Global Creative Ecosystems: A Critical Understanding of Sustainable Creative and Cultural Production (Dynamics of Virtual Work) 3031339606, 9783031339608

Citation preview

DYNAMICS OF VIRTUAL WORK

able n i a t s u S f o g n i rstand A Critical Undeultural Production Creative and C Edited by irani Tarek E. V

Dynamics of Virtual Work

Series Editors Ursula Huws, Analytica Social and Economic Research, London, UK Rosalind Gill, Department of Sociology, City, University of London, London, UK

Technological change has transformed where people work, when and how. Digitisation of information has altered labour processes out of all recognition whilst telecommunications have enabled jobs to be relocated globally. ICTs have also enabled the creation of entirely new types of ’digital’ or ’virtual’ labour, both paid and unpaid, shifting the borderline between ’play’ and ’work’ and creating new types of unpaid labour connected with the consumption and co-creation of goods and services. This affects private life as well as transforming the nature of work and people experience the impacts differently depending on their gender, their age, where they live and what work they do. Aspects of these changes have been studied separately by many different academic experts however up till now a cohesive overarching analytical framework has been lacking. Drawing on a major, high-profile COST Action (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Dynamics of Virtual Work, this series will bring together leading international experts from a wide range of disciplines including political economy, labour sociology, economic geography, communications studies, technology, gender studies, social psychology, organisation studies, industrial relations and development studies to explore the transformation of work and labour in the Internet Age. The series will allow researchers to speak across disciplinary boundaries, national borders, theoretical and political vocabularies, and different languages to understand and make sense of contemporary transformations in work and social life more broadly. The book series will build on and extend this, offering a new, important and intellectually exciting intervention into debates about work and labour, social theory, digital culture, gender, class, globalisation and economic, social and political change.

Tarek E. Virani Editor

Global Creative Ecosystems A Critical Understanding of Sustainable Creative and Cultural Production

Editor Tarek E. Virani University of the West of England Bristol, UK

ISSN 2947-9290 ISSN 2947-9304 (electronic) Dynamics of Virtual Work ISBN 978-3-031-33960-8 ISBN 978-3-031-33961-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © gremlin/Getty Images This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of the contributors to this edited volume for their effort and for sharing their work. Abigail Gilmore, Andrew Spicer, Andy C. Pratt, Charlotta Mellander, Claire Burnill-Maier, Davi Nakano, Edu Vicente, Elena Raevskikh, Erik Hitters, Frank Kimenai, Jiun-Yi Wu, John Newbigin OBE, Jon Dovey, Justin Lewis, Leandro Valiati, Marlen Komorowski, Maxime Jaffre, Paul Heritage, Pauwke Berkers, Richard Florida, Rudo Nyangulu, Ruxandra Lupu, Sara Pepper OBE, Tony Bhajam, Valentina Orrù, Yosha Wijngaarden.

v

Contents

Towards a Creative and Cultural Industries Ecosystem Perspective Tarek E. Virani

1

Film Making as a Creative Ecosystem: The Case of Soho in London Andy C. Pratt

21

The Performing Arts Ecosystem in Abu Dhabi: Sustainability, Resilience, and Local Capacity Building Elena Raevskikh and Maxime Jaffré

39

From Strangers to a Designer Community: An Ecosystem Perspective of Creative Hub Formation in Taipei City Jiun-Yi Wu and Tarek E. Virani

59

Understanding the Role of Creative Networks for Cultural and Creative Industries: The Case of Creative Cardiff Ruxandra Lupu, Marlen Komorowski, Sara Pepper, and Justin Lewis SESC: A Brazilian Music Ecosystem Orchestrator Davi Nakano and Edu Vicente

77

97

vii

viii

CONTENTS

Bristol’s Film and Television Industries: An Incremental Ecosystem Andrew Spicer From Metaphor to Measurement of Popular Music Ecosystems: Putting Diversities at the Heart of Resilience Pauwke Berkers, Yosha Wijngaarden, Frank Kimenai, and Erik Hitters Relative Values and the Multidimensional Impact of Arts Ecosystems: The Case of Contact Theatre Leandro Valiati and Paul Heritage The Global Creativity Index: National Creativity Ecosystems and Their Relationship to Economic Development and Inequality Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander Why a Better Understanding of the Ecosystems of Cultural Production Could Have a Major Impact on Public Policy John Newbigin Exploring the Productivity Drivers in Zimbabwe’s Creative and Cultural Industries: Towards Resilient Creative Ecosystems Rudo Nyangulu ‘In Denial’, Artists in the UK Creative Economy: A Focus on Artist-Led Businesses Valentina Orrù Networks for Inclusion Jon Dovey and Tony Bhajam Keeping to the Margins: Understanding the Role of Symbolic Violence and Institutional Fields in Creative Ecosystems Claire Burnill-Maier and Abigail Gilmore Index

115

135

153

173

197

215

235 253

271

293

Notes on Contributors

Pauwke Berkers is Full Professor, Sociology of Popular Music, specifically in relation to Inclusion, Well-Being and Resilience in the Department of Arts and Culture Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam. He co-founded research group Rotterdam Popular Music Studies (RPMS) as well as the EUR minor MU$IC: The Economy, Sociology and Practice of Popular Music. Pauwke is Head of the Department of Arts and Culture Studies. His research focuses on inequalities in popular music and—together with Frank Kimenai—he studies how ecosystem thinking can help us better understand resilience of the music sector. Tony Bhajam is Inclusion Producer at Watershed in Bristol. Tony supports collaborative research and business development asking big questions about how we nurture the creative industries in Bristol, Bath and the wider South West. Specifically, his role explores inclusion methodologies within the programme. That means experimenting with new ways of working to create tools and processes which can be implemented far beyond the reaches of this programme. Tony has worked in community engagement for almost ten years, particularly advocating for young people through arts and technology. He has also worked within creative research, building spaces for conversation and the sharing of ideas through play. Through this work, he has built projects which ask big questions about the purpose of our civic institutions. In the past that has meant developing projects exploring heritage organisations and the narratives they share, as well as how they are governed, or rather, who they are governed by. Tony ix

x

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

has also worked with organisations as disparate as local councils through to arts organisations to explore what resources they offer, and to who, and whether they are fit for purpose. Claire Burnill-Maier is Research Associate at the University of Manchester (UK) within the School of Arts, Languages and Cultures. Following her research excellence awarded Ph.D. at the University of Leeds, School of Performance and Cultural Industries, she is currently engaged with the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre. Her current research explores the role of place and place-making within the institutional logics of the cultural sector, examining the relationships between cultural organisations located in cities and their counterparts in the satellite towns on their peripheries. Prior to this Claire was a postdoctoral fellow with the University of Leeds and Research Associate with the Centre for Cultural Value. Jon Dovey is Professor of Screen Media in Department of Creative Industries at UWE Bristol. He spent the first 15 years of his working life in video production, as Researcher, Editor and Producer in documentary and experimental video. He has worked at UWE since 1996 apart from a brief transfer to the other side of town when he defected to University of Bristol for three years from 2004. Jon’s recent publications include ‘Towards a Language of Mobile Media’ in The Mobile Audience Media Art & Mobile Technologies ed Martin Rieser Rodopi (2011) and ‘This great mapping of ourselves—New Documentary Forms Online’ in The Documentary Cinema Book with Mandy Rose ed Brian Winston (BFI 2013). Previous books include Game Cultures (Dovey, J. & Kennedy, H. W., 2006), the all UWE Routledge best seller, New Media - A Critical Introduction (Lister M, Dovey J, Giddings S, Grant I and Kelly K. Routledge 2003 and 2009) and the first book on Reality TV Freakshows - First Person Media And Factual TV (Pluto Press July 2000). Jon’s current work places him at the forefront of national debates about knowledge exchange in the Creative Economy through the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Creative Industries Clusters Programme (2018–2023). Richard Florida is University Professor, Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy at the Rotman School of Management and Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence, School of Cities, University of Toronto. Florida has held professorships at George Mason University and Carnegie Mellon

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xi

University and taught as Visiting Professor at Harvard and MIT. Florida earned his Bachelor’s degree from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. from Columbia University. His research provides unique, data-driven insight into the social, economic and demographic factors that drive the twenty-first-century world economy. Abigail Gilmore is Director of the Institute for Cultural Practices and Senior Lecturer in Arts Management and Cultural Policy, University of Manchester (UK). With a background in research management, as the founding Director of the Northwest Culture Observatory, a regional capability working cross-sector to support evidence, impact assessment and evaluation, for arts, sports, heritage, tourism and creative industries, from 2005 to 2009. Current research concerns local cultural policies, participation practices and their impact on place, involving collaborative initiatives with cultural partners to inform teaching, knowledge exchange and public engagement. From 2012 to 2018, Abi was Co-Investigator on AHRC Connected Communities ‘Understanding Everyday Participation—Articulating Cultural Values’, a mixed methods study radically re-evaluating the relationship between participation and cultural value (see www.everydayparticipation.org). She is Co-Investigator on the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, facilitating the Manchester component of the Policy Unit, with a focus on place-based development and regional engagement. Paul Heritage is Professor of Drama and Performance at Queen Mary University of London and Director of People’s Palace Projects (PPP), a Research Centre in the School of English and Drama which is also a National Portfolio Organisation of Arts Council England. He studied both Drama and English at the University of Manchester and taught at Manchester and Swansea before joining Queen Mary in 1997 to found the Drama Department. Since 1991, he has been creating practice-based arts research projects between the UK and Brazil with a focus on public security, human rights, social justice and indigenous cultural exchange. Erik Hitters is Associate Professor at the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication of Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Media and Communication. He has co-founded and is managing director of ERMeCC, the Erasmus Research Centre for Media, Communication and Culture. He lectures for the M.A. programme in Media and

xii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Creative Industries and IBCoM, the International Bachelor in Communication and Media. Erik’s research interests lie in the broad field of transformations in the media and creative industries. He leads the Smart Culture Strategic Research Project ‘Staging popular music: sustainable live music ecologies for artists, music venues and cities (POPLIVE)’, jointly funded by NWO and SIA. His work on popular music has resulted in various conference papers and publications. In 2015, he co-founded and is board member of the International Music Business Research Association (IMBRA). Maxime Jaffré is currently Assistant Professor at the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU). Before joining UAEU, Maxime Jaffre worked as Research Fellow at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), at the Centre Norbert Elias in Marseille, France. He holds a Ph.D. in sociology from the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS). Since 2018, he is the Principal Investigator of the research project on ‘Multiculturalism and Tolerance in the UAE’, funded by UAEU and the Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK), in partnership with Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi (SUAD). In 2022, he started to conduct a new research project on ‘Building Indicators for Abu Dhabi Cultural Statistics System’, funded by ASPIRE (Abu Dhabi Research agency), and in collaboration with the Department of Culture and Tourism (DCT) Abu Dhabi. Frank Kimenai is Dutch music sector Researcher at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam. His Ph.D. research focuses on the resilience of music ecosystems. He uses socio-ecological systems and resilience theory to study the music sector and its capacity to deal with crises and change. In this research, he combines his formal education as an ecologist with 20+ years of music sector experience. Marlen Komorowski is Researcher and Impact Analyst of the Clwstwr R&D programme at Cardiff University, Guest Professor for European Media Markets at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and is Senior Researcher at the research centre imec-SMIT-VUB (Studies on Media, Innovation & Technology) in Brussels. As Researcher, her work focuses on media and creative industries-related projects, impact analysis, industry clustering, ecosystem and value network analysis, new business models and the

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xiii

impact of the digitisation on industries and firms. She publishes in international A1 journals and her first book on Creative Cluster Development was published in 2020 by Routledge. Justin Lewis is Professor of Communication and Creative Industries (and former Head of School) at Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Media and Culture, with a particular interest in news innovation. He is currently Director of the Clwstwr R&D programme and Director of media.cymru. He has conducted research with many different creative organisations, including the BBC, the BBC Trust, Channel 4, the Guardian, as well as UK and European Research councils. He has published over 100 books, journal articles and chapters about a wide range of media and cultural issues. He is Chair of the UK Government Research Excellence Framework Panel in Media, Communication, Cultural Studies, Library and Information Management. Ruxandra Lupu is Research Associate working at Cardiff University at the Clwstwr programme. She is digital humanities Researcher and Visual Artist working at the intersection of academia and industry. Her focus lies in developing practice-led methodologies that can establish new frameworks for dealing with the different registers of knowledge articulated by the sectors of the cultural and creative industries, in particular the film industry and cultural heritage. Passionate about amateur filmmaking, Ruxandra takes a specific interest in the intimate, sensory and mnemonic affordances of this film genre and in conceptual approaches (e.g. somaesthetics, productive imagination, affect theory, sensory studies and digital materialism) that can help her unpack these. Charlotta Mellander is Professor of Economics at Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University. Her research is focused on the location patterns of creative individuals and firms, and how this in the end shapes regional development. She is also interested in the polarisation between urban and rural places. Davi Nakano is Associate Professor at the Polytechnic School and researcher at the InovaUSP Innovation Center, both from University of Sao Paulo. He is Deputy Head of the Production Engineering Department, Member of the International Relations committee of the Polytechnic School, Deputy Coordinator of the Ocean Samsung Laboratory and the Inovalab@Poli Innovation Lab. He was Co-editor of Production journal, the flagship journal of the Brazilian Association of

xiv

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Production Engineering from 2015 to 2017. He published several articles in international and Brazilian journals, and at national and international conferences. He participated in research projects funded by Brazilian agencies and funding bodies, such as the Sao Paulo Research Agency (FAPESP), the Brazilian Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES), the Brazilian Agency for Export Promotion (APEX) and international agencies such as the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. His research focuses are: knowledge management, creative economy and creative industries, innovation methods in product development and services, and engineering education. John Newbigin OBE chairs the PEC (Policy and Evidence Centre for the Creative Economy) International Advisory Council on the creative economy and is the London Mayor’s Ambassador for the creative economy. He was part of the team that developed the first definition of the creative industries, adopted by the UK government in 1998, and was Co-founder and first Chair of Creative England. He is Chair of the British Council’s Advisory Board for Arts and Creative Economy and is Visiting Fellow at Goldsmiths, University of London. Rudo Nyangulu has over fifteen years of business and legal experience consulting in both the private and development sectors as Legal Advisor, Business Coach, Facilitator, Speaker Mentor and Researcher. She is a strategist and a practitioner-researcher with an interest in enterprise innovation, intellectual property, and human-centred-design. She founded Stimulus Africa, an enterprise development, research and design institute in Harare, Zimbabwe and operating across Southern Africa. Her work through Stimulus Africa is focused on driving innovation, humancentred design research sustainable growth strategies and the growth of the creative economy. Rudo is a registered legal practitioner practising under V.S. Nyangulu & Associates, Legal Practitioners based in Harare, Zimbabwe. Rudo provides legal services to the Creative and Cultural Industries. Valentina Orrù is Cultural Producer with many experiences devising, delivering and evaluating projects in the arts. She is Programme Manager for London Creative Network, a £3.8m ERDF-funded project aimed at supporting professional visual artists, craft makers and photographers in London. Her latest projects include evaluating SPACE Artist Awards, a new bursary programme by SPACE that supports underrepresented

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xv

visual artists. She is Founder and Editor of The Name of the Next Song, an independent platform for artists, musicians, designers, makers and researchers to talk about their projects, through interviews, features and articles. Sara Pepper OBE is Director of Creative Economy at Cardiff University. She currently has two main leadership roles: Director of Creative Cardiff, and Chief Operating Officer of Clwstwr. Her role is to provide leadership and strategic direction to these initiatives and to work with a wide variety of stakeholders including academic, industry and government partners. Sara has managed programmes and projects that support innovation, entrepreneurship, leadership and knowledge exchange in the creative economy. As Director of Creative Economy, Sara regularly speaks at international conferences, working with partners in countries including Germany, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey and Georgia. Previously Sara has held a wide variety of posts from producer to project manager for organisations such as the Southbank Centre, the Wales Millennium Centre, Hull University School of New Media and the Sydney Olympic Games 2000. She is currently Member of the National Trust Wales Advisory Board. Sara was awarded an OBE for services to the creative economy in the 2021 New Year Honours list. Andy C. Pratt is an internationally acclaimed expert on the topic of the cultural industries. He is Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and Academician of the Academy of Social Sciences. He has held academic appointments at University College, London (Bartlett School of Planning) and LSE (Geography, and Urban Research Centre), King’s College, London (Culture, Media and Creative Industries). He joined City University as Professor of Cultural Economy in 2013. Elena Raevskikh is Researcher and Project Manager focused on competitive intelligence and sustainable knowledge management of cultural and creative ecosystems. Dr. Elena Raevskikh currently works at the Department of Culture and Tourism - Abu Dhabi (DCT Abu Dhabi), United Arab Emirates, where she oversees the development of the CultureSTATS-AD programme, the first culture-focused knowledge platform in the MENA region. Dr. Elena Raevskikh has recently contributed to the Culture in Times of COVID-19: Resilience, Recovery and Revival Report co-published by DCT Abu Dhabi and UNESCO (2022) and

xvi

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

World Cities Culture Forum Report (2022), that for the first time included Abu Dhabi data-based profile. Before joining DCT Abu Dhabi, Dr. Elena Raevskikh worked as Research Fellow at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). She is a graduate of the EHESS School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (Ph.D. in Sociology), and Lomonosov Moscow State University (M.A. in Law). Andrew Spicer is Professor of Cultural Production at the University of the West of England, Bristol. He has published extensively about media production, including Building Successful and Sustainable Film and Television Businesses: A Cross-National Perspective (2017) and ‘A Regional Company? RED Production and the Cultural Politics of Place’, Journal of British Cinema and Television (2019), and is the co-author of Go West! Bristol’s Film and Television Industries (2017; rev. 2022). He coleads a European Research Network investigating regional production and is co-editing a collection The Politics of Place: Space and Locality in the European Screen Industries for the Routledge Studies in European Communication and Education Series (forthcoming 2024). He is currently developing a broader project exploring the politics of placemaking through the role played by the UK’s public service broadcasters and completing a monograph on Bristol as the ‘Green Hollywood’: the global centre for Natural History Filmmaking. Leandro Valiati is Economist. He has a Ph.D. in Development Economics and a post-Ph.D. in Creative Industries (Sorbonne-Paris 13). He is Professor of Creative Industries and Economy of Culture at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). He is Visiting Professor and Researcher at Queen Mary University of London (UK); University Paris 13 (Labex/ICCA—Sorbonne—France) and University of Valencia (Spain). He is also Advisor in Cultural and Creative Industries for Brazil’s Ministry of Culture, Argentina’s Ministry of Culture, UNESCO, AHRC’s Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC) and OEI. He lectures in Arts and Cultural Management at the University of Manchester. Edu Vicente is Associate Professor at the Department of Cinema, Radio and TV of the School of Communications and Arts, University of São Paulo and Coordinator of the Graduate Programme in Audiovisual Media and Processes. Bachelor in Popular Music and Master in Sociology from Unicamp, Ph.D. in Communication Sciences and Lecturer in Sound for Audiovisual Media from ECA/USP. He was Visiting Researcher at

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xvii

the Faculty of Arts, Design and Media at Birmingham City University, and at the Facultad de Ciencias de la Información at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. He is Editor of Novos Olhares: a journal on practices for media products (www.revistas.usp.br/novosolhares), Coordinator of MidiaSon: Research Group on Production in Sound Media of and of the WG Radiophonic Studies Group of the National Association of Graduate Programmes in Communication—Compós. He is Associate Researcher at the Center for Research, Innovation and Diffusion in Neuromathematics, NeuroMat since 2019. His research is on popular music, phonographic industry, radio and podcasting. Tarek E. Virani is Associate Professor of Creative Industries at the School of Arts, University of the West of England, Bristol (UWE Bristol). He leads the Global Creative and Cultural Industries Policy and Research Group. Tarek is primarily a cultural economist with a focus on the urban and urban dynamics as they pertain to the creative and cultural industries. He has been deeply involved in a number of areas within the creative and cultural industries in the UK and internationally. His research interests span a number of areas within the creative and cultural economy including: The impact of COVID-19 on the creative sector, organisational resilience in the sector, cultural policy, creative and cultural ecosystems, the role of micro-community engagement in culture-led regeneration, the link between the creative industries and local development, creative and cultural hubs, new/novel research methodologies to examine socioeconomic urban dynamics, and the changing nature of creative and cultural labour and businesses globally. Yosha Wijngaarden is Assistant Professor of Media and Creative Industries at the Media and Communication department of Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Driven by insights from sociology, geography and organisation studies, her research focuses on the intersection of the creative industries, work practices and earnings. Her research has been published in among others Human Relations, Geoforum, Cultural Trends and Industry and Innovation. Jiun-Yi Wu is Assistant Professor in the Department of Art Industry, National Taitung University, Taiwan. He was awarded a Ph.D. from the Centre for Culture and Creative Industries, City, University of London. He previously worked as a knowledge exchange coordinator in Network, the Centre for the Creative and Cultural Economy at Queen Mary

xviii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

University of London during his doctoral study. Prior to his current position, he also worked at the Arts Museum, National Taiwan Normal University and Taiwan Design Research Institute. His research interests include governance and management of cultural and creative industries, cultural and creative clusters, design strategy and research, design policy and marketing of design and museum sectors.

List of Figures

Understanding the Role of Creative Networks for Cultural and Creative Industries: The Case of Creative Cardiff Fig. 1

Quadruple helix model applied to Creative Cardiff

84

Relative Values and the Multidimensional Impact of Arts Ecosystems: The Case of Contact Theatre Fig. 1

Direct territorial transformation

170

The Global Creativity Index: National Creativity Ecosystems and Their Relationship to Economic Development and Inequality Fig. 1

Fig. 2

The GCI and Human Development Source Human Development Index from Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Programme 2019 The GCI and Income Inequality Source Human Development Indicators from The World Bank, 2016–2019

185 186

xix

xx

LIST OF FIGURES

Keeping to the Margins: Understanding the Role of Symbolic Violence and Institutional Fields in Creative Ecosystems Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Fig. 3

The location of Oldham within the Greater Manchester region Network view of the Oldham arts and cultural field. Blue—Oldham town participants, Red—central Manchester participants, Grey—other organisations (Source Burnill-Maier, 2021) Patterns of governance

277

278 283

List of Tables

The Performing Arts Ecosystem in Abu Dhabi: Sustainability, Resilience, and Local Capacity Building Table 1

Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Interconnecting the identified Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem intermediaries and the relevant elements of knowledge on the ecosystems Ecosystem meso-level as a source for the further capacity building (Color figure online) Ecosystem regulations: articulations between the local and the global levels Areas for further ecosystem capacity building in education, research, and training

45 46 49 53

Understanding the Role of Creative Networks for Cultural and Creative Industries: The Case of Creative Cardiff Table 1

Creative Cardiff’s network profile

82

Relative Values and the Multidimensional Impact of Arts Ecosystems: The Case of Contact Theatre Table Table Table Table

1 2 3 4

Socio-economic indicators Organisational profile Impact on the individual Local creative network impact

159 160 161 162 xxi

xxii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Impact on territories Contact Theatre engagement Profile of participants Indicators for agency of the respondents Indicators for relationship to arts and creativity Indicator of interaction Indicators of relationship between individual and territory

162 164 165 167 168 169 169

The Global Creativity Index: National Creativity Ecosystems and Their Relationship to Economic Development and Inequality Table Table Table Table

1 2 3 4

Top The The Top

20 nations on the Global Technology Index Global Talent Index Global Tolerance Index 20 Nations on the GCI

180 181 182 183

Towards a Creative and Cultural Industries Ecosystem Perspective Tarek E. Virani

Introduction The creative and cultural industries are increasingly being examined and understood through the lens of ecosystems as well as ecologies (De Bernard et al., 2022; Holden, 2015; Komorowski, 2019; Komorowski et al., 2021; Koria & Karjalainen, 2012). Although the title of this book alludes to global ‘creative ecosystems’, it is important to note that both the creative and cultural industries are captured and represented through this concept. The terms ‘creative industries’ and ‘cultural industries’ are often used interchangeably, but they can also have slightly different meanings. In general, the creative industries are defined as those industries that produce and distribute creative products and services, such as music, film, television, design, advertising and digital media. These industries are often characterised by their focus on originality, innovation and aesthetics, and they play an important role in the economy by creating jobs, generating income and driving cultural and social change (Flew, 2017). The cultural industries, on the other hand, are defined as those industries that produce and distribute cultural goods and services, such as literature,

T. E. Virani (B) University of the West of England, Bristol, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_1

1

2

T. E. VIRANI

museums, heritage sites and performing arts. These industries are often seen as the guardians of cultural heritage and tradition, and they play an important role in promoting cultural diversity and identity. While there is much overlap between these two definitions, the key difference is that the creative industries are focused on the production and distribution of creative products and services, while the cultural industries are focused on the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage and identity. Overall, both the creative and cultural industries are currently important drivers of economic growth and social change the world over, and they play a crucial role in shaping our collective cultural landscape. Using ecosystems, and ecologies, has come on the back of a recognition that forensic efforts around defining, delineating and demarcating the creative and cultural sector through definitions and taxonomies has not yielded the analytical tools and insight necessary to accurately examine its complex machinations, contexts, characteristics and performance. De Bernard et al. (2022) usefully stress the importance of distinguishing between cultural and creative ecology as the study or approach, and cultural and creative ecosystems as the object of study. This is adopted here and allows us to conceptually square the circle regarding the operationalisation of both terms. Through the prism of an ecosystems lens, we are able to have a fuller, deeper and more contextual understanding of how the creative and cultural industries (from now on CCI) across the world maintain, perpetuate and organise themselves. De Bernard et al. (2022), through their review of the literature surrounding creative and cultural ecologies and ecosystems, outline the limits of previous conceptual framings—such as cultural and creative clusters for example—and suggest that scholars are increasingly making a case for examining cultural and creative activity from a broader perspective including a wider range of actors, relationships and geographic scales. Moreover, previous articulations of the CCI have been criticised for their ‘top-down policy-led framings’ that can ‘fail to recognise the “messy” realities of cultural and creative activity, and the diversity of ways in which culture and creativity are part of people’s lives’ (De Bernard et al., 2022). For instance, Foster believes that empirical research showing the ecological functioning of the creative and cultural industries renders outmoded research and management of them solely in terms of ‘creative clusters’ (Foster, 2020). As such, scholars feel that by concentrating on ecosystems and ecologies, several gaps in our existing understanding of the CCI can be filled. First, it appears to better

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

3

acknowledge the profoundly connected modalities and value(s) of cultural and creative production and consumption which have historically been thought of independently (Potts et al., 2008). Second, by highlighting connections between numerous various types of economic factors, it challenges the pre-eminence accorded to specific economic imperatives in earlier study frameworks (creative cities, clusters or economies). Finally, this perspective challenges the linear model on which governance and management of the cultural and creative sectors have typically been based (De Bernard et al., 2022). This has implications for scholars, policymakers and indeed practitioners of the CCI. It allows us to make sense of the varying scales (formal and informal as well as geographic) of activity and the complex interconnections between them (Andy C. Pratt, this volume; Davi Nakano and Edu Vicente, this volume), it opens up and affords for more holistic and indeed experimental research methodologies (Claire Burnill-Maier and Abigail Gilmore, this volume; Leandro Valiati and Paul Heritage, this volume; Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander, this volume), it allows us to gain a more accurate understanding of the contextual realities of cultural production (Elena Raevskikh and Maxime Jaffer, this volume; Rudo Nyangulu, this volume), and perhaps most importantly, it allows us to be better informed with respect to thinking through policy to support the sector regionally and globally (Jon Dovey and Tony Bhajam, this volume; John Newbigin, this volume; Pauwke Berkers et al., this volume). This last point is especially salient given the effects that the COVID-19 pandemic of 2019–2022 had on the sector. According to John Newbigin (this volume), UNCTAD reported that in 2020 alone an estimated 10 million jobs in the creative sector were lost worldwide as a direct result of the pandemic and there was a contraction of $750bn in the global value of the CCI. Clearly, no sector was ready for the pandemic, but it noticeably showed that our analytical knowledge surrounding the sustainability of the CCI was (and perhaps still is) lacking, and it is here that an ecological approach to examining creative ecosystems can shed light. Prior to the pandemic, the creative and cultural economy was (and still is) a policy priority for many countries (see UNDP, 2013; UNESCO, 2023) as it is seen as being able to contribute and drive many of the global goals (underpinned by UN SDGs) viewed as critical to achieving a sustainable socio-economic and environmental future. As such, this volume of contributions to our understanding of sustainable ecosystems of cultural production mirrors the case for an ecological approach. It does not focus

4

T. E. VIRANI

on taxonomies and definitions (although this is unavoidably touched on); instead, it focuses on ‘doing’ and ‘supporting’ creative ecosystems. In this way, the chapters in this volume illustrate characteristics of creative ecosystems that exist at multiple levels. From place to people to policy, using an ecological approach to understanding creative ecosystems provides for a nuanced understanding of how scale, process and challenges interweave to produce organic working environments.

The Principles of a Creative and Cultural Ecological Approach An ecological approach to researching the CCI provides a way of analysing the relationships and interactions between different components and contexts within ecosystems (see Holden, 2015). The CCI are messy and in many ways represent the future of work in the knowledge economy (see McKinlay & Smith, 2009). This is exemplified in five ways: The first is an emphasis on creativity, innovation and imagination (Florida, 2002). As the economy continues to shift towards more knowledge-based and technology-driven industries, the demand for creative skills and innovative thinking is likely to increase. Secondly, the CCI offer more flexibility and opportunities for self-employment than many traditional industries (McKinsey Global Institute, 2018). With the rise of the gig economy and the increasing availability of online platforms, more people are able to work as freelancers or start their own businesses in creative and cultural sectors. Thirdly, the CCI are heavily reliant on digital technologies, and the ability to use digital tools and platforms is increasingly important for success in these industries (National Endowment for the Arts, 2020). As more jobs in other sectors also require digital skills, the importance of digital literacy is likely to grow. Fourthly, the CCI are more resistant to automation as outlined in a Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre recent report (Creative PEC, 2023). The report states that this is because employers will increasingly demand creative skills like originality, fluency of ideas and complex problem-solving which are indicative of creative jobs. Finally, the CCI have the potential to drive diversity and inclusion, with a wide range of voices and perspectives represented (UNESCO, 2013). As the world of work changes, our need to understand the complexities within the CCI becomes prescient. The principles of an ecological approach to research are widely recognised in various fields such as:

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

5

ecology, psychology, sociology and anthropology. Taking into consideration the work of scholars such as Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979), who developed the ecological systems theory in psychology, and Fikret Berkes, who developed the concept of social-ecological systems in environmental studies, there are principles to undertaking an ecological approach in social research (Berkes et al., 2008). The principles are also consistent with current best practices in interdisciplinary research and transdisciplinary research, which emphasise the importance of collaboration and stakeholder engagement. While these principles are not exhaustive, they provide a useful starting point with respect to understanding and working with(in) creative ecosystems. These principles include: First, the need for systems thinking where the approach is to view the phenomenon or system under study as a complex and dynamic whole, consisting of multiple components and subsystems that are interdependent and interact with each other. With respect to creative ecosystems, this might begin with a mapping of relationships that describe the actual movement or flow of goods, services, people, knowledge and ideas. According to Andy C. Pratt (this volume), such a map would ‘include routes/linkages and feedback across separate functions and will describe a non-linear but ‘systemic’ form’. The second is contextual analysis, where the approach analyses the phenomenon or system within its broader environmental and social contexts, including the physical, social, cultural, political and economic factors that shape its development and impact. With respect to creative ecosystems, this allows us to further define the scope and boundaries of the ecosystem, especially with regard to the different global and regional dynamics at play. The third principle of an ecological approach is to analyse the phenomenon or system at multiple levels of analysis, from the individual to the group, organisation, community and society. This allows for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon or system under study. In the CCI, it is important to recognise the key role of place and space without ascribing them the role of panaceas—especially cities. While cities are important, and where much creative and cultural work coalesce and find a means of expression, other dynamics are also at play which can be aritculated and examined through an ecosystems perspective. The fourth principle of an ecological approach is to engage with stakeholders who are directly or indirectly affected by the phenomenon or

6

T. E. VIRANI

system under study, including individuals, groups, organisations, communities and policymakers. This ensures that the research is grounded in real-world experiences and concerns, and that the findings are relevant and applicable to the stakeholders’ needs. Regarding creative ecosystems, this allows us to identify the nodes and linkages of a system, and subsystems, but also illuminates where the ‘bottle necks’ are which might elucidate challenges for the ecosystem such as: monopoly power, social exclusion, lack of access and more. The final principle of an ecological approach is to collaborate where possible (and if indeed appropriate) with researchers from different disciplines and fields of study, including natural sciences, social sciences, humanities and the arts. This allows for a more holistic and integrative approach to research and promotes cross-disciplinary knowledge sharing. Thus, an ecological approach to researching creative ecosystems provides a framework for studying complex and multifaceted phenomena and systems, and for developing solutions that are grounded in a deep understanding of their interrelated components and contexts. As such, a focus on creative ecosystems adds value to the work already conducted on the CCI in several ways as this volume shows. This is because it represents a holistic way of understanding the relationships and interdependencies among various elements in a particular system. The first way it adds value is by recognising the importance of these interdependencies. As such, this approach recognises that the CCI are not isolated entities but are interconnected with other industries and sectors such as tourism, education, health, technology and more. By understanding these interdependencies, we can better understand the impact of the CCI on society and the economy. Secondly, the approach allows us to identify diverse actors. The CCI involve a wide range of actors such as artists, producers, distributors, policymakers, intermediaries and consumers. A focus on ecosystems allows us to recognise the different roles and perspectives of these actors and their contributions to the industry. Thirdly, it allows us to highlight non-economic factors. As such, we recognise that the CCI are not solely driven by economic factors but also influenced by social, cultural and political ones. By considering these factors, we can better understand the complex dynamics and important contexts that shape the CCI. Finally, this approach underscores the importance of encouraging collaboration and cooperation among different actors within the system. By encouraging collaboration between the CCI and other

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

7

sectors, we can promote innovation and creativity, and ensure the sustainability of the industry. Evidence from the pandemic shows that indeed this might lead to making organisations within the sector more resilient (see: Virani & Blackwood, 2021; Virani & Orru, 2021). Overall, an ecosystems approach provides a more holistic and nuanced understanding of the CCI and their role in society. It can help us to develop more effective policies and strategies to support the industry, and ensure its continued growth and sustainability. This volume reorients the lens of global creative economies to focus on creative ecosystems of cultural production. It is distinctive because it offers vantage points which include academic and policy perspectives as well as those of practitioners. This volume aims to question and reformulate policy as it has been developed through past creative industries approaches and offers up different examples and approaches to CCI-led regional development with a focus on cultural production. It aims to carve a creative economy policy-oriented path of development that reflects the complexities inherent in our changing world.

A Focus on Cultural Production The CCI represent a moment in time. As Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander (this volume) state, the economy has moved towards an economy of knowledge. This of course has implications about the future of work—not just for advanced industrialised countries, but the world. We no longer think of macro-economies as solely based on Fordist assembly lines of production or manufacturing. In the contemporary age, and for the foreseeable future, we are immersed in an economy of ideas and these ideas once imprinted onto products, services or offers by creative and cultural workers and organisations become symbols which we exponentially consume. As more traditional economies—manufacturing and production lines—give way to automation and the increasing power of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and the internet of things (IoT), it is not surprising that the future of human endeavour brings us back to our core—our ideas and our knowledge. Everything from the creation of games and VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) technology, to movies, to streaming services, to advertising and marketing campaigns, to attending concerts and festivals, and visiting a museum or an art gallery revolves around the production and consumption of symbols— even experiences can be symbolic. This is not a new concept. According

8

T. E. VIRANI

to Elizabeth Hirschman (1986) in the 1950s, there was substantial discussion concerning the symbolic aspects of products (Gardner & Levy, 1955; Levy, 1959). As Levy (1959, p. 118) noted, ‘people buy products not only for what they can do, but also for what they mean’—we consume symbols that represent our quest for meaning. While the work conducted in the 1950s and 1960s gives examples of this vis a vis the products of the day—car manufacturing, the production of drugs like Aspirin, advertising cigarettes, buying records—the consumption of meaning through symbols has transformed. We watch YouTube and Telegram and follow podcasts and influencers; we consume media on an almost hourly basis—an inundation of information and symbolism carried through mainly digital platforms owned by companies vying for markets in the ‘attention economy’ (see: Beller, 1994; Davenport & Beck, 2001; Franck, 1999; Goldhaber, 1997). These symbols represent the artefacts of our age—the things that future historians will look back on and examine in an exercise in digital archive excavation. They are what makes up this ‘weightless economy’ of intangible cultural production and consumption. The CCI primarily represent the commodification, for lack of a better term, of ideas to turn them into symbols of meaning, for consumption. While there exist taxonomies and definitions of the CCI in policy circles across the globe (see Newbigin, this volume), symbolism and the industries that facilitate its production (and consumption) are at its heart. As such, a focus on cultural production as it pertains to creative and cultural organisations allows us to pinpoint where the starting line is, but it also allows us to incorporate cultural consumption into our understanding of cultural production as we know that in this ‘field’ (Bourdieu, 1993) production necessitates consumption, more so than the other way around. In the early 2000s, some social scientists had revisited what was then known as the culture—economy debate (see: Gregson et al., 2001; Jeffcutt et al., 2000). While the debate polarised some scholars into camps of ‘culture for profit’ versus not, it led to useful questions about how we measure what many agreed was a ‘cultural turn’ in the economic landscape—the theoretical work that underpinned the rise of the creative and cultural economy as an object of study. At the time, Andy C. Pratt (2004, p. 117) pointed out that the ‘analytical pendulum has swung too far in prioritizing [cultural] consumption’. The reason for this lay in the fact that cultural consumption is easier to measure; for instance, the existence of national bodies that measure consumption in the form of product sales,

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

9

event attendance or any other utilisation of cultural infrastructure—used as a proxy for production. In the UK, there exist numerous government appendages, think tanks and consultancies whose primary purpose is to measure these outputs. Of course this is useful and much needed—as was seen during the pandemic. Cultural production,on the other hand,is more difficult to measure due to the type of production in question (product, offer or service) or in the way that cultural production is defined, or where the boundaries between production and consumption exist. There have been attempts to measure cultural production taken from innovation studies and engineering more broadly; for instance, measuring cultural production through patents pending or trademarks generated. This approach is difficult to apply here as the creation of patents by CCI is virtually unheard of, and trademarks created only represents part of the sector. Essentially, anyone can trademark anything as long as it has not been trademarked before, but this does not translate into ‘profit’ or represent ‘innovation’, nor does it speak to the highly complex interactions that necessitate the cultural production process. Another way that policy makers have tried to account for production is by measuring firm births and deaths. Firm births and deaths are quickened for the CCI for numerous financial and regulatory reasons but also because of the peculiarities that exist within the sector (see: Pratt & Virani, 2015; Virani, 2023). Thus, what becomes placed into question here is the very definition of cultural production, which then has immediate ramifications and ripple effects for ongoing debates surrounding the type of policy required for the healthy continuation (and perpetuation) of, for example, artistic pursuits (see Orru, this volume). Herein lay the epistemological difficulties of approaching the cultural production/consumption question first as a dualism as opposed to cyclical (with priority placed on production) and second as quantifiable data used to imply a schema of eventual generalisations regarding the sector (culture-led regeneration exemplifies this—see Burnill-Maier and Gilmore, this volume). At the heart of many of the questions that constituted the culture—economy debate back then, and what is still ongoing in many circles, is the circulating uncertainty regarding identifying what cultural production is; but this, I argue, is because a reliance on reading the sector through the lens of consumption has created an accepted and flawed framework; namely counting outputs. What is important to acknowledge, especially for policymakers, is that cultural production is a

10

T. E. VIRANI

process that includes and encapsulates a complex web of activities, interactions, relationships, policies and socio-political contexts. Pierre Bourdieu (1983) argued that cultural production is not solely determined by individual talent or creativity but is deeply influenced by social structures and power dynamics. He emphasized that the production, distribution and consumption of cultural goods are shaped by the interplay of economic, social and symbolic forces. For him, it is within the ‘field of cultural production’ that cultural producers compete for distinction and legitimacy, which underpins and determines the distribution and consumption patterns of cultural goods, services and more. If we apply this articulation of cultural production to the CCI, what emerges is a complexity that simply cannot be understood through the lens of economic metrics based on counting outputs because the ecosystem of production within the field of cultural production is itself non-linear. If we are concerned about the conditions and contingencies which give rise to the emergence of cultural production, then we need to pay attention to the multifaceted nature of these activities. For example, the production of the hit TV series ‘Stranger Things’ streamed on Netflix involves various creative professionals and teams, including writers, directors, producers, cinematographers, production designers, costume designers, visual effects artists and musicians. Each of these individuals bring their unique skills and perspectives to shape the show’s visual and auditory elements. This collaboration allows for a convergence of diverse perspectives and skills, contributing to the show’s unique blend of storytelling and aesthetics. Furthermore, the engagement of the fan community through fan art, fan fiction and cosplay demonstrates how the audience actively participates in the co-creation of the show’s cultural expression. Their creative expressions add layers to the narrative, expand the fictional universe, and reinforce the show’s cultural impact. Importantly, many of the people that work on the show are freelancers that are also probably engaged with other projects. Everything from concept development to pre-production to production to post-production relies on an army of individuals that are sourced from a global labour pool. If regional development policy is to understand how to make the most of how these ways of working can be sustained, then it must go beyond just enticing anchor organisations like Netflix. There are questions about skills and studio space, affordability of living, funding and financing of small independent production companies, cultural amenities, freelance support and social and political contexts that all have a hand in the creation of these products. Regarding

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

11

social and political contexts and how power impacts the cultural production process, we can look to the Harlem Renaissance as an example. It was a cultural movement that took place in the 1920s and 1930s, primarily centred in the Harlem neighbourhood of New York City. It was a pivotal period for African American art, literature, music, theatre and intellectual pursuits. Analysing the Harlem Renaissance through a creative ecosystems approach offers a comprehensive understanding of its cultural production and impact. The Harlem Renaissance witnessed the emergence of influential artists across various disciplines. Writers such as Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston and Countee Cullen explored themes of racial identity, discrimination and the Black experience through poetry, novels and essays. Visual artists like Aaron Douglas and Jacob Lawrence captured the vibrancy and struggles of African American life through their paintings and murals. The movement was supported by the establishment of cultural institutions and venues. The Harlem Branch of the New York Public Library, for instance, became a crucial gathering place for intellectuals, writers and artists. The Apollo Theatre provided a platform for African American musicians and performers, showcasing their talents and contributing to the cultural vibrancy of the era. Literary magazines and journals played a vital role in promoting the works of Harlem Renaissance writers. Publications like ‘The Crisis’ (edited by W.E.B. Du Bois) and ‘Opportunity’ (published by the National Urban League) provided a platform for African American writers to share their literary creations and engage in intellectual discourse. The Harlem Renaissance fostered crossdisciplinary collaborations, with artists, musicians, writers and intellectuals coming together to exchange ideas and influence one another’s work. For instance, musicians such as Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong collaborated with poets like Langston Hughes, blending jazz and spoken word to create innovative and powerful performances. The impact of the Harlem Renaissance was immense, attesting to the importance of the socio-cultural and political contextual parameters of cultural production. The problem with many articulations of creative and cultural activity, especially when it comes to policy relating to regional development, is that it misses these important contexts (in the case of the Harlem Renaissance) and realities (in the case of Stranger Things). There are more of course, and the chapters in this volume begin to unpick these questions and develop these strands of thinking. A focus on cultural production allows us to see and include these other moving parts, stories, people and processes, and with regard to the CCI, an ecosystem perspective attends

12

T. E. VIRANI

to this complexity by recognising the interdependencies at play, identifying diverse actors, highlighting non-economic factors and elevating the role of collaboration.

Introducing the Collection The chapters in this volume are a testament to how complex these ecosystems are; it delivers examples of ecosystems ‘doing’ that bridge and go beyond current articulations but also raise new questions—especially from a global perspective—about the health of ecosystems. The chapters in this volume show that creative ecosystems have numerous characteristics and that these overlap and interweave at various stages within the cycle of cultural production. They also articulate how the four characteristics of a creative ecosystem perspective outlined earlier play out. These include recognising interdependencies, identifying diverse actors, highlighting non-economic factors and collaboration. In his chapter, Andy C. Pratt examines how the setting and methods of making movies interact with one another and cites this as an example of a (creative) industrial ecosystem. He observes that the discussion of aesthetics, narrative and representation is central to the prevalent view of the cinema business. The emphasis on the economics and business of the film industry is a secondary priority. Such a split is reminiscent of the conflicting cultural and economic value systems that are prevalent in studies of creative economies. This chapter offers a novel analytical lens to bring these elements into a singular focus. An example of a case study about film production in London is used to illustrate the idea of an ecosystem. He describes the process and its essential components, including funding, development, main filming, post-production, distribution and exhibition. He also shows how they are more interconnected and ingrained (in place, time, technology and regulation). This chapter demonstrates how the processes involved in generating movies transcend geographical boundaries and involve a variety of distinct ecosystem appendages, some of which are more powerful than others but are all as significant. It demonstrates how cultural production processes are not limited by geographic boundaries and that location is only one of many crucial factors in the filmmaking ecosystem. In Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Elena Raevskikh and Maxime Jaffre demonstrate how cultural and creative ecosystems are increasingly

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

13

being prioritised in cultural policy. The resilience and sustainability of the performing arts environment in Abu Dhabi are addressed in a factbased manner by them. The chapter finds groups of intermediaries in the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem that connect ecosystem parts while following various logics through a transversal contextual analysis of stakeholder interviews (see also: Virani, 2019; Virani & Pratt, 2016). The identified ecosystem intermediaries and pertinent pieces of general knowledge about ecosystems are connected through their analysis. By using this method, the initial pillars of ecosystem sustainability in Abu Dhabi are identified. The chapter by Jiun Yi Wu and Tarek Virani demonstrates how the idea of a creative ecosystem aids in comprehending the fundamental principles underlying the operation of spatial agglomeration in the cultural and creative sectors. To create a healthy ecosystem that can support specifically creative start-ups in a creative centre in Taipei City, this chapter examines the social ties between cultural and creative practitioners, intermediaries and neighbourhood. This chapter presents a case study that demonstrates the significance of an ecosystem perspective to support junior practitioners in the cultural and creative industries through investigation of a creative hub (Gill et al., 2019), primarily formed by a diverse group of designers co-located in a reused industrial building in Taipei City. Creative networks are highlighted by Ruxandra Lupu, Marlen Komorowski, Sara Pepper and Justin Lewis as organisations that are particular to the CCI. They define creative networks as organised networks with committed personnel working to support the network in order to foster collaboration and/or growth in the local/regional CCI (sometimes having their own legal body, other times as a part of another organisation). These networks are location-based projects having the capacity to connect individuals in the present. They contend that these networks are crucial for the CCI in maintaining and strengthening their regional ecosystems since they benefit people and organisations. Creative Cardiff is used as a case study throughout the chapter. Creative Cardiff in Wales—led by Cardiff University—is a creative network which connects people working in any creative organisation, business or job in the Cardiff region. To map the different kinds of relationships formed between network players that control value flows, they use a mixed method approach. They seek to more accurately evaluate the value produced by networks by analysing the intricate web of connections that Creative

14

T. E. VIRANI

Cardiff has helped to develop and mapping the value produced via these ties. Davi Nakano and Edu Vicente show how intermediary organisations— which they identify as ‘orchestrators’—in Sao Paulo, Brazil, can play important roles in Brazil’s music ecosystem, as focal points, resource providers and knowledge sources and legitimacy granting actors. They focus on SESC (Social Services for Commerce)—a private organisation endorsed by government and founded in 1946, whose stated mission is to provide access to education, leisure and culture for commerce workers and their families, with units in all Brazilian states. SESC represents a nationwide intermediary which Nakano and Vicente re-orient towards the notion of ‘orchestrator’. Over time, the Sao Paulo state branch has acquired a distinctive mission with a focus on culture, assisting both artists and cultural researchers, going beyond the educational, sporting and healthcare offers provided in other states. In line with that objective, SESC São Paulo has established a network of more than 30 multipurpose venues that host sporting and cultural events and offer top-notch infrastructure for the performing and visual arts. It features both well-known and up-and-coming musicians, keeping the organisation up to date on the most recent changes to the cultural landscape and, as a result, the Brazilian music scene. It maintains a payment strategy that pays artists more than the going rate for cultural producers. Due to these characteristics, SESC Sao Paulo has become a key player in the cultural ecosystem, providing spectators with access to high-quality cultural productions as well as musicians with money, recognition and legitimacy. The chapter by Andrew Spicer examines the development and peculiarities of Bristol’s (UK) screen industries, which mostly consist of television production companies and a far lesser number involved in feature film production. In contrast to what one might refer to as ‘engineered’ screen production hubs in other parts of the UK, Bristol’s screen industries, including the BBC’s Natural History Unit and Aardman Animations, have grown incrementally through the entrepreneurial energies of local creative personnel rather than through significant capital investment from the national government or regional agencies (MediaCityUK in Salford). Due to the nature of this evolution, Bristol’s 189 autonomous manufacturing enterprises, which cooperate as well as compete, are able to quickly adjust to changes in local circumstances, technical advancements and movements in global markets. They also represent the long history of anti-authoritarianism in the city, which has been a haven for ‘alternative’

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

15

views. The chapter’s comprehensive analysis of Bristol’s screen industries is framed within a broader discussion of the conceptual shift from ‘creative clusters’ to ‘creative ecosystems’ and the significance of comprehending a variety of causal factors rather than just economic drivers. Pauwke Berkers, Yosha Wijngaarden, Frank Kimenai and Erik Hitters focus on the Dutch music ecosystem. They articulate how the popular music sector has been strongly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. They show how the music ecosystem has engaged in a reorientation to strengthen its resilience to fend off possible future external shocks. They translate existing resilience research on natural ecosystems into a conceptualisation of resilience and ecosystems for the music industry, in order to offer a more systematic lens to examine the popular music ecosystem in terms of its resilience. They place a great deal of emphasis on how diversity helps to keep an ecosystem robust. They view diversity as a broad concept that encompasses everything from a variety of business models that promote competitiveness to the inclusion of underrepresented groups, languages and genres, increasing access and fairness, and they believe that diversity is essential in fostering resilience because it serves as the foundation for innovation, learning and adaptation. This chapter helps to conceptualise a current model of resilience for the music industries, apply it to the popular music ecosystem and comprehend the critical role of diversity in developing resilience, which may guide music policies. Leandro Valiati and Paul Heritage show how a programme developed by them through collaboration between Brazilian and UK arts organisations called Relative Values allows for the potential to measure the impact of arts activities in vulnerable parts of cities. Relative Values was a programme of research set out to construct a new narrative about the socio-economic impacts of cultural activities through a co-creative research partnership with arts organisations within arts ecosystems. Its strategy was to build a system of multidimensional indicators that can calibrate, identify, record and disseminate elements derived from cultural practices that impact their work contexts. This chapter addresses the dynamic of the research process and the impact of performance in one of the partners of the project: Contact Theatre, located in Manchester. The analysis focuses on data that quantify elements of their impact on the audience, urban space and the organisation. This chapter opens questions about how to measure the ecosystemic impact of arts organisations but also tacitly asks where the boundaries of such ecosystems exist.

16

T. E. VIRANI

The chapter by Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander offers an empirical analysis of national creative ecosystems and their connections to inequality and economic growth. The Global Creativity Index, which is based on six variables and measures variances in talent, technology and tolerance across 160 nations, is used to assess differences in various national creative ecosystems. It supports three important findings. First, according to the Global Creativity Index, the Nordic and Northern European nations do the best in terms of national level creativity. Second, the degree of urbanisation and economic outcomes like the creation of new businesses by entrepreneurs, human development, and total economic development are all positively correlated with the level of creativity at the national level. Finally, lower levels of inequality are associated with a nation’s ability to innovate: they also discover that countries fall into two distinct categories on this metric. The United States and the United Kingdom serve as examples of a low-road approach where more inequality is correlated with innovation. Yet, there is also a high-road approach, which is prevalent in the Nordic and Northern European countries, where innovation or creativity is linked to reduced levels of inequality. In his chapter, John Newbigin makes the case that the fundamental economic tools used by the majority of modern governments—their industrial, fiscal, labour market and skills policies—remain stuck in the twentieth century. This chapter examines the policy landscape for creative ecosystems of cultural production by taking a global view. It pinpoints some of the challenges that have emerged in time, and especially after the pandemic, and takes aim at some of the current thinking regarding creative and cultural industries policy. It steers a path through the tensions that plague policymaking in this area globally, and potential routes forward by viewing creative and cultural activity through the prism of ecosystems. The purpose of Rudo Nyangulu’s chapter, which focuses on Zimbabwe, is to comprehend how creative and cultural creation is accomplished in regions with little resources. The contribution of creative ecosystems to production is taken into account. The creative hubs and venues that make up Zimbabwe’s ecosystem for the creative and cultural industries use inventive methods to encourage co-creation towards productivity while taking into account local and contextual constraints. The chapter examines how cultural practitioners and creatives function in a sharing economy built on trust and how they use bricolage skills to cocreate and innovate, creating new goods and services. Last but not least,

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

17

a discussion of how prospects for the creative and cultural industries to apply pertinent bricolage skills in a sharing economy built on trust could boost creative ecosystems and the ensuing capacity to be resilient in the face of a shortage economy and hostile operating environment. In the context of the narrative of economic growth surrounding the creative industries and the realities of insecure artists’ livelihoods in the UK, Valentina Orru’s chapter analyses artistic firms as forms of cultural production. In this study’s scenario, visual artists specifically engage in a creative economy and ecosystem that is marked by uncertainty, precarity and inequities. While most artists operate as independent contractors as sole proprietors, a number of their initiatives have recently been organised as limited companies, cooperatives and community interest companies (CICs) (Ltd). In contrast to the binary of for-profit and nonprofit organisations, the rising ecology of artist-led firms offers artists different working conditions and guidelines. The analysis focuses on Company Drinks, a case study of an artist-led CIC, delving into the values, relationships and operational model behind the business, while reflecting on new ideas for a cultural ecology/ecosystem. The methodology and data gathered by publicly funded projects for South West England’s creative sector cluster assistance are the main areas of interest for Jon Dovey and Tony Bhajam. The chapter describes how networks, seen as cultural ecosystems, can lead to exclusion. It also calls attention to network governance issues with transparency and accountability that affect collaborative projects that are time—and constitutionally—constrained. It makes the case for new kinds of ecosystem support that might underlie inclusive innovation as a way to energise and make the regional creative sector clusters more egalitarian and resilient. The method outlined here strives for new types of responsible innovation through focused and custom activities that draw on creative hubs, higher education institutions and creative micro-businesses. According to Claire Burnill-Maier and Abigail Gilmore, successful culture-led revitalisation plans for satellite towns outside of large cities must take into account how local organisational identities are established in connection to their equivalents in creative-city contexts. This is particularly important as cities try to capitalise on the often-touted advantages of cultural and creative industries-driven regeneration and economic growth. They show how the geographical form of power interactions reproduces the inequalities that already exist. They investigate the role of “symbolic violence” (Bourdieu, 1983) within institutional practices that strengthen

18

T. E. VIRANI

systems of dependence between city centre and peripheral cultural and creative organisations by drawing on organisational and institutional theories as well as Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology. The evidence presented in this chapter is taken from a case study of Oldham, a post-industrial, satellite town on the periphery of Manchester (UK). They argue that successful creative and culture-led regeneration strategies must consider how local organisational identities are constructed in relation to other members of the institutional field, concluding that localised cultural and creative ecosystems require policy mechanisms which reduce organisations’ reliance on legitimising capital available from the fields in which they are nested.

References Beller, J. (1994). Cinema, capital of the 20th century. Postmodern Culture, 4(3). http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/textonly/issue.594/beller.594 Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2008). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1983). The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed. Poetics, 12(4–5), 311–356. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Polity. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Creative PEC. (2023). The state of creativity: Policy, research, industry. https:/ /cdn2.assets-servd.host/creative-pec/production/assets/images/CreativePEC-The-State-of-Creativity.pdf Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Harvard Business Press. De Bernard, M., Comunian, R., & Gross, J. (2022). Cultural and creative ecosystems: A review of theories and methods, towards a new research agenda. Cultural Trends, 31(4), 332–353. Flew, T. (2017). The creative and cultural industries. https://www.oxfordbib liographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-978019975 6841-0188.xml#:~:text=The%20cultural%20and%20creative%20industries% 20refer%20to%20those,direct%20sale%20to%20consumers%20or%20as%20inte llectual%20property Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books. Foster, N. (2020, January). From clusters to ecologies: Rethinking measures, values and impacts in creative sector-led development (Conference Paper).

TOWARDS A CREATIVE AND CULTURAL …

19

Franck, G. (1999). The economy of attention. Telepolis. http://www.heise.de/ tp/artikel/5/5567/1.html Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955, March–April). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33–39. Gill, R., Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (Eds.). (2019). Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy. Springer. Goldhaber, M. (1997). The attention economy and the net. First Monday, 2(4). http://firstmonday.org/article/view/519/440 Gregson, N., Simonsen, K., & Vaiou, D. (2001). Whose economy for whose culture? Moving beyond oppositional talk in European debate about economy and culture. Antipode, 33(4), 616–646. Hirschman, E. C. (1986). The creation of product symbolism. ACR North American Advances, 13, 327–331. Holden, J. (2015, February). The ecology of culture. John Holden, Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). Jeffcutt, P., Pick, J., & Protherough, R. (2000). Culture and industry: Exploring the debate. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 6(2), 129–143. Komorowski, M. (2019). Innovation ecosystems in Europe: First outline of an innovation ecosystem index. European Commission. Komorowski, M., Lupu, R., Pepper, S., & Lewis, J. (2021). Joining the dots— Understanding the value generation of creative networks for sustainability in local creative ecosystems. Sustainability, 13(22), 12352. Koria, M., & Karjalainen, T. (2012). Learning in ecosystems: Design-intensive projects in the creative industries. International Design Business Management Papers, 2, 16–21. Levy, S. J. (1959, July–August). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37 , 117–124. McKinlay, A., & Smith, C. (2009). Creative labour: Working in the creative industries. Bloomsbury. McKinsey Global Institute. (2018). Skill shift: Automation and the future of the workforce. National Endowment for the Arts. (2020). Creative industries: Business & employment in the arts in 2020. Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J., & Ormerod, P. (2008). Social network markets: A new definition of the creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics, 32(3), 167–185. Pratt, A. (2004). The cultural economy: A call for spatialized ‘production of culture’ perspectives. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7 (1), 117– 128. Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (2015). The creative SME: A cautionary tale. Creativeworks London Working Paper Series.

20

T. E. VIRANI

UNDP. (2013). Creative economy report—Widening local pathways. UNDP. https://en.unesco.org/creativity/screen/report-widening-local-develo pment-pathways UNESCO. (2013). Creative economy report 2013: Widening local development pathways. UNESCO. (2023). Creative economy: UNESCO provides nearly US$ 1 million to local projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America. https://www.unesco.org/ en/articles/creative-economy-unesco-provides-nearly-us-1-million-local-pro jects-africa-asia-and-latin-america Virani, T. E. (2019). Local creative and cultural economy intermediaries: Examining place-based workers in the creative and cultural economy. Network: Queen Mary University Centre for the Creative and Cultural Industries Working Paper series. https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/ 56649 Virani, T. E. (2023). Social inclusion and SMEs: The case of creative SMEs in hackney wick and fish Island, London. City, Culture and Society, 32, 100493. Virani, T. E., & Blackwood, J. (2021). From catastrophe to hybridity to recovery? Bristol and Bath Creative R and D. Creative Economies Lab. https://uwerepository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/9366277 Virani, T. E., & Orru, V. (2021). Business resilience and visual art: New directions for research in business-oriented practice. https://uwe-repository.worktr ibe.com/OutputFile/7576133 Virani, T. E., & Pratt, A. C. (2016). Intermediaries and the knowledge exchange process. In Higher education and the creative economy: Beyond the campus (pp. 41–58). Routledge.

Film Making as a Creative Ecosystem: The Case of Soho in London Andy C. Pratt

Introduction The aim of this chapter is to explore the location and processes of film making as interrelated issues and specifically to characterise this as an exemplar of a (creative) industry ecosystem. Although there has been an uptick in academic work examining the film industry qua industry, the dominant academic discourse concerns what happens on the screen: the discussion of aesthetics, narrative and representation. This division echoes another, that of the economic and the cultural value of film; whilst we often hear of the ‘box-office hits’, we are simultaneously aware of competing cultural value systems which would highlight a different list of priorities. Finally, we are party to an everyday discussion of the ‘stars’ of the screen, their performances and often the contrast with their offscreen personas. This list of popular topics of film study is important in two dimensions: first, by what it lacks, and second, by its polarisation. What is missing from the perspectives that focus on stars, or even the Svengali-like directors, is the vast supporting crew of professionals

A. C. Pratt (B) Department of Media, Culture and Creative Industries, City, University of London, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_2

21

22

A. C. PRATT

who facilitate the action. Moreover, we are commonly caught in a binary perspective of either/or—economics or culture, stars, or craft workers— rather than a more appropriate hybrid of both sides. The objective of this chapter is to present a more balanced, and more inclusive, perspective of the film-making process. Thinking about the film industry, or film making, as a complex set of activities that require huge amounts of coordination and organisation is not so difficult when you sit through the long list of credits that are usually shown at the end of a film showing. As noted in the previous paragraph, however, we lack an appropriate analytical lens through which to bring all of these elements into focus. This is why we offer the notion of an ecosystem which we argue can improve our account and understanding of film. The film industry is dynamic and never stands still. The research that this paper is based upon was carried out in the period 2005–2006 when the first iteration of digital filming, projection and special effects was transforming the industry; it also highlights the embedded nature of these developments in both a longer time period and particular places. The early 2020s has been dominated by the focus on streaming and platforms (such as Netflix, Apple and Amazon), and the transformations of distribution and (especially post-COVID-19) in exhibition (cinema versus at home). Tomorrow there will be other transformations. The key argument of this paper is that an ecosystem perspective avoids an over-fascination with a particular technology, aesthetic or audience shifts; instead, it retains our focus on the longer-term and complex shifting relations of the filmmaking process. In so doing, it directs our attention to the shifts in power and control of the film-making ecosystem.

The Creative Ecosystem A creative ecosystem can be defined as the sum of activities that are required to produce and sustain creative products, services and activities. At its core lies a conception of the creative industries that has two dimensions: domain and function. The idea of domain equates to the variety of art forms that comprise the creative economy; it is important to note that the scope of domains is a permeable and extendable one, potentially variable across times and places, associated with the dynamism of the creative field. The notion of function explains the necessary interrelated processes that the production of a cultural product or service needs: simply, creation

FILM MAKING AS A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM: …

23

or the idea, making or production, distribution, exchange (financial or social) and archiving; then returning to creation. Hence, the functions are best represented as a cycle of production rather than a linear chain; moreover, in practice, there are instances of iterative and heuristic feedback where the boundaries between functions can be blurred (the same practitioner carrying out several tasks). This core idea of the domain and function is derived from institutional and evolutionary economic analyses that stress the importance of the institutions and networks that intermediate between otherwise apparently ‘separate’ activities. It is an approach when applied to standard ‘industrial’ analysis creates a lens for understanding the economy based on sectors (collection of industries that share common inputs) and industries (that include all of the necessary processes to produce a final good or service). So, to use this terminology, we can refer to the creative sector (or the economy) and particular creative industries (film, music, etc.)—each industry is composed of the necessary functions. Whilst neo-classical approaches may have approximated the economy at one time, it clearly does so far less now with a plethora of interrelated supply chains running across firms and places, as well as the role of the state in regulating them. It is even more distinct in the case of the creative industries, with its bifurcated organisational forms of near monopoly platforms and a host of freelancers and project enterprises (see Pratt & Virani, 2015; Virani, 2023). There is a further issue with respect to the creative field, namely its dominant concepts related to a humanistic artistic production model. Essentially, this views the artist and their work as the source of all value. The appreciation of the ‘support activities’ of training, materials, markets, audiences and galleries is seen as subsidiary. The concentric circles model of the creative industries expresses this with the artist at the centre, and related and ‘support’ activities (that are ‘less creative’), when they eventually shade into the activities of the general economy (see Throsby, 2001). In this sense, the traditional artistic model (or the concentric circles model) deviates little from the neo-classical conception of economic activities (albeit with a different ‘value sign’).1 Technologies and places can produce ‘natural monopolies’ within an (idealised) economic system, and often, the state is allocated the task of 1 An alternative to these artist centred, concentric circles or creative intensity is models based on the creative production cycle or system (see Pratt, 1997); these ideas have been taken up by policymakers in UN agencies (UNESCO, UNCTAD) and the EU.

24

A. C. PRATT

resolving these. Technologies can mean that costs of distribution favour those that own production as well. Physical distribution is cheaper in bulk, and the sunk investment of infrastructure is huge; this creates an inequality of power above and beyond price (and if commonly referred to as ‘gatekeeping’). Likewise, place can also confer monopoly advantages due to non-substitutability of places: only one facility can be located at the ‘ideal location’, and others must accept sub-optimal solutions. Moreover, the returns to scale of profitability from mass production favour oligopolies. The dominant extant lens afforded by neo-classical economic perspectives and cultural policy hides many of the actually-existing processes of creative and cultural production rendering it as un-important or subsidiary; however, as indicated above, many critical aspects of creative/ cultural production are best understood with an awareness of networks and institutions as they provide a critical mediation between producers in terms of trade, and access to knowledge and resources; moreover, these are articulated in places and spaces (see Gill et al., 2019). A creative ecosystem can be broadly described as first a map of relationships that describe the actual movement or flow of goods, services, people and ideas. Secondly, such a map would include routes/linkages and feedback across separate functions and will describe a non-linear but ‘systemic’ form. Thirdly, a creative ecosystem describes not simply the nodes and linkages of a system, and sub-systems, but illuminates the organisation ‘choke points’ that enable control and access. Those with monopoly power can set the access price to a system of distribution, or a platform for example. Moreover, monopoly power can enable the exclusion of competitors. Finally, the creative ecosystem is embedded in places: the location of individuals and markets, and the institutions of the ‘manufacture’ of demand/desire that create ‘local’ tastes. The differential access to people and ideas reflects the ‘non-ubiquity’ of creativity. Examples of this are the creative ‘scenes’ that exist in specific locations around the world: a mix of formal and informal interactions between production and consumption which generate new tastes and new demands (e.g. see Hracs et al., 2016; Virani, 2016). Place may be mediated by digitalisation, but it is not erased.

FILM MAKING AS A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM: …

25

Methods This research was based upon a two-year study of the film industries in London.2 The study used secondary research of the trade press and specialist journals to paint in the commercial contexts. The rapidity of change, and the ‘closed’ nature of the industry, makes access for researchers problematic. We gained access to a working industry database, The Knowledge, which afforded us an up-to-date snapshot of the filmmaking population in London; this source had addresses and services rendered. The Knowledge database was used as the source from which to draw a sample of firms for detailed interview; we interviewed 50 firms in all. We covered the film-making production chain functions: production companies, distributors, finance, studios and post-production, and implemented semi-structured in-depth interviews with—wherever possible—the principals of firms. Our interview schedule was structured around business development—in recognition of the project-based nature of the industry. We were particularly concerned with the inter-relationships between the way that business was carried out and how it related to place.

Film Making in London This section of the chapter sketches out the creative ecosystem of film making. For the sake of clarity, it is divided into three (in practice interwoven) parts; the first relates to process, and this is the logical flow of the functions required to make a film. The second part re-articulates these functions with the dominant organisational forms; finally, the third part relates to issues of governance (i.e. the constitution of power). Process In order to address these analytical concerns, the chapter now turns to the process of film making itself. To do so, we revisit the key stages of film production: Finance, Development, Principal photography, Postproduction and Distribution. As will be noted, these processes do not have a strict uni-dimensional linearity in practice. This represents and 2 We acknowledge the support of ESRC Research Grant No. RES-000-23-0653 that made the research upon which this chapter is based possible.

26

A. C. PRATT

provides an overview of what we characterise as a recursive process. We argue that the nodes in the flows are best not viewed as simple links in a value chain, but rather as transformative moments (of power). As we have already noted costs are not transparent nor independent, but relative, and they are always mediated by quality considerations. Furthermore, each node is embedded and situated in space and time. Finance This stage of the film-making process can in principle happen anywhere and take any length of time; however, the repeated contact with investors, with actors and directors, and the exploration of the logistics of casting and locations with specialist agencies commonly links it to particular places. Whilst the main concern in this paper is with commercial film making, this category, as a ‘pure’ category, has ceased to exist with the rise of national government tax allowances for investors, via local screen commissions, and places filmmakers (commercial or not) in significant benefit of subsidy. The core funding comes from banks and brokers. There are a handful of specialist banks, based in central London, that specialise in film finance. Increasingly, film finance is being sourced through brokers. These brokers are in significant part a product of the UK taxation system where wealthy individuals (or companies) can receive tax rebates on film investment for up to 15 years. A notable category of clients is professional footballers. Brokers collect this finance from highnet-worth individuals and look for films to invest in on behalf of their clients. The fact that the money is invested in film yields the investor a tax-free allowance; alternatively, if the film makes any money, they will also participate in those profits. One of our interviewees, working as a financial broker, emphasised the importance of existing tax regulation which allows this category of film financing to exist. In addition, many investors negotiate some conditions associated with their investment, e.g. from attendance to a premier to participation in producing, or even directing a movie. A notable second stream of finance comes from TV broadcasters commissioning or part-financing film, notably the BBC and Channel 4. Public subsidy used to be available from the UK Film Council (UKFC) which was abolished in 2011. Prior to its close, it instituted a change of policy where it sought to establish production companies with a ‘slate’, or portfolio, of films rather than funding films individually (the previous policy). The British Film Institute (BFI) has since replaced UKFC and

FILM MAKING AS A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM: …

27

works along these lines. Securing funding is often contingent upon setting up a distribution deal, as such distributors will also have an opportunity to influence the production; likewise, this can have a significant influence on the selection of a script. In the UK, the size of a low-budget film is somewhere around £1m; a typical Hollywood mainstream budget is £30–40m; a major blockbuster £100m upwards. There has been a movement in the UK to develop film-making techniques based upon micro-budgets of £100–£500,000 facilitated by a minimal shooting schedule (Grove, 2004) or by creating profit sharing deals with talent and the crew (Carter, 2006). All of the above are necessary but not sufficient parts of the process. Before a film receives the green light, it has to have a budget based upon a shot-by-shot breakdown of the script. Budgets are sub-divided into two main parts: above and below the line. Above the line is ‘artists and talent’; below the line is the physical production (and post-production). Added to this are the costs of post-production, duplicated film and the marketing budget. The relative costs of these items vary depending upon the type of film—a big budget film with major stars, an intensive computer graphics film, etc. For a major release film, the marketing can be as much as 25% of the whole budget, but this does not appear on the budget as distributors bear much of this cost. Budgets are very detailed documents that must cover every item from development, principal photography and post-production. With larger budget films, advertising and marketing may be dealt with separately. The budget is an account of how the money available will be used; as such, it sets parameters on the number of days that shooting will take place; if something goes wrong usually, the pressure is to reduce shooting days which in turn increases pressure on the Director to get the necessary shots in as few takes as possible. In general, there is also a fall-back of insurance policies and other contingencies built into the budget. We have illustrated the fact that costs and benefits can be very elastic. But, if we look more closely at the budgets of films, and at the organisation of production, the overall cost structure of the film is not transparent. Thus, explanatory models based upon idealised ‘real costs’ do not help. We have already noted that a film can make a ‘headline’ (box-office) profit, but technically make a loss for the film makers. Likewise, a film can fail at the box office, but make a good profit for the investors. Overlain on this is the fact that the cost of any good is not the primary determinant of the selection of a good or service. For example, just because an

28

A. C. PRATT

actress’s fee is lower does not mean that she will be hired for a specific role; likewise, a ‘cheap special effects’ company is less likely to get the job than a more expensive one. The central concern is an economically vague, but critically important and well-appreciated, within the industry, notion of quality.3 Moreover, the need to negotiate the qualities (character of the script, professionalism of director, the stars involved and the sophistication of special effects) as well as the costs of the film deal underpins the tight-knit social and spatial proximity of the film industry. Development Films begin with an idea. The idea is usually in the form of a plot and a story. This may derive from an existing text (a book, play, etc.) or a writer or producer’s idea. If it is an existing idea, then the rights will have to be secured on to it. Some initial development has to take place to create a short version that can be used to make a pitch to potential financiers of the film. Whether the investor is a Hollywood major, the BFI, or a number of private individuals, or all of them together, the producer normally seeks to ‘sell the story’ (of course, writers may well have already sought to sell the story to the producer). The objective here is to get into ‘development’, that is, to have finance advanced to work up a ‘treatment’. Grove (2004) also notes that films can also be ‘self-funded’, as such they bypass this step; this is common in the UK. If the treatment is approved, then the project will be ‘green lighted’ at which point the film actually begins to be made. However, what is known as ‘development hell’ is a long process whereby an idea may be re-written many times and other writers may be asked to re-work it with the film never progressing beyond ‘development’. However, development work on both the script and finance can happen in parallel. Throughout the process, the producer has to be mindful of: their funding partners, the studio and anyone else whose initial investment gave them a say, demands for particular genres, and the potential inclusion of star actors, and a Director. At this stage, the view of the distributor is also critical; if distribution for the film can be ‘pre-sold’, then the chance of the film sitting in a warehouse with the interest on loans mounting up is less of a risk. Not surprisingly, there is strong co-location of film production/ 3 Quality does not exclusively mean ‘high quality’; rather, it is the precise quality for the targeted market: if that is a ‘B-movie’, then it requires particular skills to achieve the ‘look’ and ‘feel’ that match this genre/style.

FILM MAKING AS A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM: …

29

development, finance and distribution. Of course, all of these participants will seek to re-configure the script so as to jockey for position and influence. For the investors, and distributors, the inclusion of particular talent (or ‘star’) may lower the perceived risk; however, the cost may well be inflated leaving less resource for the rest of the film. Principal Photography This is when shooting begins and everyone is on set. Most film shooting occurs on sound stages located in outer London. This is exceptional in that it is the most expensive and short-lived stage of making a film; photography can run from as low as 10 days to as many as 100. The key actors will be contracted for a specified number of days. In order to save money in larger movies, a second photography unit may be deployed simultaneously (for location shots where, for example, the main stars are not involved). The main beneficiaries of the film investment are the ‘talent’: the Director, Producers and Principal actors. These, and the writers and the rights to the script (or book), consume around 15% of the total budget. Clearly, there is a balance between stars paid premium sums, and cheap, unknowns. The star can be another one of the reputation markers that attracts funds and draws in media attention (hence saving on marketing costs later); additionally, experienced talent is more efficient in getting the best out of a limited number of days shooting. The number of days shooting is so inflexible in part because of the cost, but also due to the multiple contractual obligations of talent and crew who will, if successful, be working on other projects before and after shooting. The Director will need to view his dailies, the film shot the previous day, in order to decide if re-filming/shooting is required; additionally, film financiers may want to see evidence of the film progress. Both factors create an umbilical cord between the Director and London, sites of the processing laboratories as well as the financiers. The ‘below the line’ costs are divided up between principal photography and post-production. In the former set construction may be significant at 6% of the total budget. The physical location of film making depends upon the script and the budget. The outer London location of studios means that talent and crew can commute saving enormous fees on hotels. Moreover, the studio is like a laboratory, everything can be controlled, and the right shot achieved with little wastage. Location shots potentially provide ‘locational/place markers’ which may help to market

30

A. C. PRATT

the film, but there is a considerable cost, as well as risk, of relocating talent and crew to location. For more remote locations, studio costs are saved but accommodation costs have to be paid, and there is a risk of bad weather or some other unforeseen or uncontrollable misfortune that may disrupt filming. Despite the much-promoted potential benefits for locales from location shooting, it is clear that much of the expenditure of the cast and crew will seldom make its way into the locale; what little income that will be generated is via permissions to film, the employment of extras and some accommodation fees. Much of the material and expertise is brought in with the film team and leave with it. Even the potential place promotion via cinema-goers recognition of the location is dubious with digital modification of shots which renders the real location ‘invisible’ (Pratt, 2007). As noted above, the real benefits are to filmmakers who may potentially be able to make savings. Eastern Europe has been an historically popular location for location shooting in no small part due to low labour costs of set construction (Goldsmith & O’Regan, 2005). Post-production This phase is where the multiple shots created in principal photography are re-assembled in a narrative that will be the film, in addition sound and colour matching is carried out; plus, additional special effects or animation, and background sounds and music added: it is a complex and multi-layered task. Post-production does, overall, consume a smaller proportion of the budget than production. However, increasingly, CGI is changing this, and computer animation costs may run to 10% of a film’s total cost. Post-production is a significant part of the film because it is labour intensive and highly skilled work. Likewise editing and dubbing sound (although these tasks usually involve a small number of people). Post-production workers are generally specialists who are hired by the hour. The Director needs to sit in with the editors or to actually direct the computer animation. Whilst the script is the guide, films are edited to re-focus a narrative which the Director, the studio or funder anticipates will look better and is more likely to gain approval from the market. In the UK, these post-production services are almost exclusively concentrated in Soho. Accessibility is key, for both film makers and funders (who may wish to review the edit), as well as post-production staff themselves. The length of time that post-production may take can vary, often 6–9 months. One of

FILM MAKING AS A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM: …

31

the limitations on post-production timescales is the interest on the loaned finance for the film and the lead-time required by the vital advertising and marketing schedules. As a result of the volume of film work passing through London, as well as the high level of US investment, special effects in particular have developed to be an expertise of London companies. Special effects teams told us that London is sometimes preferred over Los Angeles given the similar quality of work; in London, the companies are so spatially clustered it saves time. Distribution and Exhibition It is a fact that many films are made, but few are distributed and actually seen. Distribution is critical if a film is to be seen and to have a chance of making money. The obvious first destination of film is the cinema, although (as noted above) it is possible to bypass the cinema and go straight to streaming release. Given the size of cinema-related marketing costs, this later step can be a profitable strategy for a small budget film. The common model is that the producer licences the film to the distributor who then arranges for onward distribution to cinemas, develops a marketing strategy and collects the box-office takings from the cinema. Distributors usually take around a 30% cut of the box-office takings (Wasko, 2003). The Hollywood majors and a number of ‘minor majors or independents’ control distribution. Thus, for larger films, production and distribution are closely entwined; but, for low-budget filmmakers, these steps are disconnected leading to severe cash-flow problems. As noted above, the initial financial package of a (larger) film is often directly dependent on a pre-deal with distributors. The means by which filmmakers engage with distributors are through film markets/festivals. As many commentators note, few deals actually get done at Cannes or Sundance, and their raison d’etre is to put finance, distribution and filmmakers together and to sense the new trends, as well as formally to promote a number of films (Jones & Jolliffe, 2006). As with many ‘reputation communities’, filmmakers do not get invited to a festival unless they are on the inside anyway or are perceived to be the ‘next big thing’. Soho has long been a concentration of the advertising industry, not surprisingly film marketing is also based there. A small budget movie may seek word-of-mouth advertising or viral advertising. But a major release will have a budget that equals, or even dwarfs, the production budget (as

32

A. C. PRATT

great as 25% of the total budget). As part of this marketing process, a film may be tested with focus groups and, if not approved of, re-edited to change the narrative or the ending, or even to delete unpopular scenes or characters. Organisation The film industry is dominated by a small number of conglomerates that distribute films (hereafter simply referred to as Hollywood; although parts of it are foreign owned), and then, there are a number of major cinema chains. US companies own most UK cinemas. Next, there are ‘studios’ which are an organisational envelope for (semi-autonomous) film production companies or divisions. In addition, there are smaller film companies, and nationally based ones, and there are also independent cinema chains (Wasko, 2003). However, money-wise, Hollywood dominates, and distributors are more powerful than studios. The present-day film industry is very far different from the ideal-type Fordist film factories of the 1930s. As noted above, the film industry does not fit the postFordist model either (Aksoy & Robins, 1992; Christopherson & Storper, 1986). The industry has at least a dualistic structure of oligopolies on the distribution and exhibition side, and, on the production side, microand short-term, enterprises: the latter higher risk, the former lower risk, activities. Financing film is a critical process to the whole exercise; in addition to the studios, finance increasingly originates from the sales of associated rights (toys, food, branding). Whilst risks and returns are unevenly distributed, the convergent nature of markets and the exploitation of core intellectual property make links between film, music, clothing, etc., logical: in many cases, this (the exploitation of intellectual property rights) is where the real profit lies. Moreover, there are individuals and public agencies investing money. There is not space here to discuss the full extent and global flows of finance in the film industry; however, this is clearly an important dimension of the ‘real’ internationalisation of the film industry, beyond the obvious clustering of film production facilities. The film industry no longer accords to a vertically integrated model, it is better represented by a dualistic structure of production and distribution. As has already been noted, the studio plays the role of operational banker and strategist, and the distributors and cinemas play a retail role. To a large extent, the studios have withdrawn from the actual process of film production to focus on strategic management and accounting tasks.

FILM MAKING AS A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM: …

33

In their place are a large number of independent production companies, only a proportion of which are active at any one time, who may individually employ for the most part a handful of people, but, for the few weeks of shooting, may grow to employers of a hundred or more persons (Pratten & Deakin, 2000). Production companies are all looking for projects, have projects in development or are actually making films: usually, they make one film at a time. These are project-based enterprises (Blair et al., 2001). It is useful to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the film production companies, or subsidiaries, of studios as projectbased companies who act as ‘containers’ for temporary projects; this type of company is the most explored in the literature on project enterprises (Grabher, 2004). On the other hand, there are production companies who either only exist whilst they make a film, or temporarily swell up to accommodate a project before deflating again; this latter organisational form has been explored in the context of new media companies. Independent film production companies that only exist for single projects are an exceptional organisational form; they are subject to considerable set up and organisation costs. However, there is institutional encouragement for this type of firm to exist in the UK as the tax laws work more easily with ‘clean’/ new companies—for example, those that are specifically dedicated to one project that is tax allowable and thus not complicated by other schemes. In business terms, the exhibition side of the industry is separate from the production side. The ‘separateness’ is located in the management of risk and the calculation of both the costs of a particular film (reflected in the film budget) and overheads especially for the development period (not reflected in the film budget). The production companies know that every film will not be a success, so they have to construct a portfolio. Thus, it is quite possible for many films to make substantial losses (as long as there is the occasional big hit) and for there to be little (direct) relationship between funds for the costs of the film and income/profit that this film can make. This is not to suggest that budgets are unimportant, but they only reflect the funds/costs part of the equation. It is like two sides of a coin; the other side of the coin concerns the social production of film.

34

A. C. PRATT

Embedding It may seem obvious to state that ‘place matters’ in respect to film making; however, it is not place per se, but place that facilitates the unique coordination of activities at a place in time (not necessarily appearing on screen). Despite the historically small output of films, London has a very profitable industry, and it has a significant international profile in film production services. As stated earlier, it produces a substantial proportion of all special effects for what are otherwise US films. The growing proportion of all frames that are computer generated, or digital, in contemporary film is significant. The impacts of the technologies of digitisation have an extended, although currently uneven, impact on the film industry from production, distribution to exhibition (Currah, 2003). Location UK film making had a golden period in the 1930s; it was at this time that four key studios were developed on the Northern and Western edges of London in Ealing, Elstree, Shepperton and Pinewood. This golden period, and in fact most of the subsequent period, has been possible only because of continuing and substantial investment of US film makers in the UK. Significantly, these studios have specialised in accommodating Hollywood blockbuster films, notably, those utilising special effects. Soho is now a world-class provider of film special effects. From the mid-twentieth century, Hollywood majors made their UK home in Wardour Street and Soho Square (in purpose-built offices) (Keeble & Nachum, 2002; Nachum & Keeble, 2003). This district is well known as an entertainment area; it has historic literary and artistic connections (Summers, 1989). The two combined traditions of literary/artistic bars and music clubs had a particular hey-day in the late 1950s and early 1960s: the Colony Room, the Marquee and Ronnie Scott’s jazz club. The quality of the environment of Soho, both physical and social, declined in the 1960s as Soho increasingly became a centre for the sex trade. However, the film industry continued to co-exist; more significant was its co-location and industrial synergies with the advertising industry (Pratt, 2006), centred on Golden Square. The advertising industry had pioneered innovative narrative and photography since the early 1960s. Indeed, many of what were to become the UK’s top film makers in the 1980s initially trained in advertising.

FILM MAKING AS A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM: …

35

Regulation The rise of Soho as a centre for post-production, a role in which it has international pre-eminence, can be explained by four factors dating back to the 1980s. The first two factors are regulation and television. The creation of a new TV channel in 1982, Channel 4, was significant that it broke with the norms that were until then that of integrated broadcaster and proposed instead the broadcaster as publisher. The implication being that services and programmes would be contracted out (Deakin & Pratten, 1999). To cut a long story short, this has been the path of British broadcasting ever since, as such it has created a new and growing cadre of independent television production companies (Darlow, 2004); these companies have generated a significant demand for production services. As we have already mentioned, TV as an industry is organisationally different from film. However, new editing technologies were pioneered with videotape and later became drivers of digital editing for film, so in terms of technology and talent there is communality. Another dimension of regulation is the use of planning and local regulations to control the sex trade in Soho. In the mid-1980s, the local authority gained powers to limit the number of businesses involved in the sex trade; in addition, Westminster Council invested in environmental regeneration. Alongside this, planning legislation allowed a more flexible usage of property that had been in traditional industrial uses. In combination, these processes led to a rise of property values. In relative terms, the film and TV industries were attracted by this quality improvement. More significantly, the substantial co-location generated a synergistic dynamic for post-production activities. Technical Innovation and Expertise A third factor in the rise of Soho can be associated with the US films shot in the UK that were pioneers in the use of special effects: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, the James Bond franchise and the Harry Potter franchise. These and other films created a nascent special effect expertise. Initially, this was studio based and had been located in the UK by US film makers due to the strength of the dollar against sterling, to save costs. This initial work stimulated the growth of digital special effects and computer graphics. The technical expertise was located in Soho and not at the sound stages located on the periphery of London. The innovative advertising market coupled with TV and film, plus additional US money, created opportunities and a critical mass for the development of a premier

36

A. C. PRATT

post-production centre. The capstone of this development was the establishment, in 1995, of Sohonet (a high capacity broadband link between post-production houses and the studios). It is perhaps a paradox that in such a competitive industry that Sohonet was privately funded. Sohonet facilitates the transport (albeit digitally) of part-finished goods around the ‘district’. However, with the extension of Sohonet, this district now extends—a in trans-local fashion—to Burbank, California (Pratt et al., 2007).

Conclusion This chapter has shown how that by using the lens of the creative ecosystem we can develop a better understanding of the full process of film making. Critically, it counters a more popular discourse that focuses on individuals as the foundation of film making. Moreover, the approach taken avoids the binary traps of resolving film making to either reductive economic, or parallel reductive cultural or aesthetic registers. The ecosystem approach is underpinned by a conception of cultural production that includes the full cycle of functions from creation, though making, distribution, exchange and archiving; as well as the breadth of different artistic or cultural forms. The ecosystem redirects our gaze from that of production or consumption, from the stars or the studios, but shifts it to an ecosystem of shifting networks and to some extent stable institutions; and, to the fastmorphing temporary projects that are the ‘essence’ of film production. A critical insight is that the clustering and co-location of parts of the film-making process are less to do with price comparison, or transport cost minimisation, but more to do with the facilitation of coordination, synchronisation, the innovation of new activities and the flexibility of new production. As a whole, the film-making ecosystem is an organisational form that enables the management of risk.

FILM MAKING AS A CREATIVE ECOSYSTEM: …

37

References Aksoy, A., & Robins, K. (1992). Hollywood for the 21st-century—Global competition for critical mass in image markets. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 16(1), 1–22. Blair, H., Grey, S., & Randle, K. (2001). Working in film—Employment in a project based industry. Personnel Review, 30(1–2), 170–185. Carter, M. (2006). Profit sharing gives hope for UK film industry. Guardian Unlimited. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/may/ 01/film.filmnews Christopherson, S., & Storper, M. (1986). The city as studio—The world as back lot—The impact of vertical disintegration on the location of the motionpicture industry. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space, 4(3), 305– 320. Currah, A. (2003). Digital effects in the spatial economy of film: Towards a research agenda. Area, 35(1), 64–73. Darlow, M. (2004). Independents struggle. Quartet. Deakin, S., & Pratten, S. (1999). Reinventing the market? Competition and regulatory change in broadcasting. Journal of Law and Society, 26(3), 323– 350. Gill, R., Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (Eds.). (2019). Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy. Springer. Goldsmith, B., & O’Regan, T. (2005). The film studio: Film production in the global economy. Rowman & Littlefield. Grabher, G. (2004). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 11(2), 103–123. Grove, E. (2004). Raindance producer’s lab. Lo-to-no budget filmmaking. Focal Press. Hracs, B. J., Seman, M., & Virani, T. E. (Eds.). (2016). The production and consumption of music in the digital age. Routledge. Jones, C., & Jolliffe, G. (2006). The guerrilla film makers handbook. Continuum. Keeble, D., & Nachum, L. (2002). Why do business service firms cluster? Small consultancies, clustering and decentralization in London and southern England. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27 (1), 67–90. Nachum, L., & Keeble, D. (2003). Neo-Marshallian clusters and global networks—The linkages of media firms in Central London. Long Range Planning, 36(5), 459–480. Pratt, A. C. (1997). The cultural industries production system: A case study of employment change in Britain, 1984–91. Environment and Planning A, 29(11), 1953–1974.

38

A. C. PRATT

Pratt, A. C. (2006). Advertising and creativity, a governance approach: A case study of creative agencies in London. Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1883–1899. Pratt, A. C. (2007). ‘Imagination can be a damned curse in this country’: Material geographies of filmmaking and the rural. R. Fish (pp. 127–146). Manchester University Press. Pratt, A. C., Gill, R. C., & Spelthann, V. (2007). Work and the city in the e-society: A critical investigation of the socio-spatially situated character of economic production in the digital content industries, UK. Information, Communication & Society, 10(6), 921–941. Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. (2015). The creative SME: A cautionary tale (pp. 3– 16). Creativeworks London Working paper Series. https://qmro.qmul.ac. uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/12430/PWK%20Working%20P aper%2014.pdf?sequence=1 Pratten, S., & Deakin, S. (2000). Competitiveness policy and economic organization: The case of the British film industry. Screen, 41(2), 217–237. Summers, J. (1989). Soho: A history of London’s most colourful neighbourhood. Bloomsbury. Throsby, D. (2001). Defining the artistic workforce: The Australian experience. Poetics, 28(4), 255–271. Wasko, J. (2003). How Hollywood works. Sage. Virani, T. E. (2016). The resilience of a local music scene in Dalston, London. In The production and consumption of music in the digital age (pp. 101–113). Routledge. Virani, T. E. (2023). Social inclusion and SMEs: The case of creative SMEs in Hackney Wick and Fish Island, London. City, Culture and Society, 32, 100493.

The Performing Arts Ecosystem in Abu Dhabi: Sustainability, Resilience, and Local Capacity Building Elena Raevskikh

and Maxime Jaffré

Introduction Cultural and creative ecosystems have increasingly become a focus for cultural policy and a central concept in social research. Ecological approaches help overcome some of the limitations of earlier conceptual frameworks such as cultural and creative economy, cultural and creative clusters, and cultural and creative industries—by examining cultural and creative activity from a broader ‘whole system’ perspective, including recognizing the importance of a wider range of actors’ networks and relationships.

E. Raevskikh (B) Department of Culture and Tourism Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates e-mail: [email protected] M. Jaffré Department of Government and Society, College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS), United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Al Ain, United Arab Emirates e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_3

39

40

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

Recent debates about the drivers of urban development highlight the central role of “creatives” as a broad category that transforms cities into magnets to retain national and international residents and workforces. In this regard, “creatives” are increasingly contributing to sustainable urban development and economic growth (Lloyd, 2010; Markusen & Schrock, 2006; Silver et al., 2011). Most discussion of this issue has focused on consumption and on attracting foreign direct investment, but not on selfsustaining endogenous growth (Pratt, 2015). By contrast, the current research shifts attention to the question of how a performing art ‘production system’ emerges and is progressively embedded in a territory. Sustainable cultural production relies on building resilient intermediaries to bring together the necessary agents (Pratt, 2015; Virani, 2016, 2019; Virani & Pratt, 2016). Identifying these intermediaries and assessing their resilience can consequently allow a better understanding of how the local cultural capacity is developing and how the cultural ecosystem sustains itself. Through a case study of the performing arts of Abu Dhabi, this research aims to create new knowledge related to the debate on cultural ecosystems and approaches to their analysis. It also aims to address the gap that currently exists in qualitative surveys focused on the rapidly developing cultural field of Abu Dhabi: while Abu Dhabi has a rich heritage in traditional music and performance, the situation of performing arts as a cultural and creative ecosystem is relatively recent and is shaped by the contemporary social, economic, and political realities of the UAE.

Cultural and Creative Ecosystems and Local Capacity Building The review of the literature shows that the ecosystemic intermediaries which bring together the necessary agents are analysed at least under two prisms: the most common contemporary usage tends to emphasize an individualist interpretation; and an older usage points to a more collective and state-driven interpretation. However, depending on the context, the concept of ecosystem is open to various meanings; cultural production capacities being anchored locally, the ecosystem potential to sustain itself is linked to local variables which can combine several heterogeneous logics. In many contexts, the cultural institutions play an important role in sustaining and interconnecting the performing arts ecosystem elements

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

41

through the educational, creative andfunding aspects of their activity. In this sense, the challenge of how to actively manage ecosystems requires ways of understanding how to address the complex interdependencies, but also how to create the mechanisms that would allow resilient and sustainable ‘cultural development’ (Wilson et al., 2022). The meso- and macro-level relations (institutional and extra-institutional) that durably build the careers of culture professionals require acknowledgement of the ‘hidden profits’ (Aarseth, 2016) that particularize the performing arts ‘production system’ and nourish the shared interest in belonging and sustaining that ecosystem. Following this logic, the sustainability and resilience of the ecosystem is mainly based on the ‘top-down’, ‘macro-level’, ‘state-driven’ type of intermediaries. Besides the institutional mainly state-driven dimension, the performing arts are characterized by a large and dispersed network of not only small, but also micro-enterprises, and the self-employed. Moreover, these enterprises and individuals are constantly reorganized based on serial project-contracting arrangements. The reason these forms of organization have developed is largely in response to the radical market uncertainty and risk that characterizes the cultural field. Direct arrangements between arts practitioners are also seen as an important part of creative ecosystem knowledge flows: “An art which cannot be specified in detail cannot be transmitted by prescription, since no prescription for it exists” (Polanyi, 2002). So, in a sense, the cultural field is ‘born resilient’ (Pratt, 2017) in both its economic and creative aspects. Depending on the context, such assumptions on the drivers of ecosystem sustainability can legitimate the neo-liberal strategy of shrinking the state. The performing arts ecosystems are inevitably anchored in their spatial contexts; the combination of the different logics of support for the sustainability of ecosystems depends on a myriad of local variables (see Gill et al., 2019). The non-metropolitan ecosystems typically specialize in sectors demanded by the public sector for institutional activities (e.g., classic dance) and those linked to the management of heritage (Escalona et al., 2018). The large metropolitan complexes “have access to agglomeration benefits of larger neighbouring cities” (Meijers & Burger, 2017) and favour the specialization of metropolitan ecosystems in sectors that benefit from economies of agglomeration, such as audio-visual or digital culture. However, these categorizations are porous, as local structures are necessarily articulated to international systems. On the one hand, processes such as intellectual property and larger market regulations are beyond the

42

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

control of a locality; on the other hand, there are other processes that are locally regulated and offer the potential to enhance economic and cultural governance (Pratt, 2015). The sustainability of the local creative and cultural production is relational, context matters. This research offers an evidence-based approach and assessment of the resilience and sustainability of Abu Dhabi’s performing arts ecosystem. Through cross-contextual analysis of interviews with stakeholders, we were able to identify the groups of ecosystem intermediaries that bring together the elements of the ecosystem while being directed by the different logics. Next, we interconnected the identified intermediaries of the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem and the relevant elements of general ecosystem knowledge. This approach permits the identification of the first linchpins of ecosystem sustainability assessment in Abu Dhabi and enables further articulation of the local and global dimensions within the ecosystem paradigm.

Methodological Challenges: The Local Context Matters The research is focused on Abu Dhabi music, dance, and theatre fields, as well as related stakeholders (e.g., rights owner organizations, public and private entities, etc.) that comprise different parts of the performing arts ecosystem. A total of 35 interviews were completed; the representation of music, dance and theatre sub-sectors in the ethnography has been proportional to their relative sizes: according to our empirical observations, in Abu Dhabi, the music domain is the most developed and represented; the theatre field occupies an intermediate position, andthe dance is embodied by relatively few entities and performers. At the same time, as the subsectors of the performing arts are interrelated and inter-dependent, many observations are transversal and concern all of them. Based on transcriptions of the recorded interviews, we consolidated a list of arguments that describe Abu Dhabi’s performing arts ecosystem. We observed that several of these arguments address the same core issues. However, the singular contexts and practical ways of addressing these core issues by cultural professionals replicate a myriad of underlying social processes. Our analysis seeks to understand how the actors attribute different importance to a subject, and how they elaborate interpretative

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

43

schemes. While discourse analysis is focused on explanation, our pragmatic optic uncovers contextual intentions that depend on the situation in which the actors find themselves (Raevskikh et al., 2021). For example, the lack of small-scale amateur recording studios is sometimes perceived as weakness (“Abu Dhabi’s recording studios are underdeveloped; in Jordan, we have more developed structures ”). In other cases, the same problem is perceived as an opportunity or a threat (“If the lack of recording studios will not be addressed, Abu Dhabi will never integrate the international competition.” “Developing proximity studios and sound recording trainings is still an unoccupied niche for small businesses and freelancers ”). The contexts of some interviews combine several dimensions, when the argument is perceived, for example, as both weakness and opportunity. Based on this contextual interview analysis, we extracted each argument and assessed it on the scale from 1 to 5 as an element of the SWOT framework which was perceived as a basic tool of the primary argument categorization. Next, we clustered the assessed topics under the broader common contextual dimensions. Michel Foucault stated that subjects are created in discourses: ‘discourse is not the majestically unfolding manifestation of a thinking, knowing, speaking subject’ (Foucault, 1975). Instead, ‘individual self becomes a medium for the culture and its language’ (Kvale, 1992). In this sense, the discourse analysis is interrelated with the pragmatic approach that perceives networks and organizations as arenas of experience and action, articulated by juxtaposition of objects, in which the actors are involved according to hybrid judgements, discourses, and contexts. It brings out plural grammars of the community, the actor, and the collective (Cefaï, 2009). For example, if ‘lack of recording studios’ is seen as weakness by most of the interviewees, how do they define the plurality of the ecosystem intermediaries that shape this context? And what are the supposed ecosystem intermediaries for the ‘well-developed big scale infrastructure’, perceived mainly as a strength? How do interpretations of these contexts vary across different networks, organizations, and art entities? Through this approach, three main groups of contextual dimensions have been identified: 1/Group A: Contextual dimensions mainly related to the ‘topdown’, ‘macro-level’, ‘state-driven’ type of ecosystem intermediaries (e.g., intellectual property regulations and Abu Dhabi-based entities related to this field).

44

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

2/Group B: Contextual dimensions predominantly related to the ‘auto-regulated’, ‘market-driven’, ‘community-supported’ type of ecosystem intermediaries (e.g., small businesses founded by artists to support the local music production). 3/Group C: Contextual dimensions related primarily related to the locally embedded variables that particularize Abu Dhabi and that also become ecosystem intermediaries (e.g., the relatively recent embedding of theatre networks at the local level; the emerging local structures and networks). The three contextual dimensions that we identified do not exclude each other and coexist in different proportions across the ecosystem. The ecosystem sustainability is relative, from one organization, group or individual to another. Under varying market conditions, according to divergent arrangements, the balance of power shifts and a different calculation must be made (Pratt, 2015). As a final step, we interconnected (1) the intermediaries of the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem defined through the arguments of the interviews and (2) the available elements from the review of ecosystem literature (academic articles, international policies, case studies, etc.) to conceptualize by an inductive approach the observable ecosystem capacity tools in the context of Abu Dhabi (see Table 1). This approach does not pretend to be exhaustive, as it primarily encompasses the elements of the ecosystem that were mentioned in the stakeholder interviews. Also, the interconnection between the local contextual dimensions and the relevant elements of knowledge on ecosystems is inevitably fractional and not exhaustive. While acknowledging these limits, the analysis allows a better understanding of different logics of action that define the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem. Its broader implication is to provide an approach to describing a locally embedded ecosystem and its sustainability. The next parts of the paper discuss in more detail the identified Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem capacity tools. The analysis will also emphasize the existing gaps and suggest the interview-based recommendations for the further local capacity building.

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

45

Table 1 Interconnecting the identified Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem intermediaries and the relevant elements of knowledge on the ecosystems (1) The relevant elements from the ecosystem literature review (academic papers, international policies, case studies, etc.)

(2) The stakeholder interview arguments analysis

Conceptualization of the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem capacity tools

Key Contextual dimensions and local ecosystem intermediaries

1/Ecosystem collective capacity and knowledge flows

Group B: Contextual dimensions predominantly related to the ‘autoregulated’, ‘market-driven, ‘community-supported’ kind of ecosystem intermediaries (e.g., small businesses founded by artists to support the local music production).

Synthesis: Micro, meso- and macro levels of the ecosystem: how do the different performing arts ecosystem resources existing in Abu Dhabi articulate these three levels? What are the existing gaps related both to the morphology and the interconnection of these three levels? 2/Ecosystem adaptation to global standards and regulations

Group A: Contextual dimensions mainly related to the ‘top-down’, ‘macrolevel’, ‘state-driven’ kind of ecosystem intermediaries (e.g., intellectual property regulations and Abu-Dhabi-based entities related to this field).

Synthesis: The transversal connections of the ecosystem with the sectoral, national, and international regulations, legal frameworks. How do these connections impact the performing arts ecosystem elements? And vice versa, how do the growing needs of a developing ecosystem push towards the modifications in adjacent domains and social relations? 3/Ecosystem reproduction mechanisms, support to education and training

Group C: Contextual dimensions related primarily related to the locally embedded variables that particularize Abu Dhabi and that also become ecosystem intermediaries (e.g., the newly emerging local structures and networks).

Synthesis: The specificity of the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem consists in a combination of both the locally anchored and the transient elements that are being continuously attracted to the emirate from abroad. The constant efforts are made to sustain these elements and contribute to their long-time anchoring and organic reproduction in Abu Dhabi. What are the currently existing mechanisms of the ecosystem reproduction, strongly associated to the education and knowledge transmission? What are the missing elements that need to be implemented to make the ecosystem fully organic in its rapidly evolving environment?

Ecosystem Collective Capacity and Knowledge Flows The empirical evidence shows that the Abu Dhabi performing arts resources need to be analysed in relation to (1) their scale (“big scale” vs “small scale”) and (2) the way they are implemented or organized (“topdown” with the support of the government vs “bottom-up”, carried by singular entities). The analysis shows that the links between the governmental and quasi-governmental cultural entities, smaller-scale events, venues, and structures need to be further developed. These links could act to strengthen support as well as understanding in more detail how this support needs to be organized. At the same time, the big venues and events need to be better connected to the field of small entities and cultural practitioners, with the aim of developing, encouraging, and giving better visibility to the locally anchored artists (see Table 2).

46

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

Table 2 Ecosystem meso-level as a source for the further capacity building (Color figure online)

Macro-level – guiding principles Big events Top-Down

Big venues

Government support

Big structures Well-known practitioners

Meso-Level – collective

The

level

of

capacity,

between macro- and micro-

knowledge flows, shared

scales of the ecosystem that

governance,

needs to be supported further.

best practices, etc.

Micro-level – grassroots, emerging entities, artists, expressions, networks Small events Bottom-Up

Small venues

Private Entities

Small structures Beginner /not known practitioners

interaction

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

47

In Table 2, the micro- and macro-levels of Abu Dhabi’s performing arts ecosystem are defined by the criteria of the relative mass of symbolic and material resources gathered at the level of actors, structures and networks that implement the guiding principles top-down ecosystem regulations (macro-level) vs. at the level of entities, artists, expressions and networks that emerge spontaneously within the framework of grassroots dynamics (micro-level). The observation shows that the connection between the macro- and micro-dimensions of the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem needs to be further developed, in terms of fostering collective capacity, knowledge flows, shared governance, etc. The mutual integration of the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ elements (on the mesolevel, highlighted in orange on Table 2) supports the ecosystem integrity and constitutes the foundation of its organic and long-term development. The social aspect of the ecosystem’s meso-level needs to be reinforced, as it promotes the process of formation and development of stable cultural interactions among actors and entities. These interactions maintain proper and sustainable meso-economic mechanisms that reflect the complex ways in which macro-goals are being carried out (Matkovskyy, 2012). The numerous interviewees underline the lack of communication across the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem: between artists and the government/private sector, among artists themselves (e.g., need to further develop actor guilds in Abu Dhabi), but also among the traditional artists, who are both weakly connected to each other and to the non-traditional artists and cultural businesses.” The multicultural character of Abu Dhabi’s populations as well as the rich musical heritage that remains to be discovered are seen as major assets and opportunities to develop the talent base of the performing arts sector: “The history of Abu Dhabi and its ties to the Arabian Peninsula, Baluchistan, South and East Asia make it special compared to the other cities in the Arab world”. However, the local scene is very scattered and disconnected, in terms of genres, geographies, and sustainable links between the past and the present of Abu Dhabi: “The local music creativity and the music scene in Abu Dhabi is less appealing and interesting than, for example, in Cairo or Casablanca”, and “There is no group that represents the UAE music scene”. To improve the situation, the interviewees suggest embracing and acknowledging historically diverse components of Emirati culture and to a greater extent fostering policies where cultural difference is accommodated along with musical, cultural and linguistic diversity: “Create a scene for the people who live here, for the indigenous ”.

48

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

The interviewees argue that there is clear potential in the development of the performing arts in Abu Dhabi, as younger generations “are open to new and different things ”. To further develop performing arts audiences, the interviewees highlight the importance of creating more equal spatial access to cultural resources across the different communities, but also supporting new social ties and cohesion through cultural practices. Pop singers assume that best places to kick off a career as an original artist are the coffee shops that host “open mic” events and bring the community together. Theatre actors insist on the importance of “fringe theatre” and small theatre companies: “Create venues for self-expression, rather than corporates for producing products ”. The importance of the small- and medium-sized venues is highlighted by the multiple interviewees, who suggest that having more bars or informal venues where people can meet, perform, and jam is more important than concerns of ticket sales: “We need a sort of 150–250-person venue, not the great big sort of national theatres ”. Likewise, the interviewees highlight the importance of a distinctive Abu Dhabi “cultural footprint” that would make Abu Dhabi residents feel proud of their own cultural heritage. Therefore, local artists from different backgrounds need to be identified and supported. This would require (1) a collective branding of the music scene defined by its diversity, as well as (2) the articulation and promotion of diversity as an identity: “So that even if the expatriates leave the country, they will remember that and would want to go back”. The promotion of different traditional expressions (musical, but also traditional dance and theatre—including, for example, Indian folk theatre), as well as the creation of new productions which would combine modern and traditional dimensions, is another important strategy. Ecosystem Adaptation to Global Standards and Regulations The study of regulatory mechanisms of the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem involves describing the coordination, control, production, and sanction mechanisms that enable the regulation of its development. These elements depend on the specific history of the sector, as performing arts entities and actors evolve according to the adequacy between the mechanisms of coordination and their context. It is during interactions between actors, considering the environment in which they find themselves, that they define conflict resolution methods and decide on acceptable practices (Salvemini & Delmestri, 2000). However, our analysis shows that

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

49

Abu Dhabi performing arts regulations are mostly related to ‘top-down’, ‘macro-level’, ‘state-driven’ type of ecosystem intermediaries. In the case of Abu Dhabi, ecosystem regulations primarily encompass issues related to (1) visas and regulations, (2) rights organizations, and (3) companies’ headquarters. The main reasons that explain both the current challenges and the need to develop regulations further consist in the fact that the existing regulations are either insufficient (e.g., IP regulations) or not yet adapted to the specificities of the cultural and creative sectors (e.g., absence of legal regulations serving the performing arts ecosystem and providing guidance regarding administrative and businesses procedures and practices). Table 3 illustrates the currently observable situation in more detail. Table 3 illustrates identified concerns in the area of performing arts ecosystem regulations: the emirate-level (e.g., for visas and licences, business headquarters implementations, hiring, etc.) is still not exhaustive and needs to be further developed. Along with this, the specific adaptation of these major regulations to the cultural and creative field (e.g., creative visas, support to cultural businesses implementations in Abu Dhabi, specific legal frameworks for the artistic production, etc.) Table 3 levels

Ecosystem regulations: articulations between the local and the global

Lack of cohesion between the levels of regulation

Levels of regulation

Ecosystem capacity building areas

I/Lack of cohesion between the international and the emirate level of regulations.

a/International level of regulations (e.g., IP regulations). b/Emirate level of regulations (e.g., local approaches to the rights management). b’/Emirate level of regulations (e.g., visas, licensing, business support, etc.) c/Performing arts ecosystem specific regulations (to be continuously and further developed).

Develop local regulations in accordance with the international level of regulations.

II/Lack of adjustment between the emirate level of regulations and the ecosystem needs.

Develop the granular regulations customized to the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem needs.

50

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

is another important dimension to be fostered to a greater extent. In addition, the currently existing lack of cohesion between the international regulations, the emirate-level regulations, and the performing arts ecosystem regulations is being progressively addressed as a long-term and multi-stakeholder workflow. New types of long-term visas that would allow to international artists to stay and work in Abu Dhabi for a longer term are considered as one of the strongest prospects for improving the regulation of the performing arts ecosystem in Abu Dhabi. One of the interviewees has received such visa and now is starting his own theatre and filmmaking business as his situation has stabilized after 17 years of living and working in Abu Dhabi: “Abu Dhabi is moving in the right direction with the golden and creative visas ”. “The visa and the institutional facilities created to enable talents to settle, is a revolutionary decision”. The question of visas and licenses is strongly interrelated with the transient character of many artists and small enterprises, events, and networks in the performing arts, which is considered as a major barrier for the long-term development of the performing arts: “If artists are transient, the culture will be transient too”, “With Covid and cancelling all the entertainment/ live performances, people could no longer afford to be here, they needed to be supported and protected”. The funding for original content production is equally mentioned as an important area of support: “Producing content here is pricey. Because there are very few people doing it. And within those people, there’s even fewer that can really do it at a high level ”. Artists also need to have a more stable level of income than is generally the case to navigate the uncertainties of creative occupations. The ‘typical’ (i.e., non-star) artist works multiple jobs, works longer than average hours in both arts and non-arts activity, is likely to work on short-term contracts with no sustainable career structure: “Outside of the international artists who live here, none of the locally based artists are able to survive with just art ”. “We need to create a status such as for instance ‘intermittents du spectacle’ in France”. Besides, the rights management organizations field still needs to be developed in the UAE. The opportunities related to the development of rights management include inviting international specialists in intellectual property and implementing an intellectual property court. The whole legal framework of ownership needs to be consolidated, as well as the structure that would allow artists to have a more direct control over their rights and revenue collection. The interviewees suggest international

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

51

benchmarking of sectoral legal frameworks. As Abu Dhabi is still developing rights organizations almost from scratch, international experience is helpful both in implementing best practices and avoiding mistakes that other countries have made in the past: “Abu Dhabi needs to look how the laws have been written in other countries, and how the different companies that form that ecosystem have been allowed to operate, to learn from that to not repeat the same mistakes here”. Further, attracting the headquarters of performing arts businesses would help Abu Dhabi to increase its competitive advantage in an area where Dubai is clearly leading in this field today: “You can shape Abu Dhabi as a hub that will provide its own identity independent of Dubai”, “Convince the headquarters to open offices in Abu Dhabi, reach out to places like Spotify, Anghami and Universal ”. The interviewees mentioned the potential of Abu Dhabi as an emerging technological hub that combines the business dimension with increasing concentration of knowledge and technology. The accumulation of technological competence may help to enhance Abu Dhabi’s attractiveness for business headquarters in the future: “Abu Dhabi’s investment in tech/ the tech hub will attract many tech companies to set up there; It is more tech focused, less like commercial focused”. The technological dimension is becoming increasingly important for cultural and creative industries, as digital technologies allow arts and cultural organizations to exploit their cultural assets and to create more social and economic value, assuming content rights tools can be established. Ecosystem Reproduction Mechanisms, Support to Education and Training Cultural reproduction is part of a larger process of social reproduction through which entire societies and their cultural, structural, and ecological characteristics are reproduced through a process that invariably involves a certain amount of social change (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1970). Under this prism, the Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem reproduction evokes the social process through which practices related to music, dance, and theatre are reproduced across generations (cross-generational transmission), but also through the socializing influence of educative entities, professional training opportunities, and research networks. As “educational systems are particularly not amenable to universalist evaluation because, more than other social systems, they fulfil a function

52

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

of cultural conservation and have an intimate relationship with the past of their national cultures” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1970), the history and social development of Abu Dhabi do not allow comparing the emirate to countries with longer-term traditions of institutionalized forms of music, dance, and theatre education. However, the debates and discourses that frame the performing arts ecosystem reproduction can be considered as relatively universalist, as Abu Dhabi aims to position itself among other clusters of artistic education regionally and internationally, through the implementation of best international practices (e.g., introduction of the educative institutions with integrated curriculum, etc.). Yet, this implementation must be done through the gradual adaptation of internationally approved concepts to the local cultural landscape. Table 4 summarizes the key elements of the Abu Dhabi’s performing arts education system and explains the currently existing areas of further capacity building. Table 4 illustrates, in a non-exhaustive manner, the existing gaps in the current structure of the performing arts ecosystem reproduction, such as: (1) the need to further develop performing arts education for all in primary/secondary school curriculum; (2) the absence of a unified approach to the performing arts education in specialized schools dedicated to the subject matter; (3) the need to further develop the levels of the specialized national education system that provide career paths to young musicians, actors, and dancers who aim to become professionals of international calibre; (4) the quasi-undiscovered richness of Abu Dhabi local musical expressions, music traditions, etc.—and the necessity to build sustainable cohesion between these expressions and institutional systems of education and research. The strong aspects of performing arts education are associated with the long-term presence of several private art schools. The educational programmes developed locally by these schools are adapted to the local context in terms of pedagogical approach, curricula, relations between teachers and students that come from different cultural backgrounds, etc. The interviewees also refer to the “big hubs” of performing arts education such as NYUAD Arts Centre, and Berklee Abu Dhabi. Bait Al Oud, dedicated to the preservation, study, and teaching of the oud and other Arabic instruments, also has an excellent reputation. To anchor classical music expressions in Abu Dhabi, the idea of establishing a professional orchestra is considered to be important, yet not universally accepted. Among the interviewees who support this idea,

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

53

Table 4 Areas for further ecosystem capacity building in education, research, and training Existing performing arts education resources (non-exhaustive list)

Areas of further ecosystem capacity building (non-exhaustive list)

Post-secondary level education (e.g., NYU Abu Dhabi’s Music Programs, Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi, etc.) Music and performing arts education programmes (e.g., the Cultural Foundation, the Berklee Abu Dhabi Center, etc.) Introductory music programmes offered in primary and secondary schools. Performing arts workshops. Music, dance, theatre private schools Non-institutionalizeda and lesser-known Abu Dhabi cultural practices (national music expressions, oral traditions, etc.) practised in families, communities, etc

Support the unified levels of the performing arts education system aligned with the Abu Dhabi education system. Support the levels of specialized national education system that offer career paths for future professionals. Foster specialized research programmes in sociology, art history, anthropology, and other social sciences closely related to the performing arts by supporting specialized curricula and research grants. Enhance professional training opportunities in the performing arts and the adjunct fields (e.g., communication, costume design, advertising, etc.). Enhance sustainable cohesion between non-institutionalized and lesser-known Abu Dhabi cultural practices and institutional systems of education and research

a We choose to refer to institutionalized vs non-institutionalized practices instead of professional vs

community based, as the community-based practices may be institutionalized (or not), according to the case. The professional practices are institutionalized in most of the cases.

the viewpoints on the articulation between Arabic and Western musical tradition differ: some interviewees suggest having an Emirati Symphony Orchestra that will play and compose classical music based both on the Western and on the Arabic/Emirati traditional forms, whereas others recommend creating two separate orchestras, one for the Western classical music and another for the Emirati and Arabic musical expressions. The Abu Dhabi-based entities invite international and renowned practitioners; therefore, the knowledge sharing is well developed, even compared to countries with longer-term traditions of performing arts education, but less connected in terms of international artistic networks: “The world’s best practitioners come and share their knowledge in Abu Dhabi, this is extremely stimulating. It is almost impossible to meet this people if you live in Slovenia, for instance”.

54

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

However, Abu Dhabi’s performing arts ecosystem is perceived to lack resources related to professional training and expertise. The professional musicians, dancers, and actors that we interviewed emphasize the need to develop talent development programmes that would showcase, support, and coach talent. Managers and producers need to be trained as well. Moreover, the emerging artists need support for essential skills such as technical writing and dossier making. The lack of this support impedes the careers of the young artists compared to their more established and professional peers. Finally, the interviewees stress the lack of communication among (and with) the performers who play traditional instruments. The Abu Dhabi emirate is home to many activities related to traditional expressions of the performing arts. However, despite their potential to contribute to Abu Dhabi’s unique and authentic cultural identity and artistic status, many of these expressions remain quasi-undiscovered by both researchers and larger audiences. The Abu Dhabi-based researchers have highlighted multiple opportunities for research projects focusing on traditional Emirati performing arts: “Get teams of researchers, including young Emiratis, to go out and find through family connections, individuals who they know, the local performers, singers, or poets, and archive their work”.

Conclusion The aim of this research was to describe the performing arts ecosystem of Abu Dhabi and to analyse the factors that impact the sustainability of its production. We have done so by examining the ecosystem intermediaries that bring together the necessary agents. The analysis showed that these intermediaries coexist in different proportions across the ecosystem which is shaped simultaneously by the logics of state policies, civil society, and by locally embedded socio-historical variables, etc. The research outlined the importance of the context: social, spatial, historic, and temporal factors in constituting the ‘local capacities’ of the ecosystem. On the one hand, the sustainability of Abu Dhabi’s performing arts ecosystem is emerging, due to its speed of change, and the organizational forms gradually adopted to facilitate this change. The organizations and cultural professionals that support Abu Dhabi’s performing arts ecosystem are evolving to embrace models and practices that reflect new ways of working, creating value and driving impacts in the society and the economy at large. On the other hand, its resilience is still challenged

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

55

in the longer term because of the transitory status of a significant part of Abu Dhabi’s population and the not yet fully resilient and self-sustaining structures within which cultural practitioners can operate. To support the sustainable music, dance, and theatre production, the developing performing arts structures and networks need to be further embedded in the Abu Dhabi locality through long-term training, innovation, and capacity building. Even though the art education is gradually developing, educational entities, approaches, and curricula are not yet organized into a coherent system of equivalent international measures. This has an impact on the gradual maturation of cultured audiences, but also on the development of cultural professionals in Abu Dhabi. In terms of social innovation and capacity building, more recognition needs to be given to people and organizations that support creative work in community settings. The protection and enhancement of creative workers who can potentially act as custodians of local cultural heritage is another important area of continued promotion of the ecosystem in Abu Dhabi. The second related dimension of ecosystem sustainability concerns the fragmented and diverse individuals and groups that increasingly coordinate and form the supporting structures of the ecosystem (e.g., actor guilds), enhancing knowledge flows and interactions within the ecosystem, as well as the growth of favorable factors for the younger generations. The intermediaries at all levels, including small and microenterprises, need to be further supported and interconnected. Mentoring and other pathways to facilitate people’s integration into the ecosystem are considered by interviewees as key to making it more inclusive. Supporting “meso-level” relationships is vital to strengthening the coherence of Abu Dhabi’s performing arts ecosystem and its organic growth. Furthermore, Abu Dhabi’s performing arts regulations are mostly related to the ‘top-down’, ‘macro-level’, ‘state-driven’ type of ecosystem intermediaries. The specific adaptations of the major regulations to the cultural and creative field need to be further developed. Even though regulations related to visas, licences, and legal frameworks are becoming progressively flexible, there is still a lack of consistency and cohesion between international regulations, emirate-level regulations, and sectoral regulations. Creative work needs to be further recognized as work. Its further inclusion in frameworks reflecting national policies would be another measure to increase ecosystem sustainability.

56

E. RAEVSKIKH AND M. JAFFRÉ

References Aarseth, H. (2016). Eros in the field? Bourdieu’s double account of socialized desire. The Sociological Review, 64(1), 93–109. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1970). La Reproduction. Éléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Éditions de Minuit. Cefaï, D. (2009). L’apport d’une approche pragmatiste à la sociologie de l’action collective. Sociologie et sociétés, 41(2), 245–269. Escalona, A., Sáez, L., & Sánchez-Valverde, B. (2018). Location conditions for the clustering of creative activities in extra-metropolitan areas: Analysis and evidence from Spain. Applied Geography, 91, 1–9. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir. Gallimard. Gill, R., Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (Eds.). (2019). Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy. Springer. Kvale, S. (1992). Postmodern psychology: A contradiction in terms? In S. Kvale (Ed.), Inquiries in social construction: Psychology and postmodernism (pp. 31– 57). Sage. Lloyd, R. (2010). Neo-bohemia: Art and commerce in the post-industrial city. Routledge. Markusen, A., & Schrock, G. (2006). The distinctive city: Divergent patterns in growth, hierarchy and specialisation. Urban Studies, 43(8), 1301–1323. Matkovskyy, R. (2012). A meso-level representation of economic systems: A theoretical approach. MPRA. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/ 44093 Meijers, E. J., & Burger, M. J. (2017). Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size.’ Urban Studies, 54, 269–329. Polanyi, M. (2002/1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Routledge. Pratt, A. C. (2015). Resilience, locality and the cultural economy. City, Culture and Society, 6(3), 61–67. Pratt, A. C. (2017). Beyond resilience: Learning from the cultural economy. European Planning Studies, 25, 127–139. Raevskikh, E., Haidar, R., & Khamis, N. (2021). Cultural indicators in Abu Dhabi: Theoretic framework and challenges for their building. Quality & Quantity, 55, 2065–2086. Salvemini, S., & Delmestri, G. (2000). Governance in the movie industry: Alternatives to Hollywood? International Journal of Arts Management, 2(2), 59–73. Silver, D., Clark, T. N., & Graziul, Ch. (2011). Scenes, innovation, and urban development. In Handbook of creative cities (Chapter 12). Edward Elgar. Virani, T. E. (2016). The resilience of a local music scene in Dalston, London. In B. J. Hracs, M. Seman, & T. E. Virani (Eds.), The production and consumption of music in the digital age (Vol. 1). Routledge.

THE PERFORMING ARTS ECOSYSTEM IN ABU DHABI …

57

Virani, T. E. (2019). Local creative and cultural economy intermediaries: Examining place-based workers in the creative and cultural economy. Network: Queen Mary University Centre for the Creative and Cultural Industries Working Paper series. https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/ 56649 Virani, T., & Pratt, A. C. (2016). Intermediaries and the knowledge exchange process. In Higher education and the creative economy: Beyond the campus (pp. 41–58). Routledge. Wilson, N., Gross, J., Dent, T., Comunian, R., Kim, S., Snowball, J., Friderichs, T., Rogan, M., & Chau, K. (2022). The Cultural Development Index (CDI): Theorisation and implications. DISCE Publications. https://disce.eu

From Strangers to a Designer Community: An Ecosystem Perspective of Creative Hub Formation in Taipei City Jiun-Yi Wu and Tarek E. Virani

Introduction Cultural and creative industries have become a policy initiative of great popularity around the globe due to their potential to tackle economic downturns, social problems and even transform rundown spaces and areas within specific localities. The economic contribution of cultural and creative industries policy, such as the creation of work and generation of a fast-increasing economic growth rate, is of no doubt. Moreover, the promotion of cultural and creative industries has been applied to locality regeneration and the rebrand of cities or regions which have deindustrialised. It has become a panacea for policymakers. However, promotion of cultural and creative industries becomes challenging if policymakers are unaware of the nature of these industries. It has been widely recognised that working in cultural and creative industries is precarious (Avdikos &

J.-Y. Wu Department of Art Industry, National Taitung University, Taitung City, Taiwan e-mail: [email protected] T. E. Virani (B) University of the West of England, Bristol, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_4

59

60

J.-Y. WU AND T. E. VIRANI

Iliopoulou, 2019; Gill & Pratt, 2008; Ocejo, 2017) since it is volatile (McGuigan, 2010) and uncertain (Gill et al., 2019). Furthermore, the varied working patterns and mindsets sometimes lead workers to professional isolation (Bell & Jayne, 2010). Participants in cultural and creative industries are, in most cases, likely to be either individuals or operate on a micro-scale, which Pratt (2015) considers a potential strategic weakness of cultural and creative industries. In this regard, cultural and creative practitioners might be unable to achieve self-sufficiency. Furthermore, the short-term and fast-changing nature of project-based working pattern leads to fragile personal alliances and personal commitments (Mommaas, 2004). For instance, Grugulis and Stoyanova (2011) point out the reality that junior practitioners might not be able to learn from their more experienced counterparts who work collectively on projects since the senior practitioners may move on to the next project while conducting or finishing the present one. Such a working pattern would cause and exacerbate exceptional uncertainty and difficulty for junior cultural and creative practitioners. Among policy approaches of promoting cultural and creative industries, supporting formation of cultural and creative clusters is one model which has been applied in various countries including Taiwan. Cunningham (2002) argues that cluster theory defined by Michael Porter has gained popularity in the policy-making sphere and been widely adopted to understand cultural and creative industries and their role in place. Porter (1998) defines a cluster as a particular location with a critical mass of upstream and downstream industries that specialise in the same or related fields. By proximity, corporations can benefit from a lower production cost while support or resources may be more accessible, thus enhancing competitive advantage because of cost minimisation. Scott (1999) points out that development of cultural and creative industries has a spatial form and is often interconnected with place and community. It is perceived that the economic potential of cultural and creative industries is derived from clustering as individuals or enterprises engaged in these industries tend to co-locate in specific locations (Florida, 2012; Scott, 1999), areas or regions for a cost-effective environment (Pratt & Virani, 2015). That is to say, cultural and creative industries development has a focused spatial form (Mommaas, 2004; Pratt, 2008; Scott, 1999) as spatial proximity enables cultural and creative workers or enterprises to have ease of access to necessary production resources. This

FROM STRANGERS TO A DESIGNER COMMUNITY …

61

is acutely prevalent in creative hubs that are located within clusters (see Dovey et al., 2016; Gill et al., 2019; Virani & Malem, 2015). However, the notion of clusters has mostly been seen as a tool to generate economic outcomes paying less attention to the underlying rationale behind how a cultural and creative cluster operates, which involves ‘relationships.’ This is where the notion of creative ecosystems can contribute. As such, Gasparin and Quinn (2021) consider a creative ecosystem as a network of dynamic relationships between individuals, institutions and infrastructures to generate economic, social and cultural values through cultural and creative practices and activities. Referring to the nature of cultural and creative practices, Jeffcutt (2004) and Grabher (2004) described the collaboration between firms in the cultural and creative industries as ‘a project ecology,’ ‘ecologies of creativity’ and ‘a creative industries ecosystem.’ The notion of an ecosystem seems to offer a better way of acknowledging and understanding the interconnected modalities and values of cultural and creative production and consumption (Potts et al., 2008) that have traditionally been considered as separate. Furthermore, De Bernard et al. (2022) argue that the ecosystem perspective challenges the linear model to which governance and management of the cultural and creative industries are typically applied. Although there has been an increasing application of ecological language in relation to the cultural and creative industries within both policy-making practices and academic studies, the existing work provides little clarity on the overall scope and definition. This requires more efforts to systematic and practitioner-centred primary research for a better understanding of how networks of a creative ecosystem works and operates. This chapter, then, argues for a nuanced exploration into the notion of creative ecosystems and demonstrates a case study of a creative hub in Taipei City to highlight the social and locality aspects of forming an ecosystem for development of cultural and creative industries. Moreover, it offers an example of ecosystemic approaches outside of the orbit of Western orientations of the concept. Creative hubs are becoming increasingly important to the policy landscape with respect to creative clusters (Virani et al., 2020). They are essentially micro-clusters and anchor much creative and cultural activity through their flexibility and agility as well as what they offer to creative and cultural workers (Gill et al., 2019; Virani & Malem, 2015). They are

62

J.-Y. WU AND T. E. VIRANI

also important nodes within the ecosystem as they enhance and create networks of opportunity and potential.

From a Dominant Production Aspect to Individuals A majority of discussion on reasons for such spatial agglomeration looks at production purposes of cultural and creative practices. For instance, Throsby (2008) indicates a seven-phase production cycle involving creation, production, dissemination, exhibition/reception, consumption/ participation, archiving/preserving and education/training. Pratt (2015) points out that cultural and creative industries share characteristics of both commodity production and manufacturing systems and refers to a cultural production system that consists of conception, manufacturing, distribution, consumption and archiving. Referring to a rather detailed aspect of production, Scott (1999) indicates that the spatial agglomeration of cultural and creative industries provides a ‘talent pool’ where individual workers and firms can benefit from mutual accessibility when co-locating as they are able to provide and receive services to and from each other. Moreover, a critical mass of cultural workers is also important for the sustainability of a skilled labour pool. In this regard, firms and individual workers develop a ‘demand-and-supply’ network to support cultural and creative production. Arguably, the basic unit within the cultural and creative production is cultural and creative practitioners. Indeed, individual creativity is at the heart of cultural and creative industries. Cultural and creative practitioners are knowledge workers who are paid to use their mind (Florida, 2012) instead of physical labour. Moreover, cultural and creative industries are intrinsically anarchic and individualistic (Pratt, 2005), and cultural and creative practitioners are a group of people who are value-driven; that is, they tend to rather be motivated by particular social and cultural values (Goodwin, 2019) more so than economic incentives. What is more, the various practices, no matter if they are in the form of physical labour or services, that result in goods produced by cultural and creative practitioners tend to contain and represent specific symbolic values (Garnham, 1987; Scott, 1999) and subjective meaning (Scott, 2004), which may also reflect practitioners’ appreciation of certain values. An emphasis on specific values leads to a ‘new normal of working life’

FROM STRANGERS TO A DESIGNER COMMUNITY …

63

(Taylor & Luckman, 2018) where cultural and creative workers might be sacrificing something to be consistent with values they appreciate and follow. Values, in this regard, become a religion or ethos (Florida, 2012) and play an irreplaceable role for workers in their practice and everyday living. These characteristics differentiate cultural and creative practices from other industries and where the application of cluster theory defined by Michael Porter might fall short.

Social Aspect of Cultural and Creative Industries The formation of a cultural and creative cluster is not merely a grouping of individual cultural and creative practitioners. Pratt et al. (2019) argue that co-location is not only attributed to economic advantages which cultural and creative workers can obtain; it is also due to compulsory sociality. It is the connectivity between members of the cluster that makes a cluster work and function properly. Merkel (2019) indicates an interactive aspect of clustering that members of a co-working space are not working alone, but together. It is the sociality, both formal and informal, that allows co-location to function. With regard to intensive interaction, access to specific knowledge and information is a vital factor where cultural and creative workers or enterprises tend to co-locate. Through spatial proximity, cultural and creative practitioners have access to professional knowledge of other members who cluster in the same locality; however, co-location is surely not enough (Boschma & Ter Wal, 2007) since co-location with other firms does not guarantee interaction. Bathelt et al. (2004) explain that the key is staying in the loop and tuning into the local buzz for valuable information sharing. Furthermore, Boschma and Ter Wal (2007) stress that strong local connectivity not only increases the innovation performance of a firm, but it can also strengthen connectivity to external firms, similar to global pipelines (Bathelt et al., 2004). Thus, connectivity is the key to obtaining production-oriented competitive advantages. Apart from the formal and practical purposes of interaction, O’Connor and Gu (2014) regard various forms and levels of interaction among cultural and creative workers as soft infrastructure. A soft infrastructure is an informal and virtual network constructed by individual workers or enterprises. This network allows cultural and creative practitioners to

64

J.-Y. WU AND T. E. VIRANI

support each other and, thus, benefit from the connections created (see Virani, 2019; Virani & Malem, 2015). Unlike other industries where workers or firms may primarily interact through formal channels at work, practitioners who are engaged in cultural and creative industries, at large, benefit from informal interactions with their counterparts. It has been argued that cultural and creative workers who are beneficiaries of informal interactions are ‘learning by hanging about’ (Pratt, 2018). Informality can provide cultural and creative practitioners with more flexibility to meet the challenges of working in atypical patterns from other industries. Some researchers argue that the informality of cultural and creative practices leads to the cultivation of a ‘creative milieu’ or ‘ecosystem’ (Hutton, 2006; Mommaas, 2009; Scott, 1999; Van Heur, 2010). With an informal network and the invisible atmosphere that nurtures cultural and creative practices, it is likely for cultural and creative practitioners who co-locate in specific localities to form a community and nurture knowledge, communication and innovation (Amin & Thrift, 1992). This chapter, accordingly, sheds light on the social aspect of cultural and creative practices and argues that this plays a critical role in a creative ecosystem. This, then, provides a rather comprehensive perspective to understand the nature of the industries and enables a robust approach of support from both policy and industries.

Chung Shan Creative Hub Chung Shan Creative Hub was a site that housed a diverse group of designers in Taipei City from 2011 to 2014. It was previously a warehouse and distribution centre for the Taiwan Tobacco and Liquor Cooperation in Taipei City. After being left unused for years, it was turned into one of the Urban Regeneration Stations, known as URS, which is an urban regeneration project initiated by Taipei City Urban Regeneration Office. The site was then commissioned to JUT Foundation for Arts and Architecture from 2011 to 2014. URS was proposed and established to create a new urban forum and opportunities for public participation, claimed Taipei City Urban Regeneration Office. It is not just a campaign, but each of the URS is a platform and a network. The spaces can be used as an area for workshops, a place for neighbourhood activities, a hub for information gathering, a public space for social interaction, a venue for exhibitions and a location for experimental actions.

FROM STRANGERS TO A DESIGNER COMMUNITY …

65

Chung Shan Creative Hub, normally known as URS 21, was set up to create an interaction platform for design and creativity to achieve three tasks: urban regeneration, local connection and clustering of cultural and creative industries. The site, then, accommodated a light meal restaurant, 13 studios and spaces for exhibitions and workshops in the building, and it also included outdoor spaces for activities. Reflecting on the aim of this site, tenants who were in their early stage of career and in sectors of architecture and design were exclusively targeted. Thus, the tenants included product designers, architects, a fashion designer and two curating organisations. The hub has been closed since 30th of June in 2014 as the contract came to an end and because Taipei City Government intended to use the site to hold events for the 2016 World Design Capital (Taipei); however, the Chung Shan Creative Hub has become a classic case when it comes to creative hubs.

Curating Space, People, and Opportunity: The Vital Role of an Intermediary For most start-ups in cultural and creative industries, they are run on a micro-scale which does not allow them to be self-sufficient. This is where a professional intermediary team comes in. This case study shows the fundamental but vital service which an intermediary provides to support designers in the hub. You know designers don’t like to do the management. If we can have a manager or a management team, it would be great. (Interviewee 3) JUT is like a landlord who is very professional at managing all the stuff, and I think this role is very important as it could lower our burden of managing the environment. They act like a parents’ role, which in a way is invisible as everything is under control, but you will feel the inconvenience once they are gone…Such as collecting mails, there are always people there. This is very important because we are all small-scaled studios and sometimes we need to go out (for meeting or visiting others). (Interviewees 4 & 5)

Apart from managing the site, this case study also shows the importance of space arrangement that the intermediary achieved. Due to the careful and tailored space arrangement by JUT, all the designers’ studios are on

66

J.-Y. WU AND T. E. VIRANI

the same floor with a linear order. As a consequence, designers have more opportunities to meet each other unconsciously, and thus, it generates more contact between them in a subtle way. This also creates opportunities for practitioners to be aware of the latest development of each studio. You can easily see what projects other designers are running and it’s also good for mutual stimulation in terms of ideas. (Interviewee 1) I think this is a very good arrangement as we can see what other designers are doing at any time and catch up with their latest circumstance or what exhibitions or products they are conducting. (Interviewee 3)

Furthermore, people are a far more vital factor in terms of promotion and development of a creative hub. In this case study, the intermediary held various internal events in order to create a platform for designers of the hub to know each other, thus to curate the social network of the creative hub. When we just moved in, everyone was shy...but JUT held a few events, and then we got to know each other and became familiar with others. (Interviewee 3) In the very beginning, we were not familiar with each other. But JUT held a small exhibition, which each of us can showcase something we like, it was like a house-warming party…They made our community feel more like a community. (Interviewees 4 & 5)

Since JUT is an organisation which has been engaged in arts, culture, design and architecture for years, they already have a strong network in place. In this case, JUT shared its own media and marketing resources with designers in the hub. This enabled further publicity and created potential opportunities for micro-scaled designer studios as they may not be sufficient in that. They would publish our information on their website, which for us is an extra way to access potential customers. (Interviewees 4 & 5) They would also introduce the media to us so that we could have extra opportunities of getting broadcast. (Interviewee 1)

FROM STRANGERS TO A DESIGNER COMMUNITY …

67

In short, since creative practitioners are, in most cases, likely to be individual or micro-scaled, they often do not have extra time and professional knowledge to take care of various aspects of management and practices apart from their professions. It is time-consuming and not cost-effective. This is where an intermediary role comes in. An intermediary is important in supporting micro-scaled practitioners in cultural and creative industries. A professional intermediary plays an exceptionally vital role in the formation of a creative ecosystem where they can curate people and opportunity.

Interwoven Social Network of Cultural and Creative Practitioners I think designers, in a way, are quite isolated. Interaction is quite rare. But here provided a platform for interaction. (Interviewee 1)

With effort and support from the intermediary, designers who colocated in URS 21 gradually cultivated a sense of community which then strengthened connection and enabled further interaction between the designers. Referring to the nature of cultural and creative practice, participation in cultural and creative sectors is often seen as volatile and precarious. Furthermore, cultural and creative practitioners are more likely to experience professional isolation, which makes participation with cultural and creative industries even tougher. This case study argues that affective connections between designers who co-locate in URS 21 are exceptionally important, particularly as they were all micro-scaled junior designers, to tackle the challenging nature of working in cultural and creative sectors. The connection is not merely about friendship, but it refers to a professional identity of which only cultural and creative practitioners can understand the difficulties or challenges that many have been through. In that sense, affective connection between practitioners can be of exceptional importance in terms of supporting and securing a volatile and precarious career. You would feel confident as you know everyone is doing the same thing, and you would know that you can also give it a try, and it would become more serious. (Interviewee 1)

68

J.-Y. WU AND T. E. VIRANI

When you walk in and you know every studio is about the same size, working in such an environment is different from working in an office of a big corporation. The energy is also different. (Interviewee 4) I think we have something in common in our professions, so there are a few journeys of hard times that I’ve been through which only designers in this cluster can understand. (Interviewee 6)

Based on the mutual identity and affective connection that the designers developed, these tend to lead to informal interaction between designers. Informal interactions take various forms and tend to connect closely to practitioners’ lives and enrich their working experiences. I think working here is like parts of life and closely bound together with my life, for example I often invite other designers to have lunch together. Although we are often busy doing our own work, we go out for a meal together, we discuss what we are doing or to know whether there is anything interesting that we can do together, or we would also share some work of a project once it’s overloaded. (Interviewee 1) We would also go to other studios to have a chat after having meals together…We like the feeling of many studios working together, sometimes we hold parties, go to other’s studios, borrow stuff or have a chat, etc. (Interviewees 4 & 5)

Informality blurs the boundaries between work and personal life, which is quite common in cultural and creative sectors. The informal interactions with other practitioners have transformed relationships between practitioners in the same hub. They are not only career partners/colleagues, but they also become friends in their lives and career. Such relationships strengthen their connections, and, based on that, via informal interactions, more formal collaborations can also be discussed and generated. This chapter then argues for the importance of a shared culture between cultural and creative practitioners. On the one hand, this cannot be established without a sense of community and mutual identity between practitioners. On the other hand, the shared culture benefits practitioners as they are not self-sufficient. The lack of sufficient support and resources may threaten their long-term development. Sharing between practitioners

FROM STRANGERS TO A DESIGNER COMMUNITY …

69

can provide practitioners with various support and resources such as information, professional knowledge or tools, all of which are basic but vital for their creative practices. Such as where to buy cheaper printer inks, what projects have been released, which exhibition is worth attending or looking for subcontractors. Such information exchange is helpful…It’s all very basic but practical. (Interviewees 4 & 5)

Furthermore, this case study demonstrates an advanced example of a shared culture between designers. Practitioners of this case study tend to be honest and open to each other. We don’t worry too much about sharing our business information. I do not hide from other designers what I’m undertaking and do not worry about it. (Interviewee 1) I tend to share information with them because I think the current circumstance of the design industry is quite bad, and if the information is not open nor exchanged, the whole industry will not be good…I can let everyone know what I’m doing, thus, information is open and accessible. (Interviewee 3)

Designers of this creative hub are also willing to share their professional opinions and knowledge with each other. This can generate a positive energy within the hub. We often place our prototypes in the common space, we would have discussions while they pass by. Such as the studio next to us, they are doing craft design, so we would give some suggestions to the furniture they are prototyping. (Interviewee 2) I was not familiar with industrial design as I established my studio. People here provided me with many know-hows and techniques…And then, you would know what you can do and what you cannot. (Interviewee 6) We would invite them to test our products. You would get practical feedback from them quickly. And they understand why you did it this way, so they won’t think your product is strange. It’s better than looking for random people to do the test. (Interviewees 4 & 5)

70

J.-Y. WU AND T. E. VIRANI

Surprisingly, the established shared culture also leads to sharing of business opportunities, which is seen as confidential in most business scenarios. This research argues that it does not make it possible without affective connections, which enables them to be open and willing to share or introduce business opportunities with each other. We worked independently but helped each other. For example, as other designers were consulted to take a design project but if they thought it was not suitable for them but may be rather suitable for us, they would generously introduce the project to us, and we did the same to them. (Interviewee 2) Sometimes we would invite buyers to visit here and would also introduce other designers to the buyers. This might lead to future collaboration. (Interviewee 6)

In short, being physically co-located does not guarantee interaction or connection. It is the affective connection that interweaves social networks between cultural and creative practitioners. This cultivates a sense of community and forms a mutual identity among practitioners. Once established, interaction can be possible, and the creative ecosystem can be developed.

Locality Matters in a Different Aspect Cost efficiency is one major concern when it comes to location. This chapter argues that a non-economic preference for specific location in cultural and creative sectors is rarely discussed and indeed plays a crucial role in development of cultural and creative industries. That is to say, location rather reflects personal preference and an ideal style of living and working. This is a unique aspect of a creative ecosystem which has not been widely discussed. An interviewee points to the distinct local culture when seeking for relocation of their studio. We had been looking for a place with distinct culture in Taipei for a long time, and here is an area of the new and the old. It is a very interesting place…I think design is like an object reflecting everyday life. This area helps us to discover various living styles there. (Interviewee 2)

FROM STRANGERS TO A DESIGNER COMMUNITY …

71

In that sense, a preferred locality is not merely a place for work, it is also a place where practitioners can immerse themselves in the locality and enable their practice to be embedded with that locality. This, then, blurs the boundaries between work and living, which is one of the distinct characteristics of working in cultural and creative industries. For example, one interviewee points to an interesting living aspect of the area: This area has a different atmosphere than any other area (in Taipei). For example, because it accommodates more migrants from the south, thus, the food is different, and more people speak Taiwanese. And the other big impact is the hospital. Sometimes you would see ill or disabled people, and every time I see them, this makes me think of something and you could have a closer look of the world. I do not know how this would have impact on my design, but it does influence my brain. (Interviewee 6)

Furthermore, the other aspect of a preferred locality is a welcoming local community. Cultural and creative practices tend to be embedded in the locality and this highlights a key role of a welcoming community regarding the clustering of cultural and creative practitioners in a specific locality. In this case study, it shows that practitioners build up a positive relationship with the local community. We also have frequent contact with the local community. The office of village chief is at the ground floor, and we often gather together to attend worship memorials. It was a very special experience. (Interviewee 2) We are fairly familiar with the local neighbours in this block. We would greet each other and share vegetables or fruits…Neighbours are kind and take care of young people who move here to establish businesses. (Interviewees 9 & 10)

This chapter further argues that the local supporting system should be understood as a part of the creative ecosystem. The area which this case study situated accommodates various material shops and small-scale manufacturing factories and individual masters, which an interviewee of this study describes as having a ‘maker atmosphere’ (Interviewee 2). This is a unique characteristic of this locality and it is described as ‘no other place like this in Taipei’ (Interviewee 2). Since practitioners of this case study are mostly product designers, their practice involves making and

72

J.-Y. WU AND T. E. VIRANI

testing prototypes; thus, this is an ideal area for them as it is easy to find production materials. It’s also very close to Taiyuan Road and convenient to buy materials for making prototypes. (Interviewees 4 & 5) There are many resources for making stuff and materials such as iron street and stores of hand-made products…It was fairly easy to get materials, such as metal and there is a street selling wooden materials. (Interviewee 2)

To sum up, an ideal locality to work is a vital factor when it comes to location. It is not merely for work purposes, although this is a crucial factor that interviewees of this case study point out, but it is also about the preference for a specific local culture. The work aspect of a preferred locality refers to the support system, including basic living and working services. Furthermore, it is also about production support such as easy access to material purchasing and technical support from masters or factories which enables a smooth production process. In terms of the social aspect of a preferred locality to work, a welcoming local community plays a vital role in the development of clustering of cultural and creative practitioners.

Conclusion This chapter argues for the importance of an ecosystem perspective towards understanding and supporting cultural and creative industries. In particular, the case study identifies three crucial factors of a creative ecosystem in Taipei, i.e. intermediary, social network of cultural and creative practitioners and locality. Due to the nature of cultural and creative sectors, most start-ups in the industries tend to be individual or run on a micro-scale, and thus, they may not be self-sufficient. This is where a professional intermediary comes in. An intermediary supports the establishment of social networks and platforms for interaction among cultural and creative practitioners. This is exceptionally vital considering the formation of a creative ecosystem. Once the social connection between cultural and creative practitioners is established, this can lead to a strengthened affective connection among practitioners and generate a sense of community and mutual identity among them. This chapter, accordingly, argues that the interwoven social network of practitioners is a fundamental but pivotal part of a creative

FROM STRANGERS TO A DESIGNER COMMUNITY …

73

ecosystem as people are a core factor in development of cultural and creative industries. Lastly, this chapter, in particular, sheds light on the importance of locality regarding the formation of a creative ecosystem. In cultural and creative sectors, location matters. A locality reflects personal preferences for specific culture and styles of living and working. An ideal locality for cultural and creative practitioners is a place where supporting systems can be sought and where they can develop a positive relationship with local communities.

References Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1992). Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16(4), 571–587. Avdikos, V., & Iliopoulou, E. (2019). Community-led coworking spaces: From co-location to collaboration and collectivization. In R. Gill, A. C. Pratt, & T. E. Virani (Eds.), Creative hubs in question (pp. 111–129). Palgrave Macmillan. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56. Bell, D., & Jayne, M. (2010). The creative countryside: Policy and practice in the UK rural cultural economy. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(3), 209–218. Boschma, R. A., & Ter Wal, A. L. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177–199. Cunningham, S. (2002). From cultural to creative industries: Theory, industry and policy implications. Media International Australia, 102(1), 54–65. De Bernard, M., Comunian, R., & Gross, J. (2022). Cultural and creative ecosystems: A review of theories and methods, towards a new research agenda. Cultural Trends, 31(4), 332–353. Dovey, J., Pratt, A., Moreton, S., Virani, T., Merkel, J., & Lansdowne, J. (2016). Creative hubs: Understanding the new economy. British Council. Florida, R. (2012). The rise of the creative class—Revisited: 10th anniversary. Basic books. Garnham, N. (1987). Concepts of culture: Public policy and the cultural industries. Cultural Studies, 1(1), 23–37. Gasparin, M., & Quinn, M. (2021). Designing regional innovation systems in transitional economies: A creative ecosystem approach. Growth and Change, 52(2), 621–640. Gill, R., & Pratt, A. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7–8), 1–30.

74

J.-Y. WU AND T. E. VIRANI

Gill, R., Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (2019). Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy. Springer International. Goodwin, K. (2019). Developing self-efficacy and career optimism through participation in communities of practice within Australian creative industries. Australian Journal of Career Development, 28(2), 122–131. Grabher, G. (2004). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European urban and regional studies, 11(2), 103–123. Grugulis, I., & Stoyanova, D. (2011). The missing middle: Communities of practice in a freelance labour market. Work, Employment and Society, 25(2), 342–351. Hutton, T. A. (2006). Spatiality, built form, and creative industry development in the inner city. Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1819–1841. Jeffcutt, P. (2004). Knowledge relationships and transactions in a cultural economy: Analysing the creative industries ecosystem. Media International Australia, 112(1), 67–82. McGuigan, J. (2010). Creative labour, cultural work and individualisation. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3), 323–335. Merkel, J. (2019) Curating strangers. In R. Gill, A. C. Pratt, & T. E. Virani (Eds.), Creative hubs in question (pp. 51–68). Palgrave Macmillan. Mommaas, H. (2004). Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: Towards the remapping of urban cultural policy. Urban Studies, 41(3), 507–532. Mommaas, H. (2009). Spaces of culture and economy: Mapping the culturalcreative cluster landscape. In L. Kong & J. O’Connor (Eds.), Creative economies, creative cities: Asian-European perspectives (pp. 45–59). Springer Netherlands. Ocejo, R. E. (2017). Masters of craft. Princeton University Press. O’Connor, J., & Gu, X. (2014). Creative industry clusters in Shanghai: A success story? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(1), 1–20. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90. Pratt, A. C. (2005). Cultural industries and public policy: An oxymoron? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 31–44. Pratt, A. C. (2008). Cultural commodity chains, cultural clusters, or cultural production chains? Growth and Change, 39(1), 95–103. Pratt, A. C. (2018). Artists in the city: SPACE in’68 and beyond. Planning Perspectives, 33(3), 484–485. Pratt, A. C., Kloosterman, R. C., D’ovidio, M., Greco, L., Boren, T., & de Vries, J. (2019). Overview of CCI research gaps. CICERONE Project. https://cicerone-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/D1.2Overview-of-CCI-research-gaps-NEW.pdf

FROM STRANGERS TO A DESIGNER COMMUNITY …

75

Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J., & Ormerod, P. (2008). Social network markets: A new definition of the creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics, 32, 167–185. Pratt, A. C. (2015). Resilience, locality and the cultural economy. City, Culture and Society, 6(3), 61–67. Pratt, A., & T. Virani. (2015). The creative SME: A cautionary tale (Creativeworks London Working Paper Series, 2015) (pp. 3–16). https://qmro.qmul. ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/12430/PWK%20Working%20P aper%2014.pdf?sequence=1 Scott, A. J. (1999). The cultural economy: Geography and the creative field. Media, Culture & Society, 21(6), 807–817. Scott, A. J. (2004). Cultural-products industries and urban economic development: Prospects for growth and market contestation in global context. Urban Affairs Review, 39(4), 461–490. Taylor, S., & Luckman, S. (2018). Collection introduction: The ‘new normal’ of working lives. In The new normal of working lives (pp. 1–15). Springer International. Throsby, D. (2008, October 2). From cultural to creative industries: The specific characteristics of the creative industries. In Troiseme Journees d’Economie de la Culture: Nouvelles Frontieres de l’Economie de la Culture. Paris. Van Heur, B. (2010). Creative networks and the city: Towards a cultural political economy of aesthetic production. Transcript-Verlag. Virani, T. E. (2019). Exploring the relationship between creative hubs and urban policy in East London. Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy (pp. 341–357). Springer. Virani, T. E., & Malem, W. (2015). Re-articulating the creative hub concept as a model for business support in the local creative economy: The case of Mare Street in Hackney (Creativeworks London Working Paper Series). Virani, T. E., Nakano, D., Shiach, M., & Poli, K. (2020). São Paulo’s creative hubs: Local embeddedness as a tool for creative cluster development. In Creative cluster development (pp. 130–144). Routledge.

Understanding the Role of Creative Networks for Cultural and Creative Industries: The Case of Creative Cardiff Ruxandra Lupu , Marlen Komorowski , Sara Pepper, and Justin Lewis

Introduction The contribution of the cultural and creative industries (CCI) to fostering economic growth and innovation has been widely acknowledged (Boix Domenech & Rausell Köster, 2018). The growing number of studies in this area highlights its increasing importance inside today’s knowledgebased economies (Jones et al., 2016). Yet while its economic impact remains indisputable (Boix Domenech et al., 2022), the way in which the sector creates value is less understood. This is mainly because the CCI are highly complex and dynamic and rely on intangible value such as creativity and intellectual capital to operate (Betlej & Kacerauskas, 2021).

R. Lupu (B) · M. Komorowski · S. Pepper · J. Lewis JOMEC—School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK e-mail: [email protected] M. Komorowski e-mail: [email protected] S. Pepper e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_5

77

78

R. LUPU ET AL.

The growing use of ecological language (De Bernard et al., 2022; Holden, 2004) inside the CCI has highlighted the need to better understand the different modes of functioning, relationships and patterns within this sector. This has led to a range of studies dedicated to specific forms of networked organisations in the CCI including creative districts, hubs, networks and more recently Open Labs (Chaloupková, & Kunc, 2022; Cooke, 2002; Dovey et al., 2016; Gill et al., 2019; Luka, 2022; Olko, 2017; Pratt, 2021; Schmidt, 2019; Virani & Malem, 2015). While some of these bodies can be found across several sectors, creative networks are unique to CCI. We define creative networks as organisations that are often bottom-up, place-based and offering a range of support and enabling services. These are specific organisations, characterised by spatial forms of work, experimentation and creativity that aim to better address the needs of the communities they serve. Although not new to the CCI, we observe an increasing interest in and need for such organisations. Our chapter explores more expansively the ways creative networks operate and is informed by the findings of a recent article published by the authors of this research (Komorowski et al., 2021). The article mapped creative networks and their relations across the UK using value network analysis. Findings show that creative networks ‘operate as central nodes of the local creative ecosystem, functioning as a ‘glue’ inside the otherwise very heterogeneous creative industries’ (Komorowski et al., 2021, p. 11). They largely rely on public funding to operate and serve their communities, which creates pressure in terms of proving their value. Building on these insights and extending the knowledge base regarding value networks in this context, we decided to explore the value generation process of creative networks further, by focusing on the specific case of Creative Cardiff, a creative network established in 2015 in Wales, UK.

J. Lewis e-mail: [email protected] M. Komorowski Imec-VUB-SMIT (Studies on Media, Innovation and Technology), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium R. Lupu ECLLA—Etudes du Contemporain en Littératures, Langues, Arts, Jean Monnet University, Saint Etienne, France

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

79

We adopted a value network analysis (Allee, 2008) as a core methodological framework and applied the quadruple helix model that we developed in our recent article, to map Creative Cardiff’s network of relationships. Our paper contributes to the field of study by providing more direct evidence of the type and value of network relations established by creative networks. The chapter addresses researchers, practitioners and policymakers and is organised in four parts. First, we introduce the research background and define creative networks as an object of investigation (worldwide/ UK), with a specific focus on Creative Cardiff as a case study. Then, we briefly present the research framework and the approach enabling us to better map the value generation system of Creative Cardiff. We used a mixed method combining desk research with interviews conducted with network members, to map the types of relations established between network actors that determine the value flows inside the network. Thirdly, we discuss the results of our mapping process, exploring how Creative Cardiff provides opportunities for development and supports territorial development, but also the critical challenges it faces in an increasingly competitive and fragile environment. We conclude with discussions on the findings and recommendations for the future.

Research Context The Evolution of Creative Networks During the past few years, there has been increasing interest in the concepts of place and networks in relation to the growth of the CCI. This was reflected by the emergence of the creative city notion (Evans, 2017), networks, hubs, clusters to more recent concepts such as spatial forms for work, communities and labs, which can include co-working spaces, hacker- or makerspaces, accelerators, Fab Labs and open workshops (see Virani & Malem, 2015). This chapter focusses on creative networks which we define as organisations with their own legal entity, or which are part of another institution, and which have designated staff to foster collaboration and/or growth/sustainability in the local/regional creative industries. These are often bottom-up, place-based networks offering a range of support and enabling services to the local CCI. We identified a total of 22 creative

80

R. LUPU ET AL.

networks in the UK (see Komorowski et al., 2021). This includes organisations such as Creative Bath, Creative Edinburgh, Creative Manchester, Culture Northern Ireland, Wired Sussex and others. In our article, we excluded broader sectoral networks, associations or agencies with national remits such as the Royal Institute of British Architects, Creative England, Creative Scotland, Creative Wales or UK Arts Councils, in order to focus on the new phenomenon of creative networks established in recent years. Existing research around the nature of creative networks and methods for analysing their spillover effects on the local (Anders-Morawska, 2017; Bandinelli & Gandini, 2019; Emmons et al., 2016; Giusti et al., 2020; The World Bank, 2021) indicates the need to further our understanding of how these entities contribute value. We found that these organisations mostly operate at city (47%) or regional level (40%) and were established by different institutions such as governments (40% have government support), companies, universities and individuals. The range of funding sources means their structure and size vary considerably. Despite this, we found that these networks share common goals including strengthening collaboration, raising awareness and promoting their local creative industries, which combined generates benefits for workers and organisations for strengthening their local ecosystems (Felton et al., 2010; Pratt, 2013). The Broader UK Context and Creative Cardiff This research is set in the context of the more recent evolution of networked forms of organisation in the UK and aims to provide a holistic mapping of the impact of creative networks on local ecosystems. Methodologically, it bridges current gaps in research by being positioned at the intersection of the two strands of research that underpin the broad literature on creative networks: a dominant strand that explores the agglomeration and clustering of creative industries (co-location theory) and a second and more recent strand focusing on the networks and their connectivity (network theory) (Hassink & Yang, 2021). We do this by focussing on Creative Cardiff as an example of the recent developments in Wales, UK. Established in 2015 and expanding throughout the second more prolific period of growth of creative networks (2015–2018), Creative Cardiff identifies over 4000 members and operates through a broad range of engagements with/for stakeholders. Creative Cardiff is based in Cardiff, a major hub for creative industries activities, with 1 in 7 company jobs in Cardiff being in the creative industries (Fodor et al.,

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

81

2021). This breadth of activities evidences Creative Cardiff’s role in what Comunian et al. (2021) describe as ‘creative intermediaries’ entities which facilitate the growth and development of creative practitioners and foster a more resilient and innovative creative ecosystems (see also Virani, 2019; Virani & Pratt, 2016).

Methodology The chapter is framed by value network analysis, an approach drawing from theories based in living systems, knowledge management, complexity theory, system dynamics and intangible asset management (Allee, 2008). This approach enables the visualisation of flows and actors in networks, which facilitates the identification of types of created links and actors and highlights a typology of value creation. While other value mapping models such as clustering, process visualisation or social network analysis provide the possibility to map connections, value network analysis enables mapping of their features, providing interesting insights into the different forms of value. These features are rooted in a mode of organisation of the production process for creative products and services involving a variety of stakeholders across a diverse range of sectors (Caves, 2000; Deuze, 2011; Pratt & Jeffcutt, 2009; Vogel, 2008). We also utilised the quadruple helix model as an additional analytical tool. While in our previous article we only outlined the model and its relevance for uncovering the value streams of creative networks, here we apply this model to a concrete case study. This closes the gap in research and shows how the model works in practice. The model shares characteristics of complex systems and recognises four major actors in the system—academia, government, industry and civil society (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). Using this model, we identified and analysed the 4 types of stakeholders involved in the Creative Cardiff network and how they create value. This mapping process reveals strengths and gaps in specific values flows, highlighting best practice, for policymakers and practitioners. We applied a mixed-method approach combining desk research and interviews with Creative Cardiff staff and stakeholders conducted between August and September 2022 to better understand the forms of value created by the network and map them against the six defining criteria for creative networks identified in our previous article.

82

R. LUPU ET AL.

Results Creative Cardiff Creative Cardiff is a city-wide network that helps to grow and connect creatives and make the city the most creative place it can be (Table 1). While Creative Cardiff’s profile falls within the general model of creative networks across the UK, its activity is unique and adapted to the needs of the Welsh creative community. Creative networks represent important actors for their local ecosystems, specifically for the local creative communities they serve. This is also illustrated by one of the network founders who describes Creative Cardiff as ‘a structure of feeling, a sense of community and shared purpose, the spark of something new’. Table 1

Creative Cardiff’s network profile

Criteria

Creative Cardiff profile

Scope and scale

• Connects creatives to make the city the most creative place it can be • Counts >4000 network members • Operates on a national/international level Established by Cardiff University, with the support of Cardiff Council, BBC Cymru Wales and Wales Millennium Centre. Key achievements: • Reaches a wide network of stakeholders • Tells the story of Cardiff’s creative community, developing its narrative and spotlighting excellence • Fosters connections and collaborations undertaking research in the creative economy • Advocates for the value and demands of creative economy work and encouraging creative entrepreneurship • Co-founders: Professor Justin Lewis (Academic Lead) and Professor Ian Hargreaves (Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture) • Advisory board: 6 creatives specialised in architecture, dance, design, marketing, film and music • Year of establishment: 2015 • Location: Cardiff University (Creative Economy Unit) Responds to the characteristics of place through consultation, co-production and the creation of peer networks. Its core ambitions are to: 1. Tell Cardiff’s creative story and amplify the work of creatives in Wales 2. Foster connections and collaborations between creatives 3. Encourage creative entrepreneurship and undertake research The funding structure, the small operational team, the growing network of members and membership offer, etc.

Development

Organisational structure

Services and ambitions

Challenges

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

83

Its Programme Manager also describes the value of connections within the network ‘Creative Cardiff’s members are in the main incredibly generous in sharing their knowledge, skills and experiences with others in the network and cluster. There is a generosity of spirit and sense of ‘being in it together’ to learn from each other’. These acknowledgements illustrate that intangible value forms are fundamental for holding together creative networks such as Creative Cardiff. This set of circumstances exists as a result of the complex value streams that creative networks foster by bringing together different stakeholders, as well as to their capacity to break boundaries of siloed work and to encourage innovation. Value Network Mapping After mapping Creative Cardiff’s core activities, we applied the previously developed quadruple helix model to identify and organise the four types of actors linked to the network. We used value network analysis to identify the types of relations established by each actor. We then mapped both the way in which value flows out from Creative Cardiff to these actors through specific services and activities offered, and how it flows back into the network. In doing so, we highlighted the type of value emerging from each identified link. Figure 1 offers an overview of these value flows. Value Network Actors In this section, we closely analyse the relations established by Creative Cardiff with each of the 4 stakeholder groups, explaining how value flows (monetary, collaboration and cooperation, services and knowledge and intangible flows) are generated through the engagement with these actors. The Government and Creative Cardiff Creative Cardiff has established links to several public and government bodies and public agencies such as Welsh Government (Creative Wales), Cardiff City Council and Arts Council Wales. Creative Cardiff creates value for the Welsh Government through participation in public consultations. These are organised as invitations to give presentations or written contributions, where Creative Cardiff members use their knowledge and insight to inform public policymaking. For example, in July 2020, Creative Cardiff’s Director was invited by

Fig. 1 Quadruple helix model applied to Creative Cardiff

84 R. LUPU ET AL.

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

85

the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee to give evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on the Welsh creative economy.1 Creative Cardiff therefore generates value flows in the form of services and knowledge. Creative Cardiff’s activity is also funded by public bodies. Creative Cardiff was established with the support of Cardiff City Council, BBC Cymru Wales and Wales Millennium Centre. Like the other two partners, Cardiff City Council contributed £10K towards the establishment of the network. The one-off sponsorship is a good example of incoming monetary inflows in this case from local government. Creative Cardiff also generates value for public bodies and agencies like Arts Council Wales and Creative Wales. Our mapping shows that this is achieved by linking these bodies to Creative Cardiff’s network, providing insight about industry that can inform priorities for funding calls or co-organising events for the creative community. One example of this knowledge and service value flow is Creating Cardiff .2 Organised in 2017, the event included a series of activities jointly organised by Cardiff Council, Arts Council Wales and Creative Cardiff that targeted local creative communities. In the first workshop, network members were invited to explore Cardiff’s identity as a creative city and put ideas into action for re-imagining and trialling new approaches that promote and develop Cardiff’s creative economy. The workshop was followed by a working lunch where less known stories about Cardiff were informally shared. Creative Cardiff also conducts research that informs the strategies of public agencies. The COVID-19 impact report on the Welsh creative economy3 or the Cultural Freelancers study4 offers valuable insight into the needs of the creative community and provides agencies with evidence about the need for dedicated funding support. These bodies and agencies provide either direct funding or project-based support through their own mechanisms to Creative Cardiff network members. This generates money flows that even if indirectly targeted at Creative Cardiff through 1 https://senedd.tv/Meeting/Archive/1397f2fa-4949-4611-96fb-b9bf507ced04?aut ostart=True#. 2 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/creating-cardiff-–-workshop-1. 3 https://www.creativecardiff.org.uk/baseline-measuring-impact-covid-19-creative-ind

ustries-wales-established. 4 https://www.creativecardiff.org.uk/research-shows-cultural-freelancers-wales-lost-59income-2021-due-covid-19.

86

R. LUPU ET AL.

its network of members has important spillover effects on the creative economy. This evidence supports the findings of our previous article where we illustrated the role of creative networks in fostering a culture of collaboration that minimises the risks associated with economic precarity and the dispersed nature of the creative workforce. Academia and Creative Cardiff Welsh universities are particularly important actors in support of Creative Cardiff’s activity. Cardiff University has funded Creative Cardiff since its inception in 2015. The university provides office space, the cost of two staff members and a small operating budget (20K p.a.), all important incoming monetary value flows for the network. Creative Cardiff creates value for academia and the HEI environment by: • Value flows involving the student community Located on the university campus, Creative Cardiff enables easy access to the student community enabling collaboration and student engagement around research, innovation and skills development. Student placements and work opportunities offer an important value stream for universities across Cardiff through programmes such as Student Summer Placement Schemes (CUROP & CUSEIP). Ymlaen!5 was a scheme initiated and managed by Creative Cardiff for 2 years that offered residencies for Cardiff University students and graduates aspiring to be self-employed in a range of hubs and co-working spaces in the city. It provided coworking support, mentoring, funding and membership to professional bodies, all of which helped students bring their business idea to life. By providing students with entrepreneurship skills and putting them in contact with the entrepreneurial environment, this fostered both service and knowledge value flows as well as cooperation and collaboration value flows fundamental in supporting early career professionals. In return,

5 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/self-employed-placement-ymlaen.

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

87

students provide support for Creative Cardiff in the form of volunteering at events and fostering collaboration and cooperation. • Value flows involving the research community At its peak, the Creative Cardiff Research Network had 250+ academic members from across Cardiff University. It was in operation from 2015 to 2018 and provided regular events, newsletters and network development opportunities. Research groups with a specific thematic focus have enabled Creative Cardiff to foster impactful research and generate value in the form of both services and knowledge for these communities (events/ newsletters) and collaboration and cooperation opportunities (network and research partnerships). One example, in 2016, is when the Festivals Research Group partnered with Swn Music Festival6 to study this urban music festival. The study included an audience survey, an ethnographic enquiry into the performers’ journeys and a music museum. It enhanced knowledge about urban festivals for academics as well as for Creative Cardiff members and the creative community. During the pandemic, the Festivals Research Group explored the impact of online festivals, supporting local stakeholders to make more informed decisions about their business strategy throughout the crisis generating services and knowledge flows at a crucial moment. Creative Cardiff has also organised a range of activities and released media products, which aim to spotlight and amplify research. This has been achieved by inviting researchers as guests in podcast episodes, organising events and sharing surveys with the creative community. For the No Funny Business7 event, Creative Cardiff partnered with Cardiff University Business School to foster collaboration between creatives and researchers and encourage a sense of shared interest in each other’s work by discussing work practices in the creative economy. Finally, Creative Cardiff fosters monetary value flows, by attracting funding to conduct research. The Mapping Cardiff’s Creative Economy

6 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/50-swn-music-museum; https://creativecardiff.org.uk/ research-and-projects/projects/festival-research-group. 7 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/events/talk/creative-freelancing-no-funny-business.

88

R. LUPU ET AL.

study8 (2016) was co-funded by British Council Wales. The project used a mixed method combining online desk research, offline interviews/meetings/ consultations, database analysis and knowledge sourced through informal encounters and events to offer a holistic vision of the Cardiff creative economy. Specific attention was dedicated to gathering information about freelancers, who are often less visible and subsequently missed in these kinds of mapping exercises. In addition to these value flows, our research has uncovered the important role of Creative Cardiff’s advisory group in strengthening links to academia. The group includes representatives from academia and the private sector and meets approximately 3 times a year to advise on the network’s activity. Among board members are the Deputy Dean of Cardiff School of Art and Design and the Incubator Manager for the University of South Wales. Having academics as permanent network members opens up new lines of communication and increases the potential to generate new value flows. In 2019, Creative Cardiff won the Innovation in Partnership category at Cardiff University Innovation and Impact Awards, illustrating its achievements in fostering and enabling strong academic cooperation and collaboration value flows. Civil Society and Creative Cardiff Creative Cardiff collaborates with charities, NGOs and local initiatives adding value across civil society. These links are fostered by partnering with these organisations on projects and events or by providing research to inform these organisations’ activities. Creative Cardiff has undertaken project-based work for British Council in a range of territories including Thailand, Turkey and Georgia.9 This has included commissions to conduct research to inform their international projects, evidencing the formation of incoming monetary flows as well as the creation of knowledge and service value flows. Creative Cardiff has also organised delegations of foreign officials to Cardiff for British Council (e.g. the study trip of the Thai Minister of Science and Technology). These visits have generated additional knowledge as well 8 https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/528872/Mapping-CardiffsCreative-Economy-English.pdf. 9 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/creative-cardiff-at-thailands-innovation-hubs, creativeconomy.britishcouncil.org/projects/connect-creativity/.

https://

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

89

as intangible value flows in the form of impact and influence on foreign policy, soft power and diplomatic relations. In 2021, Creative Cardiff and CAER Heritage partnered to raise awareness of each other’s work and connect more creatives with both projects, sparking new connections within the community of Caerau and Ely.10 In 2020, a partnership with Community Gateway initiative was developed, which aimed to bring community-led ideas to life and was targeted at co-hosting and promoting events and activities that strengthen engagement with Grangetown residents.11 These joint projects have led to the generation of cooperation and collaboration value flows and spillover effects for the public understanding of both entities. Creative Cardiff engages with a range of cultural organisations such as BBC Cymru Wales and Wales Millennium Centre, both of whom are among its founding members. These organisations provide in-kind support for the network, such as offering a venue for Creative Cardiff’s first pop-up hub in 2016. In exchange, Creative Cardiff provides access to its network, enabling the formation of cooperation and collaboration value flows. Creative Cardiff also engages with local community groups, producing information to share with the public about the city’s creative economy. This includes initiatives designed to tell the story of Cardiff’s creative and cultural industries and is produced and distributed via Creative Cardiff’s website, e-newsletters, social media activity and attending a range of events. One example, illustrating the service and knowledge value flows and contribution to community building via local community groups is the Storymap.12 The Storymap, supported by Arts Council Wales, represents a digital map of Cardiff Capital Region, unveiling little-known stories about the region. Another example of this is the Hub Crawl, which provided an opportunity for the public to directly engage with local creative studios and spaces around Cardiff, representing an interesting alternative to more traditional forms of online promotion of these spaces. The value created through this interaction is mainly intangible, insofar as it looks at enhancing community belonging and fostering resilience and connectivity around place.

10 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/research-and-projects/projects/caer-heritage. 11 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/research-and-projects/projects/community-gateway. 12 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/our-creative-place-storymap.

90

R. LUPU ET AL.

In addition to these value flows, our research has uncovered the important role of local artists and creatives in building strong network relations with civil society groups. Creative Cardiff engages with this group through commissions on different projects. A good example is the Our Creative Cardiff project,13 where 14 creatives were commissioned to tell their story of their place in the Cardiff Capital Region through their creative practice. In addition to sharing the work of selected creatives, it aimed to spark new connections across creative sectors, in a period marked by uncertainty and change. In exchange, these communities act as ambassadors for Creative Cardiff, amplifying the effects of its work. The collaboration with local artists fostered the creation of monetary value flows (commissioned artworks) as well as intangible value flows (community belonging fostered through artistic projects). Industry and Creative Cardiff Creative Cardiff reaches a broad network of SMEs and freelancers through its website. They offer a series of services to the network in the form of job offers, newsletters, networking services, funding opportunities and skills development support. These are advertised on the Opportunities page, where over 4802 jobs have been published since going live, with a hit rate of 1,109,397. Out of these, 883,668 have been unique page views, representing 57% of the total page views of the Creative Cardiff website. The Welsh language version of the Opportunities page has been viewed by 5601 people. The website fosters service and knowledge value flows which are important for the network to sustain its growth, in particular for SMEs and freelancers who comprise the majority of Creative Cardiff members and have a lower networking capacity than bigger businesses. Creative Cardiff also generates intangible value flows through community building and fostering belonging to the network. In exchange, network members provide an important knowledge base for Creative Cardiff as they are engaged with to take part in research about the creative economy in the city and region, as well as act as ambassadors, promoting the value of the membership and the network. Creative Cardiff has developed a range of engagement mechanisms to strengthen the wider creative economy by sharing information, opportunities and stories with an overarching aim of amplifying work. Initiatives 13 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/news/our-creative-cardiff-introducing-2020-commis sioned-creatives.

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

91

such as the Get a Proper Job podcast reached broad audiences and shared information on relevant topics for the wider creative economy. The Creative Cardiff events programme has engaged over 1650 business representatives and freelancers. These initiatives generate value flows in the form of services and knowledge (skills development and education) and intangible value flows (promoting a forward-looking creative identity). A good example of how intangible value is created is the quarterly Show and Tell14 that ran between 2015 and 2019. The event brought together Cardiff’s creative community around a platform for showcasing the diverse range of creative people and projects in the city and enabling them to tell their story. By giving space and a voice to creatives and their aspirations, such events create important spillover effects in the form of intangible value that is connected with the sense of community support, trust and identity. Creative Cardiff provides specialised networking for creative practitioners and freelancers through initiatives such as Immersive South Wales—an event for industry practitioners and academics to share knowledge and learning on emergent technologies which encourages networking and opportunities for collaboration. These events showcase specialist speakers in the immersive technology space. This is another example of how Creative Cardiff fosters new connections among creative practitioners that can lead to partnerships on joint projects (economic benefit). It enables collaboration and cooperation value flows, as well as potential monetary value flows brought by joint projects. Creative Cardiff also provides reports and studies on topics of interest for industry such as internationalisation (Creative Hubs: Opportunities and Challenges for Intercultural Dialogue report), the development of the creative industries (UK Creative Networks research—Joining the Dots), information of current priorities (COVID information) or data analysis (the Creative Economy Atlas15 ). This activity generates services and knowledge value flows. Creative Cardiff is also trying to support industry representatives by providing helpful resources in a variety of formats.

14 http://creativecardiff.org.uk/show-and-tell. 15 https://creativecardiff.org.uk/creative-economy-atlas-cymru.

92

R. LUPU ET AL.

Conclusions and Recommendations: Our chapter has used the quadruple helix model to map the way in which Creative Cardiff creates value for its community. In doing so, it has covered a gap in research literature about the applicability of such models on real case studies. The mapping has provided evidence of the variety of value flows fostered by Creative Cardiff and their interconnectedness, leading to the following conclusions: • The visualisation of the value network highlights Creative Cardiff’s role as a linchpin, engaging actors from all 4 stakeholder groups. Its international activity highlights the capacity to generate multiple value flows whose spillover effects are sometimes difficult to determine as they go beyond the national context. • Creative Cardiff generates different forms of value (monetary, collaboration and cooperation, services and knowledge, intangible) for and through its community. Cooperation and collaboration are at the core of its strategy, as evidenced by the variety of bodies engaged and the number of projects developed. However, a significant part of the value created by Creative Cardiff is intangible. While the quadruple helix model brings evidence of intangible value streams, it is imperative to consider more interdisciplinary and multiperspective approaches that are nuanced enough to capture their multidimensional nature. • Funding and membership services remain among Creative Cardiff’s main challenges. Although the understanding of Creative Cardiff has evolved to a large degree since its establishment, this role is constantly shifting to better match community needs. Therefore, as its role and position in the sector continues to evolve, so does the need for new ways of communicating its identity. The quadruple helix model offers an organised format for mapping the complex range of operations performed by creative networks such as Creative Cardiff. It provides a useful tool for gaining clarity on functioning mode of creative networks. However, it also evidences the complex range of interactions established by these bodies, which are sometimes hard to pinpoint. For Creative Cardiff, we have identified two factors which contribute to this. First, being hosted by Cardiff University and actively participating in academic life leads to blurring the lines

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

93

between the two organisations’ activities. Second, as Creative Cardiff continues to engage with stakeholders from different sectors (public/ private), the value generated through these interactions becomes increasingly difficult to allocate to a specific group of actors. In this case, interconnected value flows are being generated, which are hard to map using a single model. As these organisations evolve, extending their activities to the online world and keeping track of developed network relations becomes complicated. The digital aspect has always been an integral part of Creative Cardiff. Creative Cardiff’s engagement and communications manager notes that ‘while Creative Cardiff connects creatives in real life at meetups, networking events and socials, it was online where the community truly flourished’. This acknowledges the importance of online engagement for Creative Cardiff, which was accelerated by COVID-19. The former manager of Creative Cardiff explains: ‘the COVID-19 pandemic and the move to digital and remote working has provided us with an opportunity to open up new connections, conversations and ideas which we’ll look to explore in the immediate and longer-term future’. In this context, methods for mapping the activity of creative networks need to expand to enable additional forms of interactions and values to be mapped. To conclude, we have formulated the following recommendations: • Notwithstanding an increasing body of research around the importance of innovation networks and creative network communities in the digital space (Gaggioli et al., 2021; Gloor, 2006; Koszolko, 2022; Smite, 2013)—in this case, we refer to creative network communities as self-organised, non-institutional forms of community groups—there is relatively little research on the impact of digital spaces on the activity of creative networks like Creative Cardiff. More research in this area would enable a better understanding of the impact of the digital features and their effect on the generation of value flows, as well as how the digital supports their evolution over time. • Traditional spaces are becoming obsolete, in the manner that the CCI operated before COVID, and new ways of working are shifting cooperation dynamics. In this context, the networking modalities and spatial types of interaction supported by organisations like Creative Cardiff are expected to enable more links to sectors beyond CCI. To this end, we need to develop additional methods and

94

R. LUPU ET AL.

approaches to explore the spillover effects and new value flows that emerge from formal and informal activities of creative networks. Our research shows we need to continue to develop an evidence base and methodology for explaining and measuring the value of creative networks across the UK. In doing so, we need to integrate different approaches which can map the impact produced by the digital shift as well as the increasingly multidisciplinary context in which creative networks operate. This is important within the post-COVID-19 context, where the activity and role of these entities continue to shift to adapt to community needs. We encourage the development of additional approaches and methods which can holistically map creative networks’ role in fostering critical synergies between the virtual network space and the physical space in a post-pandemic world.

References Allee, V. (2008). Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9(1), 5–24. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14691930810845777 Anders-Morawska, J. (2017). Cultural ecosystem of creative place: Creative class, creative networks and participation in culture. International Studies: Interdisciplinary Political and Cultural Journal, 19(1), 159–173. Betlej, A., & Kacerauskas, T. (2021). Urban creative sustainability: The case of Lublin. Sustainability, 13, 4072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074072 Bandinelli, C., & Gandini, A. (2019). Creative hubs versus creative networks. In R. Gill, A. C. Pratt, & T. E. Virani (Eds.), Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy (pp. 155–168). Palgrave. Boix Domenech, R., De Miguel Molina, B., & Rausell Köster, P. (2022). The impact of cultural and creative industries on the wealth of countries, regions and municipalities. European Planning Studies, 30(9), 1777–1797. Boix Domenech, R., & Rausell Köster, P. (2018). The economic impact of the creative industry in the European Union. In V. Santamarina-Campos & M. Segarra-Oña (Eds.), Drones and the creative industry (pp. 19–36). Springer. Carayannis, E., & Campbell, D. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 2011–2234. Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Harvard University Press.

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CREATIVE NETWORKS …

95

Chaloupková, M., & Kunc, J. (2022). Locality selection matters: Investigating creative hubs in the Czech urban environment. City, Culture and Society, 28, 100440. Comunian, R., Hracs, B. J., & England, L. (2021). Understanding and supporting creative economies in Africa: Education, networks and policy (A Policy Report). King’s College, London. Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge economies: Clusters, learning and cooperative advantage. Routledge. De Bernard, M., Comunian, R., & Gross, J. (2022). Cultural and creative ecosystems: A review of theories and methods, towards a new research agenda. Cultural Trends, 31(4), 332–353. Deuze, M. (2011). Managing media work. Sage. Emmons, S., Kobourov, S., Gallant, M., & Börner, K. (2016). Analysis of network clustering algorithms and cluster quality metrics at scale. PLoS One, 11(7), e0159161. Dovey, J., Pratt, A., Moreton, S., Virani, T., Merkel, J., & Lansdowne, J. (2016). Creative hubs: Understanding the new economy. British Council. Evans, G. (2017). Creative cities—An international perspective. In J. A. Hannigan & G. Richards (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new urban studies (pp. 311–329). Sage. Felton, E., Collis, C., & Graham, P. (2010). Making connections: Creative industries networks in outer-suburban locations. Australian Geographer, 41(1), 57–70. Fodor, M., Komorowski, M., & Lewis, J. (2021). Report Update: The size and composition of the creative industries in Wales in 2019, Clwstwr. Gaggioli, A., Riva, G., & Cuore, S. (2021). Positive innovation networks. In F. Davide, A. Gaggioli, & G. Misuraca (Eds.), Perspectives for digital social innovation to reshape the European welfare systems (Vol. 13, pp. 67–87). IOS Press. Gill, R., Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (Eds.). (2019). Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy. Springer. Giusti, J. D., Alberti, F. G., & Belfanti, F. (2020). Makers and clusters: Knowledge leaks in open innovation networks. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(1), 20–28. Gloor, P. A. (2006). Swarm creativity: Competitive advantage through collaborative innovation networks. Oxford University Press. Holden, J. (2004). Capturing cultural value: How culture has become a tool of government policy. Demos. Hassink, R., & Yang, C. (2021). Editorial: Creative industries at the intersection between local agglomeration, national regulation, and global networks. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 112, 217–219.

96

R. LUPU ET AL.

Jones, C., Svejenova, S., Pedersen, J. S., & Townley, B. (2016). Misfits, mavericks and mainstreams: Drivers of innovation in the creative industries. Organization Studies, 37 (6), 751–768. Komorowski, M., Lupu, R., Pepper, S., & Lewis, J. (2021). Joining the dots— Understanding the value generation of creative networks for sustainability in local creative ecosystems. Sustainability, 13(22), 12352. Koszolko, M. K. (2022). The virtual studio. In G. Stahl & J. M. Percival (Eds.), The Bloomsbury handbook of popular music, space and place (pp. 217–228). Bloomsbury Publishing. Luka, M. E. (2022). Creative hubs: Sites of community and creative work. In Creative industries in Canada (pp. 157–179). Chicago. Olko, S. (2017). The impact of the networks and clusters in cultural and creative industries on regional innovation ecosystem-analysis of the selected cases in ´ aska. Europe. Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja I Zarz˛adzanie/Politechnika Sl˛ Pratt, A. C. (2021). Creative hubs: A critical evaluation. City, Culture and Society, 24, 100384. Pratt, A. C. (2013). The cultural and creative industries: Organisational and spatial challenges to their governance. DIE ERDE—Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin, 143(4), 317–334. Pratt, A. C., & Jeffcutt, P. (2009). Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy. Routledge. Schmidt, S. (2019). In the making: Open creative labs as an emerging topic in economic geography? Geography Compass, 13, e12463. Smite, R. (2013). Creative network communities in the translocal space of digital networks. Human Technology, 9(1), 4–21. The World Bank. (2021). Cities, culture, creativity: Leveraging culture and creativity for sustainable urban development and inclusive growth. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France. Virani, T. E. (2019). Local creative and cultural economy intermediaries: Examining place-based workers in the creative and cultural economy. Network: QMUL Centre for the Creative and Cultural Economy. Virani, T. E., & Malem, W. (2015). Re-articulating the creative hub concept as a model for business support in the local creative economy: The case of Mare Street in Hackney (Creativeworks London Working Paper Series). Virani, T., & Pratt, A. C. (2016). Intermediaries and the knowledge exchange process. In A. Gilmore & R. Comunian (Eds.), Higher education and the creative economy: Beyond the campus (pp. 41–58). Taylor & Francis. Vogel, H. L. (2008). Entertainment industry economics: A guide for financial analysis (7th ed. [Reprint]). Cambridge University Press.

SESC: A Brazilian Music Ecosystem Orchestrator Davi Nakano

and Edu Vicente

Introduction Amid the intense transformation the music scene has undergone in the last 20 years, which challenged the mindset and behaviour of artists and the practices and even the survival of firms, some actors were not only successful in sailing the turbulent waters, but have had their position and importance in the music ecosystem reinforced. Such is the case of SESC (Social Service for Commerce), a Brazilian not-for-profit organization created in the 1940s, which mission is to promote culture, education and health. Present in all Brazilian states, its governance system allows great autonomy to its units, and since the 1970s, the state of São Paulo branch, SESC-SP, promotes several initiatives to support and promote Brazilian music. Over the years, both audiences and musicians have come to recognize SESC-SP as one of the most prominent players in the Brazilian music ecosystem. In its more than 40 units, it offers a diversified programme that gives opportunity for artists, and for some of them, the only available channel to reach larger audiences. For the public, SESC-SP programmes are a synonym of good music, a seal of quality awarded to participant

D. Nakano (B) · E. Vicente University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_6

97

98

D. NAKANO AND E. VICENTE

artists. SESC-SP enjoys a unique place in the Brazilian music scene: it attracts both artists and audiences, who regard it as a reference and a source of high quality music. This chapter builds upon the concept of the music ecosystem, understood as the result of the interplay between practice, communities, the physical and social environment, regulation and media (Schippers & Grant, 2016). While the ecosystem concept has been extensively explored in the business and innovation literatures (see Gomes et al., 2018; Tsujimoto et al., 2018 for reviews), its use to analyse music production and consumption has been less frequent. In particular, we discuss the role of the ecosystem orchestrator (Dhanasaj & Parkhe, 2006; HurmelinnaLaukkanen & Nätti, 2018), an actor that articulates other participants and resources to earn direct or indirect profits from the resulting ecosystem vitality, arguing that SESC-SP has played this role in the Brazilian music ecosystem. This, encompasses the well documented role of intermediation in the creative and cultural industries (see Virani, 2019; Virani & Pratt, 2016). SESC attracts new artists and invites well-known ones to its spaces, giving them financial support and connection to the public. In doing so, it grants to new and up-and-coming acts the access to larger audiences, assuring novelty and diversity in the music scene. As it will be further explained in this chapter, due to the current state of the Brazilian music ecosystem, SESC’s role has been particularly important to support genres that would not easily reach large audiences, which would ultimately hurt the vitality of the ecosystem, especially in the absence of public policies. SESC-SP has reached its unique position due the legitimacy it has gained from both artists and audiences over the years, based on the consistency and coherence of its strategies. It has also been able to endorse the artists that participate in its programme, which has proved to be very important to new, aspiring artists. Based on archival materials and personal notes and observations of one of the authors, we start with a short history of SESC, followed by an overview of the evolution of the Brazilian music scene since the 1960s, essential to understanding the importance of SESC’s role. We then focus on its record label (SESC Records), founded in 2004, and discuss how, in a scenario where record labels have faced problems, SESC Records has supported the cultural strategy of SESC-SP and helped to consolidate its position. Finally, we discuss SESC-SP’s role as ecosystem orchestrator and draw conclusions from its influence.

SESC: A BRAZILIAN MUSIC ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR

99

SESC SESC is part of the Brazilian ‘S System’,1 which is composed by nine private organizations related to Brazilian business associations from economic sectors such as commerce, manufacturing, logistics and agribusiness. Those organizations were founded in the 1940s by government decrees and are funded by fees charged on workers’ wages from each sector,2 and although private organizations, they are subjected to rules and regulations like public companies. Some of the ‘S System’ organizations were created to promote professional training for workers and provide technical assistance and consulting services to companies. Others, such as SESC, were founded to promote social welfare, by offering educational and healthcare services, while providing culture, sports and leisure activities for workers and the population. SESC was created by a decree in 1946, to ‘plan and execute measures that contribute to social welfare and living standard enhancement to commerce workers and their families’, and for that, it should provide: Assistance to domestic problems (nutrition, housing, clothing, health, education and transportation); actions to assure fair wage to commerce workers, to incent productive activities, to promote educational and cultural achievements to value mankind; and perform social and economic research. (SESC, 2022)

SESC is present in many cities in Brazil and keeps its original goals. It runs nurseries and elementary schools, provides dental and health care, offers sport activities, operates hotels and vacation lodging sites, and provides art courses and cultural programmes. Among those activities, cultural-related ones gained momentum from the 1980s. At that period:

1 S System organizations: Senai: Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Industrial; Sesi: Serviço Social da Indústria; Senac: Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Comercial; Senar: Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Rural; Senat: Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem do Transporte; Sest: Serviço Social do Transporte; Sescoop: Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem do Cooperativismo e Sebrae: Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas. 2 Available at https://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias/glossario-legislativo/sistema-s, accessed on 2 November 2022.

100

D. NAKANO AND E. VICENTE

Several projects were started in performing arts, audio-visual, visual arts, music and literature. SESC distinguished itself by its cultural projects, under a national program that disseminates and values Brazilian alternative art and culture. Culture at SESC means using different languages as instruments to both transform and preserve regional traditions. (SESC, 2022)

The emphasis on ‘alternative culture’, especially regarding music, can be best exemplified by SESC’s activities in the state of São Paulo and particularly in its capital city of the same name. SESC-SP has developed a trajectory of its own. Although sharing the mission of promoting welfare and education, it has focused on arts and culture, welcoming artists and researchers on those fields. It currently manages 40 units, 24 in the São Paulo metropolitan area and 16 in other cities within the state. The first unit in the city of São Paulo was SESC Consolação, created in 1967 in a building especially designed to be a Sports and Culture Centre. In more than 16,500 m2 , it houses a sports centre, health and dental care facilities, and the Anchieta theatre, a 280 seat venue that became a reference for the performing arts. SESC Consolação became the standard for all future SESC-SP units, for both its infrastructure and cultural programme. In 1982, SESC-SP opened a unit in the Pompeia neighbourhood, in a former industrial building. Designed by the Italian-Brazilian architect Lina Bo Bardi, who also designed the São Paulo Art Museum, a landmark of the city, Sesc Pompeia also became a recognized Brazilian performing arts promoter where both aspiring and famous artists have performed over the years—on the stage of its eatery and/or in its 770 seat theatre. SESC Pompeia exemplifies the depth and breadth of SESC-SP’s influence on the music scene. In 1982, SESC Pompeia hosted the first punk rock festival of the city, ‘O Começo do Fim do Mundo’ (The Beginning of the End of the World), amid the heavy political and social tension that marked the military dictatorship’s final years (Dapieve, 1995, p. 165). Between 1983 and 1984, it hosted ‘A Fábrica do Som’ (The Sound Factory), a show aired by the São Paulo State broadcasting company (TV Cultura), a landmark for the emergent Brazilian rock scene of the 1980s, one of the most important music movements in the country during that decade. During that period, SESC Pompeia also hosted and promoted ‘Vanguarda Paulista’ (São Paulo Avant Garde), a collective of young and

SESC: A BRAZILIAN MUSIC ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR

101

innovative musicians and groups who helped to shed light on the independent music production in the country. In 1999, it launched the ‘Prata da Casa’ Project (Home-grown Talents), curated by respected music critics and producers, which gave the first impulse to several artists’ careers.3 More recently, in 2018, the ‘Acorda Amor’ show (Wake up my Love), featuring only female and transgender musicians, became a cultural and political manifesto during the 2019–2022 extreme right presidential term. SESC Pompeia also establishes partnerships with other units and organizations, such as the SESC Jazz Festival, which promoted its fourth edition in 2022, exploring the theme ‘African Diaspora memories’. It gathered 20 artists from Brazil, other Latin American countries, the United States, Africa and Europe, who participated in 54 presentations at SESC Pompeia and other units in the São Paulo state. Taking this as a model, each SESC-SP unit sets its own cultural programme, in connection with its location and local community, whether in São Paulo metropolitan area or in other cities, looking for a balance between the renewal of the music scene and the presence of well-known artists, striving to keep the cultural relevance of its programme, according to Wagner Perez, currently the Audiovisual Centre manager and former manager of SESC Records. That balance is achieved, for instance, by promoting aspiring artists in the long-lived Home-grown Talents Project at SESC Pompeia, as well as producing shows featuring well-known artists such as Caetano Veloso and Gilberto Gil with subsidized tickets to allow access to larger audiences. Access to cultural diversity is one of SESC’s strategic goals, expressed by its ticket price policy and by its focus on less popular genres. The two most popular genres, Brazilian country (Sertanejo) and Brazilian funk music, are not frequently promoted, as SESC-SP considers that there is an abundance of both free and paid shows for artists from those genres (Perez, 2022). In order to better understand SESC-SP’s strategic goals, its role in the Brazilian music ecosystem, and to explore the meaning of ‘cultural relevance of the programme’, we now briefly discuss how the Brazilian popular music has evolved from the 1960s.

3 Artists include Vanessa da Mata, Fabiana Cozza, Romulo Fróes, Baiana System, Barbatuques, Rashid, Vanguart, Karina Buhr, Projota, Marcelo Jeneci, Iara Rennó, Bixiga 70, Quarteto Maogani e Karol Conka, among others. https://folhanoroeste.com.br/ent retenimento-esportes/sesc-pompeia-abre-inscricoes-para-o-projeto-prata-da-casa/.

102

D. NAKANO AND E. VICENTE

The ‘National’ and the ‘Popular’ in Brazilian Music Bossa Nova, the genre crafted in the end of the 1950s, is an unquestionable milestone in Brazilian popular music. For Napolitano (2010, p. 9), Bossa Nova represents ‘the articulation of a new musical conscience, the birth of myths of aesthetic rupture, the incorporation of foreign musical elements by national, and nationalist, artists’. The fusion that Bossa Nova promoted between traditional Brazilian music and jazz established a reference for how foreign elements should be appropriated by Brazilian music without losing its national identify: The jazz influence on Bossa Nova exceeded the aesthetical realm, it became a reference to a sizable part of the Brazilian music production from that moment on. It became a part of the country’s musical identity, ensuring the creation of what has been known as the ‘MPB’ tradition over the next few decades. (Vicente, 2018)

The emergence of the MPB genre (the acronym for Brazilian Popular Music—Música Popular Brasileira) in the mid-1960s is related to a desire of some young artists to incorporate a political perspective into the Bossa Nova aesthetics, by merging Bossa Nova elements with folkloric and Brazilian traditional music ones (Napolitano, 2010). Chico Buarque, Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil and Milton Nascimento, among others, upand-coming artists at that time, started to study traditional genres and combine them with foreign ones, composing sophisticated melodies and lyrics that were also politically and socially engaged. Tropicalismo, which appeared in 1967, is certainly the most influential trend within MPB. By updating and reaffirming the aesthetic and experimentation of Bossa Nova, Caetano Veloso, one of its creators, recalls saying in 1966 that: the Brazilian music is modernised but still Brazilian, by new elements that are interpreted from the reality of the Brazilian culture. (…) For me, João Gilberto’s music is a landmark: elements from foreign modern music were used to re-create and renovate our music, to make Brazilian popular music take a step ahead. (Veloso, 2008, p. 21)

It is from the example set by Bossa Nova that foreign genres such as rock, reggae, funk and rap have been assimilated and reinterpreted by

SESC: A BRAZILIAN MUSIC ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR

103

artists who created a musical tradition that has always and unequivocally defined itself as Brazilian. The acronym MPB became an umbrella term that encompasses artists from different genres and trends who, to some extent, merge Brazilian with foreign musical elements, tradition with modernity and aesthetic sophistication with political engagement in their work. Those features have become a legitimacy source within the Brazilian music scene and being recognized as ‘MPB’ became a seal that identifies music that is authorial, artistically sophisticated and politically conscious, in contrast to ‘non-MPB music’, which may be seen as politically alienated and revenue-oriented only. Thus, it was outside the aesthetically and politically concerned MPB movement that, during the last decades, several commercially successful genres flourished. Brazilian country music (Sertanejo), from the MidWest and Southeast regions, Pagode, a Samba subgenre enjoyed in several states, Axé, related to Bahia Carnival, Forró, from the Northeast region, and Brazilian Funk, originated in Rio de Janeiro but also well established in São Paulo are examples. Those genres became highly commercially successful and dominant in the Brazilian music scene in the last decades: Sertanejo became the main romantic genre in the country, Funk reached international audiences, while Axé and Forró dominate festivities, from small parties to street carnival. However, they are sometimes criticized as overly revenue-oriented and lacking creativity and quality, relying on just repeating successful formulas. However, among those genres, Funk, particularly from São Paulo, can be pointed as an exception. It first reached the mainstream during the 1990s, when music from urban peripheries was ‘discovered’ by critics and the public. At first, rap groups from the outskirts of São Paulo, such as Racionais MCs, whose music expressed the hardship of the lower classes, their struggles against poverty and prejudice amid a violent environment, were recognized and praised by music critics, but still not so much by audiences. However, from 2010, when those groups, together with artists such as Criolo and Emicida, merged funk and its message with MPB elements, adding finesse to their music, they were accepted and consumed by the middle class. Their image also became associated with independent music (meaning innovative and aesthetically oriented), which added to the aura of quality and sophistication. Hence, the Brazilian music scene from the 1990s to the 2020s underwent a process in which a few genres, namely Sertanejo, Funk, Axé and Forró, became dominant in the market and monopolized mass media

104

D. NAKANO AND E. VICENTE

channels, while others became niche genres, performed to, and consumed by, specific groups. This has created a reinforcing cycle, in which dominant genres became even more dominant due to their high exposure in mass media, while niche genres faced increasing hurdles to find audiences. It has deepened the artistic versus market orientation dichotomy, in which popular genres became seen as too commercially oriented, while others, particularly from the MPB tradition, were regarded as the safe haven of novelty and aesthetic quality. It is within this backdrop of opposing viewpoints that SESC-SP defined its actions and the cultural, social and political relevance of its music programme. SESC-SP has first built a reputation as a promoter of good music and a guardian of the finest musical tradition. Based on that image, it assisted niche genres, providing them with funding and more importantly, with performing spaces, becoming a reference point to both artists and the audience. We now detail one among its initiatives, SESC Records, which exemplifies SESC-SP’s role in the Brazilian music ecosystem.

SESC Records SESC-SP opened its Vila Mariana unit in 1998, in a traditional middleclass neighbourhood in the Central-South region of the city. It featured a Music Centre, with a recording studio and an IT laboratory that connected its two stages. It was conceived as a centre to promote a niche genre, electroacoustic music, but its recording studio triggered a more profound transformation on SESC-SP’s role in the music ecosystem. According to Wagner Perez, SESC Records manager from 2013 to 2021, the recording studio allowed an interesting exchange system: studio recording hours were swapped with live presentations in SESC-SP units. One of the first to try that system was the renowned Brazilian guitar player Baden Powell, who recorded an album at SESC studio in exchange for shows in that period. During that time, the studio was also used to record albums from artists featured in TV music shows MPB Especial (MPB Special) and Ensaio (Rehearsal) produced by TV Cultura, which were dedicated to important Brazilian composers and singers. Those

SESC: A BRAZILIAN MUSIC ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR

105

albums became historical records, as they were released with companion books containing lyrics and interview transcripts4 (Perez, 2022). SESC Records was created based on those initiatives and was managed by SESC Vila Mariana during the initial period. Album releases were not frequent during the first years, as knowledge about contracts and intellectual property rights was being developed, and albums were mostly recordings of shows and presentations in SESC-SP units. They featured talented, but not mainstream, artists and genres such as electroacoustic and classical music. SESC Records released ‘what majors and other labels didn’t care about’, as Brazilian the music market was sailing in strong winds, taking advantage of an economic growth period (Perez, 2022). The major record companies adopted a strategy of an ‘open system,’ which favoured the production of independent music, where they laid off producers and outsourced many of their activities not directly related to distribution and promotion. For this reason, an independent musical sector with substantial diversification could develop all the way up through the creation of ABMI. (Goldschmitt & Vicente, 2020)

SESC Records was born within the rise of independent record labels. Stable macroeconomic conditions and low producing costs had opened opportunity for independents, which grew during the late 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s. Their presence was consolidated by the foundation of the Brazilian Independent Music Association (ABMI) in 2001 (Goldschmitt & Vicente, 2020). The growth of independent music represented not only the expansion of Brazilian music labels in a market historically dominated by the Majors, but also the geographical dispersion of music production over the country, moving away from the São PauloRio de Janeiro axis. Local music scenes such as Mangue Beat, from Recife periphery, the capital city of the Northeast state Pernambuco, started to be listened all over the country. Small labels also opened the market to neglected genres, such as instrumental, children’s, ethnic and traditional folk music. Thus, as part of a large group of independent record labels, SESC Records carved its place by focusing on producing albums from niche genres performed at SESC-SP shows and elsewhere. 4 https://cultura.estadao.com.br/noticias/musica,sesc-lanca-novos-cds-com-A-mem oria-da-mpb,20011214p6668. The álbum series was entitled ‘A música brasileira deste século por seus autores e intérpretes’—The Brazilian music of this century by its composers and singers.

106

D. NAKANO AND E. VICENTE

However, digital piracy and unauthorized distribution made worldwide recording label revenues plunge and caused many Brazilian independent studios reduce or shut down their operations. As a result, the intermediation role they played to artists ceased to exist, which had severe impact on musicians’ access to the market (Goldschmitt & Vicente, 2020). This scenario helps to understand why and how SESC Records’ role changed and grew within its parent organization. To keep the motto of releasing ‘what others don’t care about’, it was detached from SESC Vila Mariana in 2008 and became part of the central administration, which gave access to more resources and a dedicated managerial team. As a result, SESC Records’ output grew more than sixfold: from 17 albums released between 2002 and 2010 to 150 albums from 2011 to 2021, from 2 to 13 albums per year on average. SESC Records was faithful to its mission of promoting SESC-SP’s programme. During 2002 to 2010, five album releases were related to social and periphery projects supported by SESC-SP, seven were classical and electroacoustic music albums, one was of samba from São Paulo periphery, another featured instrumental music and two were digital remasters. From 2011 to 2021, recording Brazilian classical music was kept as an important initiative, both by licensing and by remastering out-of-print albums from other labels, or producing new recordings of electroacoustic and Brazilian contemporary classical music. Jazz, from both Brazilian and foreign artists, was added to the portfolio, especially from internationally acclaimed artists. Revisiting the history of SESC-SP was another strategy to produce new releases: 1960/1970 successes and artists from the 1980s São Paulo Avant Garde movement were recorded. SESC Records also grew by acquisition, it bought Dabliu, an independent record label which catalogue included important MPB artists, who were related to the ‘SESC Universe’. Currently, although the label prioritizes established names, emerging musicians have their opportunity in specially designed projects, in which they record tunes from traditional composers. The label also promotes a regular season, SESC Records Sessions, in which rising artists and new trends in the Brazilian music are showcased and recorded. Many new artists in the Brazilian music scene had their first performance to a large audience during those sessions. According to Perez, SESC Records keeps two directives: the first is releasing artists and genres that have been featured at SESC-SP shows. The second directive is keeping the album concept: as opposed to the current practice of releasing singles, the label

SESC: A BRAZILIAN MUSIC ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR

107

produces only albums, ensembles by which each artist conveys a coherent message to their audience. Consonant to the artist profile and genre, SESC Records chooses to release albums on physical, digital or both formats. Classical music and MPB artists are usually released in physical formats, while SESC Records Session recordings (usually new artists) are available only on digital format. It also releases some albums in vinyl format. Distribution is a key process in the content market (Nakano & Fleury, 2017), and physical sales take advantage of the stores located in all SESC units, which give easy access to buyers and wide geographic coverage. On the digital side, SESC-SP developed its own content platform (https://sesc. digital/home) in 2017, where interviews, photo collections, web series, podcasts and SESC Records albums are available. It has also developed a digital magazine about music called Zumbido (Buzz). And according to the artist decision, tunes can also be made available in streaming platforms such as Spotify. SESC Records content curation, which draws upon a long-standing effort of its parent organization to promote Brazilian music, focuses on MPB and niche genres that do not find space on both the major and mass media channels’ strategies. SESC-SP live music infrastructure and its recorded music distribution capability have given SESC Records and its parent organization a unique spot in the Brazilian music ecosystem. Emerging artists strive to be part of the SESC-SP programme, not only because it gives them access to recording albums and physical and digital distribution, but also, and more importantly, because it awards them the SESC ‘seal of approval’, which grants them legitimacy to both critics and the public. Audiences look for SESC-SP’s programme and trust it will deliver them affordable and high-quality music, even in the case that they may not be familiar with the featured artist. SESC Records exemplifies the role SESC-SP has occupied in the Brazilian music scene. In the complex scenario, the music business has undergone since the early 2000s, in which the prospect of the industry was under question, it was a haven for artists and a beacon for audiences. It gave resources and guidance to artists who are part of vital niches that bring novelty and are connected to a rich music heritage but are neglected by the mass market. Those artists keep the influence of Bossa Nova and Tropicalism, by articulating the Brazilian music tradition to new elements, and are considered a source of quality and novelty but face difficulty to deliver their music to the audience, as opposed to popular genres, such as Sertanejo, which profit from a well-developed structure of production, promotion and distribution.

108

D. NAKANO AND E. VICENTE

SESC-SP as an Ecosystem Orchestrator The role of orchestrators has been discussed in the innovation literature, where they are considered important to manage complex technological scenarios, where goals of several parties that share a common interest need to be aligned, their interaction facilitated and actions coordinated (Häcki & Lighton, 2001; Meyer, 2000). Orchestrators initiate and manage processes to explore market opportunities and to create and capture value (Verhoeven & Maritz, 2012), and may work upon articulating members’ complementary assets to allow value creation (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018; Hou & Shi, 2021). Orchestrators are particularly needed in complex situations, as for instance, in a technology project with a large number of participants (Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011), or in new and uncertain scenarios, such as the establishment of a platform-based ecosystem (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018) or the adoption of a new production paradigm (Parida et al., 2019). Orchestration requires sensing opportunities and creating new forms of collaboration and interaction, in order to reach new value propositions. It also requires ability to reconfigure resources and structures when there are changes in the business landscape, such as the emergence of new technologies or changing consumer needs (Linde et al., 2021). Orchestrators may take direct action and participate in activities, by offering key resources or making investment, or act as facilitators, using its privileged position or an image of neutrality and integrity (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Nätti, 2018). In both cases, they must mobilize participants, set short and long-term plans, and coordinate activities and knowledge exchange. They do not possess, necessarily, hierarchical authority over the ecosystem, and they can take the lead without formal position (Dhanasaj & Parkhe, 2006; Reypens et al., 2021), relying on a privileged position or the possession of unique resources (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Nätti, 2018). They can act as the dominant, leading organization in the network, which plans actions, recruits participants and sets contract-based relationships, or as a facilitator that look for consensus and voluntary participation, negotiating goals and actions between parties (Reypens et al., 2021). Although the concept of orchestrator has been developed in the technology literature, it can also be applied in creative economy studies, and it seems particularly suited to analyse SESC-SP role in the Brazilian music

SESC: A BRAZILIAN MUSIC ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR

109

ecosystem. We discuss it from three perspectives: why SESC-SP role was needed, how it became an orchestrator, and what are its effects on the music ecosystem. Why SESC-SP was needed: Orchestrators are important in fuzzy and complex situations, which was the case of the Brazilian music scene. It went from a dynamic and creative scenario in the 1960s to the 1980s, with different genres merging traditional Brazilian and foreign elements, to one split into two almost unconnected parts: one massively popular but considered as lacking creativity and dominated by a few genres, and one regarded as highly creative, aesthetically oriented and politically engaged, but reaching small audiences, with few artists being able to cross the divide. The gap was widened by the recording business crisis: with recording companies facing plunging revenues, they become more and more risk-averse, willing to invest only in high return music, i.e. the most popular genres, which has left less and less channels to genres such as MPB to reach audiences. However, those genres are considered, by critics and at least part of the public, to be more creative and as those that keep the Brazilian music tradition created by Bossa Nova. SESC’s actions to value and support niche genres have their roots in its mission to promote Brazilian culture and make it accessible to the public. Faithful to that mission, SESC has always scanned the music scene and provided resources and access to the audience for niche genres. SESC Consolação and SESC Pompeia stages, and SESC Records’ technical and financial resources have been instrumental to avoid their withering. How SESC-SP became an orchestrator: from the 1970s, SESCSP has built a reputation as an organization with the sole interest on supporting a creative and dynamic music scene. Its cultural programme, with projects such as São Paulo Avant Garde and Home-Grown Talents, has granted legitimacy to SESC-SP as a curator and key promoter of the evolutive line started with Bossa Nova and continued by MPB and its several trends. Strategic actions of SESC-SP towards supporting artists and genres that faced difficulty to access the market have given it a unique position in the Brazilian music ecosystem, to the point of attracting musicians from other Brazilian states to São Paulo, with the only purpose of being able to participate in the SESC-SP programme. Although those genres are not highly popular, and some may be regarded as too sophisticated or progressive, actions of SESC-SP are far from being elitist: several of its units are located in the outskirts of São Paulo and at countryside cities, and its policy is to charge low ticket prices. As a result, all classes

110

D. NAKANO AND E. VICENTE

use its facilities and attend its shows. In the highly uncertain scenario the music industry faced due to digital distribution, SESC-SP, its programme and activities, remained as a references to both artists and audiences. It has acted as a facilitator, promoter and sponsor of the Brazilian music. What SESC-SP does as an orchestrator: The visible side of SESC-SP actions is its programme, the projects and shows it delivers to the public, and the records released by SESC Records. However, its main role as orchestrator is that it transfers its legitimacy to the artists selected to be part of its sponsored projects and releases. Emerging artists invited to participate in the Home-Grown Talents project are immediately seen as promising musicians that deliver high-quality music. In the same way, upand-coming musicians selected to present at SESC-SP stages are regarded as developing authorial and creative songs. Following a long-standing effort to spot and support new musicians, championed by SESC Consolação and SESC Pompeia, all units call for and receive applications from aspiring local artists, who are selected by each local team. Being selected to be part of SESC-SP programme grants a legitimacy seal that signals the ecosystem who are the promising artists and the new trends in the music scene. Thus, SESC-SP participates in the ecosystem as a resource provider to artists, but its main role is to flag emerging artists and trends for public and critics. SESC-SP balances its programme by mixing renowned artists with new ones, selected by its curatorial process. Regardless of the artist’s reputation and audience size, following its mission of making Brazilian culture accessible, its pricing strategy is to sell tickets significantly below market average.

Conclusions While the literature on orchestrators relates to a position as emanating from either economic power or a privileged position in the network, SESC-SP has gained its position from the legitimacy it acquired from both the critic and the public. Suchman (1995) defined organizational legitimacy as: a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. (p. 574)

SESC: A BRAZILIAN MUSIC ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR

111

Amid the divide the Brazilian music scene has undergone, in which the artistic production’s dual nature of being a cultural creation and an economic product (Delmestri et al., 2005) became separated, and genres started to be related to only one side by relevant participants of the ecosystem, SESC’s mission and actions have been associated with the promotion of cultural creation above commercial success, which has given it legitimacy as an organization that does not look for its own interest (revenue and profit), but strives to support high-quality music. Based on such underpinning, artists and genres featured in SESC productions are associated with quality and creativity by the public and critics. Thus, SESC-SP role as an orchestrator in the Brazilian music ecosystem is based on its legitimacy as an aesthetic value advocate and on its ability to transfer its image to the artists and genres it supports. It articulates the ecosystem, offers resources to artists and signals the audience about new and promising acts. With those actions, it has also helped to enhance the resilience of niche genres, and as a result, of the whole Brazilian music ecosystem. It has had a hardening effect (Virani, 2016), by articulating networks of musicians, providing live performance and recording infrastructure and financial resources, and in that sense, it exemplifies how an orchestrator can improve the resilience of an ecosystem. This chapter has two main contributions: on the practical side, it highlights the role of notfor-profit organizations in the promotion and maintenance of a healthy and balanced music ecosystem. On the theoretical side, it points to legitimacy as a source of a unique position in the network, and how it can be transferred to its sponsored individuals.

References Dapieve, A. (1995). BRock: o rock brasileiro dos anos 80 (BRock: Brazilian rock in the 1980s). Editora 34. Delmestri, G., Montanari, F., & Usai, A. (2005). Reputation and strength of ties in predicting commercial success and artistic merit of independents in the Italian feature film industry. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 975– 1002. Dhanasaj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669. Goldschmitt, K. E., & Vicente, E. (2020). Popular music and the growth of Brazilian culture industries since 1945. In Oxford research encyclopedia of Latin American history. Oxford University Press.

112

D. NAKANO AND E. VICENTE

Gomes, L. A. de V., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2018). Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 30–48. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009 Häcki, R., & Lighton, J. (2001, Summer). The future of the networked company. The McKinsey Quarterly, 26, 26–39. http://go.galegroup.com/ ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA77578806&v=2.1&u=fub&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w& asid=16a32d604e9db3d0f1105b97db245946 Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47 (8), 1391–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019 Hou, H., & Shi, Y. (2021, February). Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-ascoevolution: A constructive examination. Technovation, 100, 102193. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102193 Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Nätti, S. (2018, October). Orchestrator types, roles and capabilities—A framework for innovation networks. Industrial Marketing Management , 74, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman. 2017.09.020 Linde, L., Sjödin, D., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2021). Dynamic capabilities for ecosystem orchestration: A capability-based framework for smart city innovation initiatives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120614 Meyer, M. (2000). Innovation roles: From souls of fire to devil’s advocate. Journal of Business Communication, 37 (4), 328–347. Nakano, D., & Fleury, A. (2017). Recorded music supply network reconfiguration: The dual effect of digital technology. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management , 31(1–3). https://doi.org/10. 1504/IJMTM.2017.082009 Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. (2011). Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation: Evidence from the field. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 40–57. Napolitano, M. (2010). Seguindo a canção: engajamento político e indústria cultural na MPB (1959–1969) [Following the tune: political engagement and cultural industry in MPB (1959–1969)]. Digital version revised by the author. www.academia.edu/3821530/SEGUINDO_A_CANCAO_digital Parida, V., Burström, T., Visnjic, I., & Wincent, J. (2019, August). Orchestrating industrial ecosystem in circular economy: A two-stage transformation model for large manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Research, 101, 715– 725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.006 Perez, W. P. (2022). Interview transcript 07/10/2022. Reypens, C., Lievens, A., & Blazevic, V. (2021). Hybrid orchestration in multistakeholder innovation networks: Practices of mobilizing multiple, diverse

SESC: A BRAZILIAN MUSIC ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR

113

stakeholders across organizational boundaries. Organization Studies, 42(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619868268 SESC. (2022). Decree 9853. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decretolei/1937-1946/Del9853.htm. Accessed on 2 November 2022. SESC.com. (2022). https://www.Sesc.com.br/institucional/o-Sesc/nossa-his toria/ Schippers, H., & Grant, C. (2016). Approaching music cultures as ecosystems. In Sustainable futures for music cultures (pp. 333–352). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190259075.003.0012 Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., & Matsumoto, Y. (2018, November). A review of the ecosystem concept—Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 49–58. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032 Veloso, C. (2008). Que caminhos seguir na música popular brasileira [Paths to follow for Brazilian popular music]. In S. Cohn & F. Coelho (Eds.), Tropicália (pp. 17–28). Beco do Azougue. Verhoeven, K. B. T., & Maritz, A. (2012). Collaboration for Innovation: Network processes and capabilities. XXIII ISPIM Conference—Action for Innovation: Innovating from Experience, June, 1–31. Vicente, E. (2018). Bossa Nova and beyond: The jazz as symbol of Brazilianness. In N. Gebhardt, N. Rustin-Paschal, & T. Whyton (Eds.), The Routledge companion to jazz studies (pp. 213–228). Routledge. Virani, T. E. (2016). The resilience of a local music scene in Dalston, London. In B. J. Hracs, M. Seman, & T. E. Virani (Eds.), The production and consumption of music in the digital age (Vol. 1). Routledge. Virani, T. E. (2019). Local creative and cultural economy intermediaries: Examining place-based workers in the creative and cultural economy. Network: Queen Mary University Centre for the Creative and Cultural Industries Working Paper Series. https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/ 56649 Virani, T., & Pratt, A. C. (2016). Intermediaries and the knowledge exchange process. Higher Education and the Creative Economy: Beyond the Campus, 41–58.

Bristol’s Film and Television Industries: An Incremental Ecosystem Andrew Spicer

Introduction Although London continues to exert its historic dominance of film and television production in the UK, Bristol is one of six significant regional production centres whose histories and characteristics differ markedly.1 In contrast to what could be called ‘engineered’ production centres such as Cardiff or Greater Manchester (MediaCityUK in Salford), Bristol’s screen industries have never benefitted from major capital investment—by government, regional authorities or the BBC—but have developed incrementally through collective endeavour. This chapter analyses Bristol’s screen ecosystem, its internal characteristics, its relationship to external forces and the cultural traditions that have shaped its identity. It is based on the extensive primary research that informed three in-depth reports (2017, 2019 and 2022) that investigated the city’s screen industries and labour force. 1 In addition to Bristol, these are Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow—capitals of the ‘small nations’: Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, respectively—Manchester in North West England and Leeds in the North East.

A. Spicer (B) University of the West of England Bristol, Bristol, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_7

115

116

A. SPICER

Rather than reproduce the detail of the reports—which perforce highlighted economic data—I take the opportunity to reflect on their findings more broadly in relation to existing studies of clusters, ‘creative cities’ and ecosystems that the reports salute but do not engage with at any length. My analysis seeks to demonstrate the ways in which a case study of Bristol illuminates how creative ecosystems actually work in practice, understanding the concept of creativity as relative and situated rather than universal (Pratt, 2011, p. 128). Its particular focus is on the ways in which Bristol’s ecosystem is managed, how the conditions of possibility for creative work are created, organised and attempt to be sustained in the face of the challenges posed by the notorious fragmentation of the creative industries and the well-documented issues creative workers confront. Rather than a formal conclusion, the closing section positions Bristol’s ecosystem within broader economic, spatial and political contexts, discussing the challenges it faces going forward.

From Clusters to Ecosystems Profound transformations in the ways media products are produced, distributed and consumed caused by digital technologies that have ‘disrupted’ established business models, markets and relationships, has led to a renewed interest in the industry’s spatial patterning and hence the importance of place in which locality has been seen as having heightened significance (Eriksson, 2011, pp. 37–39). The dominant analytical framework has been the ‘cluster’. In an influential account, the Harvard economist Michael Porter claimed that ‘clusters’—which he defined as ‘geographical agglomerations of firms that collaborate and compete with each other’—provide ‘enduring competitive advantages in a global economy’ through local knowledges and relationships ‘that distant rivals cannot match’ (1998, p. 78). Though lacking empirical evidence, the focus on clusters’ competitive advantages recommended the concept to regional and national policymakers who saw it as a panacea for stimulating growth (Martin & Sunley, 2003). A subsequent raft of studies (e.g. Karlsson & Pickard, 2011; Komorowski & Picone, 2020) emphasised the highly distinctive characteristics of ‘creative clusters’ derived from the meaning-making nature of the cultural and creative industries whose symbolic forms are produced through highly specialised, often project-based, practices in which each unique product has to be constantly modified and adjusted through

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

117

small, incremental changes that build on and develop existing knowledge. Global markets’ constant need for fast-paced innovation in creative content requires the deployment of competencies and expertise (flexible specialisation) that are beyond the competence of any one firm, however well resourced, hence the advantages of co-location (Virta & Lowe, 2017, p. 3). Creative clusters, it is argued, stimulate growth through the rapid diffusion of knowledge, information, ideas and skills that co-location facilitates through a variety of traded and ‘untraded’ interdependencies; a local ‘buzz’ created through face-to-face contacts, accidental meetings, news and gossip (Bathelt et al., 2004; Storper & Venables, 2004). Creative clusters are characterised by informal flows of skilled labour between firms—both intensely competitive and mutually supportive—creating a rich talent pool which helps foster innovation and new business formation (Drake, 2003). Because of the required density of interconnections, creative clusters are concentrated in inner city areas of cosmopolitan cities that are ‘glocal’, simultaneously connected to the locality and global systems of production, distribution and consumption (Christopherson & Clark, 2009; Krätke, 2011; Storper, 2013). An important conceptual shift was to understand these fluid, richly textured, constantly changing, multidirectional, interconnecting and interdependent interactions as forming dynamic ‘ecosystems’. Whereas the foundational logic of cluster literature was on the cumulative growth produced by co-location, an ecosystemic approach emphasised that these interactions exchanged social and cultural as well as economic capital. This approach shifts attention to how an ecosystem works as ‘a complex living network sustained by many kinds of value exchange’, tangible and intangible, co-produced by numerous agents in the network rather than created and consumed in a linear value chain, thus necessitating analysis of the ecosystem as a whole and of how each agent contributes to it (Dovey et al., 2016). Komorowski et al. (2021) argue that a systemsbased account can encompass the range of these interdependencies, which operate at different levels—individual, group, institutional and sociocultural—not only the flows of money and talent, collaborations and co-operation, but less tangible place-making activities that contribute to the symbolic value of a locality, what Warren and Jones designate as the ‘interdependence and co-construction of the creative economy, community and place’ (2015, p. 11). The core issue for analysis becomes the ways in which both individual agents, such as specific companies, and also the

118

A. SPICER

ecosystem as a whole, either encourages or constrains creativity (Gross & Wilson, 2020, p. 332). Ecosystemic approaches focus particular attention on the ways in which these complex and often highly fragmented networks are co-ordinated and managed (curated), which co-location does not guarantee (Hitters & Richards, 2002; Virta & Lowe, 2017, p. 7). The focus here is on the role of intermediaries, or what Dotti and Lupova-Henry (2020) call ‘creative mediators’, the ways in which they attempt to cohere the ecosystem, creating the conditions for varied creativity and innovation (see: Virani & Pratt, 2016; Virani, 2019). An ecosystemic perspective, in attending to different forms of value rather than growth, emphasises issues of sustainability, inclusivity and labour force wellbeing that the market cannot guarantee. It shifts attention from the narrow and instrumental interventions to encourage productivity that characterised a cluster-based approach to policy to encompass broader social and cultural concerns, including civic engagement, encouraging a capabilities approach keyed to the particular strengths of the ecosystem as a whole (Davis, 2011). This approach gives prominence to the moral ecology of creative work (Banks, 2007; Hesmondhalgh & Baker, 2011) as an ethical response to the well-documented problems of creative labour such as precarity and self-exploitation (McRobbie, 2016). Ecosystems are understood as heterogeneous, often full of contradictions in the struggle between treating culture as a public good that encourages inclusion, diversity and the provision of social and cultural amenities, and ones that are profitgenerating and commercial, exclusionary and divisive, and which reinforce existing social and cultural boundaries (Pratt, 2011; Virani, 2023). A constant refrain in the existing literature on creative co-locations is that each one is specific and unique, possessing a genius loci: the accumulated knowledge that constitutes its creative core (O’Regan et al., 2004, p. 7); hence the importance of detailed studies of particular cities, such as this one undertaken here. In his seminal The Creative Economy of Cities , the geographer Allen J. Scott emphasises the salience of historical factors, especially cultural traditions, which have a particular significance for creative production because of the ways in which locality and culture are intertwined. Places, Scott argues, leave ‘deep traces on the form and cognitive meanings’ of creative products, ‘symbolic and sentimental assets’ that derive from the ‘distinctive historical associations and landmarks’ that make each particular locality unique (2000, p. 3). Scott’s interest in how actual industries work informs the present chapter, which

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

119

eschews the invented construct of the ‘creative industries’—that ignores significant differences in the histories, traditions and localities that differentiate particular industries—in favour of a more historically situated account that shows the impact of the evolution of a particular industry; in Bristol’s case—television.

Methodology The chapter is based on the extended empirical research that informed two co-authored reports: Go West! Bristol’s Film and Television Industries (2017) and Go West! 2 (2022). The extensive data gathering—a survey of both companies and freelancers conducted in 2016 and updated in 2021, supplemented by information gathered from company websites and data from Companies House—was accompanied by more than 80 interviews with company CEOs, BBC and Channel 4 executives, national and regional intermediaries and local authority figures; all unattributed quotations are from these reports. Go West! analysed Bristol’s major firms, the breadth and variety of its 189 independent companies and their spatial concentrations into sub-clusters that were mapped comprehensively, the role of intermediaries in organising and managing the ecosystem and Bristol’s contrarian ‘cluster culture’. They demonstrated the importance of the direct and indirect contribution of Bristol’s screen industries to the regional economy and its ‘success’, enjoying significant growth over the five-year period between the first and second investigations. They were supplemented by a sister report: Amy Genders’ An Invisible Army: The Role of Freelance Labour in Bristol’s Film and Television Industries (2019), which analysed the characteristics of Bristol’s creative labour force that reflects national norms but also local specificities (see also Genders, 2022). These reports drew on academic accounts of the media industries, articles in trade journals such as Broadcast, Screen Daily, Screen International and Televisual , alongside reports by the British Film Institute, Ofcom, the BBC and Channel 4, and various consultancy overviews of the UK’s screen sector that occasionally include regional analyses.

120

A. SPICER

Bristol’s Creative Ecosystem Bristol has numerous advantages as a city. Interviewees in the reports and survey respondents were enthusiastic about living there, considering the city was well-placed geographically—within easy reach of beautiful countryside but only 90 minutes from London; spatially—the ‘right size’, its production companies within walking distance of each other providing the close interconnectedness creative production requires; and architecturally—having attractive waterfront locations and a defined centre that affords a range of restaurants, bars, cafés and cultural amenities. They considered Bristol’s scale made a satisfying work-life balance easier to achieve than in London. Above all respondents emphasised the importance of Bristol’s concentration of ‘really clever people who are like-minded souls’, a highly educated, skilled and knowledgeable workforce—a ‘fantastic talent base’—that forms a competitive but also collaborative community that enjoys the intellectual, cultural and creative stimulation Bristol offers. Although Bristol’s bohemian culture and its vernacular creativity in music, independent filmmaking and street art appeal to the tastes and aspiration of what Richard Florida (2005) labelled an international ‘creative class’, the reports demonstrated that Bristol’s screen creatives were not a free-floating class, but are more accurately characterised as forming localised, highly specific communities of practice, distinct but interlocking ecosystems based around and across particular companies and sub-clusters.

The Companies BBC as ‘Anchor Firm’ The importance of the economic and cultural role played by a major ‘anchor firm’ is one of the few agreed findings of cluster studies. Historically, the BBC’s nations and regions ‘outposts’ performed that function, though ITV companies—as the centre of an interlocking network of regional franchises—also played that role, sometimes more effectively, before their ‘retreat’ to London during the 1990s.2 The BBC’s role in Bristol has been singular, almost entirely predicated on the growth of its specialist wildlife division, the Natural History Unit (NHU). The NHU

2 Bristol’s regional ITV company was HTV, see Go West 2!, 23–24.

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

121

developed—through the incremental expertise and constant innovations of its specialist staff—from a regional centre for broadcasts produced by amateur enthusiasts in the immediate post-war period to a global hub whose brand is the long succession of ‘landmark’ series written or narrated by David Attenborough, from Life on Earth (1979) to The Green Planet (2022). Since 2017, the NHU has been subsumed into BBC Studios, the corporation’s mercantile subsidiary now responsible for producing almost all of what was the BBC’s in-house production, able to pitch and produce content for broadcasters and streaming platforms worldwide. The NHU now operates like a specialised commercial production company—its programmes aggressively marketed by BBC Worldwide and extensively merchandised—rather than a public service broadcaster. The NHU has had a profound effect on Bristol’s creative community as the core of ‘Green Hollywood’ discussed below, and its success resulted in Bristol’s identification by the BBC as a ‘centre of excellence’ for factual programming, which has shaped the ecosystem in other ways—see the later discussion of the drama sub-cluster. Thus the BBC’s role within Bristol has been very particular, demonstrating the need to examine the precise role played by anchor firms. Aardman Animations The other anchor has been Aardman Animations, which epitomises Bristol’s creative culture of DIY self-help entrepreneurialism, growing incrementally from a two-person operation in 1976 to a global firm that exploits the creative and commercial possibilities of its internationally recognised characters—Morph, Wallace and Gromit, and above all Shaun the Sheep—on a range of platforms and with a variety of national and overseas partners, buttressed by extensive merchandising. Initially dependent on small-scale BBC commissions for Vision On (1964–1976)—a series for deaf children that was produced in Bristol—Aardman’s cofounders, Peter Lord and David Sproxton, chose to stay in the city, growing the company through shrewd purchases of buildings and land in what was a largely derelict dockland area, promoting an urban regeneration made entirely without external funding. Lord and Sproxton have used their independence to forge a company whose identity has been shaped by their tastes, preferences and core values, and their determination that Aardman retains its artisanal nature as a ‘creative studio’ that forms a stimulating environment for its staff rather than a commercially

122

A. SPICER

oriented company such as Disney whose priority is securing profits for its shareholders. Although a global company, Aardman remains thoroughly Bristolian, taking a continually active civic role that has made it deeply woven into the fabric of Bristol’s economic, social and cultural life. Two public art trails, Gromit Unleashed (2013) and Shaun in the City (2015) raised over £3.3 million for charity and significantly boosted the city’s tourism; Wallace and Gromit’s Grand Appeal has raised over £50 million for Bristol Children’s Hospital Charity. Aardman exemplifies what Scott (2006, p. 10) identifies as an essential element of successful creative firms whose outputs become assimilated in the city’s cultural assets, its image and identity. Lord and Sproxton’s decision, in 2019, to make Aardman employee-owned gives its workers a stake in the company and a share in any profits but also ensured the company retained its founders’ values, including remaining in Bristol. Independents and Sub-Clusters Since the 1980s, the third major force shaping Bristol’s screen sector has been the UK’s independent screen production sector, which has grown from cottage industry to big business (Lee, 2018). Our research demonstrated that Bristol’s 189 indies congregate into distinct if overlapping specialised sub-clusters—natural history, animation, factual, postproduction, branded content and facilities—that generate their own craftbased creative communities. Although the companies aim to be competitive, the aim of many of these microbusinesses is to sustain production rather than commercial growth. Although they gain advantages from the interconnections within the sub-clusters, these also generate selfcontained ecosystems that become self-reinforcing rather than refreshed from outside creative talent—see next section—and with limited, and only occasional, connections between the various sub-clusters. The most important sub-cluster is natural history consisting of 16 indies that together with the NHU constitutes nearly half of Bristol’s overall screen production making it the global centre for natural history filmmaking, the ‘Green Hollywood’. Several of these companies—Silverback Films, True to Nature and Wild Space—have been established by former NHU executives. Although no longer dependent on BBC commissions and primarily oriented to American companies such as Disney or Netflix in a global marketplace, being located in Bristol gives each company a significant advantage over competitors based elsewhere

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

123

through access to an unrivalled pool of experienced creative talent that share ideas, expertise and stimulate innovation. ‘The truth is that most of the world’s best wildlife film-makers live and work in this city’. Although they compete, these companies consider themselves part of a mutually supportive ‘natural history fraternity’, which shares freelance labour but also continues to rely on the NHU to stimulate a continued demand for natural history programmes: We need the NHU to punch its weight and compete with drama … if the NHU produces a terrible landmark in a prime slot that fails with the audience, that’s a disaster for us … because our market has been eroded. All the commissioners think “natural history doesn’t work anymore, let’s put our money elsewhere”. We’re in it together. Our biggest threat is if the international marketplace loses faith in natural history.

The animation sub-cluster consists of twenty-seven small companies, initially concentrated in Bristol’s docklands near Aardman. As with natural history, animation indies are no longer directly tied to Aardman as commissioner but have developed their own networks and niche markets. Bristol’s factual sub-cluster, a mixture of well-established and emerging indies, is in part a development of the natural history sector with companies such as Icon Films and Plimsoll Productions diversifying into factual. While the range and variety of these three sub-clusters reflects Bristol’s specific strengths, post-production, branded content and facilities are generic to any creative cluster that reaches a certain scale; postproduction, for instance, has increased in direct relationship to the expansion of the cluster as a whole. A defining absence is drama, primarily attributable to the BBC’s designation of Cardiff as a ‘sustainable centre of excellence for drama’ in order to fulfil the corporation’s overall strategy to enhance network production in the ‘nations’. This involved, in a partnership between the BBC and the Welsh government, a £30 million investment to create Roath Lock Studios on a disused industrial site in Cardiff Bay. The BBC has become a major employer in Cardiff’s creative community, unlike in Bristol where its overall contribution is much smaller (Forrest et al., 2022, p. 27). When production of the medical drama Casualty (1986–) was relocated to Roath Lock in 2011 after having been filmed in Bristol for twenty-five years, the effect on Bristol’s drama community was devastating. Although Bristol now has a successful studio complex—The Bottle

124

A. SPICER

Yard Studios (discussed below)—that attracts a wide range of drama productions, outside companies produce them. However, a small indigenous sub-cluster is beginning to emerge supported by an advocacy group, Bristol Screen Producers, which aims to foster the development of indigenous drama production in the city that will help to express the city’s cultures and identity.

Cultural/Creative Labour Bristol’s creative workforce enjoy the range of advantages—rapid diffusion of knowledge, information, ideas and skills—co-location provides and has developed a long tradition of ‘competing but also co-operating’ in a regional ecosystem where securing a major commission is a win for everyone because it increases employment, reinforces the city’s status as a high-level production base that can compete with London and helps ensure that talented freelance staff are provided with sufficient work not only to be able to make a living within the region but also to realise career ambitions. As one CEO commented, ‘companies support each other. If I’ve got somebody good I’ll pass them on to somebody else in Bristol who I think they could work for. There is no negative competition there at all’. As Amy Genders (2019, 2022) argues, Bristol’s creative freelancers, who often work for a variety of companies, should be regarded as creative place makers integral to the creation of Bristol’s screen ecosystem as highly educated, mobile, flexible, resilient and active agents in the exchange of ideas, expertise and innovation. As a whole—contract and freelancers— Bristol’s creative labour force exhibits what Scott (2006, p. 7) identifies as a ‘patina of place-specific color’, becoming ‘the locus of particular traditions, sensibilities and norms’ that help endow Bristol with a specific and unique individuality. Arguably, creative opportunities for freelancers have been increased by the BBC’s shift from in-house production to competitive tendering which, executives claim, affords ‘a broader range of more interesting work for everyone to work on’, thereby making ‘BBC Bristol a more exciting place to work. Rather than the same old shows, people know that they’ve got other options as well’. There is now, it is claimed, a reciprocal, free-flowing relationship between the BBC and the independent sector: a freelancer with particular specialisms might work for lots of different people and indies … gaining skills which in one production or organisation

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

125

you might not have been able to use. They go out and do things and then you have a big commission and find that they are suitable. They go back and forth like that.

The current boom in production means that for many interviewees there ‘has never been a better time to get into the industry’; several remarked on the speed with which early career workers were progressing, securing senior roles on productions that would previously have taken many more years to work towards. Nevertheless, Genders’ analyses demonstrate that Bristol’s creative freelancers replicate the well-documented problems the sector experiences nationally: precarious employment—no holiday, sick pay or pension rights, stop-start working patterns, long, often anti-social hours, extensive self-exploitation taking unpaid or poorly paid work, having to pay for their own training or reskilling and suffering various forms of depression and wellbeing issues. Arguably, these problems have been exacerbated by the creation of BBC Studios that extends the dependence of the production sector on precariously employed freelance workers previously employed on more stable, in-house contracts. The downside of the production boom has resulted in freelancers working ever longer stints and accelerated careers increase stress and difficulties in achieving a work-life balance. Although freelancers come together occasionally in informal meetings and co-working spaces dotted around the city, they tend to remain siloed within particular sub-clusters—hence the BBC executive’s emphasis on ‘particular specialisms’ quoted above. Freelancers themselves complained of the somewhat narrow opportunities offered by Bristol’s ecosystem, perceived as very ‘natural history-centric’, an enclosed community that is difficult for outsiders to penetrate. There were more general complaints about increasing competition and anxieties caused by the lack of affordable office space or housing. Freelancers are often acutely vulnerable to external forces; their livelihoods were very badly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The animation sector, because of its international workforce, has been adversely affected by the restrictions on mobility caused by Brexit.

126

A. SPICER

Intermediaries: Organising and Managing the Ecosystem As discussed, a key issue in understanding how ecosystems function, the range of values in play, is to analyse how they are organised formally and informally at various levels. A variety of organisations help manage Bristol’s screen ecosystem; the most important of which is Bristol City Council, which operates a film office and a studio complex. Bristol Film Office provides assistance—databases of crew and locations, issuing location permits and advising about how to access local talent (increasingly stipulated in commissions)—to companies intending to film in Bristol and the surrounding area. Its role expanded after Bristol became a UNESCO City of Film in October 2017, a permanent designation through which the city participates in UNESCO’s Creative Cities Network (UNCCN) as well as its Cities of Film sub-section. UNCCN is an international network committed to implementing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through local partnerships that support place-specific initiatives. Membership requires ongoing four-year action plans to increase a city’s engagement with all aspects of screen culture, by strengthening the creation and dissemination of cultural activities, training initiatives and services and promoting sustainable practices. Bristol’s plan includes encouraging the development of indigenous drama production. Founded in 2010, The Bottle Yard Studios (TBYS) is a seven-acre production complex on a former winery and bottling plant, with eight sound stages and a ‘creative hub’ of 25 on-site tenant businesses offering a range of services. Following the allocation of £11.8 million funding from the West of England Combined Authority (WECA), three additional state-of-the-art sound stages (TBYS2) were opened on a neighbouring site in November 2022. Although run commercially to service ‘High End’ national and international television drama productions as well as comedies and gameshows, TBYS has a clear social value remit, forming part of the Council’s wider regeneration plans for South Bristol by revitalising a disadvantaged area of the city that lacked employment opportunities. Its staff negotiate with client companies to explore how they can contribute to the local community by offering start-up positions, part of a wider skills and training initiatives advocated in the City of Film action plan. Integrated in 2019, the Film Office and TBYS have established a Green Team to implement a five-year Environmental Action Plan that seeks to

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

127

reduce the carbon output by firms filming in Bristol aligned with the city’s ambitious target to become carbon neutral by 2030. The high level of Council involvement makes Bristol’s screen ecology unusual, but it shares with comparable screen clusters a range of intermediaries—media organisations, education providers, a range of craft-based networks and several business organisations—whose role is to attract a range of enterprise across the region. They contribute to the ecosystem at various levels through talent pipelines, news gathering, jobs listings, research, cultural initiatives and joint networking events. There are several independent exhibition spaces that perceive their role as social, educational and cultural—expanding taste through the provision of a wide range of films. Pre-eminent is Watershed, also the lead organisation for the BFI’s Film Hub South West, which acts as a focal point for the city’s creative ecosystem. Its year-round programme of events form part of Bristol’s rich array of moving image festivals two of which, Wildscreen and Encounters, are global leaders for the Natural History and Animation/Factual sub-sectors, respectively. Overall, Bristol exhibits the characteristics of a ‘mature’ ecosystem, supporting and curating a range of interdependencies.

The Ecosystem in Action: Bidding for Channel 4 The event that best captures Bristol’s genius loci and its ecosystem’s capacity to act communally was its bid to host a second national broadcaster, Channel 4, which opened its Bristol Creative Hub offices in January 2020. This move formed part of the broadcaster’s relocation outside London in what was a widely publicised and keenly contested competition—‘4 All the UK’—in which more than 30 cities made rival bids (Lee et al., 2022). Mayor Marvin Rees fronted the bid as leader of Bristol City Council, but the strategy was informed by a kitchen cabinet of company executives and intermediaries. A promotional film and three bid documents promoted what were seen as Bristol’s distinctive qualities as a ‘creative city’, foregrounding its multiculturalism and creative dynamism as a high-tech ‘innovation lab’, a ‘creative greenhouse’ populated by ‘a new wave of young, diverse and digitally native talent [that] can accelerate the evolution of the media sector in Bristol with Channel 4’. Above all the bid emphasised Bristol imaginary, its unorthodox, dissident and contrarian identity: ‘a place to not just structure differently but to think differently’. The bid thus artfully mirrored Channel 4’s own sense of itself

128

A. SPICER

as a radical broadcaster still committed, after forty years, to be ‘disruptive’, championing unheard voices. The submission was also resonantly aspirational, a key element in Bristol’s determination to strengthen its regional presence by exploiting Channel 4’s links with Wales—and thus an element in the development of a ‘Western Gateway’—and its international status, turning Bristol from ‘a current centre of excellence’ to ‘a future globally significant creative city’.3 Although neither a major employer (the Hub has twenty staff) or financial investor, already Channel 4 has had a marked influence on Bristol’s ecosystem. Despite a national commissioning system, the presence of a regional hub has increased the number of local commissions; several Bristol firms have benefitted from Channel 4’s Emerging Indie fund, Accelerator fund (specifically targeted at minority-ethnic-owned companies) or Indie Growth Fund whereby Channel 4 invests in selected companies in return for a minority equity stake. As part of its commitment to a partnership with the host city, Channel 4 works with Bristol City Council and other agencies to develop local applications of its national 4Skills training programme as part of a broader outreach programme that has a specific focus on entry-level schemes and internships. Channel 4’s Drama Commissioner is endeavouring to support the city’s nascent production companies and, through the south-western New Writers Scheme, encourage the development of scripts that embody ‘the lived experience of people in the region, with a particular focus on diverse perspectives’. Channel 4’s decision to locate its office space in Finzels Reach, a recently transformed waterfront quarter near Bristol’s medieval centre, was typical of the creative industries’ regeneration of older industrial areas. The location was at once convenient (close to the main station), economic (part an Enterprise Zone), and a pioneer in what is becoming a broader shift of Bristol’s screen industries away from its historic location in the predominantly white, wealthy suburb of Clifton to a more diverse part of the city. In March 2022, BBC Studios also moved from Clifton to Finzels Reach. Whether this shift will encourage greater inclusivity or generate another gentrified enclave (Scott, 2006, p. 12) remains to be seen. As Andy C. Pratt argues, such gestures often benefit cosmopolitan migrants rather than the indigenous population (2011, p. 125). However, 3 Invent the Future of Channel 4 in Bristol, unpublished document in author’s possession; npn, my emphasis.

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

129

the prestigious presence of a second national broadcaster, ‘won’ in open competition, has significantly enhanced Bristol’s status as a major screen industries production centre and enhanced the city’s symbolic ‘brand’ (Kearns & Philo, 1993) as a prosperous, desirable and yet ‘edgy’ (woke) city, outwardly alternative, innovative and free-thinking.

A Sustainable Ecosystem? Bristol’s screen industries exemplify the interaction between production, people and place that Aten and Romein (2020, p. 57) argue ‘are the key constituting agencies of the emergence, growth and development of creative clusters’. However, as argued, conceptualising Bristol’s screen industries as a creative ecosystem rather than a production cluster enjoying the economic advantages of co-location reveals the wider network of interrelationships and values—commercial, cultural, social and civic, as well as the tensions between local and global orientations—that circulate and often collide as they jostle for pre-eminence. Though primarily composed of an overlapping set of sub-clusters that generate their own micro-ecosystems, the companies participate in a broader ecosystem by sharing ideas, innovation and freelance labour. The significant weakness—the absence of strong drama production in this global hub for ‘factual’ programming—is slowly being addressed by enterprising companies, the City Council and Channel 4 and most recently through a putative regional funding scheme financed by WECA. The development of a stronger cluster of local drama companies could become a critical component in the ecosystem’s ability to express Bristol’s traditions and cultures, promoting its cultural identity at the level of individual productions. Supervening across the ecosystem, Bristol City Council, in partnership with a range of organisations, has attempted to intervene proactively by foregrounding social and cultural issues—urban regeneration, inclusivity and sustainability—though much remains to be achieved to secure the wellbeing of its creative workforce and Bristol continues to be a city of sharp social, cultural and economic inequalities. As Scott remarks, ‘there can be no truly final achievement of the creative city where these stubborn problems remain’ (2006, p. 15). However, by way of concluding, I want to situate Bristol’s ecosystem within broader spatial, social and political contexts and to bring in the other key dimension, time, by considering the challenges Bristol faces in its quest to become a ‘globally significant creative city’. The role of the

130

A. SPICER

principal agents of regional economic, creative and cultural growth—the public service broadcasters—is weakening across Europe through intense competition from satellite broadcasters and streaming platforms that have a marginal regional presence and no statuary responsibilities to promote local voices; their production investments, including expanding studio space, have been in London and the South-East. In the UK, the PSBs have been weakened further since 2010 by a relentlessly hostile Conservative government committed to a neoliberal agenda in which market forces dictate policy, including freezing the BBC’s licence fee (April 2022– March 2028) and a prolonged attempt to privatise Channel 4.4 Although, as discussed, Bristol City Council has taken a series of proactive measures to improve the city’s creative ecosystem; local authorities lack adequate funding and have very limited resources to deploy. The City of Film is an important symbolic designation but UNESCO does not offer funding and the Council’s ambitious schemes have an annual budget of a mere £110,000 (Bristol City Council, 2022, p. 17). Although Bristol’s ecosystem exhibits incremental growth powered by an innovative workforce, its further development will be inhibited without significant capital investment, which seems unlikely to materialise because the city lacks a powerful voice at national level. The BBC’s nations and regions strategy, as discussed, favours the ‘small nations’, which, as devolved entities, also have the autonomy and resources to make significant investment in their screen industry clusters—in Belfast, Cardiff or Glasgow. The government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda principally targets northern cities (the Northern Powerhouse) in an attempt to secure its ‘blue wall’ gains; there is little sign of momentum in the development of a Western Gateway that would strengthen the screen ecologies in both Bristol and Cardiff. In contrast to several UK cities, for example, Glasgow or Newcastle, Bristol also lacks a strong, widely known and recognised identity that can imprint itself in public and political consciousness. In many ways Bristol’s screen industries have succeeded against the odds through the enterprise of its creative talent, but it remains vulnerable

4 On the 5 January 2023 the Culture Secretary, Michelle Donelan, announced that plans to privatise Channel 4 have been dropped. The number of its regionally based staff will double by 2025 (from 300 to 600) and the broadcaster will be able to produce its programmes as well as commission them. Both these developments will have implications for Bristol’s screen ecology.

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

131

to these external forces. Bristol’s favoured imaginary is as a dynamic ‘innovation lab’, but to its detractors it is the ‘nearly city’ that promises much but fails to deliver. In a volatile global marketplace and a national ecology in which cities fall in and out of favour, Bristol will need to manage its cultural ecosystem with great skill and tactical nous if its screen industries are to retain the critical mass that enables diverse creative practices to be sustained.

References Aten, P. N., & Romein, A. (2020). Place as a guiding principle for spatial design of creative clusters in urban areas. In M. Komorowski & I. Picone (Eds.), Creative cluster development: Governance, place-making and entrepreneurship (pp. 55–65). Routledge. Bank, M. (2007). The politics of cultural work. Palgrave Macmillan. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and local knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 31–56. Bristol City Council. (2022). Bristol UNESCO city of film UCCN membership monitoring report 2017–21 (January 2023). Christopherson, S., & Clark, J. (2009). Remaking regional economies: Power, labour and film strategies in the knowledge economy. Routledge. Davis, C. H. (2011). Media industry clusters and public policy. In C. Karlsson & R. G. Pickard (Eds.), Media clusters: Spatial agglomeration and content capabilities (pp. 72–93). Edward Elgar. Dotti, N. F., & Lupova-Henry, E. (2020). Creative mediators and their role in the governance of creative clusters. In M. Komorowski & I. Picone (Eds.), Creative cluster development: Governance, place-making and entrepreneurship (pp. 23–36). Routledge. Dovey, J., Moreton, S., Sparke, S., & Sharpe, B. (2016). The practice of cultural ecology: Network creativity in the creative economy. Cultural Trends, 25(2), 87–103. Drake, G. (2003). “This place gives me space”: Place and creativity in the creative industries. Geoforum, 34(4), 511–524. Eriksson, S. (2011). Promotion of company and local economic growth through clusters. In C. Karlsson & R. G. Pickard (Eds.), Media clusters: Spatial agglomeration and content capabilities (pp. 30–43). Edward Elgar. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. Routledge. Forrest, N., et al. (2022, November). The role of the BBC in creative clusters. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP. https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ reports/reports/creative-clusters.pdf

132

A. SPICER

Genders, A. (2019). An invisible army: The role of freelance labour in Bristol’s film and television industries. UWE Bristol. Genders, A. (2022). Precarious work and creative placemaking: Freelance labour in Bristol. Cultural Trends, 31(5), 433–447. Gross, J., & Wilson, N. (2020). Cultural democracy: An ecological and capabilities approach. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(3), 328–343. Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2011). Creative labour: Media work in three cultural industries. Routledge. Hitters, E., & Richards, G. (2002). The creation and management of cultural clusters. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11, 234–247. Karlsson, C., & Pickard, R. G. (2011). Media clusters: What makes them unique? In C. Karlsson & R. G. Pickard (Eds.), Media clusters: Spatial agglomeration and content capabilities (pp. 3–29). Edward Elgar. Kearns, G., & Philo, C. (Eds.). (1993). Selling places: The city as cultural capital. Pergamon Press. Komorowski, M., & Picone, I. (2020). Introduction. In M. Komorowski & I. Picone (Eds.), Creative cluster development: Governance, place-making and entrepreneurship (pp. 3–18). Routledge. Komorowski, M., Lupu, R., Pepper, S., & Lewis, J. (2021). Joining the dots: Understanding the value generation of creative networks for sustainability in local creative ecosystems. Sustainability, 13(22), 1–16. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su132212352 Krätke, S. (2011). The creative capital of cities: Interactive knowledge creation and the urbanization economies of innovation. Wiley-Blackwell. Lee, D. (2018). Independent television production in the UK: From cottage industry to big business. Palgrave Macmillan. Lee, D., Champion, K., & Kelly, L. (2022). Relocation, relocation, relocation: Examining the narratives surrounding the Channel 4 move to regional production hubs. Cultural Trends, 31(3), 222–239. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 5–35. McRobbie, A. (2016). Be creative: Making a living in the new culture industries. Polity Press. O’Regan, T., Gibson, L., & Jeffcut, P. (2004). Creative networks. Media International Australia, 112, 5–8. Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90. Pratt, A. C. (2011). The cultural contradictions of the creative city. City, Culture and Society, 2(3), 123–130. Scott, A. J. (2000). The cultural economy of cities: Essays on the geography of image-producing industries. Sage.

BRISTOL’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES …

133

Scott, A. J. (2006). Creative cities: Conceptual issues and policy questions. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(1), 1–17. Spicer, A., & Presence, S. (2017, Rev. 2022). Go West! Bristol’s film and television industries. UWE. Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(2), 351–370. Storper, M. (2013). The keys to the city: How economics, institutions, social interaction, and politics shape development. Princeton University Press. Virani, T., & Pratt, A. C. (2016). Intermediaries and the knowledge exchange process. Higher Education and the Creative Economy: Beyond the Campus, 41–58. Virani, T. E. (2019). Local creative and cultural economy intermediaries: Examining place-based workers in the creative and cultural economy. QMUL Centre for the Creative and Cultural Economy. Virani, T. E. (2023). Social inclusion and SMEs: The case of creative SMEs in Hackney Wick and Fish Island, London. City, Culture and Society, 32, 100493. Virta, S., & Lowe, G. F. (2017). Integrating media clusters and value networks: Insights for management theory and research from a case study of Mediapolis in Finland. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(1), 2–21. Warren, S., & Jones, P. (2015). Introduction. In S. Warren & P. Jones (Eds.), Creative economies, creative communities: Rethinking place, policy and practice. Routledge.

From Metaphor to Measurement of Popular Music Ecosystems: Putting Diversities at the Heart of Resilience Pauwke Berkers, Yosha Wijngaarden, Frank Kimenai, and Erik Hitters

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent measures have had a huge impact on the Dutch popular music sector, leading to the closure of venues, cancellation of festivals, and loss of income and jobs. For example, in the first year of the pandemic, the attendance rate of pop venues and festivals dropped by 87%, with 7.3 million fewer visits, resulting in a loss

P. Berkers (B) Department of Arts and Culture Studies, Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] Y. Wijngaarden · E. Hitters Department of Media & Communication, Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] E. Hitters e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_8

135

136

P. BERKERS ET AL.

of 92 million euros for the pop venues (VNPF, 2021), music professionals lost 80% of their income (Sena/Buma Stemra, 2020), and the largest concert organiser Mojo dismissed one-third of its employees (Van Eenennaam, 2020). The cultural and creative ecosystem has arguably been impacted more strongly than some other economic sectors for two reasons. First, the labour force consists of a proportionally large percentage of freelancers who had limited access to alleviating measures and other types of credit (Been et al., 2023). Though support measures were in place, many of them either took a generalist approach, and therefore did little justice to the particularities of employment in the creative industries, such as the ‘temporary bridging measure for self-employed professionals’ (TOZO) and the ‘temporary emergency bridging measure’ (NOW), or they focused on the larger organisations with the (idle) hope that this support would trickle down to self-employed workers (Boekman, 2021a). Second, the popular music ecosystem includes subsectors that were not able to resume their activities in a financially viable way until the very end of the crisis. Hence, whereas recorded music seems to be at an alltime economic high (Mulligan, 2021), the live sector has experienced an unprecedented crisis, including loss of income, personnel, and audiences, causing it to go into survival mode for almost two years (Mulder, 2022a). The precarious situation of young freelance musicians and music sector professionals became even more precarious (Howard et al., 2021), whereas large corporations and government-funded institutions have been better able to withstand the impact of the pandemic (Vinken et al., 2021). After the release of all corona measures at the end of February 2022, clubs and festivals were able to open again as usual. The summer of 2022 was expected to bring an explosion of creativity and a renewed appreciation for collective effervescence resulting from live music and festival visits (Vandenberg et al., 2021). The reality, however, turned out to be rather different: the world had changed. Inflation is at a peak. Music organisations struggle to find qualified (technical) personnel (Pisart, 2022). Tours are cancelled last minute due to financial (Groves, 2022) and health

F. Kimenai Department of Arts and Culture Studies, Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

FROM METAPHOR TO MEASUREMENT OF POPULAR MUSIC …

137

reasons (Barton, 2022). Visitors only buy tickets just before a performance, which means that many organisers are insecure and are forced to play it safe, for example, in terms of programming (Mulder, 2022b). Despite the hardship following the external shock of the COVID19 pandemic, representatives of the cultural and creative industries— including popular music—have concluded that a post-COVID-19 return to the default factory settings is undesirable. Instead, the crisis created an opportunity to start a conversation about the future (Boekman, 2021b). In the context of this reorientation, sector representatives repeatedly suggest (1) to conceptualise the sector as an ecosystem and (2) strengthen the resilience of the sector—yet, often using both terms loosely in metaphorical ways without a clear conceptualisation. For example, the Council for Culture discusses the Dutch music ecosystem as the ‘actors that together make up the music sector in the Netherlands’ (2019). A year later, it addressed the question of what transitions are needed to make the cultural sector more resilient in a post-COVID-19 era in a letter to the Minister of Education, Culture, and Science (Raad voor Cultuur, 2020). Without further definition, the Council for Culture concludes that the cultural sector lacks resilience (weerbaarheid). Similarly, the Dutch copyright collecting society states its intentions are ‘to contribute to a healthy music ecosystem and make sure its members are satisfied’ (Buma-Stemra, 2020). Besides mentioning the importance of stakeholder cooperation, little is said of what a healthy ecosystem actually entails. Yet, despite this dearth of explicit efforts to conceptualise the creative industries’ ecosystems and resilience, existing resilience research on natural ecosystems has provided a validated framework of seven resilience principles that have thus far not been adopted for the cultural and creative sectors (Biggs et al., 2012). While there is growing work on resilience (especially due to the pandemic) within the creative and cultural industries (see: Andres & Round, 2015; Pisotska, & Giustiniano, 2021; Pratt, 2017; Robinson, 2010; Virani & Blackwood, 2021; Virani, 2021), there exists a dearth of work when it comes to specific subsectors like music bars a few examples (see Virani, 2016). As such, we aim to translate this conceptualisation of resilience and ecosystems to the music ecosystem by building upon expert interview sessions and in-depth interviews with music professionals. As a result, in this chapter, we offer a more systematic lens to examine the popular music ecosystem in terms of its resilience. We will focus particularly on one of these seven resilience principles: the role of diversity in maintaining a resilient ecosystem. As we will show,

138

P. BERKERS ET AL.

diversity is a broad concept, ranging from a diversity of business models that foster competitiveness, to inclusion of minoritised groups, languages and genres, increasing access and fairness, and perceive diversity as crucial in fostering resilience, as it provides the basis for innovation, learning, and adaptation. In other words, this chapter aims to make two contributions: (1) how does this model—principles—translate to the popular music ecosystem and (2) and the role of diversities in building resilience.

Ecosystems, Resilience and Diversity Ecosystems: From Egocentric to Ecocentric Thinking The success and failure of musicians are often attributed to the individual, be it talent, hard work, or by the individual having the ‘right’ network. Despite the romantic myth of the creative and autonomous artist remaining very much present in the music sector (Haynes & Marshall, 2018), existing research has shown that such an egocentric approach ignores the broader societal structures that shape individual success—or lack thereof (Eikhof & Warhurst, 2013). In response, recently, the terminology of (eco)systems has permeated research on the music industries. Yet, though scholars and policymakers have started looking at the music industry as an ecosystem (e.g. Behr et al., 2016), they provide little clarity of what this perspective entails. Therefore, we draw upon the unique perspective and expertise of Social Ecological Systems (SES) theory to further develop ecosystem thinking for the popular music system. SES theory defines ecosystems by three main characteristics (Redman et al., 2004). First, ecosystems are more or less coherent systems with regular interactions between social actors in the form of network connectivity occurring at different scales. It therefore includes the—often unequal—interactions between key actors, including artists and creators, live music, recorded music and distribution (including DSPs), rights and publishing, supporting and ancillary, media, education and training, policy, and audiences (Dialogic, 2020). Moreover, ecosystems operate at multiple, interrelated scales, ranging from the global, national, to the local level. For example, music festivals take place locally, likely attract audiences nationally and artists internationally, implying a strong interdependence of the festival on international artists’ touring schedules, national event calendars, and regional transportation services.

FROM METAPHOR TO MEASUREMENT OF POPULAR MUSIC …

139

Second, ecosystems are perpetually dynamic, complex systems with continuous adaptation—they are Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS). Because no ecosystem is closed, analysis of ecosystems highlights flows across system boundaries and looks at how system boundaries can change (De Bernard et al., 2022). This allows examining whether the ecosystem is shaped by—and shapes—external structural forces. For example, our previous work on the Dutch popular music ecosystem has shown that key actors identify three main changes—often resulting from broader social and technological innovations: a predicted shift towards (1) an economically, socially, and environmentally fair, inclusive, and sustainable sector, (2) an ecosystem that is more strongly based in the digital domain, and (3) an increased valuation of the sector as important for society (Kimenai et al., 2022). These changes show how the popular music ecosystem adapts to broader societal changes as several of these predicted changes have been translated into policy, such as the Fair Practice Code (Van Andel & Loots, 2022) and the Code Cultural Diversity (Berkers et al., 2018). Third, ecosystems produce flows of value within the ecosystem and to society at large. This approach moves beyond economic perspectives (Van der Hoeven et al., 2022), emphasising primarily pecuniary payments, and also includes values beyond market exchange, including diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and well-being. A resilient ecosystem has the capacity to maintain the core production of these values during and after shocks by anticipating and/or adapting its structure, functions, and organisations. For example, by decreasing precarity and exclusion, more music professionals will be able to make a living wage (economic value), and the mental health of these workers will increase, creating well-being for these people and their surroundings (societal value). Resilience: From Metaphor to Measurement of Popular Music Ecosystems Resilience theory is a useful tool for understanding how ecosystems respond to and arm themselves against crises and shocks. Indeed, resilience is crucial for a thriving, future-proof, and sustainable music ecosystem. Resilience refers to the capacity of the system to sustain a desired set of ecosystem services (ES). In ecological systems, ES refer to ‘provisioning (e.g., freshwater, crops, meat), regulating (e.g., flood

140

P. BERKERS ET AL.

and climate regulation), and cultural services (e.g., recreation, spiritual values)’ (Biggs et al., 2012, p. 423). In music ecosystems, ES include resources (e.g. talent, funding, income, cultural capital), regulation (e.g. support schemes, cultural policy, copyright laws), and culture (e.g. economic, social, artistic values, identity formation). Hence, this conceptualisation of resilience steers away from a neoliberal approach where resilience narrows down to being business-oriented or seen as an essential—often romanticised—trait of an individual to thrive and survive in a highly competitive sector (Newsinger & Serafini, 2021). A resilient ecosystem system, which can buffer a great deal of change or disturbance, is synonymous with ecological, economic, and social sustainability. One with low resilience has limited sustainability and may not survive for the long haul (Berkes et al., 2008). Essential in building resilience is that ‘any consideration of policies for enhancing resilience requires a clear specification of “resilience of what to what”’ (Biggs et al., 2012, p. 423): e.g. strengthening the resilience of grass roots music venues to the pressure of urban development, or increasing the capacity of record labels to deal with the ongoing changes of Web3. Such power inequalities are often linked to the level where the focus of resilience building is located. At the level of the ecosystem, resilience is seen as a key aspect of complex adaptive systems (Folke et al., 2010), as we have discussed above. At the level of the organisation, it frequently refers to economic issues, for example, financial capacity. At the level of the individual, resilience is often defined in terms of mental health and psychology and its associated research fields. However, whereas the discursive focus has been increasingly oriented towards the level of the system, we signal a pragmatic slippage where the burden of successful adaptation to change is placed onto individual—often freelance—workers (cf. Newsinger & Serafini, 2021). Indeed, a recent policy report concludes that government support for cultural organisations in times of Corona did not trickle down—as was intended—to freelancers. Cultural organisations in the Netherlands had to cut back on freelance labour by 55%, compared to a 3% reduction among employed staff during the last nine months of 2020 (Boekman, 2021a). In order to further explore building resilient ecosystems, we draw on the seven principles for building resilience-framework, developed by researchers of the Stockholm Resilience Centre (Biggs et al., 2012), and adapt it to fit popular music ecosystems. The seven resilience principles consist of two clusters. We will focus on principles 1–3, which refer to

FROM METAPHOR TO MEASUREMENT OF POPULAR MUSIC …

141

the ecosystem properties that need to be managed. Principles 4–7 are attributes of the governance system of popular music ecosystems, and will be covered in less detail. 1. Diversity. There is wide consensus from a variety of disciplines that diversity and its counterpart redundancy are important for resilience because they provide options for responding to change and disturbance. The diversity of system elements, such as multiple business models or musicians with different backgrounds, fosters innovation, learning, and adaptation to slow variables (see below). In terms of resilience to disturbances, response diversity and functional redundancy are particularly important. Functional redundancy, or the presence of multiple components that can perform the same function, can provide ‘insurance’ within a system by allowing some components to compensate for the loss or failure of others. For example, only focusing on live music as a business model proved a rather unresilient strategy when the corona crisis took hold (Dowd et al., 2022). Response diversity refers to the variety of ways in which different actors in the music industry can respond to disturbance, such as a pandemic or digital disruption. We will discuss diversity in more detail in the next section. 2. Connectivity refers to the way by which (structure) and the way to which (strength) the ecosystem components are interconnected. The way these interconnections are distributed determines the structure of the system: some actors or geographical regions of the music sector are better connected than others. High levels of connectivity can facilitate recovery after a disturbance, for example, the swift production and distribution of best practices for music venues and festivals to deal with the pandemic via the European network Live DMA. But highly connected systems can also spread disturbances faster, as became clearly visible during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, in relation to touring and the immediate scapegoating of festivals as sites of contamination (i.e. ‘superspreader events’ where people crossed regions or even countries to attend festivals and ‘took’ the virus home to their respective places of residence). 3. Slow variables determine the underlying structure of the ecosystem, whereas the dynamics of the system typically arise from interactions and feedback between fast variables that respond to the conditions created by the slow variables. In our earlier work (Kimenai et al.,

142

P. BERKERS ET AL.

2022), we report on some of the main slow variables the Dutch popular ecosystem has been confronted with. First, low earnings have been a structural characteristic of the (Dutch) music ecosystem. Research has again and again shown that a large proportion of professional musicians have a low income, making it difficult to sustain themselves (Von der Fuhr, 2015; Dialogic, 2020). A recent report concludes that the actual income mid-level pop musicians receive from performing live is one-third of the legal minimum wage and one-fourth of a fair pay reward (Berenschot, 2023). Hence, despite a strong push towards fair practice codes, low incomes are often still the norm rather than the exception. Second, digitalisation has had profound effects on the way music is produced, consumed, and monetised. The advent of DSPs—and the associated drop in physical sales of CDs especially—led to a decrease in earnings from the sales of recorded music. Streaming royalties—though increasingly important—have not yet been able to counter this trend (Hesmondhalgh et al., 2021). At the same time, digitalisation made it easier for amateur musicians to enter the market, both in creative as well as more commercial roles (Baym & Burnett, 2009), encapsulating new groups and organisations in the music ecosystem. Finally, digitalisation simplified the (global) promotion of music and events, solidifying connections between nodes on different (global, national, and local) levels. The remaining four principles concern the governance of ecosystems. 4. Complex adaptive system refers to the type and direction of connections between parts of the ecosystem. To govern ecosystems towards being more resilient, it is crucial to understand them as complex adaptive systems (see above), instead of as economic value chains flowing linearly from A to B. Hence, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. For example, digitalisation has diversified the earning models of musicians and organisations within the sector, and permitted a larger variety of career trajectories (see e.g. Everts et al., 2022). 5. Learning and experimentation refers to the process of modifying existing or acquiring new knowledge, behaviours, skills, values, or preferences, which is crucial to deal with change. Biggs et al. (2012) distinguish between three types of learning. Single-loop learning refers to a change in actions to correct mistakes in policies, norms, or practices, for example, public broadcasters that start remunerating

FROM METAPHOR TO MEASUREMENT OF POPULAR MUSIC …

143

musicians to perform in TV and radio shows (Kunstenbond, 2021). Double-loop learning refers to a change in these policies, norms, or practices themselves, for example, showcase festival Eurosonic Noorderslag signing up for the Keychange Pledge committing to a 50–50 gender balance in their line-up. Triple-loop learning entails an overall change in the organisational rationale and context, basically questioning the foundation of an organisation or sector. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw many initiatives for triple-loop learning focusing on the future of the popular music sector, taking the form of open discussions (Boekman, 2021b) or reports with clear recommendations based on specific timeframe (VNPF, 2022). 6. Broaden participation refers to the participation of a diversity of stakeholders in SES management. Such broad participation is thought to improve legitimacy, facilitate monitoring and enforcement, promote understanding of system dynamics, and improve a management system’s capacity to detect and interpret shocks and disturbances. For example, to develop a new fee guideline for popular music performances, labour market platform PACCT set up a Ketentafel Popmuziek [value chain table on popular music] that included twelve representatives from various parts of the popular music sector ( Platform ACCT, 2022). 7. Polycentric governance systems finally refer to streamlining different policy levels both vertically (European, national, regional, and local) and horizontally (with policies regarding urban development, wellbeing, leisure, etc.). For example, the so-called Rotterdam Model for live music is a policy-supported complex and interconnected polycentric system of urban music programming which emerged bottom up, relying not so much on the physical infrastructure, but much more on the network of trust between the people who are part of the city’s live music ecology (Hitters & Mulder, 2020).

Diversities: From Describing Diversity to Creating Diversities Diversity has long been linked to resilience in complex systems (Elmqvist et al., 2003). Both functional—the variety of things that are done—and response diversity—the variety of responses things have to stress—have been shown to affect the resilience of ecosystems. In music research,

144

P. BERKERS ET AL.

diversities are often studied separately, drawing on different academic disciplines: economics and organisation studies often focus on organisational diversities (practices ) (e.g. Gamble et al., 2017; Towse, 2020), whereas the humanities and sociology have put more emphasis on social and cultural diversity (people) (Schaap & Berkers, 2020; Swartjes & Berkers, 2022). Organisational diversities refers to how the music ecosystem is organised (practices): the separate actors and organisations participating, and their differences in terms of their capabilities, objectives, and routines. Currently, music ecosystems’ organisational diversity is challenged by their hourglass-like structure, where a small number of platforms are essential to connect producers and audiences. Platforms make cheap and high-quality transaction services available and enable complex information exchanges between various stakeholders, fostering broad and diverse participation and mutual learning in the music sector. Yet, they also exploit economies of scale and network effects by bundling transactions and setting standard terms. Many of the connections between nodes in the ecosystems are dependent on only a few organisations. Important are of course the well-known global streaming platforms, but also within the organisation of live music, power has concentrated within the hands of a small number of ticketing services. In the Netherlands, for example, ticketing mogul Live Nation has put ticket resale platform Ticketswap out of action (De Vrieze, 2022). Now having a monopoly over ticket resales for large festivals, fees for individual buyers and sellers have soared, decreasing the accessibility of events to those who demand higher flexibility or have less to spend. Moreover, the increasing importance of algorithms on the platforms affects the diversity of content that reaches audiences throughout the world (Ferraro, Serra & Bauer, 2021). ‘The question is if streaming creates opportunities for diversity, or if it could favour certain artists or genres to the detriment of others’—the European Commission asks (2021). Platforms therefore exert a strong influence on the diversity and resilience of the music ecosystem, both in affecting the music audiences are exposed to, as well as in affecting the capacities for music creators. Social and cultural diversities refer to the individuals working in the music ecosystem (people): the types of people participating, regarding for instance the access to, representation of, and influence exerted by minoritised and marginalised groups in society, including women. Social and cultural diversities are associated with cultural participation and equity,

FROM METAPHOR TO MEASUREMENT OF POPULAR MUSIC …

145

and can be treated as an end in itself. The contemporary music ecosystem is one of the largest employers for the younger generations (European Commmission, 2021). Yet, working in music requires investing in a ‘portfolio’ career, where the music-oriented roles of creator, producer, entrepreneur, and promoter are often combined with varied employment arrangements (through paid and unpaid, part-time, or freelance work) and activities in other industries outside of music. Moreover, exclusionary mechanisms such as working conditions demanding flexibility, long hours, and geographical mobility, as well as a reliance on personal networks and recommendations to get the job done are omnipresent. The external shock of the COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated the vulnerability of workers in the music industry. As such, access to paid music work is not distributed equally across the Dutch music ecosystem. (1) It is well documented that access to work is unevenly distributed among social groups (e.g. gender, class, and ethnicity). (2) Cultural dimensions such as national, linguistic, and genre variations also determine what types of music and artists are able to negotiate access to work opportunities. (3) Local, national, and cross-border music infrastructures (e.g. government-funded support for education, training and vitality of DIY activity, and night-time economies) further impact these diversities. Here too, emerging evidence shows that the pandemic has further increased the divergences between the haves and have-nots. Yet, in order to fully understand these diversities in relation to resilience, we urgently need an integrated approach for three reasons. First, the pandemic has exacerbated already existing precarious working conditions, vulnerable earning models, and economic inequalities in music ecosystems, particularly for individual makers and small businesses (Comunian & England, 2020; Kimenai et al., 2022). In the light of societal pressure towards fair practices, new ways of managing organisational diversities (e.g. new business models) are needed to make the Dutch music ecosystem more competitive (Van Andel & Loots, 2022). Second, existing social inequalities in terms of access and inclusion of minoritised groups, women, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities have increased as a result of the pandemic and subsequent measures (Eikhof, 2020). More inclusion and equity, as well as new ways of managing social and cultural diversities (e.g. inclusive hiring policies) are needed to make the Dutch music ecosystem fairer. Digitalisation has accelerated during the pandemic as evidenced by live concerts on Twitch and a surge of streaming numbers, affecting both diversities of practice and

146

P. BERKERS ET AL.

people. For example, ‘streaming creates opportunities for diversity, but it may also favour some artists, languages or genres over others’ (European Commission, 2021). Yet, whereas scholars have focused on describing and identifying the problems related to diversities, campaigners, and activists have sought change. A prominent example is Keychange which has started their Pledge for equal representation of women artists. As many of such interventions have not (yet) been systematically evaluated, we know very little of ‘what works’ (Wreyford et al., 2021).

Conclusion and Policy Implications In this chapter, we have ‘translated’ existing work on ecosystems and resilience—developed primarily for the natural world—to the popular music ecosystem. Building on the work by Gross and Wilson (2019, p. 10), we primarily focused on the ecosystem approach as ‘a descriptive and analytical perspective’, a lens to look at the popular music sector. However, it can also be ‘an approach to cultural policy, programming and practice’. What we, however, often see is an urge to map a specific ecosystem. From a research point of view, this is understandable. Yet, several core characteristics of ecosystems (open boundaries and everchanging) make such mapping exercises not only complicated but to a degree in violation of the definition of what an ecosystem is. Hence, developing resilient music policies requires a change perspective. Where traditional policymaking is often linear, paternalistic, and reductionistic, focused on a specific part of the music ecosystem (subsector, member state, social, or economic impact), ecological policymaking is based on the ecosystem as a whole: its underlying structures, interdependencies, values, external structures, and resilience (De Bernard et al., 2022). This approach aims to do justice to the recent call for cultural policymaking ‘from below’, which also recognises workers and their (collective) forms of organisation to reflect on a ‘new imaginary’ for the music sector beyond the pre-pandemic status-quo (De Peuter et al., 2022). Hence, true ecosystems thinking offers a promise of equitable and inclusive governance without top-down or neoliberal implications. Secondly, we put diversities at the core of music policies as a key ingredient in fostering resilience. Increasing diversity (as well as inclusion and equity) is of course an imperative goal in itself, as evidenced by arguments of creative justice (Banks, 2017), and pursued by initiatives such as Keychange. Yet, beyond arguments of justice, both diversities

FROM METAPHOR TO MEASUREMENT OF POPULAR MUSIC …

147

of people and diversities of practices are arguably crucial in a music ecosystem’s ability to bounce back—or better—bounce forward. Diversity, organisational and sociocultural, is able to make music ecosystems on the individual and sectoral level more resilient, and maintaining these diversities could be the way forward to diminish the wicked problems that have characterised the sector for so long. Yet, in order to achieve these goals, we need better insights into how diversities in the context of ecosystems—particularly in the case of music—manifest, and how they affect organisations and their mutual connections. As a recent report by the European Commission (2021) clearly confirmed: we should proceed to better define ‘diversity for EU-level action on music’.

References Andres, L., & Round, J. (2015). The creative economy in a context of transition: A review of the mechanisms of micro-resilience. Cities, 45, 1–6. Banks, M. (2017). Creative justice: Cultural industries, work and inequality. Rowman & Littlefield. Barton, L. (2022, September 22). ‘This should not be normalised’: Why musicians are cancelling tours to protect their mental health. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/sep/22/this-should-not-be-nor malised-why-musicians-are-cancelling-tours-to-protect-their-mental-health Baym, N. K., & Burnett, R. (2009). Amateur experts: International fan labour in Swedish independent music. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(5), 433–449. Been, W., Wijngaarden, Y., & Loots, E. (2023). Welcome to the inner circle? Earnings and inequality in the creative industries. Cultural Trends, 1–18. Behr, A., Brennan, M., Cloonan, M., Frith, S., & Webster, E. (2016). Live concert performance: An ecological approach. Rock Music Studies, 3(1), 5–23. Berenschot. (2023). De kloof tussen inzet en inkomsten van popmuzikanten. https://www.popcoalitie.nl/de-kloof-tussen-inzet-en-inkomsten-van-popmuz ikanten/ Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2008). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press. Berkers, P., van Eijck, K., Zoutman, R., Gillis-Burleson, W., & Chin-A-Fat, D. (2018). De cultuursector is als een alp, hoe hoger je komt hoe witter het wordt. Boekman, 115, 20–24. Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans, L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Robards, M. D., Schoon, M. L., Schultz,

148

P. BERKERS ET AL.

L., & West, P. C. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37 , 421– 448. Boekman. (2021a). Ongelijk getroffen, ongelijk gesteund [Report]. Boekman. https://www.boekman.nl/actualiteit/onderzoek-cultuur-en-corona/ Boekman. (2021b). Uitgesteld: de toekomst van de popsector in vier gesprekken. https://www.boekman.nl/activiteit/de-toekomst-van-popsectorin-vier-gesprekken/ Buma-Stemra. (2020). To the beat of the drum—de nieuwe koers. https://www. bumastemra.nl/to-the-beat-of-the-drum-de-nieuwe-koers/ Comunian, R., & England, L. (2020). Creative and cultural work without filters: Covid-19 and exposed precarity in the creative economy. Cultural Trends, 29(2), 112–128. De Bernard, M., Comunian, R., & Gross, J. (2022). Cultural and creative ecosystems: A review of theories and methods, towards a new research agenda. Cultural Trends, 31(4), 332–353. De Peuter, G., Oakley, K., & Trusolino, M. (2022). The pandemic politics of cultural work: Collective responses to the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1–16. De Vrieze, A. (2022). Politiek Den Haag boos op Ticketmaster om doorverkoop Lowlands. 3voor12, 8 February 2023. https://3voor12.vpro.nl/update~70f 43482-e16b-4eaf-afd8-2fee19949897~politiek-den-haag-boos-op-ticketmas ter-om-doorverkoop-lowlands~.html?currentPage=2 Dialogic. (2020). Stand van zaken in de Nederlandse popsector. https://www. rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2020/09/07/dialogic-stand-vanzaken-in-de-nederlandse-popsector Dowd, T. J., Tai, Y., & Zaras, D. (2022). The sounds of silence: Concerts, musicians, and the COVID-19 pandemic. In Remaking culture and music spaces (pp. 102–120). Routledge. Eikhof, D. R., & Warhurst, C. (2013). The promised land? Why social inequalities are systemic in the creative industries. Employee Relations, 35(5), 495–508. Eikhof, D. R. (2020). COVID-19, inclusion and workforce diversity in the cultural economy: What now, what next? Cultural Trends, 29(3), 234–250. Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nystr ¨om, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., et al. (2003). Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 488–494. European Commission - Kimenai, F. (2021). Report from the conference ‘Diversity and Competitiveness of the European Music Sector’ with EU Member States’ experts. Publications Office.

FROM METAPHOR TO MEASUREMENT OF POPULAR MUSIC …

149

Everts, R., Hitters, E., & Berkers, P. (2022). The working life of musicians: Mapping the work activities and values of early-career pop musicians in the Dutch music industry. Creative Industries Journal, 15(1), 97–117. Ferraro, A., Serra, X., & Bauer, C. (2021, March). Break the loop: Gender imbalance in music recommenders. In Proceedings of the 2021 conference on human information interaction and retrieval (pp. 249–254). Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4). Gamble, J. R., Brennan, M., & McAdam, R. (2017). A rewarding experience? Exploring how crowdfunding is affecting music industry business models. Journal of Business Research, 70, 25–36. Gross, J. D., & Wilson, N. C. (2019). Creating the environment: The cultural eco-systems of creative people and places. Groves, W. (2022, October 11). Live music crisis: Animal collective the latest to cancel a tour due to ‘unsustainable costs’ in snowballing trend. https://www.musicradar.com/news/live-music-crisis-animal-collectivethe-latest-to-cancel-a-tour-due-to-unsustainable-costs-in-snowballing-trend Haynes, J., & Marshall, L. (2018). Reluctant entrepreneurs: Musicians and entrepreneurship in the ‘new’ music industry. The British Journal of Sociology, 69(2), 459–482. Hesmondhalgh, D., Osborne, R., Sun, H., & Barr, K. (2021). Music creators’ earnings in the digital era. Intellectual Property Office Research Paper Forthcoming. Hitters, E., & Mulder, M. (2020). Live music ecologies and festivalisation: The role of urban live music policies. International Journal of Music Business Research, 9(2), 38–57. Howard, F., Bennett, A., Green, B., Guerra, P., Sousa, S., & Sofija, E. (2021). ‘It’s turned me from a professional to a “bedroom DJ” once again’: COVID19 and new forms of inequality for young music-makers. Young, 29(4), 417– 432. Kimenai, F., Berkers, P., Kanyemesha, N., & Vervoort, J. (2022). Unknown futures: Towards a more resilient Dutch popular music sector. In Remaking Culture and Music Spaces (pp. 209–222). Routledge. Kunstenbond. (2021). Einde aan onbetaalde optredens door muzikanten door afspraken tussen de Ntb/Kunstenbond en de NPO. Kunstenbond, 8 September https://kunstenbond.nl/nieuws/einde-aan-onbetaalde-optredens2022. door-muzikanten-door-afspraken-tussen-de-ntb-kunstenbond-en-de-npo/ Mulder, M. (2022a). Music missionaries: How Dutch music festivals utilised the pandemic to bounce forward. In Remaking Culture and Music Spaces (pp. 248–262). Routledge.

150

P. BERKERS ET AL.

Mulder, M. (2022b). Festivalprogrammering na corona: vrouwelijker | Nederlandser | elektronischer [Report]. POPLIVE. https://www.poplive.nl/wp-con tent/uploads/2022/09/Festivalprogrammering-na-corona.pdf Mulligan, M. (2021). Recorded music market 2020 Pandemic-era growth. https:/ /midiaresearch.com Newsinger, J., & Serafini, P. (2021). Performative resilience: How the arts and culture support austerity in post-crisis capitalism. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 24(2), 589–605. Pisart, T. (2022, May 26). Vier desastreuze gevolgen van het nijpende personeelstekort in de livesector: Pinkpop, EKKO, Doornroosje en Mojo over kinken in de kabel. VPRO. https://3voor12.vpro.nl/artikelen/overzicht/2022/mei/ Vier-desastreuze-gevolgen-van-het-nijpende-personeelstekort-in-de-livesector. html?tid=TIDP10239821XDC381BDA480946E599A463204DECCBB1 YI6&utm_content=20220528_NB_3VOOR12&utm_campaign=20220528_ NB_3VOOR12&utm_medium=email&utm_source=VPRO Pisotska, V., & Giustiniano, L. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic, cultural work, and resilience. In Cultural Industries and the COVID-19 Pandemic (pp. 98– 113). Routledge. Platform ACCT. (2022). Ketentafel Popmusici: Passende honoraria voor popmusici in het live-circuit. https://www.platformacct.nl/nl/programmas/fairpa cct/ketentafel-popmusici Pratt, A. C. (2017). Beyond resilience: Learning from the cultural economy. European Planning Studies, 25(1), 127–139. Raad voor Cultuur. (2019). Toekomst cultuurbeleid sectoradviezen: het muzikale https://toekomst-cultuurbeleid.cultuur.nl/sectoradviezen/muz ecosysteem. iek/het-muzikale-ecosysteem Raad voor Cultuur. (2020). Brief aan minister Van Engelshoven Naar een wendbare en weerbare culturele en creatieve sector (149-2020). https://www.raadvoorcultuur.nl/documenten/brieven/2020/09/ 14/brief-naar-een-wendbare-en-weerbare-culturele-en-creatieve-sector Redman, C. L., Grove, J. M., & Kuby, L. H. (2004). Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research network: Social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems, 7 (2), 161–171. Robinson, M. (2010). Making adaptive resilience real. Arts Council England. Schaap, J., & Berkers, P. (2020). ‘You’re not supposed to be into rock music’: Authenticity maneuvering in a white configuration. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 6(3), 416–430. Sena/Buma Stemra. (2020). De muziekindustrie in tijden van corona: Een onderzoek naar de huidige stand van zaken. https://www.bumastemra.nl/wp-con tent/uploads/2020/05/Rapport-Buma-Stemra-en-Sena-29420.pdf

FROM METAPHOR TO MEASUREMENT OF POPULAR MUSIC …

151

Swartjes, B., & Berkers, P. (2022). How music festival organisers in rotterdam deal with diversity. In Festivals and the city (p. 95). Towse, R. (2020). Dealing with digital: The economic organisation of streamed music. Media, Culture & Society, 42(7–8), 1461–1478. Van Andel, W., & Loots, E. (2022). Measures for the betterment of the labor market position of non-standard working regimes in the cultural and creative sector in the Netherlands. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 28(4), 431–445. Van der Hoeven, A., Everts, R., Mulder, M., Berkers, P., Hitters, E., & Rutten, P. (2022). Valuing value in urban live music ecologies: Negotiating the impact of live music in the Netherlands. Journal of Cultural Economy, 15(2), 216–231. Van Eenennaam, A. (2020, July 15). Concertorganisator Mojo ontslaat derde van personeel. Algemeen Dagblad. https://www.ad.nl/show/concertorganisa tor-mojo-ontslaat-derde-van-personeel~a12f3007/ Vandenberg, F., Berghman, M., & Schaap, J. (2021). The ‘lonely raver’: Music livestreams during COVID-19 as a hotline to collective consciousness? European Societies, 23(Sup1), S141–S152. Vinken, H., van Dalen, B., & Broers , B. (2021). Gevolgen van de coronacrisis voor de Brabantse cultuursector Onderzoek onder culturele instellingen, kunstenaars, makers en cultureel ondernemers en Brabanders [Report]. Virani, T. E. (2016). The resilience of a local music scene in Dalston, London. In The production and consumption of music in the digital age (pp. 101–113). Routledge. Virani, T. E. (2021). Business resilience and visual art: New directions for research in business-oriented practice. A Report for Space Studios. https://uwe-reposi tory.worktribe.com/OutputFile/7576133 Virani, T., & Blackwood, J. (2021). From catastrophe to hybridity to recovery? Creative Economies Lab. Bristol and Bath Creative R + D. VNPF. (2021). 2020 Dutch live music venues + festivals facts & figures. VNPF. https://vnpf.nl/content/uploads/2022/10/VNPF-DUTCH-MUSIC-VEN UES-AND-FESTIVALS-FACTS-FIGURES-2020-English-version.pdf VNPF. (2022). Een weerbare popsector. DSP. https://vnpf.nl/nieuws/zeven-aan bevelingen-voor-een-sterke-veerkrachtige-toekomstbestendige-popsector/ Von der Fuhr, S. (2015). Pop, wat levert het op? Onderzoek naar de inkomsten van popmusici in Nederland [Report]. Cubiss. https://ntb.nl/wp-content/ uploads/2016/01/Pop-wat-levert-het-op-2016.pdf Wreyford, N., O’Brien, D., & Dent, T. (2021). Creative majority: An APPG for creative diversity report on ‘what works’ to support, encourage and improve diversity, equity and inclusion in the creative sector. A report for the All Party Parliamentary Group for Creative Diversity. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural/ projects/creative-majority

Relative Values and the Multidimensional Impact of Arts Ecosystems: The Case of Contact Theatre Leandro Valiati and Paul Heritage

Introduction Understanding the impacts that cultural organisations can produce on and in their surroundings is an important step in studying and promoting the value created by culture. This is where place-based cultural ecosystems—in this case, art ecosystems—begin to achieve affect. Through art,

This chapter is based on the report and findings of the follow-on funding research of The Art of Cultural Exchange funded by AHRC UK. Besides the authors of this chapter, the report had the participation of the research assistants Mariana Steffen and Andre Piza. L. Valiati (B) Arts and Cultural Management, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK e-mail: [email protected] P. Heritage Queen Mary University of London, London, UK People’s Palace Projects (PPP), London, UK P. Heritage e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_9

153

154

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

people can express their identities, emotions, and beliefs and connect with others who share their values and aspirations. Art can also challenge dominant narratives, subvert power structures, and inspire collective action for social justice. In many communities, art is a powerful tool for building social capital and fostering social cohesion, as arts organisations extending their ecosystems and attract people and capital. Art can bring people from diverse backgrounds together, facilitate cross-cultural dialogue, and promote mutual understanding and respect. Art can also contribute to revitalising neighbourhoods, creating public spaces, and developing local economies. By involving artists and community members in the design and implementation of art projects, communities can build a sense of ownership and pride and foster a culture of collaboration and creativity. In addition, art can play a vital role in education and human development, as it can enhance cognitive, emotional, and social skills, and promote lifelong learning and personal growth. By exposing children and adults to a wide range of artistic experiences, communities can promote creativity, critical thinking and empathy as well as build the foundations of a lifelong appreciation for the arts, thereby also extending membership into the ecosystem. Art can also provide therapeutic benefits, as it can help individuals cope with trauma, stress, and mental health challenges and improve their overall well-being, as was seen during the Covid-19 Pandemic of 2019–2022. In peripheral parts of cities or city regions (in the text, we will use the term territories), where the evidence for public policies is scarce, the work carried out by organisations and agents engaged in promoting social and individual transformations through cultural practices is particularly crucial for development (see Virani et al., 2020; Virani, 2019). Acknowledging the importance of that work requires us to produce information that shows the relationship between these hyper-local cultural practices and the promotion of well-being in communities. In essence, this is where the art ecosystem connects with the wider immediate population. When looking at the role of the arts in the development of local areas subject to multiple stress factors (such as poverty and low employment, social stigma, and exposure to—or perceived threat of—crime and violence, including violence against women and children), the productivity approach fails to capture the benefits generated for communities marginalised from the resources that are accessible in central urban areas. Oakley (2015) has suggested that it might be the presence (or absence) of

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

155

lower-profile arts assets which differentiates neighbourhoods that otherwise have similar economic conditions when measured against a broader range of social indicators. She advocates that ‘the artistic dividend’ that flows from community-based cultural initiatives is likely to be associated with more balanced local development than that of the growth-driven regeneration narrative. This attests to how power affects the perpetuation of ecosystems, which if gone unchecked can have a negative impact for the wider community. Crossick (2019) points to North American research supporting the suggestion that, whereas commercial arts industries (e.g. film, music, and design-based industries) emerge as strongly associated with gentrification in urban areas undergoing rapid change, those neighbourhoods that balance for-profit and non-profit (visual/performing arts companies, museums, and fine art schools) are associated with stable, slow- growth neighbourhoods. In this context, we suggest an urgent need for arts organisations operating in territories beyond the reach of conventional statistical measures of the cultural and creative industries to produce reliable data demonstrating how such organisations achieve their goals and measuring what difference they make to the communities in which they are located. Crossick’s (2019) report asserts that the absence of ‘rich and granular standard data’, presents a challenge to research that seeks to demonstrate the lasting value of small-scale participatory arts activities in the UK and other countries. The Relative Values research suggests there is a particular value to be gained from enhancing the capacity of arts organisations from peripheral territories to identify, calibrate, and advocate for the ‘arts dividend’ as a quantifiable resource for the development of their own communities. Building a research methodology with that objective would be beyond an individual arts organisation’s core expertise, but it can be achieved by effective collaboration—the lifeblood of any ecosystem—which ensures any such research is designed to enhance their practice. Relative Values is a pilot methodology that seeks to address the challenge of building a practical instrument shaped from a multidisciplinary approach that would be able to offer a broader narrative impact for arts organisations operating in under-resourced territories and thus extending the ecosystem. In partnership with four small-scale cultural institutions in London, Manchester and Rio de Janeiro, the combined research team devised strategies to understand the distinct ways in which arts practices contribute to economic and social development in areas that are subject to multiple stress factors. To contribute to making the multidimensional

156

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

impacts of arts and cultural activities more visible in the contemporary economy, the set of tools developed pilots a combination of quantitative and non-economic indicators to reflect the socio-economic development levels related to well-being. To that end, it designs new composite indices to capture socio-economic development impacts such as: cultural diversity, social capital, economic resources, dissemination, the exercise of personal agency, meaningful transformations, cultural engagement, and creative skills. Although the literature has tried to address and measure the value that cultural practices can generate, they are either too connected to the symbolic dimension or too focused on monetary indexes. In bringing partner organisations to the process of creating a new methodology, we aim at developing a useful, realistic tool that can address questions such as: how do arts organisations generate value? How can we measure the socioeconomic development impacts produced by arts organisations? Which dimensions do arts organisations affect in relation to their participants, territories, and local entrepreneurs? Essentially, how do we measure the impact of arts ecosystems embedded in place? The methodology being tested by Relative Values shows how arts organisations can measure their own socio-economic impact and produce territorially specific evidence that could inform and shape wider policy debates about the creative and cultural industries. Ideas about cultural value have been translated between the languages of economics and the arts, transferred between academics, artists, and social activists, and gained new meanings within the exchange of practices present in hyper-local territories. The project has built the capacity of small-scale arts organisations to find different ways to answer the questions they are asking themselves and to think about how they can calibrate their own cultural value in relation to the specifics of their own local creative ecosystem. Through collaborating with the four organisations on the creation of indicators and training local agents in applying the tool (see Methodology section), Relative Values has increased the protagonism of arts organisations in debates about how the arts benefit communities with some of the lowest socio-economic indices.

Methodology The methodology applied in the Relative Values project combined quantitative and qualitative research methods, involving direct and active participation from the partner organisations. For the quantitative side,

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

157

representatives of the four organisations worked with the research team to define a set of indicators that shaped the data from surveys applied with organisations’ participants and audiences. Semi-structured interviews (qualitative) were used to inform and nuance the analysis. The research process was structured as follows: 1. First round of meetings with partner organisations; 2. Bibliographic review: first draft of indicators; 3. Workshops: discussion about indicators and questionnaires; 4. Adjustments; 5. Survey application; 6. Interviews; and 7. Data analysis: generating results to feed into the indicators. The data collection worked on three different axes: i. Axis One gathered publicly available secondary data for socioeconomic indicators that characterise each territory; ii. Axis Two collected information about each of the four participating arts organisations via questionnaires; and iii. Axis Three was a survey of participants on projects or programmes run by each of the four organisations using a questionnaire of approximately 40 questions. To measure the effects and characteristics of the activities of each of the four arts organisations, we understand them as agencies which can affect the reality of individuals who interact directly and indirectly with their projects. In this research, individuals participating in initiatives and projects from each organisation answered a set of questions that were then weighted consistently, analysed, and converted to numerical indicators. The system of indicators developed has three interconnected axes, aiming to capture different aspects related to each organisation’s practices and effects: (i) Context; (ii) Operations; and (iii) Impact. The first and second axes have a more descriptive purpose, presenting the features and vulnerabilities in the territory where the organisations deliver projects and their own organisational profile, in terms of type and capacity of cultural production and social action. The core of our analysis is the third axis,

158

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

which aims to identify and measure the effects of the organisations’ practices: (a) on the individual; (b) on the territory; and (c) on local networks. The three axes and their corresponding indicators are detailed below. Context: indicators of Local Development This axis depicts the reality of the territories where the organisations are located through indicators of local development and social vulnerability. It systematises key features in a direct and objective way, so that both policymakers and stakeholders can clearly understand the socio-economic realities of each territory (Table 1). Operation of Organisations This set of indicators reflects the image the organisations have of themselves. It studies the profile of the organisations, focusing on the relationship between activities and the territories where they happen, taking into account the formulation and implementation of projects, audience profiles, and economic results. The underlying idea here is to allow readers to understand the organisations’ operations and missions in a systematised way (Table 2). Impact The third strand of analysis seeks to capture the organisational impact or, in the words of Draibe (2001), the most enduring results generated by the transformation of social reality. Based on the literature review and on meetings with the partner organisations, three main lines of analysis were defined: (a) impacts on participants, with a focus on the agency of individuals and their relationship with arts and creativity; (b) territorial impacts; and (c) impacts on local creative networks. The first set of impacts focuses on three dimensions: individual capacity for agency; the individual’s relationships to arts and creativity; and the individual’s relationship to territory. These dimensions result from each organisation’s artistic activities and their capacity to bring about change in the territories based on an institutional mission to promote social transformation (Table 3). The delivery of any organisation’s activity relies to a large degree on the mobilisation of other partners: from organisations that financially

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

Table 1

159

Socio-economic indicators

Axis I Dimension

Description

Indicators

Demography

Demographic features of each territory’s population

Social development

Level of social development within the territories

Health

Indicators associated with human development levels

Number of inhabitants Ethnicity Age groups Population density Multiple Deprivation Index (UK) Social Vulnerability Index Infant mortality Life expectancy School attendance Household income per capita Unemployment rate Informal work Basic sanitation: rubbish collection, water supply, and sewage service

Education Income and employment

Infrastructure: city level

Infrastructure: borough/ward level

Economic dimensions of each territory’s population

These indicators characterise each territory according to their infrastructure and facilities, distinguishing the specific territories where the arts organisations operate from the cities where they are located

Cultural spaces Open public spaces (parks and common areas) Territorial mobility

support the project to various service providers. These indicators aim at demonstrating how the organisation’s activity and existence impacts on the generation and strengthening of local creative networks (Table 4). The last set of indicators concentrates on empirical changes promoted by the organisations to the territories. Ten different aspects of these changes were analysed as listed in Table 5. All the indicators were categorised/weighted as follows:

160

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

Table 2

Organisational profile

Axis II Dimension

Description

Profile of the organisations

Builds a profile of each organisation facilitating the understanding of its actions and core concepts. It focuses on production but also considers audience and staff profiles

Cultural production and economic results

• • • •

Indicators

Audience profile Mission Relevance of vulnerable territories for the definition of projects and expected outcomes Geographical location of the team Location of activities Relevance of territorial base to the selection of participants Audience socio-economic profile Relation to vulnerable groups Engagement support to participants Accessibility Operational methodology Profile of selected projects Team profile Regularity of projects Presents the results of each organisation’s Number of cultural/ outputs, analysed in terms of the delivery creative activities and of projects in relation to economic factors projects Predominant arts disciplines Number of people engaged Economic multipliers Financing

Low: Intermediate: High: Outstanding:

0.0–0.5 0.5–0.7 0.7–0.9 0.9–1.0

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

Table 3

161

Impact on the individual

Axis III Dimension

Description

Individual capacity for agency

Draws on the concept of personal agency, understood as the individual’s ability to ‘process social experience and [delineate] ways of living, even under the most extreme forms of coercion’ (Long & Ploeg, 1994). This dimension measures the effects on aspects considered to constitute a capacity for agency

Relationship of individual to arts and creativity

Relationship between individual and territory

Indicators

Reflexive individual Social capital expansion Social engagement Expansion of perspectives Measures the organisation’s impact on participants’ Cultural perception of the arts as a possible professional activity democracy and on supporting or stimulating the development of Proximity to creative occupations, seeking to gauge cultural and arts artistic practices as drivers of socio-economic Artistic development. The organisation’s effects in terms of work: democratisation of the public’s access to arts and culture perception are also measured Artistic work: viability Personal cultural and creative assets Cultural engagement Creative skills Focuses on how the organisations affect participants’ Access and perception of their territory, taking into consideration mobility their daily routes through the city and the areas where Living space they live Perception of social reality Identification and belonging

162

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

Table 4

Local creative network impact

Axis III—Impact Local creative networks

Table 5

Measures whether the participants can recognise the local creative network built by the organisations, and how accessible they are

Acknowledgement of creative networks Access to creative networks

Impact on territories

Axis III—Impact Action on the territories

Analyses impacts generated by the organisation on the territory in terms of the following aspects: • infrastructure; • new businesses; • re-purposing unused spaces; • improved use of public spaces (streets, common areas, etc.); • people feel more comfortable using/accessing projects’ venues and spaces; • community engagement; • creation of new social spaces; • safety in public spaces; • residents have a more positive perception of the area; • more positive description of the territory

Action on the territories

Case Study: Contact Theatre AXIS I—Context The four arts organisations that are part of this research have a strong relationship with the concept of ‘territory’. As a social space for conviviality and for the construction of identities, a territory presents geographic and socio-economic markers that characterise the situations of vulnerability that its inhabitants do or do not experience. If we approach culture from an instrumental perspective, in territories of extreme vulnerability, these organisations act as transformers of the social reality constructed and experienced in specific sites. Indicators in Axis I seek to draw a panorama of the territory where the organisation generates its actions and activities. In order to map the impacts that these organisations produce, we need

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

163

first to understand where they act. The indicators we applied use information already available from national or local statistical agencies (secondary data). Contact has great territorial coverage, operating in more than 30 neighbourhoods of the city of Manchester (UK). In preliminary discussions about this research, Contact decided to focus on two sites where they operate that are geographical neighbours but very different from one another: the boroughs (territories) of Moston and Harpurhey. According to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), Harpurhey is Manchester’s second most vulnerable area (score of 60.92, while Manchester’s average is 40.31), and is also one of the 10% of areas with the highest multiple deprivation index in the whole of England. The IMD is calculated by the British Government’s National Statistics Office for small or hyper-local areas called ‘lower-layer super output areas’, using data for deprivation in terms of income; employment; health; education; housing; crime; and living environment. The calculated indices for these small areas are then organised to the level of neighbourhoods and cities.1 Other social indicators also draw attention to the levels of vulnerability in the territory. The life expectancy of a Harpurhey resident, for example, is 75.9 years, almost 6 years less than the national average for the UK. Infant mortality rate is 6.8 deaths before 1 year of age per 1,000 live births while the average for England and Wales is considerably lower at 3.8 per 1,000 live births. The number of unemployed people is also high, with 13.94% of the economically active population in the territory seeking employment in 2017, while the average for the UK in the same period was 4.33%.2 Moston is the other territory considered in this research. Although its socio-economic indicators are better than those for Harpurhey, they are still markedly poorer than national averages and show a definite degree of vulnerability. The IMD for the territory is 39.53, which is close to the Manchester average (40.31),but is still closer to the performance of more vulnerable neighbourhoods like Harpurhey than to wealthier neighbourhoods such as Didsbury East (IMD 15.55, the lowest deprivation of 1 See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/579151/English_Indices_of_Deprivation_2015_-_Frequently_A sked_Questions_Dec_2016.pdf. 2 Data from Statista (2019), available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/263709/ unemployment-rate-in-the-united-kingdom/.

164

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

any area of the city). Unemployment and life expectancy in Moston are below the national average at 8.97% and 78.4 years3 (4% and 81.6 years4 respectively in the UK). AXIS II—Operations Contact challenges the traditional working logic of a theatre, playing an important role in bringing young people, mainly from marginalised and low-income communities to the world of arts, culture, and creativity (Table 6). Diversity is at the core of Contact’s activity. Fifty per cent of creative teams on Contact’s projects were Black, Asian, or from other Minority Ethnic groups, and 31% of participants and live audiences belonged to these groups. As stated by the organisation, ‘Contact has a long-standing commitment to diversity in all its facets, striving to engage with and celebrate the rich diversity of Manchester and the UK’.5 Contact has a strong relation to vulnerable groups. Most participants come from low-income households. Its strong focus on young people includes: young people in care, young carers, young people at Table 6

Contact Theatre engagement

Cultural production (data for 2016)

Objectives

Number of cultural/ creative activities and projects

Number of people engaged

Target audience profile

Mission

280 performances/ events

16.000 people engaged as participantsa

Young people (under 30), emphasis on diversity

Empowerment of young people through the arts

a The information refers to the total of Contact’s projects, including those in Contact’s building and

in the two territories considered

3 Data from Intelligence Hub (Manchester Statistics) (2019), available at https://das hboards.instantatlas.com/viewer/report?appid=962615537fc24dda8a0a29dc86bd4e37. 4 Data from Office for National Statistics (2019), available at https://www.ons.gov. uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/ nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2015to2017. 5 Data from the organisational questionnaire.

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

Table 7

165

Profile of participants

Profile of participants

Scope of action

Socio-economic profile

Relation to vulnerable groups

Methodology

Profile of projects

Low-incomea

Strong

Participatory decision-making process

Artistic and cultural activities, individual development, social action

a According to the UK government, ‘low income’ refers to people living on less than 60% of the UK’s

median income. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-inc ome/low-income/latest

risk of homelessness, young people in or on the verges of the criminal justice system, young parents, young people with disabilities, young LGBTQ+ people, young people experiencing mental health challenges, young people who are socially isolated or have low social mobility, young people from marginalised backgrounds and communities, and young people from ethnic minorities6 (Table 7). The organisation’s decision-making process is also in the hands of young people, with young representatives on the board of directors/trustees. Contact aims to promote socially engaged and accessible programming and projects that are shaped and designed in relation to territorial resources and demands. AXIS III—Impacts The third axis focuses on the impacts generated by the organisations at an individual level: i.e. on those who participate in their projects and actions. To collect this information, each organisation applied a questionnaire with participants and/or public who experienced the project outcomes. The selection of the people who were interviewed was random, following the randomised method of sample selection used by other studies of this type (Yates et al., 2008). Despite attempts to build a general profile of the participants of each organisation, the results presented in this section refer only to those who

6 Data from the organisational questionnaire.

166

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

took part in the research, referred here as ‘respondents’. In the case of Contact, a total of 91 people answered the questionnaire. The graphics below show their characteristics. Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile of Respondents for Contact (n = 91) Reflecting Contact’s target group, the majority of respondents were young and belonged to the 19–24 age group. 81 respondents, 90% of the total, were between 11 and 30 years old, as shown in the first graphic. In addition to being young, most of the group were female (55 respondents) and had completed higher education (53 respondents). Of the 91 respondents, 48% contribute to the family’s income, and the majority live in small- to medium-sized families or households, made up of 2–5 people. The participants were asked about their health care routines. In the case of Contact, 54 respondents said they visited the dentist within the last 12 months, and 96% were registered with a General Practitioner (GP) or surgery.7 Most of the individuals who participated in the research indicated they had a long-term relationship with the organisation, with 68% having been involved for more than 1 year. It is unsurprising, given the long period of engagement with Contact, that many respondents participated in more than one project there. Among those, most cited were: Creative Experts, Contact Young Company, Young Identity, and The Agency. This group’s answers were analysed and formulated into indicators that offer a systematised view of the themes addressed in the research. Each indicator’s performance was classified as Low (0.0–0.5), Intermediate (0.5–0.7), High (0.7–0.9), or Outstanding (0.9–1.0). In the next section, we present the results calculated for each dimension. Individual Capacity for Agency The transformative potential of culture can be observed through various lenses. The intrinsic value of actions and cultural practices—related to the artistic content per se—distinguishes itself (Holden, 2006) as an important feature but is particularly challenging to measure through the subjective responses of individuals. To address the dimension of impacts 7 The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) envisages that British citizens have a register with a GP or surgeon that provides medical follow-ups (https://www.nhs.uk/using-thenhs/nhs-services/gps/how-to-register-with-a-gp-practice/).

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

Table 8 Indicators for agency of the respondents

167

Capacity for reflection

Increase in social capital

Social mobilisation

Expansion of perspectives

High 0.828

Outstanding 0.910

High 0.710

High 0.790

on individual capacity for agency, we focused on the individual’s capacity for reflection, their ability to process social experience and development of everyday skills (Long & Ploeg, 1994). The power of agency, which also manifests itself in social relations, goes beyond the individual and is also reflected in the articulation of a group or community in dealing with certain challenges or problems (Table 8). Projects and actions developed by the organisation have influenced the construction of an individual’s ability to reflect on themselves and others. It is also evident that respondents recognise Contact’s capacity to increase the social capital of its participants, creating and consolidating relationships in the interactive environment it creates with young people. The responses also indicate there is space to translate that higher social capital into social mobilisation, with a focus on discussing and developing collective solutions to problems in the participants’ territories. Indicators also demonstrated an impact from cultural practices on the expansion of individual perspectives, which is particularly important in areas with high socio-economic vulnerability where there are fewer material opportunities for young people. For such groups—which are Contact’s principal target—indicators pointed to improved perspectives on future employment and education. Relationship to Arts and Creativity By producing data about individual subjectivities, the research explores the impacts of organisations on the relation that respondents have with arts and creativity. In this dimension, we addressed the intrinsic value of cultural practices—understood as a means for social and economic development—as well as the intrinsic value of the arts, which we considered through analyses of access (cultural democracy) and proximity to the arts (Table 9).

168

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

Table 9

Indicators for relationship to arts and creativity

Cultural democracy

Perceived proximity to the arts sector

Understanding of working in the arts sector

Viability of working in the arts sector

Cultural engagement

Creative skills

Outstanding 0.973

Outstanding 0.955

High 0.860

High 0.790

Intermediate 0.5861

High 0.765

Contact performs outstandingly on the indicators of Cultural Democracy and Proximity to the Arts (facilitating the access of young people arts and cultural initiatives across the city). We calibrated the responses to cultural practices according to individual perceptions, asking respondents to measure their own access to and opportunity to engage in the arts. Individuals demonstrated that through different projects and actions, Contact contributes significantly to improving access to cultural practices. Participation in Contact’s programmes is seen by respondents as having a high impact on their understanding of the artistic job market and their viability of entering it, with most of the respondents saying that their creative abilities8 increased after participating in the projects. The results also revealed that even though Contact demonstrably brings young people into the arts sector and promotes a belief in cultural democracy, participants still experience a gap in their cultural engagement: collective participation, production, and creation in cultural and artistic practices. Local Creative Networks From their interactions with individuals, institutions, and the communities of a local territory, arts organisations can grow, learn, and develop how best to integrate their work (Bollo, 2013). They have the potential to create and/or strengthen local creative networks through their engagement with local artists and cultural agents, as well as with creative companies from the wider cultural industries. Indicators show a good performance by Contact in this area (Table 10).

8 The definition of creativity used by Richard Florida in The Rise of the Creative Class (2004) guided the formulation of this indicator.

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

Table 10 Indicator of interaction

169

Access

Recognition

High 0.890

Intermediate 0.675

It is important to note that respondents are aware they are accessing a creative network when participating in Contact’s programme, but are less able to recognise their access to similar networks outside the sphere of the organisation. This reinforces the need for creating structures to promote social mobility for participants beyond the organisation itself and the network in which it is inserted. Relationship Between Individual and Territory Respondents were questioned as to the effects their participation had in terms of lived space—their itineraries/trajectories through the city and their local neighbourhood—their understanding of social reality, and their sense of identification and belonging to a territory. When compared to other dimensions of Contact’s social impacts, the results here were more modest (Table 11). Indicators suggest that participation in the organisation did not significatively change the outlook, relationships, or journey routes of respondents within the territories. Any change in individuals’ perception of their social reality also registers as intermediate. Social reflections produced by participation in Contact happen in ways other than changes to the perceptions of the place where they live. Nonetheless, it is important to note that there are indications of effects on the individuals’ sense of belonging to the territory where they live. Even a modest contribution to the understanding of social relations and to lived space has value. As other indicators suggest, a deepening of the relationship to territory through a variety Table 11 Indicators of relationship between individual and territory

Lived space

Understanding of social reality

Identification and belonging

Intermediate 0.624

Intermediate 0.677

High 0.734

170

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

Infrastructure Better description of the territory Better percepetion of the territory by residents

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

New business New use for spaces

Safety in public spaces

Improved use of public spaces

Creation of new social spaces

Access to territory spaces

Community engagement

Fig. 1 Direct territorial transformation

of projects can be a strategy to encourage young people to search for solutions to local problems. Direct Territorial Transformation The last dimension speaks to the direct effects of the organisation on its territory, be it materially or through narratives created from its activities. Figure 1 shows all of the indicators related to this last dimension. Each vertex corresponds to an indicator: a point farthest away from the centre represents the best performance, as is the case for community engagement and access to spaces within the local neighbourhood. Territorial impact does not emerge as a clear priority. Still, it is important to emphasise that Contact has its own building and generally operates in spaces already occupied by partner institutions when working in other neighbourhoods. This leads to better results on the indicators for access to local spaces and community engagement. When participants frequently visit these third-party spaces temporarily occupied by Contact, they become more comfortable, and it feels more natural to use them. It also results in a larger number of institutions and a wider range of people from the community interacting with the art projects initiated by Contact.

Conclusion While there are radical differences from practices observed in the sector of the traditional cultural industries, the impact of arts organisations working in territories subject to multiple stress factors is characterised

RELATIVE VALUES AND THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT …

171

by keywords normally associated with rapid growth start-ups: innovation, entrepreneurship, resilience, networking, social capital, sustainability, and agency. This research has devised and tested a methodology for defining the social and economic value of cultural organisations that are genuinely grassroots-based incubators of innovation and also demonstrated the effectiveness of the strategies they are developing to break their isolation from other makers/practitioners with whom they can share ideas, resources, and practices. Relative Values demonstrates how peripheral, vulnerable urban communities use creativity as it emanates from ecosystems as a positive value that is a counter-model to resource-intensive businesses. Further information about the research methodology and its application with a range of different arts organisations in the UK and Brazil can be found at https://culturalvalue.org/ and https://peoplespa laceprojects.org.uk/en/projects/relative-values/. The research allows arts organisations to identify the factors that raise their cultural value and hence extend the ecosystem boundaries. As the methodology is tested with a larger sample of organisations, the indicators that have originated from this pilot work with these four organisations will become less associated with the specific circumstances and contexts of each of them, allowing a picture to emerge that can be understood as contextually representative. Relative Values creates the opportunity for arts organisations to look at themselves, enabling them to build and/or rethink their narratives and make sense of the significance of their effectiveness in relation to specific territories as a core factor in determining their value. The arts can provide a path to personal and professional growth in areas where education and economic opportunities are limited. By providing access to art education and training, communities can equip individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to pursue careers in the creative industries, such as music, theatre, and visual arts. This, in turn, can help to promote economic development and improve the quality of life in vulnerable areas. Moreover, the arts can be a powerful tool for promoting social change and empowerment in vulnerable areas. By creating works of art that challenge dominant narratives and promote social justice, artists can inspire collective action and foster a sense of agency and empowerment among marginalised communities. This, in turn, can help to promote greater equity and inclusion and advance the human development agenda in vulnerable areas. Overall, the arts can be a vital resource for promoting

172

L. VALIATI AND P. HERITAGE

human development and well-being in under-resourced territories subject to multiple stress factors. Investing in community-based cultural organisations, arts education and cultural programmes is essential for realising this potential.

References Bollo, A. (2013). Measuring Museum impacts. The Learning Museum. Crossick, G. (2019). GCDN 2019 report: The social impact of cultural districts. Global Cultural Districts Network: AEA Consulting. https://gcdn.net/pro duct/the-socialimpact-of-cultural-districts/ Draibe, S. M. (2001). Avaliação de implementação: esboço de uma metodologia de trabalho em políticas Públicas. In M. C. Barreira & M. do C. Carvalho, Tendências e perspectivas na avaliação de políticas e programas sociais. IEE/ PUC-SP. Translation: Heritage/Valiati. Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life (New ed.). BasicBooks. Holden, J. (2006). Cultural value and the crisis of legitimacy. Demos. Long, N., & Ploeg, J. (1994). Heterogeneidade, ator e estrutura: para a reconstrução do conceito de estrutura. In D. Booth (Ed.), Rethinking social development: Theory, research and practice (pp. 62–90). PGDR/UFRGS: Porto Alegre, 2009. Translation: Heritage/Valiati Oakley, K. (2015). Creating space: A re-evaluation of the role of culture in regeneration. Research Report. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/88559/3/ Virani, T. E. (2019). Exploring the relationship between creative hubs and urban policy in East London. Creative Hubs in Question: Place, Space and Work in the Creative Economy, 341–357. Virani, T. E., Nakano, D., Shiach, M., & Poli, K. (2020). São Paulo’s creative hubs. Creative Cluster Development: Governance, Place-Making and Entrepreneurship. Yates, D. S., Moore, D. S., & Starnes, D. S. (2008). The practice of statistics (3rd ed.). Freeman.

The Global Creativity Index: National Creativity Ecosystems and Their Relationship to Economic Development and Inequality Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander

Introduction Capitalism over the past several decades has been transforming from a system that is primarily driven by industrial manufacturing to one that turns on knowledge, innovation, and above all else human creativity (Drucker, 1969; Bell, 1973; Malchup, 1962). In the knowledge economy, these factors—knowledge, innovation, and creativity—have come to replace the traditional factors of production—land, labor, and physical capital—as the key economic inputs (Smith, 1776). A large and growing body of literature—of which this volumes contributes to— focuses on the creative ecosystems (Jeffcutt, 2004; Koria & Karjalainen, 2012; Komorowski, et al., 2021; Loots et al., 2021) which underpin this

R. Florida Rotman School of Management, School of Cities, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] C. Mellander (B) Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_10

173

174

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

broader shift, and act as platforms to mobilize human innovative and creative activity. But up to this point, there has been less research on key characteristics and elements of national level creative and innovative ecosystems. At the same time, this system of knowledge-based capitalism has seen a dramatic rise in economic inequality across nations (Piketty, 2014). Our research seeks to make two contributions along these lines. The first is to provide analytical and empirical traction on the subject of national creative ecosystems. Here, we develop data which enable us to identify and compare national creative ecosystems across 160 nations. The second is to examine the connection between these national creative ecosystems and economic inequality across these nations. Here, our objective is to see if certain kinds of creative ecosystems are associated with more or less inequality. With regard to our first contribution, our research aims develops comparative empirical data which enable us to better characterize and compare national level creative ecosystems. It is now well understood that creativity, as well as innovation and new start-up formation, is a product of organization and institutional ecosystems. There are growing literatures on innovation ecosystems (Cavallo et al., 2019; Oh et al., 2016; Stem & Spigel, 2016), entrepreneurial ecosystems (Acs et al., 2014, 2018; Cao & Shi, 2021; Lafuente et al., 2020, 2021; Wurth, 2022), and creative ecosystems (De Bernard et al., 2022; Florida, 2002; Jeffcutt, 2004; Koria & Karjalainen, 2012; Komorowski, et al., 2021; Loots et al., 2021). This builds on the literature on the role of innovative and creative clusters, agglomerations, or districts (Asheim et al., 2007; Currid & Williams, 2010; Jacobs, 1969; Lucas, 1988; Marshall, 1890/2015; Porter, 1998; Storper & Venables, 2004), which identify geographic colocations of innovative or creative activity. In our view, the construct of a creative or innovative ecosystem is a key organizing unit of the knowledge or creative economy. Such ecosystems are the underlying social structure—the real-world fabric of institutions and organizations— that facilitate the knowledge spillovers that a broad body of research identifies as central to innovative and creative activity (Anselin et al., 1997; Audretsch & Feldman, 2004; Jaffe et al., 1993) and in doing so also work to mobilize human innovative and creative capability. Creative and innovative ecosystems are typically conceptualized as local in nature, occurring at the level of micro-geography as a more geographically circumscribed hub (Dovey et al., 2016; Gill et al., 2019;

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

175

Virani & Malem, 2015), cluster (Currid & Williams, 2010), or neighborhood (Jayne & Bell, 2017). But there are elements of creative and innovative ecosystems that may operate at a broader and larger more macro-geographic level being informed by metropolitan regions, states, or provinces, or even nations as a whole. Indeed, there is a somewhat older literature coming out of research on innovation and economic development that focuses on national innovative systems (see Nelson, 1993). Our analysis uses the nation as the unit of analysis. Nelson (1993) emphasizes the organizational specificity and variation in national innovation systems and the fact that they emerge not through top-down action but organically as an outcome of the interplay of ongoing evolution across firms, research and development laboratories, universities, human capital, and other organizations and institutions. Our research focusses on this more macro-geographic or national level of creative ecosystems. To get at this, we examine national creative ecosystems across three key dimensions, based on Florida’s underlying theory of the 3Ts of economic development: Technology, Talent, and Tolerance (Florida, 2002). The first T, Technology, is widely accepted by economists to be a key driver of productivity and economic growth. Marx (1867) and Schumpeter (1934a, 1934b) long ago argued that technological advances are what enable capitalism to continually renew itself. Solow’s Nobel Prize winning research(1956) specified the importance of technology in motivating economic progress. Romer’s (1986) Nobel Prize winning research identified the role of knowledge broadly in shaping economic growth. Our rankings for technology are based on two key variables: innovation and research and development or R&D (World Intellectual Property Organization various years). Our measure of R&D is based on the World Bank’s World Development indicators data on R&D investment (various years) as a share of economic output. Our measure of innovation is based on patents on a per capita basis. Talent is the second T. Economists also note that talent, or what is typically referred to as human capital, is another key factor in economic growth and development. Adam Smith (1776) long ago identified human capital as the fourth factor of production, alongside land, labor, and capital. Drucker (1969), Machlup (1962), and Bell (1973) identified the role of knowledge and scientific workers in advanced knowledge-based capitalism. We employ two measures for talent. The first is a measure of educational attainment based on the share of adults ages 25 and over in

176

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

who hold bachelors’ degrees or their equivalents. The second is measure of occupational or workforce skill based on the shares of the workforces employed in knowledge, professional, and creative occupations. The third T is Tolerance. Tolerance is a third factor in economic growth, though one that acts less directly than technology or talent. Various studies suggest that the more open and welcoming a place is to people from across the spectrum of national, sexual, racial, and cultural identities and cognitive styles, the more it is able to attract and retain the talent that in turns leads to innovation and economic growth (Florida & Gates, 2001; Florida et al., 2008). Here again, we use two measures. The first is a measure of tolerance for gays and lesbians based on data aimed at measuring attitudes and opinions of the LBGT community (Flores, 2021). The second is a measure of freedom of expression based on the 2021 World Press Freedom Index (various years). The Global Creativity Index or GCI is our overall combined measure of creative ecosystem performance based on all 3Ts. It is a composite of these six variables, based on each of the three overall indexes for talent, technology, and tolerance. This is an updated and modified version of earlier versions of the GCI (Florida et al, 2011, 2015). This edition of the GCI examines the national creative ecosystems of 160 nations across six separate measures for technology, talent, and tolerance and covers 2016 through 2020. Our research further includes an analysis of the relationship between the GCI and a variety of economic and social outcomes, including overall economic development based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (World Bank, World Development Indicators, various years); entrepreneurship based on the Global Entrepreneurship Index (Acs et al., 2019); human development (United Nations Human Development Index, various years); and urbanization based on the urban share of population (World Bank, World Development Indicators, various years). Our second contribution focusses on the connection between these national creative ecosystems and inequality. Most research on innovation and creativity, including research on innovative and creative ecosystems focus on characterizing the main elements of those ecosystems or on their impact on directly innovative and creative outcomes. But more recent research notes a connection between innovation and creativity and rising economic and spatial inequality. This includes national studies (Alesina et al., 2005; Glaeser, 2005; Piketty, 2014) and studies that focus on

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

177

the city or metropolitan level (Florida, 2017; Florida & Gaetani, 2020; Florida & Mellander, 2015, 2016). Informed by this, our research focuses on the connection between national creative and innovative ecosystems and inequality. We use the conventional measure of income inequality based on the Gini Coefficient (World Bank, World Development Indicators, various years). We find significant and rather stark differences. Specifically, we find a bifurcation between two national models for mediating the connection between creativity and inequality. On the one hand, we identify a “high-road path” where high levels of creativity or innovation are associated with lower levels of inequality. The foremost examples of this are Scandinavian and Northern European countries. On the other hand, we identify a “lowroad path” where creativity goes along with significantly higher levels of inequality. The United States and United Kingdom are examples of this path.

Methodology The data in this report cover 160 nations for the period of 2016 to 2021. Technology Variables: We use two variables for technology. The first is a measure of research and development or R&D based on R&D investment as a share of economic output or GDP. R&D investment includes R&D expenditures for basic research, applied research, and experimental development. The data are from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators for the period 2018–2020 (World Bank, World Development Indicators). The second is a measure of innovation based on patents per 10.000 people. The data are from World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and cover the period 2018–2020 (World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property Statistics, various years). The Global Technology Index combines these two variables into a single measure. It is based on the ranks of the variables; a country must have a value for at least one of the two variables to create a Global Technology Index score. The correlation between our variables R&D investment and innovation is 0.725 and significant at the 1% level. Talent Variables: We employ two measures of talent. The first is a measure of educational attainment based on the share of the population age 25 and above with a bachelor’s degree or equivalent. The data are from UNESCO Institute for Statistics via the World Development Indicators and cover the period 2016–2019 (World Bank, World Development

178

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

Indicators, various years). The second is a measure of workforce skill based on occupation. Our measure is the share of the labor force engaged in professional, knowledge, and creative occupations. It is based on data from the International Labour Organization and covers the period 2018– 2019 (International Labour Organization, ILOSTAT, various years). The Global Talent Index combines these two variables into a single measure. It is based on the ranks of the variables; a country must have a value for at least one of the two variables in order to create a Global Talent Index score. The correlation between the educational and occupational talent variables is 0.796. Tolerance Variables: We employ two measures of tolerance. The first is a measure of the acceptance of the gay and lesbian community across countries developed by the UCLA Williams Institute (Flores, 2021). The second is a measure of freedom of the press based on the World Press Freedom Index from 2021 (Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index, various years). This measure has replaced a measure on attitudes and opinions of ethnic and racial minorities used in earlier versions of the Global Tolerance Index. The current version of the Global Tolerance Index combines these two variables into a single measure. It is based on the ranks of the variables; a country must have a value for at least one of the two variables in order to create a Global Tolerance Index score. The correlation between these two measures is 0.480. The Global Creativity Index: The Global Creativity Index is a composite of these six variables. It reflects the ranks each of the three overall indexes for talent, technology, and tolerance. We ranked each by giving the highest value to the top performer. We then added the ranks together and divided by three. To create the Global Creativity Index score, the average score of the 3Ts was divided by the number of observations overall. Economic Prosperity and Inclusion Variables We employ the following measures of economic and social development: Economic Development : We employ the basic measure of economic development based on economic output or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. The variable is based on data from the World Bank’s World Development (World Bank, World Development Indicators) and reflects the average for the years 2018–2020.

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

179

Entrepreneurship: This variable is based on the Global Entrepreneurship Index, which measures entrepreneurial attitudes, activity, and aspiration and is for the year 2019 (Szerb et al., 2019). Human Development: This variable is based on the United Nations Human Development Index, a composite measure of three core dimensions of human development: health/life expectancy, education, and standard of living (UN Human Development Reports, Human Development Index). The index is for the year 2019. Urbanization: This variable is the urban share of population and is based on data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators. It is calculated using World Bank population estimates and urban ratios from the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects (World Bank, World Development Indicators). It is based on the average for 2018–2020. Income Inequality: This variable is based on the standard measure of income inequality, the Gini Coefficient, which measures the extent to which the distribution of income among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Gini Coefficient of 0 represents absolute equality, while an index of 100 implies absolute inequality. The data are from the World Development Indicators and are an average for the years 2016–2019 (World Bank, World Development Indicators).

Findings The Global Technology Index We begin with our findings for technology. As noted above, the Global Technology Index is based on two measures. The first reflects research and development (R&D) and measures R&D investment as a share of economic output. The second is for innovation and is based is the number of patents granted per 10.000 people. Table 1 shows the rankings on the Global Technology Index for the twenty leading nations. Switzerland and Korea tie for first place, followed by Sweden, Japan, Israel, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Austria, with the United States in tenth place.

180

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

Table 1 Top 20 nations on the Global Technology Index

Global Technology Rank

Country

Rank Innovation/ Patents

Rank R&D

1 1 3 3 5 6 6 6 6 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19

Switzerland Korea, Rep. Sweden Japan Israel Denmark Finland Germany Austria United States Netherlands Belgium France Luxembourg Norway Iceland Singapore China United Kingdom Australia Canada Italy

2 3 5 4 12 9 6 8 10 11 7 14 13 1 16 19 17 23 20

3 2 4 5 1 7 10 8 6 9 16 11 12 28 15 14 17 13 21

25 22 21

19 22 23

20 20 20

Source Authors’ analysis of data from World Bank, World Development Indicators, various years; and World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property Statistics, various years

The Global Talent Index We now turn to the rankings and score for talent. As noted above, the Global Talent Index is based on two measures. The first is a measure of educational attainment based on the share of adults ages 25 and over who hold bachelors’ degrees or their equivalents. The second is measure of occupational or workforce skill based on the shares of the workforces in employed in knowledge, professional, and creative occupations. Table 2 shows the rankings for the Global Talent Index, which combines measures of educational and occupational or workforce talent. Iceland is first on the Global Talent Index, followed by the United Kingdom, Singapore, the United States, Luxembourg, and Denmark.

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

Table 2

181

The Global Talent Index

Global Talent Rank

Country

Rank Educational Attainment

Rank Workforce/ Occupational Skill

1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 9 10 10 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 19

Iceland United Kingdom Singapore United States Luxembourg Denmark Belgium Netherlands Australia Israel Norway Lithuania Estonia Switzerland Ireland New Zealand Sweden Finland Germany United Arab Emirates Latvia

2 3 14 5 – 11 7 12 10 21 4 15 13 16 30 26 24 1

7 8 2 12 1 9 13 10 16 4 5 24 14 6 22 18 3 11 17 43

17

26

19

Source Authors’ analysis of data from World Bank, World Development Indicators, various years; and World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property Statistics, various years

Belgium, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel make up the rest of the top ten. The Global Tolerance Index Next, we turn to the rankings for tolerance. Again, as noted above, the Global Tolerance Index is based on two measures. The first is a measure of tolerance for gays and lesbians in nearly 180 nations based on data aimed at measuring attitudes and opinions of the LBGT community. The second is a measure of freedom of expression. Table 3 shows the rankings on the Global Tolerance Index, which is based on measures of tolerance toward gays and lesbians and free expression. The Scandinavian countries all rank high on tolerance, with Norway

182

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

Table 3 The Global Tolerance Index

Global Tolerance Rank

Country

Rank HBTQ

Rank Press Freedom

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 16 16 18 19

Norway Sweden Netherlands Denmark Finland Iceland New Zealand Canada Ireland Switzerland Belgium Spain Germany Australia Uruguay Portugal Costa Rica Luxembourg United Kingdom Austria

3 4 2 7 14 1 10 5 8 13 15 6 19 11 16 27 31 18 9

1 3 6 4 2 16 8 14 12 10 11 26 13 23 18 9 5 20 29

24

17

20

Source Authors’ analysis of data from Flores (2021); and Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index, various years

in first place, followed by Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, and Canada. Ireland and Switzerland round out the list in ninth and tenth place. It is notable that neither the United States nor Israel crack the top 20. The Global Creativity Index Now we turn to our composite measure of the Global Creativity Index. As noted above, the Global Creativity Index or GCI is our combined measure of creative performance based six variables, two each for technology, talent, and tolerance. Table 4 lists the top 20 nations on the GCI. Denmark takes the top spot, followed by the Netherlands, Sweden, and Iceland and Switzerland. The rest of the top ten includes Norway in sixth place, Belgium

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

Table 4

183

Top 20 Nations on the GCI

GCI rank

Country

Technology rank

Talent rank

Tolerance rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Denmark Netherlands Sweden Iceland Switzerland Norway Belgium Finland Luxembourg United States United Kingdom Germany Australia New Zealand Ireland Canada Estonia Israel France Korea, Rep.

6 11 3 16 1 15 12 6 14 10 19

6 8 17 1 14 10 6 18 4 4 2

4 3 2 6 10 1 11 5 18 23 19

0.969 0.960 0.959 0.958 0.953 0.951 0.944 0.943 0.930 0.928 0.923

6 20 25 24 20 27 5 12 1

19 9 15 15 22 13 10 41 29

13 14 7 9 8 27 53 21 49

0.922 0.914 0.907 0.905 0.900 0.866 0.864 0.849 0.840

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

GCI score

in seventh, Finland and Luxembourg in eighth and ninth places, and the United States in tenth place. The full rankings are contained in the appendix. The GCI and Economic Outcomes This raises the larger question: To what degree is the Global Creativity Index related to broader processes and outcomes of economic development? To get at this, we perform basic statistical correlations between the GCI and key outcome measures of economic development like economic output, entrepreneurship, human development, and urbanization. Here we note that correlations do not equal or imply causation, but rather only point to associations among variables.

184

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

For one, the GCI is associated with the level of urbanization. Nations with high scores on the GCI also tend to be highly urbanized. The correlation between the GCI and urbanization is 0.641. This is in line with research in urban economic and urban geography which suggest that clustering and agglomeration (Jacobs, 1969; Marshall, 1890/2015; Lucas, 1988; Porter, 1998) play a key role in innovative and creative economic performance. The GCI is also associated with higher levels of entrepreneurship. The correction between the GCI and entrepreneurship as measured by the Global Entrepreneurship Index is 0.857 (Acs et al., 2019). This is in line with research and theory dating back to Schumpeter (1934a, 1934b) which suggests that entrepreneurship is an outgrowth of innovative and creativity activity. The GCI is associated with economic development based on the standard measure of economic output of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (World Bank, World Development Indicators). The correlation between the GCI and GDP per capita is 0.741. Nations that score high on the GCI also tend to have high levels of GDP per capita. This is in line with research that suggests that human creativity is a key input for economic growth and development (Florida, 2002). The GCI is further associated with higher levels of human development. The correlation between the as measured by the United Nations Human Development Index is considerable, 0.847. This is in line with theories which suggest that human creativity capabilities and associated with higher levels of human development (Fig. 1). The GCI and Economic Inequality Our research focusses on the connection between national creative ecosystems and inequality. As noted above, inequality has been found to be increasing in modern knowledge-based capitalism. Our research examines the connection between inequality and national creative ecosystems. The measure we use for inequality is the Gini Coefficient based on data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators for the years 2016–2019. Overall and at a general level we find, perhaps counterintuitively, that the creative performance of nations is associated with lower levels of inequality. Nations that scored higher on the GCI tend to have lower levels of inequality. The correlation is negative and significant (−0.469).

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

185

Fig. 1 The GCI and Human Development Source Human Development Index from Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Programme 2019

This flies in the faith of arguments which say that inequality is a necessary byproduct of more innovative economies. But our more significant finding is that nations tend to bifurcate, separate, and cluster in two distinct groups in terms of the connection between creativity and inequality. This becomes evident in the scattergraph below which shows how nations line up on the connection between the GCI and inequality (Fig. 2). On the one hand, there is a high-road path where high levels of creativity or innovation are associated with lower levels of inequality. The foremost examples of this are Scandinavian and Northern European countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland, among others. On the other hand, there is a low-road path where creativity goes along with significantly higher levels of inequality. Of the advanced nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel are examples of this path.

186

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

Fig. 2 The GCI and Income Inequality Source Human Development Indicators from The World Bank, 2016–2019

Discussion and Conclusion: Our research has examined the nature of national level creative ecosystems across 160 countries. It characterizes the differences in those national creative ecosystems in light of in terms of the 3Ts model of economic development initially advanced by Florida. It leads to three key findings. First, it finds that the Scandinavian and Northern European countries are the highest performers on Global Creativity Index. Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland and Switzerland take the top five spots, followed by Norway, Belgium, Finland, and Luxemburg. The United States ranks tenth, with its highest score being for talent (4th ). China, which is seen to be a rising economic and innovative power, ranks much further down the list (86th ). Second, we find national creativity to be closely associated with rate of entrepreneurial firm formation, as well as overall economic development and human development. This is in line with the broader literatures on innovation and the knowledge economy which suggest that human creative capability is key driver of knowledge-based economies (Florida, 2002). Our research also finds national level creativity to be associated with the level of urbanization which supports theories which focus on the

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

187

clustering of innovative and creative activity (Jacobs, 1969; Lucas, 1988; Marshall, 1890/2015; Porter, 1998). Third, perhaps our most important findings concern the relationship between national creative ecosystems and inequality. Here, two specific findings are relevant. First, we find that the creative performance of nations is associated with lower levels of inequality: Nations with higher levels of creative economic performance also tend to have lower levels of inequality based on the Gini Coefficient. This stands in sharp contrast to arguments advanced by conservative commentators that creativity and innovation in advanced capitalism are spurred by outsized economic rewards that also shape greater inequality. Second, and even more importantly, we find that nations divide into two separate groups. We identify a high-road path where high levels of creativity or innovation are associated with lower levels of inequality characteristic of Scandinavian and Northern European countries. We also identify a low-road path where creativity comes with significantly higher levels of inequality as found in countries like the United States and United Kingdom are examples of this path. These two distinct paths suggest significant differences in institutional structure, economic organization, and public policy in these two models which should be the subject of future research. Our analysis implies a series of directions and suggestions for future research on creative ecosystems at the national and local levels. First, we encourage more research that uses statistics to capture and compare relevant characteristics of creative ecosystems at various geographic scales. It is admittedly hard to capture the nuance and highly embedded character of creative ecosystems with statistics. Our research has tried to do that at the national level using the 3Ts model and GCI based with macro-level global data sets. It could be possible to use more micro-geographic statistics that are more typically available within nations to capture elements of more locally-delimited creative ecosystems and to relate those characteristics of a range of innovative, creative, and economic outcomes. Indeed, the extant literature on creative ecosystems discussed in this volume, has begun to show that healthy creative ecosystems lead to stronger creative economies, thus using the 3Ts model and GCI as a proxy gives us an indication as to where, comparatively, healthy creative ecosystems exist which allows us to ask deeper questions about these sites of cultural production. This approach affords us the opportunity to begin thinking about defining and empirically comparing core elements of creative ecosystems and their

188

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

association with various creative, innovative, and economic outcomes in a way that can better inform public policy. Second, we also want to encourage more research on the connection between creative ecosystems and inequality. Much current research on creative ecosystems focusing on detailing their key operational elements and characteristics and hos those arise from distinctive local conditions, but much less so on their relationship to contemporary challenges such as inequality. Yet, the urban literature suggests that that creative communities and ecosystems associated with arts, music, and cultural production can acts as spurs to gentrification and resulting spatial inequality. Our research finds that the relationship between national creative ecosystems and inequality can go either way, documenting both a high-road and a low-road approach across various categories of nations. Future research on more locally embedded creative ecosystems can examine the connection between those ecosystems and economic and spatial inequality. It may be that such research can identify approaches and policy strategies which mitigate the effects of creative ecosystems on economic and spatial inequality and lead to more inclusive outcomes. Most of all our research at the national level convinces us of the ongoing importance of empirical research on creative ecosystems and the efficacy of such research for encouraging more effective policy and ultimately better, more creative, and inclusive communities.

Appendix: Full GCI Rankings for All Nations GCI rank

Country

Technology rank

Talent rank

Tolerance rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Denmark Netherlands Sweden Iceland Switzerland Norway Belgium Finland Luxembourg United States United Kingdom Germany

6 11 3 16 1 15 12 6 14 10 19 6

6 8 17 1 14 10 6 18 4 4 2 19

4 3 2 6 10 1 11 5 18 23 19 13

GCI score 0.969 0.960 0.959 0.958 0.953 0.951 0.944 0.943 0.930 0.928 0.923 0.922 (continued)

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

189

(continued) GCI rank

Country

Technology rank

Talent rank

Tolerance rank

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 25 27

Australia New Zealand Ireland Canada Estonia Israel France Korea, Rep. Slovenia Spain Lithuania Czech Republic Austria Portugal Hong Kong SAR, China Singapore Italy Japan Poland Cyprus Andorra Latvia Greece Croatia Slovak Republic Malta Hungary United Arab Emirates Bulgaria Mauritius Jamaica Argentina Costa Rica South Africa Brazil Maldives Chile Namibia Russian Federation

20 25 24 20 27 5 12 1 23 29 38 26 6 30 36

9 15 15 22 13 10 41 29 37 45 12 41 70 51 28

14 7 9 8 27 53 21 49 26 12 41 28 20 16 38

0.914 0.907 0.905 0.900 0.866 0.864 0.849 0.840 0.826 0.826 0.816 0.806 0.802 0.802 0.792

17 20 3 33 55 32 60 34 46 41 52 27 39

3 60 59 26 27 58 19 44 34 47 47 41 19

84 24 46 51 30 22 36 43 47 41 31 63 104

0.789 0.784 0.780 0.777 0.773 0.773 0.764 0.752 0.741 0.733 0.732 0.730 0.666

42 71 62 83 99 47 45 90 74 67 30

39 65 76 60 60 108 82 37 84 89 25

83 38 37 32 16 25 54 57 29 33 142

0.665 0.642 0.642 0.639 0.636 0.631 0.628 0.622 0.616 0.613 0.595

28 29 30 31 32 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

GCI score

(continued)

190

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

(continued) GCI rank

Country

Technology rank

Talent rank

Tolerance rank

52 53 54 55 56 56 56 56 60

Romania Serbia Lebanon Dominican Republic Ukraine Uruguay Georgia Philippines Trinidad and Tobago Saudi Arabia Guyana Belarus Bahrain Cuba Macao SAR, China Suriname Thailand Montenegro Armenia Botswana Belize Turkey Panama Bolivia Togo Mongolia Venezuela, RB Malaysia Brunei Darussalam India Mexico Lesotho Fiji North Macedonia China Kazakhstan Moldova Gabon Qatar Albania

69 44 60 78 68 93 94 80 121

70 78 45 88 31 103 31 60 53

59 78 98 43 111 14 84 69 38

0.591 0.589 0.581 0.568 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.560

37 81 56 59 96 73 143 53 89 77 102 50 39 117 103 54 105 99 35 88 78 96 74 98 103 18 84 82 49 72 69

31 85 24 75 36 68 47 105 40 47 81 124 73 66 69 100 34 64 96 30 95 91 113 117 53 97 23 56 80 79 90

148 54 144 90 92 87 35 71 101 105 49 59 123 52 64 87 102 80 114 130 77 67 69 43 103 146 155 125 135 119 113

0.554 0.547 0.540 0.540 0.535 0.530 0.529 0.527 0.527 0.526 0.522 0.520 0.515 0.515 0.514 0.503 0.502 0.499 0.496 0.489 0.484 0.475 0.471 0.466 0.465 0.461 0.458 0.457 0.455 0.442 0.439

61 62 63 63 65 66 67 68 68 70 71 72 73 73 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

GCI score

(continued)

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

191

(continued) GCI rank

Country

Technology rank

Talent rank

Tolerance rank

92 93

Tunisia Syrian Arab Republic Ecuador Iran, Islamic Rep. Benin Jordan Colombia Nicaragua Niger Ghana Senegal Papua New Guinea Kyrgyz Republic Oman Peru Kenya Cameroon Cote d’Ivoire Paraguay Nepal Morocco Algeria Egypt, Arab Rep. Burkina Faso Kuwait Iraq Azerbaijan Sudan Bhutan Bosnia and Herzegovina Guinea Zambia Nigeria El Salvador Yemen, Rep. Angola Cambodia Haiti Uzbekistan

121 76

72 92

81 107

0.434 0.433

91 43 57 84 109 127 63 114 51 158 105 128 149 87 48 117 141 123 58 123 110 91 112 123 84 64 143 139

127 77 135 52 114 99 146 105 147 109 83 74 98 128 116 119 103 140 129 87 55 160 111 66 86 117 125 110

58 159 92 152 66 65 82 76 99 34 115 106 61 92 146 75 67 48 130 108 157 71 99 135 160 151 62 86

0.430 0.425 0.411 0.404 0.403 0.400 0.400 0.389 0.386 0.379 0.374 0.365 0.365 0.364 0.359 0.357 0.356 0.356 0.345 0.341 0.334 0.333 0.332 0.327 0.317 0.314 0.313 0.307

66 65 137 151 94 155 119 133 126

155 130 57 137 101 102 138 132 94

117 143 145 56 149 89 97 91 137

0.301 0.301 0.300 0.289 0.289 0.285 0.268 0.265 0.263

94 95 96 97 98 99 99 101 102 103 104 105 105 107 108 109 110 110 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 122 124 125 125 127 128 129 130

GCI score

(continued)

192

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

(continued) GCI rank

Country

Technology rank

Talent rank

Tolerance rank

131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

Libya Vietnam Mozambique Sierra Leone Afghanistan Congo, Dem. Rep. Lao PDR Guatemala Honduras Sri Lanka Mali Uganda Tanzania Madagascar Pakistan Mauritania Bangladesh Liberia Malawi Indonesia Chad Djibouti Gambia, The Zimbabwe South Sudan Myanmar Tajikistan Burundi Ethiopia Rwanda

129 114 136 131 112 101 130 153 156 139 107 134 110 157 151 135 120 143 143 131 114 143 159 108 143 160 150 142 154 138

93 133 157 141 133 149 125 148 130 114 157 142 150 157 111 123 143 122 145 138 151 107 136 154 121 153 120 152 143 156

138 117 73 96 123 119 119 78 92 132 122 112 128 74 127 134 129 125 108 133 140 156 116 153 150 110 158 140 139 154

GCI score 0.256 0.244 0.242 0.239 0.236 0.235 0.224 0.216 0.215 0.202 0.200 0.198 0.197 0.196 0.194 0.190 0.189 0.188 0.175 0.167 0.159 0.155 0.150 0.142 0.139 0.125 0.115 0.101 0.097 0.073

References Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494. Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics and economic growth: An ecosystem systems perspective. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 501–514.

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

193

Acs, Z., Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., & Márkus, G. (2019). Global entrepreneurship index. The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute.https://doi. org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17692.64641 Alesina, A., Glaeser, E., & Sacerdote, B. (2005). Work and Leisure in the United States and Europe: Why so different? NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 20, 1–64. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448. Asheim, B., Coenen, L., & Vang, J. (2007). Face-to-face, Buzz, and knowledge bases: Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(5), 655–670. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2713–2739). Elsevier. Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., & Desai, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and economic development in cities. The Annals of Regional Science, 55(1), 33–60. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. Basic Books. Cao, Z., & Shi, X. (2021). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 57 (1), 75–110. Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15, 1291–1321. Currid, E., & Williams, S. (2010). The geography of Buzz: Art, culture and the social Milieu in Los Angeles and New York. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(3), 423–451. De Bernard, M., Comunian, R., & Gross, J. (2022). Cultural and creative ecosystems: A review of theories and methods, towards a new research agenda. Cultural Trends, 31(4), 332–353. Dovey, J., Pratt, A., Moreton, S., Virani, T., Merkel, J., & Lansdowne, J. (2016). Creative hubs: Understanding the new economy. British Council. Drucker, P. (1969). The age of discontinuity. HarperCollins. Flores, A. R. (2021). Social acceptance of LGBTI people in 175 countries and locations 1981–2020. UCLA Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla. edu/wp-content/uploads/Global-Acceptance-Index-LGBTINov-2021.pdf Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books. Florida, R. (2017). The new urban crisis. Basic Books. Florida, R. (2019). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books. Florida, R., & Gates, G. (2001). Technology and tolerance: The importance of diversity to high-technology growth. Brookings Review, 20(1), 32–36.

194

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

Florida, R., & Gaetani, R. (2020). The university’s Janus face: The innovationinequality nexus. Managerial and Decision Economics, 41(6), 1097–1112. Florida, R., & Mellander, C. (2015). Segregated city: The geography of economic segregation in America’s Metros. University of Toronto. Florida, R., & Mellander, C. (2016). The geography of inequality: Difference and determinants of wage and income inequality across US Metros. Regional Studies, 50(1), 79–92. Florida, R., Mellander, C., & King, K. (2015). The global creativity index 2015. University of Toronto, Martin Prosperity Institute. https://www.divaportal. org/smash/get/diva2:868391/FULLTEXT01.pdf Florida, R., Mellander, C., & Stolarick, K. (2008). Inside the black box of regional development: Human capital, the creative class and tolerance. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 615–649. Florida, R., Mellander, C., & Stolarick, K. (2011). Creativity and prosperity: The global creativity index. University of Toronto, Martin Prosperity Institute. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/80125/1/Florida% 20et%20al_2011_Creativity%20and%20Prosperity.pdf Gill, R., Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (Eds.). (2019). Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy. Springer. Glaeser, E. L. (2005). Inequality (NBER Working Paper 11511). https://www. nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w11511/w11511.pdf International Labour Organization, ILOSTAT. (Various years). https://ilostat. ilo.org/data/ Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. Random House. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598. http://www.jstor.org/stable/211 8401 Jayne, M., & Bell, D. (2017). City of quarters: Urban villages in the contemporary city. Routledge. Jeffcutt, P. (2004). Knowledge relationships and transactions in a cultural economy: Analysing the creative industries ecosystem. Media International Australia, 112(1), 67–82. Komorowski, M., Lupu, R., Pepper, S., & Lewis, J. (2021). Joining the dots— Understanding the value generation of creative networks for sustainability in local creative ecosystems. Sustainability, 13(22), 12352. Koria, M., & Karjalainen, T. (2012). Learning in ecosystems: Design-intensive projects in the creative industries. International Design Business Management Papers, 2, 16–21. Lafuente, E., Acs, Z. J., Sanders, M., & Szerb, L. (2020). The global technology frontier: Productivity growth and the relevance of Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 55, 153–178.

THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX: NATIONAL CREATIVITY …

195

Lafuente, E., Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2021). A composite indicator analysis for optimizing entrepreneurial ecosystems. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2021.104379 Loots, E., Neiva, M., Carvalho, L., & Lavanga, M. (2021). The entrepreneurial ecosystem of cultural and creative industries in Porto: A sub-ecosystem approach. Growth and Change, 52(2), 641–662. Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3–42. Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States (Vol. 278). Princeton University Press. Marshall, A. (1890 orig./2015). Principles of economics. Andesite Press. Marx, K. (1867 [2012]). Das Kapital: A critique of political economy. Regnery. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press on Demand. Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, 1–6. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Belknap Press. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90. Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index. (various years). https:/ /rsf.org/en/2021-world-press-freedom-index-journalism-vaccine-against-dis information-blocked-more-130-countries Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 90, 1002–1037. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934a). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Allen & Unwin. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934b). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press. Smith, A. (1776/1937). The wealth of nations (E. Cannan, Ed.). Modern Library. Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65–94. Stam, F. C., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems (USE Discussion Paper Series, 16[13]). Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370. Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., Horváth, K., & Páger, B. (2019). The relevance of quantity and quality entrepreneurship for regional performance: The moderating role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1308–1320. UN Human Development Reports, Human Development Index. (various years). https://hdr.undp.org/

196

R. FLORIDA AND C. MELLANDER

Virani, T. E., & Malem, W. (2015). Re-articulating the creative hub concept as a model for business support in the local creative economy: The case of Mare Street in Hackney (Creativeworks London Working Paper Series). World Bank, World Development Indicators Data Bank. (various years). https:/ /databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property Statistics. (various years). https://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/ Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2022). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(3), 729–778.

Why a Better Understanding of the Ecosystems of Cultural Production Could Have a Major Impact on Public Policy John Newbigin

Introduction The terms cultural industries and creative industries were invented to corral a range of diverse activities that shared the fact that they were driven by the creative imagination, had some cultural as well as economic significance and were dependent for their commercial value on the originality or quality of whatever idea underpinned them—in other words the value of the intellectual property they generated. To group them together—however much the definitions between countries varied at the margins—and to imply they had some logical coherence as an industrial sector also implied they shared common characteristics, like any other industrial sector. But what were those common characteristics? Accepted definitions seemed to embrace every scale of business enterprise from the freelance artist to the global media corporation, while many parts of the cultural world were wholly or mainly dependent on public subsidy or private philanthropy. And although creative and cultural entrepreneurs complained endlessly about the uniquely difficult circumstances of their businesses, it seemed to sceptical outsiders that they had exactly the

J. Newbigin (B) University of London, London, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_11

197

198

J. NEWBIGIN

same range of challenges that any small entrepreneurial business faced: access to finance, access to markets, access to skills and access to business support. In short, there seemed to be more paradoxes than parallels in trying to identify any common features that might help to ‘understand the ecosystems of cultural production’. But perhaps the biggest paradox was that, despite these many inconsistencies, and the fact that mainstream economics—and economic policy— continued to ignore them, or at best regard them as marginal and somehow unserious—the ‘CCI’s’ (to sweep together the arts-based cultural industries and the more broadly defined creative industries, under their short-hand label) emerged as one of the fastest growing sectors of the global economy, with estimates that by 2030 they could account for 10% of global GDP. UN reports demonstrated that this growth was occurring in every region of the world, North and South, while figures from the UK and elsewhere indicated it to be a sector that was generating jobs at least twice as fast as the underlying rate of most advanced economies. Even so, they lacked a clear and common profile as a ‘sector’ with the consequence that much public policy, where it existed, lacked strategy and coherence. Then COVID struck. In its ‘Creative Economy Outlook 2022’ UNCTAD (2022) reported that in 2020 alone an estimated 10 million jobs in the creative sector were lost worldwide as a direct result of the pandemic and there was a contraction of $750bn in the global value of the CCIs. Furthermore, their fragmented nature, heavily dependent on individual freelancers, contract workers, informal working arrangements and small and underfinanced businesses, meant that the vast majority of cultural and creative workers found themselves without any form of social protection, even in States that developed generous support schemes for employees in sectors of the economy that were more conventionally organised or were deemed to be more essential. But this apparent fragility highlighted further paradoxes. First, and most obviously, art forms that depended on live audiences were devastated, while those that functioned online—or managed to transition to the online world—flourished; in fact the games industry experienced unprecedented growth. But more fundamentally, and most paradoxically, while the pandemic illustrated the fragility of most creative and cultural industries , it proved the strength and resilience of culture. Neighbours played music to entertain their neighbours. The online world was alive with games and gags. The Jerusalema dance challenge inspired people, especially public service workers, in every

WHY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOSYSTEMS …

199

part of the world. As the mighty engines of global production and trade ground to a halt, it was the intangible cultural networks of apparently disorganised communities that turned out to have the greater resilience and the most practical and nimble responses to a rapidly changing crisis; social capital rising to a challenge that finance capital was unable to meet. While governments focused all their energies on reviving the infrastructure of economic activity, they mostly ignored the evidence that what was stopping society from really imploding were the deeper infrastructures of culture. But once the pandemic appeared to be receding, voices around the world began to call for ideas that would not just ‘reset’ the global economy but enable it to ‘build back better’. Did that mean a more people-centred economy, finance capital rebuilding on the foundation of social capital? Perhaps more thought needed to be given to understanding the interplay between the economic realm and the cultural realm. And if that was true in the health crisis of the pandemic, might it not also be true in the long queue of challenges that still stretched ahead— growing inequalities of wealth and opportunity, huge increases in mental and emotional disorders, youth unemployment, machine learning and AI, environmental degradation and, most of all, climate change? In that larger context, the importance of culture—and therefore cultural production—acquires new and greater significance. In the same way that the factory system that arose during the first industrial revolution shaped the way cities were planned, taxes and trade were organised, children were educated and prosperity measured, even though factories only ever employed a minority of the working population, it might not be too wild an idea to consider the CCIs as giving an early indication of what life and work could look like in a post-industrial, post-globalised, digitally immersed and climate-change-impacted world, especially as they are once again growing, generating jobs as fast or faster than most other sectors, have relatively modest impact on the planet’s resources and, in general, seem to enhance the sense of well-being of those who produce and consume them. The question then is how will public policy respond? Will it feed the emerging ecosystem of cultural production in a positive and sensitive way, or will it seek to commodify culture—as many fear—and treat it as just another sector of the global industrial economy? To reduce the question to such simplicities may seem absurd because of the diversity of cultural production and the fact that some of the most powerful

200

J. NEWBIGIN

companies in the world are the mighty entertainment and media corporations who are at the heart of cultural production but who are hardly ‘creative’ in the way they work. But, given that the truly creative elements of cultural production are overwhelmingly dominated by micro and SME businesses and individuals, what are some of the essential dynamics of their world and can public policy respond with enough flexibility and sensitivity to nourish it rather than impede its growth or marginalise its importance?

Re-organising and Re-orienting Policy Approaches Nothing illustrates the need for a fresh approach more clearly than the way governments currently engage with the CCIs. Which Ministry should have responsibility for them? Culture or Business? The departmental silos of public administration, devised for the twentieth century, struggle to cope with the reality that it is no longer possible to disentangle cultural activity from economic activity. It is not as if the overlaps are not obvious and have been for a long time. A few examples—in the early 1990s the French President, Francois Mitterrand, successfully resisting an attempt by the US to insist that ‘free trade’ meant uncontrolled access for Hollywood to European cinema chains and TV networks declared ‘These things are not just commodities, they are expressions of the human spirit’, leading to what became known as ‘the cultural exception’. But was it right to call it an ‘exception’? A few years later the UN’s Creative Economy report (2013) stated: In today’s society, consumption is no longer a means of satisfying basic needs. It has gradually become a kind of cultural declaration and a way of expressing a personal sense of value.

The more economic activity became globalised, the more the desire for cultural distinctiveness in goods, services, entertainment and food grew too. More recently, in October 2022, at the World Conference on Creative Economy in Bali, Indonesia, the Angolan Culture Minister, highlighted another aspect of this shift when he said ‘People think they want goods, but what they really want are good moments’. His point was not just that the personal accumulation of commodities—the longestablished bedrock of most advanced economies, but just beginning to

WHY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOSYSTEMS …

201

have significant impact in sub-Saharan Africa—has failed to bring satisfaction or happiness to consumers but that, given the resources of the planet, commodity-driven consumer capitalism is not a sustainable proposition for the future and some truly fundamental changes in almost every aspect of our economies and our lives must be addressed. The one certainty is that an economy built on ‘good moments’ rather than goods would have culture at its core. The outlines of such a shift can already be glimpsed in the scores of cities that like to style themselves as ‘creative cities’ with ‘creative quarters’, prestigious cultural buildings and a rash of festivals that celebrate everything from film and fashion to food and heritage, and there is plenty of evidence to show that as well as giving the city a distinctive profile that helps attract visitors, new residents and investment, when this is sensitively managed it can have a positive impact on citizens’ sense of pride and identity. It brings together social, cultural and economic factors—an integration that seems relatively manageable at the level of a neighbourhood, a city or even a region and may be driven by the energy of a few individuals—a mayor, an official, an entrepreneur—but seems extremely difficult to manage at national level. However much policy wonks may enthuse about the need for ‘holistic approaches’, ‘over-arching narratives’, ‘moon-shot strategies’ or any other funky terminology to describe the need for convergence, the deeply embedded and complex systems of the nation-state have a long way to go in finding out how to make CCI policies integral to the way public policy works, not just between business departments and culture departments, but also in education, health, environment and foreign policy.

Strengthening Policy for ‘Imagination’ Another fundamental challenge for public policy comes from the value chain that drives cultural creativity. In ‘The Ecology of Culture’ John Holden (2015) identified three broad categories of cultural activity in a modern post-industrial society: subsidised, commercial and home-made. The dynamics of the three appear to be radically different—the first is seen as almost being outside the economy, heavily dependent on grants and subsidies; the second is very much part of the economy, attracting investment on an ever-greater scale and spawning whole branches of business management; while the third seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the economy or business whatsoever. But, in essence, they all depend on the same dynamic—the creative imagination of an individual.

202

J. NEWBIGIN

In fact, some of the greatest global commercial entertainment successes started out, literally, as bedtime stories for kids—think of JK Rowling or JR Tolkien. That creative process must be free-flowing and open-ended, though it may hit many dead-ends before it satisfies its creator or engages an audience. It is fundamentally different to the creative process of engineers or pharmaceutical researchers, attempting to address pre-defined challenges by testing propositions within the understood parameters of physics and chemistry. There are no objective laws or templates that can guarantee success in the creation of stories—or songs—or fashion garments (though thousands of manuals will try to convince you otherwise). It is an infuriatingly random process. The multi-million-dollar movie, crafted by experienced writers and studded with A-list stars may yet be a commercial flop while the sequence of images put together in 5 minutes by a kid on the bus to school may yet go viral and be enjoyed by millions. There are established conventions and genres, of course, but the premium is on those whose imagination takes them beyond the established conventions to something entirely new in form or content. So, it is extraordinary that most of the world’s education systems seem to put so little store by imagination—if anything, it is seen to be a bit of problem. In a speech in Glasgow in 2018, Andy Haldane, then the Bank of England’s chief economist, talked about the way in which Britain’s schools are still pre-occupied with knowledge, rather than with creativity and imagination: Knowledge and imagination are different creatures. To have knowledge is to know about things that exist. To have imagination is to conceive of things that don’t exist. And to be creative is to make real those things. Knowledge is vital for school exams and pub quizzes. Imagination is vital for ideas and innovation. And creativity is vital for human progress.

But in almost every country in the world, music, visual arts, theatre, dance—the disciplines that best enable young people to explore their own creativity and learn to appreciate the creativity of others—are dismissed as ‘soft subjects’, ‘nice-to-haves’ rather than qualities that are ‘vital for human progress’ in Andy Haldane’s phrase. UK governments express frustration that the country has failed to produce companies with the scale and clout of Apple or Google yet when Steve Jobs, Apple’s founder, was asked what made it the most successful company in the world, he replied that it was because it was ‘at the intersection of technology and

WHY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOSYSTEMS …

203

liberal arts’ while Eric Schmidt, as CEO of Google, told an audience of TV executives in Edinburgh that Britain was at its greatest ‘when the men who built bridges also wrote poetry’. But even with such unequivocal statements from captains of industry, education ministers plough on with squeezing imagination out of the curriculum—recreating the bleak and joyless school run by Thomas Gradgrind and Mr M’Choakumchild in Charles Dickens’ story ‘Hard Times’ (1854 [2016]). It is sadly unsurprising that so many of the most talented and successful artists, actors, singers, filmmakers and creative entrepreneurs say they got out of school at the earliest possible opportunity. Rather more importantly, while fostering creativity and imagination can enhance access to culture for every citizen, it is also the essential fuel for addressing the bigger existential challenges our society and our planet face. But culture is the key. There is a further dimension to this issue of creative skills that has political and social implications. An economy dependent on the creative imagination confounds the embedded hierarchies of skills and professional prestige that are central to most modern societies. Creative talent, emotional intelligence and the manual skills that underpin many creative activities even in an increasingly digital world, can all be fostered by formal education but are not dependent on it. Creative talent is innate and everywhere. What is often missing are the routes that enable individuals to develop and express that talent. This is sadly evidenced in Britain by the extraordinary lack of diversity in much of the cultural and creative sector (see Banks & O’Connor, 2009; Brook et al., 2018; O’Brien et al., 2016; Virani, 2023; Virani & Gill, 2019)—not a consequence of creativity being mysteriously restricted to privately educated white men but to the fact that they enjoy opportunities that most do not enjoy, through informal social networks and the good old Bank of Mum and Dad. So it is worth noting that in most of the world, the CCIs are seen as one of the most promising routes for the advancement of women, young people and marginalised communities that may suffer economic disadvantage but may also have exceptionally rich and live cultural traditions. The UN ‘Year of the Creative Economy’s Contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals’ in 2021 (initiated by Indonesia and supported in the UN almost exclusively by Asian, African and Latin American States) saw the empowerment of women and the potential for marginalised communities as central elements in the creative economy’s claim to contribute to sustainable development, and the final communiques of the last three G20

204

J. NEWBIGIN

Presidencies have all drawn attention to this fact (see Harper, 2021). The policy challenge is how to maximise the opportunities for creative talent to be expressed. In the meantime, creative people make their own opportunities, regardless of their personal or social circumstances, which is why so much of the creative and cultural economy is informal.

Policy Lag and the New Realities of ‘Work’ Telling stories, singing, dancing, making things are all, in President Mitterand’s phrase ‘expressions of the human spirit’. People do these things anyway, always have done and always will, for their own pleasure and for the enjoyment of those around them. In that sense the creative economy long predates any notion of ‘economy’ as a strand of activity that is somehow separate from life. What has catapulted much of this activity into the very heart of the global economy is digital technology which in a couple of decades has transformed people’s ability to express their creativity, to share, to work effortlessly across media, embracing sound and image, to co-create and critique, to establish wide-ranging partnerships across national borders, to access previously inaccessible information and entertainment, to reach global markets. The ‘people formerly known as the audience’ are becoming co-creators and co-producers, blurring the boundaries between the formal and informal economies of the cultural world. This blurring is highlighted in research undertaken by the PEC International Council and British Council (2021) during the pandemic which pointed out that there is no hard binary distinction between the formal and the informal but a ‘gradient’ between the two with many individuals operating at a number of different points on that gradient, moving in and out of what has conventionally been seen as formal work. The upsides of informality are obvious. It brings the freedom to work when you want and how you want, to work seasonally, to work alone or to work in partnerships without going through the cumbersome process of setting up a company or other formal business entity. The PEC research drew attention to another common reason for people to work informally and that is to avoid becoming entangled with bureaucracy or, more importantly, the corruption that in many parts of the world is seen as an inevitable consequence of contact with public officials. The downsides include vulnerability to exploitation, an inability to access formal finance, an inability to access skills, business support, market intelligence and, as

WHY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOSYSTEMS …

205

the pandemic made brutally clear, an inability to access social protection. All these factors militate against informal workers achieving their full potential—and that should be of great significance to public policy. There are other more obvious downsides for government, too, since informal workers pay no tax—although, the scale of tax evasion by big transnational platforms and content businesses, and the apparent reluctance of governments to pursue them, renders the sins of informal entrepreneurs virtually irrelevant. The more significant issue for public policy is that by failing to engage with informal businesses, the innovation, creativity and productivity that characterise many of them is not properly integrated into the wider economy. The informal economy is unplanned, un-measured and un-regulated—qualities that can not only impact negatively on individuals but, in a time of urban intensification, the over-use of resources, the unmonitored generation of waste and the impact of climate change, also imposes huge social costs. Omar Nagati, an architect who strives to bring some degree of order, standards and civic responsibility to the chaos of informal infrastructure and building in his home city of Cairo, says: Informality is about private actors pursuing private interest and should not be advocated as a long-term progressive agenda, but rather as an interim condition until a strong democratic state can be redeemed.

The impact and consequences of informal work need to be seen in a larger context (see Nagati & Stryker, 2020). The International Labour Organisation estimates 60% of the world’s economic activity is informal and in some countries is probably over 80%. Far from being the marginal exception, as most governments pretend, it is almost the norm, and as neo-liberal ideology pushes more and more workers into a world of casual contract work, zero-hours contracts and self-employment, it is governments themselves that are driving informality as the new norm. Yet our taxation, benefits, regulatory and social protection systems are all predicated on the assumption that the norm is paid employment in a company whose activities, revenues and working conditions can all be easily monitored. The Director General of the ‘D-8 Organisation for Economic Cooperation’ (the eight largest Muslim economies in the world) recently asserted that the era of paid work is coming to an end. While that may be an over-dramatic statement, the consequences of shifts already underway are momentous and, once again, cultural and creative workers are at the forefront of change. If informality is becoming the new normal, there is

206

J. NEWBIGIN

an urgent need for new forms of collective solidarity and social protection, the prescription and enforcement of health and safety standards and the development of practical safeguards against exploitation. All these issues are evident in the CCIs and were brought into focus by the pandemic. At the same time, the ubiquity of data and the IoT could allow governments to forge new, direct and well-informed relationships with individuals on issues of tax, benefits and social protection, just as blockchain and other tracking technologies open up new routes for artists, content creators and craft workers to be properly recognised and remunerated for their work and to prove the authenticity and provenance of what they create. The ecosystems of cultural production can be pioneers of a world in which the informal co-exists on a par with the formal. This is obviously of importance to a sector typified by bespoke, niche production. The cultural and creative sector does not, on the whole, value ‘scale’—it values originality and innovation. That is not to say that good ideas and good stories don’t spawn endless imitations, but the basic driver is original ideas and the creative imagination. Its products and services are, in that sense, ‘hand-made’ or, more accurately, ‘imagination-made’, and so provenance matters. Who sang the song, who made the garment, who wrote the script—who created the IP—matters. To an increasingly discriminating and well-informed public, the issues of how it was made, what it was made with and what were the conditions under which it was made are also important—all these things are much easier to track and authenticate with the ubiquity of data to which we now have access. The originality or uniqueness of each cultural product or service means that each one is, in effect, an exercise in R + D (research and development)—but without any of the generous incentives and fiscal cushions that underpin R + D in many other sectors of the economy. ‘Failure is work in progress’ as the rueful mantra of many a games developer puts it. The old Hollywood joke was that making movies was a ‘knownothing’ business because no-one had any idea whether a film would actually ‘work’ until it was on the screen in front of an audience. In the larger cultural ecosystem, grants and subsidies for the arts provide a partial substitute for R + D but the point about R + D is that it has a built-in acceptance of failure and public support for the arts is not predicated on the assumption of failure—the pressures are very much in the opposite direction. Rather than seeing a combination of public and private elements of cultural funding as necessary components of a larger ecosystem that produces both economic and cultural benefit, there is a

WHY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOSYSTEMS …

207

complete mismatch between the two. There is another glaring mismatch too. The UK government industrial strategy of 2017 included the creative industries as one of the potential growth sectors of the economy—but put great store on the need for increased productivity, rather missing the point that the creative sector is not about productivity. It is about originality. This is elegantly illustrated by Diane Coyle (2014) in her ‘Affectionate Guide to GDP’: Generally, any task that can be measured by the metrics of productivity—output per hour—is a task we want automation to do. In short, productivity is for robots. What humans excel at is wasting time, experimenting, playing, creating and exploring. None of these fare well under the scrutiny of productivity. That is why science and art are so hard to fund. But they are also the foundation of long-term growth.

Despite the emphasis on ‘individual creativity’ (DCMS, 1998), the reality is the journey from idea to cultural production is almost bound to be a group enterprise and, perhaps less obviously, benefits from a diversity of perspectives and experience—another crucial element of the ecosystem of cultural production. An early DCMS report (2007) on the creative industries, ‘Staying Ahead’, boldly asserted ‘diversity is more important than ability’. Musicians, particularly, seem to enjoy jamming with other musicians, even when they draw from different traditions, which probably explains an observation from the great Chinese/American cellist YoYo Ma who said ‘Creativity happens when cultures overlap’. This notion of diversity as a crucial element in the mix was highlighted by a research project in Brighton (Sapsed et al., 2013), which concluded that a judicious balance of creative, technical and business skills in the make-up of creative digital microbusinesses, with each element enjoying ‘parity of esteem’ with the others, was a more certain route to sustained growth than allowing things to be dominated by any single perspective. So, while the initial creative process may depend on the imagination of an individual or the combined imaginations of several individuals, what happens next depends on complicated social chemistry. That may be consciously engineered in some kind of a lab but it is more likely that the ‘lab’ is the community.

208

J. NEWBIGIN

Rethinking the Policy of ‘Place’ No wonder, then, that hubs and clusters have become such a common feature of CCI activity (see Gill et al., 2019; Komorowski & Picone, 2020; Shiach, et al., 2017; Virani & Malem, 2015; Virani et al., 2020). A recent PEC study (Siepel, 2020) has shown, as well as the celebrated clusters in major cities of the UK, there are literally hundreds of small mutually sustaining networks of individual entrepreneurs and microbusinesses all over the country. Fostering clusters has become a common policy initiative for local authorities and national governments, although the real underlying dynamic of many creative clusters and ‘cultural quarters’ has often been that, for a local authority, they solve problems of urban decline and decay at no cost to the public purse and, for private investors and speculators, they open the door to gentrification—with adverse consequences for the creative businesses and entrepreneurs who cleared the way (see Virani, 2019a, 2019b). A better understanding of what diversity should mean comes from Indonesia where the Creative Cities Network urges its more than 200 member cities to adopt what it calls a ‘pentahelix’ approach—with the five active ingredients of a creative city being community, business, government, a university and media. What this really says is that creativity is not the product of an artificially constructed hub or cluster but the natural outcome of a community with a broad diversity of perspectives, cultures, values and priorities—an open society. Small-scale and fragmented production brings other dynamics to the creative economy value chain that are different to the norms of the industrial economy. In the capital-intensive, mass-production world of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, power rested with those who owned and controlled the means of production. In the creative digital economy of the twenty-first century, power rests with those who own and control the means of distribution. In theory the online world gives every creative entrepreneur access to a global market. In practice she or he is at the mercy of Google’s opaque ranking system and, as every content creator knows only too well, reaching vast audiences on a global platform does not mean vast revenues flowing to the creator. The worst excesses of early capitalist ownership of the means of production were slowly moderated by legislation and by the evolution of joint stock companies and dispersed shareholdings that diluted the power of individuals and began to introduce notions of social responsibility in the business world. The power of a

WHY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOSYSTEMS …

209

handful of billionaires whose companies control distribution in the digital world is almost completely unmoderated and their global reach allows them to mock the efforts of national governments to tax and regulate them in the wider public interest. As it becomes ever more evident that this immense and unaccountable power is not just shaping economies but has even wider social and political impact, the pressure for public policy is growing—unfortunately at the very moment that the necessary concerted international action becomes less and less likely.

The Need for Demand-Side Policy Intervention And there is another issue for public policy to which the CCIs bring a special dimension. State interventions to promote them have, almost without exception, been on the supply-side—fiscal incentives, business support, affordable workspaces, grants and subsidies for the arts, attempts to raise skills levels. What is being ignored is the demand-side and, by its nature, a cultural economy needs culturally demanding customers if it is to flourish. Demand needs to be demanding. John Lanchester (2009) argued that gaming was one of few art forms that was evolving creatively and technically because of constant pressure from consumers for games that were more challenging—and the industry was having to respond. It is worth recalling that the Victoria and Albert (V&A) museum was opened in the mid-nineteenth century with the expressly educational purpose of encouraging working people to be more discriminating in their appreciation of both the aesthetic and the functional qualities of household objects that were beginning to be mass-produced and mass-marketed— in a word, to learn how to choose good design over bad design. It went out of its way to attract a new and wider audience by introducing such radical innovations as a café and gas-lighting that made possible late evening opening—to the horrified disapproval of the gentry. In an era of design thinking—when good design not only has an important aesthetic purpose, as it always has, but when it makes a huge difference in safeguarding our environment—whether we are talking about energy efficiency, waste reduction, the use of different materials, environmental degradation, species reduction, public health or the quality of public space—getting the demand-side right is an important issue. In a democracy that should not mean telling people what to think but it can mean teaching people how to think—how to exercise their own creativity in making judgements.

210

J. NEWBIGIN

Nor is it just a matter of encouraging private citizens to think more positively about the relationship between the quality of design and its impact on the physical, environmental or emotional world. In an official report on innovation in the British economy, Sir George Cox (2005) argued that the government was failing to use the huge power of public procurement to get better outcomes for society. One of his key observations was this: The issue is not simply whether a proposed solution offers value for money, or even the best value for money of the options considered, it is whether a greater value could be obtained from a more innovative solution, perhaps allied to looking at the problem in a wider context.

And to emphasise the need for a more open-ended and creative approach to procurement at every level of government—local authorities and public agencies just as much as Whitehall—he added, ‘There should be more opportunity for unsolicited novel approaches to meeting public sector needs, particularly where new technology is involved’.

Intermediation as a Key Policy Priority It is inevitable that public policy struggles to engage with the cultural and creative world. Easy for officialdom to feel frustrated by its myriad business models, diverse and fragmented nature, fast-changing technologies and skills needs and, too often, its lack of robust data. Easy for the creative world to feel that the cumbersome bureaucracy of government has no real engagement with its issues. So, it is unsurprising that intermediary organisations have evolved to facilitate communication between the two (see Jakob & Van Heur, 2015; Maguire and Matthews, 2014; O’Connor, 2015; Virani, 2019a, 2019b; Virani & Pratt, 2016). These have become so common and so significant in the evolution of the CCIs over the last two decades that it is tempting to say that they are now themselves crucial elements of the ecosystem of cultural production and will become permanent features not just of the ecosystem of cultural production but in the overall ecosystem of public policy. Of course, ‘intermediaries’ are nothing new, especially for freelancers and the self-employed. Mediaeval guilds represented groups of artisans and craftworkers, providing a system of mutual support, common standards, fair (and sometimes very unfair) prices and a collective voice to government. The modern intermediaries

WHY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOSYSTEMS …

211

of the cultural and creative world are more diverse and more significant. Some are government-funded agencies or public/private partnerships that provide specialised business support and investment, including microfinance of a kind that few commercial investors have the knowledge or patience to offer. Some act as advocates and research bodies, compiling evidence that has sufficient authority to stimulate government action. They act as brokers between the State and the creative sector, between investor and investee, between the formal and the informal. It is significant that some of the most innovative and enterprising of them are found in Asian countries, where the combined impact of climate change, urban intensification, youth unemployment, environmental damage and social inequality is at its most apparent. An organisation in India has brokered major commercial deals between groups of illiterate village craft workers and global retailers. An organisation in Indonesia works with whole communities, bringing together arts organisations, businesses, community groups and education institutions to promote creative solutions. An entrepreneur in Central Asia has persuaded his government to create what is in effect a half-way house between formality and informality for small creative businesses. These and countless other initiatives are helping to build more productive relationships between creative and cultural businesses, government, finance and civic society. They help public policy to evolve. One of the most important drivers of this process is the realisation that the CCIs not only bring cultural and economic benefits for society, they bring social and environmental benefits too.

Conclusion The Asian Development Bank Institute recently published a book of essays (ADBI, 2022) on rebuilding the global economy in the wake of the pandemic and, in his introduction, the Institute’s Director wrote ‘Creative industries are critical to the sustainable development agenda, as they have the potential to support inclusive, sustainable and equitable economic development’. There could hardly be a more emphatic statement of the importance of the creative economy, particularly when it comes from a region of the world where economic growth, and the challenges posed by growth, are at their most evident. Yet the significance of cultural and creative production has nearly always been underestimated. In 1896 Louis Lumiere, the inventor of cinema, described it as ‘an invention without any commercial future’. A little over a hundred years later the Economist

212

J. NEWBIGIN

magazine calculated investment in the screen industries was outstripping investment in the oil and gas industries. That is not to argue that entertainment should rank ahead of energy on the policy agenda but it highlights the extent to which public policy lags far behind evident reality; governments everywhere, including in the UK, dance to the tune of the old established sectors, construct elaborate policies to underpin them and not only pump billions into them but then billions more into mitigating their social and environmental consequences, while all but disregarding a sector whose activities and fundamental dynamics—whose ecosystem, in a word—has the ‘potential to support inclusive, sustainable and equitable economic development’. That is why a better understanding of the ecosystems of cultural production could have, and should have, a major impact on public policy—and why that needs to happen now.

References Asian Development Bank Institute, ADBI Press. (2022). Creative economy 2030: Imagining and delivering a robust, creative, inclusive, and sustainable recovery. https://www.adb.org/publications/creative-economy-2030-imagin ing-and-delivering-a-robust-creative-inclusive-and-sustainable-recovery Banks, M., & O’Connor, J. (2009). After the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(4), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/102 86630902989027 Brook, O., O’Brien, D., & Taylor, M. (2018). Panic! Social class, taste and inequalities in the creative industries. Cox, G. (2005). The cox review of creativity in business: Building on the UK’s strategy. SME’s in Manufacturing. Coyle, D. (2014). GDP: A brief but affectionate guide (p. 121). Diane Coyle, Princeton University Press. Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS). (1998). Creative industries mapping documents 1998. https://www.gov.uk/government/pub lications/creative-industries-mapping-documents-1998 Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS). (2007). Staying ahead: The economic performance of the UK’s creative industries. DCMS and The Work Foundation. Dickens, C. (1854 [2016]). Hard times (Fourth International Student ed.) (Norton Critical eds.). W. W. Norton. Gill, R., Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (Eds.). (2019). Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy. Springer.

WHY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOSYSTEMS …

213

Haldane, A. (2018). The creative economy. The Inaugural Glasgow School of Art Creative Engagement Lecture. https://wwwbankofengland.co.uk/-/media/ boe/files/speech/2019/the-creative-economy-speech-by-andy-haldane.pdf Harper, G. (2021). Sustainable development and the creative economy. Creative Industries Journal, 14(2), 107–108. Holden, J. (2015, February). The ecology of culture. John Holden, Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). https://creativeconomy.britishcouncil.org/resources/informal-economy-globalsouth/ Jakob, D., & Van Heur, B. (2015). Taking matters into third hands: Intermediaries and the organization of the creative economy. Regional Studies, 49(3), 357–361. Komorowski, M., & Picone, I. (Eds.). (2020). Creative cluster development: Governance, place-making and entrepreneurship. Routledge. Lanchester, J. (2009). Is it art? London Review of Books, 31, 18–20. Maguire, J. S., & Matthews, J. (Eds.). (2014). The cultural intermediaries reader. Sage. Nagati, O., & Stryker, B. (2020). Formal-informal interface: comparative analysis between three Egyptian cities. In Reframing the urban challenge in Africa (pp. 42–81). Routledge. O’Brien, D., Laurison, D., Miles, A., & Friedman, S. (2016). Are the creative industries meritocratic? An analysis of the 2014 British Labour Force Survey. Cultural Trends, 25(2), 116–131. O’Connor, J. (2015). Intermediaries and imaginaries in the cultural and creative industries. Regional Studies, 49(3), 374–387. PEC International Council/British Council. (2021). Informal economy in the Global South. British Council/PEC. Sapsed, J., Nightingale, P., Mateos-Garcia, J., Voss, G., Camerani, R., Coad, A., & Jones, P. (2013). The brighton fuse report. Brighton [Online]. http:/ /www.brightonfuse.com Shiach, M., Virani, T., Nakano, D., & Poli, K. (2017). Creative hubs and urban development goals: Policy report (Creative Hubs and Urban Development Goals: Policy Report). Siepel, J. (2020, November). Small engines of growth: Understanding creative microclusters. J Siepel, PEC. https://pec.ac.uk/blog/small-engines-of-gro wth-understanding-creative-microclusters UNCTAD. (2022). Creative Economy Outlook 2022. UNCTAD. https://unctad. org/publication/creative-economy-outlook-2022 UNDP. (2013). Creative Economy report—Widening local pathways. UNDP. https://en.unesco.org/creativity/screen/report-widening-local-develo pment-pathways

214

J. NEWBIGIN

Virani, T. E. (2019a). Exploring the relationship between creative hubs and urban policy in East London. In R. Gill, A. C. Pratt, & T. E. Virani (Eds.), Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy (pp. 341–357). Springer. Virani, T. E. (2019b). Local creative and cultural economy intermediaries: Examining place-based workers in the creative and cultural economy. Network: QMUL Centre for the Creative and Cultural Economy. Virani, T. E. (2023). Social inclusion and SMEs: The case of creative SMEs in Hackney Wick and Fish Island, London. City, Culture and Society, 32, 100493. Virani, T. E., & Gill, R. (2019). Hip hub? Class, race and gender in creative hubs. In R. Gill, A. C. Pratt, & T. E. Virani (Eds.), Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy (pp. 131–154). Springer. Virani, T. E., & Malem, W. (2015). Re-articulating the creative hub concept as a model for business support in the local creative economy: The case of Mare Street in Hackney (Creativeworks London Working Paper Series). Virani, T. E., Nakano, D., Shiach, M., & Poli, K. (2020). 9 São Paulo’s creative hubs. Creative Cluster Development: Governance, Place-Making and Entrepreneurship. Virani, T., & Pratt, A. C. (2016). Intermediaries and the knowledge exchange process. In R. Comunian & A. Gilmore (Eds.), Higher education and the creative economy: Beyond the campus (pp. 41–58). Routledge.

Exploring the Productivity Drivers in Zimbabwe’s Creative and Cultural Industries: Towards Resilient Creative Ecosystems Rudo Nyangulu

Introduction Sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) creative and cultural industries are vibrant, producing a variety of creative products and services that they export along with their talents to the Global North and within the region. Creative and Cultural Industries (CCIs)’ professionals in the region have experienced mixed results with failure being more prevalent for most, when trying to establish themselves and achieve productivity in their context. In the case of Zimbabwe’s creative economy, several CCI actors seek to navigate the resource-constrained economy with varying levels of support from the public institutions created to support the sector (Comunian et al., n.d.; Makanga-Majachane, 2020). Many of these institutions find themselves incapacitated, therefore, unable to create an enabling environment for sustainable growth. The CCIs are individually and collectively (ecosystems) impacted by global challenges and local socio-economic volatilities. The CCIs have had to be innovative in order R. Nyangulu (B) Stimulus Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_12

215

216

R. NYANGULU

to survive, and that innovation has driven collaboration through community building as a primary tool for economic and social resilience.

Context The challenges faced by this sector are far-reaching across Zimbabwe’s economy, which has been depressed for the last two decades, making it difficult for small businesses to grow (Kanyenze et al., 2017; Nyamunda, 2021; Nyoni & Bonga, 2018). Zimbabwe’s economic challenges date back further to the post-colonial economic restructuring through to the 1990s that failed to steady the economy, eventually leading to the country’s economic collapse by the late 2000s and resulting in hyperinflation and shortages across the board (Kanyenze et al., 2017; Niskanen et al., 2021). In the last decade, Zimbabwe’s CCIs have evolved significantly, adopting western approaches to collaborative working through networks in ‘creative hubs, collectives and spaces’ (see Gill et al., 2019; Dovey et al., 2016; Nakano et al., 2020; Virani & Malem, 2015) to achieve survival (Pratt, 2021). In the same period, the government, recognising the challenges faced by the sector, set out to develop the National Cultural and Creative Industries Strategy (CCIS) 2020–2030 (MakangaMajachane et al., 2020). The CCIS sets out the government’s roadmap and commitment to supporting the sector’s growth through the strengthening of ten pillars identified, which include cultural markets and business development, funding, financing and investment, cultural infrastructure, intellectual property protection and capacity building and training (Makanga-Majachane et al., 2020). The CCIS as a policy approach is noble, however it lacks the financial backing to drive it towards achieving the 10 pillars it sets out. Therefore, Zimbabwe’s CCI ecosystem does not receive sufficient or consistent funding, access to finance or investment and continues to lack adequate cultural and other infrastructure, which stifles its growth unlike its western counterparts. Furthermore, the regulatory and taxation environment in Zimbabwe does not provide an enabling environment for growth in this sector (Nyamunda, 2021). The context has driven the CCI’s to find ways to navigate around them and innovate to enable their survival. As a result, creative hubs and spaces have been established to attempt to fill the gap by providing critical services to the CCIs and lobbying for better policies for the sector (Joffe, 2013) as well as the effective implementation. This approach is noble. However, many of these hubs and

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

217

spaces are under-resourced as they rely on member subscriptions, donor funding and income from service provision (for example, rentals from space and consulting fees). However, these organisations are inhibited by the same regulatory environment as their members, making it challenging to sustainably support their members, the creatives and cultural practitioners. The COVID-19 pandemic years and post-pandemic impact have further exacerbated the complex business operating environment in the country (Igwe et al., 2018). The CCIs who participated in the study reflected on these challenges and shared how they have attempted to navigate them, albeit in a resource-constrained environment. A key foundational concept adopted by the sector as essential to collaboration and sustainability in creative ecosystems is the development of a sharing economy built on trust. Trust and trustworthiness are critical for achieving efficiency in any economy more so in this sector (Arai, 2007), which has its roots in a sharing economy (Hawlitschek et al., 2016). The trust amongst the CCIs drives the decision to collaborate/partner and determines these working relationships within the creative ecosystems. The need for and acquisition of trust is complex, even more so in contexts where scarcity, hyperinflation, regulatory inefficiencies and corruption bottlenecks plague the economy and stifle growth. Individual CCI practitioners have had to be innovative in their positioning in the ecosystem to ensure survival. Using bricolage capabilities to drive productivity is an innovative approach enabling CCIs to raise funds, identify collaborators and access skills and other resources that would not ordinarily be available to the CCIs. The CCI ecosystems need to be anchored in the sharing economy to ensure their sustainability in the long term. In this chapter, Zimbabwean creatives, collectives and the sector enablers (hubs, spaces) give insights into how they have navigated the contextual barriers and the COVID-19 pandemic, employed bricolage capabilities and dared to invest in a trust economy to survive. They describe their positive choices and share their self-organisation, embracing bricolage capabilities and investing in trust through their networks to achieve productivity (Godoy & Nelson, n.d.; Linna, 2013).

218

R. NYANGULU

Literature Review Trust and Sharing Economy The term ‘Sharing Economy’ refers to ‘collaborative (use) and consumption made by the activities of sharing, exchanging, and rental of resources without (necessarily) owning the (means of production)’ (Puschmann & Alt, 2016). Within the concept of the ‘sharing economy’, the most relevant description, ‘pseudo sharing’ or ‘commercial sharing’, comes from Hawlitschek et al. (2016). Pseudo or commercial sharing is where resources are added into a pool in order to utilise them to create value (new products and services) and earn money through it (Cheng, 2016; Hawlitschek et al., 2016). Though more leaning towards inclusivity in the context discussed in the literature (see Virani et al., 2018), the concept of a shared economy has limited information on how it is applied in the African context and shortage economies. The theory, which focuses on resource sharing, assumes that existing resources are most likely held and distributed at the national level in a western context. In the Global South, it is more likely to be held by an ecosystem enabler (hubs, spaces, donors) as a fund that the CCIs could access. However, this is often not the reality on the ground. These limited funding pots do not stretch far enough, are often restricted and are not sustainability-focused. Therefore, with limited government and development (donor) funds to access, this leaves in the resource required for sharing within the ecosystem, being those coming from the lesser personal resources of the CCIs themselves. The concept of a shared economy can only be established on trust and thrive based on the trustworthiness displayed by the ecosystem members over time. Trust can therefore be considered the anchor that grounds creative (enterprise) ecosystems in Zimbabwe. It enables the CCIs to activate bricolage capabilities to yield productivity collectively. Trust is so integral to how the individual actors respond to and contribute in the ecosystem that Botsman (2012) labelled trust the sharing economy’s ‘currency’. Arai (2007) defined trust as the belief that the other person you are engaged with will deliver according to their word (your agreement together) or in accordance with the social norms associated with that particular action or activities. Arai described this expectation in terms of subjective probability (Arai, 2007). The essential elements of the application of trust are transparency, openness and communication, giving assurances to those in the network that rules are in place to govern how the network engages in the

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

219

sharing economy, ensuring to the best of their ability that the members of the network are trustworthy (Arai, 2007). Bricolage-Enabled Collaboration Bricolage, as is considered here, is defined as a behavioural trait or skill that allows CCIs to be agile in their business operations in challenging resource-constrained environments (Witell et al., 2017). Therefore, collective bricolage is considered as an extension of the concept that focuses on creating new knowledge, co-creation and partnerships primarily through interaction with and learning from other actors in creative ecosystems. The possibilities for viability and profitability presented by a group of CCIs taking a co-creation partnership approach to achieve creative production at a very high standard are significant (Watkins et al., 2015). Witell et al. (2017) identified four distinct bricolage capabilities that are critical when applying the theory of bricolage to these types of collaborations. These four capabilities are: addressing resource scarcity actively, making do with what is available, improvising when recombining resources and networking with external partners (Witell et al., 2017). These capabilities as they apply to Zimbabwe’s creative and cultural ecosystems drive a ‘sharing economy’ and are particularly relevant and key not only to their viability but to their survival. Each actor participating in the sharing economy must activate these capabilities and their entire arsenal of skills contributing to their creative hubs and spaces. Ensuring that the skills and other resources to be shared in these ecosystems are utilised effectively for the greater good is also essential to their success and prioritised in the Zimbabwean context where creative ecosystems are organised with a focus on sustainability. This should alleviate the concerns raised in literature that bricolage approaches result in inferior quality outputs (Obamba, 2013). Creative Ecosystems According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD, 2021), ‘the creative economy is an evolving concept that builds on the relationship between human creativity, knowledge and technology focused on creating value’ (UNCTAD, 2021). The development of creative economy literature in Africa has been driven by an

220

R. NYANGULU

ecosystem approach (Comunian et al., 2021; Joffe, 2013). A creative ecosystem driven by various actors interacting and creating synergies to drive innovation and knowledge sharing is critical to sustainable growth. A considerable amount of literature has been published on Creative and Cultural Ecologies and Ecosystems (CCEE) in the UK and other western countries (see de Bernard et al., 2022; Union, 2020). This literature has a clear bias towards scholarship and policy, significantly influencing this space. As a result, a narrow western policy perspective on CCEE that has not extended to the Global South has been established (Bernard et al., 2022). Despite its geographical origination and the resulting concentration of research on the sector, the CCEE framework does have some global reach (Bakalli, 2015) with the potential to be applied far beyond the initial western contexts in which it was developed (de Bernard et al., 2022). There has been an increasing interest in Africa’s Creative and Cultural Industries (CCIs) and the ecosystem approach they have adopted in the sector’s growth (Joffe, 2013) in recent years. This collective approach driving collaboration between creative enterprises in the cultural and creative industry has been described in the literature as a ‘project ecology’ characterised by knowledge generation and as ‘ecologies of creativity’ (Grabher, 2004). They have also been called ‘creative industries ecosystems’ that build on indigenous talent and knowledge coupled with an entrepreneurial approach, thereby adding economic value (Jeffcutt, 2004). The ecosystemic lens presented by Grabher and Jeffcutt, supported by the study by (Dovey et al., 2016), carried out on creative hubs and spaces, shows them being the nucleus of these ecosystems, driving a new creative economy. In the Zimbabwean context, creative ecosystems have become essential drivers towards resilience for the sector actors. The actors in these creative ecosystems in Zimbabwe include but are not limited to individual creatives, creative enterprises, cultural practitioners and enabling organisations (creative hubs, spaces, training centres). Supporting organisations that feed into the ecosystem include academia, national arts and culture bodies, International Donors, Corporate companies and research institutions. These actors collaborate to drive the creative economy through multi-sector projects and partnerships (Bakalli, 2015), forming the creative ecosystems in the country. The potential value of collaboration through an ecosystem approach, as has been adopted by Zimbabwean creative ecosystems, is yet to be realised, presenting an opportunity.

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

221

Zimbabwe’s creative ecosystems have had to consider innovative survival strategies to remain resilient despite resource scarcity and a shrinking economy through bricolage capabilities (Bakalli, 2015; Joffe, 2013; Shafi et al., 2020). In the literature on creative ecosystems, there is little documentation on the application of bricolage (Ferneley & Bell, 2006; Godoy & Nelson, n.d.; Linna, 2013; Witell et al., 2017) as a productivity driver towards profitability (Schreyer & Pilat, 2001). However, these ecosystems exhibit bricolage capabilities through their collectives/networks approach to organising their work whilst making do with the resources available and essentially making something out of nothing in many instances to survive (Witell et al., 2017). The CCI actors can refine their resource management skills and effectively utilise their limited resources to achieve maximum productivity.

Methodology Qualitative research techniques were adopted through a digital survey. This was the most relevant approach to achieve the research goal of gaining perspectives from creative hubs/spaces and their members in Zimbabwe’s primary cities of Harare, Bulawayo and Mutare. An abductive reasoning approach has been utilised to make inferences that ascribe special significance to descriptive considerations about the creative ecosystems in these cities (Taylor et al., 2018). This study identified vital informant groups, namely creative hubs and spaces that drive Zimbabwe’s creative ecosystems. It was essential to have participation from the three main economic centres of the country, namely Harare, Bulawayo and Mutare. From each city, at least one creative hub representative was identified to respond to the research questions. There was also an emphasis on gaining responses from at least one women-led or focused hub in at least two main economic centres. Finally, it was necessary to get perspectives from individual creatives and cultural practitioners co-creating in these cities to create value. Through desk research leading to engagement with the creative and cultural industry enablers like the British Council Zimbabwe, Stimulus Africa and the Zimbabwe German Society-Goethe Zentrum Harare, the sample size was defined, and the critical informants were selected to complete the digital survey.

222

R. NYANGULU

A thematic analysis identified the most common themes amongst the hubs and CCI actors across Zimbabwe. The Gioia method of data analysis was utilised, and the analysis approach began with ordering the concepts, identifying and categorising the themes, and aggregating the extents (Gioia et al., 2013). Ensuring validity and ease of verification of the data source, the research findings were recorded via a digital survey to enable a re-examination of captured data (Maxwell, 2012). Due to the geographical spread of the key informants in this postCOVID-19 pandemic environment, this study was conducted virtually using a digital tool to gather data. The time constraint within which data needed to be collected also presented a limitation. Some would-be respondents could not respond to the survey in time due to their schedule and commitments, resulting in one response from Mutare. Whilst the restriction of movement and respondent availability is present, technology enabled the research to be still a nationwide data collection exercise which received meaningful insights. This study reached out to and gained insights from respondents living across the country, in the primary economic centres, Harare, Bulawayo and Mutare, with a representative sample of seventeen respondents comprising individual creatives, hubs, spaces and collectives. Of whom 52.9% were male and 47.1% were female, the participating respondents were concentrated in Harare, representing 76.5% of respondents. 7.4% of the respondents were in the age range of 31–40.

Findings Ecosystem Landscape A respondent pointed out that ‘most of the work (creatives can access) in Zimbabwe comes through networks and connections’. This presents the business case for collaborative working and makes working alone as a creative or cultural practitioner counterproductive for growth or sustainability. Working in a hub or as part of a collective helps to boost capacity in several ways; for example, it naturally allows for collaboration, opening and sharing of work space, networks, markets, skills and knowledge share, personal development, accessing opportunities, securing grant funding and fostering innovation. Of the participating respondents, 58.8% indicated that they have not observed or participated in innovation initiatives within Zimbabwe’s CCI ecosystem. On the other hand, 35.3% indicated

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

223

that they have observed or participated in innovation initiatives, and 5.9% have, in part, been exposed to innovation within the creative and cultural industries. 41.2% of all respondents stated that they were aware of at least one female-led/female-only collective or group in Zimbabwe that generates revenue for its members. They shared more insights into the gender imbalances of the CCI sector in Zimbabwe, from a lack of gender equity to workplace safety issues for female relatives. The need for safe spaces for women to work was highlighted by some respondents. This represents a call for more women-only support, hubs, and spaces to be created to give more women access to supportive, safe, economically empowered hubs and spaces to create in and enable them to gain access markets. The CCIs that participated in the survey are from Harare, Bulawayo and Mutare. These are the three major cities in the country and are representative of the main regions in the country within local creative ecosystems. Mutare was the smallest ecosystem, with a mix of creatives and cultural practitioners primarily from the visual and performing arts sectors. There are, however, very few creative hubs and spaces in the city supporting the Eastern Highlands region; only one hub participated in the survey. Bulawayo, the second largest city in the country, has multiple creative sectors and actors. In Bulawayo, the various actors co-exist in one macro-ecosystem, from individual creatives to enabling organisations, albeit with several networks of hubs and spaces. The city that demonstrated the most cohesion and collaboration of the three is Harare, the largest city, which has several creative hubs, entrepreneurial hubs, spaces and collectives that CCIs can connect with and participate in. These hubs and spaces and their connecting actors (networks) often work in silos and generally come together during festivals and national platforms (government) that bring the ecosystem together. International Donors also play a convening role in bringing the creative ecosystem together to co-create and share knowledge and information. Trust and Sharing Economy As clear as the respondents were that they could not sustainably work alone and make meaningful progress in their enterprises; they were equally convicted that they could not work with other creatives they did not trust. The trust issues that arose came from cultural dynamics existing in the Southern African context and were highlighted by many respondents. Concerns about trust that were raised include reputation risk when

224

R. NYANGULU

working with creatives they do not know well or when recommending other creatives for work opportunities. The concern was primarily in relation to the levels of professionalism, or lack thereof, from these creative entrepreneurs and the impact any failure on their part would have. Sharing ideas was another area where some respondents expressed bad experiences in the past linked to networks without clear rules. The lack of structure and confidentiality in a hub network or collaborative that governs the ecosystem was another area where some respondents expressed concern and scepticism due to past experiences they had gone through or heard about. Very clear trust issues came through from one female respondent whose negative experiences resulted in a preference to participate in collaborations and co-creation or partnerships with womenonly. The respondent experienced inequality when it came to pay in collaborations led by male creatives they had worked with. The male creatives in that community would typically impose themselves into leadership positions to ensure they earned more than the women working on collaborative projects. In women-only creative hubs, the respondent found that resources were distributed more fairly. Other respondents described previous experiences where partnerships had failed to result in a meaningful monetary or reputational value and had ended badly. Trust is, therefore, the determinant when it comes to collaboration, co-creation and partnership, which are essential for the sharing economy to thrive. In this sense, trust is significant, but is difficult to quantify. However, where trust has been established in those collaborative relationships, the CCI professionals have successfully created new products and services for the market. Through harnessing bricolage capabilities and establishing trust, creative entrepreneurs and cultural practitioners can cocreate, achieving productivity. Co-creation and collaboration are recognised as essential towards sustainability and profitability in Zimbabwe, particularly for creative enterprises seeking to grow. Co-creation was described as sharing the limited resources each actor had available. It included sharing skills and spaces in a ‘barter system’ to enable each actor to create new products collaboratively or support each other in producing existing products/services and share markets. Drivers Impacting Profitability The respondents identified drivers that negatively impact their profitability, with most respondents identifying four primary themes within

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

225

the drivers: lack access to affordable finance, the negative impact of macroeconomic dynamics, digital exclusion and lack of professional services. Lack of access to affordable finance for operational use and investment is the primary challenge around financing. Furthermore, financial literacy is low, which impacts CCI’s ability to manage financial matters, including but not limited to poor cash flow, non-availability of funding opportunities and knowledge on diversifying funding and delays in client payments. High tax rates are another factor which hinders the formalisation of creative enterprises. In response to this, some CCIs have opted to remain informal, unregistered and unbanked, forcing them into a cash economy in a country with restricted access to cash. Other CCIs have innovated by creating alternative financing mechanisms by pooling resources available to each community/hub/space member to give the group access to specific opportunities or services or simply to sustain the group in low-income seasons. Macroeconomic dynamics impacting the CCIs are rooted in Zimbabwe’s socio-economic instability compounded by its failed economic resuscitation in recent years, characterised by a multi-currency environment and inflation. The COVID-19 global pandemic and the ongoing post-pandemic impact on the economy locally and globally adversely impact the CCI’s productivity. The economic environment has also created Limited networks without access to international audiences and opportunities to sell creative products and services. In addition, policy inconsistencies and gaps have also contributed to exacerbating the adverse impact; for example, there are no recognised policies for the regulation and promotion of social enterprises, many of which reside in creative and cultural spaces—many CCIs remain informal for that reason. As a result, the professionalisation of the sector is lagging. In response to the financial constraints described above, the creative hubs and spaces have not let their lack of authority to influence the macroeconomic challenges stop them from innovating at a micro-level to enable productivity in their communities. Their innovative approaches are based on the bricolage of addressing resource scarcity actively and making do with what was available to them, having identified workarounds for some of the bottlenecks presented by the multi-currency operating environment and policy inconsistencies. For Zimbabwe’s CCIs, digital exclusion means not having access to affordable connectivity packages (WIFI and mobile data). The lack of digital device affordability makes it difficult for CCIs to use digital

226

R. NYANGULU

tools and platforms effectively to achieve profitability. Network coverage, insufficient infrastructure and poorly electrified existing base stations or network present a serious challenge at a macroeconomic level. The high cost and continued escalating WIFI and data tariffs/pricing, a significant impediment to digital access, coupled with the creative’s financial capacity to have digital access, is a considerable obstacle resulting in digital exclusion. In response to the operating environment constraints described here, the creative hubs and spaces and their members have had to pivot to a digital delivery model of their creative products and services during and after the worst COVID-19 pandemic. One respondent identified an opportunity to track new consumer behaviours around online shopping (e-commerce) and align its business activities to enable them and their community to sell online. Lack of access to professional services due to affordability was highlighted as negatively impacting the CCI’s ability to be productive. Poor understanding of the law without professional support has led to poor contracting practices, protracted and costly debt collection exercises and unprotected intellectual property. Likewise, low levels of financial literacy have also led to poor financial controls/systems, and the resource to access professional accounting services are some of the outcomes of this theme experienced by the respondents. In response to the financial constraints described above, the formalised hub model utilised all four of the bricolage capabilities to create value for its members by addressing resource scarcity actively through the aggregation of needs and purchasing to reduce the overall costs. The term ‘bootstrapping’ associated with the start-up community is a bricolage capability that promotes ‘making do with what is available’ whilst recombining resources through an agile approach to business model innovation to secure.

Analysis The main question considered in this chapter is the extent to which Zimbabwe’s creative ecosystem can leverage a sharing economy to overcome contextual barriers to achieve productivity and become selfsufficient and productive. The study identified an expansive fragmented creative ecosystem that exists in Zimbabwe. Creative hubs drive this ecosystem, spaces and collectives that are primarily independent and, therefore, not consistently constituted or in a fixed location due to the high administrative operating costs when renting a physical space.

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

227

Whilst there is some Government support through policy formulation, for example, Zimbabwe’s Culture and Creative Industries Strategy, this has been limited in application. The strategy aimed to present a clear roadmap designed to guide the development and growth of Zimbabwe’s cultural and creative industries (CCIs) sector up to 2030 and garner the required leverage to get investment from supporters (MakangaMajachane, 2020). Implementing this strategy effectively, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021), was impossible. There has been consistently poor policy implementation coupled with low investment in the sector’s infrastructure, which has stifled the growth of the creative economy. This has been compounded by the country’s economic decline, characterised by high inflation rates, cash shortages and a multi-currency system destabilising the operating environment and negatively impacting private sector growth (Kanyenze et al., 2017; Nyoni & Bonga, 2018). The hubs that participated in the study indicated that their members did not benefit from the government’s efforts to support the sector during the extended lockdowns that were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the collectives, creative hubs and spaces, along with their CCI members, remain primarily self-financed or partially funded by corporate companies through their corporate social responsibility (CSR) or innovation programmes. Alternatively, development agencies and sectorenabling non-governmental organisations support these hubs and spaces financially. The funding invested through these channels is often for training or mentorship programmes and a modest contribution to operational costs for the hub, the creatives or both; however, these funds generally do not cover all the overhead costs leaving these actors at a disadvantage. Rarely has finance been availed for direct finance to invest in productivity for profitability. Hubs and spaces are, therefore, mostly resource-constrained, exacerbated by the pandemic’s negative impact on these funding streams. The creative ecosystem was consequently forced to pivot, something that Zimbabweans broadly refer to as ‘making a plan’, often out of little or no resources (bricolage). Those hubs and spaces in the sharing economy that are formally organised, structured and managed, offering space or professional services, with membership agreements, a code of conduct and strategic partnerships in their networks, were better positioned to withstand the pandemic’s impact on the continued turbulent economic environment in Zimbabwe.

228

R. NYANGULU

The study respondents highlighted not being aware that they were innovating, which was done in response to changes in the operating environment that amplified the challenges of resource scarcity faced by CCI’s in Zimbabwe. For many, what was identified as innovating was merely adaptation and did not yield any significant improvement on an existing product/service or create anything new. What came through clearly from the contributions of the various hubs is the harnessing of and reliance on bricolage capabilities for survival. How these capabilities are being applied speaks clearly to innovative strategies designed to gain a competitive advantage and ensure sustainability for its members. An example of how this works in practice in Zimbabwe today, a creative hub develops its own internal ‘currency’ or value system for services its members offer each other. It enables each member to access high levels of skills, innovativeness and creativity without needing to have the cash upfront to pay for it whilst offering their services to the network as well in the form of exchange. This led to a focus on network-enabled co-creation utilising existing available resources, two of the four bricolage capabilities identified by (Witell et al., 2017). Shrinking spaces due to the underperforming economy and pandemicinduced lockdowns drove hubs and spaces to innovate more deliberately. One respondent indicated that they innovated by leveraging economies of scale within their community when procuring materials and sharing other operational costs which one member would have struggled to shoulder alone. Another responded and shared how their hub leveraged the network in their community to access more significant markets by offering a ‘one-stop shop’ type offering which increased all members’ visibility and opened access to new markets. They underwent a digital transformation process, tapping into virtual collaboration, digital storytelling and content creation. This transition included learning new skills to enable access to and effectively use new digital media and social media by utilising free online tutorials, such as YouTube. Creative hubs and spaces managers collaborating with members to improvise when recombining resources owned by the community to leverage the wider pool of resources for the benefit of all members. Kor and Mahoney cited Penrose (1959), who defined resource recombination as the primary source of innovation in firms. The ability of a firm to synthesise and use existing and acquired knowledge has been described as ‘combinative capabilities’ (Kor. & Mahoney, 2000). There is clear evidence of combinative capabilities being utilised in some of the hubs

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

229

that participated in the study, primarily those in Harare. Members utilised generated and gained knowledge to co-create and collaborate, working on commercial projects in teams to deliver value for profit. This has enabled the creatives involved to access specialist services and sell them to their clients without pre-financing the work. Internally, the ‘hub currency’ or ‘trust economy’ (Hawlitschek et al., 2016), created in the hub, serves as a sufficient guarantee to motivate its members to offer their skills to co-create, resulting in productivity and profitability for the community. Eternally, the collective hub community provides ‘network power’, offering credibility and clout to its members. This, in turn, is opening international markets and audiences for the hub community members collectively and individually. Seeking regional and global growth opportunities for high-performing CCIs through enabling networks (i.e. regional and international hubs, spaces and/or networks) is a credible approach. One respondent shared how they could access funding from the British Embassy. Through that initiative, they could co-create with two other organisations in the other provinces. The opportunity enabled them to grow their network and participate in a knowledge exchange and skills development in Zimbabwe and India, focusing on production and marketing.

Conclusion Enterprise development practitioners, as well as hub and space managers supporting the creative economy’s growth, have a keen interest in the capacitation of CCIs, enabling productivity and profitability. The case for mainstreaming and defining an approach for CCIs and their enabling organisations (hubs and space networks) to develop a sharing economy founded on its members adopting bricolage capabilities and fortified by trust is evident (Witell et al., 2017). The study set out to learn about Zimbabwe’s creative ecosystems and understand how they have responded to the contextual barriers they face. Some demonstrated that their CCI members were already utilising some bricolage capabilities to achieve productivity in collaboration with other creatives. Others demonstrated that they were partnering to co-create, all with varying levels of success and failure. It is clear that creatives and cultural practitioners struggle to operate in Zimbabwe independently. All the actors in the creative ecosystem need to work together, pool their

230

R. NYANGULU

resources, share their skills and innovate, co-create and collaborate to achieve productivity. It would be prudent to link the hub network across the country to have a more cohesive and broader creative ecosystem. However, there will be a need to resource the network and build trust over time. With the trust established, the CCI actors can better understand the application of the bricolage capabilities and how they can be utilised to support co-creation given the resource scarcity they face. This sharing economy approach, essentially is a new form of hub currency, enabling the CCI members of a creative hub or space community to combine their resources in their micro-environment and thrive. These microenvironments allow the individual members to amplify bricolage capabilities that naturally exist in emerging markets like Zimbabwe (Rajagopal & Behl, 2019). There is a need to be deliberate about creating more of these spaces and presenting them with a blueprint for growth. It is clear that on their own, Zimbabwe’s CCI hubs and spaces already practice a form of bricolage as sharing tends to naturally occur out of necessity for survival. Utilising the bricolage approach to productivity and profitability without fully exploiting the bricolage capabilities approach proffered by Witell et al. (2017) is a missed opportunity for many of these hubs and spaces. They require a ‘blue print’ which essentially is a systematic and innovative shift in their business models enabling them to adapt their processes. The business model adaptation required here is rooted in the space and hub managers ability to lead the membership in harnessing the bricolage capabilities within the hubs membership in a structured processbased approach. Implementation of the business model adaptation needs to be driven by solid management which will save the creatives, hubs and spaces time and resources by providing structure.

References Arai, K. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness in the economy: How they function and how they should be promoted. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 48(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/43296192 Bakalli, M. (2015). The creative ecosystem: Facilitating the development of creative industries. Botsman, R. (2012). The currency of the new economy is trust [video file]. https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_currency_of_the_new_eco nomy_is_trust?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_sou rce=tedcomshare

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

231

Cheng, M. (2016). Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57 , 60–70. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003 Comunian, R., Hracs, B. J., & England, L. (n.d.). Understanding and supporting creative economies in Africa. https://doi.org/10.18742/pub01-048 Comunian, R., Hracs, B. J., & England, L. (2021). Understanding and supporting creative economies in Africa: Education, networks and policy: A policy report. de Bernard, M., Comunian, R., & Gross, J. (2022). Cultural and creative ecosystems: A review of theories and methods, towards a new research agenda. Cultural Trends, 31(4), 332–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/095 48963.2021.2004073 Dovey, J., Andy, P., Pratt, C., Moreton, S., Virani, T., Merkel, J., & Lansdowne, J. (2016). Creative hubs: Understanding the new economy. www.britishcouncil. org/creativeconomy Ferneley, E., & Bell, F. (2006). Using bricolage to integrate business and information technology innovation in SMEs. Technovation, 26(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.03.005 Gill, R., Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (Eds.). (2019). Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy. Springer. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442811245 2151 Godoy, H., & Nelson, R. E. (n.d.). Creating something from nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Related papers. Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30037207 Grabher, G. (2004). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 11(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/096977640404 1417 Habonimana, O. (2013). Investigation into factors that constrain Banks to bank the Unbanked SME’s in Zimbabwe: The case of Harare CBD. Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., Adam, M. T. P., Borchers, N. S., Möhlmann, M., & Weinhardt, C. (2016). Trust in the sharing economy: An experimental framework (No. 37th). 37th International Conference on Information Systems. HIVOS Southern Africa (commissioned research). (2021). Excelling in Tandem: Past, present, future-new ways of working for creatives in the COVID-19 context: A research for Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

232

R. NYANGULU

Igwe, P. A., Onjewu, A. E., & Nwibo, S. U. (2018). Entrepreneurship and SMEs’ productivity challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Entrepreneurship, 2012, 189–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73700-3_9 Jeffcutt, P. (2004). Knowledge relationships and transactions in acultural economy: Analysing the creaitve industries ecosystem. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, 112, 67–82. Joffe, A. (2013). Creative economy report 2013 The cultural and creative economy in Africa: challenges and innovations Creative Economy Report 2013 UNESCO/UNDP The cultural and creative economy in Africa: challenges and innovations. 1–35. http://www.africancreativeeconomy.org/ Kanyenze, G., Chitambara, P., & Tyson, J. (2017). The outlook for the Zimbabwean economy. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, 48(12), 498A-498A. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02609275 Kor, A. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. (2000). Penrose’s resource-based approach: The process and product of research creativity. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (1), 109–139. Linna, P. (2013). Bricolage as a means of innovating in a resource-scarce environment: A study of innovator-entrepreneurs at the bop. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 18(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1142/S10849 46713500155 Makanga-Majachane, F. (2020). Zimbabwe National Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) strategy. Ministry of Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation, Government of Zimbabwe. Makanga-Majachane, F., Samwanda, B., & Mpfunya, F. (2020). The national cultural and creative industries strategy-moysar 2020. Makiwa, P., & Steyn, R. (2019). An investigation of the government-related factors that inhibit small to medium enterprises’ adoption and effective use of information and communication technology in developing countries: The case of Zimbabwe. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 933, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11235-6_1 Manyati, T. (2014). Agro-based technological innovation: A critical analysis of the determinants of innovation in the informal sector in Harare, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 6(6), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2014.976992 Matamanda, A. R., Chirisa, I., Dzvimbo, M. A., & Chinozvina, Q. L. (2020). The political economy of Zimbabwean Urban informality since 2000—A contemporary governance dilemma. Development Southern Africa, 37 (4), 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2019.1698410 Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Designing a qualitative study. In Applied research designs (pp. 214–253).

EXPLORING THE PRODUCTIVITY DRIVERS IN ZIMBABWE’S …

233

Nakano, D., Shiach, M., Koria, M., Vasques, R., dos Santos, E. G., & Virani, T. (2020). Coworking spaces in urban settings: Prospective roles? Geoforum, 115, 135–137. Niskanen, V., Rask, M., & Raisio, H. (2021). Wicked Problems in Africa: A Systematic Literature Review.https://doi.org/10.1177/215824402110 32163 Nyamunda, T. (2021). “Open for business” but bankrupt: Currencies, the ‘new dispensation’ and the Zimbabwean economy. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 56(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909620986585 Nyoni, T., & Bonga, W. G. (2018). Anatomy of the SMALL & Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Critical Success Factors (CSFs) in Zimbabwe: Introducing the 3E model. Dynamic Research Journals’ Journal of Business & Management, 1(2), 1–18. www.dynamicresearchjournals.org Obamba, M. O. (2013). Uncommon knowledge: World Bank policy and the unmaking of the knowledge economy in Africa. Higher Education Policy, 26(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.20 Pratt, A. C. (2021). Creative hubs: A critical evaluation. City, Culture and Society, 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2021.100384 Puschmann, T., & Alt, R. (2016). Sharing economy. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 58(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-0150420-2 Rajagopal, & Behl, R. (2019). Innovation, technology, and market ecosystems: Managing industrial growth in emerging markets. In Innovation, technology, and market ecosystems: Managing industrial growth in emerging markets.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23010-4 Schreyer, P., & Pilat, D. (2001). Measuring productivity. OECD Economic Studies, 2001(2), 13–13. Shafi, A. A., Sirayi, M., & Abisuga-Oyekunle, O. A. (2020). Issues, challenges and contributions of cultural and creative industries (CCIs) in South African economy. Creative Industries Journal, 13(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17510694.2019.1710070 Taylor, R., Torugsa, N. (Ann), & Arundel, A. (2018). Leaping into real-world relevance: An ‘abduction’ process for non-profit research. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47 (1), 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/089 9764017718635 Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.5613/ rzs.43.1.6 UNCTAD Definition (2021). https://unctad.org/topic/trade-analysis/creativeeconomy-programme. Accessed 13 February 2021. Union, E. (2020). A comprehensive descriptive profile of the European CCIs measuring creative economies: A critical review of CCIs.

234

R. NYANGULU

Virani, T. E., & Malem, W. (2015). Re-articulating the creative hub concept as a model for business support in the local creative economy: The case of Mare Street in Hackney (Creativeworks London Working Paper Series). Virani, T., Piza, A., & Shiach, M. E. (2018). Creative clusters, social inclusion, and sustainability: The case of Hackney Wick and Fish Island (A Report for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the London Borough of Hackney, and the London Legacy Development Corporation). Watkins, A., Papaioannou, T., Mugwagwa, J., & Kale, D. (2015). National innovation systems and the intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation in developing countries: A critical review of the literature. Research Policy, 44(8), 1407–1418. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2015.05.004 Witell, L., Gebauer, H., Jaakkola, E., Hammedi, W., Patricio, L., & Perks, H. (2017). A bricolage perspective on service innovation. Journal of Business Research, 79, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.021

‘In Denial’, Artists in the UK Creative Economy: A Focus on Artist-Led Businesses Valentina Orrù

Introduction When I was at university and afterwards people didn’t talk about how they made a living—you either were an artist or not. If you were a successful artist, that was your main job and you earned some money, if you weren’t cool and successful you then did another job but you never really talked about that. […] As you grow older you realise you need time and a life to be a good artist, you cannot work all the time! You need space to explore and freedom [...]. (Kelly, 2022)

Artist and hairdresser Daniel Kelly’s words summarise the tension at the core of this article: artists need resources to work and live but they operate in a market which is ‘in denial of the economy’ (Abbing, 2002). While the work of art is often assessed on the basis of aesthetic, symbolic, economic and social values, artists find themselves on a constant race for survival. Artists in the UK navigate a vulnerable ‘ecology of culture’ (Holden, 2015) where a visual artist in practice between 5-10 years, on average

V. Orrù (B) London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_13

235

236

V. ORRÙ

earns as little as £7,600 per year (TBR, 2018), and the majority of artists lost all their work during Covid-19 (BOP, 2020). The realities of artists’ work are in clear contrast with the economic growth narrative surrounding the UK creative industries and the consequent ‘defensive instrumentalism of culture’ (Belfiore, 2012). Artists seek support from arts organisations and funders, which in turn compete on public and private funds, while trying to demonstrate impact and value for money. As a result of this dynamic artists often compete with each other for the same opportunities within an ecosystem characterised by structural disadvantages linked to gender, ethnicity, sexuality, disability and socialeconomic background (Brook, O’Brien & Taylor, 2018; Virani & Gill, 2019; Virani, 2023a). Inequality, uncertainty and scarcity of financial means require artists to constantly re-think their operational models and reorganise themselves in order to continue practising. Most artists in the UK are recognised as economic entities through being registered with HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) as sole traders, who in most cases work as freelancers. But in recent years, a number of artists’ projects seem to have found in a different business model the ‘container’ (Goh, 2022) to operate. From Community Interest Companies (CIC), Cooperatives (coop), to Limited Companies (Ltd), a new ecology of artist-led businesses seems to have appeared in the UK. These businesses apply different legal structures and financial models and are led by values and relationships that move away from the capitalist dynamics underpinning the industry. What opportunities can different business structures offer to artists? And what ecosystem can arise from these models? Drawing from existing literature on the UK creative economy and artists’ livelihoods in the visual arts sub-sector, this article will explore these questions by analysing the case study of an artist-led CIC, Company Drinks and delving into the values, relationships and operational model behind the business. This analysis represents a first step in an ongoing research on artist led businesses ecologies and the different elements that enable cultural production.

The Creative Economy Artists operate in the creative economy, a section of the UK economy with a cultural object at the centre of the industry which includes creative and cultural workers within and outside the creative industries (Metro

‘IN DENIAL’, ARTISTS IN THE UK CREATIVE ECONOMY …

237

Dynamics, 2020). Not all creative professions are included in the creative industries, like for example, in the case of a designer working in the healthcare sector (PEC, 2022). Artists also operate within an ecosystem made of networks, relationships and non-linear patterns whereby ‘careers develop, ideas transfer, money flows and product and content move, to and from, around and between the funded, homemade and commercial subsectors’ (Holden, 2015, p. 2). These relationships involve different actors both within and outside the industry and are influenced by contextual factors, such as presence or lack of resources. The creative industries according to the DCMS’ (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) mapping document, are those industries that ‘have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property’ (DCMS, 2001). Sectors included in this definition range from advertising and marketing, architecture, crafts, design and photography, to, film, TV, radio, IT, publishing, museums, galleries, libraries, music, performing and visual arts. These subsectors are mostly understood by policymakers through their economic value in relation to the wider UK economy. Measures usually look at the contribution of the creative industries to the UK GVA (Gross Value Added). In 2019, it accounted for £116bn, with a growth rate between 2011 and 2019 twice as fast as the rate of the UK economy as a whole (DCMS, 2021b). Interestingly, in the same year, 32% of creative industry employment was self-employed and 95% of creative companies were microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees (DCMS, 2021a; Pratt & Virani, 2015). Of course, these figures changed with Covid-19: in 2020 the GVA of the creative industries dropped to £95bn but in 2021 it rose back to £104bn (DCMS, 2022). More complex and hardily measurable is the relationship between the creative industries and the cultural sector, which are conceived as separate. DCMS defines the cultural sector as those industries with a cultural object at the centre (DCMS, 2022). Economic data about the creative industries follows the SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) codes which, due to their limited granularity, present limitations when accounting for cultural and artistic activities that are part of a different industry classification (DCMS, 2021b). The cultural sector and the creative industries are intertwined, yet understanding the cultural sector’s direct and indirect impact on the creative economy is complex. The economic measures and

238

V. ORRÙ

narrative of growth surrounding the creative industries doesn’t adequately apply to arts and culture. Adopting the creative industries model meant that the cultural sector has been looked at in terms of its economic contribution (Myerscough, 1988; Pratt, 1997). The cultural sector’s objectives have become dependent on other government’s agenda, resulting in a ‘defensive instrumentalism’ of culture with a need to demonstrate its economic and social impact (Belfiore, 2012). As argued by David Thorsby and Arjo Klamer at the start of the’00s, cultural value is the value generated by arts and cultural goods and experiences that is not economic value and cannot be captured by neo-classical economics (Klamer, 2004; Thorbsy, 2001). In their popular report Understanding the value of arts & culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project, scholars Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska (2016) reflect on how the creative industries are ‘sometimes taken as a proxy for the economic contribution of arts and culture, and the choice of creative industries model has significant consequences for how the cultural sector itself is seen’ (p. 88). Moving away from mere economic measurements allows for a richer understanding of culture and its complexities. Scholar John Holden (2015) argues that by thinking of culture as an ecology and ecosystem rather than an economy, a wide range of non-monetary values are taken into account. Cultural value can be intrinsic, instrumental and institutional (Holden, 2004, 2006), private and public (McCarthy et al., 2004). It can be composed of many components such as aesthetic, spiritual, social, historical and symbolic values (Throsby, 2001). The Centre for Cultural Value defines it as ‘the difference arts, culture, heritage and screen make to people’s lives and society’, thereby putting individuals’ experiences at the heart of it (Crossick & Kaszynska, 2016). Interestingly, opinion makers and gatekeepers are the actors who assess aesthetic and symbolic values embodied by the work of art (Virani & Orrù, 2021), a dynamic characterising a volatile ecology. In this policy context, artists are actors who operate within the creative economy and ecosystem. Self-employment percentages in the creative industries and cultural sector are high: 32% of the creative and cultural workforce in the UK is self-employed, including freelancers (DCMS, 2021a); 77% of artists in the visual arts subsector are sole traders (CCS, 2012). Working as a freelancer in the creative and cultural sectors often equates to a position of precarity. Typically, while practising art, artists work different jobs within different areas of the creative and

‘IN DENIAL’, ARTISTS IN THE UK CREATIVE ECONOMY …

239

cultural sectors, or other industries such as education. Also, ‘a lucky few’ might earn money from sales or commissions (Dyer, 2019). This model has been proving to be even harder to sustain since the ongoing financial austerity of the UK government, Brexit, the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. As a matter of fact, in 2020 the creative and cultural sectors registered over 55,000 jobs lost, showing the vulnerability and precarity of its self-employed workers (Owen, O’Brien & Taylor, 2020). The economic imperatives of the creative industries, where pitching new products to meet the market’s ever changing demand, are ‘not good for artists’ (Jones, 2017). Artistic practices are driven by values that are far from profit-making but are rather intrinsic to who they are as individuals, their passions, values and beliefs (Orrù, 2019). Indeed, artists, and specifically visual artists, operate differently from any other freelancers in the creative industries. Often led by research and experimentation, artistic practices are ‘a form of social enquiry’ (Jones, 2022). This difference can be analysed through the lens of specific dynamics and challenges that have characterised the creative and cultural sectors in the UK, and the ways those affect visual artists and cultural production.

A Juggling Act […] So, when I got into the art world, I was like, I’d quite like to do this. And so, I just started talking to people. And it was just out of a passion, really. And I didn’t really think about getting money for it, I just figured no one’s gonna give me any funding to do this. So, I started off by doing one a week. And then I was like, bro, that’s kind of a mad schedule, because it would take about three days to do the research to talk to someone for an hour. (Quaintance, 2022)

Artists operate in a market which is ‘in denial of the economy’ and is rather associated with ‘the values of the gift sphere’ (Abbing, 2002). Money is indeed a hardly discussed topic in the sector, where unaccounted free labour is often a norm as reflected by artist and writer Morgan Quaintance (2022). As reported by a number of organisations and researchers, the economic figures of artists’ livelihoods and practices are far from the narrative of growth surrounding the creative industries. If economic growth is measured by increase in turnover and job creation, an artist’s career trajectory does not equate to higher earnings

240

V. ORRÙ

or employing a team of assistants (Orrù, 2019). In 2018 Arts Council England (ACE) reported that in 2015 a mid-career artist in the visual art subsector, in practice between 5-10 years, on average was earning as little as £7,600 per year and an established artist, active for longer than 10 years, only £13,300 (TBR, 2018). COVID-19 has had a dramatic impact on artists, confirming the vulnerability of the ecosystem in which they operate (see Virani & Blackwood, 2021). After the first national lockdown in March 2020, 82% of UK artists had their upcoming work cancelled, including events, performances and public activities and 59% had to cancel their own (BOP, 2020). Between 2020 and 2021, artists registered a loss of earnings for an average of £7,000 and a general difficulty to get future contracts and commissions as well as exhibit and sell work (Earthen Lamp, 2021). However, long before the pandemic sustaining an artistic practice has often been a ‘juggling act’ (Dyer, 2019). Working as an artist often involves juggling multiple jobs and constantly negotiating a work-life balance. Project-based work, shortterm contacts, and low or no pays are common in the sector. Artists constantly experience a financial and emotional precarity that impact mental health and well-being (Jones, 2022). Artists seek support from arts institutions and funders, which in turn compete on public and private funds, while trying to demonstrate value for money and impact on audiences. This dynamic is often the result of the instrumentalisation of culture by the neoliberal agenda as described earlier. It is a ‘moral failure of cultural policy’ as argued by scholar Eleonora Belfiore (2022), which affects artists and their practices. Competition is at the heart of the current funding system whereby artists have less ability to negotiate fees with commissioners and ensure resources for their practice. Opportunities such as ACE’s Developing Your Creative Practice are oversubscribed1 and sometimes government guidelines have precluded groups from being able to apply for financial support (CVAN, Earthen Lamp, 2021). For example, many artists didn’t qualify for the government’s special aid for self-employed impacted by Covid19 as in most cases their annual income from self-employment is less than 50%.2 The sector fails at ‘creative justice’ (Banks, 2017) by not fulfilling 1 In 2021 Developing Your Creative Practice benefitted fewer than 400 eligible creative practitioners from across the whole of England. 2 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-a-grant-through-the-coronavirus-covid-19-selfemployment-income-support-scheme. Accessed 20 February 2023.

‘IN DENIAL’, ARTISTS IN THE UK CREATIVE ECONOMY …

241

the duty of care towards artists and the communities involved in a project (Belfiore, 2022). Duty of care is not a requirement of arts funding agreements (Jones, 2022), and socially engaged art practitioners often end up working more hours than they are paid for (Hope et al. 2015; Virani, 2017). Indeed, short-term and project-based funding are not suitable for socially engaged art practices which instead require fluid structures to support relationships development (Hope, 2017). Artists from under-represented groups are significantly still a minority in the landscape of publicly funded projects3 and arts organisations, known as NPOs (National Portfolio Organisations) (ACE, 2020). In 2018 the paper Panic! It’s an Art Emergency, reported on the exclusion of people from working-class origins, women and those from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds in the creative and cultural sectors (Brook et al., 2018). Covid-19 has exacerbated the inequalities intrinsic to the industry. As pointed out in a recent study by CVAN and Earthen Lamp, neurodivergent and disabled artists whose work was cancelled during the pandemic weren’t met with any adjustment or flexibility from employers (CVAN, Earthen Lamp, 2021). In her ongoing study This Work isn’t for Us , researcher and writer Jemma Desai (2020) reflects: These realities show it is not possible to exist as a person embodied in difference, in any industry or institution in the Uk, a hostile environment that increasingly seems to privilege self-interested individuals in a market economy rather than nurturing a network of relationships between people. (The beginning of the End)

The pandemic and the Black Lives Matter Movement have led to a moment of wider self-reflection for UK arts institutions and funders (Virani, 2023b). A renewed attention for the themes of cultural democracy, diversity, equality, equity, collaboration and inclusion has emerged, resulting in a number of initiatives and funding programmes to support these; first of all, the Arts Council England’s 2020–2030 strategy Let’s

3 By looking at the success rates for the ACE artists’ grant awards applicants for artists and creative practitioners (Grants for the Arts, Developing your Creative Practice and Arts Council National Lottery Project Grants ), the data shows the following percentages: Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME)—35%; Disabled applications—32%; Female—33%; LGBT—33%.

242

V. ORRÙ

Create. By attempting to move away from a top-down and outcomebased approach, the sector has been focusing on co-creation and nonhierarchical radical approaches to levelling up (Redmond, 2022). Cocreation is not a new concept, but the term has become an important label for fundraising and of validation for artists’ existing practices (Heart of Glass and Battersea Art Centre, 2021) which have been able to access funding. Yet, co-creation is a ‘sideline not the focus’ of the sector (Böhm, 2022) and there is a general concern that these approaches might only be temporary. Artists have been seeking sustainable models of operating within the described policy, funding and institutional landscape. While working as a sole trader has proved to be difficult to sustain for artists within the conditions of the current UK creative economy, business structures such as Co-operatives (Co-op), Community Interest Companies (CIC) or Limited Interest Companies (Ltd) have presented as viable alternative options to operate. By looking at Company Drinks, a case study of artistled CIC, the next section will delve into the values, relationships and operational model behind the business, while reflecting on new ideas for a cultural ecology and ecosystem.

Methodology The argument presented draws from the analysis of both primary and secondary data. Three semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with artists Kathrin Böhm, Joon-Lynn Goh and Daniel Kelly in autumn 2022.Interviewees were invited to take part in the study for the particular relevance of their practices to the topic. All three artists have set up businesses in recent years and some have written about the economy and artist-led businesses. Interviewees provided consent to take part in the study. It has to be noted that all three interviewees are based in London, which narrows the context of this research. Secondary qualitative and quantitative data included were drawn from existing analysis of business and economic practices in the arts and cultural sector and ideas around artist-led businesses. Artist-Led Businesses In 2012 SPACE, one of the largest artists’ studios provider organisations in London, launched an artist support programme called New Creative

‘IN DENIAL’, ARTISTS IN THE UK CREATIVE ECONOMY …

243

Markets (NCM), which then in 2016 was followed by London Creative Network (LCN). Both programmes were aimed at upskilling visual artists, photographers and craft makers in business practices and support the development of a peer network, which in turn led to more financially sustainable artistic practices. The programmes were funded by the European Regional Development Fund, a business fund aimed at increasing local economic growth, one of its key measures of impact. Both NCM and LCN as well as many other artist support schemes around the UK stemmed from the notion of the creative entrepreneur that has been widely spreading since the 2008’s financial austerity as a ‘forced response’ to the precarity of the sector (Oakley, 2014), and aimed at filling in the gap left by art schools—which fail in their provision of contemporary business skills for graduates (BOP, 2020). In order to navigate the sector and become ‘resilient’—a policy keyword often used by ACE as discussed by Gupta and Gupta (2019)—artists are required to become better at practices such as business planning, financial management, marketing and legal matters. Artists who attended the LCN programme have become more confident, found a new supportive network of peers and have seen an increase in their annual turnover (BOP, 2020). Artists’ practices are typically not oriented towards profit-making as discussed earlier on (Orrù, 2019), yet artists need resources to operate and business skills can certainly support their work. Interestingly, when statistically analysed the business-oriented practices that appeared to be positively correlated with artists’ turnovers link to the idea that artists operate within an ecology and an ecosystem (Virani & Orrù, 2021). Whilst the UK creative economy is ‘not good for artists’ (Jones, 2017), artists have been rethinking their position within the economy and ecosystem by looking at different operational models. An artistic practice is never detached from the economy, even if you are not selling on a market, you still need something that allows you to do your work, and to start a company is one form. (Böhm, 2022)

In recent years a number of artists’ projects in the UK seem to have found in a business the ‘container’ (Goh, 2022) to operate. For example as in the cases of Company Drinks, an art commission that then became a Community Interest Company (CIC); DKUK, a pop up exhibition and performance project then turned into a Limited Company (Ltd); or Migrants in Culture, an artist-led voluntary advocacy network that is

244

V. ORRÙ

turning into a migrant-led design agency constituted as CIC. As discussed by cultural organiser and artist Joon-Lynn Goh in her article ‘What if…? Artist-led businesses as a practice of worldbuilding’, artist-led businesses are ‘real life services and imaginative propositions of different ways of living’ that goes beyond the binary of profit-driven companies and social enterprises’ (Goh, 2021, p. 16). While economic and social impact measurements dictate the dynamics and precarious balances of the industry, artist-led businesses propose new parameters for cultural production. Through a business structure, artistic practices can exist outside the market and the third sector, and organise themselves in a way that is long-term, financially sustainable, and allows for experimentation. Business is a container, which can be moulded and played with. There are many other containers that I work with but have different structures. Business felt like an everyday autonomous space to experiment, and also to acknowledge that we need a livelihood. (Interview with cultural organiser and artist Joon-Lynn Goh, 07/11/22)

Each business legal form currently available in the UK—other than the charity, sole-trader and business partnership—provides different structures for artists to operate within. For example, while a Ltd is a format whereby the business is legally separate from the people who run it and have shares and shareholders, a CIC is a social enterprise that is set up to benefit the community rather than private shareholders. What mainly distinguishes a CIC from the Co-op, is that the latter is owned and controlled by its members who have equal say about the business. Despite their legal forms, artist-led businesses reshuffle the roles and relationships of who produces and who consumes culture, funders and funded, while imagining a new cultural ecosystem.

‘IN DENIAL’, ARTISTS IN THE UK CREATIVE ECONOMY …

245

Company Drinks: From Art Commission to CIC I started Company Drinks because I wanted to start something that could become long-term. I intentionally was thinking of initiating something that has a kind of circularity and keeps reproducing ideas and values rather than just delivering one project. (Böhm, 2022)

Initiated in 2014 by visual artist Kathrin Böhm, Company Drinks is a community space and social enterprise based in the Outdoor Bowls Pavilion in Barking park and located in Barking and Dagenham in East London. Initially conceived as an art commission funded by Create London, Company Drinks became a CIC in 2015. Since then, the company has been bringing different people of different ages and backgrounds together through a range of interdisciplinary activities taking place at the pavilion, in the local green spaces and the nearby countryside. The models of the commons and of the circular economy are central to the way which Company Drinks operates. The company works on the basis that the space, the networks of users, collaborators and partners come together and share the available resources and knowledge. The operational team of the company is made up of a mix of parttime and occasional staff who are responsible for different aspects of the business as well as the running of specific seasonal and occasional activities. Everyone in the team is on the same pay scale within a horizontal organisational structure. The pavilion is offered by the company as a free-of-charge resource to the local community including designated keyholders: community groups that use the space on a weekly basis and are responsible for ensuring that safeguarding and care are in place for all the activities that take place. If you want to establish something beyond the project there are some practical decisions to make. We wanted Company Drinks to be a Co-op, but that was not a suitable format for us at the time so we went with the CIC which is much easier to manage if you don’t have a fixed group of people who want to do something together. (Böhm, 2022)

Company Drinks works with different groups of people who come in and out of the business, rather than members as in a Co-op. Whilst for the first year Company Drinks was run through Kathrin’s books as a self-employed artist, setting it up as a CIC allowed it to acquire a legal status and apply

246

V. ORRÙ

for funding—which an individual self-employed would have not been able to apply to. A CIC business structure allows the company to run on a long-term basis and operate on a mixed funding model made of sales from drinks and services and public grants. Company Drinks produces a range of drinks that are sold onsite at the pavilion and by a range of stockists, and it offers a bar catering service at international arts events such as Frieze Art Fair or smaller ones such as Eastbrook End Country Fair. We don’t use the word ‘audience’, because we don’t provide, we think of ourselves as a co-production of culture and economy. […] What we are working on at the moment is that we don’t become a charity that is this middle person in between money and those who want to use the money, to remain a space where we can organise the money together. (Böhm, 2022)

What differentiates the drinks business from a charity is that the Company Drinks doesn’t cater to an audience but it is a space where people coproduce culture and make economic decisions together. ‘There is an equality in cultural production and acknowledging that we are all cultural producers and economic actors—those things ‘go hand in hand’ (Böhm, 2022). Production and reproduction of culture happen through the acts of growing and picking locally, making, consuming and selling drinks together. When co-production is explicit, as argued by Böhm (2022), resources can be organised accordingly. Interestingly, many of the pavilion regular keyholders have an interest in, but very different ideas, around art, and currently are writing a funding application together’. The company can access public funding for co-production and cultural democracy, which lately the sector and funders have shifted their attention to, as discussed earlier on. Yet, the key aspect of the Company Drinks operational model is the diversification of activities and financial means which can allow a longer-term sustainability beyond the grant. At the same time, the members of the operational team work part time on the business, from one to three days a week, suggesting that they might work different jobs as it’s often the case for artists. While the Co-op model for cultural production can be suitable for some initiatives, the CIC model still allows Company Drinks to operate cooperatively, whereby resources are shared and organised together. Yet, as reflected by Böhm, many artists don’t set up as a business as there is

‘IN DENIAL’, ARTISTS IN THE UK CREATIVE ECONOMY …

247

not a legal structure that is suitable to all artistic practices. ‘Some initiatives don’t incorporate in order to not register to Company House or the Charity Commission’ (Böhm, 2022). It can be argued that in the case of Company Drinks, the CIC structure allows for cultural production to move away from the dynamics that usually characterise the relationships between funders, institutions/commissioners, artists and audiences. The business reclaims the active role of artists as active economic actors and artistic practices as economic practices that produce cultural but also economic values. Everyone involved in the drinks company is a cultural producer in an ecology where sharing resources equally instead of competing for them is the new paradigm. It is clear that artist-led businesses are a reaction to a precarious, exploitative and elitist market-led industry. The capitalist model and its narrative of economic growth have proved to be unfeasible for artistic practices in the visual arts subsector. Artists apply business skills creatively to cultural production with the aim to re-think their conditions and parameters for operating. Company Drinks applies the model of the commons and circular economy to cultural production through the CIC, organising the resources accordingly. Economic, social, aesthetic and different self-determined subjective values coexist within the business model and the networks of relationships sustaining it. The users of the business are involved for different reasons, which might coincide or might not with those of other collaborators, partners or funders of the company. Yet, they are all part of this ecosystem of co-creation. The CIC seems particularly suitable to Kathrin Böhm’s artistic enquiry and practice, but it might be less appropriate for other artists. The case study calls for further investigation into artist-led businesses and other legal structures such as the Ltd and the Co-op, in order to deepen understanding of this way of operating.

Conclusion The UK creative economy is underpinned by paradigms that are not suitable for the work of artists, and specifically visual artists. The ‘moral failure of cultural policy’ (Belfiore, 2022) resulting from the creative industries model has had a profound impact on artists and their ability to operate sustainably. Being an artist has always been a ‘juggling act’ (Dyer, 2019) whereby you either work multiple jobs or manage to sell in the market—if lucky or cool enough. A high percentage of artists are sole

248

V. ORRÙ

traders working as freelancers and operate in an industry characterised by inequality. Competition shapes relationships and unpaid labour is a norm, in an ecosystem where, as remarked by Covid-19, cultural production is often characterised by uncertainty and precarity. In the current context, artists in the UK have been rethinking their position within the ecosystem, reclaiming their active role as economic actors and artistic practices as economic practices. Artists have been finding in businesses the ‘container’ (Goh, 2022) to operate autonomously, moving away from the dynamics characterising the sector. The case study of Company Drinks shows that, through the CIC business structure, a one-off art commission can translate into a longer-term sustainable enterprise and can work under different parameters. Through the CIC form, the drinks company can access funding which a selfemployed artist is not able to, while also diversifying the activities and financial resources. The business is set up and runs on the basis that everyone involved in the drinks company is a cultural producer within an ecology where space, networks and resources are shared. Artist-led businesses move away from the binary of social enterprise or profit-driven companies, and explore models whereby economic values coexist with social, aesthetic and self-determined subjective values, and inform each other. They suggest the possibility of an ecology of cultural production that reacts to and rethink the capitalist paradigms underpinning the creative economy. As in the case of Company Drinks, cultural production is structured around the model of the commons and circular economy. While legal structures such as the CIC or the Ltd are not perfect formats for all artistic practices, they allow for artists to organise and reposition themselves in the economy. Artists undertake business practices and apply business skills creatively to organise and manage financial resources on their own terms. Framing cultural production within an ecosystem allows for a deeper understanding of the motivations behind cases in which artists decide to constitute as a company, which as discussed involve, but are not limited to, economic decisions, and how that might affect their role and ability to continue operating. Going forward, this study will continue to investigate the elements that characterise the emerging ecology of artist-led business, delving into the peculiarities of each business structure and examining whether and how these models evolve over time.

‘IN DENIAL’, ARTISTS IN THE UK CREATIVE ECONOMY …

249

Bibliography Abbing, H. (2002). Why are artists poor? The exceptional economy of the arts. Amsterdam University Press. Arts Council England (ACE). (2020). Equality, diversity and the creative case. A data report 2019–2020. Banks, M. (2017). Creative justice: Cultural industries, work and inequality. Roman & Littlefield. Belfiore, E. (2012). Defensive instrumentalism and the legacy of New Labour’s cultural policies. Cultural Trends, 21(2), 103–111. Belfiore, E. (2022). Who cares? At what price? The hidden costs of socially engaged arts labour and the moral failure of cultural policy. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(1), 61–78. Böhm, K. (2022). Why talk about art when we want a new economy? STIR. The magazine for the new economy. Issue 39, Autumn 2022. Böhm, K. (2022, September 23). Interview. Conducted by Valentina Orrù. BOP Consulting. (2020). Covid-19 impact survey. The Artists Information Company. BOP Consulting. (2022). London creative network evaluation. SPACE. Brook, O., O’Brien, D., & Taylor, M. (2018). Panic! It’s an art emergency. Social class, taste and inequalities in the creative industries. Create London. CCS. (2012). Visual arts blueprint. Creative and Cultural Skills [VO2]. Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre (PEC). (2022). National statistics on the creative industries. https://pec.ac.uk/news/national-statistics-on-thecreative-industries. Accessed 20 February 2023. Crossick, G., & Kaszynska, P. (2016). Understanding the value of arts & culture: The AHRC cultural value project. Arts and Humanities Research Council. DCMS. (2001). Creative industries mapping documents 2001. GOV.UK. https:/ /www.gov.uk/government/publications/creative-industries-mapping-doc uments-2001. Accessed 20 February 2023. DCMS (2021a, October 28). DCMS sector economic estimates: Employment Oct 2019–Sep 2020. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ dcms-sector-economic-estimates-employment-oct-2019-sep-2020. Accessed 20 February 2023. DCMS. (2021b). DCMS economic estimates 2019 (provisional): Gross value added. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dcms-eco nomic-estimates-2019-gross-value-added/dcms-economic-estimates-2019provisional-gross-value-added. Accessed 20 February 2023. DCMS. (2022). DCMS sector economic estimates methodology. GOV.UK. https:/ /www.gov.uk/government/publications/dcms-sectors-economic-estimatesmethodology/dcms-sector-economic-estimates-methodology. Accessed 20 February 2023.

250

V. ORRÙ

Desai, J. (2020). This work isn’t for us. Clore Leadership Programme; Arts and Humanities Research Council. Dyer, S. (2019). Pivotal moments in artistic practice. Pivotal Moments. SPACE Earthen Lamp. (2021). Impact of the pandemic on the livelihood of visual arts workers. Contemporary Visual Art Network England. Goh, J.-L. (2021). What if…? Artist-led business as a practice of worldbuilding. Sex with Cancer. Goh, J.-L. (2022, November 7). Interview. Conducted by Valentina Orrù. Gupta, S., & Gupta, A. Y. (2019). “Resilience” as a policy keyword: Arts Council England and austerity. Policy Studies, 1–17. Heart of Glass & Battersea Art Centre (2021), Considering co-creation. Arts Council England. Holden, J. (2004). Capturing cultural value: How culture has become a tool of government policy. Demos. https://www.demos.co.uk/files/CapturingCultur alValue.pdf Holden, J. (2006). Cultural value and the crisis of legitimacy: Why culture needs a democratic mandate. Demos. Holden, J. (2015). The ecology of culture. Arts and Humanities Research Council. Hope, S., et al. (2015). Cultural measurement on whose terms? Critical friends as an experiment in participant-led evaluation. In L. MacDowall, M. Badham, & E. Bloomkamp (Eds.), Making culture count (pp. 282–297). Palgrave Macmillan. Hope, S. (2017). From community arts to the socially engaged art. In A. Jeffers & G. Moriarty (Eds.), Culture, democracy and the right to make art (pp. 203–221). Bloomsbury. Jones, S. (2017). Critique of creative industries working environments | P|J|A’. Padwick Jones Arts. https://padwickjonesarts.co.uk/are-the-creative-indust ries-good-for-artists. Accessed 20 February 2023. Jones, S. (2020). Visual artists and self-employment | P|J|A. Padwick Jones Arts. https://padwickjonesarts.co.uk/an-exceptional-case-visual-artistsand-self-employment. Accessed 20 February 2023. Jones, S. (2022). Artists’ precarity is not just about pay. ArtsProfessional. https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/article/artists-precar ity-not-just-about-pay. Accessed 20 February 2023. Kelly, D. (2022, October 5). Interview. Conducted by Valentina Orrù. Klamer, A. (2004). Social, cultural and economic values of cultural goods. In V. Rao & M. Walton (Eds.), Cultural and public action. Stanford University Press. McCarthy, K. F., et al. (2004). Gifts of the Muse. Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. Santa Monica, C. A., Arlington, V. A., Pittsburgh, PA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/ monographs/2005/RAND_MG218.pdf

‘IN DENIAL’, ARTISTS IN THE UK CREATIVE ECONOMY …

251

Metro Dynamics. (2020). The impact of arts & culture on the wider creative economy. Arts Council England. Myerscough, J. (1988). The economic importance of the arts in Great Britain. Policy Studies Institute. Oakley, K. (2014). Good work? Rethinking cultural entrepreneurship. In C. Bilton & S. Cummings (Eds.), Handbook of Management and Creativity (pp. 145–159). Edward Elgar. Orrù, V. (2019). Artists as entrepreneurs. Pivotal Moments. SPACE. Owen, G., O’Brien, D. & Taylor, M. (2020). A Jobs Crisis in the Cultural and Creative Industries. Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre, https://pec.ac.uk/blog/how-covid-19-is-impacting-the-cultural-sec tor-with-theloss-of-55-000-jobs-in-the-arts. Accessed 19 June 2023. Positive Trend in Economic Recovery of UK Creative Industries from Pandemic— The Creative Industries. https://www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk/facts-fig ures/positive-trend-in-gva-of-uk-creative-industries-from-pandemic. Accessed 20 February 2023. Pratt, A. (1997). Production values: From cultural industries to the governance of culture. Environment and Planning A, 29, 1911–1917. Pratt, A. C., & Virani, T. E. (2015). The creative SME: A cautionary tale. Creativeworks London Working Paper Series. Quaintance M. (2022, March 24). Episode 8: Whitechapel gallery panel discussion. This Thing We Call Art. https://www.thisthingwecallart.com/podcast/ whitechapel-gallery-panel-discussion Redmond, A. (2022). Value co-creation key to levelling up. ArtsProfessional. https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/value-co-creation-key-lev elling. Accessed 20 February 2023. TBR. (2018). Livelihoods of visual artists. Arts Council England. Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge University Press. Virani, T. E., & Orrù, V. (2021). Business resilience and visual art: New directions for research in business-oriented practice for visual artists. SPACE. Virani, T. E., & Gill, R. (2019). Hip hub? Class, race and gender in creative hubs. In Creative hubs in question: Place, space and work in the creative economy (pp. 131–154). Virani, T. E. (2023a). Social inclusion and SMEs: The case of creative SMEs in Hackney Wick and Fish Island, London. City, Culture and Society, 32, 100493. Virani, T. (2023b). Creative workforce for the future: Evaluation report. Creative Economies Lab. Virani, T., & Blackwood, J. (2021). From catastrophe to hybridity to recovery? Creative Economies Lab. Virani, T. E. (2017). Micro-community engagement in London’s outer suburbs: Examining a practice-led approach to engaging with micro-communities in

252

V. ORRÙ

Redbridge. A research report for UP projects and Queen Mary University of London. Available at: https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/ 28763

Networks for Inclusion Jon Dovey and Tony Bhajam

Introduction This chapter asks the question how can we design networks for inclusion in the creative economy? It addresses the problem of how we can challenge the inequalities and exclusions produced by the ecosystems that constitute wider creative economy clusters and hubs. As Universities in the UK are increasingly drawn into partnerships designed to support creative industry development, it also draws attention to the issues of governance that arise for projects that are time-limited collaborations between organisations which all have their own separate governance structures. Most of the evidence and learning we discuss is drawn from two recent programmes. The South West Creative Technology Network (SWCTN) was a £6.5 million research and development (R+D) project to increase collaborative innovations between universities and industry in the use

J. Dovey (B) UWE Bristol, Bristol, UK e-mail: [email protected] T. Bhajam Watershed, Bristol, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_14

253

254

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

of creative technologies which ran from 2018 to 2021.1 SWCTN was funded by Research England’s Connecting Capabilities Fund, which supports knowledge exchange, commercialisation of products and business growth. SWCTN was a regional partnership between four universities and two creative production studios in the South West UK: UWE Bristol, Bath Spa University, Falmouth University, University of Plymouth, Watershed (Bristol) and Kaleider (Exeter). SWCTN supported three creative technology R+D themes through funded cohorts over three years: Immersion, Automation and Data. SWCTN ran successive sets of fellowships and prototype commissions linked to these themes, alongside microgrant opportunities, mentorship, ongoing knowledge-sharing opportunities and business development support. The second project, still drawing to a close as we write this chapter, was the Bristol + Bath Creative R+D programme (BBCRD) (2018–23).2 One of eight national Creative Industry Cluster Programmes funded by the UK’s Arts and Humanities Research Council, BBCRD was a regional economic development programme based on knowledge exchange with the creative industries. A £6.8 million collaboration between UWE Bristol, Bath University, Bath Spa, Bristol University and Watershed BBCRD brought together the region’s businesses, creatives, artists and thinkers to experiment with new and emerging technologies, conduct research and develop prototype products and experiences to share with the public. Like SWCTN, it used cohort-based R+D programmes around themes (‘Digital Placemaking’, ‘Expanded Performance’, ‘Amplified Publishing’) before investing in prototype production. Each of these projects adopted a methodology of curating a cultural ecology, designing and activating a system to support the development of creative industries in their application of technology. These programmes were designed to build new networks through collaborative R+D that would lead to enhanced innovation capacity in the application of digital technologies within the creative economy. Each one of them had explicit commitments to inclusion built into their mission, structure and budgets, however as we shall see these commitments have been challenged in practice. Through our own process of reflection, research and consultation we now offer a framework for action that we

1 More on SWCTN in final report https://www.swctn.org.uk/2021/09/20/read-ourfinal-report/. 2 More on Bristol + Bath Creative R+D https://bristolbathcreative.org/activities.

NETWORKS FOR INCLUSION

255

argue has applicability in other similar attempts at cluster or place-based Creative and Cultural Industry development programmes. Universities in the UK are increasingly in the position of investing in place-based projects such as these, working with different communities of practice from industrial sectors, through to urban communities and communities of place and space. As a place-based agenda for research grows, Universities’ role in devolved and regional development initiatives is growing; Universities are understood as anchor partners who can mobilise the research base for the wider benefit of the UK economy as a whole. The research infrastructure of the country is now the research and innovation infrastructure. However, the inclusion challenge is one of the biggest obstacles in the way to the genuinely civic university. Universities and their hierarchies are founded in ancient patterns of knowledge and power, they change slowly and, as the champions of expertise, are poorly equipped to answer the political challenge of the lived experience of exclusion. The work of research, knowledge exchange and industrial development is all conflated in investment programmes like these in an effort to address the UK’s underlying productivity problem by setting up state-funded R+D schemes where Universities partner with industrial enterprises to create new products and services, new companies and new jobs. Such programmes produce cultural capital that is often identified in its networked form. They produce access to resources, they produce ideas, they develop people and they offer money, both to universities and to communities of practice. The production of this kind of cultural capital can easily become exclusionary with the same kinds of capital being developed amongst the same kinds of people. In our work we have aspired to the principle of ‘knowledge equity’ developed by Baljeet Sandhu: Knowledge Equity is a concept that grounds us in an understanding that different forms of knowledge and expertise are vital to progress and drive systems change. … It asks us first to consider who we believe to be knowledge producers. It then asks us to consider if and how those knowledge producers are given equitable and meaningful agency as systems analysts, activists and change-makers. (Baljeet Sandhu, 2021).

256

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

Networks, Hubs and Ecosystems The idea of the network has become a dominant image for understanding organisational and industrial development in the past thirty years. The network is understood as both the structural form of socialised productivity and the architecture of digital communications systems. The empirical and theoretical work of Manuel Castells (1996) established that the flow of networks had become the dominant mode of social organisation and capital flows in the globalised post-industrial worlds that coalesced out of the neoliberal revolutions of the 1980s. Network is now a verb, a practice recommended to all students, (see Sun Lee & Chen, 2016) as well as the design structure for professional development platforms such as LinkedIn. Social Network Analysis has become the algorithmic engine of surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019), permanently updating our social graphs to target finer and final segments of advertising, news and propaganda. The morphology of the network emphasises connections, ‘nodes’ in the network are connected to other nodes through ‘edges’. This pattern of connectivity constitutes a net, binding the human and institutional nodes together through shared interest, mutual value generation or economic advantage. But this net is also a pattern of exclusion; a net is also a collection of holes, of absences that obscure those unable or unwilling to attach to a node in the network. A network may also be understood as a system for excluding people or organisations who do not know anyone in the network in the first place, agents who possess neither the social nor the cultural capital to attach to the fluid networks of dominance or disruption that our work both inhabits and produces. We have used the idea of ecosystems to explain our practice within this networked domain (Sharpe, 2010). In the age of the network, the ecosystem has itself become an attractive metaphor whenever a complex dynamic system of many interdependencies is in play. The metaphor of the ecosystem as a way of understanding social and industrial organisation is, we should note, particularly attractive in a neoliberal context. Ecosystems appear as implicitly ‘naturalised’, like markets, they appear to be self-organising systems. As such they are ideologically produced as ‘ungovernable’ systems, beyond the reach of the conventional mechanisms of political or organisational intervention. Our claim however has been that we curate and produce ecosystems that become capacity webs

NETWORKS FOR INCLUSION

257

for innovation, we do ecosystems we don’t just use them as an explanatory framework (Dovey, Moreton et al., 2016). Attempting to initiate or in some way organise an ecosystem brings all the attendant problems of governance, responsibility and an implicit politics. The idea of the ‘cultural ecosystem’ is first recorded in 2004 (see Holden, 2015), but we have found Markusen et al.’s (2011) definition useful, cultural ecology they argue is working with ‘the complex interdependencies that shape the demand for and production of arts and cultural offerings’ (Markusen et al., 2011, p. 8). Intervening ecologically means looking at the whole system of creative and cultural production, understanding its value constellations (Norman & Ramirez, 1993) in all their variety and abundance. This point is important as we emphasise that although the creative industries are understood by policy as primarily a vehicle for growth, the values that make the cultural industries a coherent sector are frequently more complex and nuanced than those represented in the bottom line. Our claim to design, shape and bring together new innovation systems has rested on collaborations between ‘third party’ creative hubs (Watershed in Bristol, Kaleider in Exeter) and University media arts, humanities and computer science researchers. These loose coalitions have deployed creative producers to deliver the curation and maintenance of the ecosystem. Creative producers working to executive teams representing the collaborating partners become the de facto governance system where our active intervention comes into play, the creative producer is the point at which the ‘ungovernable’ logic of the market/ecosystem is challenged and it becomes a system that we can design, curate and lead. It becomes a system in which we have a co-ordinating stake. This means understanding the values at work in the system, and caring for the people, the projects and the companies you are supporting, as they become the tender green shoots of innovation that need to be nurtured to become the sturdy SMEs of the future. Our approach was highly influenced by the idea of ‘Creation Nets’ coined in 2008 (Hagel and Seely Brown) that bringing many diverse disciplines together produces better innovation. The design of our key partner, the Pervasive Media Studio community, at its inception in 2010 was underpinned by the idea that different professions and different skills would produce a distinctive innovation community, where artists, technologists and university researchers could be co-located to form new kinds of social capital that would ‘net out’ downstream in stronger regional innovation cultures. So although

258

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

our ecosystem design insisted on diversity, this difference was registered as skill, profession or talent rather than class, race, gender or sexuality, professional diversity rather than social diversity. Moreover, the ecosystem was understood to centre around a hub, a physical location, in this case the Pervasive Media Studio located in a downtown dockside cultural cinema complex—Watershed. The Hub itself is a new mode of workplace organisation that has co-evolved with the network. As IT has made decentralised working practices more and more possible, production in the knowledge economy and creative industries has recentralised through the proliferation of hubs and co-working spaces. The inexorable rise of the self-employed, freelance army and microbusiness in the UK economy has also produced a need for cheap out-of-home shared office spaces, 90% of new businesses set up between 2000 and 2015 were single person registrations (see Dovey, Pratt et al., 2016). Hubs and hot desk office rental spaces are the new engine rooms of the network economy (Virani & Malem, 2015). However, these networks, ecosystems and creative hubs do not exist in isolation, they are part of the distinctive field of the Cultural and Creative Industries (Bourdieu, 1993); for Bourdieu fields produce particular forms of social capital that, we would argue, are by their nature exclusive. These processes are at their most intense in the Cultural and Creative Industries, which aim to produce cultural and symbolic meaning within the marketplace of the attention economy. It is beyond the scope of this short chapter to develop a more sophisticated analysis of the relationship between the attention economy, social capital and the creative industries, but suffice it to say that this field reproduces privilege, entitlement and exclusion not as a by-product but as a core function of its production of social capital. Our attempts to curate equitable innovation ecosystems are mounted on the periphery of milieux that despite their celebration of ‘creativity’ frequently have exclusion baked in as standard operating procedure (see Social Mobility Commission:18). In recent years, there has been a welcome increase in research that tries to point out just how creative industries privilege certain kinds of people, with the resources and cultural capital to persevere and succeed in their insecure, exclusive and poorly paid field. Dave O’Brien puts it most starkly ‘the arts and cultural sector in the UK is currently not at all representative of the population as a whole’ (O’ Brien, 2018), Brook et al. (2020) found that the cultural and creative industries are even more unequal than other sectors, both in terms of race and class, reporting that

NETWORKS FOR INCLUSION

259

only 18% of people working in the arts had a working-class background. Arts Council England’s own survey of its National Portfolio Organisations (NPO) reported 13% of staff were from Black, Asian or Ethnically diverse backgrounds (Arts Council, 2019)—whilst this is not accurate for the wider creative industries it is indicative of the scale of the inclusion challenge (see Virani, 2023a; Virani & Gill, 2019). Whilst the picture with regard to gender is better in the cultural industries, we still see a strong glass ceiling in place where women are more likely to be well-represented in middle and lower grade roles rather than in the senior leadership or executive roles (see Virani & Gill, 2019). The heart of the challenge for programmes like ours is how to implement inclusive practices within a network structure characterised by loose governance underpinned by often hidden partnerships and a lack of any kind of unitary entity that could be accountable. University partnerships like SWCTN and BBCRD have relatively flexible and agile governance structures. Their only legal existence is as a collaboration agreement, a contract that runs for the time of the project. There is rather a low level of formal accountability for the values that we hold. In this sense the things that have made our collaborations thrive, informality and creative opportunism, are also its weaknesses when it comes to presenting the kind of accountable structures associated with progress in EDI. So when things go wrong, if things do go wrong, if people feel discriminated against or people feel excluded, the pathways to redress are anything but obvious. Instead, an already excluded person may be faced with even more excluding processes of having to navigate the complex power structures implicit in a creative industry ecosystem.

Designing Inclusion What kinds of things did we do to try to combat the tendency outlined above for network models of innovation to become engines of exclusion? We recognised that rather than having ‘inclusion’ or ‘diversity’ just as values that threaded through our delivery, we needed people who could lead the work and role model inclusive practices. We adapted the role of creative producer to design the specific full-time role of Inclusion Producer who could help us design the programme to maximise inclusion. One of the current authors occupies this role. It has a wide-ranging remit to look at our recruitment and investment processes as well as to research and disseminate best practices for our sector of creative industries

260

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

innovation. The role design itself is not unproblematic as it can have the effect of delegating all diversity and inclusion conversations to a single person in the group. We also developed a new model for R+D fellowships, new talent and inclusion fellows; both of these awards allowed us to bring in people who were not already part of the network, who had not already accrued the kinds of cultural capital discussed above. These kinds of initiatives fall under the broad heading of talent development where that can be understood in the context of the already excluding career pathways in the creative industries. As an adjunct to our main BBCRD project, we secured further funding to work with a cohort of young professionals from creative industries who all came from underrepresented groups and teamed them up for placements with businesses who we supported in a process of becoming ‘inclusion ready’ (Virani, 2023). We changed our application processes, redesigning them for accessibility and inclusion as well as ensuring that our interview panels became more representative. We have made demonstrable commitment to inclusive practices a condition of funding and support for our R+D and prototyping teams. As we learnt more about the kinds of people we wanted to reach, we have also developed smaller-scale investment pots, more appropriate for people who are just starting out on an innovation or R+D pathway. We discovered that the number of people from marginalised groups who could take on £50 k funding in our comparatively arcane domain was vanishingly small and therefore we needed to start at a different point by offering easier, lower risk access points to the ecosystem. In this regard, we have also begun the process of community building by offering small awards to organisations and SMEs with experience of diversity and inclusion in cultural and creative development in order to share the conversation more widely and share other examples of what does and doesn’t work. We have also attempted some of the other more usual processes, examining our governance structures and trying to bring in new people where appropriate. However, a major road block in this respect is the lack of ethnically diverse or working-class academic leadership. Dr Addy Adelaine used Freedom of Information requests to the United Kingdom Research and Innovation council (UKRI) to discover that in 2019/2020 of 2,715 individuals acting as Principal Investigators (PIs) leading research projects, only twenty-five PIs identified as Black. White individuals had an award success rate of 32% where Black applicants

NETWORKS FOR INCLUSION

261

had an award success rate of just 8%. 1,525 individuals who identified as White were awarded research fellowships in the same period whilst there were less than five Black research fellows. The total percentage of Black PIs rose from 0.40% to 0.43% from 18/19 to 19/20 (Adelaine, 2021). Part of the remedy to these challenges was to assess ourselves in terms of representation. In SWCTN for instance, we ascertained that of the 47% of people applying for our funding identified as female, 29% as LBTQIA+, 22% as global majority and 9% as disabled with 19% having been in receipt of free school meals. These are all strong indications that we were reaching a differently diverse community where 19% of the UK tech industry identified as female and only 3% as black female. Overall, against a national people of colour proportion of 14%, the SWCTN 22% figure is above average though that was not the case for those identifying as disabled where the national average is 16%. In the main BBCRD programme, our results were differently mixed, again 57% of our beneficiaries identified as women, and 36% as LGBTA+ but only 9% identified as other than White. However 21% of beneficiaries identified themselves as disabled, d/Deaf, neurodivergent or having a long-term physical or mental health condition with 64% of beneficiaries classified as from a higher socio-economic background. We also learnt in these exercises that counting, whilst providing some sense of overall pattern were also fraught with methodological difficulties—what is the edge of the ecosystem you want to assess? How to account for the intersectionality of marginalised experiences when these kinds of surveys ask us to classify ourselves using one dimensional identity markers? Moreover, the whole exercise of measurement here falls into the trap of representation, where having some good numbers feels as though the job is done, boxes ticked, when in fact this data doesn’t tell us how marginalised people feel in programmes like this, it doesn’t tell us if people felt as though they had agency, or if their concerns and cultures were heard and met. EDI practices predicated on representational demographics can perpetuate the experience of marginalisation; fundamentally they rest on the idea that if a person is from 20% of the UK population group, then they can and should occupy 20% of the social cultural and physical space. Not only is it an argument used by racists and others these ways of thinking actually produce the territory for microaggression, discomfort, lack of agency and continuing marginalisation. To understand the texture of this territory, we need to undertake more qualitative analysis.

262

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

If It’s not Challenging It’s not Right Here, we refer to evidence drawn from two specially commissioned reports on the inclusion programmes we have run as part of the two larger projects (SWCTN and B + B Creative R+D) referred to above. It is worth noting that the qualitative research referenced below speaks of a particular historical moment when the combined pressures of working under pandemic conditions and the global reactions to the murder of George Floyd produced an unusually heightened, but importantly revealing, sense of exclusion and vulnerability. The first of these is the Creative Workforce of the Future programme (Virani, 2023a). Creative Workforce for the Future (CWoTF) was a pilot project in Bristol and Bath, UK that ran from October 2020 to March 2021. Its primary purpose was to support SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) in the cultural and creative industries to develop more inclusive employment practices, so that the workforce of the future reflects the diversity of modern Britain. The programme had a twin path approach. Firstly, it worked with creative SMEs to gauge and enhance inclusion readiness. Secondly, it worked with a cohort of young, aged 18–30, creative professionals (CPs) who were of Black, Asian or other Minority Ethnic origins and/or from a disadvantaged socio-economic background to develop relevant, skill enhancing and, where possible, longstanding placement opportunities with creative SMEs. The ‘project’ outcomes were all satisfactory insofar as we hit our engagement targets and 10 of the 13 young professionals got further work in the creative industries. Moreover, many of the fifty companies who engaged in the programme felt that it had supported them in understanding an inclusive development trajectory. Many of the SMEs felt it was important that future success would require more diverse content underpinned by a more inclusive workforce. However ‘under the hood’ the programme felt like a very crude attempt to untie the deep bonds of marginalisation and oppression by creating a wave of energetically diverse new talent to break upon the shores of willing but anxious creative SMEs. It was clear that a small number of SMEs had trouble becoming ‘inclusion ready’ in the culture and daily practice of the company where habits of how to deal with ‘trainees’ ran deep. There were some recorded incidents of microaggression. The COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter global movement also shifted the whole context of the programme.

NETWORKS FOR INCLUSION

263

Overall, we concluded that the deep work necessary to change working cultures and embedded cultural capital was incompatible with a one-year project timescale, these are longer-term issues where the agency of the ‘project’ is running up against long-term historical, discursive and cultural practices. We also learnt that such programmes should be co-designed with the beneficiaries from the start, in this case the diverse young professionals and the SMEs. Again the strictures of ‘project’ design and funding timescales did not support this approach. The CWoTF programme also forced us to re-learn the importance of role modelling—the lead change makers in programmes like this need to look or sound like the diverse teams they are working with, nothing else will do. If you can’t see it, you can’t be it. On the other side of the coin, the young professionals found themselves becoming EDI experts on their placements, expected to have expertise on recruitment or representation. The following quotation, (a young professional reflecting on a placement with an SME) in all its hesitancy and qualification, represents the complex currents of cultural capital and power at work in these processes: It wasn’t all staff … there was however definitely a social divide. I could feel it just [in] what they were talking about, referencing things and not saying what it actually meant and knowing that I hadn’t that background or gone to the shows. Which was difficult … I don’t normally find that hard. I think the worst thing was that it just felt like, when I spoke to [the employer] it felt like, change wasn’t on the cards, she completely accepted the way they were and didn’t want to change. The fact that it wasn’t diverse or inclusive and I think that was the worst, because I was like, why am I here? It wasn’t just in that chat, it was also when we were in larger meetings, there were people from all different places … it was just kind of awkward. They would say things about who they want to work with and not being inclusive. They would ask me directly if I know anyone from that background and it felt tokenistic and like that role would tick a box for them. It was really awkward, and I didn’t feel like I was there to be their inclusion box ticked. That’s what it did feel like that for me at times. Use me as a gift to sort of find other people or make their organisation look a bit better. That’s how I felt. I didn’t want to be there because you shouldn’t just look, like deliberately look, for people to say that you can tick a box in your organisation, that’s not okay. And that is 100%, or one of the conversations was that’s what they were looking for. I’m not here for this, I’m here on a placement to learn and be inspired.

264

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

The second project we want to discuss here is the South West Creative Technology Network (SWCTN). The fellowship programme was divided equally between Academic, Industry and New Talent researchers. The programme had a notional but poorly resourced commitment to inclusion that became clearer through the impact of the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2020 (halfway through the programme), we appointed an Inclusion Producer and also commissioned a review to learn and share our experiences (Adelaine, 2023). This process revealed some significant discontinuities between our aims and the experience of the small number of participants interviewed for the review. For instance, our intention to be inclusive was undermined by the perception of the already ingrained power relations of the participating organisations: It was reported that the leadership was typically comprised of white, middle-class, non-disabled, heterosexual people. Typically, there is a belief that a high proportion of those employed by SWCTN were women, yet it was still perceived that the visible power was predominantly held by men. (Adelaine: 23)

Similarly, when asked about governance several respondents suggested that the funders held most power in the structure even though most of them weren’t clear who the funder was or the purpose of the funding. In the same way, respondents’ perceptions of intent were contradictory, whilst a number of individuals or participating organisations were praised for their inclusive practices a powerful perception that SWCTN as a whole was exclusive maintained itself. The overall perception of SWCTN’s inclusivity was that the network had good intentions but a long way to go in terms of its governance, its transparency, its complaints and incident handling protocols and the overall professionalism of its handling of EDI processes. This is of particular interest again for the problem of network governance addressed by this chapter. The kinds of critiques developed by the respondents in the SWCTN inclusion report point out that the discursive formations of the institutions that support and create projects like these are themselves forces of exclusion. The perception that a ‘lot of the people are positive, but the institutions are not’ again goes to the problem of cultural capital in networked structures.

NETWORKS FOR INCLUSION

265

Ecosystemic Interventions Against this background, there is an urgent need to rethink our understandings of creative economy ecosystems. The first point to acknowledge in this process is that what we propose below is in addition to rather than instead of . Some of the existing dynamics of the creative economy ecosystems that we support should continue, they need to be agile, creative, based in talent and bringing very different kinds of skill base together; they still need to value care and the key role of the connectors in the system, the creative producers. They will still need a range of anchor or stakeholder institutions and enterprises for them to flourish. However, we now need to bring an additional level of intentional intervention to our ecosystemic practice to ensure that we minimise the levels of exclusion that we produce. The point about intentional design cannot be emphasised enough—as we have seen above one of the seductive aspects of ecosystem as metaphor for culture is that it suggests a certain level of laissez faire governance. The thing to do is identify the environmental conditions for a successful ecosystem, put them in place stand back and let the system produce abundance. This position could not be more misguided. What follows is a digest of what we have learnt about inclusive system design at an overarching level as well as a framework to support individual enterprises or projects in becoming more inclusive. At a general level, our work has emphasised how creative economy ecosystems cohere through different forms of value exchange and a heterogeneity of value-making practices. At the outset of any networked collaboration in creative industry development, we ensure that we undertake work to identify our shared values. It follows that being inclusive needs to become a core value for the whole system. This involves creating an inclusive culture in the heart of the network, being welcoming and accessible, explicitly talking about inclusion, making different people’s needs explicit and giving people a sense that they can talk about what they need to participate in a way that’s non-judgemental and non-critical. These ways of being are inimical to the creative industries’ histories of, e.g. the art school crit, the excoriating review and the privileged hire and fire behaviours of creative industry auteurs. If you lack confidence in doing this kind of inclusion work, then pay some people with more experience than you and make them active collaborators in your programme. Try and be very clear about what the arrangements are, what the exchange is, what they might be getting

266

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

as well as what they might be giving in their relationship with your programme. Similarly at the planning stages of a programme, you might want to ask yourself what kind of inclusion you want to practice. Is this for everybody? Is this for particular communities? What form of intersectionality does your inclusion practice follow? Trying to do everything for everybody may not necessarily be either practical or desirable. It’s OK to prioritise differently marginalised people at different times. In considering programme design and budgets, it’s important to consider inclusive governance from the very beginning, how can you include the potential beneficiaries of your ecosystem in its governance structure. This however may also need a strongly interventionist approach, after all if the beneficiary of your programme is ‘the regional creative cluster’ you may want to take a critical view of who usually gets to represent that cluster and its already instantiated exclusionary interests. We need to ensure that our governance structure and our leadership reflect the wider community. This includes making decision-making structures as transparent and accountable as possible and including clear complaints policies and procedures. We have also found that if one of the aims of your inclusion process is to encourage new entrants to your industrial sector, then do not pitch opportunities that can only work for those already on the inside track. As a new or prospective entrant to a particular field, I may not feel confident applying for a £100 k investment pot, in fact £5 k might be a more useful investment to help me develop my idea to the next stage. It may be more appropriate to create different ladders of opportunity that offer people a developmental trail through the ecosystem. At the final level of thinking about overall programme design and budget, the work of inclusion needs its own substantive budget line, understanding need, ensuring representation, supporting accessibility, making reasonable adjustments, setting up more equitable forms of recruitment or project development is all resource hungry. Becoming inclusive has to be a cost as well as an aspiration. In order to support this work, we have also developed a process toolkit3 to support enterprises and projects working in this space to build more inclusive networks. Although it’s fairly simple to have ideas about what you can do about inclusion, when it comes to making it happen is 3 The Inclusion Framework below was developed as part of the Bristol + Bath Creative R+D programme by Tony Bhajam, Gill Wildman and Jazlyn Pinckney.

NETWORKS FOR INCLUSION

267

a little more complicated. We may often feel overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the problem, especially in spaces that we feel we can’t control. We may also be frightened, of saying or doing the wrong thing, of being criticised for ‘getting it wrong’. Frequently, the area of operation you can actually control within a complex system may be limited. Our framework is intended to help enterprises or projects to design an inclusion strategy that works through all these challenges, it works best as a tool for a whole team to work together on. We hope it will ensure any project, programme or work plan has the possibility of embedding inclusive change. No matter how big or small, using this framework will enable users to locate where, when and how we can increase equity and inclusion in any project. Stage 1—Set your intention: What is the inclusion intention of your work/project/programme? Here we are asking you to think about the bigger goal, the strategic intention of your inclusion work. Stage 2—Define who you engage with: Who does this work/project/programme exist to serve? Be honest here, often you might want to your work to serve a particular community or group but it will also be serving and other groups like funders, or collaborators. Clearly this is the case with university collaborations where research publishing, grant capture or student recruitment are the driving metrics. In systems designed to accommodate different values, we can make sure we prioritise the experience of those who need inclusion as well as the bigger environmental drivers. What do you know about people who may be excluded and what they need? Also, what do you not know about them and what they need? Stage 3—Select a touchpoint: What are the moments where potential beneficiaries come into contact with your project ? Here we are asking you to think about all of the parts of your organisation or business that people touch. Make a long list, and then select the ones that connect with what you are aiming to do, and the people who will be affected by your change. This is where this work starts to find

268

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

its action points. For instance, your marketing and PR, your recruitment, the content you choose to promote, the investment decisions you make, there are many possible points where the work of your project or business can ‘touch’ the people you want to make an effort to include. Stage 4—Inspiration: Get some inspiration about what to do. Here we suggest that you look around at all of the fantastic inclusion resources around you. If you don’t have any you may need a bit of expert help here to support you in finding the inspiration that you need. But make it exciting and relevant to your project or business. Where are the brilliant examples that you find exciting and empowering? Stage 5—Power/Capacity/Resource: In many ways this stage is the heart of this framework as it will help you to identify what you can actually do to mobilise the plans you may have started to formulate in Stages 1–4. – What power do you have to make this happen? – What capacity do you have to make this happen? – What resource do you have to make this happen? The answers to these questions will vary wildly depending on the scale of the operation you are involved with and where you and your team sit within the network. A Board of Directors will answer differently from a social marketing team and so on. But the answers to these questions will really define the scope of what is possible, help you define an action plan and fight against the problem of being overwhelmed. Stage 6—Set out your action plan: What, how and when are you going to do it? What we mean here is to put your actions into a list on a timeline, and share them with the people who need to be engaged with in this work. Include your accountability and review stages.

NETWORKS FOR INCLUSION

269

Stage 7—Accountability: How do you know if the idea worked? We encourage you to use more than just metrics to measure an inclusive change. It could be that you talk directly with people to understand the difference in experiences, perhaps you have funded champions, or researchers, or you run a live evaluation event for feedback. Whatever you decide, make sure you understand if the things you’ve changed have made a difference. Set out in this way the steps above seem like an obvious road map, however it has been our experience that if they are done properly they take real time and care. This work of changing the way that ecosystems function takes a long time—after all as we have seen ecosystems develop over long periods and have their own drivers, values and flavours that are often embedded in particular places. These do not change quickly. The second observation we might make about this work of trying to design and implement inclusive ecosystems is that if it’s not challenging you are probably not doing it right. The change happens in the challenge.

References Adelaine, A. (2021). UKRI freedom of information request Twitter thread. https:/ /twitter.com/addyadelaine/status/1464620195675258893 Adelaine, A. (2023). Evaluating the South West creative technology review: The inclusion review. Bristol Digital Cultures Research Centre (Forthcoming). Arts Council. (2019). Equality diversity and the creative case. Arts Council of England. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-file/ Equality_Diversity_and_the_Creative_Case_A_Data_Report__201920_LP.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2023. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Polity Press. Brook, O., O’Brien, D., & Taylor, M. (2020). Culture is bad for you: Inequality in the cultural and creative industries. Manchester University Press. Carey, H., O’Brien, D., & Gable, O. (2021). Social mobility in the creative economy: Rebuilding and levelling up. Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC). Carey, H., Florisson, R., O’Brien, D., & Lee, N. (2020). Getting in and getting on: class, participation and job quality in the UK Creative Industries. Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC). Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Blackwell. Dovey, J., Moreton, S., Sharpe, B., & Sparke, S. (2016). The Practice of Cultural Ecology: Network connectivity in the creative economy. Cultural Trends, 25(2), 87–103

270

J. DOVEY AND T. BHAJAM

Dovey, J., Pratt, A., Moreton, S., Virani, T., Merkel, J., & Lansdowne, J. (2016). Creative hubs: Understanding the new economy. British Council. http://creati veconomy.britishcouncil.org/media/uploads/files/HubsReport.pdf Hagel, J., & Seely Brown, J. (2008). Creation Nets: Harnessing the potential of open innovation. Journal of Service Science, 1(2), 27–40. Holden, J. (2015). The ecology of culture a report commissioned by the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Cultural value project. AHRC. Markusen, A., Gadwa, A., Barbour, E., & Beyers, W. (2011). California’s arts and cultural ecology. http://annmarkusen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 01/ca-arts-culture.pdf Normann, R., & R. Ramirez. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71, 65–65. O’Brien, D. (2018). Tackling class discrimination. Arts Professional https:// www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/article/tackling-class-discrimination Sandhu, B. (2021). Knowledge equity for systems change Said Business School Oxford. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG65KvoqNWM. Accessed 6 March 2023. Sharpe, B. (2010). Producing the Future: Understanding Watershed’s role in ecosystems of cultural innovation International Futures Forum: Fife. http://www. internationalfuturesforum.com/publications Social Mobility Commission. (2021). Socio economic diversity and inclusion toolkit: Creative industries. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/govern ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1021624/SMC-Cre ative_Industries-Toolkit_Sept2021__1_.pdf Sun Lee, K., & Chen, W. (2016). A long shadow: Cultural capital, techno-capital and networking skills of college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 70(2017), 67–73. Virani, T. E. (2023a). Creative workforce for the future: Evaluation report. Bristol + Bath Creative R+D (Forthcoming). Virani, T. E. (2023b). Social inclusion and SMEs: The case of creative SMEs in Hackney Wick and Fish Island, London. City, Culture and Society, 32, 100493. Virani, T. E., & Gill, R. (2019). Hip hub? Class, race and gender in creative hubs. Creative Hubs in Question: Place, Space and Work in the Creative Economy, 131–154. Virani, T. E., & Malem, (2015). Re-articulating the creative hub concept as a model for business support in the local creative economy: The case of Mare Street in Hackney. Creative Works London Working Paper Series. http://www.cre ativeworkslondon.org.uk/publications/working-chapters-research/ Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. Public Affairs.

Keeping to the Margins: Understanding the Role of Symbolic Violence and Institutional Fields in Creative Ecosystems Claire Burnill-Maier

and Abigail Gilmore

Introduction As this volume attests, by placing cultural and creative industries at the heart of development strategies, local governments, planners and developers hope to transform towns and cities into thriving spaces. Cultural and creative industries have been identified as major actors in local economic growth, particularly in urban areas where they have tended to cluster. Likewise, the interconnected relationships of the cultural and creative organisations within these cultural ecologies (Holden, 2015) are considered important for local sustainable development, offering the potential for wider economic benefits (Barker & Jordan, 2022). However, the spatial distribution and agglomeration of cultural and creative clusters is uneven across conurbations, favouring city centres as the prime sites

C. Burnill-Maier (B) · A. Gilmore University of Manchester, Manchester, UK e-mail: [email protected] A. Gilmore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5_15

271

272

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

for consumption and of services and transport infrastructure, extending inequalities between city centres and peripheral areas (Maddah et al., 2021). As such, policy makers in peripheral locales continue to seek ways to harness the potential of the cultural and creative industries for more localised sustainable growth, looking for ways to support businesses and organisations to form enough critical mass to create agglomeration effects and attract further inward investment. This chapter explores how the interconnectedness amongst cityregional creative and cultural organisations may not always be of benefit to planners and place leaders from peripheral places, to address a knowledge gap in our understanding of creative and cultural ecosystems. Taxonomic approaches towards cultural ecologies and clusters rarely attend to the broader institutional contexts in which cultural and creative organisations sit or to the practices and values which legitimise their interconnections. As such, we argue that successful local planning requires more than the provision of a list of ingredients (research and development, transport networks, etc.) for the creation of successful creative and cultural strategies but must also consider how local organisational identities are constructed in relation to other members of the institutional field. Drawing on a case study of Oldham, a satellite town of Manchester in the Greater Manchester conurbation, in the Northwest of England, we examine the role of ‘symbolic violence’ (Bourdieu, 1980) within the institutional practices that reinforce systems of dependence between city centre and peripheral cultural and creative agglomerations. This key critical concept introduced by Bourdieu (1980, 1991) to describe how dominated actors are subject to acts of intimidation, or misrecognition of their situation through ‘gentle, invisible violence, unrecognised as such, chosen as much as undergone’ (Bourdieu, 1980, p. 127). A mechanism through which hierarchical institutional structures are justified, through the creation of indebtedness or loyalty to dominant actors, symbolic violence constructs the worth of dominant actors whilst simultaneously convincing dominated actors that the social relations they find themselves in are acceptable. It is manifest in the ways social groups hold themselves within hierarchical power relations symbolically and unconsciously, in turn acting to reinforce power differentials of the ‘status quo’. This chapter explores examples of symbolic violence within a city-regional creative ecosystem which is spatially and materially stratified by inequalities that are in turn reinforced by these institutional practices. It argues for the need to understand not only the material conditions required for

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

273

the success of cultural and creative local development, but also practices of legitimisation which create reliance on metropolitan areas as sources of vital capitals, and effectively hold together a spatialised and hierarchical ecosystem where some actors remain at the margins.

Legitimacy and Consent in Cultural Hierarchy The contention that prevailing social conditions may be adopted to advance the aims of individual actors, and the corresponding struggle for power within a social hierarchy is central to the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1980, 1993). Bourdieu’s contribution to the understanding of the social world is familiar within cultural policy studies, providing a conceptual toolkit which has helped to frame research on cultural production, consumption, taste and participation for the past three decades, in particular through the theoretical perspective offered in Distinction (1984). For Bourdieu (1984), it is the struggle for power which is central to explaining how society operates. Power functions via the imposition of values within society, which are the means for individuals to exercise choice, whilst simultaneously acknowledging structural constraints: Social agents are knowing agents who, even when they are subjected to determinisms, contribute to producing the efficacy of that which determines them insofar as they structure what determines them. (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, pp. 167–168)

This double bind, of both knowing and being bound by the knowledge which is made by knowing, is what contrives power relationships: for Bourdieu, symbolic systems form a mechanism by which domination is both precipitative and consensual. This understanding, in combination with the contention that structural constraints are distributed unevenly within institutional hierarchies, is central to this chapter’s argument. Bourdieu (1990) argues that power takes on three dimensions, in the form of valued resources (or capitals: economic, social and cultural) within a wider context he labels ‘the field’. Together actors may combine these capitals to accumulate symbolic capital, which may be used under field-specific conditions to acquire and maintain power. Crucially, the accumulated symbolic capital requires social acceptance, in the form of legitimacy. Symbolic power is dependent upon the complicity of those

274

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

within a given system and acquired through systems of legitimation. Bourdieu explains these symbolic systems enable actors to impose conditions within a given field which disguise inequality and domination as legitimate and natural. Following on from Bourdieu, neo-institutional scholars (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991) also acknowledge that organisations do not exist in isolation but are embedded within a framework of relations in the social world (Scott, 1991). These frameworks provide both opportunities and constraints for organisations; in addition to financial and regulatory systems, they provide normative and cultural guidelines, compelling organisations to behave in accordance with a mixture of rational, regulative and socio-culturally acceptable institutional arrangements. These taken-for-granted sets of shared values shape organisational behaviour, namely because in doing so, organisations can claim legitimacy via conformity. They also reproduce social worlds: DiMaggio and Powell (1983) emphasise the importance of legitimacy for maintaining organisational dominance, establishing the two main sources of organisational power as, firstly, an organisation’s ability to ‘define the norms and standards which shape and channel behaviour’, and secondly, ‘the elites who can define appropriate models of organisational structure and policy which then go unquestioned for years to come’ (Di Maggio & Powell, 1983, p. 79). Legitimacy plays a crucial role in the structures of power and influence, in turn affecting who may exercise power (Berger et al., 1998): Organisations require more than material resources and technical information if they are to survive and thrive. […] They also need social acceptability and credibility. (Scott et al., 2000 in Scott, 2014, p. 71)

Meyer and Scott (1983) describe organisational legitimacy as the degree of cultural support for an organisation: the extent to which the array of established cultural accounts provides explanations for its existence. In other words, the process of legitimation for organisations through symbolic violence involves the stories that organisations tell about themselves and others, which in turn shape and contribute to their own ‘organisational position takings’ (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 14) within the hierarchies of the institutional field. This storytelling takes more than simply having resource and knowledge; it requires performance and display: legitimacy may be secured via

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

275

conforming to the rules and requirements of the field, even if only ceremonially (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). This in turn generates acts of ‘nomination’ and ‘designation’, which define the ability of an actor to monopolise what is considered legitimate or not (Bourdieu & Johnson, 1993) based on a set of subjective values are then applied ‘and converted into explicit principles’ over time (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 101). In organisational contexts, these nominations and designations may include, for example, the judgement, the awarding and recognition of prizes, and the design, delivery and certification of professional qualifications. These acts are forms of symbolic violence which have the power to grant ‘consecration’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Through the bestowal of accreditation and recognition, organisations are held within these institutional systems of legitimation (Scott, 2014); the consecration of certain values and practices constructs a sense of loyalty or indebtedness within the relation which forms and reproduces its power dynamic. In the next section, we consider how the cultural organisations of Oldham behave, the myths and stories they tell themselves and other actors and how these serve to hold and influence their position within the spatialised creative and cultural ecosystem of Greater Manchester.

Symbolic Violence in the Satellite Town Oldham is a satellite town on the periphery of the city of Manchester, crowned the most bohemian city by an adaptation of Richard Florida’s creative class index in 2003 (Carter, 2003) the self-proclaimed ‘original modern city’ (Marketing Manchester, 2009) and the site of ongoing exceptional capital investment into its cultural infrastructure from arts and heritage funders, not least through the £178 m Factory International project, granted as part of the city-region’s devolution deal with national government (Gilmore & Bulaitis, 2023, forthcoming). Founded on the back of cotton manufacture and the related activities of Manchester boomtime textile industry, Oldham has now become a town with some of the highest indices of deprivation in England (ONS, 2019). Widespread deprivation has been felt most acutely amongst diverse ethnic minority groups living in the borough and in 2001 tensions between ethnic groups resulted in rioting. Following the unrest, recommendations offered via ‘The Cantle Report’ (2001) stressed the need for Oldham to prioritise not only economic growth, but community cohesion, suggesting animation and cultural activities as vehicles for fostering stronger communities

276

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

and growth (see Virani, 2020). The development of a cultural quarter was framed as a way of transforming Oldham’s image and as a driver for its economic future (Oldham Borough Council, 2004). Oldham is a town simultaneously attempting to harness culture and creativity as a mode of supporting its own economic development whilst concurrently being nested within a city region which foregrounds the city of Manchester as a creative city. The town is the focus of doctoral research (Burnill-Maier, 2021) which took a Bourdieusian, relational, approach to understand how organisational power is distributed throughout the local cultural ecology. Organisations participating in the research range from local radio stations, theatre companies, youth groups, galleries, libraries and music services across both professional and voluntary-amateur organisations supported via a range of funding models. Thirty-three organisations participated in research interviews and organisational site visits undertaken between 2017 and 2019. The research combined three different methods designed to provide qualitative insights into the institutional field to which participants belonged. Firstly, semi-structured interviews generated narrative data to inform understandings of institutional relations and logics. Secondly, the research used the device of a ‘go-along’ (Kusenbach, 2003), in the form of a physical site visit and observation of how participants engaged with the material elements and surroundings of their organisation, to reveal the symbolic meanings attributed such artefacts in the construction of organisational agency. Thirdly, participants were asked to produce network maps of the significant relationships they held with other organisations within the cultural field. These hand drawn images were then used to identify other field members for snowball sampling (Denscombe, 2017) and analysed using Gephy software (Bastian et al., 2009) to create an overview of network connections within the field (see Fig. 2). In addition, desk-based research of online data in the public realm, including Companies House, the Charity Commission and professional websites such as LinkedIn, identified the individuals involved in the governance of organisations within the field. Individuals in positions of governance were shown to also be highly networked, with over a quarter of those identified holding trusteeships or positions of influence with more than one organisation in the field. Analysis of the data gathered through these methods showed that the spatial dimensions of the

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

277

Fig. 1 The location of Oldham within the Greater Manchester region

network relations of participating organisations reveal particular contingencies between Oldham and the cluster of arts and cultural venues and organisations based in the city of Manchester. Whilst the anonymised data in Fig. 2 provides only a snapshot insight into the field, what is clear is the highly networked nature of Oldham organisations. The Oldham-based organisations were especially keen to demonstrate how they were connected with key city centre organisations, the nature of which varying from formal partnerships, personal connections, employment background, professional networks, governance ties, and patronage. Regardless of their nature, references to connections with Manchester City Centre organisations peppered the interviews and were present within participants’ network maps. These connections are highly prized: prestige Manchester-based organisations were referred to as ‘star partners’ by one Oldham-based participant, whilst another Oldham arts organisation was clear that their connections to Manchester-based organisations bestow them ‘status’. The links to up-system organisations were ways for Oldham organisations to gain recognition for the work they do; the use of networks to legitimise organisational work is widespread, and in

278

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

Fig. 2 Network view of the Oldham arts and cultural field. Blue—Oldham town participants, Red—central Manchester participants, Grey—other organisations (Source Burnill-Maier, 2021)

principle the ties between organisations serve to bestow credibility on the work of each organisation within its network. However, what was notable in the study was the lack of reciprocation by city centre organisations. Network reciprocity is understood as a key indicator of power balance in a social network and its absence points to a field dominated by Manchester city centre organisations. The network connection between the Oldham organisation and its Manchester ‘star partner’ received no

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

279

reciprocal acknowledgement (indeed they claimed not to know of them) suggesting that the Oldham organisation misrecognises the nature of the relationship. This displays evidence of symbolic violence, since it requires ‘the complicity of those who do not want to know they are subject to it’ resulting in consent (Bourdieu, 1991 in Swartz, 1997, p. 164). The case study demonstrated the ways in which dominated organisations misrecognise reciprocity in their relationships, finding themselves merely complicit in affirming the dominant position of others in the field, or as Swartz describes it, ‘the deep structure of domination and subordination in social life’ (Swartz, 1997, p. 85). The symbolic relationships within the network were therefore critical to the recognition of network positions; they were also sources of organisational legitimacy and local reputation important to public funders, who require quality markers and evidence of track record to support investment (Gilmore et al., 2017). Organisations in receipt of public funding from national funder, Arts Council England, were particularly closely tied. Close ties to Arts Council England also equated to close ties to local government. The reputational ‘halo’ effect of national funding is acknowledged by participants in the field: They’ve definitely got an amplified voice […] that’s what Arts Council [funding] does in Oldham. (Oldham based organisation)

The interviewees also referred to organisational ties with individuals and organisations that Griffiths et al. (2008) describe as ‘prestige […) with royal or national in the title’ (p. 207). These connections were used to emphasise their own resonance, to legitimise themselves and the work they do. Organisations valued partnerships with prestige organisations for their potential in ‘bringing more people to us’ and ‘raising our profile’ (Oldham-based participant), referring to funding benefits that partnerships facilitated. They also quantified the value of these relationships within the hierarchical field, for example, articulating ties with national organisations such as the Tate and the British Museum as ‘bigger’ partnerships (Oldham participant). Making network connections with those considered more prestigious was viewed as essential when accessing the institutional field locally:

280

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

[Networking with partners] is what they need to do as organisations in order to get a foothold in the cultural ecology of Greater Manchester. (Oldham participant)

This quote explicitly states the importance of network connections within the field and also tacitly implies an authoritative voice. The use of ‘they’ recalls Bourdieu and Johnson’s (1993) ‘structural othering’: it implies a taken-for-granted assumption within the field that Oldham-based organisations do not belong to the same in-group and need the recognition that in-group organisations bestow on them via network connections. By separating themselves from those trying to ‘gain a foothold’ this participant acknowledges the existence of dominant, well-established organisations and implies that others are still trying to establish their field position and are therefore less self-assured. This evidences the view that networks themselves constitute capitals (Burt, 1997). Within the field, symbolic systems are based upon inclusion and exclusion in which binary logics serve to construct (and stabilise) power relationships within the social realm. These logics signpost how institutional hierarchies are understood and reflected upon, for example, the reference below which shows the level to which one organisation considers another superior to themselves: We’ve started working with [anonymised Manchester organisation] and [are] just trying to get the big people in’. (Oldham participant, our emphasis)

The way arts organisations offer praise to each other also presents insight into the logics of hierarchies within the field. The capacity to confer praise reveals condescension (Bourdieu, 1991): up-system organisations in the field command sufficient field capital to bestow a condescending praise, and with it a sense of their ability to legitimise the work of others. The following was part of an anecdote in which one Oldham-based amateur organisation had praise bestowed upon them by a professional organisation: The Artistic Director came when I did 39 Steps – so they came to see that – and they said – ‘How did you do that?, How did you do that? How could you do that? You’re amateurs!’ […] He could not believe how we put the shows on!’. (Oldham participant)

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

281

This ability to bestow praise and opinion positioned as an expert authority show how such logics permeate the field, including the assumption that professional organisations are necessarily better than voluntary-amateur ones. It supports (and propagates) a prevailing attitude towards the voluntary-amateur sector also found by Nicholson et al. (2018): that amateur cultural activity is less significant than, and ultimately inferior to, professional or subsidised culture. Critically, this quote reveals a sense of the deference of voluntary-amateur organisations as they enthusiastically espouse the condescension of the professional organisation. For the voluntary-amateur organisation, the condescending praise bestowed confers legitimacy. However, the dominated organisation misrecognises that this condescension indicates the dominant position of the professional organisation. The conditions within the field are such that the superiority of professional organisations is necessarily real and accepted as natural. Such tacit ordering is joined by more formal legitimating structures. For example, the inclusion within the Arts Council England’s national portfolio was acknowledged to generate newly found acceptance within the institutional field; regular funding providing not only additional resources, but elevated status. This endorsement of status, and therefore field relations, is shared between public funding bodies; in this case, the local authority and Arts Council England which function in step. The institutional closeness of local and national grant giving bodies was articulated by the local authority who expressed their closeness to Arts Council, stating: We get a lead from the Arts Council about what are their priorities. (Oldham local authority representative)

Connections are sought, through governance or via partnerships, directly with local government who recognised as having power and agency within the field. One interviewee stated: ‘I speak to the council every month and we look at what we’re doing and what they’re doing’ and another expressed gratitude to the local authority for assisting them to secure an Arts Council grant. These connections enable organisations to adapt quickly to and adopt appropriate policy rhetoric (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005) to further their interests, with one organisation admitting:

282

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

There’s certain language that you have to use for example in a funding application to describe something. (Oldham participant)

The adoption of practices and priorities realised through maintaining network connections with those in more dominant positions, including funding bodies, is also part of the logic of the field which fixes the relative places of its members within it. Interestingly, recognition and acceptance of institutional hierarchy is perhaps most explicit across those who benefit least from commercial and public funding prowess: the voluntary-amateur sector which relies on dedicated enthusiasts endeavouring to keep their activities going. To do so, they too find ways of accessing legitimising institutional mechanisms, whilst accepting their position within the field and deferring to the professional organisations occupying dominant field positions. In Oldham, the voluntary-amateur organisations adopted institutional forms and practices as sources for legitimacy, including sectoral awards (discussed below) and by fostering ties with influential, prestigious groups through elite patronage or governance ties to professional organisations. Without the ability to access legitimising capital, voluntary-amateur organisations are in danger of becoming irrelevant or invisible. Where the initial network mapping activity suggested there were few relationships between organisations in Oldham’s voluntary-amateur sector and the professional, publicly funded cultural and creative organisations, interrogation of governance networks revealed that groups are linked to the same networks in which the Manchester city centre organisations were central. These connections of governance tied the field together through prestige organisations, elite individuals, local government representatives or a combination of each. Patterns of governance converge in the city centre with all but two of the Oldham-based organisations having one or more trustees linked with a Manchester-based organisation. One key association for Oldham organisations is with members of the ‘Manchester Lieutenancy’. The Lord Lieutenant of Manchester is appointed by the monarch to ‘uphold the dignity of the crown’ in the city and may appoint up to 94 deputies (Manchester Lieutenancy, n.d.). Over a third of these deputies hold an honorary title, and interviews revealed that access to the Lieutenancy through organisational governance structures also grants access to wealthy donors and sponsors. The connections between these elite figures, the city centre organisations and their surrounding networks, illustrated in Fig. 3, invokes

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

283

Fig. 3 Patterns of governance

Griffiths et al. (2008, p. 196) observation that there is a ‘distinctive, metropolitan dynamic in the governance of the cultural world’. Here, the metropolitan nature of institutional power contributes to the perpetuation of spatial inequalities more broadly as the Oldham organisations are held at the periphery of the field by the dominant nodes of Manchester organisational governance networks. Far from creating ‘spill-over’ into the town, the city centre fixes field arrangements.

Heading into Town The relevance of spatial connections or perhaps, more accurately, distance between Oldham and Manchester organisations is evident within discussion of the role of public transport as a factor for successful cultural ecosystems. However, this highlights not only the importance of mobility, but how the city centre is viewed as key to the provision of crucial capitals.

284

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

Public transport links are viewed as having a positive effect on the cultural life of the borough, but this acknowledgement also reveals deference to Manchester-based organisations: [It’s] easy for [people] to go and watch theatre in Manchester, or to go to Manchester, and be young creatives in Manchester, and get down to Contact, the Exchange – or those things. That’s brilliant, and they bring all of that rich experience back. (Oldham organisation)

This statement suggests Oldham’s existing cultural offer does not constitute a ‘rich experience’ in itself. Furthermore, participants inferred that this ‘rich experience’ does not return to Oldham for the long term, since Oldham organisations are regarded as a staging post, as a place for creatives to begin their career, with a view to heading into more prestigious roles in the city. Numerous Manchester city centre participants mentioned artists, directors and even themselves as having started their careers in Oldham town, some of whom found their way to screen stardom within TV soap operas and drama series, but despite this ability to produce nationally acclaimed actors, musicians, artists, directors and creative enterprises, as a satellite of Manchester, Oldham is unable to retain its success stories. The mobility of audiences is encouraged; for example, one Manchester city centre-based organisation offered an Oldham one free transportation to and from the city centre for its members: They [Manchester centre-based organisation] have a programme where we can have free tram tickets and bus tickets to get to them and they’ll give us heavily discounted things for shows. (Oldham organisation)

This illustrates Bourdieu’s symbolic violence at play: the Oldham organisation is a beneficiary of discounts aiming to create loyalty to the up-system organisation. The Manchester organisation appears to exploit their connection to Oldham which provides access to a specific audience demographic and furthers their own interests by drawing participants into the city. The situation masks a servitude that provides the up-system (city centre based) organisation with access to non-traditional, more culturally diverse Oldham audiences, which satisfy funders that they are widening participation of their audiences and meeting local strategic targets. The up-system (Manchester) organisation harnesses the capital through its

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

285

network connections to draw audiences in, and yet fails to convey any reciprocity; when questioned about their relationship with Oldham, the up-system organisation said dismissively: There is a relationship, in that Oldham is part of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and they send us money. (Manchester organisation)

This statement leaves little doubt that this city centre neighbour commands a recognised position of power in the field whilst the relationship with cultural organisations in Oldham is both transactional and one of servitude. The relationships of value between the Oldham organisations are also based on perceptions of prestige and heritage. Older organisations, accompanied by buildings of grandeur, are able to capitalise on the gravitas of age and provenance, which add legitimacy to structures of authority permeating the field, and which shape how organisations speak about and understand themselves and others through legitimising factors beyond their network connections, as illustrated in the quote below: They [Oldham based organisation] do theatre very seriously. 50 years old this year, you know, international stars come from there so they’re very disciplined about what they do. (Oldham participant)

For this interviewee, legitimacy is indicated by the age of the organisation they are talking of, its international standing and its perceived professionalism. The subjectivity associated with doing theatre ‘seriously’ seems almost absurd; abstracted as it is here, it suggests such ascribed subjective characteristics are taken-for-granted markers of quality. It also casts doubt on other organisations within the field who presumably, in contrast, are not serious about their cultural production. Professionalism and seriousness are demonstrated by identifying employees, volunteers, or governors with institutionally recognised (and revered) sources of educational or professional qualifications bestowed via prestige national organisations, professional experience gained in national organisations such as the BBC, national and international film and television appearances or through recognition via awards and prizes. Similarly, national awards affirm sets of institutionally accepted standards by acknowledging those who attain them.

286

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

Organisations harness crucial legitimacy by taking part in competitions, since awards and prizes are sources of benchmarking and pride: They were awarded the platinum award - which is the top-level and they will be competing at the National Finals […] we expect them to do well at that level as well - […] So, as I say we tend to operate at a very high level. (Oldham organisation)

This claim of being at a ‘top level’ shows what Swartz (1997) describes as ‘matter-of-fact symbolic legitimation’ (p. 93). The organisation’s ability to be recognised, nationally, within the context of the award serves to demonstrate that the organisation is one that delivers high quality. The participant frames the competition as being consequential regardless of whether or not the award is won: taking part in the award ‘at that level’ is prestigious and thus demonstrates the organisation’s abilities. The emphasis on the awards as being national infers an expansion of influence and resultant legitimation. Nevertheless, consecration via awards tends to confer greater authority to the awarding body to whom all those taking part defer. Just as Bourdieu contends; it is through systems of awards that organisations consent to authority (Swartz, 1997). Of the numerous awards and qualifications highlighted in the research in Oldham, most awarding bodies were constituted of a narrow band of metropolitan voices, reasserting spatial inequalities that mirrored and reinforced field positions. Oldham organisations are, it seems, entirely dependent upon sources of legitimation beyond the scope of the borough. A final form of symbolic violence of relevance here is the ability to control access to a valuable resource, echoing Bourdieu’s assertion that debts and gifts constitute two key modes of ‘getting and keeping a lasting hold’ over an actor (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 126). Organisations can shore up their position and assert power within the field through sharing and providing access to resources. In Oldham, opportunities to attract significant capital investment are hampered by location, however, at the time of research; one organisation was in the position by virtue of a forthcoming development which would allow this organisation to share space as a resource, and to assert power over other local organisations. Discussing another organisation who has been unwilling to respond to partnership requests in the past, they stated:

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

287

[This is] something they’ll regret in the end – and I don’t mean that maliciously, but – you know, our extension is going to be a performance area. (Oldham participant)

The implication within this statement is clear; a new venue space will bestow the organisation with greater power within the field by being able to allow others to access it. This is echoed by another organisation who foresee a new venue as a way of securing loyalty and support from those organisations who need to use it, stating it would: ...elevate our strands of work; further, it creates partnerships and loyalty with companies – so as the companies grow, they’re still with us. (Oldham participant)

These symbolic relations have agency and reciprocity: the articulation of one’s position within the field informs the material environment for cultural production as well as signifying legitimacy. It is however inherently localised: it supports capacity building for organisational agency, whilst simultaneously reinforcing the network positions of and ties between Oldham’s cultural ecology, outside of the wider.

Discussion and Conclusion In this chapter, we have demonstrated how symbolic violence and the practices of key organisations in a localised ecosystem of cultural production and consumption serve to hold the institutional field and the positions within it of these organisations in place. Furthermore, these relations are spatialised—they reflect the dominance of city centre networks and institutions over the satellite relations between Oldham organisations. Arguably, they do not just reflect these but also serve to reproduce them as the capacity building and access to resources are structured through these symbolic practices. The chapter’s findings, therefore, support other observations in this volume of the significance of interconnections across creative and cultural ecosystems, highlighting how these also reflect spatialised dimensions of capitals that do not flow freely around these networks but rather are embedded and fixed by legitimising practices and conferral of status. We find that the organisations within the satellite town of Oldham are dependent on their recognition by city centre organisations within

288

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

Manchester, who have closer relationships with each other, with funders and with arts organisations outside of the city-region, and vulnerable to their condescension, which serves the dominant organisation’s own field position. The ecosystem is held together through nodes of governance which provide and prevent access to elite groups and influential patrons. These patterns of dominance and dominated repeat within the localised ecosystem in Oldham, established by the recognition of public funding, and in particular the regular funding provided as part of the national Arts Council England’s portfolio, which not only provides sustainability but also endorsement and legitimacy. Voluntary-amateur organisations, without regular funding or strong commercial models, aspire to recognition in their participation in competition for awards which represent national benchmarks and confer status from outside the local network’s relatively weak position. Meanwhile, the dominant city centre organisations benefit from their relationships with Oldham partners to build diverse audiences and show their reach across the city-region. So, what are the implications for the resilience and success of cultural ecosystems in satellite towns? In the UK, the debate about how national policy can alleviate the relative inequalities and stratification of localities with respect to economic prosperity, wellbeing, life chances and social and geographic mobility has recently become attached to the agenda of ‘levelling up’ (DLUHC, 2022), with a renewed emphasis on the role of culture in economic and place recovery, following the COVID-19 pandemic (Dunn & Gilmore, 2021). Place-based funding schemes connected to this agenda, such as the Shared Prosperity Fund and Towns Fund, aim to address geographically determined inequality and increase as-yetseemingly-unmeasurable pride in place. Such schemes, which focus on capital and infrastructure investment, reinvigorate discourses of cultureled regeneration and cultural assets as suitable investment targets through which to ‘rejuvenate places, leading to positive economic and social outcomes at a local level’ (HM Treasury, 2021, p. 12). The vulnerability of satellite towns within this scenario, as peripheral places with marginalised communities, displaced from city centres by unaffordable rents and excluded from their strong-tie networks, is that they are so dependent on these very networks to make the case to attract investment into the types of organisations—theatre and concert venues, museums and arts centres—that are interpolated within these schemes. These organisations are hard-pressed to demonstrate sustainability, never mind compete with their city centre counterparts for resources, and any

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

289

case for support is dependent on the rallying capacity and political buy-in of local authorities ravaged by a decade of austerity measures, Red Wall infighting and social division following Brexit. Furthermore, at national level, HM Treasury has intervened in Arts Council England conventionally arms-length strategy and exacerbating place-based criteria for arts funding allocation through an insistence on increasing the numbers of locations targeted in the Arts Council’s Priority Place scheme (HM Treasury, 2021). This interest in levelling up places does not seem to translate into equitable per capita funding or resource distribution, indeed somewhat the opposite. Both the allocation of Cultural Recovery Funds to mitigate pandemic impacts, and their accompanying rhetoric saw an overreliance on ‘trickle down’ mechanisms and the ‘gravitational pull’ of elite institutions and their presence (Johnson et al., 2021; Gilmore et al., forthcoming); there has been sector-wide outcry and rankled debate over which place has enough legitimacy to receive the English National Opera when it was suggested there would be an enforced relocation to Manchester city centre, following the most recent Arts Council England national portfolio competition (Pidd, 2022; Puffett, 2023a). Meanwhile, one of Oldham’s heritage arts and cultural organisations, the Oldham Coliseum, has been forced to close its doors, as its public funding has been withdrawn, with disputes over where responsibility lies oscillating between the local authority, the national funder and the organisation itself (Puffett, 2023b). This epitomises symbolic violence within creative and cultural networks at a national scale, whilst underlining the need for further research on the role of local government and national agencies within the institutional field. To conclude, addressing the symbolic violence and network dependency within ecosystems, whether national or localised, will require policy mechanisms which can reduce organisations’ reliance on the legitimising capital available from the fields in which they are nested. This is not about becoming ‘un-networked’: this would deny the positive benefits of synergy, serendipity and collaboration from co-location within a network, and in any case, as Bourdieu might argue, the contingencies of field relations would make this unrealisable. However, for those who are satellite, the strengths and values they hold require recognition and investment in place within its own terms and not as a position within the spatial power dynamics of the network. This is where place-based working comes into play since it promotes partnerships as dynamic encounters which require trust and asset-based approaches that highlight shared outcomes (Cassetti,

290

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

n.d.) and the diverse interests within ecosystems (Barker & Jordan, 2022). For Oldham and other satellite towns and places, keeping to the margins and understanding one’s place may not then be a deficit but a sign of resilience and source of legitimacy.

References Barker, V., & Jordan, J. (2022). Finding the sweet spot: Critiquing a cultural ecosystems approach to civic cultural strategy making. Journal of Cultural Economy, 15(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2022.204 1464 Bastian M., Heymann S., & Jacomy M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Berger, J, Ridgeway, C. Fisek, M., & Norman, R (1998) The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 379–405. Bourdieu, P. (1980) The logic of practice. Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction; A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge Classics. Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and symbolic power. Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., & Johnson, R. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on art and literature. Columbia University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An introduction to reflexive sociology. The University of Chicago Press. Burnill-Maier, C. L. (2021) Negotiating the Field: Towards a relational understanding of power in the arts. White Rose Publishing. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2). Cantle. (2001). Report of the Community Cohesion Team (The Cantle Report). Home Office 2001. Carter, H. (2003, May 26). Gritty City wins the boho crown, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/may/26/communities.arts Cassetti, V. (n.d.). Place-based partnership working. Local Government Association, available from: https://www.local.gov.uk/place-based-partnership-wor king. Accessed 2 March 2023. Denscombe, M. (2017). The good research guide for small scale social research projects (6th ed.). Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

KEEPING TO THE MARGINS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE …

291

Dunn, B., & Gilmore, A. (2021). Place matters: Greater Manchester, culture and ‘levelling up’. Centre for Cultural Value. Available from: https://www.culturehive.co.uk/CVIresources/place-matters-gre ater-manchester-culture-and-levelling-up/ Emirbayer, and Johnson. (2008). Bourdieu and organisational analysis. Theory and Society, 37 (1), 1–44. Gilmore, A., & Bulaitis, Z. (Forthcoming). Devolved responsibility: English regional creative industries policy and local industrial strategies. In A. Gilmore, T. Durrer, D. Stevenson, & L. Jancovich (Eds.), Cultural policy is local: Understanding cultural policy as situated practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Gilmore, A. Glow. H., & Johanson, K. (2017). Accounting for quality: Arts evaluation, public value and the case of ‘Culture counts’. Cultural Trends, 26(4), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2017.138 2761 Griffiths, D., Miles, A., & Savage, M. (2008). The End of the English Cultural Elite? The Sociological Review, 56(1_suppl), 187–209. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00768.x HM Treasury. (2021). Levelling up prospectus. Published 2 March. Accessed 1 February 2023. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ons/levelling-up-fund-prospectus Holden, J. (2015). The ecology of culture. Arts and Humanities Research Council. Johnson, R., Gilmore, A., & Dunn, B. (2021). Working with and supporting cultural organisations: Local cultural policies and Newton’s Law of cultural funding. Centre for Cultural Value. Available from: https://www.cultur ehive.co.uk/CVIresources/working-with-and-supporting-cultural-organisat ions-local-cultural-policies-and-newtons-law-of-cultural-funding/ Kusenbach. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as an ethonographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3) 455–485. ONS. (2019). Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/eng lish-indices-of-deprivation-2019 Maddah, L., Arauzo-Carod, J.-M., & López, F. A. (2021). Detection of geographical clustering: Cultural and creative industries in Barcelona. European Planning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.202021 8ONS Marketing Manchester. (2009). Original Modern, written by Warren Bramley and Ra Page, published February 2009 by Marketing Manchester. Available from http://www.marketingmanchester.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/02/OriginalModern.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2023. Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (Eds.). (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Sage. Nicholson, H., Holdsworth, N., & Milling, J. (2018). The ecologies of amateur theatre. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50810-2

292

C. BURNILL-MAIER AND A. GILMORE

Pidd, H. (2022, November 23). We are not all heathens, Andy Burnham tells ENO. The Guardian. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/ music/2022/nov/23/andy-burnham-enters-eno-row-manchester-arts-cou ncil. Accessed 2 March 2023. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism and organisational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Puffett, N. (2023a, March 2). Eno ‘in talks with 10 areas’ on new base. Arts Professional. Available fromhttps://www-artsprofessional-co-uk.manchester. idm.oclc.org/news/eno-talks-10-areas-new-base. Accessed 2 March 2023. Puffett, N. (2023b, February 23). Arts Council not to blame for demise of Oldham Coliseum. https://www-artsprofessional-co-uk.manchester.idm.oclc.org/mag azine/news-comment/arts-council-not-blame-demise-oldham-coliseum Scott, W. R. (1991) Unpacking institutional arguments. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism and organisational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Scott, W. R. (2014) Institutions and organisations: Ideas interests and identities (4th ed.). Sage. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press. Virani, T. E. (2020). Micro-community engagement and area-based regeneration in east London: The case of Chrisp Street Market. City, Culture and Society, 22, 100345.

Index

0–9 2001: A Space Odyssey, 35 2016 World Design Capital (Taipei), 65 4 All the UK, 127 A Aardman, 14, 121–123 Above the line, 27 Abu Dhabi, 12, 13, 40, 42, 44, 47–49, 51–53, 55 Abu Dhabi music, 42 Abu Dhabi performing arts ecosystem, 13, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54 Accelerator fund, 128 Acceptability and credibility, 274 Access and mobility, 161 Accessibility, 30, 62, 144, 160, 260, 266 Access to business support, 198 Access to finance, 198, 216 Access to markets, 198 Access to skills, 198

Accountability, 17, 259, 268, 269 Acorda Amor, 101 Action plan, 126, 268 Advertising and marketing, 7, 27, 31, 237 Aesthetics, 1, 12, 21, 102 A Fábrica do Som, 100 Affordable office space, 125 Affordable workspaces, 209 Afghanistan, 192 Africa, 101, 219, 221 African Diaspora memories, 101 Age groups, 159 AHRC Cultural Value Project, 238 AHRC UK, 153 Albania, 190 Algeria, 191 Amazon, 22 Amplified Publishing, 254 Anchieta theatre, 100 Anchor firm, 120, 121 Andorra, 189 Angola, 191 Angolan Culture Minister, 200

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. E. Virani (ed.), Global Creative Ecosystems, Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33961-5

293

294

INDEX

Animation, 14, 30, 121–123, 125, 127, 275 Apple, 202 Application processes, 260 Arabic/Emirati, 53 Architecture, 65, 66, 237, 256 Archiving, 23, 36, 62 Argentina, 189 Armenia, 190 Art commission, 243, 245, 248 Artificial Intelligence (AI), 7, 199 Artisans and craftworkers, 210 Artist, 6, 14, 17, 23, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 54, 90, 97, 100–103, 106, 107, 110, 111, 144, 146, 154, 168, 171, 236, 240, 241, 243, 247, 248, 284 Artistic work, 243 perception, 161 viability, 161 Arts and cultural venues, 277 Art school crit, 265 Arts Council England, 240, 241, 259, 279, 281, 288, 289 Arts Council Wales, 83, 85, 89 Arts ecosystems, 15, 41, 156 Asian Development Bank Institute, 211 Attention economy, 8, 258 Audience, 15, 22, 23, 54, 55, 87, 91, 97, 103, 104, 107, 109, 111, 136, 138, 144, 157, 198, 206, 208, 225, 246, 284, 288 Audience profile, 158, 160 Australia, 180–183, 189 Austria, 179, 180, 182, 189 Autonomous artist, 138 Axé, 103 Azerbaijan, 191 B Bahia Carnival, 103

Bahrain, 190 Bait Al Oud, 52 Bangladesh, 192 Bank of Mum and Dad, 203 Banks, 26 Barking and Dagenham, 245 Basic sanitation rubbish collection, 159 sewage service, 159 water supply, 159 Bath Spa University, 254 Battersea Art Centre, 242 BBC, 14, 26, 115, 119, 121–123, 125, 285 BBC Cymru Wales, 82, 85, 89 BBC’s licence fee, 130 BBC Worldwide, 121 Becker, H., 136 Belarus, 190 Belgium, 180–183, 186, 188 Belize, 190 Below the line, 27, 29 Benin, 191 Berklee Abu Dhabi, 52, 53 Bhutan, 191 Black, 164, 241, 259, 260, 262 Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, 241 Black, Asian or other Minority Ethnic, 164, 262 Black female, 261 Black Lives Matter, 241, 262, 264 Böhm, Kathrin, 245 Bolivia, 190 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 191 Bossa Nova, 102, 107, 109 Botswana, 190 Bottle Yard Studios (TBYS), 126 Bourdieu, Pierre, 8, 17, 18, 51, 52, 258, 272, 273, 275, 280 Box-office hits, 21 Branded content, 122, 123

INDEX

Branding, 32, 48 Brazil, 14, 99, 101, 189 Brazilian Independent Music Association (ABMI), 105 Brazilian music, 14, 97, 98, 102, 103, 105–107, 109–111 Brazilian music ecosystem, 97, 98, 101, 104, 107, 109, 111 Brazilian ‘S System’, 99 Brexit, 125, 239, 289 Bricolage, 16, 17, 217–219, 221, 224–230 Brighton, 207 Bristol, 115, 116, 119–124, 126–130, 254, 257 Bristol + Bath Creative R+D programme (BBCRD), 254, 259–261 Bristol City Council, 126–130 Bristol Film Office, 126 Bristol Screen Producers, 124 British Council, 88, 204 British Council Wales, 88 British Council Zimbabwe, 221 British Embassy, 229 British Film Institute (BFI), 26, 28, 119 British Museum, 279 Broadcast, 66, 121 Brokers, 26, 211 Brunei Darussalam, 190 Buarque, Chico, 102 Budget, 27, 29–33, 86, 130, 254, 266 Build back better, 199 Bulgaria, 189 Burbank, California, 36 Burkina Faso, 191 Burundi, 192 Business development, 25, 216, 254 Business model the ‘container’, 236 Business support, 204, 209, 211

295

C CAER Heritage, 89 Cairo, 205 Cambodia, 191 Cameroon, 191 Canada, 180, 182, 183, 189 Cannes, 31 Cantle Report’, 275 Capacity building and training, 216 Carbon neutral by 2030, 127 Cardiff, 13, 14, 79, 81–83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 123, 130 Cardiff Bay, 123 Cardiff School of Art and Design, 88 Cardiff University Business School, 87 Casablanca, 47 Castells, Manuel, 256 Casualty, 123 Central Asia, 211 Centre for Cultural Value, 238 CGI, 30 Chad, 192 Channel 4, 26, 35, 119, 127, 129 Channel 4’s Emerging Indie fund, 128 Charity Commission, 247, 276 Chile, 189 China, 180, 186, 190 Choke points, 24 Chung Shan Creative Hub, 64, 65 City centre, 18, 271, 272, 277, 278, 282, 284, 285, 287–289 Classical music, 52, 53, 105, 106 Climate change, 199, 205, 211 Climate-change-impacted world, 199 Cluster culture, 119 Clusters, 2, 3, 15, 17, 39, 52, 60, 61, 79, 116, 117, 119, 122, 127, 140, 174, 208, 271, 272 Co-creation, 16, 219, 224, 228, 230, 242, 247 Co-creators, 204

296

INDEX

Code Cultural Diversity, 139 Collaboration, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 61, 68, 70, 79, 80, 83, 86, 87, 90–92, 117, 155, 216, 217, 220, 224, 229, 241, 253, 259, 289 Colombia, 191 Colony Room, 34 Communities, 6, 48, 78, 79, 82, 85, 87, 90, 93, 98, 120, 122, 154, 155, 164, 165, 168, 171, 188, 199, 203, 241, 255 Community building, 89, 90, 216, 260 Community engagement, 162, 170 Community Interest Companies (CIC), 17, 236, 242–245, 247, 248 Companies House, 119, 276 Company Drinks, 17, 236, 242, 243, 245–248 Company House, 247 Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), 139, 140, 142 Concentric circles model, 23 Congo, Dem. Rep., 192 Consecration, 275, 286 Contact Theatre, 15 Context, 2, 4–6, 15, 17, 25, 33, 40–42, 44, 48, 52, 54, 78, 93, 94, 147, 155, 157, 199, 205, 216, 220, 238, 248, 256, 260, 262, 273, 286 Conurbation, 272 Cooperatives (Co-op), 236, 242 Co-producers, 204 Costa Rica, 182, 189 Cote d’Ivoire, 191 COVID-19, 3, 15, 93, 135, 137, 141, 143, 145, 217, 222, 225–227, 236, 237, 240, 241, 248, 288 COVID-19 impact, 85

COVID information, 91 Cox, Sir George, 210 Coyle, Diane, 207 Crafts, 237 Craft workers, 22, 206, 211 Creation Nets, 257 Creative and cultural ecologies, 2 Creative and cultural industries, 1, 2, 16, 17, 89, 98, 137, 156, 198, 215, 223 Creative and Cultural Industry development programmes, 255 Creative cities, 3, 116, 201 Creative Cities Network, 208 Creative-city, 17 Creative class, 120, 275 Creative clusters, 2, 15, 39, 60, 61, 116, 117, 129, 174, 208, 271 Creative economy, 7, 17, 22, 39, 85, 88–90, 108, 117, 174, 204, 208, 211, 219, 220, 227, 236, 242, 243, 247, 248, 253, 265 Creative Economy Atlas, 91 Creative Economy of Cities , 118 Creative Economy Outlook 2022, 198 Creative field, 22, 23, 49, 55 Creative hubs, 16, 17, 61, 65, 216, 219–221, 224, 227, 228, 257 Creative hubs, collectives and spaces, 216 Creative Hubs: Opportunities and Challenges for Intercultural Dialogue report, 91 Creative imagination, 197, 201, 203, 206 ‘Creative mediators’, 118 Creative networks, 13, 78–83, 92–94, 158, 159, 168 Creative organisations, 18, 271, 272, 282

INDEX

Creative practitioners, 13, 60, 62–64, 67, 68, 70–72, 81, 91 Creative producers, 257, 265 Creative quarters, 201 Creative skills, 4, 156, 161, 203 Creative studio, 89, 121 Creative work, 55, 116, 118 Creative Workforce for the Future programme, 262 Criolo, 103 Croatia, 189 Crossick, Geoffrey, 155, 238 Cuba, 190 Cultural and creative economy, 39 Cultural and creative workers, 60, 63, 64, 198, 205 Cultural democracy, 161, 167, 168, 241 Cultural development, 41 Cultural ecologies, 2, 271, 272 Cultural ecosystem, 14, 17, 40, 131, 153, 206, 219, 244, 257, 272, 275, 283, 287, 288 Cultural engagement, 156, 161, 168 Cultural field, 40, 41, 276, 278 Cultural Freelancers study, 85 Cultural industries, 1, 2, 168, 170, 197, 198, 257, 259 Cultural infrastructure, 9, 216, 275 Cultural markets, 216 Cultural practice, 15, 48, 154, 156, 166–168, 263 Cultural production, 3, 7–9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 24, 36, 40, 42, 62, 157, 187, 188, 198, 199, 206, 207, 210, 212, 236, 238, 244, 246–248, 257, 273, 285, 287 Cultural quarters, 208 Cultural spaces, 159, 225 Cultural turn, 8 Culture and creative industry-led regeneration, 9, 18

297

Culture-led regeneration, 9, 288 Currency, 218, 228, 230 Cycle of production, 23 Cyprus, 189 Czech Republic, 189

D D-8 Organisation for Economic Cooperation, 205 dance, 42, 48, 52, 198, 202, 212 d/Deaf, 261 Decentralised working practices, 258 Defensive instrumentalism, 238 Demography, 159 Denmark, 179–183, 185, 186, 188 Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), 207, 237, 238 Desai, Jemma, 241 Designation, 123, 126, 130, 275 Development, 5, 7, 12, 14, 16, 22, 27–29, 35, 40, 47, 49, 54, 55, 60, 66, 68, 73, 79, 81, 87, 91, 123, 129, 130, 140, 143, 154–156, 167, 171, 175, 176, 184, 211, 217–219, 227, 229, 253, 256, 265, 286 Dickens, Charles, 203 Didsbury East, 163 Digital economy, 208 Digital exclusion, 225, 226 Digitalisation, 24, 145 Digitally immersed, 199 Digital Placemaking, 254 Director, 27–30, 83, 211 disabled, 71, 241, 261 Disadvantaged socio-economic background, 262 Distinction, 33, 204 Distribution, 2, 12, 22–24, 27, 29, 31, 34, 64, 105, 107, 117, 179, 271, 289

298

INDEX

Diversity, 2, 4, 15, 48, 118, 138, 139, 141, 143, 144, 147, 164, 199, 203, 207, 241, 258, 260 Diversity of business models, 138 Djibouti, 192 Dominican Republic, 190 donor funding, 217 DSPs, 138, 142 Dubbing sound, 30

E Ealing, 34 Eastern Europe, 30 Eastern Highlands, 223 East London, 245 Ecocentric thinking, 138 Ecological systems, 5, 139 Ecologies, 1, 2, 130 Ecologies of creativity, 61, 220 Ecology of culture, 235 Economic development, 16, 167, 171, 175, 176, 178, 183, 186, 211, 212, 276 Economic multipliers, 160 Economic policy, 198 Economic, social and cultural, 61, 122, 273 Economic system, 23 Economist magazine, 212 Ecosystemic practice, 265 Ecosystem orchestrator, 98, 108 Ecosystems, 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, 39, 41, 61, 80, 82, 116–118, 122, 126, 137–140, 143, 145, 146, 155, 171, 173–175, 184, 198, 216, 220, 229, 256, 265, 290 Ecuador, 191 Edgy (woke) city, 129 EDI, 259, 261, 263, 264 Education, 6, 14, 41, 51–53, 55, 91, 100, 127, 138, 145, 154, 163,

166, 167, 171, 172, 201–203, 211, 239 Egocentric, 138 Egypt, Arab Rep., 191 Electroacoustic, 105, 106 El Salvador, 191 Elstree, 34 Embedded, 22, 24, 26, 40, 44, 54, 55, 71, 156, 187, 188, 201, 203, 263, 269, 274, 287 Embedding, 34, 44 Emicida, 103 Emirate-level regulations, 50, 55 Emirati Symphony Orchestra, 53 Empowerment of women, 203 Endorse, 14, 98 Engagement support, 160 England, 163 Environment, 13, 17, 34, 48, 60, 79, 86, 98, 103, 121, 163, 167, 201, 209, 215, 216, 222, 225, 227, 287 Environmental Action Plan, 126 Environmental degradation, 199, 209 Estonia, 181, 183, 189 Ethiopia, 192 Ethnicity, 145, 159, 236 Ethos, 63 Europe, 12, 101, 130 European Commission, 144, 146, 147 European Regional Development Fund, 243 Eurosonic-Noorderslag, 143 Exclusion, 6, 17, 24, 139, 241, 248, 253, 255, 256, 258, 259, 280 Expanded Performance, 254 Expansion of perspectives, 161, 167

F Factory International project, 275 Factual, 121–123, 127, 129

INDEX

Fair Practice Code, 139 Falmouth University, 254 Fellowships, 254, 260, 261 Female-led/female-only collective, 223 Festivals Research Group, 87 Fields, 4, 18, 42, 44, 60, 100, 140, 258, 289 Fiji, 190 Film finance, 26 Film industry, 12, 21, 22, 28, 32, 34 Film office, 126 Film, TV, video, radio and photography, 237 Finance, 25, 26, 31, 32, 199, 211, 225, 227, 243 Financing, 26, 32, 225, 229, 246 Financing and investment, 216 Finland, 179–183, 185, 186, 188 Finzels Reach, 128 Fiscal incentives, 209 Flexible specialisation, 117 Florida, Richard, 3, 7, 16, 120, 275 Fordist film factories, 32 Foreign policy, 89, 201 Formal and informal economies, 204 Forró, 103 For the BFI’s Film Hub South West, 127 France, 180, 183, 189 Freelance artist, 197 Freelancers, 4, 23, 88, 90, 91, 119, 124, 125, 136, 140, 198, 210, 236, 238, 248 Free trade, 200 Funding, 12, 26–28, 41, 50, 78, 80, 85–87, 90, 92, 104, 121, 126, 129, 130, 140, 206, 216, 222, 225, 227, 229, 240, 241, 246, 260 Funding models, 276 Funk, 102, 103

299

G G20 Presidencies, 204 Gabon, 190 Galleries, 23, 237, 276 Gambia, The, 192 Gatekeeping, 24 Georgia, 190 Gephy software, 276 Germany, 179–183, 188 Get a Proper Job podcast, 91 Ghana, 191 Gil, Gilberto, 101, 102 Gioia method, 222 Glasgow, 130, 202 Glass ceiling, 259 Global Creativity Index, 16, 176, 178, 182, 183, 186 Global economy, 116, 198, 199, 204, 211 Global GDP, 198 Global majority, 261 Global media corporation, 197 Global South, 218, 220 Global Talent Index, 178, 180, 181 Global Tolerance Index, 178, 181, 182 Golden Square, 34 Google, 202, 203, 208 Go West!, 119 Go West! 2, 119 Grangetown, 89 Grants and subsidies for the arts, 206, 209 Grassroots music venues, 140 Greece, 189 Green Hollywood, 121, 122 Green lighted, 28 Gromit Unleashed, 122 Guatemala, 192 Guinea, 191 Guyana, 190 GVA, 237

300

INDEX

H Haiti, 191 Haldane, Andy, 202 Harare, Bulawayo, 221–223 ‘Hard Times’ (1854), 203 Harpurhey, 163 Harry Potter, 35 Health, 6, 12, 97, 99, 100, 139, 140, 159, 163, 201 Heart of Glass, 242 Hidden profits, 41 ‘High End’ national and international television, 126 Hire and fire, 265 Hirschman, Elizabeth, 8 Holden, John, 1, 4, 78, 166, 201, 235, 238, 257, 271 Holistic approaches, 201 Hollywood, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 200 Honduras, 192 Hong Kong SAR, China, 189 Household income per capita, 159 Hub Crawl, 89 Hub currency, 229, 230 Humanistic artistic production model, 23 Hungary, 189 Hyperinflation, 216, 217

I Iceland, 180–183, 185, 188 Icon Films, 123 Identification and belonging, 161, 169 Improved use of public spaces (streets, common areas, etc.), 162 Inclusion, 4, 15, 28, 29, 118, 138, 145, 146, 171, 241, 253, 259, 260, 266, 281 Inclusion Producer, 259, 264 Income and employment, 159

Independents, 31, 105 India, 190, 211, 229 Indie Growth Fund, 128 Individual entrepreneurs, 208 Indonesia, 192, 200, 203, 208, 211 Inequalities, 17, 129, 140, 145, 199, 241, 253, 272, 283, 286, 288 Infant mortality, 159, 163 Influencers, 8 Informal network, 64 Informal work, 159, 205 Infrastructure, 14, 24, 61, 63, 100, 107, 111, 143, 145, 199, 205, 226, 227, 255, 272, 288 borough/ward level, 159 city level, 159 Innovation, 1, 4, 7, 9, 15–17, 36, 55, 63, 64, 83, 86, 88, 98, 117, 123, 124, 138, 139, 171, 173, 175–177, 185, 187, 205, 210, 222, 228, 253, 257, 258 Inspiration, 268 Institutional and evolutionary economic analyses, 23 Institutional field, 18, 272, 274, 276, 279, 281, 287, 289 Instrumentalisation of culture, 240 Intellectual property, 32, 41, 43, 50, 105, 197 Intellectual property protection, 216 Intelligence Hub, 164 Intermediaries, 6, 13, 40–45, 49, 54, 55, 81, 118, 119, 126, 127, 210 Intermittents du spectacle, 50 International Labour Organisation, 205 Internet of Things (IoT), 7, 206 Intersectionality, 261, 266 Invisible violence, 272 IP regulations, 49 Iran, Islamic Rep., 191 Iraq, 191

INDEX

Ireland, 80, 181–183, 189 Israel, 179–183, 185, 189 Italy, 180, 189 IT, software and computer services, 237

J Jamaica, 189 Japan, 179, 180, 189 Jazz, 34, 101, 102, 106 Jerusalema dance, 198 JK Rowling, 202 Jobs, Steve, 202 Jordan, 191 JR Tolkien, 202 JUT Foundation for Arts and Architecture, 64

K Kaleider (Exeter), 254 Kazakhstan, 190 Kenya, 191 Ketentafel Popmuziek, 143 Keychange, 146 Keychange Pledge, 143 Knowing agents, 273 Knowledge, 3–7, 13, 14, 24, 44, 53, 62, 63, 67, 69, 78, 83, 85, 88, 91, 108, 117, 142, 173, 175, 186, 202, 219, 228, 254 Knowledge equity, 255 Korea, Rep., 180, 183, 189 Kuwait, 191 Kyrgyz Republic, 191

L Lack of access, 6, 225, 226 Lao PDR, 192 Latvia, 181, 189 LBTQIA+, 261

301

Learning and experimentation, 142 Lebanon, 190 Lesotho, 190 Let’s Create, 242 LGBTA+, 261 Liberia, 192 Libraries, 237, 276 Libya, 192 Life expectancy, 159, 163, 164, 179 Life on Earth, 121 Limited Interest Companies (Ltd), 242 LinkedIn, 276 Lithuania, 181, 189 Live music, 107, 136, 138, 141, 143, 144 Live Nation, 144 Living space, 161 Local connectivity, 63 Local context, 42, 52 Locality, 42, 55, 59, 61, 71, 72, 116, 118 Locality and global systems of production, 117 Locally embedded ecosystem, 44 Local radio stations, 276 Location, 12, 13, 21, 24, 26, 28–30, 60, 70, 73, 101, 126, 128, 226, 258, 286 London, 12, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34, 115, 120, 127, 155, 245 London Creative Network, 243 Long-term physical or mental health condition, 261 Lord Lieutenant of Manchester, 282 Luxembourg, 180–183, 188

M Macao SAR, China, 190 Machine learning, 199 Macroeconomic dynamics, 225

302

INDEX

Madagascar, 192 Mainstream economics, 198 Malawi, 192 Malaysia, 190 Maldives, 189 Mali, 192 Malta, 189 Manchester, 15, 18, 80, 155, 163, 164, 275, 277, 280, 284 Mangue Beat, 105 Mapping Cardiff’s Creative Economy study, 88 Marginalised communities, 203, 288 Market intelligence, 204 Markets, 8, 14, 23, 24, 31, 32, 116, 123, 204, 222, 224, 228–230, 256 Mass production, 24 Materials, 23, 72, 98, 209, 228 Mauritania, 192 Mauritius, 189 Media, 1, 8, 29, 33, 98, 103, 116, 127, 138, 204, 208 Mediaeval guilds, 210 Member subscriptions, 217 Mental and emotional disorders, 199 Mexico, 190 Microbusinesses, 122, 208 Minister of Education, Culture and Science Netherlands, 137 Minoritised groups, 138, 145 Minor majors, 31 Mission, 14, 97, 106, 111, 158, 160 Mitterrand, Francois, 200 Moldova, 190 Mongolia, 190 Montenegro, 190 Moon-shot strategies, 201 Morocco, 191 Morph, 121 Moston, 163, 164 Mozambique, 192

MPB Especial, 104 MPB genre, 102 Mr M’Choakumchild, 203 Multiple Deprivation Index (UK), 159 Museums, 237 Music, 1, 15, 42, 48, 87, 100–103, 109, 135, 138, 144, 147 Música Popular Brasileira, 102 Music ecosystems, 139–141, 144, 147 Music, performing and visual arts, 237 Music scenes, 97, 105 Music services, 276 Mutare, 221–223 Myanmar, 192 N Nagati, Omar, 205 Namibia, 189 Narrative, 12, 15, 17, 21, 30, 32, 34, 154, 155, 171, 236, 276 Nascimento, Milton, 102 National Cultural and Creative Industries Strategy (CCIS) 2020–2030, 216 National Health Service (NHS), 166 National Portfolio Organisations (NPO), 241, 259 Natural history, 122, 123, 125 Natural history fraternity, 123 Natural monopolies, 23 Neo-classical approaches, 23 Neo-institutional scholars, 274 Neoliberal, 130, 140, 146, 240, 256 Neo-liberal ideology, 205 Nepal, 191 Netflix, 22, 122 Netherlands, 137, 140, 144, 180–183, 186, 188 Network, 13, 14, 17, 61–64, 72, 79, 83, 85, 87, 90, 108, 120, 129, 138, 144, 169, 218, 226, 230, 243, 256, 276, 289

INDEX

Network analysis, 78, 79, 81, 83 Network dependency, 289 Network reciprocity, 278 Network relations, 79, 90, 93, 277 Networks and institutions, 24, 287 Networks for inclusion, 253 Neurodivergent, 241, 261 New businesses, 16, 162, 258 New Creative Markets, 243 New social spaces, 162 New talent and inclusion fellows, 260 New Zealand, 181–183, 189 NGOs, 88 NHU, 120–123 Nicaragua, 191 Niger, 191 Nigeria, 191 Nodes in the network, 256 No Funny Business event, 87 Nomination, 275 North Macedonia, 190 Northwest of England, 272 Norway, 180–183, 185, 186, 188 Number of cultural/creative activities and projects, 160 Number of inhabitants, 159 NYUAD Arts Centre, 52

O O Começo do Fim do Mundo, 100 Ofcom, 119 Office for National Statistics, 164 Oldham, 18, 272, 275–277, 280, 287, 289 Oman, 191 Open public spaces (parks, common areas), 159 Operational methodology, 160 Opinion makers, 238 Organisational diversities, 144, 145 Organisational identities, 17, 18, 272

303

Our Creative Cardiff project, 90 Our prototypes, 69 Outdoor Bowls Pavilion, 245 Over-arching narratives, 201 Over Los Angeles, 31

P PACCT, 143 Pagode, 103 Pakistan, 192 Panama, 190 Pandemic, 3, 7, 9, 15, 125, 135, 137, 141, 145, 154, 199, 206, 222, 227, 228, 241, 262, 288 Papua New Guinea, 191 Paraguay, 191 PEC International Council, 204 Pentahelix, 208 Perception of social reality, 161 Perception of the area, 162 Performing arts, 2, 13, 40, 41, 49, 50, 52, 54, 100, 223 Peripheral cultural, 18, 272 Peripheral cultural and creative agglomerations, 272 Peripheral places, 272, 288 Peripheral territories, 155 Pernambuco, 105 Personal cultural and creative assets, 161 Peru, 191 Pervasive Media Studio, 257, 258 Philippines, 190 Pinewood, 34 Pivot, 226, 227 Place, 4, 5, 12, 22, 24, 26, 28, 33, 34, 48, 69, 73, 79, 98, 129, 141, 179, 183 Platform-based ecosystem, 108 Plimsoll, 123 Podcasts, 8

304

INDEX

Poland, 189 Polanyi, M., 41 Policy, 3, 8, 16, 26, 60, 109, 130, 138, 143, 156, 201, 205, 210, 227, 243, 272 Policy lag, 204, 212 Policymakers, 3, 6, 59, 79, 138, 158, 237 Polycentric governance systems, 143 Pompeia, 100, 109, 110 Popular music sector, 15, 143, 146 Population density, 159 Pop venues, 135 Porter, Michael, 60, 63, 116, 174, 184, 187 Portugal, 182, 189 Post-COVID-19, 22 Post-globalised, 199 Post-industrial, 18, 199, 201, 256 Post-production, 12, 25, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 123 Powell, Baden, 104 Power/Capacity/Resource, 268 Power relations, 264, 272, 280 Practitioners, 3, 7, 16, 41, 45, 53, 60, 62, 68, 72, 217, 223 Prata da Casa Project, 101 Predominant arts disciplines, 160 Prestige, 203, 279, 282, 285 Principal Investigators, 260 Principal photography, 25, 27, 29, 30 Producers and Principal actors, 29 Product, graphic and fashion design, 237 Production chain, 25 Production system, 40, 41 Productivity, 16, 118, 154, 175, 207, 256 Profile, 34, 82, 158, 198 Project enterprises, 23, 33 Proximity to arts, 161 Publishing, 237

Punk rock, 100

Q Qatar, 190 Quadruple helix model, 79, 81, 92 Qualitative research, 156, 221, 262

R R+D, 206, 254, 260 Raad voor Cultuur, 137 Racionais MCs, 103 Recife, 105 Recorded music, 107, 136, 138, 142 Recording studios, 43 Reflexive individual, 161 Regularity of projects, 160 Relative Values, 15, 155, 156, 171 Relevance of territorial base to the selection of participants, 160 Representation, 12, 21, 42, 144, 146, 261, 266 Re-purposing unused spaces, 162 Research England’s Connecting Capabilities Fund, 254 Research institutions, 220 Resilience, 13, 15, 41, 54, 89, 137, 138, 140, 143, 290 Resilient ecosystem, 137, 139, 140 Rights and publishing, 138 Rio de Janeiro, 103, 105, 155 Roath Lock, 123 Romania, 190 Ronnie Scott’s jazz club, 34 Rotterdam Model, 143 Russian Federation, 189 Rwanda, 192

S Safe spaces for women, 223 Safety in public spaces, 162

INDEX

Samba, 103, 106 Sandhu, Baljeet, 255 São Paulo, 14, 100, 103 Satellite towns, 17, 18, 272, 275, 287, 288, 290 Sao Paulo Avant Garde movement, 106 Saudi Arabia, 190 Scale, 2, 4, 43, 45, 60, 120, 121, 144, 187, 206, 260 Schmidt, Eric, 203 School attendance, 159 Scott, Allen J., 60, 62, 64, 118, 122, 124, 128, 129 Screen Daily, 119 Screen International , 119 Senegal, 191 Serbia, 190 Sertanejo, 101, 103, 107 SESC Consolação, 100, 109, 110 SESC Pompeia, 100, 101, 110 SESC Records, 98, 101, 104–107, 109, 110 SESC (Social Services for Commerce), 14, 97, 100 SESC-SP, 97, 98, 100, 104, 107, 109–111 SESC Vila Mariana, 105, 106 Set construction, 29, 30 Sex trade, 34, 35 Sharing economy, 16, 17, 227, 230 Shaun in the City, 122 Shaun the Sheep, 121 Shepperton, 34 Show and Tell, 91 Sierra Leone, 192 Silverback Films, 122 Singapore, 180, 181, 189 Skills, 16, 86, 90, 124, 168, 203, 217, 222, 229, 248 Slovak Republic, 189 Slovenia, 53, 189

305

Slow variables, 141, 142 SMEs, 90, 262, 263 Snowball sampling, 276 Social agents, 273 Social and cultural diversities, 144, 145 Social capital, 154, 156, 167, 257, 258 Social capital expansion, 161 Social development, 52, 155, 159, 178 Social Ecological Systems (SES) theory, 138 Social engagement, 161 Social hierarchy, 273 Social Mobility Commission, 258 Social network, 66, 67, 70, 72, 203, 278 Social network analysis, 81, 256 Social Vulnerability Index, 159 Socio-economic profile, 160, 166 Sohonet, 36 Soho, London, 35 Soho Square, 34 Sole traders, 236, 238 South Africa, 189 South Sudan, 192 South West, 17, 253, 254 South West Creative Technology Network (SWCTN), 253, 254, 259, 261, 262, 264 Space studio, 10 Spain, 182, 189 Spatial distribution, 271 Spotify, Anghami and Universal , 51 Sri Lanka, 192 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007 codes, 237 Statista, 163 Staying Ahead, 207 Stimulus Africa, 221 Stockholm Resilience Centre, 140

306

INDEX

Storymap, 89 Streaming and platforms, 22 Student community, 86 Student Summer Placement Schemes (CUROP & CUSEIP), 86 Sub-Saharan Africa, 201, 215 Sudan, 191 Sundance, 31 Supporting and ancillary, 138 Suriname, 190 Surveillance capitalism, 256 Sustainability, 3, 7, 13, 41, 54, 55, 118, 129, 140, 171, 217, 218, 228, 288 Sweden, 179–183, 185, 186, 188 Switzerland, 179–183, 186, 188 Swn Music Festival, 87 SWOT framework, 43 Symbolic violence, 17, 272, 275, 279, 284, 289 Symbols, 7, 8 Syrian Arab Republic, 191

T Taipei City, 13, 61, 64 Taipei City Government, 65 Taipei City Urban Regeneration Office, 64 Tajikistan, 192 Tanzania, 192 Tate, 279 Tax, 26, 33, 225 Tax evasion, 205 Taxonomies, 2, 4, 8 Team profile, 160 Tech hub, 51 Televisual , 119 Territorial mobility, 159 Thailand, 88, 190 Thai Minister of Science and Technology, 88

The Art of Cultural Exchange, 153 Theatre, 42, 48, 52, 164, 202, 284, 288 Theatre companies, 48, 276 The Ecology of Culture John Holden, 201 The Green Planet , 121 Their innovative approaches, 225 The Knowledge database, 25 The Marquee, 34 Thematic analysis, 222 The Rise of the Creative Class , 168 This Work isn’t for Us, 241 Thomas Gradgrind, 203 Ticketswap, 144 Togo, 190 ‘top-down’, ‘macro-level’, ‘state-driven’, 41, 43, 49 Touchpoint, 267 Touring schedules, 138 Towards inclusivity, 218 Training, 23, 51, 54, 55, 62, 125, 126, 128, 156, 220, 227 Trinidad and Tobago, 190 Tropicalismo, 102 True to Nature, 122 Trust, 16, 91, 107, 143, 217, 218, 230, 289 Trust economy, 217, 229 Tunisia, 191 Turkey, 88, 190 TV Cultura, 100, 104 twentieth century, 16, 34, 200 U UAE, 40, 50 UAE music scene, 47 Uganda, 192 UK, 9, 14–18, 28, 34, 35, 79, 80, 94, 122, 130, 155, 162, 163, 177, 180–183, 185, 187, 188, 207, 236, 243, 254, 258

INDEX

UK Creative Networks research – Joining the Dots, 91 UK Film Council (UKFC), 26 Ukraine, 190 UK taxation system, 26 UNCTAD, 3, 198, 219 Unemployment rate, 159 UNESCO, 3, 4, 23, 130 UNESCO City of Film, 126 UNESCO’s Creative Cities Network (UNCCN), 126 United Arab Emirates, 12, 181, 189 United Kingdom Research and Innovation council (UKRI), 260 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 219 United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 126 United Nation (UN), 23, 198, 203 United States, 16, 101, 177, 179–181, 183, 185–188 Universities, 80, 86, 175, 253–255 University of Plymouth, 254 University of South Wales, 88 UN’s Creative Economy report, 200 UN Year of the Creative Economy’s Contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals, 203 Urban Regeneration Stations (URS), 64 URS 21, 65, 67 Uruguay, 182, 190 UWE Bristol, 254 Uzbekistan, 191

V Value constellations, 257 Value exchange, 117, 265 Value flows, 13, 79, 83, 85, 86, 88–91, 93, 94 Value generation system, 79

307

Vanguarda Paulista, 100 Veloso, Caetano, 101, 102 Venezuela, RB, 190 Venues and spaces, 162 Vertically integrated model, 32 Victoria and Albert (V&A) museum, 209 Vietnam, 192 Virtual network, 63, 94 Vision On, 121 Visual arts, 14, 100, 171, 202, 238, 247 Vulnerable groups, 160, 164, 165 Vulnerable territories, 160, 170

W Wales, 13, 78, 80, 83, 128, 163 Wales Millennium Centre, 82, 85 Wallace & Gromit, 121 Wallace & Gromit’s Grand Appeal, 122 Wardour Street, 34 Watershed (Bristol), 254 Web3, 140 Weightless economy, 8 Western Gateway, 128, 130 Westminster Council, 35 West of England Combined Authority (WECA), 126 Whole system, 39, 257, 265 WIFI and mobile data, 225 Wildscreen and Encounters, 127 Wild Space, 122 Women, 144, 145, 203, 261, 264 World Conference on Creative Economy in Bali, Indonesia, 200

Y Yemen, Rep., 191 Ymlaen!, 86

308

INDEX

Young people, 71, 164, 165, 168, 203 Youth groups, 276 Youth unemployment, 199, 211 YouTube, 228 YoYo Ma, 207

Z Zambia, 191 Zero-hours contracts, 205 Zimbabwe, 16, 192, 216, 221 Zimbabwe German Society-Goethe Zentrum Harare, 221 Zumbido, 107