Creative Economy PDF

MEASURING CHICAGO’S
(ARTISTICALLY) CREATIVE
ECONOMY
Jennifer Novak-Leonard
May 2014
CULTURAL POLICY CENTER AT THE UN IVERSITY OF CHICAGO
The Cultural Policy Center at the University of Chicago is a nationally recognized interdisciplinary
research center dedicated to informing policies that affect the arts, humanities, and cultural heritage.
It is a joint initiative of the Harris School of Public Policy and NORC at the University of Chicago.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported in part by Arts Alliance Illinois and The Searle Funds at The Chicago
Community Trust. A very special thank you goes to Cultural Policy Center colleagues Betty Farrell
and Will Anderson, who provided invaluable feedback throughout the project. I would also like to
thank Roscoe Nicholson and Nicholas Quah for their research assistance in the early phases of this
research.
MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview ................................................................................................................ 1
Conceptual Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 1
Applied/Analytic Definitions........................................................................................................................ 3
Approaches to Measurement ........................................................................................................................ 4
Cultural Industries in Nine US Cities...................................................................5

Limitations of “Cultural Industries” as a Measurement Tool ................................................................. 7
Creative Workers in Nine US Cities .....................................................................8

Results .............................................................................................................................................................10
More on the Artist Labor Force .................................................................................................................13
Composition of the Artist Labor Force & Concentrations of Artist Occupations....................... 14
Sector ..........................................................................................................................................................17
Industry.......................................................................................................................................................18
Artist Workforce............................................................................................................................................20
Earnings......................................................................................................................................................21
A Closer Look at Chicago ................................................................................... 22

Works Cited ......................................................................................................... 28
Technical Appendix ............................................................................................ 31
Select Cultural Industries using 2007 NAICS codes ...............................................................................31
“Creative Workers” Occupations ...............................................................................................................32
Margins of Error............................................................................................................................................34
Geography ......................................................................................................................................................35
Selection of Comparison Cities...................................................................................................................35
Sample of Regional Studies on Creative Economy/Industries .............................................................35
MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE II

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Estimated Number of Employees in Select Cultural Industries, by city .................................. 5

Figure 2: Location Quotient for Select Cultural Industries, by city ........................................................... 6
Figure 3: Select Creative Workers as a Portion of the Civilian Labor Force, by city ........................... 10
Figure 4: Location Quotient for Select Creative Workers, by city ...........................................................11
Figure 5: Location Quotient for Chefs & Head Cooks, by city ...............................................................12
Figure 6: Estimated Size of Artist Labor Force, by city ............................................................................13
Figure 7: Composition of Artist Labor Force, by city ...............................................................................14
Figure 8: Location Quotient for Artist Labor Force, by occupation ...................................................... 16
Figure 9: Distribution of Artist Labor Force across Sectors, by city ...................................................... 17
Figure 10: Portion of Artist Labor Force in Select Cultural Industries, by city ..................................... 18
Figure 11: Employed Artists: Estimated Size & Portion of Total Employment, by city .................... 20
Figure 12: Distribution of Artists’ Earnings, by city...................................................................................21
Figure 13: Composition of US & Chicago Artist Workforces ..................................................................22
Figure 14: Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Labor Force across Sectors, by occupation..................... 23
Figure 15: Earnings Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Workforce, by occupation ................................. 24
Figure 16: Male/Female Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Workforce, by occupation ......................... 25
Figure 17: Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Workforce, by occupation ..................... 26
Figure 18: Age Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Workforce, by occupation.......................................... 27
MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE III

OVERVIEW
Creativity is evident in healthy and vibrant economies, manifested in problem-solving skills,

innovative leadership, and through the embrace of artistic processes and products. The notion of the
“creative economy” 1 — an economy underpinned by innovation and creativity — has been part of
the public dialogue for over a decade. However, throughout that time researchers and policy
agencies have been exploring and debating how exactly the creative economy should be defined and
measured, and many questions continue to linger today. Over time, the concepts and terms creative
economy, creative industries, and cultural industries have become intermingled and are often used
interchangeably in public discourse.
This report reviews these terms, takes stock of their referents, and then concerns itself more
specifically with artistic creativity. The goal of this report is to investigate Chicago’s creative
economy in comparative perspective, using the most reliable, publicly available data to operationalize
measures of a creative economy. The report provides a detailed analysis of Chicago’s artist labor
force as a case study of a current creative economy.
CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in the United Kingdom published an early
theoretical definition of the creative industries in 1998, which has been at the forefront of research,
policy, and debate about creative industries:
“those activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have
the potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual
property” 2
The DCMS’s definition sparked much debate, 3 including the question “as to whether it was
primarily an economic policy associated with promoting [or] generating successful industries and
new forms of IP, or primarily a policy to support the arts and cultural sectors, particularly those
reliant upon public sector funding.”4
1 Howkins 2001
2 DCMS 1998. Mapping documents were updated in 2001 and are currently undergoing a review process, which is being faced with
debate.
3 Flew 2011 and Bakhshi 2013
4 Flew 2011, 27-28
MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 1

The creative industries are not specific to arts and cultural endeavors and the DCMS’s definition and
others do not include cultural heritage and tourism, museums, archives, or libraries.5 A related but
different concept is used to capture artistic and cultural activity 6 whether it happens in or outside of
the creative industries. UNESCO defines cultural industries as:
“a set of activities that produce and distribute cultural goods or services, which at the time they
are considered as a specific attribute, use or purpose, embody or convey cultural expressions
irrespective of the commercial value they may have.” 7
In November 2013, the United Nation’s Development Programme and UNESCO released jointly
Creative Economy Report: 2013 Special Edition, which emphasizes the monetary and nonmonetary
benefits of both cultural and creative industries for development, and reviews the many and evolving
ways these concepts and terms are utilized.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), in collaboration with the US Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA), just released its own definition of arts and cultural production as part of its efforts
to develop the first federal measure of the arts and cultural sector’s contribution to the US Gross
Domestic Product:
[The NEA] “defined arts and cultural production to be largely consistent with definitions used
by the United Nations and the European Union. By following these guidelines our definition of
arts and culture is narrowly tailored to include creative artistic activity, the goods and services
produced by it, the goods and services produced in the support of it, and finally the construction
of buildings in which it is taking place.” 8
The DCMS and other agencies develop their definitions by starting from a theoretical point of view
and then work to operationalize the theoretical concepts in terms of which industries and
occupations should be considered. By contrast, the NEA and BEA first examine what arts- and
culture-related measures contribute economically and then develop a conceptual definition to
describe the group of market activities. 9
5Flew 2011, 19
6Other conceptual models have been proposed that define cultural industries as a complete subset within creative industries; see
Throsby (2008) for a review of models.
7 UNESCO 2005
8 NEA 2013
9 Personal communication with Director, Office of Research and Analysis, NEA, July 26, 2013

APPLIED/ANALYTIC DEFINITIONS
There is no standard definition for what industries are to be counted and analyzed as “creative” or
“cultural.” While there are conceptual differences that underlie this lack of standardization, there is
also the emerging and important recognition that what comprises creative or cultural industries
should also reflect local priorities. For example, definitions typically do not include culinary arts, but
the city of Chicago identifies the culinary arts as a key component of the City’s own creative
industries. 10
Despite the lack of a standard definition in practice, “A consensus seems to be emerging for a
working definition of the “core” creative or cultural industries, while there is still confusion
surrounding non-core and supporting activities.” 11
Most often, according to national level studies 12 the core cultural industries include:
■ audio-visual (film, TV, radio)

■ performing arts
■ visual arts
■ galleries and sales of visual arts
■ publishing
■ music
Other industries sometimes found as part of a definition include:
■ Architecture
■ Libraries
■ Design
■ Fashion
■ Software/media
■ Museums/cultural heritage
■ Crafts
■ Advertising
10 “Chicago’s Creative Industries,” accessed July 31, 2013.

11 UNESCO-UIS 2009, 17
12 BOP Consulting 2010, 39

In the US, Americans for the Arts employed their own definition and measure of creative industries 13.
AFTA provides a detailed list of what is included in their measure, which has a greater focus on
measures of the nonprofit arts and culture sector than what is typically included under the creative
industries umbrella definition (UNESCO-UIS 2009, 63). In addition, multiple state-level and
regional analyses, each with a variation on the analytic definition of creative industries, have been
conducted in the US. A sample of references is included in the Technical Appendix.
In sum, the terms “creative industries” and “cultural industries” have varied definitions and means
of measuring the creative economy, which continue to emerge 14 and evolve 15.
APPROACHES TO MEASUREMENT
Two key approaches are used to measure the size and describe the components of the creative
economy. One approach is to measure the number of people employed by creative or cultural
industries, regardless of the specific skills required in their job. Which industries should be included
is the primary challenge. Recent research has advanced the notion of identifying relevant industries
by measuring “creative intensity”, defined as the proportion of total employment within an industry
that is engaged in creative occupations.16 This approach attempts to bridge a second measurement
approach for the creative economy, which is to measure the number of people employed in
occupations that require them to apply creative skills, regardless of industry. This report includes
both measurement approaches – employment within select industries, and select occupations
regardless of industry – in its effort to describe aspects of Chicago’s creative economy and compare
those to select peer cities across the US.
The goal of this report is to acknowledge the nuances in the evolving theoretical issues around
measuring the creative economy generally, while making a best pragmatic attempt to identify reliable,
replicable indictors that can inform an understanding of, and conversations about, Chicago’s creative
economy more specifically.
13 Americans for the Arts 2012

14 NEA 2012
15 Bennett 2013, “Craft as a creative industry: what doesn't get counted, doesn't count.”
16 Bakhshi, Freeman and Higgs 2013

CULTURAL INDUSTRIES IN NINE US CITIES
To develop indicators of the size of the cultural industries, measured by the number of employees,
the following analyses use a select set of core industries that have been commonly used in studies of
creative and cultural industries. 17 For the purpose of this report, the analyses include all reported
employment within these industries. 18 A detailed list of included NAICS codes are in the Technical
Appendix. I do not propose that these industries fully define Chicago’s industries, but that they can
serve as indicators for investigating aspects of Chicago’s creative economy.
Based on the 2007 Economic Census,19 44,029 people are employed in select Chicago-based cultural
industries. Of those, the largest portion (25 percent) is employed in periodical, book and other
forms of publishing.
Figure 1: Estimated Number of Employees in Select Cultural Industries, by city
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, 2007 Economic, EC0700A1 20
17 While the selection of NAICS codes presented here was determined prior to the publication of Harris, Collins and Cheek in August
2013, the selection closely reflects their findings.
18 Other research considers portions of employment within the relevant industries, see Bakhshi, Freeman and Higgs 2013; BOP
Consulting 2010; UNESCO-UIS 2009.

19 Other studies have used US Census County Business Patterns data for which detailed industry data is available at the MSA- and
county-level; detailed data at the city-level is not available from this data source. The Economic Census, despite the data being slightly
older than what is available through other sources, offers the level of detail for smaller geographic areas. Additionally, these analyses
can be updated for trend analyses with the forthcoming release of the 2012 Economic Census data.
20 The Economic Census masks data by reporting ranges of employees, when doing otherwise would reveal too much detail about a
given entity. In the instances where only ranges were provided for the number of employees, the average of the range.

Approximately 19 percent of the people are employed in select Chicago-based cultural industries are
in design services, 17 percent in advertising, 11 percent in performing arts companies, 10 percent in
museums and historical sites, and 6 percent in select aspects of motion picture and sound recording.
All other industries included in this core sample comprise less than 3 percent each of the estimated
employee pool in the select cultural industries.
An important measure for geographic comparison is the location quotient, which compares the
concentration of an asset at a local geographic level to that at a larger geographic level. Figure 2
compares the share of each city’s labor force employed in select cultural industries with the share at
the national level. Any city above 1.0 exceeds the national level and shows a concentration of the
asset at the local level, in this case, referring to employment in select cultural industries.
Figure 2: Location Quotient for Select Cultural Industries, by city
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, 2007 Economic, EC0700A1 and U.S. Census Bureau,
2006-2010 American Community Survey, EEO-ALL01W

LIMITATIONS OF “CULTURAL INDUSTRIES” AS A MEASUREMENT TOOL

Important questions arise when using industry-wide employment as an indicator of creative activity:
■ What portions of industry-specific employees are “creative”?

Across the range of industries used to measure the creative economy in different regions,
there are employees who are essential to the creative work of that industry. There are also
workers employed in the industry who fulfill support services that can be considered
auxiliary, but not core, creative work. Outside of the identified creative industries, there are
other employees whose work also contributes to the creative economy. This worker
segmentation model is known as the “creative trident” model 21 and suggests the importance
of an alternative approach—that creative workers, regardless of industry, be measured to
complement the industry-based indicators.
■ Creative and artist work is often project-based and sporadic. What are the limitations of
using employer-based data?
Almost one-third of the artist labor force in the US is self-employed, a rate approximately
three times the national average. 22 Hence, using only employer-based data provides a limited
measure of creative workers, particularly when considering artistic market-based activity,
which is often project-based, entrepreneurial and sporadic.
Because of the ambiguity around the proportion of creative workers within industries and the
number of creative workers outside of select creative industries, as well as concerns about capturing
the number of self-employed people who contribute to the creative economy, this report focuses
primarily on creative workers as opposed to an industrial analysis.
21 Higgs, Cunningham, and Bakhshi 2008

22 NEA 2011

CREATIVE WORKERS IN NINE US CITIES
Research has increasingly focused on developing transparent and replicable means for identifying
the level and type of creativity that individuals may apply in their job.
In The Rise of the Creative Class (2002), Richard Florida put forth a broad set of occupations that he
suggested comprise the “creative class” of workers. The details of Florida’s definition and
accompanying regional economic growth theory catalyzed much debate, yet Florida’s work brought
significant attention to the central role that innovative individuals and artists play in the creative
economy. Florida defines the super-creative core 23 as those occupations that enable people to “fully
engage in the creative process,”24 and he positioned the artistic labor force at the center of this.
Recently, researchers in the UK posited a new definition and rubric to identify creative occupations
as those that play “a role within the creative process that brings cognitive skills to bear to bring
about differentiation to yield either novel, or significantly enhanced products whose final form is not
fully specified in advance.” 25
In the US, the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Resource Center is the primary source
for occupation-specific information, and includes typical responsibilities, skill and knowledge sets
deployed; work styles, values and contexts; as well as wage and employment trends. For example,
ONET identified originality — the ability to come up with unusual or clever ideas about a given
topic or situation, or to develop creative ways to solve a problem— as an ability that is most integral
to the work of creative writers, physicists, fine artists and architects, interior designers and
choreographers, as well as other occupations. 26
Building from the O*NET occupation descriptions, researchers Tim Wojan and David
McGranaham at the USDA Economic Research Service developed a narrower set of occupations
than those used by Florida that utilize creativity. Artists are again identified as key creative workers
in their definition. This report utilizes Wojan and McGranaham’s framework to identify those
occupations that have creative workers at their core in the analyses that follow. A complete list of
occupation codes is included in the Technical Appendix.
23 The super-creative “core of this new class includes scientists and engineers, university professors, poets and novelists, artists,
entertainers, actors, designers, and architects, as well as the thought leadership of modern society: nonfiction writers, editors, cultural
figures, think-tank researchers, analysts, and other opinion-makers.” Members of this super-creative core “produce new forms or
designs that are readily transferable and broadly useful—such as designing a product that can be widely made, sold and used; coming
up with a theorem or strategy that can be applied in many cases; or composing music that can be performed again and again.” (Florida
2002, 69)
24 Florida 2002, 69
25 Bakhshi, Freeman and Higgs 2013, 24
26 http://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/result/1.A.1.b.2 (accessed July 17, 2013)

All of the studies reviewed for this report consider the artist labor force as a core subset of creative
workers. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) uses eleven standard occupation codes
(SOC) for its working definition of the artist labor force – actors; announcers; architects; fine artists,
art directors and animators; dancers and choreographers; designers; other entertainers; musicians,
singers and related workers; photographers; producers and directors; writers and authors. 27 While
the use of these eleven SOCs invites discussion, for consistency I use this definition to examine
artists in Chicago and comparison cities.
The American Community Survey 28 (ACS) offers highly detailed and reliable estimates on
occupations and employment, and is the primary data source for the following analyses.
Specifically, I used the ACS’s recently released 5-year estimates to produce the following analyses,
which present data on the total artist workforce employed in Chicago and the peer cities, as well as
on the resident artist labor force for each city, where data are available. The artist labor force is
comprised of employed and unemployed workers and reflects where the workers reside.
Information about the labor force is collected for individuals’ current primary job or, for those who
are unemployed at the time of data collection, the most recent job for those who have worked
within the last 5 years. The artist workforce is comprised of artists employed in the city, regardless
of whether they reside in the city.
27 http://arts.gov/artistic-fields/research-analysis/data-profiles/data-profile-1/artist-occupations (accessed November 19, 2013)

28 See the Technical Notes in NEA (2011) for a succinct description of how the ACS measures artist occupations.

RESULTS
Almost 21 percent of Chicago’s civilian labor force is comprised of creative workers, which
approximates the portion of creative workers in the US labor force (1.07 location quotient, which
compares the share of artists in each city’s labor force to the share of artists in the US labor force).
San Francisco, Denver and Boston have higher concentrations of creative workers than Chicago,
with location quotients of 1.70, 1.30 and 1.24, respectively.
Figure 3: Select Creative Workers as a Portion of the Civilian Labor Force, by city
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, EEO-ALL01R and 2006-2010 ACS
estimates of civilian workforce

Figure 4: Location Quotient for Select Creative Workers, by city
Chicago, along with Denver and Boston, has a high concentration of employed artists compared to
the US (location quotient 1.63; Figure 4). San Francisco has the highest concentration of artists, at
3.18 times the portion of artists in the US labor force. San Francisco, New York City, and Los
Angeles have been known as Arts Super Cities over the past decade due to their high concentration
of artists well above the national average. 29
Given Chicago’s particular interest in culinary arts, this report also looks at the location quotient for
chefs and head cooks, arguably the key creative force within the culinary industry. Chicago’s location
quotient is above the national average and on par with Philadelphia; however San Francisco,
Denver, Cleveland, and Boston are home to proportionately larger concentrations of chefs and head
cooks.
29 Markusen, Schrock and Cameron, 2004.

Figure 5: Location Quotient for Chefs & Head Cooks, by city

MORE ON THE ARTIST LABOR FORCE

Commensurate with total population sizes, Chicago has the nation’s third largest artist labor force,
behind New York City and Los Angeles, with an estimated 31,030 artists residing in Chicago. Artists
comprise 2.2 percent of Chicago’s labor force (previously noted in Figure 3); almost double the
portion of artists in the national labor force (1.35 percent). Among our comparison cities, San
Francisco has the next largest artist labor force, in terms of absolute size — 20,570 — but a larger
share (4.3 percent) of San Francisco’s labor force is comprised of artists, compared to Chicago.
Figure 6: Estimated Size of Artist Labor Force, by city
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, EEO-ALL01R

COMPOSITION OF THE ARTIST LABOR FORCE & CONCENTRATIONS OF ARTIST

OCCUPATIONS
The extent of public support, commercial opportunities, amenities, and strength of informal
networks and profiles have all been identified as factors that explain why different types of artists
concentrate in different metropolitan regions. 30 Figure 7 illustrates each city’s distribution of artists
across the eleven artist occupations.
Figure 7: Composition of Artist Labor Force, by city
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, EEO-ALL01R
Some cities have higher than the national average portions of all or almost all artist occupations –
San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, and Boston.
■ As has been true in the past, San Francisco has well above the national average concentration of
artists across all artist occupations.
■ Denver is notable for its high concentration of Architects and Dancers/Choreographers.
■ Chicago has relatively higher concentrations of Writers/Authors and Architects compared to
other artist occupations, although it also has slightly below the national average presence of fine
artists in its artist labor force.
■ Boston has a notably higher concentration of architects and is on par with the national average
of photographers.
30 Markusen, Schrock and Cameron, 2004

Other cities, while having high relatively high concentrations of a single or a small set of
occupations, also fall below the national average for multiple artist occupations — Phoenix,
Houston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
■ Phoenix and Houston have similar location quotient patterns — relatively high concentrations
of Dancers/Choreographers and Announcers, but below the national average in concentrations
of other occupations.
■ Cleveland falls below the national average for most artist occupations, however has a
proportionately high, isolated concentration of musicians.

Figure 8 summarizes which artist occupations are concentrated in the comparison cities by depicting the location quotient of each artist occupation across
cities, compared to the US average, which is illustrated as zero in this graph for ease of reference.
Figure 8: Location Quotient for Artist Labor Force, by occupation
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, EEO-ALL01R and 2006-2010 ACS estimates of civilian workforce
Note: Location quotient index shifted to zero for readability.
M E A S U R I N G C H I C A G O ’ S ( A R T I S T I C A L L Y ) C R E A T I V E E C O N O MY │ P A G E 1 6
SECTOR
Fifty-seven percent of Chicago’s artist labor force is employed in the for-profit sector, 31 percent is
self-employed, and 10 percent is employed in the non-profit sector. The large portion of Chicago’s
artists that are self-employed mirror a national trend, since artists are more than three times as likely
as the US labor force to be self-employed.31
Figure 9: Distribution of Artist Labor Force across Sectors, by city
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample
■ Only Houston and Philadelphia employ modestly larger proportions of their artist labor force in
the for-profit sector than Chicago.
■ Proportionately larger shares of the artist labor forces are self-employed in all of our comparison
cities compared to Chicago, with the exception of Philadelphia.
■ Among our comparison cities, smaller shares of the artist labor force in cities west of Chicago
are employed within non-profits compared to Chicago, and larger shares are employed in
nonprofits in cities east of Chicago.
■ Proportionately larger shares of the artist labor force in San Francisco, Phoenix, Baltimore, and
Boston are employed in government than Chicago. Houston, Cleveland, and Philadelphia have
proportionately smaller shares.
31 NEA 2011, 12

INDUSTRY
An estimated 71 percent of Chicago’s artist labor force is employed in the select cultural industries
identified earlier in this report. The largest portions are employed in performing arts and related
industries (21 percent) and in specialized design services (17 percent).
The remaining 29 percent of Chicago’s artist labor force is not employed in the selected cultural
industries used in this report and is employed in small portions across 66 industries. Approximately,
2 percent of Chicago’s labor force is employed in broadcasting (excluding internet) and in florist
retail shops; just over 1 percent is employed in religious organizations, in miscellaneous
manufacturing and management, and in scientific and technical consulting services. Less than 1
percent of Chicago’s artist labor force is employed in each of the 61 remaining industries.
Figure 10: Portion of Artist Labor Force in Select Cultural Industries, by city
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample
Figure 10 depicts notable differences across cities regarding where artists are employed and, in
particular, where there are concentrations of artists employed outside of cultural industries in each
city:

■ 5 percent of the artist labor force in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Cleveland are working in
religious organizations32.
■ Cleveland’s artist labor force presents the greatest contrast with Chicago’s:
● 11 percent works in printing and in related support activities 33 in manufacturing.
● 5 percent in other personal services 34
● 5 percent in retail of building material and supplies dealers 35
■ 6 percent of Phoenix’s artist labor force works in drinking places that serve alcoholic
beverages 36.
■ 5 percent of Philadelphia’s artist labor force works in amusement, gambling, and recreation
industries 37.
■ 5 percent of Denver’s artist labor force is working in computer systems design and related
services 38.
32 NAICS 8131
33 NAICS 3231
34 NAICS 8129
35 NACIS 4441
36 NAICS 7224
37 NAICS 713
38 NAICS 5415

ARTIST WORKFORCE
Over 63,000 artists are employed in Chicago, comprising 4.5 percent of total employment in the city.
Workforce statistics measure employment within a geographic area of interest, regardless of where
the employee resides. Artists comprise a similar portion of the total workforce in Denver and
Boston. Among our select peer cities, San Francisco has the largest portion of its total employment
made up of artists, approximately 7.4 percent.
Figure 11: Employed Artists: Estimated Size & Portion of Total Employment, by city
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, EEO-ALL01W

EARNINGS
San Francisco has the greatest portion of higher income artists, with 33 percent earning $75,000 or
more per year; 23 percent of Chicago’s artists earn $75,000 or more per year. San Francisco also has
the smallest portion of lower income artists, with 20 percent earning less than $25,000 per year; 27
percent of Chicago’s artists earn less than $25,000 per year.
Figure 12: Distribution of Artists’ Earnings, by city
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, EEO-ALL11W
For additional information on occupational and wage data at the national, state and MSA level for
specific occupations, see the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics.

A CLOSER LOOK AT CHICAGO
An estimated 63,008 artists work in Chicago. Designers represent the largest share of the artist
workforce in Chicago, at 36.3 percent. Overall, the composition of Chicago’s artist workforce
mirrors that of the US as a whole.39
Figure 13: Composition of US & Chicago Artist Workforces
39 See NEA’s calculations: http://arts.gov/artistic-fields/research-analysis/data-profiles/data-profile-1/sample-findings

Figure 14: Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Labor Force across Sectors, by occupation
Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
■ Over half of Chicago’s Announcers, Architects, Designers, Other entertainers, Producers and Directors are in the for-profit sector.
■ A relatively high portion of Chicago’s Musicians and Photographers are self-employed, underscoring the often short-term, project-
based nature of these artistic professions.
■ Almost one-third of Chicago’s actors, dancers/choreographers, and musicians are in the non-profit sector.
Figure 15: Earnings Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Workforce, by occupation
■ Over 50 percent of Dancers/Choreographers (90 percent), Actors (79 percent), Other entertainers (75 percent), Musicians (74 percent),
Photographers (69 percent), Designers (60 percent), Writers/Authors (56 percent) and Fine Artists (53 percent) make $49,999 or less
annually; Chicago’s median household income is $47,371. 40
● 48 percent of Announcers, 42 percent of Producers and only 27 percent of Architects make $49,999 or less per year.
■ Dancers/Choreographers are the most likely (64 percent) to earn less than $15,000 per year. Although other artist occupations also
have a small portion at high earnings levels (long tail or superstar effect in economics), the data estimate that no or practically no
dancer/choreographer in the Chicago workforce earns more than $75,000 annually.
40 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html (accessed July 24, 2013)
Figure 16: Male/Female Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Workforce, by occupation
■ 59 percent of Chicago’s artist labor force is male. Males predominate as announcers (87 percent), architects (76 percent) and musicians
(73 percent).
● 48.6 percent of Chicago’s total population is male and 51.4 percent is female 41.
■ Women represent larger portions of writers/authors (58 percent) and actors (56 percent).
■ There is the highest degree of gender parity among groups of designers, dancers and choreographers, and other entertainers.
41 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
Figure 17: Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Workforce, by occupation
■ In total, 74 percent of Chicago’s artist workforce is White (Non-Hispanic); 9 percent Black or African American (Non-Hispanic);
9 percent Hispanic; 6 percent Asian (Non-Hispanic).
● Chicago’s total population is 32 percent White (Non-Hispanic); 33 percent Black or African American (Non-Hispanic); 28 percent
Hispanic; 5 percent Asian (Non-Hispanic). 42 Chicago’s artist workforce is less diverse, in terms of race and ethnicity, than its total
population.
■ Announcers, Dancers/Choreographers, and Musicians are more racially/ethnically diverse than other artist occupations in Chicago.
■ Dancers/Choreographers have the largest portion of Hispanic artists (36 percent), while Musicians have a proportionately large
population of Black or African American artists (26 percent).
42 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
Figure 18: Age Distribution of Chicago’s Artist Workforce, by occupation
■ The majority (57 percent) of Chicago’s artist workforce is aged 16-39; 31 percent are between 40-54; and 11 percent are aged 55 or
older.
■ Almost all of Chicago’s employed dancers and choreographers are estimated to be aged 39 or younger.
WORKS CITED
Americans for the Arts. “2012 Creative Industries Reports.” Accessed July 31, 2013.
http://www.artsusa.org/information_services/research/services/creative_industries/default.asp
Bakhshi, H. (2013, February 27). Measuring the Creative Industries in the UK [NEA Blog].
Accessed November 19, 2013. http://arts.gov/art-works/2013/measuring-creative-industries-uk
Bakhshi, H., A. Freeman and P. Higgs (2013). A Dynamic Mapping of the UK’s Creative Industries.
London: NESTA. Accessed July 19, 2013.
http://www.nesta.org.uk/areas_of_work/creative_economy/assets/features/a_dynamic_mapping_
of_the_uks_creative_industries
Bennett, J. (2013). “Craft as a creative industry: what doesn't get counted, doesn't count.” The
Guardian. Accessed July 31, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-
network/culture-professionals-blog/2013/may/07/crafts-creative-industries-dcms.
BOP Consulting (2010). Mapping the Creative Industries: A toolkit. (Creative and Cultural Economy
series, #2). London: British Council. Accessed July 19, 2013.
http://www.britishcouncil.org/mapping_the_creative_industries_a_toolkit_2-2.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics. Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/
City of Chicago. “Chicago’s Creative Industries.” Accessed July 31, 2013.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dca/provdrs/chicago_s_creativeindustries.html.
DCMS (1998). Creative Industries Mapping Document 1998. Accessed July 18, 2013.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407120701/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference
_library/publications/4740.aspx
DCMS (2001). Creative Industries Mapping Document 2001. Accessed July 18, 2013.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creative-industries-mapping-documents-2001
DCMS (2013). Classifying and measuring the creative industries: Consultation on proposed changes.
Accessed July 18, 2013.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/classifying-and-measuring-the-creative-industries-
consultation-on-proposed-changes
Flew, T. (2011). “Origins of Creative Industry Policy.” Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/42872_Flew.pdf
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and
Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.

Harris, C., M. Collins, and D. Cheek (2013). America’s Creative Economy: A Study of Recent Conceptions,
Definitions, and Approaches to Measurement Across the USA. Kansas City, OK: National Creativity
Network. Accessed September 15, 2013. http://nationalcreativitynetwork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/AmericasCreativeEconomyFULLREPORT.pdf
Higgs, P. and S. Cunningham (2007). “Australia’s Creative Economy: Mapping Methodologies.”
Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI). Accessed July 27,
2013. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/6228/
Higgs, P., S. Cunningham and H. Bakhshi (2008). Beyond the creative industries: Mapping the creative
economy in the United Kingdom. (Technical Report). London: NESTA.
http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/beyond-creative-industries-report.pdf
Howkins, J. (2001). The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. London: Allen Lane.
Iyengar, S. (2013, March 1). Taking Note: Relating Jobs to Industries to Account for Creative
Economies [NEA Blog]. Accessed November 19, 2013. http://arts.gov/art-works/2013/taking-
note-relating-jobs-industries-account-creative-economies
Markusen, A., G. Schrock and M. Cameron (2004). “The Artistic Dividend Revisited.” Humphrey
Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/6158/artistic_dividend_revisited.pdf
NEA (2011). Artists and Arts Workers in the United States: Findings from the American Community Survey
(2005-2009) and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (2010). (Research Note #105)
Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/105.pdf
NEA (2012). “For The First Time U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Will Measure Contribution of
the Arts to Gross Domestic Product.” Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://arts.gov/news/2012/first-time-us-bureau-economic-analysis-will-measure-contribution-arts-
gross-domestic
NEA (2013). “U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and National Endowment for the Arts Release
Preliminary Report on Impact of Arts and Culture on U.S. Economy.” Accessed December 5, 2013.
http://arts.gov/news/2013/us-bureau-economic-analysis-and-national-endowment-arts-release-
preliminary-report-impact
Throsby, D. (2008). “Modeling the cultural industries.” International Journal of Cultural Policy, 14:3, 217-
232, DOI: 10.1080/10286630802281772
UNDP/UNESCO (2013). Creative Economy Report 2013 Special Edition: Widening Local Development
Pathways. New York: United Nations and Paris: UNESCO. Accessed December 5, 2013.
http://www.unesco.org/culture/pdf/creative-economy-report-2013.pdf
UNESCO (2005, October 20). Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions 2005. UNESCO.org. Accessed July 16, 2013.
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO-UIS (2009). Measuring The Economic Contribution of Cultural Industries: A Review And
Assessment Of Current Methodological Approaches (2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics
Handbook No. 1). Montreal, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/framework-cultural-statistics-hbk-1-measuring-
economic-contribution-cultural-industries-2012-en.pdf
Wojan, T. and D. McGranahan (2007). “Creative Class County Codes.”
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/creative-class-county-
codes/documentation.aspx#.UflW4Y3VArW

TECHNICAL APPENDIX
SELECT CULTURAL INDUSTRIES USING 2007 NAICS CODES

Camera and Photographic Supplies Stores 44313
Musical Instrument and Supplies Stores 45114
Art Dealers 45392
Newspaper Publishers 51111
Periodical Publishers 51112
Book Publishers 51113
Other Publishers 51119
Motion Picture and Video Production 51211
Motion Picture and Video Exhibition 51213
Postproduction Services and Other Motion Picture and Video Industries 51219
Music Publishers 51223
Sound Recording Studios 51224
Libraries and Archives 51912
Architectural Services 54131
Interior Design Services 54141
Industrial Design Services 54142
Graphic Design Services 54143
Other Specialized Design Services 54149
Advertising Agencies 54181
Photographic Services 54192
Fine Arts Schools 61161
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters 71111
Dance Companies 71112
Musical Groups and Artists 71113
Other Performing Arts Companies 71119
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities 71131
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events without Facilities 71132
Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers 71151
Museums 71211
Historical Sites 71212
Zoos and Botanical Gardens 71213

“CREATIVE WORKERS” OCCUPATIONS

■ Accountants and auditors 0800 (SOC 13-2011)
■ Actors 2700 (SOC 27-2011)
■ Actuaries 1200 (SOC 15-2011)
■ Advertising and promotions managers 0040 (SOC 11-2011)
■ Advertising sales agents 4800 (SOC 41-3011)
■ Aerospace engineers 1320 (SOC 17-2011)
■ Agricultural and food scientists 1600 (SOC 19-1010)
■ Announcers 2800 (SOC 27-3010)
■ Architects, except naval 1300 (SOC 17-1010)
■ Archivists, curators, and museum technicians 2400 (SOC 25-4010)
■ Artists and related workers 2600 (SOC 27-1010)
■ Astronomers and physicists 1700 (SOC 19-2010)
■ Athletes, coaches, umpires, and related workers 2720 (SOC 27-2020)
■ Atmospheric and space scientists 1710 (SOC 19-2021)
■ Biological scientists 1610 (SOC 19-1020)
■ Biomedical and agricultural engineers 1340 (SOC 17-20XX)
■ Broadcast and sound engineering technicians and radio operators, and media and
communication equipment workers, all other 2900 (SOC 27-40XX)
■ Chemical engineers 1350 (SOC 17-2041)
■ Chemists and materials scientists 1720 (SOC 19-2030)
■ Chief executives and legislators 0010 (SOC 11-10XX)
■ Civil engineers 1360 (SOC 17-2051)
■ Compensation and benefits managers 0135 (SOC 11-3111)
■ Computer and information research scientists 1005 (SOC 15-1111)
■ Computer hardware engineers 1400 (SOC 17-2061)
■ Computer network architects 1106 (SOC 15-1143)
■ Computer occupations, all other 1107 (SOC 15-1199)
■ Computer programmers 1010 (SOC 15-1131)
■ Computer support specialists 1050 (SOC 15-1150)
■ Computer systems analysts 1006 (SOC 15-1121)
■ Conservation scientists and foresters 1640 (SOC 19-1030)
■ Dancers and choreographers 2740 (SOC 27-2030)
■ Database administrators 1060 (SOC 15-1141)
■ Designers 2630 (SOC 27-1020)
■ Door-to-door sales workers, news and street vendors, and related workers 4950 (SOC 41-9091)
■ Drafters 1540 (SOC 17-3010)

■ Economists 1800 (SOC 19-3011)

■ Editors 2830 (SOC 27-3041)
■ Electrical and electronics engineers 1410 (SOC 17-2070)
■ Engineering technicians, except drafters 1550 (SOC 17-3020)
■ Entertainers and performers, sports and related workers, all other 2760 (SOC 27-2099)
■ Environmental engineers 1420 (SOC 17-2081)
■ Environmental scientists and geoscientists 1740 (SOC 19-2040)
■ Financial managers 0120 (SOC 11-3031)
■ First-line supervisors of non-retail sales workers 4710 (SOC 41-1012)
■ First-line supervisors of retail sales workers 4700 (SOC 41-1011)
■ Fundraisers 0726 (SOC 13-1131)
■ General and operations managers 0020 (SOC 11-1021)
■ Human resources managers 0136 (SOC 11-3121)
■ Industrial engineers, including health and safety 1430 (SOC 17-2110)
■ Industrial production managers 0140 (SOC 11-3051)
■ Information security analysts 1007 (SOC 15-1122)
■ Insurance sales agents 4810 (SOC 41-3021)
■ Lawyers, and judges, magistrates, and other judicial workers 2100 (SOC 23-10XX)
■ Librarians 2430 (SOC 25-4021)
■ Library technicians 2440 (SOC 25-4031)
■ Marine engineers and naval architects 1440 (SOC 17-2121)
■ Market research analysts and marketing specialists 0735 (SOC 13-1161)
■ Marketing and sales managers 0050 (SOC 11-2020)
■ Materials engineers 1450 (SOC 17-2131)
■ Mechanical engineers 1460 (SOC 17-2141)
■ Medical scientists, and life scientists, all other 1650 (SOC 19-10XX)
■ Meeting, convention, and event planners 0725 (SOC 13-1121)
■ Miscellaneous engineers, including nuclear engineers 1530 (SOC 17-21YY)
■ Miscellaneous mathematical science occupations, including mathematicians and statisticians 1240
(SOC 15-20XX)
■ Miscellaneous media and communication workers 2860 (SOC 27-3090)
■ Miscellaneous social scientists, including survey researchers and sociologists 1860 (SOC 19-
30XX)
■ Models, demonstrators, and product promoters 4900 (SOC 41-9010)
■ Musicians, singers, and related workers 2750 (SOC 27-2040)
■ Network and computer systems administrators 1105 (SOC 15-1142)
■ News analysts, reporters and correspondents 2810 (SOC 27-3020)
■ Operations research analysts 1220 (SOC 15-2031)

■ Petroleum, mining and geological engineers, including mining safety engineers 1520 (SOC 17-
21XX)
■ Photographers 2910 (SOC 27-4021)
■ Physical scientists, all other 1760 (SOC 19-2099)
■ Postsecondary teachers 2200 (SOC 25-1000)
■ Producers and directors 2710 (SOC 27-2012)
■ Psychologists 1820 (SOC 19-3030)
■ Public relations and fundraising managers 0060 (SOC 11-2031)
■ Public relations specialists 2825 (SOC 27-3031)
■ Purchasing managers 0150 (SOC 11-3061)
■ Real estate brokers and sales agents 4920 (SOC 41-9020)
■ Sales engineers 4930 (SOC 41-9031)
■ Sales representatives, services, all other 4840 (SOC 41-3099)
■ Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing 4850 (SOC 41-4010)
■ Securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents 4820 (SOC 41-3031)
■ Software developers, applications and systems software 1020 (SOC 15-113X)
■ Surveying and mapping technicians 1560 (SOC 17-3031)
■ Surveyors, cartographers, and photogrammetrists 1310 (SOC 17-1020)
■ Technical writers 2840 (SOC 27-3042)
■ Telemarketers 4940 (SOC 41-9041)
■ Television, video, and motion picture camera operators and editors 2920 (SOC 27-4030)
■ Training and development managers 0137 (SOC 11-3131)
■ Transportation, storage, and distribution managers 0160 (SOC 11-3071)
■ Travel agents 4830 (SOC 41-3041)
■ Urban and regional planners 1840 (SOC 19-3051)
■ Web developers 1030 (SOC 15-1134)
■ Writers and authors 2850 (SOC 27-3043)
■ Chefs and head cooks 4000 (SOC 35-1011) 43
MARGINS OF ERROR
All estimates have margins of error that are not explicitly reported in this document. MEs are not
included here given the nature of this report to provide indicators on the creative economy; more
detailed analyses should consider MEs more closely. All MEs are publicly available for data sources
cited.
43 Wojan and McGranaham did not include Chefs and Head Cooks in their analyses, but I opted to include this
occupation given Chicago’s particular profile in culinary arts. Chefs and Head cooks comprise 0.37% of Chicago’s labor
force and minimally affect aggregate analyses.

GEOGRAPHY
For PUMS (Public Use Microdata Sample) data, it is necessary to select which PUMA comprise each
city. For most cities in the analyses, PUMAs correspond with the city’s geographic boundaries. For
those cities where PUMAs did not align with the city’s geographic boundaries, I used the Missouri
Census Data Center Geocorr concordance data, as recommended by the US Census Bureau, to
determine the portion of select PUMA that lie within city limits. This method assumes that the
population living within PUMAs that are less than 100% within the city limits is evenly distributed
across the geography.
SELECTION OF COMPARISON CITIES

The cities used for comparative analyses were selected on the combined basis of total population
size, the use of the city as a comparison to Chicago in other arts-related reports, the city’s public
profile including a richness of arts-related activity, and Arts Alliance Illinois’ use of the city for
comparative understanding.
SAMPLE OF REGIONAL STUDIES ON CREATIVE ECONOMY/INDUSTRIES

■ Boston: http://unitus.org/FULL/BostonCreativeEconomy.pdf
■ San Antonio:
http://www.sahearts.com/sites/sahearts.com/Creative_Industry_Report_2011%281%29.pdf
■ Colorado:
http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/AnnualReports/2010_economic_reports/co_eco
nomic_report_py2010creative_industries.pdf
■ North Carolina:
http://www.ncarts.org/elements/docs/NCCreativeIndustryEconomicContributionStudy_FullR
eport.pdf

Creative Economy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creative Economy PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creative Economy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEASURING CHICAGO’S

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE I

Cultural Industries in Nine US Cities...................................................................5

Creative Workers in Nine US Cities .....................................................................8

A Closer Look at Chicago ................................................................................... 22

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE II

Figure 1: Estimated Number of Employees in Select Cultural Industries, by city .................................. 5

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE III

Creativity is evident in healthy and vibrant economies, manifested in problem-solving skills,

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 1

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 2

■ audio-visual (film, TV, radio)

Other industries sometimes found as part of a definition include:

10 “Chicago’s Creative Industries,” accessed July 31, 2013.

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 3

13 Americans for the Arts 2012

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 4

CULTURAL INDUSTRIES IN NINE US CITIES

Figure 1: Estimated Number of Employees in Select Cultural Industries, by city

Consulting 2010; UNESCO-UIS 2009.

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 5

Figure 2: Location Quotient for Select Cultural Industries, by city

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 6

LIMITATIONS OF “CULTURAL INDUSTRIES” AS A MEASUREMENT TOOL

■ What portions of industry-specific employees are “creative”?

21 Higgs, Cunningham, and Bakhshi 2008

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 7

CREATIVE WORKERS IN NINE US CITIES

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 8

27 http://arts.gov/artistic-fields/research-analysis/data-profiles/data-profile-1/artist-occupations (accessed November 19, 2013)

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 9

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 10

Figure 4: Location Quotient for Select Creative Workers, by city

29 Markusen, Schrock and Cameron, 2004.

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 11

Figure 5: Location Quotient for Chefs & Head Cooks, by city

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 12

MORE ON THE ARTIST LABOR FORCE

Figure 6: Estimated Size of Artist Labor Force, by city

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 13

COMPOSITION OF THE ARTIST LABOR FORCE & CONCENTRATIONS OF ARTIST

Figure 7: Composition of Artist Labor Force, by city

30 Markusen, Schrock and Cameron, 2004

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 14

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 15

Figure 8: Location Quotient for Artist Labor Force, by occupation

Figure 9: Distribution of Artist Labor Force across Sectors, by city

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 17

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 18

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 19

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, EEO-ALL01W

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 20

Figure 12: Distribution of Artists’ Earnings, by city

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 21

A CLOSER LOOK AT CHICAGO

Figure 13: Composition of US & Chicago Artist Workforces

39 See NEA’s calculations: http://arts.gov/artistic-fields/research-analysis/data-profiles/data-profile-1/sample-findings

MEASURING CH ICAGO’S (ARTISTICALLY) CRE ATIVE ECONOMY │ PAGE 22

Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey