Enabling or Inhibiting the Creative
Economy: the Role of the Local
and Regional Dimensions in
England



Dr Caroline Chapain1 and
Dr Roberta Comunian2

1Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS),
Birmingham Business School,
University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, B15 2TT,
UK.

2School of Geography,
University of Southampton,
Shackleton Building,
Highfield, SO17 1BJ,
UK.




Economic Geography

Research Group


Working Paper Series
No. 03.09

---

ENABLING OR INHIBITING THE CREATIVE ECONOMY: THE ROLE OF
THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL DIMENSIONS IN ENGLAND

Dr CAROLINE CHAPAIN, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS), Birmingham
Business School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B15 2TT, UK.. Email:
C.A.Chapain@bham.ac.uk
Dr ROBERTA COMUNIAN, School of Geography, University of Southampton, Shackleton
Building, Highfield, SO171BJ. Email: R.Comunian@soton.ac.uk

Abstract
This paper addresses issues regarding the development of creative and cultural industries (CCIs) in
England from a local and regional perspective. London and the South East are widely regarded as
the centre of the national creative economy. In recent years large investments and support have tried
to bridge the gap between the capital and other English regions in developing CCIs. Integrating
findings from two separated research projects in Birmingham and Newcastle-Gateshead, this paper
explores factors that enable or inhibit the creative industries outside of the Capital. One of the
crucial issues relates to the specific position of each urban and regional context in relation to
London and the possibility of building a critical mass of CCIs outside of the South-East. The paper
discusses the importance of idiosyncratic factors relevant to creative individuals in their location
decision. In addition, an important dimension of CCIs’ dynamic lies in the multi-scale nature of the
geographical supply-chain and collaborating work undertaken by companies. Our findings question
current regional policies and their understanding of the local and regional dimension as being
limited to the idea of geographical clusters. Therefore, the paper calls for a wider approach which
takes into account the importance of the regional infrastructure and the “knowledge pool” necessary

1

---

to the development of CCIs, but also personal and operational connections of the CCIs within and
outside their region.
Keywords: Creative industries, regional cultural policy, creative clusters, regional economic
development, knowledge pool.

JEL classifications: O18, R12, Z10, Z13

1. Introduction
The development of creative and cultural industries (CCIs) has become a key aspect of national
economic development policy in the UK in recent years. With the DCMS (2000) “Creative
Industries: The Regional Dimension”, this agenda has moved from Central Government policies to
Regional Development Agencies’ (RDAs) strategies and CCIs have been put forward as a key
element in local economic development in most English regions. Although during the last five years
many research and scoping studies have been undertaken, there have been no consistent assessment
of the local and regional dimension of the creative economy. Many studies have focused on
measurement but current quantitative approaches suffer from a lack of appropriate data. In addition
the relation between CCIs and places has often only been studied through the cluster’s paradigm.
This paper addresses these issues by exploring how the local and regional dimensions play in the
development of CCIs in two core city regions in UK: Birmingham and Newcastle-Gateshead1. The
next section critically reviews the current creative economy’s discourses addressing both national
and regional dimensions and linking academic and policy debates. These debates encompass the
‘creative clusters’ approach adopted by RDAs and researchers in the field. The authors’ choice of
adopting a “knowledge pool” approach of understanding CCIs practice instead of a cluster approach
is discussed in the third section. The fourth part of the paper presents the research methodology and
background. The context and dynamic of the creative economy in our two case studies are then
briefly portrayed. The fifth section details our findings and provides a wider understanding of the

2

---

role of the place in enabling or inhibiting the CCIs at four different levels: personal, operational,
networks and public support and the wider regional infrastructure. Conclusions are finally drawn
about the potentials and the limits of the local and regional dimensions and the cluster approach in
developing CCIs.

2. The Creative Economy Discourse and the Lack of Evidence at the Local and Regional
Level in UK
Since the first Creative Industries Mapping Document (DCMS, 1998), many authors have addressed
the rise of CCIs in the national public policy agenda and its implications (PRATT, 1997; O'CONNOR,
1999; GARNHAM, 2005). More recently, CCIs have become one of the foci of local and regional
development strategies (TUROK, 2003; PRATT, 2004c; JAYNE, 2005; OAKLEY, 2006) with often not
much understanding of what goes on at these levels. Cultural differences as well as variations in
local and regional CCIs economic potential have largely been ignored. This has often ended up in
replica policies and strategies from the national to local and regional levels. Some economic
strategies and policy interventions have focused on specific assets and infrastructure that a city or a
region should have to be or to become a “creative city”. First, attempts have been made to link
regeneration and urban intervention to the creative economy. Then, the focus has shifted to new
investments in cultural facilities and in developing support programmes aimed at CCIs influenced
by the cluster approach. As Oakley has pointed out “no region of the country, whatever its
industrial base, human capital stock, scale or history is safe from the need for a ‘creative hub’ or
‘cultural quarter’ ” (OAKLEY, 2004, p.68).
Recent sources (DCMS, 2006; NESTA, 2006) have documented the substantial contribution of
CCIs to the national economy. More limited and controversial are the studies of this contribution at
local and regional levels as well as the documentation on local and regional characteristics of the
sector. Although the 2004 “DCMS Evidence Toolkit” addressed the lack of coordination and
strategic thinking at the local and regional levels, methods and practice have not really moved

3

---

forward in the last decade (CREIGHT-TYTE; 2005). This is mostly due to the weakness of nationally
available data - making it difficult to include and to understand all creative sub-sectors within the
broader ‘creative industries’ framework (DCMS, 2004; CREIGHT-TYTE, 2005; TAYLOR, 2006).
Nevertheless, most RDAs and local bodies have produced evidence or advocacy about the role of
CCIs in their regional economy: “appearing as ‘priority sectors’ in almost every English
region”(OAKLEY, 2006, p. 257)2. However, authors including Pratt (1997), Creight-Tyte (2005) and
Taylor (2006) have stressed the lack of consistency in methodologies along with general issues of
what can be measured and what has been measured. In addition, comparisons in time and space
have been made impossible by the usage of different definitions and methods.
Consequently, the only recurrent data available are the national ones produced by the DCMS in its
yearly statistical bulletin (DCMS, 2006). This raises the question of what is the real understanding
of regional creative economies both in terms of their weaknesses and their strengths. It might also
hide the fact that the creative economy is a successful story only for a few regions.
The picture of the regional dimension given by Pratt in 1997, although dated, suggested a large
disparity between London and the South East, seen as the creative hub of the country, and the rest
of UK trying to catch up with it. Questions can be raised as whether this gap has been reduced or on
the contrary has been expanded in the last 10 years. Oakley (2006, p.267) has documented the still
undeniable weight of London and the South East in the national creative economy: “these two
regions account for 46 per cent of the creative workforce compared with 27 per cent of the total UK
workforce”. Furthermore, the author suggests how this predominance is even more visible when
looking at the percentage of turnover represented by London-based firms. Outside the south and
east “ there are other isolated cities that have had positive rates of change, but the regional effects
of these appear weaker”. (OAKLEY, 2006, p.268)
However, Jeffcutt and Pratt (2002) have suggested that while much of the attention in the research
about CCIs has been focused on the macro level - comparing cities and their capabilities and labour
market in the creative economy - and meta level - analysing the long-term impact of CCIs as a

4

---

knowledge economy - there is a need for a better understanding of what goes on at the micro and
meso level. This is the objective of this paper which addresses the importance of a better
understanding of the relations of CCIs within the city-region, the dynamics between agencies and
other actors, and the role of the network infrastructure undermining the creative practitioners work.
In order to do so, the next section discusses the current usage of the cluster approach to understand
and foster CCIs at the local and regional levels. Instead, it argues for the use of a wider framework
like the one referred to as the Creative Knowledge Pool (CURDS, 2001).

3. From Creative Clusters to a Creative Knowledge Pool
Most authors looking at CCIs at the local and regional level have used some kind of cluster
approach on the base that clustering plays an important role in these industries. For example Scott
(2000; 2002; 2005) and Storper (STORPER and CHRISTOPHERSON, 1987; STORPER, 1989) have
specifically developed their studies in the context of cultural clusters, i.e. the development of the
film industry in Hollywood. Many other authors have focused on the analysis of co-location and
clustering in different sectors of the CCIs (table 1). Clusters have become the paradigm to
understand CCIs and often in terms of urban planning and strategies co-location and agglomeration
has been seen as the solution to implement local creative economies.
In UK, influenced by the work of Porter (PORTER, 1998a, 1998b) the cluster approach has been part
of the national economic development agenda since the end of the 1990’s (DTI, 1999).With the
creation of the RDAs, the approach has been brought to the regional scene in order to try to capture
the added-value of the creative economy in a cohesive way (JAYNE, 2005; OAKLEY 2006). An
important emphasis has been placed on the clusters infrastructure, trying to engineer their
development and implementation. However, this policy approach has often been short-sighted in
respect to problems such as gentrification or the lack of sustainability and social capital
development, as if co-location or the co-presence of CCIs could itself determine economic
development and success.

5

---

In these respect, other dimensions become central to the debate when the development of cultural
clusters is linked to an urban post-industrial perspective with reference to terms like cultural
quarters (CREWE, 1996; BROWN ET AL., 2000; MOSS, 2002; SHORTHOSE, 2004; MCCARTHY, 2005) or
urban village (POLLARD, 2004). In these contexts, the production of culture and cultural goods is
deeply intertwined with consumption and the participation of consumers and audiences to the
construction of meaning. However, these interactions and exchanges, alongside other ‘soft
infrastructures’ like the atmosphere and the local scenes are often considered as given factors that
cannot be rationalised in the creative cluster approach (O'CONNOR, 2002). Therefore, many authors
understand creative clusters as a spatial fix. In conclusion as Pratt (2004a) highlights the idea of
cluster fails “to capture the broader spatial, temporal and organisational dynamics of production
across creative industries” (Pratt, 2004a, p.20).

Tables and Figures

Creative and cultural sector
Authors: City – Cluster


PRATT (2000) SILICON ALLEY, NEW YORK

New media / New technologies
PRATT(2002) SAN FRANCISCO

NEFF (2004) NEW YORK

Film / TV production
SCOTT (2002; 2005) HOLLYWOOD

BASSETT et al.(2002) BRISTOL

COE (2000; 2001) VANCOUVER

MOSSIG(2004) COLOGNE

TUROK (2003) SCOTLAND

KRÄTKE (2002) POTSDAM /BABELBERG

Design
MOLOTCH (1996) LOS ANGELES
V

ERVAEKE AND LEFEBVRE(2002) NORD-PAS DE CALAIS
JULIER(2005) BARCELONA

BELL AND JAYNE(2003) STAFFORDSHIRE

Craft / Makers
POLLARD (2004) JEWELLERY, BIRMINGHAM
SCOTT (1994) JEWELLERY, LOS ANGELES / BANGKOK

Advertising /
NEWMAN AND SMITH(2000) LONDON
GRABHER(2001) LONDON

LESLEY(1997) NEW YORK
Music BROWN ET AL.(2000) MANCHESTER AND SHEFFIELD

MOSS (2002) SHEFFIELD
GIBSON ET AL.(2002) AUSTRALIA

Fashion / Clothing
CREWE (1996) NOTTINGHAM
RANTISI(2002) NEW YORK

Table 1: Overview on the most important studies of CCIs clusters

6

---

Following this view, which sees the importance of co-location limited without understanding the
systems of interactions which are embedded in a specific place, a new centrality of interactions
emerge - specifically those interactions which cannot be captured by a supply-chain model. The
importance of exchanges based on knowledge sharing and the multi-level of interaction direct us
towards a knowledge pool understanding of the dynamics of the sector.
Many authors (for example MOSSIG, 2004; KONG, 2005) underline the importance of trust in
building stable interactions and/or networks and as a base for flexible specialisation. However,
relations of trust cannot be seen as immediate but are the result of continuous interaction and are
built on positive past transactions and experiences. The soft-infrastructure dimension and in
particular the importance of networks have been emphasised in recent literature (GRABHER, 2001;
WITTEL, 2001; GRABHER, 2002; ETTLINGER, 2003; GRABHER, 2004; KONG, 2005; LANGE, 2005)
but has only recently been introduced at policy level, with different degrees of success. This has
been true for some of the policies adopted by Newcastle-Gateshead and Birmingham on which this
article is focused. This soft dimension is particularly important in linking cultural and creative
production and place. As Pratt (2004a) suggests there is the
need to construct an evidential base of information about inter-firm transactions of both
material and non-material, economic and non-economic character […] the potential is to
develop both an understanding of the dynamics as well as the way in which particular
localities are implicated within the production systems […] it will be possible to begin to
assess local strengths and weakness, and to match those with local aspirations and
resources for these industries (PRATT, 2004a, p.21)
Therefore, rather than considering the importance of the clustering dimension, it seems more
important to focus on the wider system that enables and supports the development of CCIs in a
specific urban and regional context. In addressing these issues, the present research has drawn from
the model of Creative Knowledge Pool developed by CURDS (2001 - fig. 1). The main concern is

7

---

to understand the complex relationships between CCIs and the wider city-region environment in
which they are located.
The model focuses on the role of interactions and networks between creative practitioners and
companies and other regional actors. The model as developed by CURDS (2001) and as adopted in
this paper does not imply that the geographical scale is limited to local and regional interactions. In
fact, many authors have investigated the role of multi-scalar relationships in the creative economy
and especially their global dimension (COE, 2001; COE and JOHNS, 2004; SCOTT, 2004).
Nevertheless, the focus of the present research is specifically on the role and the dynamic aspect of
the local and regional dimensions. Based on our interpretation of the model, it seems possible to
distinguish four layers of interactions / relations, which are relevant for the understanding of the
local and regional dimension of the creative economy.
In the first layer, the central circle, the focus is on the relationship between creative individuals and
the place they live in. This personal dimension is often characterised by emotive aspects, linked to
the personal history of the person. This level also relates to the role that place can have in terms of
source of inspiration and creativity (DRAKE, 2003).
The second circle or layer specifically addresses the employment and work opportunities that a
place can offer, looking at business and employment perspective of creative practitioners and
companies. At this level, local specialisation and the presence of a cluster can influence the
possibility for people to be employed or to develop a business. These dynamics are also important
for temporary project-based and freelance work (GRABHER, 2001; MCROBBIE, 2002; PRATT,
2004b).
The third layer introduces those actors that actively engage with the creative economy: business
advisors, local and regional associations and support networks. At this level, the relationships and
connections between companies become very important. Often the emergence of local clusters or
cultural quarters is linked to growing interactions between this layer and the second layer. Finally,
the fourth circle includes the public support infrastructure as well as actors or infrastructures that

8

---

have looser relationships with the creative economy but can still be important elements of the local
supply-chain or production system (PRATT, 1997) or of the CCIs ecosystem (JEFFCUTT, 2004) like
universities, access to markets, etc.

Audience
Specialist
Education
Projects
business
and
and venues
services
training
Creative
I
Creative
Associations
individuals
firms
II
III
IV
Local
Cultural and
Specialist
authorities
creative
manufacturing
support
support
agencies
Business
Retail
support
agencies



Fig. 1. The Creative Knowledge Pool Model (CURDS, 2001, p.11). The circles / levels added in the
background are an elaboration of the model by the authors.

Drawing on this model, this paper addresses the following research questions:
1. What emotive and creativity aspects of the local and regional dimension are important in
terms of the creative individuals engagement with place;
2. What local and regional operational advantages and disadvantages are important in the
development of creative businesses?

9

---

Document Outline

• ÿ

---