This
paper was presented at the University Of Greenwich, Cultural Management
Applied Research Group, Counting Culture? Practical Research Challenges
for the museum and heritage sector conference and will be published
later this year
A Contorted and Torturous Definitional History
International Interest was aroused
in the United Kingdom (UK) largely stimulated by the “New
Labour” government in the economic role and function of the
creative industries as a significant growth sector.
Chris Smith, Britain’s New Labour Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport, confirmed early in his Ministry that the creative
industries were a growth sector of the UK economy, saying
“It is incumbent on the
government, in partnership with industry, to take active steps to
promote economic growth in the creative and cultural sector. If
we do not do so, then others will reap the economic reward”.
(Creative Industries Task Force 1998)
The creative industry concept
has as a result been enshrined in one of four key policy themes
for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), that is,
economic value. The other three themes, access, excellence, and
education, are the predictable interests of any Labour government.
It does seem however that the
theme of economic value is a maturing of the Thatcherite ethos,
that is efficiency, effectiveness, value for money, and market forces.
Smith reinforces this interpretation
“as ensuring that the full
economic and employment impact of the whole range of creative industries
is acknowledged and assisted by government”.
(Smith 1998)
The Department’s interest
and engagement with the Creative Industries, through the establishment
of the Creative Industries Task Force (CITF), chaired by the Secretary
of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with Ministers and officials
from the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions; the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office; the Department of Trade and Industry; HM
Treasury; and the Department for Education and Skills, cannot be
seen as anything other than a direct engagement by government in
creative activity for economic gain.
The Government through the Creative
Industries Taskforce set about defining what it understood as being
the creative industries. The concept was derived from an interest
in the knowledge economy, and the definition employed largely pragmatic;
“those activities
which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent,
and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the
generation and exploitation of intellectual property”.
(Creative Industries Task Force 1998)
The sectors, which have been
identified within this definitional framework, are:
“advertising, architecture,
the art and antiques market, crafts, design, designer fashion, film,
interactive leisure software, music, the performing arts, publishing,
software, television and radio”.
(Creative Industries Task Force 1998)
It is worth noting here, that
the sub-sectors identified as the creative industries would not
recognise themselves as such, for example architecture has much
more in common with the construction than it does with the arts
and antiques trade. This is indicative of an emerging policy construct,
which has yet to embed itself, both intellectually and practically
in the consciences of those working in the field. The creative Industries
concept, at present, has more in common with the emerging global
economic interest in the knowledge economy, typified in “The
Independents: Britain’s New Cultural Entrepreneurs”,
Leadbetter & Oakley, 1999) “The creative economy, How
People make money from ideas”, (Hopkins; 2001: xiii) and,
Creative Industries: Contracts between Arts and Commerce, (Caves,
2000) with its engagement with mechanisms such as copyright, patent,
trade mark and contracts.
What is of interest in pursuing a creative industries concept is
that it does provide a framework for engaging with both public and
private sectors on a more equitable basis, establishing cultural
activity as new industries, and engaging with convergence arguments
generated through advances in technology. Fundamentally this emerging
redefinition facilitates a reassessment of the traditional forms
of policy intervention in support of the arts and culture as described
in “Creating a Sustainable Culture for Everybody” (The
Reformer, Centre for Reform, Roodhouse 2002).
The creative industries development
is a derivation from a longer history associated with defining and
redefining the arts as an industry sector and the relationship the
arts and media as cultural industries for example which this paper
does not address and has left to matter to others such as, “The
definition of the Cultural Industries”, O’Connor 1999),
“Economics and Culture”, (Throsby D. 2001) and “Concepts
of Culture: Public Policy and the Cultural Industries”(Garnham
N, Cultural Studies, 1987).
This tortuous and contorted definitional
history has fared no better from an economics or statistical point
of view. Christian Barrière and Walter Santagata’s
paper, Defining Art, attempts to describe arts activities as goods
and services. However, further complications follow once these terms
are used which focus on quantifying what artistic and/or aesthetic
means in this context. Many authors have attempted to clarify this,
Baumol with his assertion that aesthetic pleasure has at least as
much value as the difference in returns between works of art and
financial assets (Baumol, 1986). Lahlou, Maffre and Moati (1991)
demonstrate how passion can influence economic choices and Rouget
and Sagot-Duvaureux (1996) have been examining non-market regulations
in the artistic field, particularly passional and conventions perspectives.
Another issue for economists studying the cultural industries is
the differentiation between artistic and industrial goods. Part
of the difficulty is that the total assimilation of art to commodities
creates serious problems because art goods escape the standard rules
of utilitarian market exchange (Barrière and Santagata, 1997).
For statisticians, the problem
seems to lie in how to categorise the creative industries. Given
the difficulties of definition referred to earlier, and the ‘fluidity’
of the sector, it is predictable that the conventional categories
used in the UK and Europe, standard industrial classifications (SIC)
and standard occupational classifications (SOC), have proved imprecise
tools for measuring the creative industries.
Unsurprisingly then, there are
further difficulties encountered when quantifying the creative industries,
which do not stem from the general definitional debate. These can
be broken down as
· no coherent national
categorisation of the creative industries
· a lack of accurate primary data.
Attempts have been made, largely
since the early 1980s, by Myerscough (1988), Cultural Trends, Policy
Studies Institute (1989-93), O’Brien and Feist (1995) and
Pratt (1997), as well as the Department of Culture, Media and Sport,
to arrive at suitable categorisations for the sector. What seems
to have emerged from this work is a recognition that the Office
for National Statistics’ (a UK government agency) Standard
Occupational Classification (SOC) and the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) provide an imperfect but nevertheless verifiable structure
to collect and analyse data.
Much of the statistical evidence,
however, used by the public sector agencies and government departments
referred to earlier is traced to national census data, the Department
for Education and Skill’s labour force survey, and new earnings
study, along with several studies by the Office for National Statistics.
Eurostat, on behalf of the European Union, has also been generating
information in this field. It is, however, in reality secondary
data when used in the context of the creative industries, with all
the inherent weaknesses of such an approach.
Other sources of data have included
the Department of Trade and Industry, Antique Trades Gazette, Crafts
Council, Design Council, Screen Finance, Arts Council of England,
Sunday Times, Screen Digest, BPI Statistical Handbook, The Value
of Music, Henley Centre, Association of British Sponsorship of the
Arts, Society of London Theatres, Express Newspapers, Consumer Trends,
Business Monitor and the UK Media Yearbook. Much of this information
is unverifiable, collected over differing periods of time, using
unrelated methodologies. The Department has attempted to sift through
these sources and select on the basis of compatibility in terms
of dates and methods of collection for the purposes of the mapping
document. This process, however, confirmed the difficulties of using
a variety of unverified sources which are not collected in a compatible
framework.
Smith confirmed however that collecting and analysing data to underpin
this policy on the creative industries is problematic, and that
claims made in the past are difficult to substantiate (Creative
Industries Task Force, Mapping Document 1998). He says,
“One of the problems in
this whole area is that the precise figures (for the creative industries)
are hard to come by. Many of these areas of activity are of course
dominated by small and medium sized companies almost working on
a cottage industry basis, with a handful of big players striding
amongst them; it is a pattern that makes definition and accurate
counting very difficult but even more essential if public policy
is to be maintained”
(Smith, 1998).
Rather worryingly, a similar
view was expressed as long ago as 1970 in the UNESCO report, Cultural
Policy in Great Britain, written by Michael Green, Michael Wilding
and Prof. Richard Hoggart: “Britain has undertaken little
long range planning of any kind so far, not studied methods in other
countries, nor taken much care over cultural information. Statistics
in the whole field covered by this report are hard to come by, hard
to compare, and hard to rely on”.
Nevertheless, the DCMS went ahead
with an audit in 1998, with a follow up in 2001 based on secondary
data, and published the Creative Industries Mapping Document, (1998
and 2001) which claimed that these industries generated £57
billion revenues, (£112bn in 2001) and employment of circa
1 million, (1.3 million in 2001) as shown in Table 1.
Table I: U K Creative Industries headline Data, 1998 and 2001
Activity Revenues 1998 2001 (£Bn)
Employment 1998 2001 (Thousands)
Advertising 4.0 3.0 96,000 93,000
Architecture 1.5 1.7 30,000 21,000
Arts and Antiques 2.2 3.5 39,700 37,000
Crafts 0.4 0.4 25,000 24,000
Design 12.0 26.7 23,000 76,000
Designer Fashion 0.6 0.6 11,500 12,000
Film/video 0.9 3.6 33,000 45,000
Leisure Software 1.2 1.0 27,000 21,000
Music 3.6 4.6 160,000 122,000
Performing Arts 0.9 0.5 60,000 74,000
Publishing 16.3 18.5 125,000 141,000
Software/ computer services 7.5 36.4 272,000 555,000
Television and Radio 6.4 12.1 63,500 102,000
Total £57 bn 112.5bn Circa 1,000,000 1,322,000
Simon Roodhouse Source: Mapping Document DCMS 1998,2001
There is the usual health warning
associated with these statistics and recommendations that further
work needs to be carried out in collecting and verifying data that
underpins the mapping document. In particular it recommends,
“ Continuing to improve
the collection of robust and timely data on the creative industries,
based on a common understanding of coverage”
(DCMS, Creative Industries Mapping Document, 2001)
In particular the lack of data
in the interactive leisure software field, designer fashion, as
well as the Crafts was identified. When considering this matter
at the regional level, the position is dismal, with very little
information available and consequently one of the key issues identified
was,
”The need for more mapping
to provide a better picture of what is happening on the ground and
help inform policy development. The mapping also needs to be based
on a common understanding of the coverage of the creative industries.”
(DCMS, Creative Industries Mapping Document, (2001)
However, similar claims are emerging
elsewhere, in the world with $29.6 billion contributed to Canada’s
GDP in 1993/94, and 894,000 people employed in the sector, representing
6.7% of Canada’s workforce. (Canadian Government Information
Service, 1998) In Europe, cultural employment has risen by 24% in
Spain between 1987 and 1994; and in France by 36.9% between 1982
and 1990. (Culture, the Cultural Industries and Employment –
Commission Staff Working Paper sec (78) 837).
A Creative Industries Workable
Framework
If we take as our starting point an imperfect definitional framework
as described earlier with its sub-sectors, then we need to understand
in detail each of the sub-sectors and how these are defined if “a
common understanding of the coverage of the Creative Industries”
is to be achieved. At present these do not comfortably explain creative
industries but they are the best we have available and have direct
correlations with other systems, so for example those categories
marked + in table 2 can be found in the ANSIC for creative industries
in Australia and New Zealand (Australian Culture and Leisure Classifications,
2001) as well as Eurostat, the European Union Statistical Unit (Cultural
Statistics in the EU, a final report by LEG, 2000).
Table 2: SIC for the Creative Industries in the UK
22.11 Publishing of Books +
22.12 Publishing of Newspapers +
22.13 Publishing of Journals and Periodicals +
22.14 Publishing of Sound Recordings +
22.15 Other Publishing +
22.31 Reproduction of Sound Recording +
22.32 Reproduction of Video Recording +
22.33 Reproduction of Computer Media +
72.20 Software Consultancy and Supply +
74.201 Architectural and Engineering Activities and Related Technical
Consultancy + Architecture
22.21 Printing of Newspapers + Printing
22.22 Printing not Elsewhere Classified + Printing
22.25 Other Activities Related to Printing + Printing
74.40 Advertising + Marketing and Promotion
Graphic Design
74.81 Photographic Activities + Photography
74.84 Other Business Activities not Elsewhere Classified + Textile
Design +
Other Design2
Exhibition and Conference Facilities and Organisation
92.11 Motion Picture and Video Production + Video and Film
92.13 Motion Picture Projection + Video and Film
90.20 Radio and Television Activities + Radio and Television Production
and Broadcasting
92.31 Artistic and Literary Creation and Interpretation + Dance
Other Design
Performance Lighting & Sound
Music Performance and Production
Theatrical Production and Support Activities
Visual Arts and Sculpture
Combined Arts
Crafts
Writing (Prose & Poetry)
Arts Management
92.32 Operation of Arts Facilities + Galleries and Other Arts Facilities
Theatres and Concert Halls
92.34 Other Entertainment Activities not Elsewhere Classified +
Leisure and Entertainment3
1 74.20 also includes urban planning, quantity surveying and various
engineering design and consultancy activities. Throughout,estimations
have had to be made of that portion attributable to architectural
activities.2 Other Design includes, for example, fashion and interior
design activities.3 Leisure and Entertainment includes nightclubs,
disc jockeys, entertainers, etc.
Designer Fashion: A popular or elitist definition?
This typography may be generally sufficient, however the problem
occurs when a sub sector of the creative industries is mapped onto
the sic/soc codes for example designer fashion. As it stands designer
fashion is incorporated into the following categories,
· 17.71, 17.72, 18.21,
18.22, 18.23, 18.24, 18.30, 19.30.
The relevant soc codes amounted
to one, 383, clothing designers. The question is how does the breakdown
of designer fashion reflect the nature of the activity as described
by DCMS in the Mapping Document on the one hand and what the sector
understands on the other. in other words what ever the general typography,
a further interpretation is required in order to generate a detailed,
a shared understanding of a sub-sector. This interpretation is arguably,
one that the sub-sector its self should have a major stake in deciding,
within the overall sic and soc typography.
In the case of the DCMS, Creative Industries mapping document, 2001
the “Mintel” definition of designer fashion is used
encompassing four key sectors:
· Couture: the original
designer market dominated by French based international brands:
Dior, Chanel, and Y S L;
· International designers: the label usually dominated by
one name: Donna Karan, CK;
· Diffusion: designers producing high street ranges for specific
stores for example, Clemence, Dorothy Perkins, Jasper Conran at
Debenhams;
· High fashion: up and coming new designers usually endorsed
by celebrities.
This defines the core activity
with related, and peripheral, activities with reference to associated
industries. In the first DCMS Creative Industries mapping of document
1998, designer fashion with the related and peripheral activities
described as:
· Fashion photography
· Haircare and cosmetics
· Accessories,
· Perfumes,
· Modelling,
· Magazine publishing
· Design education
· Graphic design
· Product design
· Textiles
· Clothing manufacture
· High-street clothes retailing
In the case of the 2001 DCMS
mapping document, there has been an adjustment to the accessories
and perfumes categories to accessories design, and perfumes design.
Noticeably, the mapping exercise only focuses on the core activity,
which is the Mintel definition without related and associated activities.
This is a particularly narrow interpretation of designer fashion
derived from one source.
An alternative approach, based on consultation with those actively
engaged in the sub-sector provides a realistic and “democratic
spectrum”, as opposed to a limited hierarchical structure.
It is after all a matter of judgment by those engaged in fashion
design as to what they perceive to be their main business. A breakdown
of designer fashion derived from discussions with organisations
includes the following:
· Female fashion, smart
· Female fashion, casual
· Male fashion, smart
· Male fashion, casual
· Children's Wear
· Sportswear
· Underwear
· Work and protective wear
· Bridal wear
· Footwear
· Fashion accessories
· Knitwear, male and female
(Essential Facts: Designer Fashion
in the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, 2001, Roodhouse and
Heaton)
This becomes sharper when placed
in a regional context; that is the more detail required the greater
the disaggregation of the sub sector. At national levels the definition
of designer fashion is probably credible however it becomes far
less so when applied at regional levels. Perhaps more interestingly
it exposes a deeper issue, of who is defining fashion design and
for what purpose. Other issues, which become apparent at sub sectoral
level, are,
· Fashion designers working
in and employed by manufacturing companies
· Fashion designers with more than one income, e.g. working
in education and the industry.
A interactive web of frameworks
Apart from, the difficulties of defining a sub sector, shared typographies
of, regions, organisational definitions, size of organisations,
and employment categories are fundamental, to collecting useable
information and often taken for granted. Much of this is in place,
and in many cases, transnational. However problems also begin to
emerge when consideration is given to, for example organisational
definitions. This is because of the nature of the creative industries,
were there is a high proportion of creativity, in terms of employment,
organisation and interaction types. The sector can be typified as
dominated by micro businesses, networks, contracting and sub contracting,
projects, and cross disciplinary interactions. It is a highly fluid
and flexible industry, which leads to difficulties with organisational
definitions and employment categories which are designed to exist
for substantial periods of time for example;
Organisational definitions
· Self-employed,
· Sold proprietor
· Partnership
· Limited company
· P L C
· Not for profit organisation
· Local government
· Co-operative
· Club or society
· Registered charity
· Voluntary organisation
· Educational institutions
These definitions drawn from
Vital Statistics, the cultural industries in Yorkshire and Humber,
Bretton Hall College, 2000 are characteristic of the UK framework
and can be found in use in he EU, Australia, and New Zealand. The
definition chosen by UK Government (DTI), which is adopted in all
EU member States, for the size of organisations, is,
· Micro businesses (0
– 9 people employed)
· Small-to-medium enterprises (10 – 249 people employed)
· Large businesses (over 250 people employed)
The difficulty with this breakdown
of enterprise size when analysed in the context of the creative
industries is the crudeness of the micro - business category, and
0 - 9 people employed. This remains a significant, ill-defined category
for a sector that is dominated by micro businesses and it would
be more helpful to breakdown micro businesses in order to ascertain
for example, how many of these businesses operate as sole traders.
Employment categories generally reflect the annual employment survey
definitions, are compatible within EU member States and include,
· The self-employed (based on self-generated contractual
work. This can be broken down into several categories as follows:
o Self-employed workers and sole proprietors that operate directly
within the designer fashion sector
o Self-employed individuals to work within partnership arrangements
o Freelance workers to provide services to designer fashion sector
enterprises).
· Full-time paid work
· Part-time paid work
· Volunteers (where an individual is undertaking regular
activity without remuneration)
Controversy however has surrounded
the definition of the self-employed and whether the Annual Employment
Survey in the UK collects specific data in this category. This has
been recognised by the UK Government as particularly important not
just for the creative industries but to other industrial sectors
and consequently, the Office of National Statistics in the 2001
national census included a specific category for the self-employed.
Gender (male/female) and national
definitions, derived from the Equal Opportunities Commission, for
those with special needs and those from ethnic groupings are also
utilised but these will vary to reflect the culture and population
composition of individual Nation State.
Regions in the UK are currently
defined as regional development areas, which have existed for 5/6
years and are an administrative mechanism overlapping local authorities
and other regional agencies. These boundaries bear little resemblance
at a local level to the location and geographical interactions of
the creative industry businesses, particularly when placed in the
context of globalisation.
Inclusive or exclusive definitions?
We should be considering the importance of creative industries as
a defining mechanism for society. In other words, arguing for coherence
and convergence, creative industries as a manifestation of society,
the richness in diversity concept. By taking this stance it is possible
to incorporate the wider issues that concern society, such as the
environment, urban regeneration, social cohesion and community development.
The other matter, which complicates these definitional debates,
is how we decide what art, is, including aesthetics. In other words
many of the public agencies such as the Arts Councils, Design Councils
and Film Councils are charged with promoting the creative industries
making excellence accessible and educating society. While this may
be admirable it poses problems such as what is excellence in the
creative industries, determined by whom and using whose criteria?
In other words we have established a number of national agencies
that have been given within their remit the task of determining
our corporate sense of aesthetic. Is this right?
Quite apart from facing up to defining or not aesthetics in the
creative industries, we have yet to adopt a sensible approach to
creativity in non-creative settings which seems to be ignored. Quite
apart from this a significant sector, museums galleries and the
heritage are excluded from virtually all published definitions of
the creative industries, which is difficult to justify.
The emerging definitional framework can be characterised as a struggle
between, the aesthetic (elitist) versus business (democratic) models.
An alternative to these approaches
is to,
· Collect data defined
by product, service and /or process
· Recognise a spectrum of activity free of aesthetic judgement
and intervene on a business, research and development basis.
Ultimately, we need to insure
that activities encompassed in whichever creative industries definitional
framework is used, are derived from the needs of communities involved,
what they actually want.
Sources
Australian Culture and Leisure Classifications, (2001) 4902,Australian
Bureau of Statistics
The Arts Council of Great Britain. (1988), The Arts Council three-year
plan 1988/89 – 1990/91. The Arts Council of Great Britain,
2.
The Arts Council. (1985), An invitation to the nation to invest
in the arts. A Great Britain success story. The Arts Council.
The Arts Council. (1988), Better business for the arts. An introduction
to the Arts Council Inventive Funding Scheme for arts organisations.
The Arts Council.
The Arts Council. (1993), A creative future. The way forward for
the arts, crafts and media in England. HMSO.
Barrière C and Santagata W (1997), Defining Art. From the
Brancusi Trail to the Economics of Semiotic Goods. AIMAC Proceedings,
Golden Gate University, San Francisco.
Bennett, T et al (eds). (1981), Culture, ideology and social process.
Batsford Academic and Educational, 41-43.
Bretton Hall College. (1998), The creative town initiative. Kirklees
creative economic baseline study. Bretton Hall College.
Bretton Hall College. (1999), The cultural industries in Rotherham.
Bretton Hall College.
Bretton Hall College, (2000) Vital Statistics, The Cultural Industries
in Yorkshire and the Humber
Caves, R, (2000) Creative Industries, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University
Press
The Creative Industries Task Force. (1998) (2001), Creative industries.
Mapping Document. Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Cultural Statistics in the EU, (2000) Final Report of LEG, European
Union
Cunningham, S (2002) From Cultural to Creative Industries, Theory,
Industry, and Policy Implications, Creative Industries Research
and Applications centre, University of Technology Brisbane, Australia
Garnham, N, (1987) Concepts of Culture: Public Policy and the Cultural
Industries, Cultural Studies Vol1, no. 1, pp23-37
Green, M. and Wilding, W. (1970), Cultural Policy in Great Britain.
UNESCO.
Howkins J, (2001) The Creative Economy: How people make money from
ideas, Allen: Lane, The Penguin Press
Leadbetter C and Oakley, K (1999) The Independents: Britain’s
New Cultural Entrepreneurs, London: Demos
Myerscough, J, (1998), The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain,
London. Policy Studies Institute.
O’Brien, J. and Feist, A. (1997), Employment in the arts and
cultural industries. An analysis of the Labour Force Survey and
other sources. Arts Council of England.
O’Connor, (1999) he Definition of the Cultural Industries,
Manchester Institute of Popular Culture, http://mmu.ac.uk/h-ss/mip/iciss/home2.htm
Pratt, A (1999) The Creative Industries in the UK: National, Regional
and Local dimensions and the problems of value and governance
Roodhouse and Heaton, Essential Facts: Designer Fashion in the Northwest,
Yorkshire and the Humber, (2001) University of Bolton.
Roodhouse, S, (2002) Creating a Sustainable Culture for Everybody,
The Reformer, Centre for Reform Volume 9 issue 2,pp22-3
Roodhouse, S (2001) Have the Cultural Industries a role in Regional
Regeneration and a Nation’s wealth? Proceedings AIMAC 2001,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Smith, C. (1995), Creative Britain. Faber and Faber Limited, 2,
10-11.
Williams, R. (1981), Culture. Fontana Paperbacks.
Professor Simon Roodhouse
13 January 2004
|
