We have tradition in the cultural sector not to measure success, there has never been a strong request from decision-makers to justify the investment. But now because of the crisis we have to justify the culture investment and show the success it can bring. In 2006 we did a report for the European commission on the cultural economy in Europe and this study actually showed the importance of the cultural investment. In Europe 6 million people are employed in the cultural sector (more than in car manufacture industry), and the sector represents 3% of Europe’s GDP (more than ICT manufacturing).
All this came as a kind of revelation to politicians that were in a position to apprehend what it meant to invest in culture and creative industries. You can now visit different places and see how this investment is being used by the cities to reconsider urban planning. Berlin is probably the best example of the city that has used creative industries to brand itself as a creative, innovative city attracting people from all over the world. There were no traditional industries, but you have also cities with long industrial tradition. After industry was delocalized, the city face decline. In this situation culture and creative industries can help to recreate life in the city. Nantes in France is a perfect example. Also Estonia has developed the whole policy around culture and creative industries with a lot of support from structural fond of the European Union. The successful example is Tartu where young entrepreneurs are being incubated. I could multiply the examples, but it is maybe to early to measure the impact of these initiatives because many of them are only 5-6 years old. But for the creative sector is necessary to develop indicators and measurement tools in order to ensure politicians that they are right to take the risk of investing into culture and creative industries.
Loading more stuff…
Hmm…it looks like things are taking a while to load. Try again?