classification, to highlight the advantages and potential drawbacks of the

proposed conceptualisation. Finally, in Section 1.4 conclusions are provided.

1 See for example those identified by the Task Force on Cultural Employment, in their report to European

Working Group on Cultural Statistics.

5

After this, Section 2 provides a review of existing approaches to mapping and measuring the CCIs.

And after that we provide a short ‘reflections’ section, in which we take stock of what is known, and

has been done, with regard to defining and measuring the CCIs.

1.2 Reviewing the CCI’s definition in the literature

The two UNICTAD reports (2010 and 2013) on the Creative Economy highlight four different models

of “Creative Industries”: the DCMS model, the WIPO model, the Concentric Circles Model and the

Symbolic Text Model. In this section, we will compare those models and also highlight the differences

between their definitions of the CCIs as well as their pragmatic approaches to measuring them.

The main models of CCI’s

In 1998, The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) was established by the newly elected

(New) Labour government. DCMS gained responsibility for the ‘creative industries’ (including the

media) as well as ‘the arts’, heritage, and other cultural activities, including sport. The Department

quickly developed a definition of the CCIs. This was a relatively straightforward if untheorised

selection of thirteen ‘industries’, considered to be grounded in individual creativity, skill and talent,

and with potential for growth through the exploitation of intellectual property. This was a decidedly

‘pro-business’ conceptualisation, with an emphasis placed on the economic contribution, and

potential economic contribution, of ‘the creative industries.’ This stance stood in marked contrast to

the Arts establishment; which was considered to be ‘staid’, rather elitist, conservative, and overly

dependent on state subsidies.

The DCMS mapping document of 1998 was an attempt to define and measure these (vibrant)

creative industries, which included: Advertising, Architecture, Art and antiques market, Crafts,

Design, Designer Fashion, Film and Video, Interactive leisure software, Music, Performing Arts,

Publishing, Software and Computer services, and Television and radio. The list sparked debate as to

whether or not certain sectors should be included or excluded. In particular, it is notable that only

‘interactive leisure software’ was included – later definitions would be extended to all software.

The definition of the Creative Industries was refined in the 2001 Creative Industries Mapping

document, which formed the basis of a set of mapping and measuring exercises that were conducted

over the next decade.

However, some dissatisfaction with the basis of these exercises developed, and in April 2013, the

DCMS published a consultation document on “Classifying and Measuring the Creative Industries:

Consultation on Proposed Changes”. In this, the DCMS proposed to adopt the idea of “creative

intensity” approach (based on the proportion of people considered to be engaged in creative jobs

within each industry), which had been developed by NESTA (Bakhshi et al. 2013), to identify which

industries should be included. If the proportion of people engaged in ‘creative jobs’ in a particular

industry is substantial, i.e., above a 30% threshold, the industry was considered a candidate for

inclusion within ‘the Creative Industries’ classification (DCMS, 2013, p. 4).

This new approach to classifying the creative industries depends on first identifying creative

occupations (or jobs), then, for each industry, measuring employment in these to identify those

6

sectors that have a relatively high shares of people engaged in creative occupations. The constituent

industries, defined by ‘Standard Industrial Classifications’, are then grouped together into a broader

category of ‘Creative Industries’. The number of people employed in creative occupations lying

outside the ‘Creative Industries’ can then be added to provide number of people employed in the

Creative Economy outside the Creative Industries (see Table 1).

Table 1: NESTA / DCMS Approach to Identifying the Creative Industries

Creative Industries Other Industries

Creative Occupations # of people employed in

creative occupations within

the creative industries (A)

# of people employed in

creative occupations outside

of the creative industries (B)

Other Occupations # of people employed in non-

creative occupations within

the creative industries (C)

Creative Economy = A + B + C

This approach is described in more detail in the recent Creative Skillset and NESTA publications. It

benefits from being relatively simple, transparent, and pragmatic, in that it makes use of established

data source on employment and industries. It is also dynamic, or potentially dynamic, in that the

definition of the “creative industries” can change with changes in their composition of employment.

Furthermore, the NESTA publication (Bakhshi et al. 2013) contains an extensive sensitivity analysis of

the methodology and concludes that it is robust. However, the approach is not without issues:

First, the approach depends on identifying “creative occupations”. This presents both conceptual and

measurement issues. What is it that makes an occupation “creative”?; in short, what is creative

work? The NESTA approach argues that a “creative occupation” encompasses:

“a role within the creative process that brings cognitive skills to bear to bring about

differentiation to yield either novel, or significantly enhanced products whose final form is

not fully specified in advance” (Bakhshi et al. 2013, p. 24)

Interestingly, this definition might encompass all manner of professional services, and especially

those that are bespoke to particular client’s needs.

NESTA then operationalize this definition by breaking it down into a set of five criteria:

Novel Process: Does the role most commonly solve a problem or achieve a goal, even one that

has been established by others, in novel ways? Even if a well-defined process exists which can

realise a solution, is creativity exhibited at many stages of that process?

Mechanisation resistant: The very fact that the defining features of the creative industries is

their use of a specialised labour force shows that the creative labour force contributes

something for which there is no mechanical substitute.

Non-repetitiveness or non-uniform function: Does the transformation which the occupation

effects likely vary each time it is created because of the interplay of factors, skills, creative

impulse and learning?

7

Creative contribution to the value chain: Is the outcome of the occupation novel or creative

irrespective of the context in which it is produced: one such context being the industry (and its

standard classification) of the organisational unit that hosts or employs the role?

Interpretation, not mere translation: Does the role do more than merely ‘shift’ the service or

artefacts form or place or time? For instance, a draught-person/CAD technician takes an

architect’s series of 2D drawings and renders then into a 3D model of a building. While great

skill and a degree of creative judgement are involved, arguably the bulk of the novel output is

generated by the architect and not by the draughtsperson.

Each of these provides food for thought and raises questions, e.g.:

Criterion 1 suggests that creative processes or practices are non-routine, or if they are routinely

structured they can be enacted in a variety of ways that permit creativity. In other words, any

routines followed are flexible rather than rigid and constraining. A problem with this is that many job

roles – especially at senior levels – are not so tightly defined as to define their enactment – in a

sense, all senior management and senior professional roles can be considered creative according to

this criterion.

Criterion 2 suggests that machines cannot undertake creative work. This raises a “Turing Test” type

question – if (and when) computers can be programmed to write music, paint pictures, design

buildings or provide consultancy services indistinguishable from those developed by more

conventional creative approaches, will these no longer be “creative activities”? Arguably in such

cases the creativity shifts from the making of the artefacts to those making of the machines or

devices that can produce the outputs. However, this criterion seems to be privileging ‘expressive’

creativity, which is innately human.

Although it places emphasis on the outcome, rather than the process, Criterion 3 seems hard to

distinguish from Criterion 1, and is also something that one could expect to find amongst many

people acting in senior job roles (as opposed to those engaged in “creative work”)

Criterion 4 is interesting, in that it argues context does not matter. Yet this is controversial; scholars

of creativity such as Amabile (1996) have argued that context matters a great deal for creativity:

thus, for example, a musician (a ‘creative occupation’) working on a cruise ship may well be much

less creative than a printer (a ‘non-creative’ occupation) working in an advertising agency.

Criterion 5 raises at least two issues: first, it implies a linear chain – that the creative work is done by

one person and passed on to the next to enact; second, it implies an occupational division of labour –

here the creator is the architect, the enactor is a draughtsperson. But is this a fair representation?

Much creative work is collaborative, with, for example, architects working alongside structural

engineers. It is fair to attribute all of the creativity to the architect and none to the engineer? (e.g.,

whilst the shells concept of the iconic Sydney Opera House was certainly the idea of Jørn Utzon, the

realisation of the schema as a constructed building required considerable creativity by Ove Arup and

Partners, the structural engineers (and others). While Utzon could be creative without the help of

others as an artist or sculptor, as an architect wanting to realise his ideas he required the creative

input of engineers (and others). The occupational division of labour implies that creative work can be

divided into creativity and enactment – but it does not follow that because the work can be divided,

that it actually is divided, either between people or across occupational classes. For example, in a

8

small architecture practices, the same person (the architect) is likely to do both “creative” tasks such

as 2D drawings, as well as non-creative tasks (such as practice administration); in larger practices

these tasks may be divided between architects, architectural technologists and administrators. On

the other hand, in firms and industries which engage in extensive outsourcing of routine activities

(e.g., outsourced administration), the ‘creative’ element will be higher. The point is that the

occupational division of labour is unlikely to be truly independent of context.

Another striking feature of the classification is that it includes no consideration of ‘culture’: it is a

definition of ‘creative activities’, occupations, and industries, rather than creative and cultural

industries.

Having devised these five criteria, or tests, for creative occupations, the NESTA approach then scores

occupations against them, using the job definitions outlined in the Standard Occupation

Classification. Those job roles considered to have all, or four out of five, of the creativity criteria are

considered to be “creative occupations”, and where these creative occupations constitute a large

part of an industry’s workforce (the proposed threshold being 30%), the industry is then deemed to

be creative.

Further questions arise at this stage. It is, for example, unclear why librarians or archivists are

considered to be ‘creative occupations’ whereas ‘design and development engineers’ (and indeed

other engineers) are not.

Do occupations engage in significantly different amounts or types of creativity? One of the issues

here is that Standard Occupational Classification is not (primarily) intended to describe whether a

specific occupation uses creative skills intensively/frequently: each category may contain substantial

variation in the extent of creativity allowed or expected in each occupational role. But is the

classification based on what might be done, or on what is typically done?

The use of Standard Industrial Classification also presents issue of aggregation and disaggregation.

For example, at the four digit level, 71.11 “Architecture Activities” is identified as a “creative

industry” because of the intensity of “architects” within the industry. Bakhshi et al. (2013, p. 35)

report that “creative occupations” account for around two third of employment in this industry

(71.11). However, because engineers are much more numerous, and not identified as “creative

occupations”, when identified at the three digit level of (dis)aggregation 71.1 “Architecture and

engineering and related technical consultancy” is unlikely to qualify as a “creative industry”.

A similar problem arises in other industries. For example, 27.40 identifies manufactures of electric

lighting equipment, within which there will be some design intensive manufacturers; while 15.20

concerns the manufacture of footwear, within which there will be some producers of both very

fashionable shoes as well as producers of highly utilitarian footwear. The industry classification is

based on physical product categories – it is not possible to, for example, to identify creative, or

“design intensive”, manufacturers within each of these to devise a separate category, or sub-

category.

In summary, then, and partly due to problems of aggregation, there are two levels at which

classification errors can occur – an error from job roles to occupations, and an error from firms to

industries. These are illustrated below.

9

Classified as …

In Reality … Creative Occupation ‘Uncreative’ Occupation

Job role is ‘creative’ Correct classification Erroneous classification

Job role is ‘un-creative’ Erroneous classification Correct classification

Classified as …

In Reality … Creative Industry Uncreative Industry

Firm is ‘Creative’ Correct classification Erroneous classification

Firm is ‘Uncreative’ Erroneous classification Correct classification

It also is interesting that the NESTA/DCMS approach is entirely based on identifying a key input to

the creative industries – i.e., people working in creative occupations or jobs. What it does not do is

identify either creative practices, or creative outputs (at least some of which may be amenable to

protection under intellectual property (IP) rights). In essence, this implies that creative outputs can

only be produced by creative people (or at least people identified as being engaged in creative

occupations); and that creative practices are ineffective unless engaged in by people in creative jobs.

With regard to IP, DCMS do not think that the generation of (formal) Intellectual Property (IP) is

sufficiently common across all the Creative Industries to make it the central element of the

definition, and therefore they do not propose to include the use of data on IP protection, including

copyright, patents, registered and unregistered designs, and trademarks, in the definition.

This contrasts markedly with the WIPO type model which is primarily concerned with industries

directly involved with, or which support, the creation, manufacture, production, broadcast and

distribution of copyrighted works; in essence, it is an output oriented conceptualisation. The WIPO

model differentiates between the Core Copyright Industries (advertising, film and video, music,

performing arts, publishing, software, television and radio, visual and graphic art), the

Interdependent Copyright Industries (consumer electronics, musical instruments, paper,

photographic equipment, …) and the Partial Copyright Industries (architecture, clothing, design,

fashion, toys…). In WIPO’s reports (2003, 2007, 2011) the terms: “Copyright-based”, “creative” and

“cultural industries” are often applied “as synonyms to refer to those activities or industries where

copyright plays an identifiable role. However, it has to be recognized that some differences between

them exist. “Cultural industries” refers to those industries, which produce products that have

culturally significant content that is reproduced on an industrial scale. It is used primarily in relation

to mass media production. “Creative industries” has a wider meaning and includes, besides the

cultural industries, all cultural or artistic production, whether live or produced as an individual unit

and is traditionally used in relation to live performances, cultural heritage and similar “high-art”

activities. The borderline between these two is often very fine.” (WIPO 2003, p 18)

The WIPO model has the advantage of linking the traditional cultural industries with information and

communication technologies (ICT) or the digital economy, but this definition based on IP may be too

10

broad. Activities relying on (utility) patents like pharmaceuticals could be included according to an IP

based definition, but they are not. Along the same lines, we could argue that a portion of the

activities included within the different WIPO’s categories of industries can be exchanged without

copyright control and therefore cannot be measured (i.e. piracy). Moreover piracy can be the model

of diffusion driving the industry, such as the film industry in Nigeria See Barrot et al. (2008) on

Nollywood phenomena. Because it is ‘underground’, this industry’s value added won’t be fully

captured by the WIPO model. This difficulty highlights the complexity of comparing the CCIs between

countries, especially where the IP’s rights and IP’s habits can differ widely. Also, some activities

achieve little or at best weak IP protection: technically a recipe can be protected by copyright, but

according to case law in different countries it doesn’t offer the same guaranties of protection. So this

type of activity may rely on other forms of protection, such as social norms (see for example

Fauchard and Von Hippel (2006) on norms-based IP systems in the case of French Chefs).

A second drawback of WIPO Model is its “difficulties in assessing the copyright factor in the case of

interdependent and partial copyright industries (IPCI)” (Santos-Cruz and Teixera 2012). Indeed these

industries have only a part of their activities covered by copyrights (e.g. apparel, textile, architecture,

engineering, museums…). WIPO has developed a copyright factor - lower than 1 for the partial

copyright industries and equal to one in independent industries - to capture the level of importance

of intellectual property. But this is not entirely satisfactory since it is based on studies of sectors or

activities, including country surveys, to capture geographical differences among different locations of

activities and different habits of intellectual protection, and these studies do not allow cross-country

comparisons: “The copyright activities of partial copyright industries were calculated by multiplying

their sizes by their copyright factors (weights). Each country has a different copyright factor with

regard to the same industry, since its industrial structure and stage of economic development varies

considerably. Each country calculates its own copyright factors by conducting an independent

copyright factor survey” WIPO (2003).

WIPO’s model raises pragmatic questions: the data related to registered intellectual property

protection, including patents, registered designs and registered trademarks, which can be easily

tracked and collected. But unregistered, ‘soft’ IPR like copyrights; unregistered design rights;

unregistered trademarks; trade secrecy or the professional secrecy’s rules included in the contracts

of some professionals are inevitably much harder to trace, but may be more significant. On top of

that, we can speculate that creativity is often based on a high level of tacit knowledge. As Boix et al.

2012 states: “symbolic knowledge note: referring to Asheim et al. (2011) associated with creative

industries - where a crucial share of work is dedicated to the creation of new ideas and images – is

related to a deep understanding of the habits and norms of a specific social group so that it is highly

embedded, tacit and context-specific.” The intensity of symbolic knowledge, as well as part of the

synthetic knowledge (learning by doing, by using, by interacting) that characterise the CCIs, are

therefore impossible to fully capture through IP rights.

A model of the CCIs based on IP criteria – which do not involve any test for creative contribution -

does not seem satisfactorily to capture the creative or the cultural components of the CCIs. To this

end the Australian report of 1994 takes a better account of the cultural part of the CCIs. As

mentioned in the introduction, the need for a (workable) definition of the CCI is not new. Four years

prior to the DCMS policy document on “creative industries” (DCMS 1998) Australia’s Creative Nation

Report (1994) - pushed the notion of creative industries to the centre stage. It defines ‘cultural

11

industries’ as activities that are not all creative2. The scope is quite narrow and highly focused on “a

survey of businesses and organisations mainly engaged in the film and video production, distribution

and exhibitions industries; the radio and television services industries; and libraries, museums,

botanic gardens and the arts industries. … [T]he scope of the collection [also] was based on the

Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC)”3. Essentially, the cultural and

creative activities (note, not industries) in this conception of the CCIs is the Australian Bureau for

Statistics’ (ABS) description of activities at the border of arts, media, design, fashion, ICT and

heritage.

In this conceptual framework (ABS 2013), cultural and creative activities are composed of four main

components: 1) the CCIs supply chains; 2) the CCIs occupations in other industries following the

“creative trident’s” idea of Cunningham 2008; 3) volunteer services to cultural and creative

institutions; and 4) the non-market output of market producers in the CCIs.

Figure 1: CCIs in Australia

Source: Cultural and Creative Activity Satellite Accounts, ABS, Australia 20134

The cultural and creative activity satellite accounts initiative of the Australian Bureau of Statistics

(ABS 2013) is designed to measure the production of the creative industries and its occupations, but

its definition and choice of creative industries/activities remains subjective since “there is no

standard or clear statistical definition”. Essentially, the link between the traditional cultural

industries and the wider economy is not fully captured. The notion of CCI supply chains has also

proved too complex to capture fully. However, the ABS (2013) determined CCI’s supply chains

through “a top down approach from the aggregates published annually in the ABS’ input-output

tables”.

There are also some methodological restrictions due to the perimeter of the databases to be merged

and the scope of the four categories comprising the CCIs see ABS (2013) Section 4. The

methodology has had difficulties capturing volunteers’ contributions, and the expenses and income

details along the whole CCI’s supply chain since data are collected by surveys5. The granularity of the

data does not prevent the over- and under-estimation of some creative activities since they can

obscured at high levels of aggregation and only become apparent at low levels of aggregation (e.g.

four digits).

2 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DSSbyCollectionid/27F19AEDB90CCEDACA256BD000282FD9

3 Based on this early attempt, the definition and the scope evolved: see Discussion Paper: Cultural and Creative activity

satellite accounts, Australia, 2013. 4http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/FA89869065846371CA257B890013D307/$File/5271055001_20

13.pdf 5 When surveys are run, they often do not provide estimates for ANZSIC classes or as much details as sought by

stakeholders, ABS 2013, Section 5.

12

More conceptually the validity of the ABS’s hypothesis can be questioned, as it considers that all

inputs are equal in all creative industries. Recalling our former example - of a musician working on a

cruise ship and a printer working in an advertising agency - the intensity and amount of creativity

may vary depending on the context even if the identified ‘input’ is the same. Moreover, it might also

be “unfair” to attribute the value added - or the creative part - to a certain input/identified producer

since the production processes imply interactions amongst occupations/producers but also, and

often, with users. Here, it is the borders of the supply chain of the CCIs that is challenged: the

inspiration of an individual or a group can be generated or fostered by many sources. Ideally, these

sources should be considered as an input, which implies we have to integrate the muses, inspiring

novels, icons, psychotropic substances, coincidences or serendipity – among the infinite list of

creativity sources - as inputs.

While Throsby’s model (2007) does not answer these criticisms, it does offer other advantages that

we will present here. In his concentric circles model, Throsby (2007) considers different domains to

have different levels of cultural and creative content. This model has become a key reference to

understand the CCIs. A creative core is considered to generate the symbolic content and transmits it

to others layers of actors that around it. The model differentiates between the core creative ‘arts’

(music literature, performing and visual arts), the other core cultural industries (film, museums,

libraries, photography, galleries and archives), the wider cultural industries (e.g., television and radio)

and related industries (advertising, architecture, design, and fashion) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: The concentric circles model of the CCIs (Source: ABS, 2013)

Note: “The concentric circles model adopts an assumption that cultural content springs from the incorporation

of creative ideas into the production and/or presentation of sound, text and image and that these ideas

originate in the arenas of primary artistic creativity. This is an assumption that accords primacy to the

processes of artistic (as distinct from scientific) creativity, and is the reason why the creative arts – music,

drama, dance, visual art, literature – lie at the centre of the model, with successive layers of the concentric

circles defined as the ideas and influences of these creative activities diffuse outwards” (Throsby, 2008)

Thorsby’s model is quite close to the Symbolic Texts Model (STM) developed by Hesmondhalgh

(2002), which envisages the “high arts” as being at the core of political and cultural development,

separately categorising other activities as peripheral and ‘borderline’. This STM derives from the

critical-cultural studies tradition: with a stronger focus on the sociology of creative labour and a

13

social-classes approach. It separates the core cultural industries (Advertising, Film, Internet, Music,

Publishing, Television and radio, Video and computer games), the peripheral cultural industries

(creative arts) and the borderline cultural industries (consumer electronics, fashion, Software, Sport).

However, while the “core-periphery” model is appealing, it has some oddities. Why, for example, are

parks and zoos considered to be closer to the centre than architecture, design and fashion?

The Concentric Circles Model (CCM) takes its inspiration from the Concentric Zone Model (CZM) used

by urban sociologists and geographers to characterise the distribution of social groups in urban areas

see the early contribution in E. Burgess (1923). Using the same pattern, the CCM suffers also from

structural criticisms inherent to the model and stressed by geographers. Among them - and by

analogy - we can question the applicability or replicability of this model in a variety of countries

where producers of symbolic contents might differ from their norms and values, awareness or

sensitivity to capture those symbolic contents. Photography or fashion, as music or literature, can

produce important and widely spread symbolic content. The CCM seems to restrict the production of

symbolic content according to the nine Antics muses (Calliope, Melpomene…) and thus retains only

music, drama, dance, visual art and literature as the major arts. Why not include architecture,

sculpture, films, radio/television and photography or even comics: the last two being sometimes

called the 8th and the 9th art. And why not videogames? In a sense these activities are “arenas of

primary artistic creativity”. Furthermore, the CCM does not provide dynamic view of CCI production

processes, especially in the creative core of “high art”. So it suffers from two problems: 1. what

might be considered as creative in one culture won’t be considered so in another, and 2. what might

be valid (as creative) at a given time won’t necessarily be valid creative decades earlier or later.

The CCM like the CZM also assumes static isotropic plain: all the circles are “flat”. In other words, the

location of special actors or resources does not influence the location of the other actors among the

layers. Symbolic content might be considered to represent an attractive resource in this model, like a

river or infrastructure that could make a location more attractive in the CZM. We can imagine that

some industries - even if their creative intensity is low - would have more links with the creative core

than the model predicts. These links could be made through personal networks of creative workers

for example. On the other hand, we can also expect that some layers have different level of

openness (barriers to entry, pricing strategies, network connexions, technological compatibility,

norms and values) so that the flow of symbolic content from the core does not diffuse uniformly to

the industries within the same layer.

Another criticism made of the CZM is that it does not explain the gentrification and “bourgeois-

bohemianisation” of different zones. Gentrification can be defined as an allocation process of

population in urban area that transforms the composition and the socio-economic profile of the

inhabitants to the exclusive profit of an upper class (“bourgeoisie”). Meanwhile, boboisation refers

to the mutation of a generation (e.g., ‘yuppies’ in the 1980s) who adopted a mix of counterculture

and bourgeois codes (in the early 2000). Can we imagine such dynamics within the creative core of

the CCM? In other words, can we speculate that if some industries become more intensive in their

symbolic content that they will interact more with the core and probably influence it, or even replace

it. Furthermore, it will influence the other industries since they also benefit from the same sources of

symbolic content.

14

Let’s take a scenario of “gentrification” within the core creative arts in the CCM: an advertising

company want to use a song for a campaign. It will necessitate inputs from the creative core arts:

music for a clip. In some cases the musician can refuse for ethical reasons (e.g. Tom Waits versus

Frito-Lay), in other cases it is seen as a chance for the musician to be widely heard (I-pod campaigns

with Jet in 2004 or Feist in 2010). In both cases the interaction and introduction of incentives (by

“richer” actors from peripheral layers) to attract symbolic contents’ producers (the “poor” art

creators at the core) to other activities modifies the geometry of the circles, the composition of the

layers and the contents that are produced in the creative core. In this dynamic we can suppose that

some actors within the creative core will be less attractive than others, so that they have to switch to

another genre or to another industry to survive (and therefore will influence each other). While

Throsby (2008) allows this kind of movements between layers (e.g. television scriptwriters located in

the core arts and selling his work to the wider cultural industries circle), this dynamic isn’t integrated

in his concentric circles model of the CCIs.

We can also imagine a kind of “boboisation” of some creative core arts: when culture, content and

expression generate an ‘underground’ movement (like the counterculture generation or by analogy

the Punk music) but then slowly adopt the norms and values of ‘legitimate’ culture. Can we imagine

the consequences on the potential of radical creativity generated in the core arts layer? In economic

term: can the creative core suffer from lock in effects?

Beyond those criticisms and questions that remain open, we have to note that Thorsby’s CCM model

has the advantage that it has generated a large focus of attention on the cultural industries, which

have since been the object of public policies, especially in Europe. Therefore this model has led the

European vision and conceptualization of the CCIs, some of which we detail in the following pages.

European’s Conceptions of the CCIs

Among the other models of CCI is the model developed by the European Leadership Group on

Cultural Statistics (LEG model) in which eight categories are classified as CCIs (publishing, motion

capture, video; radio and television activities, creative arts; libraries, archives; architectural activities;

advertising; and design). These are considered to comprise the core that is then related to other

layers of goods’ and services’ producers or retailers. Note that here, contrary to the Thorsby’s model,

architecture and design are considered to be in the core of this model.

In this model six main functions can be considered in relation to the CCIs: creation, production,

dissemination, trade/sales, preservation and education. Once again these categories were built with

policy goals (for the European Commission’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate, and in relation to

the Amsterdam declaration 2010), which defines the creative industries as being at the crossroad of,

or inter-section between culture, feelings, creativity and innovation (see European Commission, New

Materials for the Creative Industry, 2010).

Meanwhile, the CCI’s are defined in Germany as cultural industries6 with a core area of nine

industries’ sectors (see below) including not only the production of goods and services but also their

distribution. Fesel and Söndermann (2007)7 define the culture industries as: all enterprises and self-

6 Kulturwirtschaft

7 http://www.unesco.de/fileadmin/medien/Dokumente/Bibliothek/culture_and_creative_industries.pdf

15

employed persons whose economic activities focus on the production, dissemination and

intermediation of artistic and cultural products or services. In other words: all sub- sectors and

market segments that are related to “culture in a wide sense”, which includes the music industry,

publishing industry, arts, film industry etc. This definition embraces individual artistic ideas or original

works of art, products of the applied arts, the trade of art works and products of popular culture,

even the dissemination of cultural goods and services through the mass media. For the German

Federal Statistical office (DESTATIS) the core cultural industries include the publishing industries; film

industries; broadcasting industries; music, visual and performing arts; journalism; museum shop and

arts exhibitions; retail trade of cultural goods; architectural offices; and design industries. In addition

to those nine core cultural sector, there are two “creative sectors” (advertising and manufacture of

software and games). This sample of 11 sectors represents the Creative Industries.8

This model partially refers to the Swiss three-sector-model of cultural sectors which entails a core of

artists and cultural production surrounded by other sub-sectors with “kapillaren

Austauschbeziehungen” i.e. mutual exchanges by “capillarity action” (HGKZ 2003).9 The periphery of

the core area is constituted by private, public and intermediate sectors; the private sector being

profit-oriented and is called the culture industry. This conceptual framework is also close to that

used by TERA Consultants (2010) in their evaluation of the creative industries’ contribution to the

European economy. They differentiate between the “core industries [that] manufacture and

distribute creative products, including film, television, music, publishing and advertising. (…) and the

non-core creative industries [that] convey creative goods and services to consumers and produce

products that are consumed interdependently with creative goods. These industries include activities

such as the manufacture and sale of hardware (television sets, music-playing devices, etc.) and non-

dedicated industries such as transport.”

The French conception of creative industries is also close to the German / European model of the

European Cluster Observatory (See Power 2011). A recent attempt to measure the economic impact

of the CCIs in France (Ernst and Young, December 2013) also differentiates between the core cultural

industries and adds some other activities in order to fit with the Anglo-Saxons’ standard

conceptualization of creative industries (i.e. including media, video-games and ICT). But this report

does not question the concept of creative industries, nor does it provide a clear definition (i.e.,

sectors or industries, instead activities appear to be arbitrarily included within the bounds of the

CCIs), and the approach suffers from other methodological weaknesses, such as a lack of

comparativeness.

Other attempts to measure the CCIs focus on the creative class identified by Florida (2002). Without

considering the conceptual weaknesses of this concept, the works of Chantelot (2009, 2010), among

others, represent a first, but not complete, approach of the CCIs from the occupational and territorial

prism.

In Italy, Santagata (2009) identifies the CCI as cultural industries plus others creative industries. He

identifies an interesting mix of twelve economic sectors characterized by creativity and the

8 This German definition is similar to the Singapore Model of creative industries (a layer of cultural industries

plus other activities that constitute the creative industries to which the distribution industries were added in order to build a pyramidal conception of copyright industries) 9 Hochschule fur Gestaltung und Kunst Zurich (HGKZ) Das Umsatz- und Beschaftigungspotential des kulturellen Sektors :

erster Kulturwirtschaftsbericht Schweiz. - Zurich : HGKZ, 2003.

16

production of culture: Material Culture (Fashion; Industrial Design and Crafts; Food and Wine

Industry); Production of Content (Computer and Software; Publishing; TV and Radio; Advertising;

Films); and Historic and Artistic Heritage (Culture Heritage, Music and Performing Arts; Architecture;

Contemporary Art).

According to Boix et al. (2010), in Spain, “the dominant approach is still the ‘economics of culture’.

The Ministry of Culture (2008) differentiates between cultural industries (heritage, archives, libraries,

printing and publishing, performing arts, film and video) and intellectual property intensive industries

(printing and publishing, performing arts, film and video, software, and advertising)”. These

industries are close to those included in the Creative Industries in Austria: Architecture, Design,

Music and Books, Radio and TV, Software and Video-Games, Edition, Video and Film and Advertising

(see Fünfter Österreichischer Kreativwirtschaftsbericht, 2013).

In summary, it is clear that there is a lack of consistency in the conceptual understanding of the

creative and cultural industries. Issues include:

Whether it is sensible to identify “creative and cultural industries” as a single set of industries.

Some classifications focus on industries (considered to be) “creative”, while others are

primarily oriented to “cultural” activities or industries. There is a fundamental tension here,

because not all cultural activities are creative – indeed, many are (highly) conservative.

Values. Some of the models seek to be value neutral – this is true especially of the models

that focus on ‘creativity’, which is not claimed to be necessarily a ‘good thing’, or as something

more ‘valuable’ than other activities (such as production and distribution). By contrast, the

notion of ‘value’, and a hierarchy of values, is clearly apparent in models that identify cultural

activities, and especially those based on core periphery ideas, such as the models developed

by Hesmondhalgh (2002) and Thorsby (2007, 2008). Clearly those activities that are placed at

the core are considered more valuable, or significant, than those at the periphery; yet

interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, there is no agreement as to what activities should

be included in the core. Some activities are always identified as core (literature, music,

performing arts), but others are sometimes central and sometimes peripheral (e.g.

architecture, design and fashion). This raises the question whether there might be multiple

cores – rather than one – e.g., cores around (inter alia) the production of content (including

sounds, symbols and ideas); the production of material culture; and around the preservation

of heritage.

Having reviewed the conceptual models of the creative and cultural industries, we now turn to how

these have been measured, through using extant data sources and bespoke surveys (Task 1.2)

1.3 Rethinking the CCIs: A New Conceptual Model

Our review of the CCIs models has highlights a clear separation between, on one hand,

conceptualisations of creativity and (to a lesser extent) culture, and the pragmatic need for

implementable definitions that can utilise the existing nomenclatures and available statistics on the

other. The most developed approach currently available is the creative intensity approach developed

by NESTA and implemented in the UK by the DCMS, as the other existing definitions of the CCI often

mix cultural, creative and industrial aspects without really justifying the selection of a consistent

17

group of industries, activities or sectors; these definitions also tend to be static. The NESTA/DCMS

approach also has the advantage that it is in principle dynamic. However, what is striking about this is

that it is an approach which focuses on creativity, and creative occupations, and uses this to derive a

list of creative industries. There are two problems with this:

1. The approach completely ignores cultural activities and industries (although libraries and archive

activities, and museums are included on the basis of ‘professional discretion’).

2. The underlying list of creative occupations remains questionable – many senior management

roles are considered to be ‘creative’, in part because they are not routine, but while (some)

information technology occupations are included (such as computer programmers), other

‘creative’ occupations such as design and development engineers, and indeed scientists, are not.

Our interest is in innovation and economic growth / development, rather than defining the creative

industries as the ultimate objective. From this perspective, all ‘dynamic’ industries must be creative,

at least to some extent, as creative activities are necessary for the ‘production’ of novelties. Indeed,

ironically, it is the strongly cultural industries that are arguably the most resistant to creative

approaches and innovation. This said, the focus of innovation studies has tended to be on

technological innovation, and is strongly embedded in an idea of innovation as a ‘progressive

improvement’ of what exists. The more symbolic or expressive aspects of creativity tend to be

overlooked.

To overcome some of the weaknesses listed previously, we consider the CCIs’ activities through two

dimensions: progressive and expressive. What has typically been included as ‘creative and cultural

industries’ are industries or activities that involve high degrees of expression, while, other,

technologically-based industries might be characterized as ‘progressive’ (e.g., computer chips

following ‘Moore’s law’, a technological trajectory). The notion of expressive activities or outputs has

been used in the conceptualization of creativity provided by the Work Foundation (2007), in which

the creative industries are identified as a part of the knowledge economy and in which the term

‘expressive value’ is used instead of creativity.10

10

“This value is clearly at its most undiluted at the creative core, and more mixed with functionality as we

move to the periphery. Key to this shift is the replacement of ‘creative’ by ‘expressive’ value. Why expressive

rather than symbolic? Maybe the word is somewhat academic, or sounds rather ‘cultural’ when run past the

hard-nosed DTI people. The Work Foundation report defines expressive value as ‘every dimension which ...

enlarges cultural meaning and understanding’. It uses Throsby’s list of different values associated with culture –

aesthetic, spiritual, social, historic, symbolic, and authentic. These are the same terms which John Holden

(2004) used to define the different dimensions of the public value for culture. That is to say, these ‘expressive’

values - the basis for a range of major industrial activities - are cultural values, the same cultural values at stake

in contemporary cultural policy. ‘Expressive’ has similarities to ‘creative’ in that it relates to a universal quality

residing in the individual, but makes this more specific to the cultural sector.” O’Connor (2007). In the UK, as

O’Connor (2007) and Galloway and Dunlop (2007) have pointed out, studies on culture went through to

different phases. Williams (1958, 1961) launched one phase, proposing a more progressive (i.e. in the sense of

novel) and a more sociological grounding of culture in opposition to an official and (too) conservative visions,

like T.S Eliot and F.R. Leavis.

18

Table 2: Creative and uncreative progressive and expressive industries.

Progressive

(Objective)

Expressive

(Subjective)

“Uncreative”

Static industries (industries which

at the extreme produce highly

functional products which are

unchanging). E.g., makers of

traditional products, not regarded as

having strong cultural relevance.

The “preservation” of established

culture and cultural values.

[Although there may be some

‘creativity’ in the development of

novel preservation techniques,

creativity is not core to their activities]

“Normal” creativity

Incremental innovation made

along a (path dependent)

trajectory (e.g., ever faster

computer chips)

Contributory / derivative

expression that is made within a

recognised genre

“Radical” creativity

Disruptive innovation, old path

destroying / new path creating

technologies.

Provocative, Avant-garde

movements; often aimed at

disrupting ‘the Establishment’

Note: Here we separate creativity – as a process (of creating novelties) - from what is being acted on – e.g.

creativity in progressive industries and creativity in expressive activities. Of course, many industries are found

in between – e.g., buildings, cars or household goods, are both “progressive and expressive” – this is the point

about the span of design. See also Tether (2005) and his conceptual mapping of Arts, Science, Design and R&D.

Recognising that the present and past reflect a confluence of technologies and culture / cultural

values, we can from this identify five “types” of industry or activity (See Figure 3):

Figure 3: A Three Hubs Model: Progressive, Preservative and Provocative Activities

19

The Preservation Industry: Essentially, this works to preserve the set of values regarded by those in

power as ‘good’, legitimate, ‘valuable’, etc. It is found especially in activities that have a strong

cultural heritage – such as literature, food and drink, clothing, as well as traditional architecture,

much of the established arts (e.g., opera, ballet, and traditional theatre); it is upheld by the

conservative media. These activities tend to be backward looking – linking to the past rather than the

future – as they relate to cultural (and often national) identity. Part of these activities exist within

what we call the “commercially viable envelope” – that is the envelope of activities that are

commercially viable without direct or specific subsidy from the state, but other parts are not

commercially viable. The Heritage Industry which takes up the challenge of supporting ‘obsolete’ or

outmoded technologies and values, notably through the maintenance of museums, historic buildings

and state supported art forms (such as the opera, ballet and traditional theatre). Although not

wholly uncommercial, these activities are typically uncommercial and require subsidy from the state

to remain in existence. This subsidy itself reflects the value that society, or more specifically, the

elite, place on maintaining cultural relics.

Whilst the Preservation Industry and the Heritage Industry are essentially grounded in the past, we

perceive two largely but not entirely separate directions of challenge to the Status Quo. These

challenges also vary in degree.

First we have the technological challenge. Many industries are “progressive” in the sense that they

are oriented to the incremental improvement of essentially established and legitimate technologies.

For example, computer chips become ever faster and more powerful; aircraft and motor vehicles

become ever safer and more fuel efficient, cameras ever more megapixels, etc. The technologies are

established and paradigmatic, but it nonetheless requires creative work to advance the technological

frontier. These “progressive industries” essentially exist within the envelope of commercially viable

activities: i.e., they are profit seeking and profit making, rather than subsidised.

Not all new technologies are continuations of existing technological trajectories; some are disruptive,

perhaps even paradigm changing. These technologies require qualitatively different creativity, but

they also typically develop outside of the extant commercial viability window – in other words, their

development typically requires subsidy, either from venture capitalists or from the State. We call

these “disruptive technologies” rather than disruptive industries, because they term industry implies

commercial viability.

Aside from the challenge to the status quo enabled by new technologies, we contend that there is a

second direction of challenge in the form of expressive industries and activities. Again, we can

distinguish between qualitatively different ‘types’ of creativity amongst these. First, what we label

the “expressive industries” are those that are engaged in essentially legitimate or accepted forms of

(mainly artistic) expression. Much is ‘mainstream’ and highly commercial in orientation, but some is

mildly provocative of mainstream values. This teasing of accepted ideas and values helps to evolve

the Status Quo.

Our last category is that of “radical expression”. In contrast to the expressive industries, this is

essentially uncommercial – it is oriented to developing avant-garde ideas and challenging what is

acceptable. Many of these activities remain ‘underground’; not all come to the surface, but classic

cases among those that surfaced include the punk music scene of the late 1970s. In some industries,

20

such as architecture, radical expressions are realised through the patronage of wealthy benefactors

who are themselves interested in making a statement.

The point is that these “industries” interact and collide, but not in a linear way. For example, the

“preservation industry” interacts with radical expressive activities - there can be nothing “new”

without a past to react to, and there can be nothing to preserve if there is nothing new that

threatens its existence. Meanwhile advances in the “progressive industries” are often packaged in a

familiar form, reflective of the values of the preservation industry, to make new technologies more

acceptable, or less threatening. For example, when the railways were introduced in England, the

stations were deliberately designed in a classical style: the reassuring buildings being intended to

offset the unfamiliar, ‘dangerous’ new technology.

But the ‘progressive industries’ also provide new technologies which facilitate, inter alia, new ways of

working which challenge and disrupt, and provide further stimulus to the “expressive industries”. For

example, in the 1980s, the rapid advance of electronics enabled the development of programmable

synthesisers, which were relatively cheap; this enabled individuals and bands to make music that

they would have been unable to make only a few years before. More recently, developments in

digital cameras have enabled ‘anyone’ to manipulate photographs in a way that was previously not

possible even for the most talented professionals, while high quality film cameras are also

democratising the ability to make films, while YouTube and similar platforms facilitate distribution.

New expressive ideas meanwhile challenge the direction of technological progress. For example, is

surely no it a coincidence that the rise of personal computing developed alongside the rise of

individualistic values in the US/UK in the late 1970s early 1980s. And more recently, how does the

“expressive value” of ‘sustainability’ inter-relate with the direction of development of the car and

energy industries in recent years. ‘Radical expressive’ ideas can inspire technologies decades after

their first introduction (e.g. Jules Verne’s novels on uses for aluminium, television, satellites on the

moon, etc.); or Melliès’ first movie in 1902 has a canon landing on the Moon.

In other words, the classification of an industry as creative or not creative is now contextualised: the

radical characteristics of the content or the production can only be judged in relation to existing

activities/industries. Of course, what was radical can become mainstream, and eventually obsolete,

with the things considered by society or at least its elite to be of high value eventually being

maintained by the “heritage industry”.

Regarding the four models presented in the previous section, we note the industries considered as

CCI are included within our typology, but our conceptualisation is different in that it distinguishes

between creative activities and industries which are either future oriented (i.e. “Disruptive

technologies” and “Radical Expression”) or mildly challenging of the status quo (i.e., Progressive

Industries” and “Expressive Industries”), and “Cultural Industries” (which would include the

“Preservation Industry”, “Heritage Industry”, “Expressive Industries” and “Radical Expression

Activities”). It can be argued that as only three of these are commercially viable, only three are truly

“industries”.

21

Figure 4: A Typology of Creative and Cultural Industries

As we discussed at the beginning of this paper, the Creative and Cultural Industries present two

challenges – one of conceptualisation, the other of measurement. A problem is that the existing

industrial and occupational codes do not permit a straightforward and unambiguous categorisation

of activities. But if we want to understand the significance of an activity, or set of activities, we need

to try to measure it. This is demonstrated the significance of R&D, which was once thought too

difficult to measure, but the development of the Frascati Manual has led to the systematic gathering

of considerable data on scientific creativity. What is missing, is measures on expressive and to a

lesser extent preservative activities.

22

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996a) Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder Colorado.

Amabile, T. M. (1996b) Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Havard Business School. January 5, 1996

Bahkshi, H., Freeman, A., Higgs, P. (2013) A Dynamic Mapping of the UK’s Creative Industry, a NESTA

publication.

Banks, M. and O’Connor, J. (2009), Introduction: After the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural

Policy, Vol. 15, issue 4. pp365-373

Boix, R., Lazzeretti, L., Capone, F., de Propris, L., Sánchez, D. (2010) The geography of creative industries in

Europe : Comparing France, Great Britain, Italy and Spain. 50th Anniversary European Congress of the

Regional Science Association International. 19-23 August 2010.

Boix-Domènech, R., De Miguel Molina, B., Hervas Oliver, J-L. (2012) Inter-regional spillovers of creative

industries and the wealth of regions: Do spillovers of creative services industries go beyong the regional

boundaries? International Conference on regional science. XXXVIII Reunion de Estudios Regionales –

AECR. 2012.

Caves, R.E. (2000) Of Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce Harvard University Press, 2000

Chantelot, S. (2009) La thèse de la classe créative : entre limites et développement. Géographie, économie,

société. Lavoisier, Vol. 11 (4), pp 315-334.

Chantelot, S. (2010) Vers une mesure de la créativité : construction de la classe créative française. Revue

d’économie régional et urbaine. Armand Colin, Vol. 03, pp 511-540.

Cohendet, P., Grandadam; D., Simon, L. (2010) The anatomy of the creative cities. Industry and Innovation, Vol.

17, p. 91-111.

Creative Nation Australia (1994) http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/21336/20031011-

0000/www.nla.gov.au/creative.nation/contents.html

Creativwirtschaft Austria (2013) Fünfter Österreichischer Kreativwirtschafts-bericht Schwerpunkt

Kreativwirtschaft als regionaler Faktor. 2013

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (1998) Creative industries mapping document 1998. London UK,

DCMS

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2001) Creative industries mapping document 2001. London UK

DCMS

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2011) Creative Industries Economic Estimates Full statistical release.

London UK, DCMS

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2013) Classifying and measuring the creative industries:

Consultation on proposed changes. London UK, DCMS

Ernst&Young (2013) Panorama des industries culturelles et créatives en France 2013.

European Commission, New Materials for the creative industry (2010).

Fauchard, E., and Von Hippel, E. (2006) Norms-Based Intellectual Property system: the Case of French Chefs.

MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper 4576. Revised version, July 2007.

Fernández, R. (2008) Culture and economics. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Second Edition. Eds.

Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Fesel B. and Söndermann M. (2007) Culture and creative industries in Germany. German Commission for

UNESCO. 2007

Fesel, B. and Söndermann, M. (2007) Culture and creative industries in Germany. German Commission for

UNESCO. 2007.

http://www.unesco.de/fileadmin/medien/Dokumente/Bibliothek/culture_and_creative_industries.pdf

Flew, T. (2002) New Media: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Book.

Galloway, S. and Dunlop, S. (2007) A critique of definitions of the cultural and creative industries in public policy.

International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol.13, n°1, 2007.

23

Garnham, N. (2006) From cultural to creative industries. An analysis of the implications of the “creative

industries” approach to arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom. International Journal of

Cultural Policy, Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp 15-29

Hesmondhalgh, D (2002) The cultural industries. London Sage.

Hochschule fur Gestaltung und Kunst Zurich (HGKZ) Das Umsatz- und Beschaftigungspotential des kulturellen

Sektors : erster Kulturwirtschaftsbericht Schweiz. - Zurich : HGKZ, 2003.

KEA, European Affair (2008) The Economy of Culture in Europe, study prepared for the European Commission

(Directorate General for Education and Culture). Brussels, European Commission.

O’Connor, J. (2007) The cultural and creative industries: a review of the literature. A report for Creative

Partnerships.

O’Connor, J.; Cunningham, S. and Jaaniste, L. (2011) Art and Cultural Industry. The Austrlian Government and

the Australia Council for the Arts.

Potts, J.D., Cunningham, S.D., Hartley, J. and Ormerod, P. (2008) Social network markets: a new definition of the

creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 32, issue 3, pp 166-185

Power, D. (2011). Priority sector report: Creative and cultural Industries. For the European Cluster Observatory.

Europa Innova Paper n°16. European Commission. April 2011.

Putcha, D., Schneider, F., Haigner, S., Wakolbinger, F., Jenewein S. (2012) The Berlin Creative Industries. An

Empiral Analysis of Future Key Industries. Gabler,Verlag, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2010.

Santagata, W. (2009) White paper on creativity. Toward an Italian Model of development,

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/it_white_paper_creativity2009.pdf

Steinberg, R.J. and Lubart T.I. (1999) The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In Handbook of

Creativity. Steinberg and Lubart Edition. Cambridge University Press. 1999

Sternberg, R.J., Lubart, T.I., Kaufman, J.C., Pretz, J.E. (2005) Creativity. In K.J Holyoak and R.G. Morrison

(Edition), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp351-369). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

TERA Consultants (2010) Study on the impacts of digital piracy on the EU's creative industries. Report published

on the website of the International Chamber of Commerce (march 2010)

Tether B. S. (2005) The Role of Design in Business Performance, DTI Think Piece, CRIC, University of

Manchester, 2005.

Throsby, D. (2001) Economics and Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

UNICTAD (2008) Creative Economy report 2008: The challenge assessing the creative economy towards

informed policy making. Geneva United Nations

UNICTAD (2010) Creative Economy report 2010. Geneva United Nations

UNICTAD (2013) Creative Economy report 2013 special edition. Geneva United Nations

Williams, R. (1958) Culture and Society, London: Chatto and Windus.

Williams, R. (1961) The Long Revolution, London: Chatto and Windus.

Williams, R. (1983) Keywords. A vocabulary of culture and society. Oxford University Press

WIPO’s reports (2003, 2007, 2011) The economic contribution of copyright-based industries in the USA.

Creative Industries series n°1.

Work Foundation (2007) Staying Ahead. The Economic Performance of the UK’s Creative Industries. London:

The Work Foundation.

24

Appendix

Table A1:

Expressive & Subjective Progressive & Objective

Input Communication, information, codified

knowledge, IP input

Ideas, skills, socio-cultural & economical

influences, hazard-luck

Productivism, more effective,

development, improvement resources,

efficiency, cheaper, more quality.

Working force, energy, quantifiable,

financial capital, employees

Occupation Convincer, interpretation of the content

or other types of delivering a content,

Transformation codifications, translation

Fanatic, hobby, non-regular implications,

freelance, devotion, Freedom, “bricolage”

(DIY)

Productivism, efficient, hard-working,

improver

Employee, workers, tasks well defined,

procedures’ follower, specialized

workers, full time, code SOC

Process Speak, claim, convince, sing, dance, move,

act, play,

Imagination, generation, interpretation,

translation, believes, flexible

Mass production, Scale production,

cost cutter (cheaper=better),

optimisation, exploitation

Taylorism, Fordism, Toyotism

Automation; tasks; position in the

chain of production, routines;

quantifiable; repetitiveness; quality

management process, and

performance indicators.

Output A record (book, visual, audio, video)

physical or digital but transferable, an

interactive product, services, light or

strong IP output.

Quantity and quality might be different

than expected. Live performance. Value

according to the experience, Not

necessarily useful.

Ancient-Contemporary-experimental,

Incidental, Original, Old school-

mainstream-alternative-

fresh/revolutionary

Stronger, better, cheaper, more

functions, new functions, hard IP

New- Obsolete, Novelty-Archaic-out-

of-date

Tangible good/service, quantity and

quality are like mentioned. Design for

a specific use.

25

Table A2: Four Models of the Cultural and Creative Industries: What is, and is not, Included?

DCMS Model Symbolic Texts Model

Concentric Circles Model

WIPO Copyright Model

Music (Core) (Core arts) (Core Copyright Industry)

Film (and Video)

(Core) (‘Other Core’) (Core Copyright Industry)

Performing Arts

() As ‘creative

arts’, = Peripheral (Core arts) [also literature]

(Core Copyright Industry

Advertising (Core) (Related Industry) (Core Copyright Industry)

Fashion (Borderline) (Related Industry) (Partial Copyright Industry) [including clothing & footwear]

Architecture (Related Industry) (Partial Copyright Industry)

Design (Related Industry) (Partial Copyright Industry)

Publishing (Core) (Wider cultural ind.) [plus sound recording]

(Core Copyright Industry)

Television & Radio

(Core) (Wider cultural inds.) (Core Copyright Industry)

Video & Computer Games

(Core) (Wider cultural inds.) () as Toys = Partial Copyright

Industry

Software (Borderline) (Core Copyright Industry)

Art and antique market

() Heritage services is

a wider cultural ind.

Crafts

Internet (Core)

Museums / Libraries

(‘Other Core’)

Visual / Graphic Art

(Core Copyright Industry)

Collecting Societies

(Core Copyright Industry)

Sport (Borderline)

Consumer Electronics

(Borderline) (Interdependent Copyright Ind.)$

Musical Instruments

(Interdependent Copyright Industry)

Based on UNCTAD, 2010, Table 1.1, pg. 7; $ Also household goods, blank recording material, paper, & photocopiers.

26

Table A3: Comparison between DCMS’s existing broad sectors and proposed broad sectors

DCMS sectors Proposed sectors Changes

Advertising Advertising and marketing Widened to include marketing

Architecture Architecture Same

Arts and antiques None Not included in proposed

classification

Crafts None Not included in proposed

classification

Design Design and designer

fashion

Conflated to form a single sector

Designer fashion

Film and video Film, TV, video, radio and

photography

Conflated to form a single sector

Television and radio

Interactive leisure software IT, software and computer

services

Conflated to form a single sector

Software and computer

services

Music Music, performing and

visual arts

Conflated to form a single sector

and defined differently in terms of

SIC codes Performing arts

Publishing Publishing Same