Policy Transfer and the Field of the Cultural and Creative Industries: What Can Be Learned from Europe?

There has been an increased interest by policymakers in the cultural and creative economy¹ in recent years, in part due to the success of developing reliable empirical measures of activity, and in part due to the anticipated economic and social benefits that such growth might bring. These benefits are partially based upon empirical growth (KEA_European_Affairs 2006), and partially reinforced by information society theories that suggest the creative industries are the leading edge of the next long-wave of economic development (Garnham 2005). Developing nations have been quick to see both the possibilities of the creative industries, and the way that they might be used to ‘upgrade’ their position within international production chains (Pratt 2008a).

However, such interest and expectation has been difficult to resolve with a range of policy tools, or without an in-depth understanding of the CCI.² There is clear evidence of confusion as to the role and potential of the CCI, a problem that is further obscured by imprecision concerning the core concepts that underpin the CCI. At the same time, there is much ‘hope’ value in policy making in this field, some of which is patently aspirational rather than practical. For some, the CCI represent the leading edge of the information society and hence offer a promise of development associated with leading technologies. For others, engagement in cultural production offers a potential means to ascend the value chain. So in the field of CCI policy, the stakes are high, and the pressure to do what somebody else has already done or to mimic policies adopted in other sectors is attractive. However, this begs two questions: does generic policy work with respect to the CCI, and, can policy be simply applied in different social and political conditions and have the same outcome?