creative economy research

How do emerging technologies affect the creative economy?

New technologies are reshaping  the way we live and work, and their effects naturally touch the creative economy—art, journalism, music, and more. As artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality, virtual reality (VR), and blockchain continue to emerge as powerful forces, could they be used to greater benefit?

Stay current on your favorite topics

Our paper, Creative Disruption: The impact of emerging technologies on the creative economy , presents the findings of a joint project, conducted by McKinsey & Company and the World Economic Forum, which studied the impact of these technologies on the creative economy. The project team conducted more than 50 interviews with experts from Asia, Europe, and North America, as well as three workshops in China and the United States with World Economic Forum constituents. Given the varying maturity of the different technologies, it is too early to state definitively how they will change the creative economy. Instead, our paper outlines opportunities and concerns for each technology and presents suggestions for where attention could be concentrated. The rest of this article, extracted from the full report, summarizes some of our key findings.

Artificial intelligence is changing value chains for creative content

Exciting developments using AI have been seen throughout the creative economy. Many take advantage of progress in machine learning to analyze huge data sets to learn specific behaviors, thereby allowing computers to recognize patterns and “learn” new actions without being explicitly programmed.

AI is helping creators to match content more effectively with audiences. Algorithms based on neural networks learn and classify a user’s preferences—from movies streamed on Netflix, music listened to on Spotify, or products purchased on Amazon. Providers can then recommend content tailored to a specific user.

AI aids production itself by performing tasks that are too difficult for humans. In advertising, it is used to contextualize social-media conversations to understand how consumers feel about products and to detect fraudulent ad impressions. Services such as Amper or Jukedeck compose music with AI, enabling small-scale creators to use high-quality music for their podcasts, videos, and games at low cost. Automated mastering software such as Landr provides near-studio-quality processing and rendering for between $50 and $300 a year.

Would you like to learn more about our Media & Entertainment Practice ?

In particular, AI that generates text is widespread in journalism and used by publishers to expand the range of offerings. The Associated Press has used AI to free up around 20 percent of reporters’ time while increasing output tenfold. The Washington Post developed its own tool, Heliograf, to cover sports and political news. In its first year it generated about 70 articles a month, mostly stories it would not have dedicated staff to.

More disruptively, machine learning has begun to create original content. The implications have been felt across multiple industries. In music, AI has produced instrumental sounds that humans have never heard before. The same team taught a neural network to draw sketches of animals and objects and generate sophisticated images from photography. In fashion, researchers have generated new designs. 1 1. W. Kang, C. Fang, Z. Wang, and J. McAuley, Visually-aware fashion recommendation and design with generative image models, International Conference on Data Mining, 2017. And in film, scripts have been written , complete with stage instructions, for a science-fiction movie.

Other technologies have the potential to disrupt the value chain, though it will take time for the full implications to emerge. Notably, augmented and virtual reality offer an entirely new medium for creators to work with. Because this technology has the potential to become the “envelope” for all content, it is likely to redefine narrative conventions that have existed for decades. Other benefits are detailed in the full paper.

At the monetization phase, blockchain has the potential to change the level of control artists have over their work. The technology could allow artists to program their intellectual-property rights, revenues, and royalties into smart contracts that quickly and transparently allocate revenue to contributors. By removing the intermediaries between artist and consumer, blockchain may solve data and money issues in creative content—basing precisely how much to pay artists on actual consumption and eliminating complexity in paying them . The technology could also affect production rights, third-party monetization, and data transfer of creative work, enabling the repurposing of creative content while safeguarding the intellectual property of artists.

Impressive technology is transforming creative experiences

Content at the point of consumption is being dramatically altered by immersive technology. According to one poll , 46 percent of audiences associate virtual reality with novel experiences and 60 percent with high-end gaming. But artificial and virtual reality have the capacity to provide truly transformative experiences by promoting new and meaningful feelings, skills, and understanding.

Immersive media could transform content as wide ranging as humanitarian stories and workplace-diversity training by providing users with situational perspectives that can help avoid stereotypes and false narratives. 2 2. J. Bailenson, Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do , NY, NY: W. W. Norton, 2018. Other studies have detailed how experiences of content change when participants use different immersive devices. The right combination of story and device could make content more effective than it would be if presented through traditional media.

Many high-end immersive devices currently require high-spec stationary computers to power them, at a cost of several thousand dollars. With predictions of VR headsets declining in price by about 15 percent each year and becoming untethered to PCs, it is conceivable that immersive technologies will become progressively more available to mass-market consumers. According to one VR filmmaker , this could herald a new way of remembering, not just creating. “Think of everything you forget about a birthday party when you’re a kid. [With widespread VR content capture], the rig would capture everything…. It is going to be interesting to see what happens when we aren’t able to forget anything anymore.”

However, this promise may be challenged if our dependence on mobile technology is replicated with AR and VR. Evidence from the past decade shows that while our overall leisure time is increasing, we are spending more of it using screen-based devices (Exhibit 1). Smartphone users interact with their devices an average of 85 times a day, 3 3. L. A. Perlow, Sleeping with Your Smartphone: How to Break the 24/7 Habit and Change the Way You Work, Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012. and 46 percent report they could not live without them . Potential overuse leads to other concerns and might also affect the creative economy. Studies have shown how off-screen performance is interrupted by digital devices, and recent research found that just the presence of a smartphone can reduce cognitive capacity . Immersive devices, which could be at least as engaging as smartphones, may end up being inhibiting.

The extent of the problem is starting to be acknowledged by social-media companies. Facebook has highlighted research showing how social media can affect well-being and suggests that changing user habits may help limit negative effects.

The creative economy and the platform economy are converging

While these technologies have varying potential to change how content is produced and consumed, they are being applied in a dynamic environment. Publishers have used technology to find bigger audiences for their content but have less direct control over how that content is discovered. Instead, technology platforms are the main referral sources for digital publishers, with Facebook and Google responsible for about 70 percent of online referral traffic (Exhibit 2). This relationship is affecting both the editorial elements (what type of content is seen and why) and monetary elements (where the revenue accrues) of information and entertainment content.

On the editorial side, technology platforms can influence—intentionally or not—the types of content that flourish. Companies provide incentives, including money and advice, which sway publishers toward creating content that works well on their platforms. This is not always content with high artistic or civic values but, rather, content that is likely to spread quickly online.

Proprietary AI algorithms ensure that certain formats are prioritized in consumer searches and feeds. Facebook and Google, for example, have developed technology that reduces loading times for content, but the technology requires that content adhere to its standards. In doing so, the platforms exercise “explicitly editorial” judgments on content and design standards—decisions that used to be the province of traditional media. 4 4. E. Bell, P. Brown, C. Hauka, T. Owen, and N. Rashidan, The platform press: How Silicon Valley reengineered journalism, Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University, 2017.

The monetary benefits of this new relationship do not accrue entirely to content creators and publishers. Five companies take almost 80 percent of global mobile-advertising revenue, and by some estimates almost 90 percent of the growth is going to just two companies, Facebook and Google (Exhibit 3).

It is uncertain whether this relationship between publishers and platforms will continue; some adaptation is happening . But the status is clearly changing, and in the process the responsibility for damaging content is moving away from publishers and toward other entities. One of the challenges of AI is that it lacks a conscious will and is unable to explain its output. Instead it must rely on the data it receives and the algorithms used. This may seem trivial in the context of machine-generated music or art. But when the technology can determine what editorial content appears in front of users, the ability to inform and shape public opinion grows, and the potential risks of opacity in decision making become bigger.

How can creative industries benefit from blockchain?

As demonstrated by the disinformation and misinformation that affected various elections in 2016 and 2017, the platforms are struggling to respond. They have made progress in supporting initiatives that address media literacy and provide resources for quality news companies to develop better content. However, it must be asked whether certain types of content persist because the current business models favor them. At the start of 2018, perhaps in recognition of the issue, Facebook announced a change in its News Feed to prioritize content from family and friends in place of brands, businesses, and media.

A parallel trend is the use of mobile-technology design techniques that may have unfavorable effects on users. Software designers often employ user data to personalize services and expand businesses, and that in many cases has made content more useful to consumers. The most successful companies have been able to do so rapidly . As a result, companies have an incentive to keep users engaged with their websites and apps in order to collect more data. Engineers combine data-driven behavioral insights with psychological techniques to nudge and persuade individuals to spend more time on their devices. Academics and industry insiders have detailed examples of persuasive in-software design . This is being driven by AI but has applications across a number of different mediums and could influence the way that software is designed for immersive technology.

If the creative economy is to benefit society, the policies of the public and private sectors must align with consumer interests—something that can be achieved only through conversation and collaboration. This is easier said than done; in the full report, some common ground is identified as a potential starting point for discussion.

Download Creative Disruption: The impact of emerging technologies on the creative economy , the full report on which this article is based (PDF–4MB) .

This white paper is part of a knowledge partnership between the World Economic Forum and McKinsey to examine the impact of four emerging technologies on the creative economy . Jonathan Dunn, a partner in the firm’s Consumer Technology & Media Practice, serves as an industry adviser to the World Economic Forum . This white paper originally appeared on the World Economic Forum website and is republished here by permission.

Claudio Cocorocchia is a global leadership fellow and the acting head of the System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Information and Entertainment for the World Economic Forum, where Stefan Hall is project and engagement lead for Shaping the Future of Information and Entertainment. Jonathan Dunn is a partner in McKinsey’s New York office , and Ryo Takahashi is a consultant in the Tokyo office .

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

AI in storytelling: Machines as cocreators

Augmented and virtual reality: The promise and peril of immersive technologies

• Open access
• Published: 18 April 2017

Creative economy: thematic perspectives addressed and research methodologies adopted

• Luciana Lima Guilherme 1  

Brazilian Journal of Science and Technology volume  4 , Article number:  2 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

6925 Accesses

7 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

This article aims to analyze the bibliography concerning creative economy and its related sub-themes, identifying the main researched themes and research methodologies. For this, the author conducted bibliographic research using the CAPES [Higher Education Personnel Improvement Coordination (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—CAPES) (under the Brazilian Ministry of Education)] portal, prioritizing journals with high impact factor. As a result, a predominance of studies for the construction and understanding of conceptual bases associated with creative economy, creative cities, regional development, industries analysis and issues facing the business management were found. A majority of the selected articles utilize qualitative methodologies.

The subject of creative economy has been at the focus of discussions in international organizations and communities in recent decades, highlighting itself as strategic for the economic and social development and growth of both developed and developing countries. The academic community has expanded this debate beyond fundamental reflections in an effort to achieve a greater understanding of the concepts involved, their impacts, and their limits within each country’s historical, political, economic, social and cultural contexts.

Emerging in the last decade of the twentieth century, the concept of creative economy—an economic system based on the synthesis between economics, culture, science and technology—has gradually gained recognition as an increasing number of individuals and organizations come to understand creativity as a motor that fuels development processes (UNCTAD 2010 ). From a sectorial perspective, creative economy is understood by many as an expansion of cultural economy because, in addition to encompassing the traditional cultural sectors (music, dance, circus, visual arts etc.), creative economy also includes sectors related to information and communication technologies (such as digital games, animation, and software development) as well as culturally-based sectors related to traditional industries (such as fashion, design, architecture, and advertising).

As an alternative model of development, creative economy converges with the concept of “Economy of Experience” to surpass a model based on the production of commodities in favor of assuming a model in which goods and services have as their main value their aesthetic-symbolic nature and their capacity to create experiences rather than just products (Kamel and Souza 2012 ).

If on one hand this “new economy” is understood within a post-industrial context as a propeller of growth in developing countries and defended as a solution to the challenges of economic repositioning, creative economy is on the other hand regarded with suspicion due to the tensions and fears it raises about the production of and access to culture as well as the commercialization of goods and services, the latter of which submits creative goods and services to a purely mercantile logic (Bendassolli et al. 2009 ).

In this way, the debates, discourses, and narratives surrounding creative economies makes itself present in both technical and academic publications. At times the discourse is in favor of creative economies and of the possible development and growth it can foster. At others, however, the creative economy is criticized for catalyzing exclusionary and neo-liberal policies that are subjected to mercantile market practices.

The debate has thus revolved around reflections about the polarisations and conceptual confusions surrounding the identification of characteristics of the creative economy and the definitions and implications of creative economy, cultural economy, and related topics such as cultural industries, creative industries, creative cities, and creative classes.

Although still growing, the academic bibliography produced on the subject of creative economy represents the beginning of a reflection that invites more discussion and research, especially given the extent and the ambiguity of the theme. Considering the publications classified by the Qualis System of the Coordination of the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (Sistema Qualis da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—CAPES), one notices a prevalence of articles that deal with aspects within the scope of the subject matter. More specifically, there is a plethora of case studies that present sectoral analyses, the development of management strategies, and the strengthening of entrepreneurial ventures in cultural and creative sectors.

The objective of this article is to analyze the bibliography produced on the subject of creative economy, identifying research and research methodologies used in [these] reflections on the creative economy, and sub-themes related to creative economy (creative industries, cultural industries, creative cities, creative classes, innovation, education and professional development among others). This bibliographic research was conducted in the database Portal Capes in journals whose classification, according to Qualis criteria, complied with the following categories: A1, A2, B1 and B2. The use of these criteria for the selection of articles and periodicals was intended to ensure that the articles were selected and analyzed in accordance with the high quality standards and requirements of academic production.

This work is structured in four parts: the first corresponds to an introduction to the theme of creative economy[economies], consisting of a brief history of the main concepts and public policies formulated in the world and in Brazil; the second presents the methodology used for this bibliographic research, identifying criteria and information sources used; the third presents an analysis of the panorama of the studies, research methodologies, and debates on and surrounding creative economies, indicating both central and sub-themes; finally, the fourth part refers to the conclusions of this study, indicating/pointing to opportunities for the advancement of studies on creative economy and related sub-themes.

Creative economy: the construction of a concept and of policies for development

When we analyze the history and evolution of the concepts associated with the theme of the creative economy in the world, we can see how creative economy has been increasingly understood as a viable measure of growth for both emerging and developed countries. More people are beginning to consider creative economy as a function of public policies that have drawn inspiration from concepts such as creativity, sustainability, cultural diversity and innovation.

The creative economy is perceived as an economy based on abundance rather than on the scarcity of resources. This is because the its main inputs—creativity and human knowledge—are infinite. The creative economy’s greatest value is its association with a diversity of cultural expressions in different localities and regions. The creative economy is collaborative because it consists of a series of arrangements between persons, institutions and governments, and increasingly potent because it reconciles national strategies with global international processes.

Australia is considered by many as the founding father of creative economy. In 1994, the Australian Government, as part of an initiative of the Ministry of Culture, coined the concept of Creative Nation as the basis of a policy geared towards upgrading the role of the State in the cultural development of the country. At the core of this policy is the Australian Government’s responsibility to foster and increase access to Australian culture at a national level, ensuring that: (1) innovation and ideas are continually encouraged; (2) self-expression and creativity are nurtured; (3) patrimony and the development of patrimony is preserved, and (4) all Australians have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the creative economy, all of which will invigorate national life and uplift Australian citizens.

The Creative Nation policy has expanded considerably since its inception. Between 1994 and 1995, the Department of Communications and Arts expanded the role of the Creative Nation policy and direct expenditure for this new economy was estimated at over a billion [australian] dollars (Australia 2013 ). Beyond the Office of the Prime Minister, additional funding for Australian cultural development was provided through other means, including external relations, trade, education, employment, environment, and sport.

The intended objectives of this cultural development policy fall into five main categories:

nurture creativity and excellence

allow all Australians to enjoy as many cultural experiences as possible

preserving the patrimony of Australia

promote the expression of cultural identity and diversity of Australia

promote sustainable development and creative industries, including those that evolve with the emergence of new technologies.

Creative Nation quickly gained recognition among the academic and economic world and ended up reaching the United Kingdom. It was brought to England by New Labour , a programme for the renewal of the Labour Party who, in their 1997 pre-election manifesto, identified creative industries as a particular sector of the economy and recognized the need for specific public policies that tapped into its growth potential.

Between 2007 and 2010, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown established a Department of Creative Industries and Tourism under the Ministry of Culture, Media, and Sport (Corazza 2013 ). The Creative Economy Programme identifies the creative sectors with the highest growth rates and clarifies the distinctions between economic and cultural objectives. In addition, the Department of Creative Industries and Tourism created “Centers of Excellence” for creativity/innovation in all regions of the UK. A third focal point of this program was the analysis of the legal frameworks of intellectual property and their impact on how the private initiative and society are able to reconcile their diverging interests. While on one hand, there is a growing movement focused on increasing digital rights and measures of protection of technical intellectual property from easier and often illegal ways to access and use digital content, on the other hand there is public interest in promoting greater and more affordable access to this digital content.

The success of Australia and the UK’s creative economies led to the development and implementation of public policies for creative industries throughout the world. In 2008 , the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) launched the first world report on the creative economy, Creative Economy Report , in an effort to compile information/data on the creative economy from a global perspective/within a global context. This report was a milestone in the recognition of the strategic relevance of creative economy as a vector for development with a promising average annual growth mean of 10%. In 2010 , the UNCTAD released a second edition of the report, expanding an already lively discussion of the importance, relevance, and feasibility of creative economy.

The creative economy is a horizontal, evolving concept based on creative assets that can potentially generate economic growth and development.

It can stimulate the generation of income, the creation of jobs and the exporting/exportation/export of profit, simultaneously promoting social inclusion, cultural diversity and human development.

It embraces economic, cultural and social aspects that interact with the objectives of technology, intellectual property and tourism.

It works in conjunction with a set of economic activities based on knowledge, with an/the added dimension of development and interconnections on both macro and micro levels for the economy in general.

It is a viable development option that demands politically innovative and multidisciplinary answers in addition to interministerial action.

“At the center of the creative economy, there is creative industry/Creative industries are at the center of the creative economy.” (UNCTAD 2010 , p. 10)

Creative industries—the core of creative economy—are sustained by public policies and systems of classification that vary by country.

The Fig.  1 below outlines the classification proposed by UNCTAD.

Source : UNCTAD ( 2010 , p. 8)

UNCTAD classification(s) for creative industries.

According to UNCTAD ( 2010 , p. 8), creative industries:

Are cycles of creation, production and distribution of products and services that use creativity and intellectual capital as primary inputs;

Constitute a series of activities based on knowledge centered, among other things, in the arts, which potentially generate profit and intellectual property rights;

Constitute tangible products and intellectual or artistic intangible services with creative content, economic value and market goals.

Position themselves at the crossroads of artistic, service-oriented, and industrial sectors;

Constitute a new, dynamic sector in the world market.

A remarkable fact about the creative economy during this period is that exports of creative goods and services kept growing in spite of the world financial crisis in 2008, which caused a decrease (word choice) in the international market.

World exports of creative products and services reached a revenue of $592 billion in 2008—more than the double the amount reached in 2002—which indicates an annual growth rate of 14% over six consecutive years. These numbers are evidence of the fact that creative industries present an enormous potential for developing countries that seek to diversify their economies and take a leap into one of the most dynamic sectors of world economy.

That being said, Brazil is still incipient in its data production on creative economies. The Federation of the Industries of Rio de Janeiro State [Federação das Indústrias do Estado do Rio de Janeiro—FIRJAN] (2013) realized in 2008 a pioneer study called “The Creative Industry Chain in Brazil” as a Brazil’s first exercise in economic data projection, produced from data by the Brazilian Geographic and Statistical Institute [Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística—IBGE] and from data extracted from the Annual Relation on Social Information [Relação Anual de Informações Sociais—RAIS] (Ministry of Work and Employment). By 2012, a complement of this research that considered database information from 2011 was published considered the database information of 2011.

Analysing the following Table  1 , it may be verified the percentual contribution of the creative sectors’ GDP in the formation of different countries’ total GDP, including Brazil’s. It is interesting to note that, even without precise data about Brazil, the country already figures in the fifth position on the ranking presented below.

In 2014, FIRJAN launched a new study, the Creative Industries Mapping in Brazil, where it is shown info and data that express the evolution of creative field in Brazil from 2004 to 2013. The share of GDP of creative sectors on Brazil’s entire GDP, in this decade, has gradually grown reaching the point of 2.6% in 2013, as it can be seen on the following Fig.  2 .

Source : FIRJAN ( 2014 )

Estimated creative GDP and and its participation on Brazil’s total GDP (2004–2013).

Considering the fact that FIRJAN’s research is based on formal data on the creative economy, it is likely that creative economy’s contribution to GDP would be even greater if it also considered data obtained from productive sectors of the informal economy. In any case, data on the formal market are meaningful and shows already the strength of an economy that has only been growing on. The Creative Industries’ Mapping in Brazil (FIRJAN 2014 ), presents relevant data that demands more attention, relatively to the participation of creative employees in the total amount of employees per state in the country as well as the median monthly income of these professional. According to Graphic 3, the two states with bigger percentual participation—as expected—are Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.

In 2014, FIRJAN launched The Mapping of Creative Industries in Brazil (FIRJAN 2014 ), a study that presents the growth in both the number and the median monthly income of employees working in creative fields in Brazil from 2004 to 2013. According to Fig.  3 , the two states with biggest percentual participation are—as expected—Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.

Participation of creative employees on the total amount of employees in the State (2004–2013).

Illustrating the median monthly income of professionals working in Brazil’s cultural and creative sector, Fig. 4 shows that there was significant growth in practically all Brazilian states between 2004 and 2013.

Creative professionals’ median monthly income, per state in 2004 and 2013.

A comprehensive approach to the economic evolution of creative sectors in Brazil requires an understanding of the evolution of cultural consumption. The Fig. 5 below shows a study of FGV Projetos ( 2015 ) produced a study on the economic aspects of Brazilian culture and noticed an increase of $ 1 billion in Brazilian consumption of culture between 2003 and 2009.

Source : FGV Projetos ( 2015 )

Culture’s area consumption—comparison between 2003 and 2009.

Both FGV and FIRJAN base their studies off of data on the formal market. However, if their data considered the cultural consumption generated by creative sectors of the informal economy, we would see that Brazilian creative economy is much bigger than the studies show.

The power and potential of the Brazilian creative economy is clear. The data presented above demonstrate its gradual growth and strengthening despite its being limited to an economy generated by formalized organizations that are recognized as legal entities. In practice, many entrepreneurs and professionals in creative sectors operate in the informal economy, which was not captured by these surveys. The impact of creative sectors in Brazil is thus underestimated as to their real economic movement. The informality in most of these cases occurs due to the immaturity of legal and institutional frameworks of these sectors and as a result of the relative lack of public policies and investments needed for the strengthening of the Brazilian creative economy, whether at the federal, state or municipal level.

Public policies on creative economy in Brazil

Despite the strategic potential of culture as a vector of development in the country, public cultural policies in Brazil still have a long way to go. From 2003 onwards, with Gilberto Gil as the Minister of Culture, there has been a widening of the conceptual scope and acting of this Ministry. There has been a wide process of empowerment in Brazilian civil society that gave birth to the National Plan of Culture [Plano Nacional de Cultura—PNC], instituted by the law 12.243 in 2 December 2010. This document defines the concept of culture through a symbolic, civic and economic dimensions.

The subject of creative economy emerged in Brazil in 2004 during the XI Conference of UNCTAD in São Paulo via a panel dedicated exclusively to the question of creative industries from the perspective of developing countries. Nevertheless, the institutionalization of public policies in this field has been but gradual, reaching its peak with the creation of the Ministry of Culture’s Secretary of Creative Economy.

During the realization of its 2011 Strategic Plan, the Secretary of Creative Economy [Secretaria de Economia Criativa—SEC] defined cultural diversity, sustainability, social inclusion and innovation as its principles for the formulation process of public policies for Brazilian creative economy. This “Brazilian creative economy” should be structured according to the comprehension of the need for the drafting of an endogenous model of development, one which would consider Brazil’s characteristics and specificities as well those of its regions. The “importation” of international development models was soon discarded, although some references have been considered and adjusted to the Brazilian reality.

Although countries face common challenges regarding the theme of the creative economy, it is important to understand and identify the different stages and specific characteristics related to each country in order to formulate and implement effective, consistent, and structural policies.

However, the need to deepen the subject is imperative, especially considering the complexity of a field of studies whose transversality constitutes both its virtue and fragility.

Methodology

The methodology used for the development of this work is of a qualitative nature, and descriptive as well as exploratory. The growing relevance of the creative economy has sparked a lot of bibliographic research, much of which is available on the CAPES online database.

Because it is a recent subject and because of its multidisciplinary nature, it has been treated by researchers from different knowledge areas that end up publishing in periodicals from the most distinct areas. Therefore, the choose to realize a survey on the articles through the “search by subject” mechanism in the CAPES ‘website’, being distinguished the following expressions associated with the theme: creative economy, creative industries, creative cities, creative classes, public policies on culture and creative economy. According to this procedure, it has been identified 58 publications, composed by 3 doctoral thesis, 2 dissertations and 53 scientific articles.

This bibliographic research was conducted using articles published by the CAPES Integrated System [Sistema Integrado CAPES—SICAPES] and classified into the following categories: A1, A2, B1 and B2. Of the 53 identified articles, 36 were published in periodicals within these categories, 19 were national, and 17 were international.

These 36 selected articles were then analysed one by one according to their themes, subthemes, objectives, and research methodologies so as to identify which aspects of creative economy were prioritized by researchers in the field. These analyses drew from the panorama of the most common research methodologies with the hope of shedding light on the areas that lacked depth and discussion as well as on methodologies that may be used in the future.

Of the 36 selected articles, 4 institutional documents were published by the governments of Brazil (Ministry of Culture) and Australia (Australia Council of Arts), 3 research reports by the Rio de Janeiro Federal Industries [Federação das Indústrias do Rio de Janeiro—FIRJAN], one by Getúlio Vargas Foundation [Fundação Getúlio Vargas—FGV] (FGV Projetos), and two by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Creative economy: results of the survey

Aspects and thematics/themes prioritized.

The incipient nature of the debates about creative economies can be observed by analyzing the volume and the characteristics of the articles selected for this work. Of the 36 articles in question, 10 deal with reflections on the concept of creative economy and its significance, congruencies, overlaps, divergences, related concepts, and applications in the formation and development of public policies; 12 focus on the relationship between creative economy and local and regional development through the investigations about creative cities, districts, and clusters; 8 articles present analyses related to issues faced by specific sectors of the creative economy; finally, 7 discuss management practices, models of decision-making, and dynamics associated with the professional work of creative sectors.

Bendassolli et al. ( 2009 ) conducted a theoretical review with the objective of presenting the theme [of creative economy] as promising for scientific research, drawing from a broad survey of concepts, features and characteristics defended by scholars and researchers of the field. Comparative analyses between concepts such as creative industries and cultural industries, content and copyright, and creative economy and economy of culture demonstrate the wide spectrum of meanings and characteristics that both clarify and confuse themselves. This porosity between concepts is reinforced by Serra and Fernandez ( 2014 ), whose work not only demonstrates how the concepts of culture economy, the knowledge economy, and the creative economy come together, but also recognizes this synthesis as a strategic factor capable of fostering productive inclusion and development for countries.

Corazza ( 2013 ) complements this discussion with an article-review that explores the reflections of internationally renowned authors that develop cross-disciplinary approaches critical of the phenomenon of the development of creative industries. Creative industries, creativity, innovation, culture, development, and the creative classes are some of the themes discussed in these analyses, which consider meanings and conceptual implications resulting from public development policies that create new dynamics of labour, new production processes, and reconfigure the marketing of cultural and creative goods and services.

In their analysis of the new market dynamics established in the context of creative industries, Bendassolli and Wood ( 2010 ) contribute critical reflections about the characteristics required by new careers. Although the discourse suggests the existence of a new professional that is autonomous and flexible, the criticisms raised by Bendassolli et al. emphasize the difficulties of adapting quickly to an everchanging world in which information and knowledge are infinite and become obsolete almost instantaneously. Bendassolli and Borges-Andrade ( 2011 ) also detail and analyze the meanings of work and of new professional profiles demanded by creative economy, scrutinizing the shift from a Canadian heuristic model of measurement in a way that allows them to identify aspects related to the centering of work in social norms, social relations, and lives of individuals. Even if this self-realization is present in most of the discourses of the professionals involved in these sectors, the precariousness of work relations stand out.

When considering the aforementioned points, one cannot help but wonder up to what point the creative economy and its industries are strategic for the development of favorable public cultural policies for cultural and symbolic production and whether individuals working in cultural sectors and citizen-consumers of cultural goods and services actually benefit. This is the question raised by Miller ( 2011 ), who highlights and criticizes ideological aspects that judge as potentially dangerous for the development of the cultural and creative field. Miller maintains that the expression “creative industries” masks a neoliberal politic that is permeated by a discourse of individualism and disengaged from social and collective issues.

In contrast to Miller’s position, De Marchi ( 2014 ) offers an illuminating analysis of the Plan of the Secretary of the Creative Economy of the Brazilian Ministry of Culture and its process of going public cultural policies concerning creative economy. De Marchi’s analysis seeks to distance itself from typical aspects of the strengthening of an ownership-based industry that is focused on copyrights —a hallmark of neoliberal markets. The term “Brazilian Creative Economy” reinforces principles associated with the vaporization of the country’s cultural diversity and the promotion of innovation and sustainable, socially inclusive, and productive development, understanding the importance of networks and collectives as mediators of these processes.

Lima and Ortellado ( 2013 ) analyze the program Living Culture (Ministry of Culture) and the Law on the Promotion of Theater in the City of Sao Paulo in order to provoke a discussion on the promotion and financing of culture, highlighting the need to invest not only in the expansion of the consumption of cultural goods and services but also in the expansion of the right to produce culture.

Potts et al. ( 2008 ) propose a new definition of creative industries which, unlike the current English concept that is based on the creative nature of inputs and the intellectual property generated by its products, is based on a new market where supply and demand operate in complex social networks. This new definition advances the debate and broadens the concept of creative industries to its dynamic social dimension rather than restricting it to a static, sectoral, industrial gaze. From this perspective, the creative field is recognized as a complex system with multiple actors that interact at both micro- and macro-economic levels.

Another important element highlighted by Potts et al. is that creative industries share many of the same characteristics as the service economy, despite the former being characterized by its symbolic dimension that emerges out of cultural representations of society. It is thus necessary to understand them through an interdisciplinary vision of socio-economic complexes that integrate social sciences, behavioral and economic studies of anthropology, culture, and media among others.

In his consideration of territorial and urban development within creative economies, Pratt ( 2011 ) criticizes the concept of “Creative Cities” and highlights the tension between approaches geared to the development of strategies of place marketing and approaches aimed at a greater understanding of the identities and diversities of local cultures. Pratt raises a number of questions regarding the real (dis)advantages and benefits obtained from the implementation of policies designed to spur the growth of creative cities, either in the perspective of the city understood as space of cultural production and consumption or, from a spatial perspective, of creative solutions to local problems as well as for territorial governance models. The concept of Creative Cities is analyzed through an interrogation of its categories and features, which were often constructed, under a neoliberal bias, without a more in-depth look into issues associated with the social and economic inequality that results from processes such as gentrification. Pratt criticizes the “cake recipes” adopted and applied without a more detailed understanding of the differences between cities.

Like Pratt ( 2011 ), Bontje and Musterd ( 2009 ) criticize the concept of creative cities, which they believe is often restricted to the development of place branding strategies. For these authors, there exists within the concept of Creative Cities a prioritization of a highly skilled creative class over a less-educated population employed in declining sectors, which reinforces social inequalities rather than confronting and solving them. Policies for the development of cities as spaces of generators of creativity and knowledge are recognized, but more attention needs to be paid to the need to get away from ready-made formulas that ignore local specificities.

In 2013 , Pratt and Hutton expand their analyses of the relations between the creative economy and cities, investigating how creative economy has developed and been perceived as having potential for development even in periods of crisis, as was the case during the 2008 economic crisis. The authors analyze the association between the development of creative industries concentrated and the primacy of some cities over others, generating interregional disparities and growth. Many public managers and decision makers base their policies on territorial governance models rooted in fragile conceptualizations inadequate for the specificities of the creative economy and its sectors. Aspects and characteristics of traditional markets, in regard to its structure and its mode of organization, thus present themselves in a differentiated way when analyzed within the context of the creative economy and its dynamics.

In their article on the creative economy and urban development in Spain, Méndez et al. ( 2012 ) present a critical analysis of the creative sectors of Spain, its weight in the urban economy and its territorial distribution, considering different spatial scales and the levels of territorial concentration of activities of these sectors in various geographical spaces. Like Pratt and Hutton ( 2013 ), Mendez et al. credit the creative economy with a potentially relevant strategy to tackle the recent economic crisis faced by Europe. The symbolic aspect of this economy is highlighted by the value that it adds to its products impacting and renewing the urban image. The symbolic aspect of this economy is highlighted by the value that adds to its products [that are] impacting and renewing the urban image. Metropolitan regions appear as creative hubs as a function of the density of cultural, creative, and professional sectors in Spain, and within those regions we can identify groups in certain neighborhoods or areas that have generated synergy with urban renewal policies.

Leitão et al. ( 2010 ) enter the creative economy debate with a discussion on the formulation and implementation of policies to foster creative economy in the Northeastern region of Brazil. They use a draft methodology in order to identify creative territories in metropolitan and interstate sub-regions with high circulation and consumption of creative goods and services as well as high demographic, institutional, socioeconomic, and production density. The identification of these creative territories locates geographical areas with local and regional development potential related to the Northeast’s creative economy.

This perspective on regional development is also found in the Corede Vale do Rio dos Sinos (Consinos) case study in Rio Grande do Sul, in which de Bem and Giacomini ( 2012 ) analyze the potential of Rio Grande do Sul’s fourteen municipalities, developing medium-range development strategies in the region’s footwear industry with the goal of reversing the negative impact that it has been suffering due to the importation of Chinese commodities. The fruit of German immigration to the region, the footwear production industry in Rio Grande do Sul experienced growth and success for more than three decades. Bem and Giacomini’s study sought to identify creative activities of a complementary nature and with synergy potential for the development and production of footwear with high added value so as to make them competitive against foreign competition.

From a local development perspective, Bento Gonçalves may be analysed as a municipality with the potential to become a “Knowledge City.” This possibility is based on the reflection of the convergence between the Brazilian creative economy model, which is supported by the Creative Economy Secretary from the Ministry of Culture as well as a knowledge-based development model, realized by the Generic Capital System taxonomy, which fosters information on systems integration of learning and providing knowledge (Fachinelli et al. 2014 ). The convergence between these two models rests in the theory that local culture is fundamental in this process and thus ought to be considered as a strategic vector for development.

Founded on an axis of creative economy and its sectors, the theme of development (be it local, regional, national, or global) is present in many other studies identified for the making of this article (Yusuf and Nabeshima 2005 ; Ren and Sun 2012 ; de Figueiredo Silva 2010 ; Golgher 2008 ). In these studies class, fostering strategies and cluster development or local productive arrangements are described as relevant for the strengthening of creative and innovative environments.

From a sectoral perspective, it is shown that studies, research, and reflections have prioritized sectors associated with so-called “new,” digital medias such as films, television, music, digital games, and animations. This is perhaps because these sectors have been more impacted by the speed of changes on the internet field and therefore have more potential to widen markets and expand commercial possibilities. For example, the deverticalization of the productive chain of music is highlighted by Nakano ( 2010 ) as a process that advances and expands markets and opportunities for independent production that is directly impacted by technological innovations in recent decades.

Through an exploratory study on the animation industry in Brazilian television, Gatti Junior et al. ( 2014 ) emphasize and analyze a sector that has been strongly boosted both in Brazil and in the world, be it due to its technical quality and business management capacity, or to its existing in relatively favorable conditions relative to fin ancient opportunities and to the existence of multi-platform channels of diffusion.

While some sectors professionalize and become competitive in the global market, de Sousa Batista et al.’s study ( 2011 ) shows how contractual relations between the market and the comic artists from Ceará (a state in the Brazilian Northeast) are extremely precarious as a result of many professionals’ unpreparedness to deal with issues related to the management of its formal and informal projects.

Lastly, in addition to the creative field themes and macroeconomic aspects discussed previously, many of which considered conceptual frameworks as well as territorial and sectoral development, it was determined within the selected articles an elevated interest in the following themes: apprenticeship and the generation of knowledge in communities and companies in creative sectors (Flach and Antonello 2011 ); interdisciplinarity and the integration of knowledge related to the theme of creative economy (Hartley 2011 ); the management of cultural and creative companies from an entrepreneurial perspective (Judice and Furtado 2014 ).

Research methodologies used

Of the 36 selected articles to conduct this bibliographic study, 31 were developed using qualitative methodologies, 1 used a mixed methodology, and the remaining 4 used quantitative methodologies. The predominance of studies and researches of qualitative nature is more than evident, especially considering that the majority of exploratory and descriptive studies are based in bibliographical researches focused on theoretical reflections or literature reviews. The conceptual imprecisions that these studies reveal about the research on creative economy have to be eradicated or minimized. The case studies also stand out as methods often used with the objective of deepening discussions on the theme as well as expanding theoretical reflections surrounding the emblematic or successful experiences resulting from the implementation of public policies designed to develop and foster the growth of territories, sectors, enterprises and professionals from the creative sectors.

As may be noted from the material analyzed for this study, there is still very little production of quantitative studies on the theme of creative economy. The Creative Economy Reports produced by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—UNCTAD in 2008 and 2010 correspond to a first effort on the world data compilation on this economy. However, given that measurement methodologies are not standardized and that they vary from country to country, a comparative analysis becomes much more difficult to conduct.

The incipient and interdisciplinary nature of creative economy demands a deeper and more attentive consideration of the theme in such a way that establishes more accurate conceptual consistency as well as a collective, integrated, and effective construction of the theme. The constant overlapping between creative economy and other concepts still generates a series of confusions that hinder the demarcation of borders and scopes. The centrality of the concept of creative economy in its sectors in contrast to the centrality in their network dynamics and productive arrangements deserves a broader debate. The logic is neither binary nor exclusive, but rather of a more complex, inclusive nature. For a more comprehensive approach to be established, it is necessary to contemplates both the sectoral and territorial (be it physical or digital) nature. The fact that creative economy encompasses such a wide variety of sectors (ranging from patrimony to media) asks for an analysis of the existing specificities and differences between sectors as a way to avoid generalizing perspectives and approaches of and on the many different dynamics and realities that creative economy consists of. The comprehension of the economic networks and knowledge established among and within the diverse sectors of creative economy demand a closer examination of the types and intensities of connections as well as of cultural identities and dynamics within and between sectors.

The bibliographical research conducted and presented in this article demonstrates how a majority of the reflections produced on the theme of creative economy have been based on studies that utilize qualitative research methods. Theoretical and critical revisions, case studies, exploratory and descriptive research on the sectors, territories (cities and regions), and public policies have been developed through interviews with creative entrepreneurs, specialists, opinion leaders, institutional documents, and data reports in and on the field. Meanwhile, quantitative studies remain as a minority.

The lack of quantitative studies on the theme undermines the evolution of an economy that remains partially invisible due to the fact that its macroeconomic extent is not clearly measured. Instead of researching disaggregated data and information produced by data research institutes on geography and statistics for projections and estimates, it is necessary to establish a standardized sectoral classification and economic data measurement methodology that would enable comparative studies between national and regional analyses. Unfortunately, Brazil still doesn’t have any measurement methodology on culture’s satellite account, which would allow for a clearer understanding of the creative sector’s’ contribution to Brazil’s total GDP.

The goal of this article is not to overvalue quantitative research at the expense of qualitative research, but rather to show the need for a larger multiplicity of approaches and research methodologies. Qualitative and quantitative research must be produced in complementary ways that deepen dialogue on the subject as well as expand both macro- and micro-economic knowledge on the creative field, its actors, its practices, its impacts and its possibilities.

Australia (2013) Australia Council of the Arts. Creative Australia. http://creativeaustralia.arts.gov.au/assets/Creative-Australia-PDF-20130417.pdf . Last access: October, 2013

Bendassolli PF, Borges-Andrade JE (2011) Significado do trabalho nas indústrias criativas. RAE 51(2):143–159

Google Scholar  

Bendassolli PF, Wood Jr T, (2010) O paradoxo de Mozart: Carreiras nas indústrias criativas. Org Soc Salv 17(53):259–277. www.revistaoes.ufba.br

Bendassolli PF, Wood Jr T, Kirschbaum C, Cunha MPE (2009) Indústrias criativas: definição, limites e possibilidades. RAE 49(1):010–018. ISSN 0034-7590

Bontje M, Musterd S (2009) Creative industries, creative class and competitiveness: Expert opinions critically appraised. Geoforum 40:843–852. www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

BRASIL (2008a) Ministério da Cultura. Caderno “Diretrizes Gerais para o Plano Nacional de Cultura”, 2nd edn. Minc, Brasília

BRASIL (2008b) Ministério da Cultura Plano Nacional de Cultura: Diretrizes Gerais. Ministério da Cultura/Câmara dos Deputados, Brasília

BRASIL (2011) Ministério da Cultura. Plano da Secretaria da Economia Criativa: políticas, diretrizes e ações – 2011 a 2014. Ministério da Cultura, Brasília

Corazza RI (2013) Criatividade, inovação e economia da cultura: abordagens multidisciplinares e ferramentas analíticas. Rev Bras Inov 12(1):207–231

de Bem JS, Giacomini NMR (2012) As indústrias criativas como alternativa de retomada de crescimento: o caso do consinos no Rio Grande do Sul. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e Desenvolvimento Regional (G&DR) 8(3):139–163

de Figueiredo Silva JL (2010) A emergência da geografia econômica das indústrias culturais. Geo UERJ Ano 12 1(21). www.geouerj.uerj.br/ojs . ISSN 1981-9021

De Marchi L (2014) Análise do Plano da Secretaria da Economia Criativa e as transformações na relação entre Estado e cultura no Brasil. Intercom RBCC 37(1):193–215

de Sousa Batista PC, Paiva TA, Ramos RR, da Hora Almeida PC, Oliveira LGL (2011) As relações contratuais das indústrias criativas: o caso dos quadrinhos no Ceará. Cadernos Ebape. BR 9(2), article 8

Drake G (2003) This place gives me space: place and creativity in the creative industries. Geoforum 34:511–524. www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Fachinelli AC, Carrillo FJ, D’Arisbo A (2014) Capital system, creative economy and knowledge city transformation: insights from Bento Gonçalves, Brazil. Expert Syst Appl 41:5614–5624. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.0120957-4174/2014

Article   Google Scholar  

Federação das Indústrias do Rio de Janeiro—FIRJAN (2008) A Cadeia da Indústria Criativa no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: FIRJAN. http://www.firjan.org.br/data/pages/2C908CEC3286DF68013286FCB8CE2E1C.htm . Last access: September, 2013

Federação das Indústrias do Rio de Janeiro—FIRJAN (2011) A Cadeia da Indústria Criativa no Brasil Edição 2011. Rio de Janeiro: FIRJAN. http://www.firjan.org.br/data/pages/2C908CEC3286DF68013286FCB8CE2E1C.htm . Last access: 10 Sept 2013

Federação das Indústrias do Rio de Janeiro—FIRJAN (2014) Mapeamento da indústria criativa no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: FIRJAN. www.firjan.org.br/economiacriativa . Last access: June 2015

FGV Projetos (2015) A cultura na economia brasileira The culture sector in Brazillian economy, vol 23. FGV, Rio de Janeiro

Flach L, Antonello CS (2011) Organizações culturais e a aprendizagem baseada em práticas. Cadernos EBAPE BR, 9(1), article 9

Golgher AB (2008) As cidades e a classe criativa no Brasil: diferenças espaciais na distribuição de indivíduos qualificados nos municípios brasileiros. Rev Bras Est Pop 25(1):109–129

Hartley J (2011) Cultural studies and the urgency of interdisciplinarity: sooner, not later, we’re going to need a cultural science. Matrizes 5(1):11–43

Hotho S, Champion K (2011) Small businesses in the new creative industries: innovation as a people management challenge. Manag Decis 49(1):29–54. doi: 10.1108/00251741111094428

Hsueha S-L, Hsu K-H, Liua C-Y (2012) A multi-criteria evaluation model for developmental effectiveness in cultural and creative industries. Proc Eng 29:1755–1761. www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Jambeiro O, Ferreira F (2012) Compreendendo as Indústrias Criativas de Mídia: contribuições da economia política da comunicação. Rev Comun Mid 7(3):178–194

Judice VMM, Furtado SC (2014) Gestão de empreendimentos criativos e culturais: estudo de uma organização de ensino e difusão de ritmos afro-brasileiros em São João del-Rei (MG). Org Soc Salv 21(69):293–314. www.revistaoes.ufba.br

Junior WG, Gonçalves MA, Barbosa APFPL (2014) Um estudo exploratório sobre a indústria brasileira de animação para a TV. REAd 78(2):461–495

Kamel JAN, Souza FS (2012) Entretenimento Social Clube, engenharia de produção e economia da experiência. Sist Gest 7:288–297

Keane M, Ryan MD, Cunningham S (2005) Worlds apart? Finance and investment in creative industries in the Peoples Republic of China and Latin America. Telemat Inform 22:309–331. www.elsevier.com/locate/tele

Leitão CS, Guilherme LL, Oliveira LAG, Gondim RV (2010) Nordeste Criativo e desenvolvimento regional: esboço de uma metodologia para o fomento da economia criativa no nordeste brasileiro. Extraprensa (USP) 1:170–182

Lima L, Ortellado P (2013) Da Compra de produtos e serviços culturais ao direito de produzir cultura: análise de um paradigma emergente. DADOS Rev Ciênc Soc 56(2):351–382

Marcella M, Rowley S (2015) An exploration of the extent to which project management tools and techniques can be applied across creative industries through a study of their application in the fashion industry in the North East of Scotland. J Proj Manag (International Journal of Project Management), Int. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.002

Méndez R, Michelini JJ, Prada J, Tébar J (2012) Economía creativa y desarrollo urbano en España: una aproximación a sus lógicas espaciales. EURE 38(113):5–32

Miller T (2011) La nueva derecha de los estudios culturales - las industrias creativas. Tabula Rasa 15:115–135

Nakano D (2010) A produção independente e a desverticalização da cadeia produtiva da música. Gest Prod 17(3):627–638

Nicolaci-da-Costa AM (2011) O talento jovem, a internet e o mercado de trabalho na “Economia Criativa”. Psicol Soc 23(3):554–563

Pardo CV, Literatura Brasileira Contemporânea: o desafio da exportação. Literatura Brasileira Contemporânea

Potts J, Cunningham S, Hartley J, Ormerod P (2008) Social network markets: a new definition of the creative industries. J Cult Econ 32:167–185. doi: 10.1007/s10824-008-9066-y

Pratt AC (2011) The cultural contradictions of the creative city. City Cult Soc 2:123–130. www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs

Pratt AC, Hutton TA (2013) Reconceptualising the relationship between the creative economy and the city: learning from the financial crisis. Cities Int J Urb Policy Plan 33:86–95. www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Prince R (2010) Fleshing out expertise: the making of creative industries experts in the United Kingdom. Geoforum 41:875–884. www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Ren X, Sun M (2012) Artistic urbanization: creative industries and creative control in Beijing. Int J Urban Reg Res 36(3):504–521

Serra N, Fernandez RS (2014) Economia Criativa: da discussão do conceito à formulação de políticas públicas. Rev Adm Inov 11(4):355–372

Stolarick K, Currid-Halkett E (2013) Creativity and the crisis: the impact of creative workers on regional unemployment. Cities 33:5–14. www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Creative economy report 2008. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditc20082cer_en.pdf . Last access: Sept 2009

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Relatório de Economia Criativa 2010. http://www2.cultura.gov.br/economiacriativa/relatorio-mundial-sobre-economia-criativa-em-portugues-ja-esta-disponivel-para-consulta-e-download/ . Last access: Sept 2013

Yusuf S, Nabeshima K (2005) Creative industries in East Ásia. Cities 22(2):109–122

Download references

Authors’ contributions

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Program of Public Policies, Strategies and Development, Rio de Janeiro Federal University (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Luciana Lima Guilherme

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciana Lima Guilherme .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Guilherme, L.L. Creative economy: thematic perspectives addressed and research methodologies adopted. Braz J Sci Technol 4 , 2 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40552-017-0040-0

Download citation

Received : 22 June 2016

Accepted : 27 July 2016

Published : 18 April 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40552-017-0040-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Creative economy
• Creative industries
• Creative cities
• Creative classes
• Cultural industries
• Public policies

British Council Creative Economy

New and changing dynamics, john newbigin, what is the creative economy.

How the term ‘creative industries’ began

The term ‘creative industries’ began to be used about twenty years ago to describe a range of activities, some of which are amongst the oldest in history and some of which only came into existence with the advent of digital technology. Many of these activities had strong cultural roots and the term ‘cultural industries’ was already in use to describe theatre, dance, music, film, the visual arts and the heritage sector, although this term was itself controversial as many artists felt it demeaning to think of what they did as being, in any way, an ‘industry’.

‘Industries’ or not, no one could argue with the fact that these activities – both the narrowly defined cultural industries and the much wider range of new creative industries – were of growing importance to the economy of many countries and gave employment to a large number of people. But no government had attempted to measure their overall economic contribution or think strategically about their importance except, perhaps, the US government which, for almost a hundred years, had protected and fostered its film industry, not just because of its value to the US economy but because it projected US culture and influence around the world. Although they did not constitute an easily identified industrial ‘sector’ in the way that aerospace, pharmaceuticals or automotive are seen as sectors, one thing all these activities had in common was that they depended on the creative talent of individuals and on the generation of intellectual property. In addition, to think of them as a ‘sector’, however arbitrary the definition, drew attention to the fact that they were part of or contributed to a wide range of industries and professions, from advertising to tourism, and there was evidence that the skills and work styles of the creative sector were beginning to impact on other areas of the economy, especially in the use of digital technologies.

The first attempt to measure the value of the creative industries

In 1997, a newly elected Labour government in the UK decided to attempt a definition and assess their direct impact on the British economy.  Drawing on a study published in 1994 by the Australian government, Creative Nation , and on the advice of an invited group of leading creative entrepreneurs, the government’s new Department for Culture, Media and Sport published  Creative Industries – Mapping Document 1998  that listed 13 areas of activity – advertising, architecture, the arts and antiques market, crafts, design, designer fashion, film, interactive leisure software, music, performing arts, publishing, software, television and radio – which had in common the fact that they “… have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and … have a potential for wealth creation through the generation of intellectual property”. The concept of intellectual property  (in other words the value of an idea that can be protected by copyright, patents, trade marks or other legal and regulatory mechanisms to stop it being copied or turned to commercial advantage without the permission of the person whose idea it was) was seen as central to any understanding of creative industries – and continues to be so. 

Critics argued that the study was creating false distinctions and that individual creativity and talent were at the heart of many other areas of activity, from bio-sciences to engineering. Of course, that is true but the study had deliberately chosen not to include the creative work of scientists and engineers that is built on systematic analysis and enquiry, and to focus instead on the more random drivers of creativity in the social and cultural spheres. Another criticism was that the study failed to acknowledge the difference between businesses that actually generated intellectual property value through the creative talent of individuals, and were typically small, under-capitalised SMEs or micros (‘small or medium enterprises’, meaning they had between 25 and 500 employees, or ‘micro-businesses’, meaning they had 10 or fewer employees), and businesses that benefitted from owning and exploiting that intellectual property that were typically large, heavily-capitalised transnational conglomerates, sometimes with very little evidence of ‘creativity’ in the way they operated. The two kinds of company could not be more different from each other and yet they were both being defined as part of the ‘creative industries’.  Despite these and other criticisms the study attracted considerable interest, particularly when a follow-up analysis in 2001 revealed that this arbitrarily defined creative sector was generating jobs at twice the underlying rate of the UK economy as a whole.

How thinking about the creative industries has evolved

Twenty years later, the concept of the ‘creative industries’, and their importance, is recognised by almost every government in the world and is beginning to give way to a much more inclusive idea of a wider ‘creative economy’. Of course, the desire to define specific industries as ‘creative’ persists, and will no doubt continue to be so.  In some countries the definitions revolve closely around the arts and culture. Other countries have broader definitions that include, for example, food and gastronomy on the basis that food and cuisine have both economic and cultural significance. Other countries have a definition that includes well-established business-to-business industries such as publishing, software, advertising and design; the 11th Five-Year Plan of the Peoples Republic had as one of its central themes the need to “move from made in China to designed in China” – a classic exposition of the understanding that generating intellectual property is more valuable in the 21st century economy than manufacturing products. Other countries, including the UK, have wrestled with the tricky question of where to locate policy development for ‘creativity’ within their government structures – is it economic policy, industrial policy, cultural policy, education policy, or all four?

The more policy analysts and statisticians around the world thought about how to assess the true impact of the creative industries the more it became apparent that much more fundamental rethinking was necessary. For a start, the fusion of the arts and creative industries with digital technology was spawning whole new industries and skills that were not captured by the internationally recognised templates for measuring economic activity , the so-called ‘SIC’ and ‘SOC’ codes (Standard Industrial Classifications and Standard Occupational Classifications). This had the perverse effect of making important new areas of skill and wealth generation effectively invisible to governments and made international comparisons almost impossible. There were other obvious anomalies – not every job in the creative industries was ‘creative’ and many jobs outside the scope of the creative industries, however one chose to define them, were clearly very creative. The UK organisation Nesta , and others, began to explore this area, coming to the conclusion that the number of creative jobs in ‘non-creative’ industries was probably greater than the number of creative jobs within the creative industries. How could one begin to measure their impact? Moreover, the massive impact of digital technology was transforming every industry, creative or not, while the internet was opening up an ever-changing variety of platforms for new creative expression which, in turn, was generating all kinds of new and very obviously creative businesses. For example, within a decade and a half of its birth the videogames industry had surpassed the hundred year old film industry in value. And if ‘design’ was to be included as a creative industry, which it obviously was, where did that leave process design which was a creative discipline but one whose impact was felt across every other area of economic activity from retail to transport planning and health? 

The more policymakers thought about the creative industries the more it became apparent that it made no sense to focus on their economic value in isolation from their social and cultural value. A  United Nations survey  of the global creative economy, published in 2008, pointed out that far from being a particular phenomenon of advanced and post-industrial nations in Europe and North America, the rapid rate of growth of ‘creative and cultural industries’ was being felt in every continent, North and South. The report concluded “The interface between creativity, culture, economics and technology, as expressed in the ability to create and circulate intellectual capital, has the potential to generate income, jobs and exports while at the same time promoting social inclusion, cultural diversity and human development. This is what the emerging creative economy has begun to do.” 

The creative economy has a cultural and social impact that is likely to grow

In a time of rapid globalisation, many countries recognise that the combination of culture and commerce that the creative industries represents is a powerful way of providing a distinctive image of a country or a city, helping it to stand out from its competitors. The value of widely recognised cultural ‘icons’, such as the Eiffel Tower in France, the Taj Mahal in India or the Sydney Opera House in Australia has given way to whole cultural districts that combine arts and commercial activity, from the Shoreditch district of London with its design studios, tech businesses, cafes and clubs to huge prestige projects such as the West Kowloon cultural district in Hong Kong or the cultural hub on Sadiyaat Island in Abu Dhabi that represent billions of dollars of investment. 

Awareness of this broader significance was reflected in a UK government publication of 2009, Creative Britain , which argued that effective long-term policies for the creative industries depended on policy initiatives, many of them at city and regional level, that were social as much as economic and that included, for example, the need for radical changes in the way children’s education was being planned, if Britain’s economy was to achieve long-term success as a home of creativity and innovation.

By 2014 staff at Nesta felt the debate had moved on so significantly that a new definition was was called for; a simple definition of the ‘creative economy’, rather than ‘creative industries’, as “…those sectors which specialise in the use of creative talent for commercial purposes”.  The same year, in an analysis of the UK’s cultural policy and practice, the writer Robert Hewsion observed in his book Cultural Capital – The Rise and Fall of Creative Britain, “It is the configuration of relationships that gives a system its essential characteristics. Thus, it is less helpful to define the creative economy by what it does, than try to understand how it is organised”.

This, in turn, opens up a whole new arena for discussion. It seems that these industries, especially the thousands of small and micro-businesses that are at the cutting edge of creativity, may not only be of growing economic significance but, in some sense, are a harbinger of a whole new economic order, providing a new paradigm for the way in which businesses are organised, education is understood and provided, value is measured, the working lives and career prospects of millions of people are likely to develop and how the cities they live in will be planned and built. In particular, the rapid growth of automation and the use of artificial intelligence and robotics, which heralds the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, is certain to have a major impact on employment globally.  Researchers at Oxford University estimate that up to 47% of jobs in the US could be replaced by machines in the course of the next 20 years, while their figure for the UK is 35%. But a 2015 study by Nesta, ‘Creativity vs. Robots’  argued that the creative sector was to some extent immune to this threat, with 86% of ‘highly creative’ jobs in the US, and 87% in the UK, having no or low risk of being displaced by automation. 

It is sometimes said that where oil was the primary fuel of the 20th century economy, creativity is the fuel of the 21st century. In the same way that energy policy and access to energy was a determinant of geopolitics throughout the 20th century, it may be that policies to promote and protect creativity will be the crucial determinants of success in the 21st. If that is true then we will have to rethink the way governments are organised, the way cities are planned, the way education is delivered, and the way citizens interact with their communities. So, thinking about what we mean by creativity and the creative economy could not be more important!

As Special Advisor to the Minister for Culture, Rt Hon Chris Smith MP, he was closely involved in developing the UK government’s first policies for the creative industries in the 1990s. He was Head of Corporate Relations for Channel 4 Television (2000-2005) and executive assistant to Lord Puttnam as the Chairman of the film company Enigma Productions Ltd (1992-97). As a policy advisor to the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition, Rt Hon Neil Kinnock, MP, (1986-92) he had responsibility for environmental and cultural issues, amongst others.

He is a member of the UK government’s Creative Industries Council; Chairman of the British Council’s Advisory Group for Arts and Creative Economy; member of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship at Goldsmiths, University of London; and of the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Knowledge Exchange Oversight Group. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology in Bangalore and an Honorary Professor at the University of Hong Kong.

He was a youth worker in East London for 6 years and writer-in-residence for Common Stock Theatre. He has also worked as a journalist and as an illustrator.

He was awarded an OBE for “services to creative industries and the arts” in the 2015 New Years Honours List.

www.creativeengland.co.uk

Related texts

Zurich Centre for Creative Economies

Zcce research website presents visual data and statistics (data), research articles (analysis), information articles (insights) and reviews of books, essays and academic papers (review).

Cultural Policies in Ticino

Latest data.

Employment in Creative Occupations Switzerland 2010–2022

“Les empreintes créatives”: ZCCE’s report on the ICC in Geneva.

Latest insights

A study on the future of work in the arts and entertainment sector

Voice of Russia

Hans-Ulrich Obrist: Creative Destruction and Other Rituals

© 2022 All Rights Reserved

Zurich Centre for Creative Economies (ZCCE) Zurich University of the Arts (ZHdK) Pfingstweidstrasse 96, 8005 Zürich

Send us an Email

• About NASAA
• Support NASAA
• State Arts Agency Directory
• State to State Article Archive
• ALL About State Arts Agencies
• Best Practices
• Creative Aging
• Creative Economy
• Evaluation and Performance Measurement
• Federal Reporting
• Grant Making
• Strategic Planning
• ALL Research Resources
• Federal Updates
• ALL Advocacy Resources
• Past Events
• NASAA 2024 Learning Series
• Upcoming NASAA Events Calendar
• ALL Events & Seminars
• NASAA Notes
• ALL Recent News

Username or E-mail Address

Remember Me

About State Arts Agencies

Events & seminars, recent news, creative economy research: a primer policy brief.

• Get involved

Festival Create4 Unites Creators and Innovators to Drive Kyrgyzstan’s Creative Economy

April 21, 2024.

Bishkek, 22 April 2024 - The Festival Create4, a flagship initiative by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Kyrgyzstan and the Association of Creative Industries, marked its second edition this year, spanning 36 locations across the country. Under the theme #JaratmanKyrgyzstan, the festival once again served as a vibrant platform for celebrating and fostering the burgeoning creative economy of Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia.

The Festival Create4 is not just a celebration of creativity; it’s a pivotal tool for mapping the growth points of Kyrgyzstan’s creative economy at the grassroots level, as emphasized by Alexandra Solovieva, UNDP Resident Representative in Kyrgyzstan. Solovieva remarked, “Create 4 is not only the Festival of Creative Industries of Kyrgyzstan; its mission is much wider and more powerful. It is a tool for mapping creative communities of Kyrgyzstan at the local level and co-designing tailored approaches to foster their growth, accelerate territorial development and mainstream innovative agenda in close collaboration with the grassroot partners and national stakeholders.”

The festival, which brought together over 10,000 people from various backgrounds and regions, served as a dynamic dialogue platform, encouraging collaboration, knowledge exchange, and the exploration of joint solutions, as stated by Nazgul Kubakaeva, Chair of the Association of Creative Industries. Kubakaeva highlighted, “Create4 is a platform for uniting creators and innovators from Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia to exchange experience and ideas, create joint projects, and search for joint solutions.”

This year's festival featured an impressive lineup of speakers, including luminaries such as Asel Sherniyazova, Director of Asian World Film Festival, Kyrgyzstan; Sabina Reingold, co-founder of the Jolbors festival, Kyrgyzstan; Yerkebulan Kurishbayev, General Producer of Qara Music and Founder of the Oyu Fest Youth Festival, Kazakhstan; Nail Muratov, Creative Director, Seed Agency, Kazakhstan; and Farhat Norbaev, co-founder of Lokals advertising agency, Uzbekistan.

For those unable to attend in person, Create4 provided an opportunity to engage through podcast sessions available on the YouTube channel of Lights Creative.

Beyond its cultural significance, Create4 serves as a vital platform for discussing and advancing the creative economy agenda between stakeholders from the public and private sectors, educational institutions, and civil society organizations. The festival has played a pivotal role in promoting the Creative Industries Park Law and fostering multi-stakeholder partnerships, with over 50 partners involved in organizing the event in 24 cities and villages of Kyrgyzstan.

The festival also contributes to promoting the national brand #JaratmanKyrgyzstan, reflecting the ethos of creativity and innovation embedded in the National Development Strategy of the country. By hosting participants from neighbouring countries and facilitating cross-border collaboration, Create4 strengthens Kyrgyzstan’s position as a regional hub for creativity and innovation.

Prehistory: Create4, initiated in 2022, has evolved into the largest festival of creative industries in Kyrgyzstan, attracting both seasoned professionals and aspiring talents. Since its inception, it has served as a catalyst for the development of Kyrgyzstan’s creative economy, fostering a supportive ecosystem for creators and innovators.

The festival's journey began with the support of the law on the Creative Industries Park, endorsed by the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, Sadyr Japarov in 2022. Subsequent editions have seen exponential growth, with partnerships forged with institutions such as the American University of Central Asia (AUCA) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Programme Office in Bishkek.

Create 4 continues to inspire, empower, and connect individuals passionate about driving Kyrgyzstan’s creative economy forward. As #JaratmanKyrgyzstan gains momentum, the festival stands as a testament to the spirit of innovation and collaboration that defines the nation's creative landscape.

For media inquiries, please contact:

Ainagul Abdrakhmanova, UNDP Communications Officer at  [email protected] or 0770755776. 

About UNDP Kyrgyzstan:

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) works in nearly 170 countries and territories, helping to eradicate poverty, reduce inequalities, and build resilience so countries can sustain progress. In Kyrgyzstan, UNDP has been partnering with the government and people for over 30 years to address the country's most pressing development challenges.

About the Association of Creative Industries:

The Association of Creative Industries is dedicated to fostering the growth and sustainability of the creative sector in Kyrgyzstan. Through advocacy, capacity building, and networking opportunities, the association aims to create an enabling environment for creative professionals and entrepreneurs to thrive.

Website:  UNDP Kyrgyzstan

Facebook:  UNDP Kyrgyzstan

Twitter:  UNDP Kyrgyzstan

Instagram:  UNDP Kyrgyzstan

Related  content

Collective Intelligence can help drive climate action, reveals new research

New research by the UNDP Accelerator Labs Network and Nesta’s Centre for Collective Intelligence Design reveals that by generating more real-time, localized clima...

Press Releases

Undp accelerator lab thailand and youth co:lab incubate thai-lao multisectoral teams to innovate creative ideas to tackle cross-border air pollution, presenting to policy planners and competing for awards for idea scale-up in local areas., undp cameroon and the mtn foundation partner to build a digital innovation hub in cameroon..

UNDP Africa Regional Director Visits Zambia

A new online map will enable Hatay residents to access basic services

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

Research days graduate award winners.

The 2024 Student Research Days Poster Sessions and Creative Exhibitions was held o n March 26-27, hosted by the Office of Graduate Studies, the Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships, and the Office of Research and Economic Development. More than 120 graduate students presented, and those who were awarded prizes for their scholarship and presentation skills received $400 toward travel grants to present their research regionally or nationally as well as support other research costs.  Over 40 faculty and postdoc volunteer judges met with students during sessions and evaluated their presentations.

College of Arts and Sciences awardees:

• Brianna DeValk (History) "Citizenship Taken: Recovering Married Women's U.S. Citizenship on the Northern Great Plains, 1907-1957", adviser: Kenneth Winkle
• Isabel Kuebler (Psychology) "Alcohol drinking in rats is differently modulated by the type of sugar added: regulation by melanin-concentrating hormone", adviser: Ken Wakabayashi
• Sadia Sharmeen (Chemistry) “Multisite Interactions of Thiazolidinedione Drugs with Human Serum Albumin Studied by using High-performance Affinity Microcolumns”, adviser: David Hage
• Bibek Tiwari (Physics and Astronomy) “Spherulite-enhanced Macroscopic Polarization in Molecular Ferroelectric Films from Vacuum Deposition”, adviser: Xiaoshan Xu
• Sethe Zachman (Sociology) “American Perspectives on the Legitimacy of Transgender Identities”, adviser: Kelsy Burke