Do “the creative industries” really matter for city economies?

That bloody elephant in Nantes again. Image: Getty.

Creative industries have long held a special place in economic development. But recent discussions that I’ve been party to in relation to the industrial strategy have underlined to me how confused the thinking on the creative industries is. Here are three areas where this is particularly apparent.

The definition of the creative industries itself is a source of confusion. According to DCMS, it is a combination of nine different industries ranging from architecture to fashion design, and including crafts, libraries and museums in between. This creates confusion on two counts.

The first is the mixing of highly productive industries like computer programming with much less productive activities like artistic performance. One sells to international markets, while the other is much more likely to rely on public subsidy to make ends meet. For a policymaker concerned about increasing productivity, one is much more relevant than the other.

The second is the mixing of industries (e.g. architecture, computer programming) with employment in cultural amenities, such as museums. By grouping cultural amenities in with businesses, we very quickly get into boosterist language about the supposed economic impact of such institutions in order to justify their grouping with the industries.

This is positively encouraged by the government, which requests that bids for things like City of Culture status set out the economic impact they will have. So in order to get funding, bidding bodies need to play the game. The result? We get grand proclamations on the economic impact of a City of Culture programme, no doubt sourced from the pages of a report written by a handsomely-paid consultant (the same is true of lower productivity industries in the definition too).

But this sadly distorts objectives and unfairly expects cultural institutions or activities to do something that they just aren’t able to deliver. Investment in a library is not done for any direct economic benefit, while investment in a museum should not be expected to bring about culture-led regeneration. Yet all these things are all too regularly confused, with April’s House of Lords report on seaside towns being the latest example.


Crucially, playing on these terms means that this is an argument that advocates of culture, in particular, are likely to lose. There’s no way we should expect libraries, crafts or museums to be making a direct contribution to improving the UK’s productivity. The data shows that not only do these activities have below average productivity, it’s actually lower today than in 1990 (as we should expect). And yet strangely exactly these arguments are being made about activities that are simultaneously reliant on public sector subsidy to make ends meet.

Losing this argument is a shame because cultural investment is important – it is likely to have impacts on things like civic pride and it exposes people to new ideas and experiences, for example. These are worthy aims that all policymakers should be attempting to achieve. But we should be clear about the reasons that we are making such investment, and be reasonable regarding the impacts we expect it to achieve. In terms of the industrial strategy, increasing productivity is not one of them.

A final source of confusion is the conflation of creative industries and creativity.

In response to the critiques above, the conversation usually then segues into the importance of creativity in the economy. This is exactly right. Creativity and new ideas are what drive innovation, which in turn drives long-run productivity growth. And policy should look to support this.

But let’s be clear. Despite being similar in name, the creative industries have no exclusivity over creativity. And it is not clear that supporting these specific industries through a sector deal, for example, improves the creative capacity of a local or national economy. Instead, improving education across the country would seem like a much more direct way to do so.

I don’t say this to be unkind or because I have any particular issue with the creative industries; although I’m sure there are many that will take umbrage with the above. I instead say this in the hope that we can bring clarity to what it is that we’re trying to achieve with different policy interventions – be that productivity, cultural engagement or civic pride. Because if we don’t have this clarity of thought, we’re all just going to end up disappointed when our expectations don’t get met.

You can hear more on this topic on our latest podcast.

Paul Swinney is head of policy & research at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

 
 
 
 

As EU funding is lost, “levelling up” needs investment, not just rhetoric

Oh, well. Image: Getty.

Regional inequality was the foundation of Boris Johnson’s election victory and has since become one of the main focuses of his government. However, the enthusiasm of ministers championing the “levelling up” agenda rings hollow when compared with their inertia in preparing a UK replacement for European structural funding. 

Local government, already bearing the brunt of severe funding cuts, relies on European funding to support projects that boost growth in struggling local economies and help people build skills and find secure work. Now that the UK has withdrawn its EU membership, councils’ concerns over how EU funds will be replaced from 2021 are becoming more pronounced.

Johnson’s government has committed to create a domestic structural funding programme, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), to replace the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF). However, other than pledging that UKSPF will “reduce inequalities between communities”, it has offered few details on how funds will be allocated. A public consultation on UKSPF promised by May’s government in 2018 has yet to materialise.

The government’s continued silence on UKSPF is generating a growing sense of unease among councils, especially after the failure of successive governments to prioritise investment in regional development. Indeed, inequalities within the UK have been allowed to grow so much that the UK’s poorest region by EU standards (West Wales & the Valleys) has a GDP of 68 per cent of the average EU GDP, while the UK’s richest region (Inner London) has a GDP of 614 per cent of the EU average – an intra-national disparity that is unique in Europe. If the UK had remained a member of the EU, its number of ‘less developed’ regions in need of most structural funding support would have increased from two to five in 2021-27: South Yorkshire, Tees Valley & Durham and Lincolnshire joining Cornwall & Isles of Scilly and West Wales & the Valley. Ministers have not given guarantees that any region, whether ‘less developed’ or otherwise, will obtain the same amount of funding under UKSPF to which they would have been entitled under ESIF.


The government is reportedly contemplating changing the Treasury’s fiscal rules so public spending favours programmes that reduce regional inequalities as well as provide value for money, but this alone will not rebalance the economy. A shared prosperity fund like UKSPF has the potential to be the master key that unlocks inclusive growth throughout the country, particularly if it involves less bureaucracy than ESIF and aligns funding more effectively with the priorities of local people. 

In NLGN’s Community Commissioning report, we recommended that this funding should be devolved to communities directly to decide local priorities for the investment. By enabling community ownership of design and administration, the UK government would create an innovative domestic structural funding scheme that promotes inclusion in its process as well as its outcomes.

NLGN’s latest report, Cultivating Local Inclusive Growth: In Practice, highlights the range of policy levers and resources that councils can use to promote inclusive growth in their area. It demonstrates that, through collaboration with communities and cross-sector partners, councils are already doing sterling work to enhance economic and social inclusion. Their efforts could be further enhanced with a fund that learns lessons from ESIF’s successes and flaws: a UKSPF that is easier to access, designed and delivered by local communities, properly funded, and specifically targeted at promoting social and economic inclusion in regions that need it most. “Getting Brexit done” was meant to free up the government’s time to focus once more on pressing domestic priorities. “Getting inclusive growth done” should be at the top of any new to-do list.

Charlotte Morgan is senior researcher at the New Local Government Network.