From Economy to Ecology:
A Policy Framework for Creative Labour
A report prepared for the
Canadian Conference
of the Arts
by
Mirjam Gollmitzer
(Research Associate, PhD Candidate)
(mirjamg@sfu.ca)
Dr. Catherine Murray, PhD
(murraye@sfu.ca)
March 2008
2
Table of contents
Preface
Executive summary
Abstract for this study
Chapter I:
Definitions and models of the creative economy
Abstract
Definitions and different models of the creative economy
The issue of domain boundary
Sizing the creative economy sector
Creative economy or creative ecology?
Creativity and work
Searching for the wellsprings of creative innovation
The casual labour force
Conclusion
Chapter II:
Mapping creative labour in Canada
Abstract
Introduction
Mapping the cultural labour force in Canada
Income portrait
Collective organization of Canada’s cultural labour force
The creative casual labour force in Canada
The organizational context of the creative/not-for-profit cultural enterprise sector
The nature of the creative enterprise
Conclusion
Chapter III:
Policies to promote creative labour
Abstract
Introduction
Policy approaches to creative labour
Rethinking the creative state and flexicurity as policy principle
The Status of the Artist legislative approach
Rethinking the Status of the Artist approach
Social security for creative labourers
Tax incentives for creators
Social economy initiatives to support creative labour
Safety, security and creative live/work space
Conclusions & recommendations
Works cited
Policy papers cited
Selected online resources related to the creative economy
Appendices
3
Executive summary
Many countries and regions are increasingly interested in the “creative economy” or,
alternatively, the narrower “creative industries” sector as a generator of economic
growth. The creative economy is defined to include activities which are based on the
original expression of an idea and economic or gift transaction of intellectual property
held in private or in common.
The study of the creative economy requires a new understanding of risk, innovation,
cultural entrepreneurship, public infrastructure and creative work to enable and sustain
economic growth. For example, in Canada the cultural growth rate was over 30%
(Economic contribution of culture in Canada, 2004, p.10) between 1996 and 2001 and in
Europe 20% between 1999 and 2003 (The economy of culture in Europe, 2006, p.6).
Thus, the creative economy is growing faster than many other sectors. In Canada and
many European countries, the creative sector employs between 3-4 per cent of the
working population and contributes similar percentages to the annual GDP, placing it
ahead of many primary resource sectors (forestry, fishing) combined.
This study was conducted by SFU’s Center for Policy Studies on Culture and
Communities (supported by Infrastructure Canada) in partnership with the Canadian
Conference of the Arts. Mirjam Gollmitzer, an international PhD Candidate from
Germany and SFU Professor Catherine Murray explore current policy approaches
directed at the creative economy, in Canada and internationally, including academic
literature, cultural statistics and policy papers.
They find that few countries have a comprehensive policy framework for the creative
economy, and Canada is no exception. Despite the general assumption that the creative
economy will produce a more flexible, multi-skilled and mobile labour force which is
increasingly self-employed and thus resembling the cultural sector in its core
characteristics, most countries (with the possible exception of the Nordic region) have
not yet developed an integrated conception of creative labour policy. Semi-permanent
work groups, temporary jobs and free lancing for multiple employers at the same time
and over the creative career life span are now the general rule.
A review of 20 countries active in policies to build creative labour forces alongside
policies to stimulate innovation and creative enterprise, finds existing policy instruments
can be divided into four categories: “education and training”, “awards and contests”,
“business support” and “tax and social security policies” with most of the emphasis on
the former. After looking at special efforts to establish the economic rights of artists, the
authors conclude a broader approach to “flexicurity” – that is social security for the self employed flexible labour force – is a key driver of creative innovation.
A review of the strengths and weaknesses of Canada’s creative labour force reveals a
new “sociality” in informal, networked cultures of creative production – potentially acting
4
as a double edged sword: contributing to both stability and instability. A gap between
classes of creative workers is found. Sharp differences in status, training, credentials
and the degree of professional independence obtained by various categories of creative
workers exist. Most at risk are youth, aboriginal and visible minorities and those in rural
areas. Nonetheless, there are important innovations in collective bargaining and
resources made available to creative workers (including advice on standard minimums
in negotiations concerning copyright payments).
The researchers offer several recommendations for policy-makers. First, the current
official cultural statistics are inadequate to measure the incredible diversity of
employment situations specific to creative workers in the new economy. These statistics
systematically under-represent the contribution of creative workers to the GDP by
anywhere between a half to a third. The last comprehensive survey of the sector was
done in 1993 and needs urgent updating. Second, the role of the social economy – the
non-profit and voluntary sectors – is important to include in estimating the value added
by creative activities, and the capacity of those non-profit organizations which service
creative workers. Third, a broader policy framework called a “creative ecology” approach
is needed, drawing from the urban planning conceptions of the “creative city” and new
thinking about the role of public and private cultural infrastructure in providing the
environment in which creativity can flourish. Lastly, there is an urgent need for
governments to examine multiple ways to enhance social security and income support
for the most important but frequently forgotten component of the creative economy: the
creative workers. Social security is paramount for them to maintain their creative edge,
and contribute to a healthy diversity in creative expression. What is needed is an entire
change of creativity governance, away from the attention on the individual to collective
creativity and its interactions. The goal is a theoretically and practically elegant
integration of culture and the economy in policy practice.
5
Preface
The Canadian Conference of the Arts approached the Centre for Policy Studies on
Culture and Communities in February of 2008 to conduct a background study on
principal thinking about the Creative Economy. The intention is to contribute to the
debate on ideas about the Creative Economy in the first roundtable about it conducted in
Canada by the Conference Board of Canada (March 2008). This study is presented in
three parts:
Chapter I:
A Review of Basic Concepts of the Creative Economy
Chapter II: A Mapping of the Creative Labour Force and Enterprises in
Canada
Chapter III: Policy Approaches to Creative Labour
This study represents a survey of the principal known statistical sources, policy reviews
and databases on the cultural economy available publicly on the Internet, and is deeply
indebted to the work being done by the Council of Europe and the European Institute for
Comparative Cultural Research in their annual compendium of sources
(www.culturalpolicies.net). The authors are also indebted to the comments of Guillaume
Sirois and Keith Kelly in the development of their thinking. Mirjam Gollmitzer is an
international PhD Candidate in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser
University, and Research Associate with the Centre for Policy Studies in Culture and
Communities (http;//www.cultureandcommunities.ca). Catherine Murray is a Professor
and Associate Director of the Centre.
6
Abstract for this study
Creativity functions as an important leitmotif in thinking about the creative economy.
However, economic arguments about the specificity of cultural value and its difference
from economic value (Caves, 2000; Hesmondhalgh, 2007; Throsby, 2001) or about the
role of the arts, artists and the economic activities of the professional arts are not well
grounded in theories of innovation or creative industry policy formulations. This article
accepts that the most important postulate in the creative economy is that it is based on
the realization of the original expression of an idea, an economic or gift transaction of
intellectual property – which may be held in private or in common. Understanding the
creative process of invention and expression, then, stemming from the individual artist,
entrepreneur, or company, is central to effective policy in guiding the creative economy.
An argument is made that the concentric circles model of the creative industry
classification based on David Throsby’s work (2001) presents the origin and diffusion of
creative ideas in sound, text and image as the creative arts (and is most compatible with
a new industrial framework for the creative economy). Given the distinct attributes of
cultural production, commodity and exchange over time, it is important to understand the
role of risk, innovation, cultural entrepreneurship, public infrastructure and volunteer or
casual labour support in sustaining creative professional innovation, and enabling its
contribution to sustainable economic growth. A comparison of policies to promote
creative labour expression in several countries reveals a need for more substance,
method and critique.
Despite the general assumption that the knowledge economy will produce a labour force
which resembles the cultural sector in its core characteristics, most countries have not
yet introduced comprehensive creative labour policies to accommodate a more flexible,
mobile workforce, and one which is increasingly self-employed. Several policy
recommendations to address this gap are made, consistent with an integrated
conception of the creative cultural ecology, derived from urban planning and the study of
global cities. What is needed is an entire change of creativity governance, and shift to
“flexicurity” in a labour strategy, which acknowledges the interaction with the social
economy and volunteer sector. These policies should be developed on the basis of
need, requiring more sophisticated models of the creative labour force. A creative labour
force survey is urgently needed to develop them.
7
Chapter I: Definitions and models of the creative economy
Table of contents
Abstract
Definitions and different models of the creative economy
The issue of domain boundary
Sizing the creative economy sector
Creative economy or creative ecology?
Creativity and work
Searching for the wellsprings of creative innovation
The casual labour force
Conclusion
Table
Table 1 Comparing amount of jobs and contribution to GDP to overall economy
Figures
Figure 1 Concentric circles model of the creative industries
Figure 2 The cultural value chain
Figure 3 Individual careers and the cultural infrastructure
8
This chapter illustrates that many countries and regions are increasingly interested in the
creative economy as a generator of economic growth. Canada is a late adopter of the
concept of at the federal level. During the past years, a steadily growing number of
policy papers have been published by governments around the world, exploring ways to
conceptualize this fairly new economic sector, its future potential and adequate policy
instruments to promote it (see Appendix A). Thus, there is no shortage of interest or
ideas related to the creative economy. However, policy-makers seem to be, most of all,
concerned with the question of how to profit from the creative industries economically
and how do so fast. Such an approach often seems very abstract. It conceptualizes the
creative economy as if it was a thing in itself, a collection of creative products and
services detached from the human beings who create, produce, distribute and consume
them. We suggest, instead, that long-term planning is necessary as much as an
exploration of the environment in which tangible economic value emerges and the
question by whom it is created. Such a comprehensive, holistic approach is required for
an effective and sustainable promotion of the creative economy. To put it simply, we
would like to embed the notion of the creative economy in the actual, everyday world of
life and work. Such an approach entails moving from a creative economy concept –
implying an abstract and at the same time limited notion of creative products and
services – to one of a creative ecology which looks at those who “make” these products
and services: the members of the creative labour force. This is, however, a challenging
undertaking since there is a huge gap concerning systematic knowledge about creative
labour.
Definitions and different models of the creative economy
The creative economy is considered one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy
in many Western industrialized countries, employing around 3-4 per cent of the working
population and contributing a similar percentage to the annual GDP1 (The economy of
culture in Europe, 2006; Creative industries mapping document, 2001; Economic
contribution of culture in Canada, 2004). Thus, the creative economy earns national
economies as much as or even more than fisheries, forestry and agriculture together.
However, researchers, economists and policy analysts interested in the creative
economy can only dream of the definitional clarity that characterizes other primary
sectors. There may be no other sector of the economy that is more elusive, more difficult
to “measure” and more plagued by tensions than the creative economy.
First, in an effort to establish terms and categories for an analysis of the creative
economy, we need to distinguish the “creative” or “cultural” turn in the economy as a
whole from specific creativity-related economic fields. In brief, the transition from
1
Methodologically, this is interesting as it implies a close correlation between employment and contribution to GDP
(except in in the UK, where a recent EU comparison found higher productivity: 5% of the labour force generates 8%
of the GDP). Data are not easily comparable. However, they are sufficient to support two broad generalizations:
there are sharply regional variations in cultural employment within countries, showing strong agglomeration effects
in big cities; and apparent differences in relative productivity. For example, contribution to GDP varies given the
national variations in composition of the creative economy in capital intensive industries such as film, for example.
9
manufacturing to service economies in Western industrialized countries has led to an
emphasis on the creation, marketing, distribution and transaction of symbolic instead of
material value. The focus is on the productive role of meaning and design of products
and services instead of products themselves in the generation of sustainable economic
growth. Since symbolic value is realized through the attribution of authorship, patent or
mark, intellectual property rights become the linchpin of these transformed economies.
Intellectual property rights represent the unique expression of an idea which may convey
a monopoly or collective licence for reproduction of a work for a period of time in a given
space.
One of the tangible consequences of the shift in the general economy from material to
symbolic value is the accumulation of profit. Evidence may be found in budgets of
branding and marketing departments within companies which are seen to increase while
manufacturing is outsourced and/or re-located to developing countries. This major shift
is also mirrored in the experience of workers and employees in all sectors of the
economy who find themselves in working conditions now largely similar to the way
artists and creative labourers have always lived and worked. This experience includes
higher levels of self-employment, serial project work and casual labour, job insecurity
and precariousness, high levels of expected flexibility, the “de-professionalization” or “reprofessionalization” of work with all its blessings of autonomy and burdens, and constant
need for life-long learning. Thus, the argument of this chapter is that the significance of
arts and creative activities today lies in their being a seismograph that predicts larger
disruptions, opportunities and developments in the world of work and in society as a
whole.
While there has been a significant literature around the economics of the “cultural
industries” and “arts” dating from the 1930s, it is only since the growing focus on the role
of science and technology in propelling innovation in the economy in the 1990s that we
see a transition in policy focus from the “old” cultural industries, to the “new” which
involve interactive software and the internet. The convergence of digital techniques of
creation, dissemination and storage has precipitated fundamental challenges to
traditional business models. For example, the advent of peer-to-peer file sharing
revolutionized the distribution of sound recording. Also, the blurring of boundaries
between film and video games and other formerly separate forms of content required the
involved cultural industries to rethink core strategies for producing and selling their
products.
Historically, Tony Blair’s Labour government in 1997 was the first to develop “creative
industries” as a term for the “new” cultural industries and as an explicit area of policymaking, exploring a broader field definition and its potential for job creation and
economic growth. Since then, more governments in Western and also in Asian countries
have come forth with initiatives researching the creative economy. It is fair to say that
the UK (Creative industries mapping document, 1998 and 2001) and Australia (Creative
cluster study, 2003) are leaders in the advancement and promotion of creative economy
thinking. Several European countries, Europe as a region as well as cities and states in
10
Asia have also launched initiatives explicitly dedicated to exploring the creative
economy.2
In policy papers discussing the creative economy, “creativity” is not explicitly defined.
Rarely is it considered separate from the terms “industry” or “economy”. One very recent
example is the latest creative industries policy paper by the UK government (February
2008). It describes the goal of its newly introduced arts education initiative as providing
“our creative industries with an unrivalled pool of creative talent” (Creative Britain. New
talents for the New Economy, p.6). However, besides the predominantly instrumental
use of the term – preoccupied with policy questions about how does creativity benefit the
economy? – a more complex and inclusive understanding of creativity can be traced.
This more nuanced view of creativity can mostly be found in relation to creative clusters
and creative cities (for example, in the green paper mapping the Creative economy of
the Nordic counties, 2007). Mainly, it consists of reflections on the role that a creative
environment – access to cultural infrastructure, cultural spaces (or incubators),
associated lifestyle amenities and a multicultural, open atmosphere – might play in
attracting creative labourers to certain places to “kick start” the agglomeration of creative
industry clusters.3
Two intertwined discourses prevail in emerging policy papers. On the one hand, the term
“creativity” is used as a brand that fashionably marks regions, nations or cities as
modern and “cool”, the most famous example being the UK’s aspiration to become the
“world’s creative hub” (Schlesinger, 2007; www.culture.gov.uk). On the other hand, a
neo-liberal, economically oriented rationale conceptualizes policies for creative
industries rather narrowly as the facilitation of business or the expansion of trade in
“edutainment” (Schlesinger, 2007; Cunningham, 2005; Hartley, 2005). A more nuanced
perspective on creativity is needed. Creativity is as a complex human force that requires
a degree of autonomy and indeterminacy in order to function as a value-adding tool in
economic and cultural contexts. Such a more holistic view could result in more proactive state interventions but such a perspective is rare (Crossick, 2006).
Consequentially, the policy initiatives and instruments that are directed at the creative
economy heavily draw on mainstream economic policies and less on traditional arts
policy or instruments specifically tailored to the creative industries.
2
Official documents assessing the creative economy exist in Denmark, Germany, Austria, Australia, Singapore, New
Zealand, for the region of Catalonia in Spain, the Netherlands, and for the region of Flanders in Belgium, the
European Union and in Canada. All mapping documents are recent, dating from the year 2000 or later (see Appendix
A for details).
3
Project work is a temporary labour system constituted among individuals rather than firms, which may resemble or differ from
other forms of flexible production rooted in networks or firm clusters. It is generally accepted that there remains a spatial
dimension to project work as it is presented in new media industries, for example, despite the virtual possibilities of the field.
Reasons may flow from the transaction-intensive nature of serial projects, the need for creative stimuli, and access to specialized
training. See Susan Christopherson (2004).
11
The issue of domain boundary
This brings us, finally, to the question which economic domains the creative economy is
composed of. The answer to this question determines the types of policies that are
suggested and pursued. For example, the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport
lists design, film and video, television, antique markets, computer services, advertising,
architecture, performing arts, and crafts as industries whose intellectual property rights
can be exploited. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), using a similar
rationale, defines the creative economy as industries that are involved in copyrighted
work; the UNESCO looks at cultural goods and services that enter international trade.
However, for the purpose of making policy recommendations, models that stress only
one particular aspect of the creative economy or those that just enumerate different
industries and disciplines without grouping them into categories are not very useful.
Rather, we look at models that offer a classification of the various sectors within the
creative economy.
In these models, the term “creative economy” in general includes the arts as a non - or
semi-commercial undertaking as well as industrialized forms of creativity which are
termed “cultural industries” or “creative industries”. What counts as “creative industry” is
not commonly agreed upon and has fundamental consequences for the economic
significance, expressed in employment numbers and GDP, of the creative economy. For
example, the inclusion of software development, research and development
departments or the toys and games industry considerably increases the market size of
the creative economy in relation to other economic sectors. At the same time, these
inclusions make traditional arts a minor player within the creative economy. Often
heritage is completely excluded from the creative economy sector: a position which is
logically absurd, given the importance of trade in cultural artefacts. Another crucial
question is how the direction of the flow of creativity – as a value-adding process –
between traditional arts and cultural industries is conceptualized. One way to do this is
to put the “pure” performing and visual arts at the center of a model of the creative
economy, considering it the origin of creativity as the cultural economist David Throsby
has done in his concentric circles model (see Figure 1 below).
12
Figure 1: Concentric circles model of the creative industries4
Core
creative
industires
Core
cultural
industries
Wider
cultural
industires
Related
industrie
s
Core creative arts
Core cultural industries
literature, music
film
performing arts
museums
visual arts
libraries
Wider cultural industries Related Industries
heritage services
architecture
publishing
advertising
sound recording
design
television and radio
fashion
video and computer games
With several modifications tightening the idea of culture as a creative input on noncultural products, this model is identical to that adopted by a recent review of national
4
Figure created with reference to Throsby (2001, p. 112) and Flew (2002, p. 135).
13
policies for creative industries, mostly in Europe, and by a policy recommendations
paper for the Northern European countries (A creative economy green paper for the
Nordic region, 2007, p.14; Quick scan of national policies, p.8). Throsby’s model is not
without resistance (Flew, 2002) for its whiff of old “elitist” arts policy setting out the
hierarchy of disciplines. Yet, authors in agreement with Throsby argue that without the
initial story, libretto, or conception of the image, no audio-visual product can be made.
Consider the case of process innovation. While there has been a tendency to format TV
trade which copyrights a production concept and process (and not the particular creative
expression of it) ; that format is still initially written, conceived and trademarked in a way
where the originating discipline (in this case, writers) is causal. In other words, by using
the convention of creative expression as a process of formulation, fixation and additive
value, inevitably the core disciplines of art are inputs in later complex forms of industry
organization.5
Diametrically opposed to this view would be a model that pushes the traditional arts to
the periphery or to an autonomous parallel sphere while regarding all commercially
produced culture – such as traditional and new media industries, music companies,
advertising and marketing – as the heart of a creative economy model (Hesmondhalgh,
2007). While the latter constitutes an important starting point for a creative economy
concept that combines creativity and economic power, the concentric circles model
seems to include traditional arts policy approaches. Yet there is a problem in ascribing
solely non-industrial attributes to the performing arts, or conceptualizing the concentric
rings as Throsby appears to do. As the reinvention of the music business model is
proving, concerts and live performances (considered at the centre of Throsby’s
concentric circles) now play an important role in mediating demand for purchases of online music (or the second and third rings), and present more classic attributes of product
marketing. Thus, the different circles should be conceptualized as permeable as well as
allowing for flexibility in succession. Another way to structure and diversify our thinking
about policies for the creative economy is by referring to the different “stages” in the
value chain of creative goods and services. This model roughly corresponds to the rings
of Throsby’s model in that the “initial creation” stage corresponds to the core ring. The
second and third rings can each be related to both the production and the
performance/distribution stages. However, the fourth circle (related industries) does not
correspond to the consumption/co-creation stage in the cultural value chain.
Figure 2: Cultural value chain
Initial creation
tangible production performance/distribution consumption/co-creation
The value chain might be a good concept for tackling the false dichotomy between
“pure” and “industrialized” art and culture suggested above – by simply seeing them as
5
Caves’ (2000) argument about simple and complex models of cultural production also confirms Throsby’s premise.
14
different steps in one process of pre-commercial, commercial and post-commercial
creative labour within each ring of the concentric circles model, each adding value to the
product. The further we move away from the initial creation and step deeper into
commodification, many critics argue that the economic value increases while the artistic
value is watered down. However, the consumer is increasingly enabled to engage
actively and interactively with the product and “steps in” towards the end of the process
to bring in new creativity. Whatever the conceptual debates over the models of the
creative economy, the key postulate which is widely accepted is that, while processes of
cultural valuation and economic valuation are different, they are interpenetrated and
mutually dependent (Grant & Wood, 2004, p. 44-45; Throsby, 2001).
Apart from the question which domain should be at the center of a concept of the
creative economy, “radiating” outwards to other, “less creative” domains, another
problem is to know where the influence of creativity ends, or where creativity may be
“dense” or “intensified” and where it is “diffuse” or “partial”. Here, we come back to the
tension between the arts in a narrower sense and creativity as a phenomenon
permeating the economy as a whole, including the private and public sectors as well as
the not-for-profit economy. In this, the WIPO copyright model separating core copyright
industries (treating visual and performing arts and music as commensurate with film and
video or Television) is useful in identifying levels of title originality, and separating
logically origination, adaptation and performance. WIPO notes the role of interdependent
copyright industries (as inputs or outputs) and “partial” copyright industries, such as
design and architecture in the domain. The aggressively expansive definition of the
domain used by the UK government (see page 5 of this study) is thus premature. It
neither accounts for distinction between intense intellectual property production (primary
and secondary sectors or invention, adaptation and mimesis), nor differences in the
respective value chains of the sub-sectors. Perhaps most importantly, it completely
excludes the heritage sub-sector, and blurs audio visual sectors like new media with
manifest aesthetic content with other software applications.
For pragmatic reasons and with an eye on policy recommendations, we should firmly
establish the creative economy as a separate, unique sector of the economy. To do so,
we need to broaden existing conceptions of the creative economy – namely with respect
to the economy – while at the same time narrowing them down, namely with respect to
creativity. We have just rejected the UK government’s official definition because of its
expansive inclusion of too many disciplines and sectors from architecture to software
under the rubric “creative”. The UK’s further definition of creative industries – described
as “industries that are based on individual creativity, skill and talent” and having “the
potential to create wealth and jobs through developing intellectual property” (Creative
industries mapping document, 1998) helps us to illustrate where we would like to see the
definition broadened. We need to expand on this conventional understanding of the
economy as private commercial transactions exclusively aimed at generating revenue
and include the public sector, public-private partnerships and the social economy in our
reflections on the relationship between creative expression and economic value. The
social economy consists of a wide range of voluntary, not-for-profit activities of
entrepreneurs and artists.
15
Returning to the term “creativity”, we do not use it to refer to a principle that increasingly
conditions all activities in the world of work. Seeing the creative economy as embedded
in the knowledge economy and the information society but different from both, helps us
to develop a tailor-made set of indicators to monitor its growth and a basis for
developing effective policies. We limit ourselves in this study to those economic activities
that involve the adaptation of symbolic texts (broadly defined as texts, images, and
sound), the promotion of these texts and issues of design. Here the Conference Board
of Canada’s narrow definition of the cultural industries for its first policy roundtable in
March 2008 is a useful starting point. These industries are viewed as “book, periodical,
and newspaper publishing, sound recording, radio and television broadcasting;
interactive media (video games, online museums, e-learning with cultural content)”
(www.conferenceboard.ca). However, we would like to broaden the Conference Board’s
conception of the arts, defined as “performing arts, visual arts, and festivals” to include
heritage (museums, galleries and libraries), arts schools and services.
Looking back at our notions of “creativity” and “economy”, we can say that the challenge
is how to wed social capital formation and notions of collective creative security with the
dynamism of the creative economy (Flew, 2002, p.355). To achieve this, a broader
concept is needed. However, we would like to first explore the size of the creative sector
to point out its growing significance.
Sizing the creative economy sector
Comparative data is difficult to find because countries and regions have varying
understandings of which sectors and jobs belong to the creative economy. For example,
the EU measures cultural employment by including not only people who perform a
cultural function within the cultural sector – which is the more exclusive Canadian
approach – but also those who work culturally in other sectors of the economy as well as
those who work in the cultural sector but whose jobs are not cultural or creative at all
(Economic contribution of culture in Canada, 2004, p.15, The economy of culture in
Europe, 2006, p.73).
In 2002, GDP from culture activities consonant with the Conference Board’s narrow
definition of the sector amounted to more than $39 billion in Canada, an increase of
31.7% from 1996, exceeding the overall growth in the Canadian economy and
accounting for some 3.8% of the GDP in 2002 (Economic contribution of culture in
Canada, 2004, p.10). This growth rate appears higher than that in the European Union,
with slightly less than 20% between 1999 and 2003 (The economy of culture in Europe,
2006, p.6). The European-wide contribution was only 2.6% to the GDP in 2003 but many
individual European countries such as France, UK, Norway, Finland, Denmark all have
numbers higher than 3% (ibd., p.66).
16
Table 1 Comparing amount of jobs and contribution to GDP to overall economy
(time frames: 1999-2001 for Canadian numbers, 1999-2003 for EU and European
national numbers)
Jobs %
GDP %
Canada
3.9
3.86
European Union
3.1
2.6
Germany
3.2 (including cultural tourism)
2.5
France
2.5 (incl. cult. tourism)
3.4
United Kingdom
3.8 (incl. cult. tourism)
3.0
Sources: The economy of culture in Europe 2006 (p.67, 81), Economic contribution of culture in Canada
2004, (p.6)
Creative economy or creative ecology?
The creative (or, to use an older term: cultural) industry concept of the 1990s has
widened to the creative economy (Howkins, 2001, Leadbetter, 2000, Florida, 2002) and
now to creative regions and creative cities under the influence of microeconomics and
innovation system theory. Theorists like Charles Landry (2000) (the inventor of Helsinki’s
Festival of Light) and others of the urban planning and cultural geography disciplines
explore how technological innovation arises from a cultural and institutional urban milieu
that promotes innovation and experimentation: the location, if you will, of the learning
economy on the ground (Flew, 2005). The creative milieu is defined as a “shared space
and tradition in which people can learn, compare, compete and collaborate and through
which ideas can be proposed, developed or disseminated”. The “creative cities”
movement is heavily European, but has early adopters in the Creative City Network of
Canada (established in 1998) and supported by programs of the Department of
Canadian Heritage like Creative Spaces Canada. The movement is about re-imagining
local urban space within a competitive global framework (Pratt, 1994) and often the
capacity to attract and generate employment and output in the creative industries
(Sassen, 2005), refuting the “death of distance” or focal fade away from “face to face”
synergies in creative production processes. It may even be said that the cultural district
or quarter in new urban geography originated the “clusters” concept in the study of new
production networks, and casts the distinctive style, sound or look for which a city can
become known7. While “cool Brittania” foundered in Britain in short order, Singaporean
initiatives like the “Renaissance City” or the UAE’s Masdar persist.
6
Arguably, if you broaden the definition of culture to include leisure, sport and cultural tourism, the contribution to
the GDP can rise as high as $54 billion (Culture and Leisure, www.41.stacan.ca/2007/3955/ceb3955_000_e_htm)
7
David Hesmondalgh and Andy Pratt applaud Hans Mommass for his critique of the creative city discourses about place
marketing, entrepreneurialism, innovation, regeneration of derelict buildings, and stimulating cultural diversity and democracy.
17
Policy literature seems to accept that creative cities require a cohesive policy framework
set within the cultural context to allow the fruition of creativity (Robinson, 2006; Landry,
2005). Like Throsby, cultural geographers spatially map the city in series of concentric
circles, often determined by property prices, high value added services like finance,
cultural institutions and the headquarters of cultural industry organizations collocated
around a contemporary version of the piazza or village square. Anchors to such a
square or district often include a market or restaurant, a public library, art gallery or
museum, a major theatre or film studio. Around it is the “buzz” ring of creative services,
and related creative industries which include advertising or promotion, design, multimedia entrepreneurs, artists and small galleries. Also, experimenting with “creative
enterprise zones” to sustain sites of incubation at below market value to ensure the
subsistence artists and ateliers that comprise “the soul” of culture, continues to remain a
part of the mix (Landry, 2005).
Urbanscapes require a fundamental shift in thinking away from physical infrastructure
towards urban dynamics and the overall health and well being of its peoples, a shift in
which Landry sees the city as an organism. He elaborates:
The creative city approach, therefore, does not look at policy sectorally. Its purpose is to see how
the pool of cultural resources identified can contribute to the integrated development of a locality.
By placing cultural resources at the centre of policy-making, interactive and synergistic
relationships are established between these resources and any type of public policy – in fields
ranging from economic development to housing, health, education, social services, tourism, urban
planning, architecture, townscape design and cultural policy itself. Policy makers in all fields
should not simply be making instrumental use of culture as a tool for achieving non-cultural goals.
(Landry, 2000, p.175).
Quite simply, the creative industries need to mobilize cultural and economic arguments
in the context of a city culture, equally a product of a division of labour and an
imaginative work (O’Connor, 2005). Thus, what is needed is a holistic, integrated
approach to creativity.8 Such an integrated approach is often called “ecological”. A
cultural ecology recognizes that the notion of creative industries broadens the social
base of enterprise culture, characterized predominantly by:
-
creative individuals and entrepreneurs
-
small to medium enterprises
-
pre-commercial (or anti commercial activities) as well as commercial
activities
8
-
new mixes of public and private partnership
-
a complex web of social and cultural infrastructure
-
local and global production flows.
Landry, borrowing from Matarasso, suggests a sensible scale for assessing the creative city policy capacity which can easily be
adapted to national systems (2000, p.234-235).
18
A cultural ecology approach presents a complex challenge in cultural policy governance.
A country taking the creative turn requires focused and tremendous efforts in terms of
coordination between and among highly decentralised agencies and in seeking
resources. Developing the creative infrastructure in its broadest sense requires the
cooperation of many stakeholders (Roodhouse et al., 2004). The case for a creative
ecology approach becomes all the more persuasive as the following discussion of
creative work will make clear. Sub-sector boundaries are blurring and unstable. The
nature of the work force is changing. It is thus all the more necessary and productive to
adopt a more broad-based approach to the development of the creative economy sector
as a whole as opposed to a reductive, specialized one (Facing the Future, 2002).
Creativity and Work
While there has been extensive attention to the economic theory of the new creative
economy in academic and policy circles, much less attention has been paid to the
changing processes of creative work. It is generally accepted that the creative practices
of creative industries now involve more interactivity, hybridization, new sites and forms
of production, multiplatform delivery, promotional synergy, and more serial project
entrepreneurship. Yet a recent quick scan of over 1000 policies in 18 countries
conducted by the European Institute for Comparative Urban Research (Quick scan of
national policies, 2007) detailed no creative labour policies aside from support for
entrepreneurship.
The experience of people working in the creative industries today is conceptualized most
often around the world as a set of distinct characteristics clustered under the dominant
idea of new labour “flexibility”. This flexibility and indeterminacy can be seen as positive
(enabling creativity) as well as negative (constraining creativity). Optimistic to neutral
accounts of creative labour in academic research point to the increased possibilities and
freedoms that creative labourers gained through the emergence of digital technologies
and the globalization of work. Mark Deuze mentions that there are fewer hierarchies in
creative work and more collaboration – with colleagues and with the “audience” of
creative products and services (2007). Semi-permanent work groups, temporary jobs
and freelancing for different employers are now the rule. Creative labourers are moving
around in the global creative industries as more or less free agents (Throsby, 2001).
Hartley (2005) also mentions the interactive, hybrid and interdisciplinary – employing
many different skills to fulfill many different functions – nature of contemporary creative
work often implying higher need for education in various cultural repertoires (2005).
Globalization and digital technologies have not only multiplied the possibilities for
creating, producing and distributing cultural goods and services, they have also made
life harder for many creative labourers. Increased autonomy and flexibility in the work life
of creative labourers come with high costs to income security. Temporary contracts with
changing or multiple employers mean that it can become a challenging undertaking to
19
access corporate pension plans and secure old-age provision. Similarly, self-employed
creative labourers cannot take maternity leave and usually have to pay the employer
contributions to health insurance (Layton, undated). As well, organizing the work force of
the cultural sector is extremely difficult in a “network society” where not only bonds
between employer and employee are weak but also those among employees – who
often do not even know each other because they might be freelancing from home for
multiple companies (Rossiter, 2003; Mosco & McKercher, 2007, McRobbie, 2005). In
times when all Western industrialized democracies have significantly trimmed the social
safety net, the course of work life for creative labourers has become especially
unpredictable (Calabrese & Burgelman, 1999). As firms have increasingly faced
difficulties in obtaining skilled workers in certain information techonology centres, more
analytic attention has turned to the workforce (Scott, 2000; Christopherson, 2004).
Since the creative economy is predominantly seen as a project-based economy
characterized by temporary employment relationships, diversity and not speciality is the
predominant skill emphasis in what commentators call a “speeded up creative world”
(McRobbie, 2005) of invention and innovation. Multiple skills, and multidisciplinarity of
practice suggest the traditional sociology of professional organization which underpins
collective bargaining is unravelling. It is becoming more challenging in the cultural sector
than in other sectors of the economy to have labour organizations representing the work
force, engaging in collective bargaining and the improvement of working conditions.
In addition, a new international division of labour does not make these goals any more
achievable. Whereas the creation of cultural products still mostly takes place in Western
industrialized countries, there is a trend towards locating or re-locating the production of
those products in low-wage countries in Asia (Mosco & Stevens, 2007). For example,
the ideas for some computer-animated movies are invented in Hollywood but technically
converted into movies in Taiwan (Day, 2007). This not only makes unionization of
workers who work on the same product close to impossible. It also can mean
unemployment for those who produced such movies in Hollywood before the production
was outsourced. Neo-liberal policy reform in many countries has often concentrated on
shifting labour force policy away from a universal social security model (implicit in the
term unemployment insurance, for example) to one of employment and targeted state
support. Yet there remain notable variations in the occupational identities and work lives
of cultural workers across advanced economies (Christopherson, 2004).
A recent survey of the cultural labour force conducted by the international consulting firm
Mercadex for the Canadian Cultural Human Resources Council (CCHRC)9in 2002 found
that the significant strengths exhibited by the cultural sector are:
- the diversity in people and activities of the sector;
- the passion, motivation, competence and tenacity of workers in the sector;
- the economic impact of the sector (leverage effect for other sectors);
9
A not-for-profit agency created in 1995 and reporting to the Minister of Labour.
20
- the sector’s close and sustained links with many other industrial sectors;
- the ability of the sector to sustain and increase its activities under adverse conditions.
The significant characteristics of the cultural sector are:
- a significant proportion of independent/self-employed workers;
- a significant proportion of not-for-profit organizations;
- a significant proportion of independent organizations, most of them small by corporate
standards;
- a significant proportion of volunteers;
- low remuneration for a highly educated workforce;
- the absence of clearly defined career paths;
- a highly diversified cultural offering (goods and services)
Against this background, the development of policies that speak to the life chances as
well as challenges characterizing the current situation of the creative labour force seem
all the more necessary. Yet, to our knowledge, there currently exists no comprehensive/
systematic body of policy intelligence about trends in creative labour or policies to ease
labour force adjustment. Such a goal is worth pursuing. Just as creativity is becoming
the dominant paradigm for the whole world of work (not just for the creative industries),
the policies for creative labour today will serve as vanguard for most labour and social
policies of the future. The remaining two sections of this chapter attempt to map a fairly
extensive taxonomy of creative work in Canada based on evidence available.
Searching for the wellsprings of creative innovation
The Creative Europe Report argued for a complete change of paradigm in understanding
the nature of creativity governance, which switches focus away from the sole person,
creative worker, or creative institution, and onto the collective traits or changing processes
of creativity at work. It is an imperative call for academics to which policy researchers and
arts advocates must respond (www.creativeeurope.info).
Again, there is a stunning lack of empirical work on the actual nature of creative innovation
in the core or ancillary creative sectors in Canada and around the world. However, some
early conceptual work (Crossick, 2006) suggests a fundamental difference in how
knowledge is constituted. This constructivist view rejects simple models of knowledge or
technology transfer, turning instead to the mode of innovation which requires face to face
“creative conversations”, small scale venues and proximity to a community of practice.
Work on Creative Clusters (Panos, in the 2004 Creative London Report) cites the
importance of diverse ecologies of small businesses, individual artists and hobbyists in
urban environments, and the importance in cultural planning to maintain affordable
21
live/work space. Rents need to be controlled so that artists are not increasingly forced out
of city centres and public, moveable space needs to be protected for rehearsing, and
creative hubs for enabling the mix of skills and exchange necessary to refuel the muse.
Clearly, attention to the physical conditions of artistic and creative spaces is moving to the
top of policy agendas (Federation of Canadian Municipalities has founded a huge cultural
infrastructure gap 2008 see www.cultureandcommunties.ca).
Even more contested is the nature of the relationship between cultural practice and
intellectual property. If you will remember, a core tenet of the creative economy world view
is that it turns on the exploitation of intellectual property (UK, Singapore, Australia).
Surprisingly, given the popular dissemination of his views, Richard Florida’s definition of
the creative class is silent on the role that intellectual property plays in constituting the
creative class. In a study of the craft industry in Australia, Ned Rossiter suggests the
everyday experience of artists is in fact alienation from the regime of intellectual property:
few own title to their own work. Individual workers or workers in small enterprises, which
characterize most of the sector, rarely are beneficiaries of intellectual property
agreements. Indeed, the skills to negotiate such agreements, or the desire to do so, vary
significantly. Many artists oppose the vertical, hierarchical and commercialized regime of
intellectual property and do not see it relevant to their small scale production. By contrast,
arguments like the International Laboiur Organization’s emphasize that the social status of
performing artist occupations could be transformed through more systematic use of model
contracts and that legal standards concerning intellectual property rights cannot be set
aside. Indeed, workers organizations in the performing arts are trying to ensure greater
exploitation of ancillary rights for live performers, in video, sound recording and other
means (ILO, 2004), after being the major victim in the decline of public arts funding around
the world. Greater attention must be given to the role of intellectual property in the
workplace and the status it holds as the legal and social architecture governing the
conditions of creative production, job satisfaction, employer-employee relations and
creative life in general, and for its distributive effects. Arguably, intellectual property claim
is less important than entrepreneurial negotiation and execution, as the Canadian tale of
the Blackberry with RIIM indicates.
The creator, performer and cultural worker of the new millennium are increasingly in need
of multi-disciplinary competencies which are not directly related to the artistic discipline or
to the cultural work, but rather those competencies which round out the ‘tool box’ of skills,
among them business skills, possessed by workers in the sector. To succeed and take an
active role in the new economy, cultural workers must develop, parallel to their
professional skills, general and career management competencies (Facing the Future,
2002). These include the ability to understand and negotiate contracts, to actively network,
to assess one’s progress and review one’s goals (Harvey, 2002).
Countries are increasingly addressing the network of education, training and other
career supports needed for individual creators. Also important is attention to the
capacities of associations and career networks to access the skill development that
creative labourers need. Figure 3 demonstrates an interesting way to conceptualize how
individual careers move through the cultural infrastructure.
22
Figure 3: Individual careers and the cultural infrastructure
Source: Creative Economy Infrastructure Report, provided by the UK’s Creative Economy Programme
(found at: www.cep.culture.gov.uk)
The casual labour force
The emergence of networked technologies has led to a new “sociality” in the informal,
networked cultures of creative production. “Crowd-sourcing” is increasingly a feature of
cultural supply, drawn from Myspace, Youtube, or the hopefuls auditioning in new reality
show format TV production. From the early work of economists Baumol and Bowen or
cultural theorist Bourdieu, the existence of a large, amateur labour pool which will work
for free has worked to keep cultural wages down. The shift to the networked knowledge
economy has carried with it fundamental challenges to conventional
guild/union/professional organization, according to Manuel Castells:
... with the acceleration of the work process [enabled by new ICTs], worker’s defense
continues to be a fundamental issue: they cannot count on their employers. The problem is
that the individualization of management/worker relationships makes the use of traditional
forms of defense, in terms of collective bargaining and trade union-led struggles, very difficult
except in the public sector. Unions are realizing this and finding new forms of pressure,
sometimes in the form of consumer boycotts to press for social justice and human rights.
Also, individual explosions of violence by defenseless workers could be considered forms of
resistance. (Castells & Ince, 2003, p.29)
Certainly, unpaid work is characteristic of a range of cultural producers, from the young
woman like Feist, the Canadian singer and 2008 Grammy winner who jams as back up
for free in local pubs, the local hobbyist who plays for friends to the volunteer accountant
who serves on the arts board. Ulrich Beck identifies a nexus between those who work
23
for themselves – a mode of coordination he attributes to “life-aesthetes” in particular –
and their desire for “self-development”. He goes on to suggest that such dispositions
lend themselves to “self-exploitation”: “People are prepared to do a great deal for very
little money, precisely because economic advantage is individualistically refracted and
even assigned an opposite value. If an activity has greater value in terms of identity and
self-fulfilment, this makes up for and even exalts a lower level of income” (2000, p. 150).
Voluntary and service labour by many artists within the cultural sector would also fit this
condition of self-exploitation. Capturing the extent and contribution of this voluntary
unpaid labour force is important for its value added to the cultural economy. Stated the
CHRDC (2002):
The extensive use of volunteers in the cultural sector, while indispensable in the context of a
resource crunch, acts as a double-edged sword, contributing both to stability and instability within
the sector. One of the most serious problems with volunteerism in the sector identified by many
respondents is the contention that volunteers are often given jobs that should properly go to paid
workers. Not only does this decrease employment opportunities for cultural workers, but it leads to
an undervaluing of those jobs and a dilution of the professionalism attached to them.
Both the Canadian and the European cultural statistics do not account for the
contributions of non-profit work and volunteer work or charity activities. Thus, the socalled grey or social economy – whose creative input might be considered particularly
valuable exactly because it is not primarily directed towards monetary gain – is currently
not included in reflections on policies for the arts and culture sector. Yet there is an
emerging awareness internationally that the complexities surrounding culture and
creativity cannot be adequately measured by only referring to GDP and employment
numbers and improved statistical methods are researched (The economy of culture in
Europe, 2006 and www.worldvolunteerweb.org). The International Labour Office (ILO)
has targeted the development of a system of metrics to measure this hidden sector and
its contribution to economic productivity by 200910. The contribution of volunteer work is
increasingly recognised by policy-makers as essential for the well-being of any society,
but up to date there is shortfall in measurable data on its volume, value and
characteristics. Currently, only the volunteer work that leads to the production of goods
or to the production of services for market enterprises or for non-profit enterprises
operating in the market (e.g. some schools and hospitals) are considered. In contrast, a
model which emphasizes the social economy can be found in Appendix D.
Conclusion
This chapter offered an introduction to the concept of the creative economy. First, we
described the „cultural turn“ which is taking place in the economies of industrialized
countries and regions around the world. The creative industries sector has a pivotal role
by influencing all other sectors in this transition from production-focused economies to
economies of meaning oriented towards branding and marketing. We then moved on to
current creative economy thinking as it is expressed in a variety of policy papers. The
10
ILO: leading a manual drive to standardize measurement by Dec 2008-02-12
http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/browse/volunteering-issues/volunteering-research/doc/ilo-notes-theimportance.html
24
UK and Australia turn out to be among the most pro-active governments in mapping and
conceptualizing policies for their creative sectors. These countries mirror the general
tendency of policy-makers to take a heavily instrumental approach towards culture and
creativity, using it as a means of national branding but mostly as a tool to raise the GDP.
Subsequently, we discussed various definitions and models of the creative economy,
favouring David Throsby’s model of concentric circles. His model represents core
creative arts, cultural, and wider cultural industries and thus is broadly consistent with
the cultural value chain. We then broadened the definition of “economy” to include the
social economy and we define “creativity” to include the heritage sector but to exclude
disciplines that are only remotely related to creative processes such as software
applications. In a conceptual move from creative economy to creative ecology, we
stressed the importance of the local – and mostly – urban environment in which the
creative industries are situated. An “inspiring” urban cultural milieu with affordable
housing and visible as well as invisible cultural infrastructure is considered a vital
component of a reworked creative economy concept.
Despite different conceptions and measurements, the creative economy is regarded by
a growing number of countries – 20 of which are explored in chapters II and III of this
study – as an important emerging policy field. One of the principal shortcomings has
been a lack of attention to the changing nature of creative work, and the measures
which foster it. The creative labour force is at the heart of the functioning of the creative
economy but experiences unusually high degrees of social and income insecurity,
expected flexibility and (self)-exploitation – potential inhibitions to the creative process
which are not addressed in current policy frameworks for the creative economy.
25
Chapter II: Mapping Creative Labour in Canada
Table of contents
Abstract
Introduction
Mapping the cultural labour force in Canada
Income portrait
Collective organization of Canada’s cultural labour force
The creative casual labour force in Canada
The organizational context of the creative/not-for-profit cultural enterprise sector
The nature of the creative enterprise
Conclusion
Tables
Table 2 Characteristics of culture workers in Canada
Table 3 Comparative Incomes of Cultural Workers in Canada
26
Despite the general assumption that the knowledge economy will produce a labour force
which resembles the cultural sector in its core characteristics, knowledge gaps
concerning creative labour remain. How do countries map their creative workers? There
is still little standardisation in measuring part time or self-employed workers around the
world. In Canada, the last major intensive survey of the sector was conducted in 1993,
and since then there has been a fundamental shift in best practices in ways to design
such creative labour studies. The culture-based sector is both big and complex. The
consensus among experts is that it is also under-documented, and under-represented in
Canadian official statistics and labour market studies, many of which are founded on
economic theories from the 1960s. If the casual voluntary workers are included, the
cultural sector contributes over $6 billion to the GDP – a much larger share than
traditional figures hint.
According to the partial maps that exist, high numbers of self-employment are not the
only anomaly of the creative labour force in comparison to other economic sectors. As
both the EU and the Canadian statistics demonstrate, creative labourers are not only
better educated than the rest of the labour force but earn less than people in other
professions who hold university degrees. Creative labourers both score incomparably
high in holding temporary jobs as well as multiple jobs to make a living. However, official
documents in Canada and Europe fail to map the incredibly diverse and differentiated
work styles and employment situations of creative labourers in their entirety.
Despite a lack of current comprehensive studies of the sociological structure of
Canada’s creative labour, is clear that there are sharp differences in status, training,
credentials and the degree of “licensed autonomy” or professional independence
obtained by various categories of Canadian cultural workers – rigidities which are
emerging even as there is an increasing “fluidity” in job overlaps and job mobility. Such
paradoxes suggest problems in the existing system of creative labour force adjustment,
necessitating new thinking about the design of appropriate policy measures to harness
sustainable economic growth and promote well-being.
The strong shift away from more traditional to informal forms of employment in the
performing arts as a bellweather for other sectors in the creative economy is felt around
the world, including China and the Russian Federation (ILO, 2004). The International
Labour Office argues that this major shift in the composition of the sector leads to
workers accepting contracts with lower conditions and poorer conditions than in the past.
There is an urgent need for comprehensive, in-depth study of cultural workers to identify
these and other factors that may present barriers in access to the means of creative
expression.
Finally, a preliminary benchmark study of the arts and cultural not-for-profit organizations
and creative enterprises shows they have little or no capacity to participate in intensive
policy monitoring or independent public policy analysis and therefore are unlikely to be of
direct relevance to any empirical discussion on the cultural economy. Furthermore, their
27
size and lack of sustaining core resources often limits their capacity to innovate with
policies that address the difficulties facing their members. Few can offer pension or other
services, for example, for the more ephemeral of cultural workers. Among the many
supply and demand side barriers facing creative entrepreneurs starting up their own
businesses which have been identified around the world, the universal failing would seem
to be in accessing adequate venture capital, or financing in very early stages of creation.
Mapping the cultural labour force in Canada
Jurisdiction for labour resides mostly at the provincial level in Canada but is shared.
Since 1995, the Canadian Cultural Resources Council (supported by Human Resources
Development Canada or HRDC) has worked to monitor and strengthen the cultural
labour force, and has led or advised on most mapping exercises.11 Despite over 15
years of effort, there is still no standardization in measurement of the Canadian cultural
jobs that are non-traditional.12 In a recent release of its labour force survey, Statistics
Canada estimated the formal cultural sector, (defined also inexplicably to include
information and recreation) at 768,000 jobs defined based on the content of the work,
posting a small monthly decline (-26,000 jobs)13. By contrast, data from the fuller 2001
census data suggested about 516,000 jobs (or 3.1% of the total) for culture alone
(Canadian Cultural Human Resources Council, 2004 Canada’s Cultural Sector Labour
Force14). The incidence of the inner core of sound, form, writing and movement
disciplines is just under 1% or about 130,000.
In general, early mapping exercises in Canada used narrower definitions of the field and
found unimpressive rates of growth in the late 1990s, compared to the UK, and thus
apparently provided little pressure for setting the policy agenda for creative industry
development. After an initial quick start in identifying the need to redesign its cultural
statistics in a specially targeted cultural labour force survey in 1994-1995 (Provonost,
2002), Canadian statistical measurement has fallen behind other countries in the
relevance, reliability and timeliness of its reporting on the cultural labour force. Much
data is more than 5 years out of date. The culture-based sector is both big and complex.
The consensus among experts is that it is also under-documented, and underrepresented in Canadian official statistics and labour market studies, many of which are
founded on economic theories from the 1960s. This makes developing a strategy for this
sector, while important, also difficult.
11
The CCHRC develops and provides internship programs, career development tools, and cultureworks, a job fair.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts, Canada Council and Statistics Canada collaborated on a substantive job
definition of some 45 occupations, but often more than 90 are in use in other countries. See a discussion of
methodology at http://www.culturalhrc.ca/research/G738_CHRC_AnnexA_intro_E.pdf. Not only will the season in
which the Census is collected (a shoulder period for the arts) suppress estimates, the focus on the job most often
excludes multiple part time jobs.
13
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080208/d080208a.htm
14
http://www.culturalhrc.ca/research/G738_CHRC_AnnexA_intro_E.pdf
12
28
Yet, from these partial statistics, we can still identify some clear characteristics with
respect to the creative sector as compared to other economic sectors. First, in terms of
types of employment, self-employment in the cultural sector is significantly higher than in
the economy as a whole (in Europe 29 % versus 14%, in Canada 25 % versus 16%,
according to two official documents: The economy of culture in Europe, 2006, and
Economic contribution of culture in Canada, 2004). The creative sector is also growing
more quickly than other sectors. High numbers of self-employment are not the only
anomaly of the creative labour force in comparison to other economic sectors. As both
the EU and the Canadian statistics demonstrate, creative labourers are not only better
educated than the rest of the labour force but earn less than people in other professions
who hold university degrees. For example, 47% of creative workers in Europe have
post-secondary education compared to just 26% of the overall work force (The economy
of culture in Europe, 2006, p.88). They also work more often in part-time jobs (see Table
2). The precariousness and insecurity that characterize the work lives of creative
labourers are more accurately mirrored in the EU document since it explicitly accounts
for temporary employment situations and traces the phenomenon of one person holding
multiple jobs at the same time. Contrasting these statistics with the European work force
as a whole, the document illustrates that creative labourers both score incomparably
high in holding temporary jobs as well as multiple jobs to make a living. However, both
official documents fail to map the incredibly diverse and differentiated work styles and
employment situations of creative labourers in their entirety.
Furthermore, as Table 2 demonstrates, the myth of the public sector/supported artist is
dead in Canada as presented in the official statistics. Most culture-based workers work
in the private sector, and apparently just 5% work in the public sector (although since
Statistics Canada would count a musician also supported by teaching in the other
sector, the important role of post-secondary institutions in supporting cultural workers is
suppressed). Yet the contribution of training, arts schools and culture labs is increasingly
a focus of the creative industry/cluster economists. The clear conclusion from this
imperfect map is that self-driven career work is a mainstay in Canada’s cultural field,
where artists, dancers and other workers are three times more likely to be selfemployed. The incidence is higher in some creative occupations: painters and visual
artists, for example, are mostly self-employed (over 67%). Full time employment may be
harder to get or strategic underemployment a small price to pay for one’s passion.
29
Table 2: Characteristics of culture workers in Canada (percentages of total work
force)
Full Time Culture Workers (average 1996-2002)
Unemployed Culture Workers (averaged)
Employed Culture Workers in private sector (averaged)
Employed Culture Workers in public sector (averaged)
Self-Employed Culture Workers (averaged)
78 versus 81 non-Culture
6
versus 8 non-Culture
71 versus 65
5
versus 19
25 versus 16
Source: Focus on Culture. Quarterly Bulletin from the Culture Statistics Programme (2004) Based on 48
15
occupations classified as cultural workers in the Labour Force Survey.
Income portrait
Highly developed skills, education, versatility and flexibility, then, do not necessarily
convert into economic reward, as innovation in art, science and technology
demonstrates. Culture workers in Canada post average employment incomes which are
lower than other workers’ (at around $30,000 in 2000) and incomes grew more slowly
(1995-2000). However, relative income growth was higher for certain core cultural
producers than support occupations, especially accruing to painters, and other visual
artists who were the farthest behind, and still remain so. There were no cultural
occupations in the top quartile of Canadian earners in 1995 or 2000. Nor are there
studies of incidence of artists below low income cut off lines. However, median salary
information challenges the image of the underpaid worker, especially in Ottawa Hull and
Toronto, and across many of the sub-disciplines. The emerging data suggest that the
myth of the starving artist in the atelier also has to be set aside in Canada – the picture
is much more stratified and complex than supposed.
The highest paid culture-based occupations are architects, producers, directors and
choreographers. Workers in performing and visual arts occupations involving creation,
such as dancers, artisans, craftspersons, musicians, singers, painters, sculptors, and
other visual artists had incomes that were well below average for the cultural labour
15
Although it has a large sample size (over 50,000 households), the reliability of the estimates about
culture occupations in the Labour Force Survey is limited, as is the occupational breakdown available, and
its numbers typically, and predictably, differ from Census estimates. Data from the Labour Force Survey
are
not
cited
by
many
for
this
reason
(Terry
Cheney,
http://www.culturalhrc.ca/research/CHRC_Cultural_Sector_Fast_Stats_2004-en.pdf).
The Culture Labour Force Survey was a one-time survey addressing a population of about 150,000
people identified as working in creative cultural occupations (visual artists, actors, musicians, etc.) to
explore their working conditions, education and training, income and finances. The sample size was just
over 5,000. It is more comprehensive than most census or generic Labour Force studies, but has not been
replicated and enhanced since.
30
force (2004). When combined, the median income for cultural workers ($31,149) is close
to the Canadian average ($32,123).
Table 3 Comparative Incomes of Cultural Workers in Canada (2000)
Average Cultural Income
$31,149
versus
$32,123 average
Average FT Cultural Income $40,060
versus
$43,298 average
Average PT Cultural Income $19,506
versus
$19,067 average
Core Cultural Sector Incomes (Overall)
Creative and Artistic Production
$28,786
Heritage Collection and Preservation
$34, 639
Management
$49,370
Technical and Operation Occupations
$30, 047
Manufacturing support
$29, 970
Source: Focus on Culture, Quarterly Bulletin from the Culture Statistics Programme (2004) Vol
15, No. 2, Table 1.
Interestingly, gender balance is more representative in the cultural occupations. While
women cultural workers still make less than their male counterparts, the gap is narrower.
Data on visible minorities or breakdown by ethnocultural origin are not available.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to identify comparative degrees of income stratification
within Canada, or compared to Europe from the existing data. Yet speculative evidence
from qualitative surveys over a decade ago suggests that the more extensive public
sector support in Canada – where artists work in arts schools or for public institutions –
makes income differences from the general labour force smaller than some countries,
like the US.
Certainly, agglomerative effects differ. Montreal is lagging behind other cities when it
comes to culture-related jobs, according to a new study released in the summer of 2007
by Statistics Canada. Over a 20-year period, the big growth has been in the West, and,
as a result, Montreal has fallen behind in the rankings. Vancouver tops the list with the
biggest cultural share of the workforce. Toronto is second, followed by Victoria and then
Montréal.16
16
Statistics Canada (2004). Census Metropolitan Areas as Culture Clusters. In Trends and Conditions in
Census Metropolitan Areas. 89-613-MWE.
31
Sharp regional variations thus are commonplace in Canada, and the data on location of
cultural workers confirm sharp agglomeration effects. Rural incidence of cultural
employment is lower overall than in other sectors, and more likely to be part time, but
growing more quickly than other areas, possibly due to displacement/cost of living and
other factors in urban areas. Heritage and visual arts workers are much more likely to
gravitate to rural areas in Canada. In general, Canada’s three largest cities – Toronto,
Montreal and Vancouver – lead in the number of cultural workers, accounting for 64%
which is much higher than clusters of other workers would seem to suggest. Enrolment
in universities, colleges and trade schools for creative professions is also much higher.
Not measured in the full time category is hours of work. Long hours are known to be
associated with the creative industries, yet are not regulated in most cultural
professions. As mentioned above, also unavailable are poverty or low income cut off
rates for cultural workers, important in consideration of underrepresented populations
such as aboriginal or other visible minority groups. In their 2002 survey of the cultural
sector, the Canadian Human Resources Council’s report Facing the Future found:
Creators, performers and cultural workers across all sub-sectors and disciplines are
experiencing insecurity and instability in their employment and independent/contract work.
The problem manifests in a variety of ways: the decline in available full-time and
permanent jobs, the transitoriness [sic] of employment/engagement, the need to secure
and balance multiple jobs to make a reasonable living, systemic barriers for the selfemployed, the absence of a social safety net, and wholly inadequate remuneration. For
individuals in the cultural sector – whether contractual or full-time employees and whether
working in the for-profit or not-for-profit sectors – working conditions appear to be very
difficult, characterized to a large degree by:
17
– poverty level pay ;
– excessively heavy workloads;
– lack of full-time work;
– overwork;
– high performance expectations despite insufficient training and support;
– the requirement to multi-function, leading to poorer quality work and crisis
management;
– lack of opportunities for advancement;
– lack of security and benefits;
– devaluation by boards, employers, government and the general public;
17
Documented from qualitative interviews.
32
The Facing the Future study confirmed that creators and cultural workers who are
disadvantaged, marginalized or isolated in Canada include:
1. aboriginal and visible minority cultural communities;
2. linguistic minorities, including French outside Québec;
3. the geographically isolated (rural, Northern);
4. workers in smaller organizations and enterprises;
5. youth.
This survey of techniques to map the creative labour sector shows there are serious
problems of categorization, given the blurring of practices. Phyllida Shaw in her metaanalysis of research into artists working lives, conducted for the International Federation
of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies (2004) suggests amount of time, income and
membership should be the main criteria of delineation. Certainly the Canadian Labour
Force categories do not capture the complexity of artists’ working lives. For example,
economist David Throsby’s work in Australian occupational mapping has found over 130
categories. In addition, the Australian Council has suggested the Australian labour force
survey routinely suppresses about 2/3rd of the creative labour force. In general, countries
have found that the information from self-selected professional organizations who survey
their own members is more relevant and reliable. Ruth Towse and Summerton (Shaw,
2004) argue that multiple job holding is a choice rather than a compromise for many
artists, speaking to an underlying multidisciplinarity in thinking and practice. Few studies
pursue the cultural labour market over as long a term as Australia with the work by
David Throsby, and few probe underlying issues of choice or time spent in various
artistic and other occupations to understand the artistic life-cycle.
While there has been no study of the sociological structure of Canada’s creative labour
force, it is clear that there are sharp differences in status, training, credentials and the
degree of “licensed autonomy” or professional independence obtained – rigidities which
are emerging even as there is an increasing “fluidity” in job overlaps and job mobility.
Such paradoxes suggest problems in the existing system of creative labour force
adjustment. The strong shift away from more traditional to informal forms of employment
in the performing arts is felt around the world, including China and the Russian
Federation (ILO, 2004). The ILO argues that this major shift in the composition of the
sector leads to workers accepting contracts with lower conditions and poorer conditions
than in the past. There is an urgent need for comprehensive, in-depth study of cultural
workers to identify these and other factors that may present barriers in access to the
means of creative expression.
33
Collective organization of Canada’s cultural labour force
Similarly, no data yet exist on the degree of collective unionization or membership in
professional/disciplinary associations in Canada. However, high levels of formal
education compared to other workers suggest either a tendency to self-employment as a
mode of work, or to gravitate voluntarily to professional associations or affinity interest
groups, which may or may not have formal policies. Certainly, some unions have been
more accommodative of the trend in a knowledge-based economy away from
hierarchical forms of learning and practice embedded in organizations to an intellectual
style that is oriented toward speculation, projection, expression and innovation
(Christopherson, 2004). Recognition and accreditation of new skills is increasingly
problematic for a lone individual negotiating with clients. Other studies of this sector
suggest “thick” associative networks are emerging as well as increasingly global links.
Uncertain career paths and the need to continually invest in acquiring new skills propel a
demand for the formation of these new organizations. Yet evidence from economists like
Richard Caves (Creative Industries, 2000) continues to suggest a discount factor in such
non-union/non-guild labour formations: estimated between 30 to 35% of production
costs can be saved by operating a non-union project in film, for example. New
cooperation across unionized sectors are increasingly important to bargain against
“runaway labour” pressures (in BC’s Film Industry, for example). Certainly, the recent
strike of the screenwriters guild in the US, combined with rotating strikes of creative
workers in France in 2003-2004 or at ITV in 2004 in the UK suggest strike action is a
sign of growing disputes over the adjustments of the creative labour economy.
The casual creative labour force in Canada
The creative labour pool is supported by amateurs and volunteers who enable it: termed
for this report as the “casual” creative labour force, or understood to be part of the social
economy. In Canada, a voluntary participation rate of 3% of all Canadians in arts and
culture has been found (placing it 7th in ranking among likely activities).18 Arts, heritage
and culture volunteers on average donate more of their time: 120 hours a year (or 4th
among other sectors like health overall). The projected total in the volunteer cultural
work force then is about 782,790 volunteer workers. In short, for every “above the line”
full or part time job in the cultural economy there is one “below the line”19. The Canadian
Cultural Human Resources Council has consistently found a shrinking pool of volunteers
since 2000 (Face of the Future, 2002, Cheney, 2004).20 As expected, there are sharply
different projections on how to monetize this contribution. The Satellite Account report
issued by Statistics Canada values volunteer work overall at $14 billion or 1.4% of the
GDP (Catalogue no. 13-015-XIE, 29). Culture and recreation utilised the most volunteers
in 2000, representing an estimated value of $3.6 billion in replacement labour costs-18
See the Canadian 2004 Survey on Giving, Volunteership and Participation (CSGVP).
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2007/statcan/13-015-X/13-015-XIE2007000.pdf
20
The best source is the 4th edition of Statistics Canada’s Satellite Account of Nonprofit Institutions and
Volunteering (1997-2004). See http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2007/statcan/13-015-X/13-015XIE2007000.pdf. It is one of the longest tracked by any nation, based on UN standards. It owes its existence to the
Voluntary Sector Initiative begun during the Chrétien period.
19
34
more than double the standard estimate of the Cultural GDP-- and accounting for 64% of
its total value of labour services (ibid), the highest in any core non-profit sector. If the
casual voluntary workers are included, the cultural sector contributes over $6 billion to
the GDP – a much larger amount than traditional figures hint.
The organizational context of the creative/not-for-profit cultural enterprise sector21
It is widely accepted that one of the main characteristics of the creative economy is that
it is characterized by a significant proportion of not-for-profit organizations; most of them
small by corporate standards. Canadian scholars of governance have been among the
first to adopt the proposition that a crucial factor influencing how well countries respond
to globalizing processes is the nature of the relations with civil society actors (Gattinger,
2005). By way of context, it is important to explore how civil society itself is
conceptualized, shaped and mobilized in Canada. In a recent review of the Canadian
policy system and civil society, Susan Phillips defines a broad and inclusive concept of
the voluntary and non-profit sector in Canada as the aggregation of organizations that:
exist to serve a public benefit, are self-governing, do not distribute any profits to
members, and depend to a meaningful degree on volunteers. Membership or
involvement in these organizations is not compulsory, and they are independent of,
and institutionally distinct from, the formal structures of government and the private
sector. Although many voluntary sector organizations rely on paid staff to carry out
their work, all depend on volunteers, at least on their boards of directors (Phillips,
2007).
Much of the scope for civil society is created by government. While the overall voluntary
sector in Canada is apparently large, it is generally accepted in policy circles that
Canada has a relatively underdeveloped infrastructure in civil society, largely a result of
the peculiarly low value that policy makers, and parts of the voluntary sector, place on
infrastructure organizations (Phillips, 2005). Indeed, Canada is one of the few
democratic countries in which the peak infrastructure organizations that represent crosssectoral interests do not receive substantial core funding from either governments or
foundations.
Measuring the degree of institutional development in the not-for-profit or voluntary civil
society sector around the world presents difficult issues for analysts.22 There has been
21
Catherine Murray, 2006. Cultural Diversity and Civil Society in Canada. A Briefing Paper Prepared as a Part of a
North American Consultation for the 2nd UNESCO World Cultural Diversity Report.
22
The International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations (ICNPO) developed by the Johns Hopkins
Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project is in wide use. It includes: Media and communications. Production and
dissemination of information and communications. Includes radio and TV stations; publishing of books, journals,
newspapers and newsletters; film production; and libraries; Visual arts, architecture, ceramic art. Production,
dissemination and display of visual art and architecture. Includes sculpture, photographic societies, painting,
drawing, design centres and architectural associations; Performing arts. Performing arts centres, companies and
associations. Includes theatre, dance, ballet and opera companies; orchestras; and choral and music ensembles;
Historical, literary and humanistic societies. Promotion and appreciation of the humanities, preservation of
historical and cultural artefacts, and commemoration of historical events. Includes historical societies, poetry and
literary societies, language associations, reading promotion societies, war memorials; and commemorative funds and
35
limited study of non-profit organizations (NPO) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs),
and even less analysis of the cultural NPOs. Recently, the non-profit organization
Americans for the Arts carried out a first-of-its-kind study on the contribution that nonprofit arts and cultural institutions make to the economy, coming up with $29.6 billion US
dollars in tax revenues for America, supplying 3.1 million full-time equivalent jobs (The
economic impact of nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences,
2007)23.
With the release of Statistics Canada’s Satellite Account of Non-profit institutions and
Volunteering in 2007, the significance of the contribution of NPOs is slowly becoming
more known. Non-profits contribute almost $30 billion to the Canadian GDP – excluding
universities, colleges and hospitals – 11% of which (or just over $3 billion) is driven by the
culture and recreation sector. That share has remained stable since 1997, showing only
small softening.
The comparative benchmark study of this sector comes from another source at Statistics
Canada.24 To begin, the (large) central core of organizations that constitute the Canadian
voluntary/nonprofit sector in Canada – estimated to be the 2nd largest in the world – is
comprised of over 160,000 organizations of which approximately one in two are charities
registered with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). This is a status that enables them to
issue tax receipts for donations and that makes them subject to federal regulations that no
more than 10% of their activities be directed to policy advocacy. These organizations work
in a wide array of policy fields, with some 9% or 13,000 organizations in arts and culture,
representing a significantly greater number than education or health, but less than social
services and considerably less than sports. However, arts and culture CSOs are sharply
divided between the very few large organizations and a multitude of very small ones. The
study also allows some insight into their activities.
Compared to other sectors of civil society, most arts and culture organizations (55%)
direct their activities to local constituencies, 22% to regional ones, 9% to provincial, 3% to
national constituencies and the remaining 8% to international ones: the incidence of
organizations with international focus is second only to the post-secondary sector, for
example. Arts and culture organizations are more likely than others to report problems
associated with financial issues, their ability to engage volunteers, difficulty planning for
the future and lack of internal capacity as problems. It is not possible to get a breakdown
of the proportion of arts and culture organizations representing independent producers,
unions, distributors or other stages of the creative cycle of production. Nor is it possible to
determine how many are multidisciplinary, how many are coalitions, or what resources
and functions they may serve. In addition, there are many hybrid organizations that have
characteristics of public or private as well as voluntary sector bodies. For instance,
business or labor entities often gather in associations with not-for- profit status.
associations; Museums. General and specialized museums covering art, history, sciences, technology and culture
and Zoos and aquariums. Includes zoos and aquariums.
23
No information on GDP supplied in the study as non-profit contribution is obviously not considered a regular
contribution to the GDP.
24
Statistics Canada (2004). Cornerstones of Community. Highlights of the National Survey of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Organizations. Catalogue no. 61-533-XIE.
36
While overall revenues for all CSOs in 2003 are known to be $3,427 million, arts
organizations account for just 3% of all revenues. The average per organization is
$248,000 compared to $1.2 million for business or professional organizations. One fifth or
21% of the total are younger than 10 years old, suggesting a rate of growth in the not for
profit cultural enterprises second only to the environment.
Full counts of the number of creative enterprises are difficult to obtain. CCHRC’s Cultural
Sector Fast Stats (Cheney, 2004) found 625 performing arts organizations in Canada, for
example, and among them, In general, the Heritage sector has been found to have the
highest number of creative enterprises (2,300) and one of the best infrastructures for
professional organization, training and accreditation. Yet just 15% of its 70,000 workforce
was fulltime, facing it with enormous transaction costs in coordinating a volunteer
workforce with high turnover.
Qualitatively, even less is known about these organizations and their human resource
policies, internal allocation of resources, or policies with respect to research and
development. The one exception is the new media sector which has attracted interest in
the study of clusters of innovation in Canada (Gertler, 2005). CHRC’s 2002 Face to the
Future identified the following issues from a qualitative survey of over 180 managers,
owners and professionals in the core creative sector:
1. The ‘weak’ culture of human resources
2. Lack of awareness of structural change in the economy
3. Employment status
4. Recruitment and retention
5. Access to training
6. Demand for new competencies
The sector also shares with most of the economy concerns relating to:
- aging workforce and especially a trend away from cultural occupations amongst
youth;
- an aging marketplace; and softening of patterns of volunteer participation;
- an increasingly diverse population and lower employment rates among visible
minorities in culture-based occupations;
- the presence of global markets;
- global competition; and
- strong impacts of digital technology.
How do these enterprises, then, respond with services to aid their members to meet these
challenges? Many in traditional disciplines, and particularly those registered as charities
37
start out with a primary mission to provide services. However, less well understood is how
many provide services (and of what type) to their members (eg. the Director’s Guild which
provides a pension plan for its members), or resources such as an information clearing
house (for example, one service provided by the Alliance for Arts and Culture in
Vancouver) or additional environmental scanning or policy analysis (for example, the
Creative Cities Network for municipal cultural planners).25
Anecdotal evidence suggests most of these organizations can provide no benefits, or
pension or other packages above the minimum statutory requirements for the workers
they represent. For the average actor in Quebec, who was able to get 9 weeks work, it
would be difficult to be eligible for unemployment insurance from either the state or from
the local guild.
One final dimension of organizational development is policy capacity. There may be
several levels of participation in policy: monitoring, news services, information brokering,
consultation, independent research, and policy analysis. An important factor is to assess is
capacity for creative enterprises to monitor, participate in or formulate public policies.
There is no survey of the number of positions earmarked for policy coordination among
cultural organizations. The position of a government relations officer or policy analyst is
usually either grafted onto the role of the executive director (as it is in the CFTPA, for
example) or added as an after thought. A recent survey of Canadian voluntary
organizations working in health, which include some of the better resourced and most
policy conscious organizations in the sector, attests to the limited human resources
dedicated to policy work. Only 16 percent of provincial and national health organizations
had paid staff devoted to policy development or government relations (Phillips, 2007). The
incidence is likely much lower in culture. We can conclude that many NPOs of the arts and
culture sector thus have little or no capacity to participate in intensive policy monitoring or
independent public policy analysis and therefore are unlikely to be of direct relevance to
any empirical discussion on the cultural economy.
The nature of the creative enterprise
The turn to a policy preoccupation with creative economy has focused at the private
enterprise level, and attracted growing attention to start up, cluster and innovation policy
subfields (Quick scan of national policies for creative industries, 2007). Increasingly, policy
regimes are paying critical attention to the organizational capacity of creative enterprises
to develop typologies of services from them needed (ranging from inspiration and
influence to support and guidance to access to markets to peer learning). Such “needs”
driven service portfolios begin with surveys of the micro-enterprises, design services for
them, and involve them in the evaluation of the design. Business service centers set up
25
A range of services for members may include: Accounting services. Audio and web conferencing, E-commerce
products. E-philanthropy tools. Group insurance benefits. Merchant credit card rates. Bulk rates for Office supplies.
Promotional materials are just several of those that may be offered.
38
for the new economy in general are increasingly providing advice and information about
start-ups. The Canada-Ontario Business Centre, for example has an Arts and Artists Info
Guide which, like Sodec’s is unique across Canada.
The major focus among countries with any sort of policy framework on the creative
economy seems to be on fostering entrepreneurialism and new business start ups, and
especially addressing the gap between invention and creation and the rate of conversion
of ideas into tangible, commodifiable assets. The review of Nordic policies26 is the best at
summarizing the mix of structural and cultural barriers to growth that include supply and
demand side factors:
- Supply-side: Underdeveloped entrepreneurial and management skills, insufficient knowledge
of intellectual property issues (and thus diminished confidence), weak supply chains (inside
and outside the Creative Industries), and a degree of failure in the finance/investment market
for early stage and small creative firms
- Demand-side: Under-exploited local markets for creative goods and services, not least for
firms across the wider economy; and under-developed Creative Industries export markets. In
addition, labour market demand – to live and work in the Creative Industries of the Nordic
Region – is far less than in those ‘global creative capitals’ such as London and New York, or
global creative regions such as California.
Remedies highlighted tend to include business acceleration models, targeted
investment, and specialist intellectual property services, as a key means to grow
creative businesses. The focus is on building out the existing support structure, much of
which is locally oriented, to broker a coherent and connected landscape of support
across economic regions. The Creative Policy Map (see Appendix B) from the Nordic
green paper on the creative economy is a typical and elegant example of such an
approach.
Interestingly, there is fragmented attention to the human resource policies of such
creative enterprises in all except the business press. New awards for “best employers”
or other such status are entering into the promotional lexicon of entrepreneurship,
changing the nature of how people think about managing creative workers. While the
trend to interdisciplinary innovation teams within firms appears to broaden the ambit for
the participation of artists or other of the core disciplines in innovation and design in
business, this study has turned up little systematic evaluation of how the changing
nature of creative work is affecting the creative enterprise. But interest is growing.
Finally, an excellent quick scan of national policies produced by the European Institute for
Comparative Urban Research at the Erasmus University Rotterdam confirms the Nordic
finding (2007), arguing the universal oversight in many countries is the inability to broker
larger pools of venture capital, or better interface between financial institutions and
investment in pre-market innovation, or the early stages of creative development.
26
See A creative economy green paper for the Nordic region (2007).
39
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have highlighted that the statistical tools to map the creative labour
force are inadequate in Canada and around the world. This, of course, has
consequences for the policies imagined by states and regions interested in the creative
economy (which we will explore in detail in the following chapter). For example, regular
employment as well as self-employment in the creative sector is included in statistics –
but there is no acknowledgement of self-employed workers in policies based on these
statistical categories (at least, not as far as social security policies are concerned).
Moreover, creative labourers who hold multiple jobs or those who earn more from a noncultural occupation than from a cultural one do not yet have a place most statistics.
Thus, the incredible diversity and also the precariousness of life and work styles typical
for the creative labour force are not taken into account.
In addition, the frequently informal and unstable employment situations of creative
workers result in difficulties when it comes to unionization and collective bargaining
which have not yet been addressed holistically by policy-makers. Another problematic
one encounters when mapping creative labour through available studies is the exclusion
of the casual labour force. Thus, the considerable contribution of those voluntary or
amateur workers to the creative economy is not recognized.
Furthermore, a significant number of creative enterprises are not-for-profit organizations
and the general lack of knowledge about the non-profit-sector makes it challenging to
assess the organizational capacities of cultural non-profit enterprises, especially with
respect to the services (such as pension benefits) they might offer to their members,
financial stability, and policy development and interventions.
Overall, our mapping of the creative labour force suggests that a more comprehensive
approach to policy-making is required to acknowledge the unique challenges that
creative workers in Canada and elsewhere face today.
40
Chapter III: Policies to Promote Creative Labour
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Policy approaches to creative labour
Rethinking the creative state and flexicurity as policy principle
The Status of the Artist legislative approach
Rethinking Status of the Artist approach
Social Security for Creative labourers
Tax incentives for creators
Social economy initiatives to support creative labour
Safety, Security and Creative Live/Work Space
Conclusions & recommendations
Figure
Figure 4 Taxonomy of policies for a diversified creative labour market
41
A comparison of policies to promote creative labour expression in several countries
reveals a need for more substance, method and critique. A good part of the difficulty in
finding coherence to these policy initiatives lies in inadequate attention to the underlying
ideological orientations to the role of the “Creative State”.
Where “Creative Economy” frameworks exist, they seem to overlook comprehensive
creative labour policies to accommodate a more flexible, mobile workforce, and one
which is increasingly self-employed – even in the Nordic countries. Workers are
forgotten. Or, labour policies are not seen as a key to creative productivity – a flaw in
policy formulation. The history and contemporary adaptations of a special “Status of the
Artist” approach to social security provisions for the sector are reviewed and found to be
slow in diffusion. Setting the approach aside allows a better understanding of the
general needs for “flexicurity” for all workers – that is, a social safety net for all part-time,
casual or self-employed labour. Specific initiatives to do with generalising a “flexicurity”
approach and other taxation and entrepreneurial assistance are reviewed across some
20 countries. Several recommendations to address the needs of creative labour are
made, consistent with an integrated conception of the creative cultural ecology.
Policy approaches to creative labour
If the review of statistical evidence and academic literature on the known composition of
the creative labour workforce presented in chapter II of this study reveals anything, it is
the need for creative economy policies to continue to adapt to an employment-based
professional model (which is surprisingly persistent in Germany and Sweden for
example, even in new media) and a free-agent entrepreneurial model as is dominant in
the US (Christopherson, 2004). The argument in this study is that the focus needs also
to extend to the volunteer labour or alternative labour pool to cover the community
arts/amateur segment (although these terms are increasingly called into question).
Current creative economy thinking reveals an inadequate conception of the creative
labour market segments, which still are too narrowly defined in their relationship to the
activity of paid work, much less discipline or orientation to for profit or not-for-profit
sectors.
Nationally constructed governance systems affecting employment regulation, social
security and other key aspects of the functioning of creative labour remain important
even in increasing globalization. There are marked differences and thus different
incentive structures for workers and employers in national practices and institutions
governing investment and labour markets (Christopherson, 2004). Even within a country,
policy approaches are remarkably fragmented, partially due to the sharply locational
effects of economic geography (Innis, 1946) and partly due to the politics of
clientelist/corporatist policy systems.27 Indeed, such fragmentation reflects the general
finding in a review of 100 policies in 18 countries that “the majority of countries…do not
27
See Leslie A. Pal (2006). Beyond policy analysis. Scarborough. Thomson & Nelson; and Michael
Howlett, & M. Ramesh (2003). Studying public policy. Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford.
42
have a comprehensive long-term national strategy for creative industries, despite the
growing number of initiatives” (in Finland, UK, Singapore, and others) (Quick scan of
national policies, 2007). These authors find there is similarly rarely a comprehensive
long-term strategy to build the creative labour work force or ease the adjustments to a
global creative economy. Such ad hocery is more surprising given shortages in skilled
labour facing most OECD countries. With the attendant need to compete internationally
for knowledge workers, it is often argued that contemporary labour policy may be more
predisposed to be developed from a needs perspective, one that has been lost in social
policy more generally after a decade or more of state retrenchment (Harder, 2004).
As the review of statistical mapping of the creative labour sector in Part II of this study
indicated, there is at least a 7-fold typology of creative workers’ needs which could be
adapted according to relative time spent, to determine intensity of cultural work and
patterns of cross subsidy from other paid employment, educational status or voluntary
contribution from the social economy. The typology includes:
-
-
full time employed
full time self employed
part time employed
part time self-employed
not employed but volunteering
not employed but practicing ( amateur)
not employed, volunteering or practicing cultural activities.
Furthermore, for a more inclusive notion of cultural labour force flow, it would also be
important to indicate the degree of the artist’s cross-over or movement between part
time or contract jobs over this lifecycle of engagement in cultural work. Certainly the
typologies presented here are intended to provide a useful cross-check on the adequacy
of the basket of policy instruments in use.
According to the prevailing policy and academic literature envisioning a creative
economy approach, the additional crucial element is to identify for-profit or non-profit
status - suggesting a simpler, incomplete typology which sets out the range of potential
policy instruments used for the basic creative labour segments (Figure 4).
Yet, as always there are “creative” differences between policy theory and policy practice.
A deeper look at policy highlights actually deployed for the creative labour forces around
the world make this clear. We set out to conduct an examination of policies directed at
creative workers, using an overview of 38 countries available from the Council of Europe
Compendium (www.culturalpolicies.net) and an excellent quick scan of 100 policies in
18 different countries conducted by the European Institute for Comparative Urban
Research at the Erasmus University Rotterdam (Quick scan of national policies, 2007).
For the Figure in Appendix C generated from a review of those two sources, we have
selected policies of 20 different countries that we believe are representative of policy
instruments used around the world. Moreover, we limited ourselves to policies that
clearly assume a relationship between creativity and business or, in other words, that
assume a commercial or industrial dimension of arts and culture.
43
Figure 4: Taxonomy of policies for a diversified creative labour market
(structured by employment status)
Employment
Status
Employed
In for-profit
sector
(direct
commercial
orientation)
Policies
●Employees profit
from the regular
social security
policies in place
for employees in
all sectors of the
economy
+
●Mainstream
economic policies
directed at the
creative economy
as a sector:
promotion
innovation and
entrepreneurship,
access to venture
capital, market
development
Self-employed
(freelancing/independent
worker/temporary
contracts)
●VAT reductions the
taxes payable (in some
countries less than half
of standard VAT or to a
floor of exemptions)
● special income tax
measures (income
averaging over up to 10
years; special
allowances: income tax
deduction or exemption)
●tax deductions for
owning and maintaining
musical instruments and
other “tools” enabling
creativity
● tax credits for the
invention/creation of
commercially valuable
creative work
● laws that acknowledge
the needs of selfemployed creative
workers
●pension planning: help
with specific websites
and free workshops
● pension supplements
● unemployment
insurance
● comprehensive social
insurance package for
self-employed artists
• public
institutions
affording full
benefits to part
time labour
Employed in
non-profit
sector
Volunteer work,
charity activities
Amateur Practice
(paid, grey or
social economy)
(unpaid, grey or
social economy)
●Develop
instruments to
“measure”
monetary and nonmonetary
contribution of this
sub-sector
(enable role for the
initial creation
stage)
● provide
sustained
operating support
● encourage the
entry of these
organizations into
offering
pension/other
plans
● link third sector
to training/
educational
incubators or hubs
● enable
organizations to
enter into publicprivate
partnerships
● consistent with
arms-length
principle, continue
permanent
standing in
representation in
policy formulation
●Develop
instruments to
“measure”
non-monetary
contribution of this
sub-sector to the
economy
(especially role in
the initial creation
stage of the
cultural value
chain)
● create
incentives ( tax
deductions for
hours worked)
● loosen
“professional”
status
considerations for
access to certain
creative incentives
● tie to education
and specific youth
initiatives
● outreach
initiatives to
immigrant
communities
44
Thus, we have not explored traditional arts policies that come in the form of subsidies
and other public support based on the assumption of market failure.
We can draw several conclusions from this overview of policy practice. First of all, most
of the programs or initiatives can grouped into three broad categories which cover
“education and training” or, loosely, a creative capital approach; “awards and grants” to
build a culture of creativity and celebrate its recognition, and “business support and
entrepreneurial development”. This categorization is broadly consistent with existing
policy papers such as the Creative economy green paper for the Nordic region (2007)
and the very recent Creative economy strategy paper in the UK (2008).
As also may be seen in Appendix C, other countries are much farther ahead than
Canada in identifying educational and training activities. Arts degrees, research centres
and incubation hubs are obviously seen as important inputs to generating clusters. The
more advanced programs offer sophisticated and comprehensive networks and online
resources to match courses to training needs in various locations, and a ‘cradle to grave’
delivery lifecycle for citizens of both professional and non-professional status. On
February 22, 2008, the UK government announced an aggressive action plan Creative
Britain. New talents for the new economy. The focus on creative capital or talent
development includes grass roots talent programs, a mandatory 5 hours a week of
cultural activity in schools, a “talent pathways program” to help people who experience
barriers in access to getting into the cultural industries, and a pledge of apprentice
positions in conjunction with employers.
Second, there is extensive consideration given to programs to enhance capacities of
individual artists and sole-proprietor or small creative enterprises. The more advanced
programs link size of enterprise to delivery of capacity building: coaching, business startup advice, or other aid. There is a tension between countries which offer “generalized”
business start up advice and those which “specifically” target the sector. In Canada, only
Québec and Ontario offer the latter. Ontario offers good “navigation guides” to aid artists
or arts groups.
A litmus test of commitment to such an approach is if a national, regional or local
government is also committed to stimulating the supply of venture capital in seeding
creative innovation. As the Quick scan of national policies (2007) highlights, there seems
to be a global resistance to setting up guarantees for venture capital funds for cultural
production around the world. There is obviously a scope concern: many programs are
directed at micro enterprises. However, there is a growing focus on fostering publicprivate partnerships (particularly in local infrastructure investments) which suggests new
project-driven ways to aggregate financing are being explored.
Thirdly, there is an important commitment to promotion and awareness-building. The
object of many awards and other programs is to celebrate creative initiative, or stimulate
selective creative specialization as a core national competence (for example, the
Swedish design award). Canada’s use of the Network of Centres of Excellence to
stimulate research in design (through the Canadian Design Research Network
established in 2005) similarly is intended to build profile for creativity.
45
However, this exploration of actual policies deployed confirms that a fourth category is
underdeveloped: the “social and labour policy” category. Policy programs or instruments
falling under “education and training”, “awards and grants” and “business support and
entrepreneurial development” are all directed at generating GDP from creative activities.
In contrast, “social and labour policies” are a long-term infrastructural investment for
governments in social security, providing no immediate economic gain. In other words,
contemporary creative industry policies are strong in offering voluntary measures, in
stimulating participation in creative education and the development of entrepreneurship.
At the same time, these policies are rather weak in providing universal, stable and
mandatory support in the areas of labour relations and social and income security as
implied in a creative ecology approach. The asymmetry is often due to the underlying
neo-liberalism of a creative economy approach, increasingly coming under fire. The
premise in some of the most advanced of the creative economy literature is that a new
concept of social security has to adjust to the increasing flexibility of the creative work
force: what some call “flexicurity”.
Rethinking the creative state and flexicurity as policy principle
Anthony Giddens work on Globalization and the European social model (2007) sets out
the core values which could drive a cultural ecology policy framework. He argues for a
new conception of social security – something called flexicurity – to ease the labour
force transitions to the creative economy. Giddens, a noted sociologist and one of the
conceptual architects for the renaissance of New Labour in Britain in the 1990s, also
explores the different factors in relative contributions to productivity, defined in terms of
GDP per capita, employment rates, hours of work and adjustments for immigrants.
Flexibility – which in its neoliberal face, is nothing more than downloading the costs of
adjustment to globalization on workers – has to get a good name by protecting basic
security guarantees28 to the right to representation, to consultation, to laws against
discrimination, and working conditions in this view. Giddens is arguing for why we need
a new welfare state conception in the knowledge economy – a ‘fourth way’. The ideal
type of such a policy, in Giddens’ view, involves positive welfare safety nets addressing
income inequality, a system of incentives specific to increased workforce differentiation,
and obligations to provide for basic economic security – not passive unemployment
rights or other partial steps. His social model thus presents an effort to turn the tables
back on the State in its responsibilities for the provision of social goods needed for daily
survival, individual growth and development from the market and family, with profound
implications for equity, fairness and quality of life (McKeen & Porter, 2003). Such a new
“Creative State” need not fit the stereotype of the bloated Keynsian era of the past.
Significant progress is being made by mainstream economists, endogenous growth
theorists and some variants of neo liberal thinkers in understanding the dynamics of
economic growth: as Giddens maintains, the postulate that government spending on
welfare is inversely related to productivity has been turned on its head by some areas of
the European experience. The superiority of Nordic countries in reducing disparities in
28
In Canada, these include the Old Age Security provisions, Guaranteed Income Supplement, Canada Pension Plan,
Child Tax, Workman’s Compensation,, plus tax credits, allowable deductions and retirement plans, and finally
medicare, hospital insurance, national hosing and provincial shelters.
46
quality of life is not due to transfers from taxes and welfare redistribution, but investment
in education, and a fuller matrix of other creative labour supporting policies and
programs. Design is all.
Giddens’ view is that the future of the European Social Model in the creative economy
does not lie in more countries becoming like the UK. Britain still has a high rate of
unemployment, and while learning from the Nordic example of investment in education
and other public services, reducing its poverty rate, it “still lags behind Continental best
practice and levels of income inequality remain high in spite of progress made”
(Ibid:158). The “Creative Economy” push in the UK has to be read against this backdrop.
Andrew Calabrese, a noted US communication scholar, argues that the fourth
generation of the rights revolution – in the midst of assaults on updating notions of the
welfare state – turns on rejecting the idea that the state can only be a negotiator,
venture capitalist and corporate lawyer in the creative economy, rather than anything
else.
In general, aside from the observation that social spending as a proportion of the GDP
remains low in Canada against the G-8 except for the US and Japan, and that Canada
has been a laggard in introducing social legislation due to the division of powers, and
British Colonial heritage of liberalism (Armitage, 2003; Harder, 2004), comparative social
welfare policies cannot be explored here in detail. But it is fair to say that the history of
their evolution worldwide and especially in Canada has been that they have developed
in a piecemeal and fragmentary fashion (McKeen & Porter; 2003, Shaw 2004). It is also
fair to say that the reengineering of the complex systems of intergovernmental transfers
to fund provincial social programs (the Canada Health and Social Transfer) redesigned
programs to make them more compatible with economic growth models, and collided
with large retraction of federal funding with adverse impacts which have been castigated
by the UN (Hankivsky, 2004). Feminists, left academics and neo liberals weigh in with
different evaluations, but the statistical evidence, particularly for its intersection with
poverty among artists, women, youth, aboriginal and minority groups of the type which
so concerns the Canadian Cultural Human Resource Council is still unclear. The jury is
still out, but this lack of public debate in Canada may not be surprising since retraction of
social policy over the last decade was policy by stealth (Prince,1996). Certainly, the data
for an informed policy review is insufficient. Experiences of other countries with different
social democratic29 or market authoritarian” regimes of capitalism may be illustrative of
the current thinking in policy networks about creative labour flexicurity.
29
Somewhat tendentiously, Giddens accepts four main types of “welfare capitalism” in Europe: the Nordic type,
based on high taxation and job opportunities in the state itself; the Central European type of Germany and France
based mainly on payroll contributions, and the Anglo Saxon type, having a lower taxation base and using more
targeted policies. The fourth type is Mediterranean, which also has a low tax base, but depends heavily upon
provision from the family. A fifth type ought to be added: Eastern Europe, and especially the states in the EU. The
impact of a recent directive on EU free trade in services is controversial for its proposed effects on universal public
social services. What is totally missing in regional policy meta-analysis is Asian, Latin American and other analysis.
The creative economy cult is very Eurocentric.
47
There is extensive devolution of authority at stake in considering flexicurity. Shared
labour jurisdictions (like Canada’s) pose complex challenges in policy coordination, as
do horizontal policy subfields across cultural industries, labour and social economy
areas, increasingly required in addition to the usual economic and industrial innovation
policies for a comprehensive cultural ecology approach.
The Status of the Artist legislative approach
Historically, a series of measures to protect the “special status of the cultural worker”
have been put in place, largely as a result of external pressure from arts advocates.
Initially, the Status of the Artist push was twofold: arguing for an “exceptional” status
(that is usually predicated on the special character of the need to protect freedom of
expression and foster creative diversity) and for parity or equity: that is, in recognition of
the marginal status of artists, the need to extend the same minimum protections (for
example, access to universal social welfare programs) as are afforded other workers. As
the following review will show, the dissemination of such an approach is still limited.
In no other sector is multi-level governance moving as quickly to insinuate itself in policy
networks by mediating global, national and sub-national policy agendas than in creative
labour. UNESCO began the push internationally to a special recognition of the need to
protect artists in 1982. Among 38 countries included in the Council or Europe’s
Compendium, the minority (16) do have the beginnings of such a Status of the Artist
framework: Including France which has the oldest such law (1977) and Finland (1985)
followed by Austria (2001) and Estonia (2004) (see Appendix C). There are sharp
differences in later versions of Status of the Artist legislative instruments. Nevertheless,
the majority of countries (the remaining 22) do not have comprehensive social security
legislation for creative workers and only offer partial and limited measures such as a
form of pension supplement or unemployment insurance.
Apart from tax measures and social security policies, the question of labour relations
and collective bargaining is also a significant one when exploring policies for the creative
labour force. We look at the Status of the Artist legislation as an example of one way to
recognize the economic rights of artists and establish a labour relations regime by
setting out a regulatory category of eligibility of independent arts contractors for
“professional” standing through membership in a nationally certified association.
More than a decade after the UNESCO had first introduced the idea of Status of the
Artist, Canada followed with its own Status of the Artist Act that came into force in 1995.
Consonant with international practice, the Canadian Act recognizes the contributions of
artists to the cultural fabric of life and also sets out a policy on the professional status of
the artist, based on the rights of freedom of association (removing any impediment to
collective bargaining) and creative expression (including moral, economic and social
rights). While there was intended to be a permanent council advising the Minister of
Canadian Heritage on creative labour policy, this has never been enacted: a victim of
insufficient resources and resistance to cede policy jurisdiction. Instead, there is a
Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal which can adjudicate
disputes between artists and producers involving institutions within federal jurisdiction,
48
for those with self-employed status.30 Québec has introduced its own variant of the
legislation, and Saskatchewan tried to do so, but its legislation has been withdrawn. In
2007, Ontario also began considering a new bill to protect those who create, construct,
design, and perform, adapted from the federal Status model, and indeed cited it in the
2007 budget, but suspended its development. In the Ontario version is the standard
basket of policy instruments in the labour relations regime, extended to self-employed
artists, including certification standards, along with a new voluntary “floor” approach to
intellectual property contracts which suggests minimum terms agreements to do with
royalties, advances and other rights. Such initiatives are strongly supported by collective
associations like the Canadian Conference of the Arts and the Writers Union of Canada.
However, other provinces (and especially BC) have been loath to introduce such
legislation after a decade or more of lobbying. Various recommendations for reform in
the review of the federal model suggest a choice of dual status (allowing artists to retain
their self-employed status and access employment insurance and Canada Pension
Plan, for example) be afforded, income averaging be extended31, access to employment
insurance be provided, improved access to pension, occupational health and safety and
other programs widened, and a new recognition of artists as preferred or secured
creditors in the event of a bankruptcy (for example, Stoddart Publishers).
Among the more interesting developments are the trends in the semi-professional or
non-technical occupations to negotiating special agreements. While journalism is not
one of the most highly developed and prestigious of professions (see Murray, 2007),
there are increasing signs of professional maturity, and recognition. The CBC, for
example, has been pressured to introduce a charter of rights for its independent
producers, at the behest of the Canadian Film and Television Producer’s Association.
Recently, the trend to consolidation of ownership and oligopoly power in news
journalism has led to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) to push for standards and codes of editorial independence which
are important markers of licensed autonomy for journalists and independent
documentary producers (see the Canadian Association of Journalists’ website). Indeed,
the ILO’s Study on the future quality of work in the media, culture and graphic sectors
(conducted in the preparations leading up to the world information summit in October,
2004) suggests that unions in the media and entertainment industries have the most
experience in organizing those who are not employees of a specific employer (whether
freelance, independent or self-employed and provide important models for future
collective organization in other sectors of the knowledge economy (ILO, 2004, p. 76).
The Canadian record on a special status of the artist approach, then, is moot. A status of
the artist approach at the federal level has not made a material impact on the overall
condition of artists: it currently excludes too many from its ambit, Indeed, the impact of
the legislative benefits conferred may have had the perverse effect of widening the gap
between professional classes of artists (usually in the unionized/or high status
30
While the tribunal has been somewhat active (ruling on 14 or so disputes and reporting to the Minister of Labour in
Parliament) it has not yet had any apparent effect on salaries or standards of living (see: the 2007 European
Compendium, Canada Report, www.culturalpolicies.net. /retrreieved 02/21/2008 ). A subsequent review in 20022003 found it too narrow to make a material impact on artistic well-being, and other measures need to b e explored.
Section 5.1.4.
31
Québec is the most aggressive in its averaging. See the Canadian Report in the Compendium (2007).
49
recognized professions) who have been able to use it to improve their status, and those
without access to similar organizational clout in the Canadian case. It is thus, at heart,
an approach more targeting artistic institutions than it is creative workers.
Rethinking of Status of the Artist approach?
The limited dissemination in Canada and around the world of such special legislation
contrasts with UNESCO’s creation in 2003 of a World Observatory on the Condition of
the Artist to promote greater international mobilization.32 Slow take up of the UNESCO,
and partial regional diffusion suggest deep underlying conceptual problems in
application of a specialized status of the artist approach, or in using it as a base from
which to generalize security for cultural /knowledge workers.
The problem with the regime is that it is partial and schizophrenic33. In theory, it is
consistent with changes in tax legislation in Canada34and other countries which are
predicated on the argument that artists are entitled to the same treatment as other
taxpayers in comparable economic situations. In practice, there are residual ideological
tinges of protectionism and exceptionalism, that is, arguments that what artists do is
both different and more important to democratic values of diversity of expression than
other classes of workers, and that economic situations continue not to be comparable.
The UN guidelines walk this tightrope uneasily, and indeed, it may be said they are
internally inconsistent and flawed, representing the same problems inherent in the 80s
under the separate drive to a Fair Flow of Information, and one which several scholars
contend has substantively shifted with the passage of the UNESCO Convention to
Protect the Diversity of Cultural Expressions of which Canada was the first to ratify
(2005). In particular, the UN framework is said by some policy analysts to allow for too
many derogations or exceptions. In some respects, it falls short of the affirmative
principles of cultural diversity at the heart of the spirit of the UNESCO Convention on
Cultural Diversity which guarantee access to the means of creative expression for all
citizens. It furthermore has proved a tough political sell at the provincial level in Canada,
(and arguably in countries as varied as the UK, Russian Federation or other countries)
for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which is that the larger problem of
generalized labour contingency itself may require other solutions. The faint beginnings of
a fuller blown conception of a new approach may be found in the new term in the lexicon
of principles in the creative economy: flexicurity. What is needed is a way to take the
economic rights of artists, and then generalize them to other precarious creators.35
32
According to the Observatory, a survey of the International Labour Office and the International Federation of
Musicians (FIM) on The social situation of musical performers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, made apparent
that the status of musicians as independent workers entails great absence of social security, with the exception of
Japan and Argentina. Precariousness is increasingly common among artists of world music, despite the emergence of
this genre as a successful one for the highly concentrated sound recording industry.
33
We are endebted to Keith Kelly and Guillaume Sirois of the Canadian Conference of the Arts for refining these
ideas, and particularly to Kelly’s draft backgrounder, “Status of the Artist – A Model for Professional Relations in
the Creative Economy?, undated.
34
See Joseph Jackson, et al, 1999. The Arts and Cultural Policy, Library of Parliament, October 15. In addition to the
special deductions for musicians (without cap) and gifts, salaried artists may deduct expenses incurred in carrying on
artistic activity to a maximum of $1,000 or 20% of income, patently low.
35
Danielle Cliché. 1996. Status of the Artist or of Arts Organizations? A Brief Discussion of the Canadian Status of
50
Social security for creative labourers
Evidence from the Council of Europe’s Compendium (www.culturalpolicies.net) suggests
that there are indeed efforts to modernize status of the artist legislation to make it more
relevant to the broader self employed and part-time labour sectors. Austria passed a
new law in 2001 which generalized security measures to other cultural disciplines
beyond its usually protected music and visual arts. A new Austrian social security
insurance fund for arts established the same year set too high a level of eligibility and is
currently under review. Belgium also acted with legislation coming into effect in 2003,
which provides complete coverage, and an opt-in provision. Organizations can apply to
get their share of the costs subsidized. Adjustment to time frames and other models are
still under discussion. Bulgaria has had a special code on social security for liberal
professions in general, and artists may choose between compulsory or voluntary
contributions on a preset scale. A revision to the seasonal floor for eligibility was
reduced to 4 of the past 12 months. Croatia, which already had conveyed a right to
health, pension and disability insurance to artists successfully fought the drafting of a
new law which excluded them on retirement benefits and health insurance. Estonia
acted on new legislation which came into force in 2005, and amended it to include
subsidies for artists unions. Finland was among the first to act in 1985 for both artists
and short-term workers, and is now looking at reform in UIC, pension and improving the
rights of freelancers. Hungary has innovated in the creation of a limited partnership
company for its creative sector (called Teteti Tasagag) to become eligible for a flat tax(a
self-described “radical simplification”) and health benefits can be topped up by paying
into a private pension fund. Ireland, feted for its liberal tax regime for artists, is criticized
for an archaic means test for eligibility for social security which requires artists must
actually be looking for work in their field which constricts non-artistic options especially in
an economic downturn. Lithuania (2004) Macedonia (1982) and Serbia (1998: not
enacted) are also active in setting up special measures to benefit artists. Another
country that has a comprehensive system of social security measures for creative
workers in place is Germany, with its Artists Social Fund. This fund offers statutory
social insurance for artists, where the corporate or individual users of creative content
cover the employer’s contribution to the fund, together with the state. By contrast, the
situation in the Russian federation has been one of repealing special privileges, and two
failed attempts of a status of the artist type legislative protection.
The self-proclaimed (and probable) leader in creative economy initiatives, the UK, has
resisted a general move to ‘flexicurity’ provisions under the Labour government despite
the best intentions of its intellectual lodestar Anthony Giddens. Yet in 2004, in language
reminiscent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the UK Blair Government introduced a New
Deal Program to subsidize unemployed young musicians, suggesting a cautious way
forward.
The social security policies reviewed above may be described as broadening the content
of the creative economy approach to other precarious workers, marrying it with more
the Artist Act. In The Canadian Journal of Communication. Vol. 21 No. 2.
51
robust social assistance instruments, and providing more choice to artists than the first
wave of Status of the Artist protection.
Tax incentives for creators
Also evident from the scan of existing policies world-wide is a growing but small number
of countries who are making over the tax system to be more attractive to individual
creative workers (Appendix C). This overview shows Canada is ahead of many in its use
of the equivalent to the Value Added Tax (GST) to give breaks for artists making under
$30,000 per annum, but is behind in its broadening of the period for income averaging
into longer artistic life cycles, and making a comparatively small allowance for special
equipment for arts, culture or heritage production.
No country would seem to be very far ahead in targeting specific tax/or other
instruments to intellectual property value explicitly, treating investment in the
development of a story, performance or heritage collection as the equivalent in research
and development tax credit for the information technology sector, for example. Québec
exempts the first $15,000 of copyright or other residual income from its provincial
income tax, on the Irish model, but no other level of jurisdiction in Canada has similarly
acted. The UK has always exempted grant income if it may be proven to be relevant to
research and development, and can be averaged. However, in 2001 rather than income,
the averaging formula was amended to pertain only to profits.
While there is a “thick” policy field of taxation instruments directed at the cultural
industries (and especially film and TV production around the world), there are as yet
isolated examples of tax incentives for individual creators in the primary creative arts,
culture and heritage sectors. For example, sliding scales of income deductions for
individual artists are available in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Austria,
although no country has gone as far as Ireland. In a move counter to other countries,
Hungary voted to end its 100% copyright deduction in 2007. Ireland, by contrast has
upheld its 1969 provision in the Finance Act to exempt all intellectual property royalties,
bursaries, or foreign earnings. Lauded internationally, there has now been a cap
imposed of a quarter of a million dollars, so it is no longer a victim of its success. Poland
similarly allows a 50% deduction for creative work (1998) which despite attempts to
dismantle it prevailed. What is also evident is that tax breaks and deductions are
regularly reviewed (and despite efforts to claw them back, tend to have remained in
place). In Canada, recent amendments to the federal income tax act allow only limited
capital cost allowance or employment expenses for artists. Disputes with the Canada
Revenue Agency revolve around the requirement of reasonable expectation of profit for
a self-employed artist, leading to the development of various aids to interpretation.36
Social economy initiatives to support creative labour
Not surprisingly, the last two segments in the 7-fold typology introduced above (amateur
or community arts and volunteer sectors) are under-theorized and mapped, with little
36
CCA has a backgrounder on Taxation and the Artist under development.
52
value attached to them in official statistical accounts (however one might quibble with
the derivation of the estimates). It is deeply telling that we have found no mapping
documents or statistics exploring the work of volunteers or non-profit workers in the
creative, sometimes termed “social” economy in any of the literature on the turn to the
creative economy. Their contribution to the cultural value chain is widely unknown
although the culture sector has an exceptionally high number of both volunteers and
non-profit organizations. As a consequence, there is a need to examine other policy
instruments to support or promote this hidden share of the creative labour force.
Like many European countries, Canada during Chrétien’s Liberal government became
interested in the voluntary sector, both individual and collective. This came to be defined
as the “social economy”, directed towards the grass-roots entrepreneurial, not-for-profit
sector. The concept is particularly important in Europe and Québec. Social economy
initiatives seek to enhance the social, economic, and environmental conditions of
communities, often with a focus on their disadvantaged members (see Appendix D). The
Liberal Government sought a wide range of capacity-building policies in the period
between 1995 and 2005 under the umbrella of the Voluntary Sector Initiative (Phillips,
2004). Various provincial arts agencies also took up the capacity question to build
managerial strength in arts culture and heritage in partnerships with various foundations
and others.
The Caledon Institute of Social Policy, one of Canada’s leading think tanks from a leftsocial democratic and humanist perspective, conducted a major review of an evaluation
framework for federal investment in the social economy (a term and approach much
favoured in Québec) in January of 2006, precisely at the time when the new minority
Conservative government appeared to be turning its back on the Liberal approach. The
first Martin-Prime Ministerial budget (largely inherited but unchallenged from the
Chrétien legacy) in the 2004 budget promised a major capital infusion to the voluntary
sector initiative to build the capacity and breadth of the civil society in Canada. Nascent
since the mid 90s, and part of an extensive horizontal policy coordination framework, the
Voluntary Sector Initiative involved over 7 departments and agencies. The diversity and
evolutionary nature of the policy initiatives directed at enhancing the capacity of the
social economy was clear, as well as the need to employ them simultaneously, over
long-term time frames and demand the development of indicators for outcomes
measurement,37 To be fair, such a review followed a series of Fraser Institute inspired
studies (William Stanbury, Stephen Globerman) which dismissed all such policy
intervention to help arts groups as classic rent-seeking among a clientelest/corporatist
policy field. The ideological “field” of cultural politics in most countries, and especially
Canada, tends to continue to be sharply polarized, but supported by a soft middle
consensus among voters culture which is “important” for its generational asset value.
Under the minority Conservative government, the Voluntary Sector Initiative’s emphasis
on building the capacity of autonomous arts, culture and heritage groups has been
37
For policy wonks, the richest contribution is the Caledon Institute’s Social Economy Logic Model, which sets up a
framework for conceptualising results. See Eric Leviten-Reid, Sherri Torjam,2006. Evaluation Framework for
Federal Investment in the Social Economy: A Discussion Paper. Caledon Institute of Social Policy. See appendix D.
53
abandoned at the federal level. It remains strong in Quebec and BC, albeit driven by
very different collectivist or individualist values.38
Clearly, then, the desire to enable the third voluntary sector (of not-for-profit arts
professional associations, for example, which may or may not enter the field of delivery
of pension plans for its members) has stalled in Canada with few exceptions. It cannot
be said to supply for the absence of state-led security measures for the arts culture and
heritage sector.
Safety, security and creative live/work space
Just as most social economy/voluntary sector initiatives seem to emerge at regional or
city levels, so too does the impact of municipal control over zoning, building and health
and safety standards of work places important to the creative process. Urban planning
influences from the creative city movement in cultural theory change the conception of
policy instruments needed to foster creativity. Devolution of policy responsibilities in
culture in Canada has been underway as one strategic reaction to the processes of
globalization. Over the past decade, combined provincial and municipal spending in
culture has surpassed federal spending. Since 1995, more municipalities have
developed specialised responsibility for planning of cultural resources, infrastructure and
amenities; and in certain cities (Montréal, Vancouver) compelled “cultural impact”
statements from all other operating policy arms. The gradual professionalization of the
field and development of the national Creative City Network (created in 2001), combined
with various degrees of recognition of culture as the fourth pillar of sustainability among
provincial associations of municipalities, have breathed new life into the consideration of
a place-based strategy to stimulate cultural activity. Influenced by the work of Richard
Florida, the recognition is that a lively cultural sector will attract knowledge workers and
provide an important input to overall quality of life, and is one of the most effective ways
to retain these workers.
As a part of this planning cycle, cultural infrastructure is emerging as a key factor in
smoothing the transition to the creative economy, a driver from gentrification, and in
keeping artists and creative workers in the urban core. Artist live-work space, and
policies to promote cross subsidy from urban land developers are increasingly moving to
the head of the arsenal of municipal policy instruments. There are a number of tools in
use in Canada and around the world. In Vancouver, for example, (one of the first
Canadian cities to use creative city language in 1986) “amenity bonusing” systems allow
developers to exchange public facilities for artists (performance, rehearsal or live work
space) or other social groups in exchange for greater density. A three year centre of
expertise (2005-2008), funded by Infrastructure Canada, will map the various activities
underway
in
municipalities
in
Canada
and
around
the
world
(www.cultureandcommunities.ca). However, in the absence of a comprehensive creative
ecology approach, with a review of ‘flexicurity’ and attention to the legislative reform
38
Monica Gattinger and Diane Saint Pierre eds., Cultural Policy and Cultural Public Administration in Provincial
and Territorial Governments in Canada. Institute of Public Administration in Canada. Forthcoming 2008.
54
necessary to entrench responsibility to provide cultural services at the municipal level,
little can be expected from ad hoc initiatives. Gaps remain in place-based policies to
promote creative workers’ access to adequate space of sufficient quality necessary to
practice their craft.39 As a consequence, there is a demand for overhauling the various
provincial acts setting out the powers of the municipalities to compel them to provide
universal access to cultural services, on the model of several Library Acts across the
country, but even with this fairly radical affirmative policy devolution of responsibility to
provide access to cultural expression, there would still need to be a co-ordinated
flexicurity approach.
Conclusions & recommendations
This survey of best practices among a creative economy policy formulation around the
world illustrates that creativity all too often is operationalized in a way in many policy
regimes which makes it exceptionally vulnerable to critiques of propaganda to justify the
increasingly precarious notion of work domestically, and the international division of
labour which ‘disappears’ jobs (Kapur in McKercher et al., 2007). Certainly, the
ideological function of creativity and innovation in capitalism is part of its awesome social
and economic power among social institutions: capitalism promises to realize the
creativity of all even as it accelerates the creative, social and economic divides among
its citizens. Yet cultural politics are far from conceded to neo-liberal hegemony.40 As this
study suggests, there is an urgent need to rethink the social model of the creative
economy, and in particular, how to design policy interventions to promote it within a
publicly debated ethical context. Whether that ethical framework is sustainability (as the
fourth pillar of urban planning), cultural diversity (as the new UNESCO convention on the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions which Canada was the first to endorse suggests) or
flexicurity in a new creative labour policy has yet to be determined. What is suggested
here is that a specialized, autonomous strategy of the type of the early Status of the
Artist legislative approach endorsed by UNESCO is insufficient for the challenges of the
cultural turn to the economy. The Nordic approach has much to commend it, since it
seems to embody in its framework a potential to evolve to a more comprehensive
approach to creative welfare and creative innovation. Anthony Giddens’ call for more
comparative analysis, however, has as yet been unanswered by theorists and policy
analysts.
The trap in much of the creative economy literature is to recognize that an education
approach does not necessarily promise a way to overcome the growing economic gap
between the situations of different classes of cultural workers. An enterprise approach
does not bridge well to the large numbers of sole-proprietorships, or self-employed
artists. We argue that a full creative labour policy is needed, sensitive to the creative
ecology represented by creative cities and spaces.
39
See the Report on the Regional Roundtables on the State of Cultural Infrastructure.
http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca
40
The EuroMayDay Movement since 2003 had young people from France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Italy
protesting against inadequate welfare and unemployment benefits together with immigrant labour. The slogan? No
borders: No precarity (Kapur in McKerchner and Mosco, 173).
55
The framework for such an ecological approach should be designed from a needs-based
perspective, consonant with the positive right to cultural expression which is now solidly
entrenched in international and national diversity law. In Figure 4 we set out the range of
policy instruments which have emerged from this survey. More thought is needed to
develop these or other models for assessing the coherence and completeness of the
creative economy policy field. There are a range of possible recommendations which
arise out of this survey. However, we restrict ourselves to the main theoretical ones
which we believe are essential to the transition to a creative economy.
First, we need to broaden our understanding of the creative processes away from a
cultural economy to a creative ecology framework, introducing a reflexive rethinking
about the role of a Creative State, integrating a generalized “flexicurity” scheme and
finding new ways to coordinate policy devolution and policy networks.
Second, a creative ecology framework must include the social economy and voluntary
and amateur sectors. An ecology approach both recognizes and values the contribution
to the GDP provided by both.
Third, social security and employment policies should be developed on the basis of
need, and evaluation of their effectiveness. In this, the sensible policy questions about
the creative economy proposed by researchers at the European Institute for
Comparative Urban Research about the creative economy are equally relevant to the
addition of creative labour to an ecological model:
What is the economic impact of creative work and what are key strengths of creative workers?
What are crucial elements in a national strategic framework for the creative ecology?
What is to be preferred: a generic economic/labour/social policy with the assumption that it caters
for the creative workers versus special policy schemes for creative workers in the various modes of
practice?
What sub-sectors of creative practice should be prioritized?
How should we integrate explicit policies for (parts of) creative workers in both mainstream
economic/labour and social policies and cultural policies?
What is the best way to deliver these policies?
How should they be evaluated
Fourth, this call for evaluation raises questions of adequacy of evidence. Both the ILO
and the Canadian Cultural Human Resources Sectoral Council have placed a high
priority on the appropriate measurement and development of a fuller insight into the
stratification and employment/activity patterns of creative workers in the new economy.
This should be a top priority for the CHRSC which has had no in-depth comprehensive
study of the sector since 1993. Evidence-based policy development is preferable to the
piecemeal approach seen around the world. While this study suggests a seven-fold
typology of creative workers/non-workers, it should be amenable to empirical testing.
What is certain is that the issue of dual status, part time and serial movement through
the formal cultural labour force has to be captured by new methods of measurement,
including a time spent standard as suggested by economists like David Throsby.
Fifth, more light should be shed by policy meta-analysis on the range of innovations at
work on policy development for the creative economy. We find the Nordic attempts to
56
develop a creative policy matrix for the Nordic region all too infrequent in creative
economy thinking. The matrix integrates connecting horizontal economic theme to policy
problem, proposed action and evidence requirements for policy monitoring and
evaluation (see Appendix B).
Sixth, it is clear that various jurisdictions are revising their old systems of policy
governance, and introducing new bodies such as “Creative Scotland” a new body
outside of the Scottish Arts Council charged with the responsibility to develop the
country’s creative talent and excellence. Do such new institutions marginalize or
enhance the power of the existing ones in cultural sectors? Are they unintentionally
blocking broader “flexicurity” approaches or enabling them?
Finally, policy makers have to realize that they need to use the policy instruments at
their disposal in new ways and in new partnerships with other stakeholders. To adapt
David Throsby:
This in turn suggests a de-emphasis on arts policy or the economic earning power of the arts …
and a shift of that policy focus to where creative activity has the greatest scope to generate
economic and social rewards, to employment policy, to regional and urban development policy, to
industry policy and other fields like labour and the social economy (2002).
What is needed is an entire change of creativity governance, away from attention on the
individual to collective creativity and its interactions. The goal is a theoretically and
practically elegant integration of culture and the economy in policy practice.
57
Appendix A: Official documents mapping or exploring (the impact of) creative
industries
United Kingdom:
Department for Culture, Media and Sport:
Creative Industries. Mapping Document 1998 + 2001 + Creative Britain. New talents for the new
economy, 2008
Denmark:
The Ministry of Trade and Industry and The Ministry of Culture:
Denmark’s Creative Potential. Culture and Business Policy Report 2000
Germany - North Rhine-Westphalia:
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia:
th
4 Culture Industries Report 2002
Australia:
Australian Government Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the
National Office for the Information Economy:
The Creative Industries Cluster Study 2002-2003
New Zealand
New Zealand Institute of Economic Research:
Creative industries in New Zealand. Economic contribution 2002
Spain/Catalonia:
Catalan Institute of Cultural Industries:
Handbook on the Cultural Industries of Catalonia 2002
Austria:
Mandl, I. et al. for Federal Chancellery, Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour of the Republic of
Austria, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber:
First Austrian Report on Creative Industries (Erster Österreichischer Kreativwirtschaftsbericht) 2003 +
+ Second Austrian Report on Creative Industries (Zweiter Österreichischer Kreativwirtschaftsbericht)
2006
Austria – City of Vienna:
Ratzenböck, V. et al. for City of Vienna (MA 27)/Chamber of Commerce Vienna/Filmfonds Wien:
Untersuchung des ökonomischen Potenzials der Creative Industries in Wien (Survey of the economic
potential of Creative Industries in Vienna) 2004
Singapore:
Ministry of Trade & Industry:
Economic contributions of Singapore’s Creative Industries 2003
The Netherlands:
Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science:
Culture & Economy. Our Creative potential 2005 Creatieve Industrie in Vlaanderen 2006
Source: Quick scan of national policies, 2007, p.13-14
58
Appendix B: A Creative Policy Map for the Nordic Region
Research (Data and Intelligence)
Under-developed, under-connected, localised and/or sub-sectoral
Entrepreneurialism and
Creativity
Growing Creative
Businesses
Local
Local
Multiple policies &
initiatives:
Multiple policies &
initiatives:
• Incubation & knowledge
transfer initiatives in
universities
• Creativity in education –
as a core part of the
syllabus
• Targeted business support,
such as business advice
and inter-firm networks to
build confidence and
business knowledge
• Connecting creative
businesses with other
industries
• Seed investment and
support for R&D in
creative businesses
National
Few national initiatives
outside education & cultural
policy:
• Targeted Creative
Industries funds – e.g.
Danish Regional Film
Funds
• IPR support programmes –
underdeveloped
• Market development
initiatives, such as placemarketing: e.g. Wonderful
Copenhagen’s promotion
of the city’s creative assets
• National campaigns &
specialist support – e.g.
Swedish Design Office, the
Finnish Design for All
network, Finnish Strategy
for Craft Entrepreneurship
& Danish Design Centre
• Linking innovation &
creativity, e.g. FI in
Denmark; Innovation
Norway
• Research – e.g. Finnish
Strategy for
Entrepreneurship in CIs
Building Creative
Clusters
Multiple – most major towns
& cities:
• Education at the centre: e.g.
Turku Science Park &
Roskilde
• Sub-sector-specific – e.g.
Aarhus Film City or
Oresund Entrepreneurship
Academy
• Focusing on convergence –
e.g. Lillehammer
Kunnskapspark
• Small business –centred –
e.g. Naeringshage in Oslo
• Transforming industrial
landscapes – e.g. Cable
Factory & Arabianranta,
Helsinki
National
Much on Innovation;
less on Creativity:
• Targeted funds – e.g.
Icelandic Software Fund
and Norwegian software
fund
• Business support – e.g.
Sile in Finland
• Tax – e.g. VAT exemption
for literature in Norway
• Market development:
multiple initiatives, e.g.
Design for All Network,
Finland & the Finnish
Programme for
Cultural Export Promotion
2007 – 2011; Creative
Nation (Denmark)
• Continuous learning: e.g.
LearningLab Denmark
• Multiple innovation &
technology initiatives – e.g.
Innovation Norway
Building Creative
Places
Multiple – most major towns
and cities and many smaller
places. Themes 1-3 are often
central. In addition:
Culture and creativity sit at
the heart of many strategic
plans and are being used as
the main driver for talent and
inward investment strategies
– from Malmo to
Kristiansand; Vejle to
Tampere. Initiatives range
from holistic ‘cultural and
creativity planning’ to
strategic approaches to public
art, place-marketing, and
maximising the
increasing diversity of the
local population.
Nordic
Low level connectivity and very few pan-Nordic policies
and interventions other than pilot or short-term projects:
Initiatives include:
- Jenka network – connecting creative businesses, building
knowledge and confidence
- VirlncCreate Virtual Incubator Project
- Nordic Innovation Centre (NICe) initiatives – leading the
way in establishing pan-Nordic cooperation and
partnership.
LOW LEVEL CONNECTIVITY
Source: A creative economy green paper for the Nordic region, 2007
59
Appendix C: Selected policies directed at creative workers and artists (scan of 20
countries)41
Education and training
Programmes for younger adults
● Cultural Leadership Programme 2006-2008: multifaceted educational programme directed at
emerging artists and creative labourers in the UK to develop entrepreneurial skills: two year
programme with a six-strand approach: work placements, creative knowledge lab online,
leadership development, black and ethnic minority development, governance development,
developing entrepreneurs as leaders (source: www.culturalleadership.org.uk, jointly led by the
Arts Council England, Creative & Cultural Skills and the Museums and Libraries and Archives
Council)
● Denmark’s Roskilde University offers a new 2-year Master of Experience Management and
Performance Design (emphasis on managerial skills + own practice) (source: www.ruk.dk)
● The Copenhagen Business School (Denmark) offers a Master programme in Management of
Creative Business Processes (source: www.cbs.dk/imagine)
● Creation of the Innovation University in Finland (a merger of the Helsinki University of
Technology, Helsinki School of Economics, and the University of Arts & Design, Helsikini)
(source: www.innovaatioyliopisto.info)
● Helsinki School of Creative Entrepreneurship: students can take courses in entrepreneurship
that are credited at their home university, entrepreneurs can take courses to develop creative
thinking as a tool to solve business solutions (www.hsce.fl)
● Manchester Metropolitan University first in UK to teach arts students how to draft business
plans and assess the market (source: The economy of culture in Europe, 2006, p.31)
● Popakademie in Germany: First academic institution in Germany teaching pop music and
music business combined (lecturers from industry: Sony, MTV, AOL) (source: Quick scan, p.31,
and www.popakademie.de, 2008)
● Flanders District of Creativity programme offers scholarships for creative workers for attending
a Management School Master class in innovation & entrepreneurship (source: The economy of
culture in Europe, 2006, p.34)
● Initiative of the Danish government to include business orientation in arts studies to help
candidates adjust to the reality of the labour market and a life as freelancer or self-employed
worker (source: The economy of culture in Europe, 2006, p.34)
Workshops
● Workshops on script-writing and funding for half-hour documentaries for film makers aged 35
and under to be then shown on ABC (source: Australian Film Commission Annual Report 20052006, can be found at www.afc.gov.au)
● iP ImpulsProgramm of the creative wirtschaft Austria (www.impulsprogramm.at, an initiative of
the chamber of commerce of Austria; offers workshops on raising management skills of creative
entrepreneurs)
● Programme “Insight out” by UK National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts,
offered in every region in the UK, it is “specifically designed for creative individuals who want to
set up a business within the creative industries”
(source: http://www.nesta.org.uk/programmes/insight_out/insight_out_learning.aspx)
41
Examples from the UK, Canada, Germany, Singapore, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Austria,
Norway, Korea, Finland, Turkey, Belgium, Spain, France, Switzerland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Estonia
60
Arts education for children (fosters creativity in the young and provides income for creative
workers)
● Integration of creativity in schools: UK links designers with schools (source: The economy of
culture in Europe, 2006)
● Turkey introduced a three-year “Technology and design” component in the public education
curriculum (source: Quick scan of national policies, 2007)
● The governmental agency KulturKontakt in Austria provides advice on how to conduct arts and
culture projects in Austrian schools (source: www.kulturkontakt.or.at)
● Singapore‘s Ministry of the Arts has an initiative within it’s the Creative Industries Development
strategy 2003 that aims at building “creative capabilities through embedding arts, design and
media within all levels of education
● “Five hours of quality arts and culture for every child every week – in and out of school”, new
initiative by UK government, Feburary 2008, funding secured, in the process of finding partners
to develop and implement (www.creative-partnerships.com/offer)
Online course finders
● Online training course finder of the Australian government for the cultural sector (source:
www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au) with over 1000 different workshops and degree programmes
● Creative & cultural skills for professionals in the creative industries, containing course
database and Learn Direct Advisor via phone (initiative of the UK Department of source:
http://www.ccskills.org.uk/)
Awards/grants/contests/artists in residence
Promoting business capabilities:
● Grants for consultancy on entrepreneurship directed at Museums (Australia, New SW)
● Awards for improving company performance and stability (film and tv sector, Western
Australia,
(source: http://www.dca.wa.gov.au/about/organisation/portfolio_organisations/screenwest)
Promoting creative capabilities :
● Visual art support/new technology support: Arts Council Norway
● Cultural medallion grant/national artist award/ emerging artist Fund National Arts Council of
Singapore
● Swedish Design Award
● “Games of the month” and “Korea game grand awards”: game content creation contests held
by the government-founded Korea Game Industry Agency (source: www.kogia.or.kr, since 1999)
● National Scriptwriting Competition (for film, by Media Development Authority, Singapore)
● Mobility and Residential Programme for artists and cultural players offered by the Nordic
culture point, a governmental cooperation among the Nordic countries, to promote professional
networking (source: www.kulturkontaktnord.org)
● Online grants and services search databases (self-updating, provided by the Australian
government (source: www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/grantsandservices/)
Business support and entrepreneurial development
(for SMEs and self-employed individuals)
Business advice/consulting:
● Go! Programme supplies advice on business start-ups (business plan, registration, permits,
marketing strategies, etc.), special category for creative businesses within this programme,
61
special cultural start-up centers throughout province provide advice (founded by the Province of
North Rhine Westphalia in Germany, source: www.go.nrw.de)
● Kulturkontakt: Consultancy services for artists and the business community, goal: bringing the
two parties together (Austria, Ministry of Culture, since 1989, source: www.kulturkontakt.or.at)
● consulting services offered (Centre of Audiovisual Development, Catalonia, source: The
economy of culture, p.33) or funding for accessing such services partly provided (Departure
Experts Programme Vienna, source: www.departure.at)
● Intellectual property website for creative individuals and businesses where they can find the
latest information on copyright, trademarks, etc. (source: UK Department for Culture, Sport and
Media, www.culture.gov.uk)
Funding programmes for creative industries:
● Funding programme for creative SME’s with a commercial orientation, annual call for
submission of business plans, if accepted up 70% of project costs can come from subsidies: iP
ImpulsProgramm of the creativ wirtschaft Austria (www.afc.gov.au):
● Advantage creative fund: venture capital fund for creative SMEs who have problems attracting
funding from banks, does not offer grants and loans, invests on strictly commercial terms
(www.advantagecreativefund.co.uk, an initiative within the frame of the UK creative economy
programme)
● Venture capital and project funding designated for creative businesses has been made
available by the following governments (combining public + private money) have founded
specific agencies to administer the capital and re-invest the profits made into less profitable
cultural projects (Cultural Exportation Project 2005-2010 by Finland, source: www.minedu.fi,
Cultuur Invest in Belgium, source: www.cultuurinvest.be, Repayable Contributions Programme
by the Catalan Institute of Cultural industries (source: The economy of culture in Europe, 2006)
● These same programmes also offer management support and coaching for creative
entrepreneurs in Catalonia, Finland, Belgium
Online funding information databases:
● “Money map – Advice on access to finance”, regularly updated file (source: Department of
Culture, Media and Sport, source: www.culture.gov.uk) for businesses in the music industry
● Funding Information Service for creative businesses (online search engine, offered by Creative
New Zealand and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage since 2007, source: www.NZLive.com)
Tax policies and social security policies
Tax policies
● VAT reductions on the Earnings of Self-Employed Authors and Visual Artists:
Artists play less than half of the standard VAT in many countries, for example in Austria, France,
Germany or Belgium. They are largely excluded from any VAT at all in, for instance,
Switzerland, Spain and Denmark. In Canada and the UK, artists pay the standard VAT rate.
(source www.culturalpolicies.net/, 2007)
● Special Income Tax Measures for FreelanceArtists (referring here to independent creators and
performing artists): income averageing in place in the following countries: UK (over 2 years),
Denmark (up to 10), Austria, Netherlands, France (3), Germany, Finland (several years), no
income averaging in Canada, Belgium, Italy (source www.culturalpolicies.net/, 2007)
2. Special allowances: no significant deductions or exemptions in place in Canada, the UK, the
Netherlands and Belgium, 50% income tax deduction, 30% in Germany, total tax exemption in
Ireland, 25% in Italy, 5-7% in Austria
● Tax credit for creation of games by French government (source: www.legifrance.gouv.fr.)
62
● Tax credit for interactive digital media and for computer animation and special effects
(Canada, Ontario, source: www.omdc.on.ca)
● Tax deductions: cost for owning and maintaining a musical, instruments and annual
employment expenses up to $1.000 can be deducted, artistic work can be donated for a tax
credit of its market value source: CCA backgrounder – taxation of artists and the arts, 2008)
Creative/Social Security policies
● Social Security Laws and Measures to Support Self-Employed Artists: quantitative overview
of 38 Eastern and Western European countries plus Canada and Russia, the majority (22) do
not have any law for self-employed artists in place (among them: UK, Italy, Norway, Sweden
Portugal). For those countries that have such laws, the extent and nature of measures differ
widely from country to country. Examples of countries which have laws for self-employed artists:
• Austria Law on Social Security for Artists (2001)
• Estonia: Act on Creative Artists and Creative Artists' Unions (2004)
• Finland: Act on the Pensions of Artists and Some Particular Groups of Short -Time Workers
(1985)
• France Social Security Scheme for Self-Employed Artists (1977)
The following are examples of countries which supply:
1. Pension supplements: Canada, Austria, France, Germany (22 out of 38)
2. Unemployment insurance: Estonia, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland (5 out of 38)
3. Both: 4 out of 38 (source www.culturalpolicies.net/, 2007)
● Website for artists where they can calculate the pension they can expect plus UK-wide free
seminars on “Pensions for artists” which provide advice pension planning (source:
www.pensionsforartists.org, 2008)
● Germany: Artists Social Fund (source: www.kuenstlersozialkasse.de), unique in Europe,
offers statutory social insurance for self-employed artists /creative labourers. The artist only
has to pay the employee part (in contrast to other self-employed workers who have to pay both
employer and employee part) since industry users of the creative products together with the
state pay the employer part, founded in 1982, revised in 2007)
● Status of the Artist legislation (addresses labour relations for self-employed professional
artists, would make collective bargaining possible for self-employed artists, is a UNESCO
initiative, adoption at different levels in different countries (example: Canada, source: Canadian
Conference of the Arts (source: http://www.ccarts.ca/en/advocacy/bulletins/2007/1707.htm,
2007)
Appendix D:
A Social Economy Logic Model
63
Vision:
An expanded social economy able to make its full contribution to building resilient
communities offering a good quality of life to all members.
Societal Objectives
Greater
Social
Inclusion
Enhanced
Self-Sufficiency
Greater Equity
of Outcome
Improved
Human Health
Wealth Generation
through Social
Ownership
Enabling
Policies
Infrastructure
and Partnerships
Social
Enterprise
Development
Organizational
and Community
Learning
Inputs
Financial
Capital
Knowledge/
Research
Opportunities
for Learning
Activities and Structures
Community
Organizing
and Planning
Development
of Community
Infrastructure
Social Economy
Enterprises
CED
Organizations
Human
Capital
Development
Sector Support
Organizations and
Networks
Private and Public
Sector Partners
Results – Four Levels
1.. Economic and Social
Benefits for HouseHolds
2. Organizational
Capacity Building
and Enterprise
Development
3. Community and
Systemic Changes
4. Measures for Building
the Social Economy Sector
Examples: Employability and employment; earned
income; knowledge and skills; enterprise development;
affordable housing; child care; participation in civic
affairs.
Examples: Creation, expansion and modernization of
social economy enterprises; revenue generation for
reinvestment; management capacity of boards especially
for enterprise development; community organizing,
planning and learning; recruitment and retention of
development organization boards and staff.
Examples: Citizen participation in community building;
partnerships and networks; community visions and
strategic plans; integration of programs/
services; new structures and institutional capacities;
community resilience.
Examples: Enhanced capacity for communication and
organizing within the sector; identification of priority
issues for sector development; opportunities for peer
learning and scaling up of effective practices;
communication and collaboration with government;
formulation of supportive policies and
reduction of policy barriers.
 Feedback loop for continuous learning and change:
Check if “2. Organizational Capacity
Building and Enterprise Development” and “3. Community and Systemic Changes” are contributing to
fulfilling the outlined “Vision”.
Source: Caledonian Institute of Social Policy: http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/566ENG%2Epdf
Works Cited
64
Aigninger, Karl (2002). The new European model of the reformed welfare state. European Forum
working paper. Stanford University.
Armitage, Andrew (2003). Social welfare in Canada. London: Oxford University Press.
Baumol, William J. & Bown William G. (1966). Performing arts, the economic dilemma. A study
of problems common to theatre, opera, and dance. New York. Twentieth
century fund.
Beck, Ulrich. (2000). The brave new world of work. Transl. Patrick Camiller. Cambridge. Polity.
Calabrese A. & Burgelman (Eds.) (1999): Communication, citizenship, and social policy.
Rethinking the limits of the welfare state. Lanham (Md.). Rowman &
Littlefield.
Castells, Manuel & Ince, Martin (2003). Conversations with Manuel Castells. London. Polity.
Caves, Richard E (2000). Creative industries. Contracts between arts and commerce. Cambridge
(Mass.), Londen (UK). Harvard University Press.
Christopherson, Susan (2004). The Divergent Worlds of New Media: How Policy Shapes Work
in the Creative Economy. Review of Policy Research, 21 (4), 543-558.
Crossick, Geoffrey (2006). Knowledge transfer without widgets. The challenge of the creative
economy. A lecture to the Royal Society of Arts in Leeds. London: Goldsmith
College, University of London.
Day, Wan-Wen (2007). Commodification of creativity. Reskilling computer animation labor in
Taiwan. In Catherine McKercher & Vincent Mosco (Eds.), Knowledge
workers in the information society (pp. 85-101). Toronto. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Deuze, Mark (2007). Media work. Malden (MA.). Polity.
Flew, Terry (2002). New media. An introduction. South Melbourne (Vic.). Oxford University.
Florida, Richard (2002). The rise of the creative class. And how it’s transforming work, leisure,
community and everyday life. New York. Basic Book.
Fudge, J. & Vosko, Leah F. (2003). Gender paradoxes and the rise of contingent work. Towards
a transformative political economy of the labor market. In Wallace Clement
& and Leah F. Vosko (Eds.). Changing Canada. Political economy as
transformation.(pp.183-212). Toronto. McGill-Queen's Press.
65
Gertler, Meric. S. (2001). Creative cities. What are they for, how do they work and how do we
build them? Background paper. August.
Giddens, Anthony (2007). Globalization and the European social model. In Helmut Anheier &
Ydihishthir Raj Isar (Eds.). Conflicts and tensions. The Culture and
Globalization Series I (pp.151-161). Los Angeles. Sage.
Gindin, S. & Stanford, Jim (2003). Canadian labour and the political economy of transformation.
In Wallace Clement & Leah F. Vosko (Eds.), Changing Canada. Political
economy as transformation(pp.422-442). Toronto. McGill-Queen's Press.
Grant, Peter & Wood, Chris (2004). Blockbusters and trade wars. Vancouver. Douglas McIntyre.
Hall, Peter (2000). Creative cities and economic development. Urban Studies, 37 (4), 639-649.
Hankivsky, Olena (2004). Social Policy and the Ethic of Care. Vancouver. UBC Press.
Harder, L. (2003). Whither the social citizen. In Janine Brodie & Linda Trimble (Eds.),
Reinventing Canada. Politics of the 21st century (pp.175-188.). Toronto:
Prentice-Hall.
Hartley, J. 2005. Creative industries. In John Hartley (Ed.), Creative industries (pp.1-44).
London. Blackwell
Hesmondhalgh, David (2007). The cultural industries. Los Angeles, London. Sage.
Hesmondalgh, David (2005). Media and cultural policy as public policy. International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 11 (1), 95-109.
Howkins,John (2001). The Creative economy. London. Oxford.
Howlett, Michael & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy
subsystems. Don Mills (Ont.).Oxford.
Innis, Harold (1946). Political economy in the modern state. Toronto. Ryerson.
Landry, Charles (2005). The creative city and the art of city-making. London. Comedia.
Landry, Charles (2000). The creative city. London. Comedia.
Layton, Robyn (undated): Creative labour contracting. Presentation to the Industrial Relations
Society of South Australia. Retrieved Feb 20, 2008, from: www.irssa.asn.au/
Leadbetter, Charles (2000). Living on thin air. London. Penguin.
McKeen, W & Porter, A. 200. Politics and transformation. Welfare state restructuring in
Canada. In Wallace Clement & Leah F. Vosko (Eds.), Changing Canada.
66
Political economy as transformation (pp.109-134). Toronto. McGill-Queen's
Press.
McRobbie, Angela (2005). Clubs to companies. In John Hartley (Ed.). Creative industries
(pp.375-391). Malden (MA.). Blackwell.
McKercher, Catherine & Mosco, Vincent (2007). Introduction. Theorizing knowledge labour and
the information society. In Catherine McKercher & Vincent Mosco (Eds.),
Knowledge workers in the information society (pp.vii-xxiv). Toronto. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Molotoch, H. (1996). LA as a Design Product: How art works in the regional economy. In A.J.
Scott & E.W. Soja ( Eds.), The City. Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of
the twentieth century (pp.225-275). Berkeley. U of California Press.
Mosco, Vincent & Stevens, Andrew (2007). Outsourcing knowledge work. Labor responds to the
new international division of labor. In Catherine McKercher & Vincent Mosco
(Eds.), Knowledge workers in the information society (pp.147-163). Toronto.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Murray, Catherine (2006). Cultural Diversity and Civil Society in Canada. A briefing paper
prepared as a part of a North American Consultation for the Second UNESCO
World Cultural Diversity Report. May.
Murray, Catherine (2007). The media. In L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett & D. Laycock (Eds.),
Policy analysis in Canada. State of the art (pp.525-550). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Murray, Catherine, Beale, Alison & Baird, Nini (forthcoming, 2008). British Columbia’s placebased approach. Policy devolution and cultural self-determination. In Monica
Gattinger & Diane Saint (Eds.) Cultural Policy and Cultural Public
Administration in Provincial and Territorial Governments in Canada. Institute
of Public Administration in Canada.
O’Connor, Justin & Xin, Gu (2006). A new modernity? The arrival of ‘creative industries’ in
China. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9 (3), 271-283.
Pal, Leslie A. (2006). Beyond policy analysis. Scarborough: Thomson & Nelson.
Phillips, Susan D. ( 2007). Policy analysis and the voluntary sector. Evolving policy styles. In
L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett & D. Laycock (Eds.), Policy analysis in Canada.
State of the art (pp.497-522). Toronto. University of Toronto Press.
Pratt, Andy C. & Ball Rick (1994). Industrial property. Policy and economic development. New
York: Routledge.
Prince, Michael J. (1996). At the edge of Canada’s welfare state. Social policy making in
67
British Columbia.” In R.K. Carty (Ed.), Politics, policy and governments in
British Columbia (pp.236-271).Vancouver. UBC press.
Provonost, Gilles (2002). Statistics in the wake of challenges posed by cultural diversity in a
global context. A review of surveys on cultural participation. Retrieved Feb 20,
2008, from: www.colloqu2002symposium.gouv.qc.ca/pdf/
Robinson, Alan G. & Schroeder, Dean M. (2006). Ideas are free: How the idea revolution is
liberating people and transforming organizations. San Francisco. BerrettKoehler.
Roodhouse, S. & Mokre O.M (2004). The MuseumsQuartier Vienna. An Austrian cultural
experiment. International Heritage Studies 10, 193-207.
Rossiter, Ned (2003). Creative labour and the role of intellectual property. Fibreculture. Internet
theory & criticism & research, 1. Retrieved Feb 20, 2008, from:
http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue1/issue1_rossiter.html
Sassen, Saskia (2005). Cities in a world economy. Thousand Oaks (CA.). Pine Forge Press.
Schlesinger, Philip (2007). Creativity. From discourse to doctrine? Screen, 48 (3), 377-387.
Scott, Allen J. (2006). Creative cities. Conceptual issues and policy questions. Journal of urban
affairs 28 (1), 1-17.
Shaw, Phyllida (2004). Researching Artists’ Working Lives. Arts Research Digest 30 (1).
Retrieved Feb 20, 2008, from:
http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/566ENG%2Epdf,
Smith, R. & Warfield, K. (2007). The creative city. A matter of values. In Florence Chee (Ed.),
Location-based awareness: Research on local systems of innovation in the
Greater Vancouver Region (pp.94-114). CPROST. Simon Fraser University.
Throsby, David (2007). Modelling the creative/cultural Industries. Presented to the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, Scotland, January 11-12.
Throsby, David (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
68
Policy papers
Americans for the Arts (2007): Arts and economic prosperity III: The economic impact of nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences. Retrieved Feb 5, 2008,
from: http://www.artsusa.org/information_resources/
Australian Government (2003). Creative industries cluster study. Retrieved Feb 26, 2008, from:
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/cics/
Braun, Erik & Lavanga, Mariangela (2007). An international comparative quick scan of national
policies for creative industries. Rotterdam. European Institute for
Comparative Urban Research at the Erasmus University.
Canadian Human Resource Council. 2002. Face of the future. A study of human resource issues
in Canada’s cultural sector. Ottawa. Retrieved Feb 18, 2008, from:
http://www.culturalhrc.ca/research/
Cheney, Terry (2004). Cultural sector fast stats. Report to the Cultural Human Resources
Council. Ottawa. Retrieved Feb 24, 2008, from: www.culturalhrc.ca/research/
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2008). Creative Britain. New talents for the economy.
Retrieved Feb 27, 2008, from: http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2006).Creative economy programme. Infrastructure
report. Retrieved Feb 20, 2008, from: http://www.cep.culture.gov.uk
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2001). Creative industries mapping document.
Retrieved Feb 20, 2008, from:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (1998). Creative industries mapping document.
Retrieved Feb 25, 2008, from:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/
European Commission (2006). The economy of culture in Europe. Retrieved Feb 15, 2008, from:
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/eac/sources_info/studies/economy_en.html
Greater London Authority (2004). London’s creative sector. 2004 update. Retrieved Feb 15, 2008
From: http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/economy.jsp#creative
Harvey, Jocelyn (2002). Creative management in the arts and heritage. Sustaining and
renewing professional manage for the 21st century. Final report phase 1.
Retrieved Feb 25, 2008, from:
www.ccarts.ca/en/advocacy/publications/conference/documents/
69
International Labour Organization (2004). The future of work and quality in the information
society. The media, culture, graphical sector. Retrieved Feb 22, 2008, from:
www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/
Leviten-Reid, Eric & Torjman, Sherri (2006). Evaluation framework for federal investment in
the Social Economy. A discussion paper. Caledonian Institute. Retrieved Feb 20,
2008, from: http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/566ENG%2Epdf
Nordic Innovation Centre (2007). A creative economy green paper for the Nordic region.
Retrieved Feb 20, 2008, from:
http://www.nordicinnovation.net/prosjekt.cfm?Id=1-4415-272
Statistics Canada (2004). Economic Contribution of Culture in Canada. Retrieved Feb 10, 2008,
from: www.statcan.ca/english/research/81-595-MIE/81-595-MIE2004023.pdf
Statistics Canada (2004). Focus on Culture. Quarterly Bulletin from the Culture Statistics
Programme, 15 (2). Retrieved Feb 20, 2008, from:
www.dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/87-004-XIE/
Statistics Canada (2004). Census metropolitan areas as culture clusters. In Trends and conditions
of census metropolitan areas 89-613-MWE. Retrieved Feb 20, 2008, from:
www.statcan.ca/english/research/89-613-MIE
70
Selected online resources related to the creative economy
Canadian Cultural Observatory :
www.culturescope.ca
The Conference Board of Canada:
www.conferenceboard.ca
International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies:
www.ificca.org
Creative Infrastructure report related to the UK’s Creative Economy Programme:
http://www.cep.culture.gov.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.viewBlogEntry&intMTEntryID=2989
United Nations Volunteer Programme:
http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/browse/volunteering-issues/
Canadian Culture Statistics:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/87-008-GIE/about.htm
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/89-613-MIE/2004004/summary.htm
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060612/d060612c.htm
Cultural human resources in Canada:
http://www.culturalhrc.ca/research/default-e.asp
Information on the social economy:
http://www.socialeconomyhub.ca/hub/index.php?page_id=9
Canadian non-profit sector:
http://www.gdsourcing.ca/CIP/Websites-NP.htm