Creative Industries: taking a look at labour productivity

2008

Note: Mean annual income for UK economy as a whole is £21,060 Segment Embedded Specialist Support Creative Creative Creative Occupations Industries Employment 6 Creative incomes are higher than average: Creative incomes were on average approximately 37 per cent higher than in the UK economy as a whole in 2006. But they have grown at the slower rate of 2.5 per cent per annum since 2001, compared with 3.5 per cent for the total workforce. Creative occupations generated over £40 billion in salaries and wages in 2006, while support staff in creative industries earned an extra £16.8 billion. Additional contibutions were made by Jason Potts (CCI) and Kate Morrison (Volterra Consulting Ltd). Ed Pickering (DCMS) and Conor Ryan made helpful suggestions. 10 4.5.3 No income data available for the self-employed 4.5.4 Lack of comparability of LFS data with census employment at the detailed levels 4.6 Methodology to address UK data issues 4.6.1 2001 census dataset 4.6.2 1981 and 1991 census datasets 4.7 Conclusion Part 5: UK Creative Trident results 5.1

Arc Centre of Excellence For Creative Industries and Innovation Creative Industries Faculty Institute For Creative Industries and Innovation, 2008

Working Paper, 2013

This landmark paper set out the case for a rigorous classification of creative industries and occupations that became the basis for the creative industry statistics of the UK's Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which has since become a world standard. It resulted from a collaboration between Hasan Bakhshi of the UK think tank NESTA, Alan Freeman at the Greater London Authority, and Peter Higgs of Queensland University of Technology. It argued that despite its strengths, the DCMS classification system, dating back to 1999, contained inconsistencies which had to be addressed to make it fully fit for purpose. It presented an improved methodology which retained the strengths of the DCMS’s approach while addressing its deficiencies. Its focus was creative intensity: the proportion of total employment within an industry that is engaged in creative occupations. Using the list of occupations which DCMS treats as ‘creative’, the intensity of the industries it defines as creative falls within a narrow range – with only minor exceptions – that is on average over 25 times greater than in the rest of the economy. This is a defining characteristic of such industries. However, DCMS’s choice of industries excluded important codes with high creative intensity that account for large amounts of employment. In addition, DCMS’s choice of occupations was itself open to question, because the criteria by which they were classified as ‘creative’ was not clear. The paper proposed a rigorous method for determining which occupations are creative, scoring all occupations against a ‘grid’ of five theoretically grounded criteria. The core concept that this grid articulates is that of 'non-mechanical' labour - labour that cannot be replaced by a machine. The paper then proposed a fully consistent classification by using these occupations to identify, on grounds of creative intensity, those industries that appeared inappropriately included and excluded in the DCMS industrial classification (the ‘baseline’). We conducted a sensitivity analysis to show that this classification lays the basis for a robust and consistent selection of industry codes. This accords with the reality, which should be squarely faced, that uncertainty is a defining feature of emergent areas subject to persistent structural change like the creative industries, and should be dealt with in a systematic way. Our baseline classification suggested that the DCMS inappropriately excluded a large (and growing) software-related segment of the creative industries. We argued that significant numbers of new digital creative businesses in fact reside within this segment, reflecting an increasingly tight interconnection between content production and its digital interface. Our estimates showed that creative economy employment had become a highly significant and growing component of the workforce as a whole, accounting for 8.7 per cent of it by 2010 as compared with 8.4 per cent in 2004. They also confirm a feature of DCMS’s estimates been documented in previous Nesta research: the majority of creative workers are employed outside the creative industries in the wider creative economy; this part of the creative workforce has grown particularly strongly, rising by 10.6 per cent between 2004 and 2010. Our work showed that the creative industries do not rely, either wholly or mainly, on traditional content or ICT activities alone. Rather, a new economic phenomenon has emerged characterised by a parallel application, within single industries, of ICT and other creative skills together. This strongly suggests that any attempt to separate ICT from other creative work or to reduce the creative industries either to an offshoot of content production, or for that matter a branch of the software industry, will not succeed. Thus our sensitivity analysis included, among other possible variants, the impact of removing the main software occupation codes from the list considered to be creative occupations. Even after this is done, software industries employing large numbers of people emerge as intensive users of the remaining creative occupations. On this alternative scenario, the software-related industries still contribute 213,000 jobs to the creative industries. The non– software creative industries are also very important employers of ICT labour. We described our approach as a ‘dynamic’ mapping because a systematic method for identifying the ‘most creative’ industries produces a classification that does not over¬react to small fluctuations in the underlying data, but can respond to structural economic changes. Intensity data can be used to compare like with like over time. We thus derived a robust estimate of growth of creative economy employment which, between 2004 and 2010, rose by 6.8 per cent - more than five times the growth rate of the non-creative workforce, measured on a comparable basis. In 2010, almost 2.5 million were employed in the UK’s creative economy, of which 1.3 million worked in the creative industries.

Strategic HR Review

This paper aims to define impact of creative industries (CI) on national economy in regard to sub-sectors. Employing systematic, logical and comparative analysis of scientific literature, as well as analysis of empirical data, authors define and classify the most important CI sub-sectors that impact national economy. Due to this, the value of this paper is theoretical definition, systematization and evaluation of the sub-sectors defining the impact of CI on national economy. The findings of this research provide the basis for targeted funding in order to foster and develop CI impact on national economy.

European Cluster, 2010

Eurasian Economic Perspectives, 2020

For the last 20 years, creative industries (CI) have been experiencing increasing attention from both academia and policymakers alike. Capable of creating jobs, invigorating cities and regions, cultural and social life, contributing to the increase in value added, exports and quality of life, numerous researches proved CI to have impact on national economy. However, CI impact should not be limited to superficial analysis of static data. CI impact on national economy is best disclosed in comparison to other countries and the aim of this research is to analyse economic CI impact by running an empirical research in EU countries in 2008-2014 and taking into consideration CI impact on employment, added value and exports. We conclude there are three CI impact directions, namely economic, sociocultural, and environmental impact areas and verify that CI is an influential sector that holds impact on various areas of national economy.

ARTSEDUCA. Revista electrónica de educación en las Artes, 2019

Lead Guitar, a new different methodology to learn to play the guitar, which since 1999 is being developed in the USA, although working as a project, was founded in 2007. Could this be a new way of taking music to schools and universities? The Lead Guitar program establishes permanent classical guitar classes in public schools with low access to the arts. A Lead Guitar master instructor-teacher who has at least a Master's degree in classical guitar performance-use a field-tested curriculum to teach students to play and to train teachers to teach classical guitar. This co-teaching method between a Lead Guitar instructor and a school's Teacher-of-Record ensures not only the short-term quality, but the long-term sustainability, of the program. Typically, after 2-3 years of a school partnering with Lead Guitar, the Teacher-of-Record can carry on the program independently. We already found different studies, also in Spain, where students who participate in music at school have more attendance, make better grades, and are more likely to attend college and have more lucrative careers than students who do not participate in school music programs.

This expansive volume is an apt development in Lundbom’s career, as it complements his longstanding interest in rhetorics, and follows his three-volume commentary on Jeremiah for the Anchor Bible series. The connections between Jeremiah’s prophecy and the redaction of his book to the Deuteronomistic school, and the setting of Deuteronomy as an extended oration delivered by Moses in the Transjordan, are two branches that connect the commentary to the author’s previous projects as an obvious continuum, evident in the erudition and the scope of his commentary. My qualms as a legal historian aside, Lundbom’s commentary is dense in breadth and depth. He covers an impressive ground of scholarship and traditions, ranging from the Ancient Near East to classical Greco-Roman sources, Christian interpretation, and modern scholarship. The introduction alone is a valuable guide, and his rhetorical and structural analysis of each passage of the book is a tremendous resource for any scholar of Deuteronomy. In his survey of previous research and his presentation of theology, Lundbom offers a new path for twenty-first century scholarship. I did not always agree with his theological interpretations, but his choice to focus on theological issues such as love and justice serves as an important reminder of the brilliant cohesion of Deuteronomy, for all its complexities, that made its impact longstanding on many generations to come