Understanding the cultural industries: is more less?

Andy C Pratt Department of Geography and Environment London School of Economics Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE a.c.pratt@lse.ac.uk Paper appeared in 2002 Understanding the cultural industries: is more less? pp51-68 in Culturelink, Special issue (Ed. Mercer, C.): Convergence, creative industries and civil society: the new cultural policy, UNESCO/Council of Europe; Abstract This paper offers a critical survey of recent attempts to understand the cultural industries. It considers how far we have come, and what more still needs to be achieved. First, it asks what understand might mean: highlighting the fact that knowledge is always produced in particular contexts for particular reasons. Data collected to monitor and evaluate may be quite different to that used for understanding. A distinction is drawn between primary and secondary (or impact) measures and the value that these might have. Likewise, the difference between output measures and process measures. Second, the concept of the sector is differentiated from that of industry as a basis for future data collection and analysis. Third, issues of coordination and collection process are highlighted as well as the potential role of intelligent agencies in both collecting and analysing data, as well as developing strategic policy knowledge. Introduction The aim of this paper is to review recent attempts to develop our understanding of the cultural industries1. Ever since Girards (1982) paper on the cultural industries researchers and policy makers have been trying to pin down the cultural industries conceptually and empirically by the use of reliable measures. As we will discuss below, this is not an insignificant activity. Nevertheless, the poor data and guess work associated with past evaluations of the cultural industries has led to a mistrust of speculative, and sometimes inflated, data. This has done little to challenge mainstream dismissal of the cultural industries as mere entertainment, or candyfloss: most certainly not something of real value. Additionally, it has not helped to improve the credibility of academic research in the field. This state of affairs has not helped to attract high quality and rigorous academic work and robust policy analysis in the field of the cultural industries. At the time of writing the cultural industries is still not a common concept across Europe. The term has its contemporary provenance at both a UNESCO level, and in the UK. At its simplest and least controversial it encapsulates the economic dimension of the cultural sphere. Early work focused upon the economic value of the arts (notably UK and Ireland), or of leisure and culture (notably France). The current usage has focused upon a sub-set of activities that, in most definitions, are dominated by the electronic or digital art forms, and by the influence of commercial production. Perhaps the approach that is best known is that of the UK, however it should be pointed out that Canada and Australia, Norway and Nord RhineWestphalia in Germany have also pioneered this mode of analysis2. Whilst the field of culture and its link to employment is acknowledged at the EC level (see EC 1988) debates and policy are still closely articulated with a notion of culture that has its core meaning in the fields of heritage and cultural tourism3, and public sector finance rather than the economic (see Ruffolo 2001:8). There is not space here Referred to as the creative industries in the UK. In practice the term creative has been used for political effect. In simple terms the labels are interchangeable. 2 Many other regions and nations are exploring ways of developing cultural industries measures and policies; see Pratt (2000a) for an international survey; see Bodo and Fisher (1997); Cliche et al (2000); Feist (2000) for an overview of recent indiciators of cultural employment in Europe. 3 See Pratt (2001) for a discussion of the relationship between cultural tourism and cultural industries in the context of the city.
1

to discuss the reasons for this bifurcation of policy object and objectives in the cultural field, simply to note it for future debate. This paper concentrates its attention on the problems of understanding the cultural industries starting from the point broadly defined in debates in the UK. The contemporary problem for the cultural industries is that the ticket of entry of any potential bidder for public resources is a concrete measure and a potential means of evaluation. The cultural industries, and the broader arts establishment, have previously mobilised policy pleadings on the grounds of humanism and national identity4. In the current economic and political climate national finance ministers are less willing to entertain bids for resources that cannot be proven, in financial terms, to be of benefit to the national economy. In a happy coincidence there has been a growing recognition that the cultural industries might have a serious economic value has motivated policy makers to commission research into ways of valuing the cultural industries5. A watershed was the publication of the UK Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) Creative Industries Mapping Document (1998) which made a first attempt to provide and evidential base for a bid for financial resources. The headline figures of 1.4 million employees, or 5% of those working, and 60Bn contribution to exports certainly pleased politicians. For comparison, this placed the creative industries on a level with agriculture and the extractive industries added together, or the construction sector. However, a clutch of monitoring data does not make a policy. Policy development has proved to be a much harder task, in large part because despite the headline figures, we do not understand the cultural industries: this is how they operate, how they are changing, in which ways they are organised, where they are located and why. In this paper I want to briefly review the conceptual foundations upon which the current (UK) measures have been built, and then to discuss what sort of changes might be needed to develop a really useful understanding of the cultural industries. As I will note, the significant questions that need to be asked here are: what purpose do we imagine this understanding will be put to? and, is the understanding appropriate for this purpose? The story so far Collecting information on cultural activities is a relatively new area of government activity. Traditionally governments have focused on two areas: participation and expenditure. Participation measures have included counting visitors to cultural attractions as well as surveying households on the nature, and what range, of cultural activities members engage in6. Expenditure data is collected via household surveys that yield the absolute and proportion of spending on cultural activities. Thus, the traditional conceptualisation of culture has been based upon consumption and individual participation; what is overlooked is production. Governments do collect information on business relevant activity, but culture is has not generally been considered to be a business7. Thus, faced with the problem of assessing the contribution of arts and culture to society and economy commentators have naturally sought to offer the value of culture to education and the moral fabric. Economists have long used a technique for assessing the economic impact of activities called multiplier analyses. These techniques are commonly used to look at the knock on effect, or ripple effect of say, a manufacturing plant closure on a region: how many jobs are lost with suppliers, how many retailers will loose income due to the lack of wage payments, etc. In the case of the arts multiplier analyses have been used as a surrogate for impact. The assumption is that the museum/concert hall etc. has not intrinsic (economic) value, but a measure of the real economic value can be derived from the multiplier effect measured in terms of extra bed-nights at hotels, or additional retail sales. This type of Such a basis was not always acknowledged, it was commonly abridged simply in terms of excellence: a term that is very difficult to establish beyond doubt! 5 One of the problems of the shift in governance more generally to economic measures and its application in this area where the cultural industries are the best example, is the relative demotion in importance of the non-commercial arts and cultural activities. However, I do not want to discuss this issue here. 6 Often time use surveys, an audit of time spent per activity, are also carried out. 7 Historically speaking this is accurate; it is primarily since the development of mass consumption of cultural products, especially those associated with the electronic arts, that the business of culture has become so significant. Thus, we can consider the industry to only have had a 50 year or so life span; the most significant impacts being felt in the advanced capitalist economies from the mid-1960s onward.
4

technique underpinned the seminal New York Port Authority study (see Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Cultural Assistance Centre 1983), and a major part of Myerscoughs (1988), equally seminal analysis of the UK, entitled the impact of the arts. This style of analysis continues to be popular (see Johnson and Thomas 2001). A subtle, but important, point that can be drawn out of these analyses is that they do not seek to value, or evaluate, the direct impact of art or culture. In impact analyses of, say, a new car plant this is not the case. As the multiplier model suggests, the economic base is the key that stimulates extra economic activity. Thus, direct and indirect effects are added together. The predominant use of cultural multipliers focuses of the estimation of indirect effects. One reason is that such models are used to justify public spending: thus, x investment with produce x+n total effect. Attention is not focused on the direct impact of the arts or cultural establishment. This further reinforces the common perception that culture has no direct value8. For the purposes of this paper such a state of affairs is regrettable as it misdirects attention from the potential economic value of cultural production. However, this is not to dismiss the need for detailed information on the flows of public finances into the cultural sector. As detailed work by Casey at al. (1996) and Selwood (2001) has shown, this is a still an opaque picture. A decisive shift can be identified in another strand of work that has its roots in the (then) Arts Council of Englands desire to consider the number of artists in employment. Fiest and OBrien (1995) carried out an analysis of the national census of population data that focused on the selection of only those employed in the arts. As we will note below, this was not a simple exercise as there is not a simple classification of what employed in the arts might mean. Fiest and OBriens analysis can be considered important in retrospect because it was the first example of taking the arts as important in their own right: it was a direct measure. Significantly, although it was not acknowledged at the time, it also allowed a direct comparison with other areas of economic activity. Pratt (1997) made this explicit link in his attempt to develop a direct measure of the contribution of the cultural industries to the economy. This analysis also used census data9, plus that derived from government economic sources, to provide an assessment of the cultural industries. Pratts work represented two innovations: first, it addressed regional and well a national data; second, the definition of the cultural industries included production and consumption as well as authorship (the focus of Feist and OBriens classification): this was termed the production system, or sector. Significantly, given the recent establishment of a new dedicated Department of government, the DCMS (1998) published what they called a mapping of the cultural industries10. This report, and the political debate occasioned by it, had a significant impact in changing the image that public, the industry and policy makers had of the cultural sector. So, in summary, the story has been a shift from indirect to direct measures. It has also been a shift from national to local level data, and an increasing awareness of differences within the cultural industries (as well as definitions of the cultural industries) and within and across regions. We can register the growth in popularity of analyses that highlight production and production chains11. Finally, and this is of enormous rhetorical and practical importance, the shift has been from estimates and guesses, to facts12. The question is: does this new information tell us more, or less? The question of taxonomy Scholars of cultural statistics have developed a clear modus operandi. First, they use verifiable secondary data, usually from government survey or data sets that provide 100% coverage. Second, they delve into the Either this, or it represents a view that culture cannot, or should not, be reduced to economic value. Although it was agued that a different classification should be adopted. 10 The DCMS first mapping document contained only national level data. The Second report (DCMS 2001) sought to rectify this through the addition of regional employment measures. The classification adopted was closer to Feist and OBriens than that of Pratt. 11 This trend can be seen most clearly in the cultural strategies that are currently being prepared by the newly established Regional Development Agencies in England. 12 The key trend in the evidential base school has been to use secondary data sources. Although, as well discuss below the status of some of these facts, or rather their interpretation, is open to disputation.
9 8

intricacies of classification and taxonomy. There are two good reasons for this. First, that the taxonomies of industrial classification that are used for all census collection purposes are rooted in a system developed in the mid-twentieth century when the economy was dominated by manufacturing activity. Appropriately, for the time, there are numerous detailed sub-divisions of industrial activity in the area of manufacture that make it possible to identify, for example, the intricate sub-industries of boot and shoe making. The coverage of the service sector generally, and the newer cultural industries in particular is either nonexistent, or individual activities are rolled up with a number of un-related activities (from a cultural industries point of view). Researchers have sought to use the basic building blocks of these classifications (the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), or the European NACE, or the UN ISIC) to re-construct a measure of the cultural industries13. However, it is at best an approximation. Sadly, poor though it is, the industrial classification and employment information is the only dataset that is amenable to this manipulation. Data on turnover, output and exports are not so malleable. Thus, the point is that these data classifications were derived for both another purpose, and for another time. Whilst attempts have been made to bring the SIC and its parallel international classifications up to date, as yet even the modifications to the service sector have yet to make to useful contribution to greater detailed, or more meaningful, measures of the cultural industries (see Eurostat 2000)14. A parallel debate could be had about the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) as the SIC. One criticism of the use of SIC and SOC codes is that they are insufficiently precise. Collection by SIC code allows non-cultural activities, usually management or production work, to distort figures. On the other hand SOC data over counts by including those in creative occupations in non-creative industries. Thus, it has been suggested that SOC and SIC can be presented in a 2x2 matrix such that a cell in a cultural occupation employed in a cultural industry can be isolated. It is argued here that whilst illuminating such categorisation focuses on an atomistic conception of creativity and innovation. The sectoral approach that we deploy here acknowledges that creativity and innovation will always require a context (of a firm, a cultural or business network, or an audience) within which an act of creativity will make sense and can be practiced. For example, a play only makes sense within the context of other plays and the critical dialogue of audiences and critics. Moreover, the play is only a script until a cast reads it, actors employed, a director appointed, a theatre found, lighting and scenery created, and publicity developed. Even after these limitations and caveats are acknowledged, the fact that some sort of verifiable measure can be developed must be acknowledged. This brings us to a crucial point do they contribute to understanding the cultural industries. Measures of gross employment in the cultural industries, or in individual industries, provide data that can be fed into monitoring and evaluation exercises. Predominantly, such exercises are for urban regeneration projects that have key output measures of jobs created, or sustained, in a project period15. What they do not focus on are indicators of the output, process, health and vitality of the activities in question. Here, more focused quantitative and qualitative indicators are required. Thus, measures developed so far fit into an external evaluation agenda; they do not help with an internal agenda. It is this internal focus that is the cultural industries policy agenda. Whilst we have a fair amount of knowledge through experience and academic analysis of, say, the car industry, or the boot and shoe industry, we have little to go on when considering how the computer games industry operates, what its labour markets look like, how firms are organised, how new developments are financed, etc. Simple data on employment (which is not available for the computer games industry, there is no SIC code for it; to all intents and purposes it does not exist for statisticians) even if it were available, would only tell us a little; a whole range of important questions would lay unanswered. These questions might concern the quality of the products produced, the nature of training and employment conditions. Any attempt to evaluate local strengths or weaknesses, or to begin to consider policy responses, is rendered void. So, what is called for is information collection that provides a picture of the cultural industries on their own terms and measured by See Pratt (1997; 1999; 2000b; 2000c; 2001) The UN (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division) is currently (October 2001) consulting on a revision of ISIC for 2007, likewise the EU NACE and the UK SIC are to be revised by 2004 for implementation in 2007. 15 There is not space here to discuss the fact that cultural activities are commonly used in an instrumental fashion to achieve regeneration (see Vestheim 1994). This is a literal instance of measuring the impact of the cultural sector with little, or no, attention to the sector or its activities in their own terms.
14 13

indicators that are fitting. It is only then that we will be able to develop policy based upon an understanding of the cultural industries. The key questions are: which industries are parts of the cultural sector, and, are the cultural industries a logical category? Plus, why is it that we want to know? Industry or sector: whats in a label? It might be helpful to consider a hierarchy of knowledge, ranging from data of the world; through classified data (information); to intelligence that we might describe as information in the service of understanding, or, information focused on a purpose. The stage that we have reached with the cultural industries is (imperfect) information. Simply collecting more data is not the solution; the objective is the collation of relevant intelligence. Unfortunately, as we have noted above, even that information that we do have was collected for other purposes and is thus limited by objectives beyond our control. Another way of looking at the problems of classification discussed above is to argue that intelligence, or knowledge, is concept dependent. Data has little meaning on its own until it is ordered in some way. Moreover, there are no natural orders (another concept, after all) but only conceptual orderings. The point that has already been made above in relation to the taxonomies of industry and occupation is that the concept of the form of an economy that is mainly manufacturing, with some extractive activities and some service activities on the side is not universal, nor does it even hold of individual economies across time. It could be argued that we are in danger of putting the (data) cart before the (conceptual) horse by seeking to further refine taxonomies that are themselves flawed. The logic of industrial classification is two fold. First, that like industries are grouped together. Second, that there is a natural form, or a least a degree of permanence, in industrial groupings. The question that often goes unasked is which characteristics does one choose to compare in making an evaluation of similarity or difference, or, deciding the membership of a particular taxonomic category? In short, what is the logic of the taxonomy? This question has a particular answer in economic theory; and the answer is that you classify firms by industry. In neo-classical economics industry has a precise meaning, a meaning that is related to the neo-classical economic view of the world as comprised of separate individuals or firms who seek to maximise their utility in a transaction. Transactions take place in markets, and from this perspective industries are classified by which market they trade in. So, all of the activities that produce as a final output computer games are classified as the computer games industry. As this is neo-classical economics, issues associated with business organisation and structure are deemed irrelevant. An alternative concept, and associated taxonomy, derives from a field of neo-institutional economics (see, for example, Hodgson 1988). Neo-institutional economics is based upon an understanding of economies that have structural characteristics provided by organisational forms, governance and regulation. Within this literature there has been discussion of the notion of a sector of the economy. A sector is a logical chunk of the economy that comprises of processes that produce outputs. So, the focus is upon what we might term the production chain, that is the linkages between inputs and outputs and the economic and social networks that these comprise. Institutional economics and sociology has paid a considerable amount of attention to issues of knowledge transfer, learning and innovation as properties of systems, networks or institutions. So, the computer games sector includes a whole set of up- and down-steam production linkages, as well as dominant institutional, regulatory and network infrastructures that are necessary prerequisites for computer games to be produced. So, following the same logic what would a cultural industries sector look like? One such proposal can be found in Pratt (1997). Additionally, we must consider for whom and for what purposes classifications and concepts are developed. Basically, to a data collector, classifications or taxonomies are much alike; their utility is in simplifying the analysis, of cutting down the variables. However, as we know well, the sorts of conclusions that can be drawn from analyses are always in part a product of the classifications that get made apparently prior to formal analysis. Traditional concepts of neo-classical markets that have no space for networks or institutions, or the role of the state may have some utility in abstract modelling of economic action in the aggregate. However, due to their status as analogous models, they are instrumental. They function as black boxes they predict outputs from inputs. What they do not tell us is how the transformation takes place. In short, they are not (philosophically speaking) realist models that attempt to represent the world as it is

(see Pratt 1994). In a simple example, an analogous model of the car engine needs only to relate the turn of the ignition key to the engine starting. Input produces an output. Such a model does not help us repair the engine when it goes wrong; for example, if battery is dead. In the same way sectoral models of the economy, or parts of it, are based upon an attempt to represent the actual functioning of economic activities and the world of practices. Thus, from the policy makers point of view a sectoral logic is likely to be of more use in terms of generating successful, or relevant, interventions. The point here is a subtle, yet crucial one: concepts matter. The general slippage, or elision, of industry and sector should be avoided. Both have a rather precise meaning with a theoretical and conceptual apparatus. Moreover, they relate to quite a different view of the world, and, crucially, imply different information collection and policy prescriptions. A market definition of the cultural industries that is delimited by employment will reveal little of significant value about the cultural industries themselves. From a sectoral perspective one would need information about the organisation and structure of these activities, their linkages and inter-dependencies. An interim assessment Returning to the question raised in the title of the paper: is more less? Certainly, we have developed more sophisticated means of processing existing data on employment to get a better approximation of the numbers employed in the cultural industries. Similar attempts to manipulate other data sources have not been so fruitful reliable information on output and turnover, let alone the value or trade in intellectual property, are illusive. Is employment information sufficient? As we have noted above, the information base for employment is fairly shaky. We have a firm conceptual platform, but using existing secondary sources many of the potential cells in a preferred matrix remain empty; even those cells that have data in them are not defined with sufficient detail. Taking a step onwards from employment data we can follow three paths: labour markets, industrial organisation, and the localisation, or clustering, of activities. We have already noted that some information has been collated on occupation; however, what we do not have is much idea about how labour markets work across the cultural sector. What are the distinct divisions and crossovers; what is the relationship between supply and demand? Scattered evidence points to the predominance of self-employment, parttime, freelance, and temporary employment in the sector. Likewise, there is little systematic information available on the processes of training and skills development, although some information is available on training providers in some industries (see Vaarlam et al 1990a, 1990b). We can add to this a range of questions about rates of pay and employment contracts, plus holidays, sick pay, pensions and other social arrangements. We are also in the dark about the longitudinal strategies and consequences for workers in this sector (see Paterson 2001). For example, it is very difficult to obtain a residential mortgage if one is a freelance worker. Likewise, the richness of social networks that work for many as an informal recruitment agency can evaporate if a career break is taken. Additionally, those who do not have the social access to particular networks can get excluded from potential opportunities. Thus, the whole issue of sexual and ethnic discrimination cannot be fully addressed (see Cliche et al 2000). It is precisely in the field of labour markets that public policy often presumes to make an intervention; however, as yet the employment information that has been collected does not scratch the surface of the intelligence required. Data collected on employment is taken as a surrogate of the importance of particular industries. As already noted, more direct measures about turnover and output are less readily to hand. Again, employment data may provide a false sense of assurance for policy makers. What employment data does not reveal is an organisational context. We can begin by pointing to a distinctive bifurcation of firm size in the cultural sector; commonly industries have a few very large firms, and many micro-enterprises, and very few medium sized firms (see Hackett and Ramsden 2000; Feist 2000). However, it would be wrong to use this notion as a template for the cultural industries because particular industries have specific structures and characteristics. For example, the music industry and the computer games industry, have, in different ways some similarities in their institutional structure: a few majors, a layer or publisher/intermediaries, and a large number of bands/designers. Other industries are different again. Such institutional structure issues are important in the way that finance is configured for particular activities (see Pratt et al. 2000). Generally, data is almost entirely lacking aside from that which may be gained from industry reports and specialist

investment houses. Policy makers are thus not well placed to be able to assess the general strengths, weakness or opportunities of industries; let alone to propose the particularities of local organisational competency. In the UK there has been an upsurge in interest in the empirical localisation of many industrial activities, and a stimulus to consider how such localisation may be sustained, or even created16. Again, there are a number of interpretations of how one might account for localisation of economic activity: sometimes called clustering. Put simply, there is the (neo-classical) minimisation of transactions costs model that argues along the lines that where there are a number of small firms who need to contact subcontractors on a regular basis then proximity will reduce both transfer costs. A modification of this argues that proximity and repeated contacts can build trust and remove further transactions costs (in the form of contracts). A third position (neo-institutional) focuses upon the importance of a local eco-system of economic and social relationships that hold the knowledge and thus act as a resource that any (local) firm can draw upon. In all of these arguments there can be made a case for locating within the space, and within the neoinstitutionalist position, both the space and the organisational realm. For an analysis of a cultural cluster one would need some information on (economic) transactions, and, most likely, (social and economic) network and institutional analyses of a sector. The recent UK Department of Trade and Industry (2001) sponsored analysis of the location of business clusters in the UK uses the relative concentration of employment as an indicator of the presence of a cluster. This is a clear case of confusing mass with process. What is required is information on the detailed activity within potential clusters. On this analysis the more that we now know has generated little, or perhaps less (through an overestimate of what we do know), understanding of the cultural industries. Aside from despair, what can be done to improve the situation? First, there must be a long-term effort to improve the quality of existing comprehensive data sources that already exist such as nation census and business censes. The key here is the need to refine classifications of industry and occupation. Rather than attempt to create new classifications the simple expansion of the number of cultural industry relevant sub-categories would help enormously. Associated with this government and EU level discussion should be advanced on the ways in which such data could be grouped (for example, on the basis of a cultural sector) to provide readily usable outputs17. Second, a list of relevant new data needs to be assembled. In part, this can intersect with the point above where more detailed local and regional breakdowns are required, as significant is the collection of data that produces systematic information on business size and structure, on inter-trading relationships, on outputs, the value of intellectual property, as well as on organisation and management. Likewise, information on employment conditions and status, plus training and mobility need to be complied. It is unlikely that central governments will be able to put into action such an agenda in the foreseeable future. Thus, as with the previous point, we need at least to agree on some common norms so that where various agencies are involved in data collection it is of sufficient coverage and definition that makes it comparable with other regions within a nation, and across nations. Third, there is the whole field of organisational and institutional information at a variety of scales. This, commonly derided, qualitative information, is in practice the lifeblood of any individual or firm. In essence it is the composite experience and past and present contact and contracting linkages. It is the assessment of the richness, or otherwise, of such networks, and where to gain entry that can have a huge impact on the success or failure of an enterprise. There is no reason why such knowledge could not be made more public, moreover, that it could be assessed for utility. Once again, one might then be in a better position to assess why a sector or locale is a success, or not. What these three points suggest is the need for the development of a common interest alliance across nations or regions that make the case for improved information gathering. Moreover, as the systems of data collection revision grind slowly, local action will need to be taken to remedy matters. It is likely that those In part, this interest has been stimulated in England by the creation of a new tier of regional government tasked with economic development. 17 See for example the system developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001)
16

areas that already have cultural industries will want to improve their information collection, and those areas lacking cultural industries may want to establish such resources. In a competitive economy like the cultural industries there will only ever be a few winners and it is likely that those regions that are sufficiently selfaware will be amongst the winners. However, the question of whom, and what, information is for remains. Information for regional planners allows agencies to benchmark against one another and bid for resources from central government. However, regional development agencies and local development agencies may be more interested in what actually makes a cluster work; it is only from this basis that they will be able to develop effective, and relevant, interventions. I have argued elsewhere (see Pratt 2000d) that potentially new intelligent agencies could be formed at the local level that could both play a role of information collector and analyst, and be regional strategists. Policy makers would thus be forced to be close to the activities that they are responsible for, and they would have ample opportunity to develop a trust relationship with their clients; however, they would also be in a position to take a broader and longer-term perspective. The issue of for whom, and for what, would thus be a central question of such agencies. In conclusion, it has been argued that the notion of cultural industries has to be concept driven. If we were to characterise the developments in understanding the cultural industries we could highlight the following: a shift from indirect to direct measurements, from consumption to the whole production chain, from industry to sector, and from individual firms or artists to networks. A number of agencies are beginning to recognise the contribution of culture to the economy. It is important that a conceptual rigour continues to underpin empirical measurements of the sector. Moreover, that in the spirit of a conceptual debate, and of empirical change, that data collection and classification are carried out in the most transparent manner possible. For this reason we should oppose a simply new SIC coding for cultural industries, rather, we should support the creation a number of individual cultural industry categories so that researchers can aggregate and classify at will. Obviously, particular agencies will prefer particular classifications that should be made explicit and publicly justified18; however, transparency and ultimately comparison, is the only viable model of progress. Building a more robust conceptual foundation does not remove the need to ask a vital question of who is using the idea, and for what? Here the issue of policy is raised. There is a reflexive relationship between understanding and policy-making: cultural industries are no different. One could see such a process as a negative factor; however, it was argued at the end of this paper that one could make such reflexivity a virtue by internalising it into the industries and the policy-making agencies. Closing such a feedback loop would create the potential for real learning organisations. Such hybrid agencies could help to consolidate experiences for the benefit of regions and sectors in a sphere of economic activity that is otherwise characterised by high turnover rates and fragmentation.

18

see Footnote 17.

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) Australian Culture and Leisure Classifications (4902.0), ABS, Canberra Bodo. C and Fisher. R (1997) (Eds) New frontiers of employment in Europe, CIRCLE publications No. 9, Associazione Economica per la Cultura, Rome Casey, B., Dunlop, R. and Selwood, S. (1996) Culture as commodity? The economics of the arts and built heritage in the UK, PSI, London. Cliche. D, Mitchell. R and Weisand, AJ (2000)(eds) Pyramids or pillars: unveiling the status of women in Arts and Media professions in Europe, ARCult Media, Bonn DCMS (1998) Creative industries mapping document 1998, DCMS, London DCMS (2001) Creative industries mapping document 2001, DCMS, London Department of Trade and Industry (2001) Business clusters in the UK: a preliminary assessment, DTI, London European Commission (1998), Culture, Cultural Industries and Employment Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC (98) 837 of 14.5.1998, Brussels Eurostat (2000) Cultural Statistics in the EU, Final report of the LEG, Eurostat Working Papers, 3/2000/E/No1 Feist A (2000) Cultural employment in Europe. Policy Note 8, Cultural policies research and development Unit, Council of Europe, Strasbourg Girard, A. (1982) Cultural industries: a handicap or a new opportunity for cultural development ?, pp. 2440 in Cultural industries: a challenge for the future of culture, UNESCO. Hodgson. G (1988) Economics and institutions, Polity: Cambridge Johnson. P and Thomas. B (2001) Assessing the impact of the arts, 202-16 in Selwood (op cit) Myerscough, J. (1988) The economic importance of the arts in Britain, PSI, London. OBrien, J. and Feist, A. (1995) Employment in the arts and cultural industries: an analysis of the 1991 census, ACE research report No2, Arts Council of England, London. Patterson. R (2001) Work histories in television, Media, Culture and Society Vol 23:495-520 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Cultural Assistance Centre (1983) The arts as an industry: their economic importance to New York-New Jersey metropolitan region, Cultural Assistance Centre, New York Pratt A C (1994) Uneven re-production: industry, space and society, Pergamon, Oxford Pratt A C (1997) 'The cultural industries production system: a case study of employment change in Britain, 1984-91 ' Environment and Planning Vol A:29, 11, pp 1953-74 Pratt A C (1999) Employment in the cultural and creative industries in Scotland 1981-1996, Publisher: Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow http://www.creativescotland.com/pdf/Employment_in_the_Creative_Industries.PDF

Pratt A C (2000a) Baseline study of the cultural industries in an international context for the Creative Compact. Report commissioned by Comedia Pratt A C (2000b) 'Employment: the difficulties of classification, the logic of grouping industrial activities comprising the sector, and some summaries of the size and distribution of employment in the creative industries sector in Great Britain 1981-96'. pp9-15 in The new cultural map: a research agenda for the 21st century, Roodhouse. S (Ed) Bretton Hall, Leeds University. Pratt A C (2000c) 'The cultural industries: a cross national comparison of employment in Great Britain and Japan' pp61-84 in K.Kawasaki (Ed) Cultural Globalisation and the cultural industries: experiences in the UK and Japan research report for Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan: Tokyo Pratt A C (2000d) Creative policy in the cultural sector, paper presented at Creativity in Action Symposium, Belfast Festival 8.12.00 Pratt. A C (2001) Cultural Tourism as an Urban Cultural Industry: a critical appraisal. In Cultural Tourism, Turisme de Barcelona, Turisme de Catalunya, Diputaci de Barcelona, Interarts Pratt AC, Peake L, and Ramsden P (2000) Financing new media: a report for banking on culture, NW Arts, DG5. www.bankingonculture.com Ruffolo. G (2001) Draft report on cultural cooperation in the European Union, Provisional 2000/2323 (INI), Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, European Parliament. May 15th, 2001 Selwood. S (2001)(Ed) The UK Cultural Sector, PSI, London Vaarlam, C., Leighton, P., Pearson, R. and Blum, S. (1990a) Skill search: television, film and video industry employment patterns and training needs: Part 1: the facts, Institute of Manpower Studies No 171, Brighton. Vaarlam, C., Leighton, P., Pearson, R. and Blum, S. (1990b) Skill search: television, film and video industry employment patterns and training needs: Part 2: the final report, Institute of Manpower Studies No 186, Brighton. Hackett, K. and Ramsden, P., (2000), The employment and enterprise characteristics of the cultural sector in Europe, North West Arts Board, UK Vestheim. G (1994) Instrumental cultural policy in Scandinavian countries: a critical historical perspective European Journal of Cultural Policy 1.1: 57-71

10