CULTURAL ECONOMICS AND CREATIVE CITIES. NEW PARADIGMS FOR INNOVATION AND
GROWTH
LUIS PALMA MARTOS.
lpalma@us.es
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC HISTORY. UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE. MIEMBRO
DE OIKOS
ABSTRACT:
The paper presents from the cultural economics perspective the shift that this area of
economic analysis has experimented in the last years from “cultural economics” to “economics
of creativity”. In this framework we analyze the role of cultural industries and the proper
concept of creativity from three axes.
The first one is focused in the study of creative industries in the light of the new
paradigm of “cultural capitalism”. The second one tries to place cultural industries in a new
organizational paradigm: the so called “liver model”, in order to confront this with the former
“ovarian model”.
Finally we integrate these entire concepts in the urban development field taking as
referential one the “creative city”. We are mainly interested in the capacity of public policies in
order to generate innovation processes based on culture and creativity.
KEY WORDS: Cultural Economics, Economics of creativity; Creative cities; innovation based on
culture and creativity
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The present work explores new paradigms in the analysis of innovation and
considers both culture and creativity as its very basis. The territorial context we use as
framework for the analysis has the urban environment as boundary, the creative city –
as a concept – is at the core of our work.
The structure of this work has six main points –other than the introduction and
conclusions; we also included a list of references. In the first point we approach the
concept of culture from the point of view of cultural economics, emerging subdiscipline we deal with in the third point. We will sketch a concept and its realm, the
increasing relevance of the discipline and – something crucial to our work – we will
show the shift in the conceptual core with the result that the alternative idea of
creative economy is gaining momentum.
Within this conceptual framework we will incorporate, in point four, the analysis of
creative industries and their basic features. We will try to go beyond the traditional
concept of cultural industries even if both have common features and characteristics,
and both are cases in point of innovation.
We pointed out that the aim of our work is to explore new paradigms in the
domain of innovation. With this purpose in point five we will carry out a comparative
analysis between classical industrial and commercial capitalism and new cultural
capitalism; this new approach will enable us to integrate the new paradigm that can be
appreciated in the cultural or creative sector. We mean what Rausell (2009) call “liver
model”, one that substitute the so called “ovary model”. We will do it in point six.
Last point integrates the above conceptual elements in the analysis of the linkages
between creativity and urban development; in this analysis is relevant the concept of
creative city which we will approach making a comment on the notion of creativity.
Also, we will deal with the concept of cultural district and its critical elements if we
take into account the new technological reality.
With the help of Towse (2005) we will eventually attest a certain conceptual
immaturity on creativity and the environments in which it is generated. We will give
support to the strength-idea of deepening in the analysis of creativity and its causal
connection with economic activity, the one generating urban development.
2
2. AN APPROACH TO THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE
David Throsby (2001), in his now classical “Economics and Culture”, points out the
difficulty of approaching the concept of culture. Among other reasons because of the
very wide range of notions, from a number of perspectives, and also because it is a
concept that has been evolving throughout the time.
However, Throsby, trying to contribute to the construction of the intellectual
corpus of cultural economics as a discipline, pointed at two wide approaches. Firstly,
what he calls anthropological or sociological, conceptualizes culture as the group of
activities, beliefs, convictions, customs, values and practices common to any human
group.
However, in operative terms and as a reference concept for cultural economics, he
made an approach that he called functional: activities carried out by the people and
their derivative products about intellectual, moral and artistic features of life.
Culture, from this functional point of view, has according to Throsby (2001) a series
of interesting characteristics given the nature of our work. Firstly, the production of
culture involves some kind of creativity. So, the concept of creativity underlies as well
as determinates the one of culture. Secondly, the production of culture generates and
conveys a symbolic content; the cultural good or service goes beyond the good or
service in itself, something UNESCO has pointed out in several major documents on
cultural policies and development1. Finally, Throsby says that the outcome of those
activities represents, at least potentially, a kind of intellectual property.
UNESCO (2002), in the preamble of the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity,
defines culture as a set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional
features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and
literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs
3. SOME ELEMENTS OF CULTURAL ECONOMICS AS A DISCIPLINE
3.1.
Background. A definition
Although the interest of economists for the world of culture is not new, as Goodwin (2006) has
pointed out, it can be said that since the seventies the approach of economists to art and
culture as a matter of study has been done with a higher analytical rigor and a wide use of the
tools of economics as a science.
We can point the existence of a sub-discipline or specialized field, cultural economics
(Ginsburg, 2001; Seaman, 2009). This sub-discipline has a seminal book, an
international association and a specialized journal (Throsby, 2001).
The seminal book “Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma”, authored by William
Baumol and William Bowen, dates back to 1966. The authors observed an economic
dilemma in the scenic arts, later know as “the cost illness”, that suggested an
economic policy prescription: the Government must subsidized those activities2.
1
2
UNESCO (2002) and UNESCO (2005).
V. Palma and Aguado (2010) for a detailed analysis of the “cost illness” related to the scenic
arts.
3
In 1973 was established the Association for Cultural Economics, whose charter was
modified later in 1993, adopting its current name: Association for Cultural Economics
International (ACEI)3. Since 1978 ACEI organizes a biannual international conference on
cultural economics. Up to date there have been 16 editions. The first issue of the
Journal of Cultural Economics (JCE) was published in 19774.
In 1976 Mark Blaug made the first compilation of articles on the subject: “The
Economics of the Art: Selected Readings”. These readings focused on public funding for
the arts and its justification.
The first states of the art were published by Throsby (1994) in the Journal of Economic
Literature (JEL) and Blaug (2001), in the Journal of Economic Surveys. In 1991 JEL
classification put intellectual production into category Z – other especial topics – in
category Z1: intellectual economy, and in 2001 was established Z11: economics of arts
and literature (Towse, 2003). In 2003 Towse published “A Handbook of Cultural
Economics” and in 2006, within the series handbooks in economics edited by K. Arrow
and M. Intriligator was published the “Handbook of The Economics of Arts and
Culture”, edited by V. Ginsburg and D. Throsby.
After showing the background that supports the existence of this discipline of the
economic science we are able to choose a definition among those proposed. We have
chosen Towse’s (2003): “the application of economics to the production, distribution
and consumption of all goods and cultural services”.
3.2. Analytical framework and domain of cultural economics. From cultural
economics to creative economics.
Table 1 shows the domains of cultural economics although we have also incorporated
essential elements of creative economics with the aim to sketch both disciplines
simultaneously and better gauge the shift from primitive cultural economics to new
creative economics.
3
http://culturaleconomics.org
In 1979 the index of the Journal of Economic Literature made an exception to its no indexing
newly established journals policy and thus included the JCE.
4
4
Table 1. Analytical framework and domain of cultural economics
Economic analysis applied to culture
Activities/
topics
Scenic
arts
Visual
arts
Topics of particular interest
Attendance,
demand
Demand for scenic
arts
Demand for
arts on
aesthetic
grounds and
demand as an
asset or
financial tool Auction and art
work prices
Demand of
arts on
aesthetic
grounds and
demand as an
asset or
financial tool
Cultural
economics
Cultural
built
heritage
Contingent
valuation,
Valuation,
economics of
conservation
museums and
cultural festivals
Industrial
Cultural organization, Book economics,
industries localization, film economics,
cluster,
art cities
cultural
district
Cultural
policies
Why cultural policies? Is it
necessary the government
intervention in artistic and
cultural markets?
In case it is necessary which
is the best way?
Transversal topics
“The cost illness” (Baumol
and Bowen 1966; Baumol,
1987),
gust
formation
(McCain, 1979), rational
addiction (Stigler and Becker
1977; Becker and Murphy,
1988), consumption learning
(Lévy-Garboua
and
Montmarquette,
1996),
cultural capital (Throsby,
1999),
cultural
value
(Throsby,
2001),
organizational
and
management patterns of
artistic institutions (Netzer,
2003), artist job markets
(Throsby, 1994; Menger,
1999; Benhamou, 2003; NEA,
2008), studies on the
economic impact of culture,
(Seaman, 1987; Snowball,
2008), economic valuation of
heritage
(Mourato
and
Mazzanti, 2002; Throsby,
2003), statistics of the
cultural sector (UNESCO,
1986 and 2008; KEA, 2006)
Public funding for culture
(Robbins, 1963; Baumol and
Bowen 1965; Peacock, 1969;
Cwi, 1979; Van den Haag,
1979; Banfield, 1984; Frey,
1999), fixed book pricing
(Appelman, 2003; Palma and
Palma, 2008), copyrights
5
(Towse, 2006, 2008)
Creative
economics
Advertising,
Creative Culture as an graphic design,
fashion,
industries innovation
architecture, video
factor
games, software,
R+D
Creative industries (DCMS,
1998; Caves, 2000 and 2003),
creative cities (Cooke and
Lazzeretti, 2008), creative
class (Florida, 2002)
Places of high
cultural density
Innovation, foster the creativity
How creativity is produced
productivity, shown in greater
Creativity
and fostered? (Lazzeretti,
economic
innovation,
2009; KEA, 2009)
growth
increased business
activity and higher
economic growth
Source: adapted from Herrero (2002)
First column shows the five traditional domains of cultural economics, from the
restricted notion of arts (visual, scenic); heritage, both sites and immaterial heritage
(festivals, traditions); cultural industries and also the analysis of cultural policies with a
mention to the role of Government in the world of culture from an economic
perspective. Second column includes some topics of interest and the effort deployed
with the aim of applying economic analysis to culture, something that noticeably
contributed to literature extension in this sub-discipline. We can point out the
increasing application of valuation economics, such as contingent valuation, to the
economic analysis of museums, historic sites and festivals of a varied nature. In the
domain of cultural industries those of the books and films have a decisive role in the
principle of cultural industries. In the domain of cultural industries, those of books and
movies play a prominent role due to their relevance in the mass cultural consumption.
Third column offers a wide array of transversal topics that in our opinion constitute a
major contribution of the sub-discipline and enable a better understanding of the
working of the cultural sector. Among other we have “the cost illness” and its
implications for cultural policy; the modelling of gust formation by cultural goods and
services; the concepts of cultural capital and values; the analysis of organizational and
management forms in cultural concerns or the crucial issue of the building of
parameters and statistics that enable a more rigorous approach – from the point of
view of modern economic analysis – to the cultural sector.
As it can be seen, second segment shows that the interrelation between economics
and culture has been extended (Lazzeretti, 2009). At the core of cultural activities is
creative work. The connexion between creativity, new technologies, production
6
structures and more flexible job markets establishes a new panorama. This approach
considers innovation as the main engine for growth and creativity the key input in the
processes of innovation. Also, they could be linked cultural education since childhood
with creative activities that foster innovative entrepreneurship (Lasuén and Aranzadi,
2002). Creativity could be considered as well as a way of innovation that promotes
entrepreneurship, increases productivity and is a source of economic growth
(UNCTAD, 2008, 3); in addition, creativity generates an area of economic activity itself:
the creative industries (Pratt, 2004).
Summarising, the appearance of creative economics and its inter-relationships with
cultural economics as traditionally considered has left a series of subjects for further
research, among them: culture as a source of innovation; culture as an input of
creative processes; human capital and the generation of the creative class; culture and
creativity in the innovation processes; creative districts; or the merging of the
territorial dimension with the concept of creative city as a paradigm of urban
development; we will come back to this subject.
3.3. Circumstances that foster the increasing importance of the cultural sector and
its analysis.
We want to finish this point – intended to offer some elements of cultural economics
as a discipline – with an inquiry on the circumstances that are making that – from the
academy, the business world, politics, or the society itself – an increasing attention is
being paid to the sector of culture and leisure for its role in the building of better
societies.
It cannot be understood the steady growth of the cultural sector without taking into
account the shift to service economy that has extensively happened in most world
economies. This economy transformation could be put into relationship with the
development processes that have provided the population with higher levels of
income that enable the expenditure in non-peremptory goods5.
Other factors that have enabled an increasing demand for culture and leisure, also
related to the development processes, are the higher educational levels of the
population and the higher availability of free time due to the sustained reduction in
working time. Also, we have the fact of the increasing health levels in the elderly
population at the age of retirement that enable them to enjoy a richer older age
insofar as the consumption of goods and services is concerned. This demand, with its
particulars needs, should not be ignored in the setting up of the offer of culture and
leisure in developed societies.
5
According to the economic theory, luxury goods with an income elasticity higher than one.
7
From other point of view, as above said, the sector of culture and leisure – or the
creative sector – emerges as potential segments of activity and jobs and are
considered crucial as levers for the creation of wealth or as key elements for
endogenous development. Finally, it could be said that the interest in this sector has
been enabled by the fact of being an important domain for public intervention even if
the ongoing debate is not exempt of controversy (Palma, 2008).
4. The time for creative industries
From now on we are going to focus on creativity and innovation processes in the new
context of “cultural capitalism” and also in how these processes within the creative
industries can help the development of territories, focusing in urban development
through the generation of creative cities.
We have closed the point above showing a series of arguments by which the cultural
sector, generally considered, is being paid an increasing attention from different social
domains. Deepening in this matter, and focusing on the European context, 2009 was
European Year of Creativity and Innovation; by this statement it was emphasized the
question of the keys for the future in a time of international economic crisis. Anyhow,
several European documents, since the virtually mythic Delors White Paper (1993),
have insisted in the need of strengthening the European Union both for economic and
social reasons, the factors that put in relation knowledge, creativity and innovation
with competitiveness, being this one the key element for European prosperity. This
was present in the Lisbon Agenda for 2000 and it is again in the strategy for 2020,
recently introduced as a case in point in the political development of the EU27.
The main problem could be, in the context we are dealing with, the lack of a
conceptual framework to understand the importance of creativity as a key input in the
new production model. Rausell (2009) raised a number of questions on the basis of
ascertaining the increasing attention currently paid to creative industries. These
questions would be: What changes 21st century capitalism working model? How social
processes can be coordinated to generate wealth and employment? What can be done
from a collective point of view to maximize the positive effects of these processes and
minimize their costs?
It seems obvious how difficult is to answer all those questions. Rausell (2009) points at
some lines of reasoning that he considers appropriate and that will help us in the
points below.
5. Industrial capitalism vs. cultural capitalism
8
According to Rausell (2009) we should start from the following hypothesis on cultural
capitalism: the wealth generating processes (and its distribution) are rather focusing in
the production of symbolic goods (particularly cultural ones), as opposed to
industrial/commercial capitalism model –geared to the production and or distribution
of tangible goods. As Rifkin (2000 quoted in Rausell 2009) pointed out “the journey of
capitalism is ending up in the commoditisation of human culture in itself”.
Two main points for the characterization of an economic system or model would be
the technology of the system and the definition it makes of the related property rights
(Gravelle and Rees, 2006 pp. 9-10). So, from these elements we could deal with the
parallelisms and divergences between industrial/commercial capitalism and cultural
capitalism.
In the current context of cultural capitalism it is not clear who has the right to the
capital gains generated in the production of symbolic goods. Watching the events and
debates it could be said that the system’s normative framework of intellectual
property and copyright does not cover it own needs, that it has become obsolete. It
could also be said that the final definition of symbolic goods property rights,
something characteristic of cultural capitalism, will determinate the working of the
model, as it happened with material goods and industrial/commercial capitalism.
The technological model is of greatest interest to the aim of this work. The
technological revolution that characterized industrial capitalism has its current
outcome in two reference elements: firstly, the digitalization of symbolic goods; and
secondly, the revolution in the transport of those goods epitomized by the Internet
highways (Rausell, 2009). This technological revolution, as it happened in the Industrial
Age, ends up affecting the markets of creation, production, distribution and
consumption of cultural and symbolic goods.
We wish to point out the fact that the technological revolution we have related to
cultural capitalism affects the creative capacity –one of the main arguments of this
work; firstly, because it lowers the barriers to entry for creation. As Rausell (2009)
points out creative people get rid of the requirements of technical rigors and focus in
the creative aspects; at the same time it sets out the problem of the disappearance of
“creative-quality” certifying systems. Nevertheless, we should think about the
consequences of this gap on the system aims, probably irrelevant. Secondly, creative
workers enjoy a greater autonomy in the face of the industrial sector. It is not
uncommon the self-edition of books or the home recording of visual or musical
products, i.e.: cultural self-production. This reality has meant a shift of paradigm in
cultural and creative industries as we analyze below.
9
6. The shift of paradigm in cultural industries
In Figures 1 and 2 we show, on the basis of Rausell (2009) the main conceptual
elements of the two analyzed paradigms of creative industries. The traditional model,
called “OVARY” and the one derived from cultural capitalism, called “LIVER”. We do
not consider necessary, for redundant, any additional explanation of the diagrams 6.
FIGURE 1: OVARY MODEL
Source: the author, adapted from Rausell (2009)
INDUSTRY
MANY CREATIVE
PEOPLE
- major investment in
human capital
- some techical
capacity SCARCE
BARGAINIG POWER
- big investments in
physical capital
- enlargement of
organizational,
logistic and marketing
structures
CULTURAL PRODUCTS
- scale economics??
retailing
- Monopoly sales
Two sources of income:
1) Price> production cost
MASSIVE DEMAND
2) Customer services (advertising and other related activities: hotel industry, retail, transportation)
Customer services
(advertising and other related activities: hotel industry, retail, transportation)
VALUE ADD:
Capital gains of creative industries,
return of investments and royalties
6
V. Rausell (2009)
10
FIGURE 2: LIVER MODEL (EMPOWERMENT OF CREATIVE PEOPLE AND CONSUMERS
DUE TO THE TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION)
Source: the author, adapted from Rausell (2009)
CREATIVE
WORLD
ADVANCED
SERVICES OF
INTELLIGENT
MEDIATION
INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMPTION
R +D in citizen relations
1) Information management for risk
reduction in producers and consumers
2) Establishment of social web sites
for particular consumers
3) Exploration of specific demand segments
4) Exploration of new retailing channels (mobiles,
e- book…)
VALUE ADDED: attention stock (advertising,
bespoke payment services...)
7. Creativity and urban development
This point is intended to incorporate the territorial dimension, and particularly the urban one,
in the new conceptual and analytical context set out above. We are about to focus in the
management of the cultural and symbolic domain as a factor of competitiveness; the territory
should be considered thus as a container of meanings.
The choice of the city as a reference unit is due to its undeniable advantages insofar as the
concentration of meanings is concerned, that gives to this dimension an increasing importance
and suggests as a strategic thing the making of management models regarding city’s cultural
dimension (Rausell, 2009).
11
7.1.
The creative city as a unit of analysis
As Costa (2008) points out, the concept of creative city has come up as essential both in the
academic analysis and the political agenda. He proposes five wide and different origins for the
development of this interest in creativity, regarding urban revitalization and competitiveness.
Firstly, the idea of “creative city” as it is developed by authors such as Landry (2000), Hall
(2000) or Ebert et al. (1994) and the progressive coordination in the analysis of “creative
industries” (via studies on cultural industries) and a number of political interventions such as
the case of the Department of Culture and Sport in the UK.
Secondly, the notion of “Creative Europe” (ERICArts, 2002), sponsored by the Council of
Europe as well, or the one of “Network of Creative Cities”, promoted by UNESCO; approaches
that contain a greater multi-disciplinary charge. The core of this turns around the ideas of
governance and management of artistic creativity and the construction of an empirical
approach based on European case studies that can be deemed a set of successful instances on
the relationships between artistic creativity, cultural governance, innovation management and
urban development. The approach has paid more attention to the mechanism of urban
regeneration based on cultural activities.
The third approach is based on the existence of a “creative class” (Florida, 2002; Florida and
Trinagli, 2004) as a decisive factor in territorial competitiveness. This kind is deemed to be
crucial for development and the processes of urban regeneration. By creative class we mean
that one with capacity to master the technology, with talent and prone to tolerance. A key
point of this approach is to raise awareness on the relationship between creativity, abilities
and human capital.
The forth approach quoted in Costa (2008), represents the recognition of creative industries
within the economic analysis considered in a wide international context. This approach
originated in the field of industrial economics and is related to creative economics through the
key role of property rights. Cultural activities are analyzed from an economic point of view but
stressing the creative element and the specificity of cultural goods and institutions, particularly
regarding the relationships (contracts) established by the authors.
Finally, we have to point out another way of influence on the valorisation of creative work and
creativity in the field of analysis of artistic activities, even in mainstream theoretical cultural
economics (Handke, 2004; Throsby, 2001; Towse, 2004). This major interpretation accepts the
importance of studying the artistic creativity and its integration in cultural products. This
means an increasing interest of cultural economics in the mechanisms of creative activity and
links them with the analyses on innovation processes.
In sum, the convergence of these five influence streams resulted in a central interest of the
concept of creativity and the territorial dimension. We could summarise this increasing
interest into five driving ideas:
1) It is an approximation that goes beyond the disciplinary approaches: it puts together,
among other concepts, those of culture, territory and innovation.
12
2) The focus of attention shifts to topics related to creativity and creative activities, the first
stage in the value chain of activities and cultural products.
3) An increasing interest in the supply logic and not just audiences’ (demand side). It is also
assumed that institutions are not “black boxes” and that it is necessary to analyze their
working.
4) A clear interest in the territorial dimension of cultural and creative activities, through the
territorial systems of cultural production and consumption, paying an especial attention to
its particular authors and systems of government.
5) The assumption of the essential relevance of immaterial topics (abilities at work,
innovation, inter-institutional coordination) as authors in the intervention.
Rausell (2009) criticises the use of the concept of creativity which he dubs rhetorical joker,
advisor and reference of planning interventions. He considers it to be a quasi magic concept
due to the sacralisation of the creative fact.
Neither is exempt of Rausell (2009) critical tone the concept of creative city which he brands
“reiterative slogan in any urban strategy”. Faced to the evidence that in certain urban spaces
such as New York, Berlin or London is concentrated – even if diffusely – a bigger amount of
creative people, Rausell (2009) wonders whether it exists a causal correlation between public
action and the generation of creative cities. He finally concludes that in most cases the
correlation is very weak and, anyhow, inverse.
7.2.
Creative capacity and urban planning
The above conclusions pointed by Rausell (2009) allow us to state several ideas. Firstly, the
empirical evidence on the behaviour of the creative class and the making of indexes on
creative capacity in urban environment is in progress and has, as Towse said, a clear
intellectual immaturity; in sum, in her own words: “we know very little how to create creative
people” (quoted in Rausell 2009).
Faced with a lack of knowledge, there is the possibility, from the point of view of urban
planning, of considering creative capacity as a stock asset for which it is needed to compete
with other territories and cities. This competition for attracting the creative class will become a
zero sum game, in which the gains of some equal the loss of others, not a virtuous strategy of
the kind win-win in which several agents, in this case cities, could get benefited.
From this strategy it is about to create “pleasant environments” from an environmental,
aesthetic, ideological or cultural point of view that might result attractive for the creative class
and help its localization in. Anyhow, research in this field should focus on showing the clear
connexion between creativity as an attribute and the capacity of generating economic activity
in a given territory.
One interesting line of academic research and political attention is the one that focuses on the
study and generation of cultural districts, in the sense of spaces for cultural production,
sometimes linked with cities. It is about the concentration in time and space of economic
13
activities linked with a given group of cultural goods and services that shows and special
connexion with the territory7. It could be possible as Rausell (2009) says to identify creative
component cultural districts that would present some particular characteristics: creativity as a
relevant input, the existence of a productive fabric of highly specialized SMEs in continuous
innovation; the practice of flexible models of industrial relations and several professional
characters; the existence of very dense flux of information and knowledge transmission, or
formal and informal spaces of relationships between the agents.
From the point of view of urban policies and faced with the difficulty of controlling other
process variables as above explained we can observe a public action aimed at signalling certain
urban spaces and promoting, as we pointed out, the settling of the creative class in. According
to Rausell (2009) this strategy could turn out to be irrelevant if we take into consideration the
increase in connectivity that creative people can achieve between them with the help of new
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Also, as we have seen in Figure 2, new
business models – particularly the liver one – could put into question the need to promote
those models if what we are looking for is the emergence of a creative capacity,
acknowledging of course, that it has a clear connexion with the generation of economic
activities in any given territory.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The ultimate aim of this work has been to explore some concepts that can contribute to a
better knowledge of innovation processes in the new context of cultural capitalism.
The analytical framework of cultural economics, sub-discipline come out of the economic
analysis, provides us with some interesting elements in this regard.
We have noticed a turnaround from the traditional conception of culture and cultural
industries towards a new approach in which creativity came out as an essential element of the
processes we are analysing. Thus, culture becomes a crucial input of creativity and this is the
key trigger in innovation processes.
The contextual analysis of cultural capitalism has enabled us to visualize the features of
creative industries, being the most relevant the empowerment of creative people and
consumers due to the technological revolution –something inherent to this new profile of
capitalism.
Finally, we focused on the concept of creative city, insofar as we understood that constitutes
an innovative way in the field of cultural capitalism. The debate on cultural and urban
development policies, on the generation of creative cities is far from being closed. Among
other reasons because we know very little about the generation of creativity, key in all this
conceptual fabric.
The search for causal relations between public policies and the emergence of creative cities
has resulted in few indisputable findings. They can even be found correlations in both ways.
7
V. Cooke and Lazzaretti, eds. 2008.
14
The most fruitful research line has probably been the analysis of creative districts and its
insertion in certain cities, districts that constitute attraction points for industries and creative
classes. However, new technological paradigm also makes us to think in a critical stance about
the reality of this territorial configuration, as the proximity it implies does not look relevant to
get the benefits derived from the district making process.
In sum, as we said in the introduction, we are – regarding the notion of creativity and the
environments where it is generated – in a situation of intellectual immaturity that bring us to
deepen in the analysis of these elements; basically its causal relationship with the economic
activity necessary for territorial development.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Appelman, M. “Fixed book price”, En R. Towse, ed., A Handbook of Cultural Economics,
237-247. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003.
Banfield, E. The Democratic muse: visual arts and the public interest. New York: Basic
Books, 1984.
Baumol, W. “Performing Arts”, J. Eatwell; M. Milgate y P. Newman, eds, The New Palgrave:
A Dictionary of Economics, vol. 2, London, Macmillan Press, 1987.
Baumol, W. y W. Bowen. “On the Performing Arts: the Anatomy of their Problems”, The
American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 55, 1965, pp. 495-502.
Baumol, W. y W. Bowen. Performing Arts. The Economic Dilemma, Cambridge, Twentieth
Century Found, 1966.
Becker, G. y K. Murphy. “A Theory of Rational Addiction”, Journal of Political Economy 96,
4, 1988, pp. 675-700.
Benhamou, F. “Artists’ Labour Markets”. En R. Towse, ed., A Handbook of Cultural
Economics, 69-75. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003.
Blaug, M. “Where Are we Now in Cultural Economics”, Journal of Economic Surveys 15, 2,
2001, pp. 123-143.
Blaug, M. The Economics of the Arts: Selected Readings, London, Martin Robertson, 1976.
Caves, R. “Contracts between Art and Commerce”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, 2,
2003, pp. 73-83.
Caves, R. Creative Industries. Contracts between Art and Commerce, Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 2000.
Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas. Crecimiento, Competitividad y Empleo. Retos y
pistas para entrar en el siglo XXI. Libro Blanco, Luxemburgo: Oficina de Publicaciones
Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas, 1993.
Cooke, P. y Lazzeretti, L. Creative Cities, Cultural Clusters and Local Economic
Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2008.
Costa, P. “Creativity, Innovation and Territorial Agglomeration in Cultural Activities: The
Roots of the Creative City”, en P. Cooke y L. Lazzeretti, eds, Creative Cities, Cultural
Clusters and Local Economic Development, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 183-210,
2008.
Cwi, D. Public support of the arts: Three arguments examined. Journal of Behavioral
Economics, (8)1, 39-68, 1979.
DCMS. Creative Industries Mapping Document 1998. London: Department for Culture,
Media
and
Sports
(DCMS),
1998.
Disponible
en:
15
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/4740.aspx [último acceso: 0202-2008].
Ebert R., Gnad, F. y Kunzmann, K. The creative city. Working paper 2: concepts and
preconditions of a creative city. London, Comedia, 1994.
European Research Institute for Comparative Cultural Policy and Arts (ERICARTS). Creative
Europe. On governance and Management of Artistic Creativity in Europe. Bonn, 2002.
Florida, R. The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books, New York, 2002.
Florida, R., y Trinagli, I. Europe in the creative age. London, Demos, 2004.
Frey, B. State Support and Creativity in the Arts: Some New Considerations. Journal of
Cultural Economics, 23, 71-85, 1999.
Ginsburgh, V. “Economics of Art and Culture”, N. Smelser y P. Baltes, eds., International
Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2001.
Ginsburgh, V. y Throsby, D, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture,
Amsterdam, North-Holland, 2006.
Goodwin, C. “Art and Culture in the History of Economic Thought”, V. Ginsburgh y D.
Throsby, eds., Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Amsterdam, North-Holland,
2006.
Gravelle, H. y Rees, R. Microeconomía, 3 edición. Madrid, Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2006.
Hall, P. “Creative cities and economic development”, Urban Studies, 37 (4), 639-49, 2000.
Handke, C. Defining creative industries by companing the creation of knowledge. RECIDA
Working Paper no.2, Faculty of History and the Arts, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2004.
Herrero, L. “La economía de la cultura en España: una disciplina incipiente”, Revista
Asturiana de Economía 23, 2002, pp. 147-175.
KEA, European Affairs. “The Economy of Culture in Europe”, Brussels, European
Commission 2006.
KEA, European Affairs. The Impact of Culture on Creativity. Brussels, A Study prepared for
the European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, 2009.
Landry, C. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London, Comedia/Earthscan,
2000.
Lasuén, J. y Aranzadi, J. El crecimiento económico y las artes. Madrid: Sociedad General de
Autores y Editores/Fundación Autor, 2002.
Lazzeretti, L. “The Creative Capacity of Culture between Lateral Proximity and New
Creative Milieu”, G. Becattini; M. Bellandi y L. De Propris, eds., The Handbook of Industrial
Districts, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.
Lévy-Garboua, L. y C. Montmarquette. “A Microeconomic Study of Theatre Demand”,
Journal of Cultural Economics 20, 1996, pp. 25-50.
McCain, R. “Reflections on the cultivation of taste”. Journal of Cultural Economics 3 (1), 3052, 1979.
Menger, P-M. “Artistic labor markets and careers”. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 541574, 1999.
Mourato, S. y M. Mazzanti. “Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage: Evidence and
Prospects”, M. de la Torre, ed., Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, Los Angeles, The
Getty Conservation Institute, 2002.
NEA. Artists in the workforce: 1990 to 2005. Report No. 48, Washington, National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA), 2008.
Netzer, D. “Nonprofit Organizations”, R. Towse, ed., A Handbook of Cultural Economics,
Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003.
Palma, L. “¿Debe el Estado financiar las artes y la cultura? Argumentos a favor y en contra
de la intervención del Estado”, Cuadernos de Economía de la Cultura 10, 2008, pp. 47-56.
Palma, L. y Aguado, L. “Economía de la cultura. Una nueva área de especialización de la
economía”, Revista de Economía Institucional, 12, 22, 2010, pp.129-165.
16
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Palma, M. y Palma, L. “Fixed book pricing in Spain: a debate between economic efficiency
and cultural Diversity”. En: P. Cook, y L. Lazzereti (Eds), Creatives Cities, Cultural Clusters
and Economic Development. Cheltenham, UK. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008.
Peacock, A. “Welfare economics and public subsidies to the Arts”, 1969. The Manchester
School of Economic & Social Studies, (37)4, 323-335. Reimpreso en: Journal of Cultural
Economics, 1994, (18)2, 151-161.
Pratt, A. “The Cultural Economy: A Call for Spatialized ‘Production of Culture’
Perspectives”, International Journal of Cultural Studies 7, 1, 2004, pp. 117-128.
Rausell, P. “Las ciudades creativas: Hurgando en el slogan”, pp.77-87. En Manito, F.
(Editor), Ciudades Creativas, Cultura, Territorio, Economía y Ciudad, Vol.1. Barcelona,
Kreanta, 2009.
Rifkin, J. La Era del Acceso. La Revolución de la Nueva Economía. Barcelona, Paidós, 2004.
Robbins, L. Art and the State, Politics and Economics: Papers in Political Economy, London,
MacMillan, 1963.
Seaman, B. “Cultural Economics: The State of the Art and Perspectives”, Estudios de
Economía Aplicada 27, 1, 2009, pp. 7-32.
Seaman, B. Arts impact studies: A fashionable excess, 1987. Re-impreso En Towse, R. (ed),
Cultural economics: the arts, the heritage and the media industries, vol.2. Edward Elgar:
Cheltenham, 1997.
Snowball, J. Measuring the Value of Culture. Methods and Examples in Cultural Economics.
Berlin: Springer, 2008.
Stigler, G. y G. Becker, “De gustibus non est disputandum”, American Economic Review 67,
2, 1977, pp. 76-90.
Throsby, D. “Art, Economics of”, S. Durlauf y L. Blume, eds., The New Palgrave Dictionary
of Economics, vol. 3, Hampshire, Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.
Throsby, D. “Determining the Value of Cultural Goods: How Much (Or How Little) Does
Contingent Valuation Tell us?”, Journal of Cultural Economics 27, 2003, pp. 275-285.
Throsby, D. Economics and Culture, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Publicado en español como Economía y cultura, Madrid, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Throsby, D. “Cultural Capital”, Journal of Cultural Economics 23, 1, 1999, pp. 3-12.
Throsby, D. “The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics”,
Journal of Economic Literature 32, 1, 1994, pp. 1-29.
Towse, R. “Alan Peacock and Cultural Economics”, Economic Journal 115, 2005, pp. F262F276.
Towse, R. “Copyright and Artists: A View from Cultural Economics”, Journal of Economic
Surveys 20, 4, 2006, pp. 567-585.
Towse, R. “Why Has Cultural Economics Ignored Copyright?”, Journal of Cultural Economics
32, 4, 2008, pp. 243-259.
Towse, R. A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003.
Traducido al español como Manual de economía de la cultura, Madrid, Fundación Autor,
2005.
Towse, R. Towards an economics of creativity. RECIDA Working Paper no. 1, Faculty of
History and the Arts, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2004.
UNCTAD. Creative Economy Report: the Challenge of Assessing the Creative Economy
towards
Informed
Policy-Making,
New
York,
2008,
[http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditc20082cer_en.pdf]. 2008
UNESCO. The 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics, Montreal, 2008.
UNESCO. Convención sobre la protección y la promoción de la diversidad de las expresiones
culturales, Paris, 2005.
UNESCO. Declaración Universal sobre la Diversidad Cultural, Paris, 2002.
UNESCO. The UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics, Montreal, 1986.
17
67.
Van den Haag, E. Should the Government Subsidize the. Arts?. Policy Review, 10, 63-73,
1979.
18