文献信息

文献标题：Creative Economy, Cultural Industries and Local Development（创意经济、文化产业与地方发展）

文献作者：Nicola Boccella，Irene Salerno

文献出处：《Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences》,2016,223: 291-296.

字数统计：英文3378单词，18355字符；中文5627汉字

外文文献

Creative Economy, Cultural Industries and Local Development

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to draw a clear picture of creative and cultural industries and of the creative economy, as driving factors of economic growth and local development. To this aim, the paper analyzes some recent data on the significance of the creative economies, reflecting on the concepts of creative and cultural industries. In the text, attention is paid to the links between creative economy and local development on one hand, and the concepts of territorial capital and social capital on the other side.

In the end, the work focuses on presenting the results of an in-progress study, about the recent literature on the mentioned issues, presenting a brief overview of some significant works.

Keywords: Creative economy, cultural economy, cultural indistries, creative industries, local development, social capital, territorial capital.

1. Creative economy, cultural and creative industries. Overview on concepts and data

Over the last years, the importance of the so-called cultural economy and of the cultural and creative industries has greatly increased. Today, cultural and creative industries are driving factors for economic growth and according to global demand,

also stimulated by the new economy. As it is known, the concept refers not only to the domain of culture in the strict sense, but refers also to cultural goods and services as the core of a new, powerful and vast sector that can be broadly referred to cultural areas.

The creative economy is closely related to the creative and cultural industries. The term cultural industries was diffused since the Eighties, and it was referred to those forms of cultural production and consumption, which have at their center a symbolic or expressive element. The concept was then spread around the world by UNESCO just since the Eighties and its definition has gradually incorporated a wide range of industries: music, the industries related to art, writing, fashion and design, media, as well as craft production.

Since the Nineties of the Nineteenth Century, however, it is in use also the name of the creative industries; the term refers to a very large production that includes goods and services produced by the cultural industries and those depending on innovation.

From the time in which the term “creative economy” was popularized, in 2001, the so-called cultural and creative industries stared generating economic growth at a progressively increasing rate; at global level, as stated in the “Creative economy report” (2013), such economy generated “US$2.2 trillion worldwide in 2000 and growing at an annual rate of 5 per cent”.

Concerning the European scenario, Europe has a strong interest in the cultural and creative industries, as they are a source of economic growth: as stressed in the report of the European Creative Industries Summit, “the cultural and creative sectors make up nearly 4.5% of the European economy, thanks to nearly 1.4 million small and medium-sized businesses generating and distributing creative content all over Europe. The cultural and creative sectors have shown great resilience during the crisis – they actually continued to grow – while stimulating creativity and innovation spill- overs in other sectors. About 8.5 million people are employed in creative sectors across Europe – and many more if we take into account their impact on other sectors such as tourism and information technology”.

Focusing, more in detail, on the Italian situation, here in 20142 the enterprises of the cultural and creative sectors produce 78.6 billion of added value and stimulated other sectors of the economy so as to generate the 15.6 % of the whole national added value, equal to 227 billion euro including the incomes of that part of the national economy that is directly activated by culture (e.g. tourism).

According to recent data of the UnionCamere-Symbola Report (2015), between 2012 and 2014 despite the global crisis, companies that have invested in creativity have increased their turnover by 3.2%; companies that have invested in creativity were rewarded with a 4.3% increase in exports. Moreover, the 443,208 enterprises in the cultural production system, accounting for 7.3% of domestic enterprises, reaches 5.4% of the wealth produced in Italy, equal to 78.6 billion of euros. Arriving at about 84, equivalent to 5.8% of the national economy, if we include public institutions and organizations in the non-profit organization active in the field of culture.

Particular attention has to be paid to the multiplier effects generated by the economy of culture and the positive impact on the employment: in fact, the cultural and creative industries as well as the sectors of historical, artistic and architectural heritage, performing arts and visual arts, are actually employing 1.4 million people, that means the 5.9% of whole Italian employment – and over 1.5 million, equal to 6.3% of the whole employment rate if we include also the public and no-profit sector.

2.Cultural and creative industries as driver factors for local development: Relationships with territorial and social capital

The significance from an economic point of view, of the creative economies, mentioned in the previous chapter, imposes a reflection on the necessary national and international policies that will enhance the deep bonds between the various fields of culture, territories and the socio-institutional tissue, in order to give the cultural and creative sectors their role in the economy of the territories and make it the heart of the local economic development patterns, even in underprivileged territories.

As stressed in the European Creative Industries Summit (2015), “The creative economy is also associated with large cities and/or dominant regions within countries,

or even concentrated within cities where a prosperous creative industry sector may be a small enclave surrounded by poverty and social deprivation. The creative economy tends to concentrate today in great world cities that are already central places of financial capital, investment and power or have significant historical legacies of social and cultural mixing. What is more, the centripetal forces have intensified because of convergence and acquisitions at the global corporate level. Emblematic in this regard are the television, media, film and publishing industries. Moreover, more dispersed organizational forms, which are also characteristic of the sector, tend to have their major value-added activities located and/or controlled in the global North. Thus, many forms of creative-economy investment and growth can amplify existing divisions between rich and poor both across and within countries. […] Yet, development of a creative economy can form an integral part of any attempt to redress inequality, provided that the process also brings about broader structural changes to ensure that creative workers are themselves not disadvantaged in relation to other workers”.

To address these problems, the European Union has launched several measures and has allocated funds for the cultural and creative industry development and the creation of capillary networks in support of the economies of disadvantaged areas. Emblematic is the case of the Structural Funds in the period 2014-2020, aimed at strengthening the links among creative industries, multi-disciplinary environments and other industries. European funding programmes have been designed to answer to these challenges, such as the Creative Europe programme imprimis, but also other EU funding programmes like the ERASMUS PLUS that supports skills development through education and training; the COSME programme that promotes entrepreneurship, access to finance and markets for small and medium enterprises; the HORIZON 2020 which aims at promoting research and innovation in the field of culture and cultural heritage.

At national level, to strengthen creative and cultural industries it is mandatory to encourage the development of the territorial network, and policies to support local economy and the relationships among privates, and between public and private sectors.

In all the assessments of the creative economy, developing countries appear lacking, in fact, in key institutional and/or regulatory conditions.

Developing such networks and relationships means to have in mind a clear picture of the deep links among the creative and cultural industries development and the so-called “territorial capital” of a country; the concept of territorial capital relates, furthermore, to the concept of “social capital”.

As it is known, for both the terms several definitions are available; the terms refers to the system of territorial assets of economic, cultural, social, environmental nature, that ensures the potential development of places. The latter, in order to succeed, have to exploit this complex set of factors.

The territorial capital has a strong influence on economic growth. The quality of the institutions and cohesion are elements of great importance to create conditions so that the territorial capital can fully express its potential. This means that it is essential to direct national policies, looking at the specificity of each territory, boosting the institutional quality. It also means investigating the deep relations with the registered capital of a given context (Brasili, 2014).

Closely related to the concept of territorial capital and in relation with local development, is the other concept of social capital. The concept of social capital has been extensively used since the Eighties of the Twentieth Century in sociology, economics and political science; today, there are numerous definitions of it and it is not possible to identify a universally accepted one (Abbafati, Spandonaro, 2011). In this context and to the aims of this work, it can be definied as a profitable resource based on the existence of some kind of relations and/or social norms, namely, as a collective, indivisible resource, and as a public good (Cartocci, 2007). The level of social capital, in conclusion, determines the degree of social cohesion, the horizontal links and the nature of relations with institutions. It therefore refers to the spontaneous sharing of a value system that establishes and determines the quality of civil society and the links between its members, which is reflected directly on the quality of institutions and ethical tissue (Abbafati & Spandonaro, 2011). Hence, in order to develop creative economies related to the goods of a certain territory, it is necessary to

stimulate and strengthen the network of values and relationships between social and institutional actors and to promote policies in support of local development, based on new paradigms taking into account the importance of the territorial capital and focused on increasing the social capital of a human collectivity, located in a certain territory. This is especially noticeable in the case of countries like Italy, for example, where there is no strong strategical, unique policy: culture and creative industries policies, in fact, have been developed mainly by the regions. This caused the of lack sustainability and consistency of the approaches and practices pointed out.

3.An overview on literature

Starting from the issues pointed out in the previous chapters, this paper aims at drawing a quick picture of the recent international literature on creative and cultural industries in Europe and worldwide.

Some interesting work are: Creative Economy and Culture Challenges, Changes and Futures for the Creative Industries (2014) by John Hartley, Wen Wen, Henry Siling Li; Key Concepts in Creative Industries (2013) by John Hartley, Jason Potts, Stuart Cunningham, Terry Flew, Michael Keane and John Banks; Introducing the Creative Industries: From Theory to Practice (2013) by Rosamund Davies and Gauti Sigthorsson; The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy (2011) by Terry Flew; The Cultural Industries (2012) by David Hesmondhalgh; Creative Industries and Innovation in Europe. Concepts, Measures and Comparative Case Studies (2014) by Luciana Lazzeretti; Careers in Creative Industries (2015) by Chris Mathieu; Entrepreneurship for the Creative and Cultural Industries (2015) by Bonita Kolb; Managing situated creativity in cultural industries (2015), edited by Fiorenza Belussi and Silvia Sedita; Creative Industries and Urban Development: Creative Cities in the 21st Century (2014) edited by Terry Flew; Creativity in Peripheral Places: Redefining the Creative Industries (2014) by Chris Gibson; Theorizing Cultural Work: Labour, Continuity and Change in the Cultural and Creative Industries (2013), edited by Mark Banks, Rosalind Gill and Stephanie Taylor.

Finally, we want to mention three in-printing works: Tourism and the Creative

Industries: Theories, policies and practice, edited by Philip Long and Nigel D. Morpeth; Rethinking Strategy for Creative Industries: Innovation and Interaction by Milan Todorovic and Ali Bakir, and Marketing Strategy for Creative and Cultural Industries by Bonita M. Kolb.

We want, in this paper, to focus on the description of a few of such books, that can be regarded as having and innovative point of view.

Concerning the general concept of creative economy, a recent, interesting work is the publication by Hartley, Wen and Siling Li, Creative Economy and Culture Challenges: Changes and Futures for the Creative Industries (2014).

The first book investigates the concept of “creative industries” extending the idea of creative innovation as a global phenomenon. Creative Economy and Culture pursues the conceptual, historical, practical, critical and educational issues and implications. It looks at conceptual challenges, the forces and dynamics of change, and prospects for the future of creative work at planetary scale. Authors focus on the so-called “three bigs”, which are: the creative industries are not confined to an elite of trained artists or firms; they encompass (or could encompass) everyone; they are not confined to one sector of the economy; they characterise (or could characterise) everything; they are not a feature of advanced or wealthy countries; they are (or could be) everywhere.

The authors analyse in depth some key concept, such as population, technologies, culture, just to quote the most important ones.

Concerning the concept of “population”, they note that “The most important element missing from current conceptualisations of creative industries is everyone – the general population, who, since the emergence of digital technologies, social networks and user-created content, can be seen (not just claimed) to be engaging in mass creative productivity, which we call microproductivity, that is a major driver of economic development”.

On the concept of technology, indeed, they highlight that creativity is not to be located in the individual person, but in systems: “[…] culture and the economy as systems too, albeit more complex and multiple (systems of systems) than any

technology to date. Because of their scale and variability, ‘natural’ cultural systems are hard to study. Technological systems, on the other hand, are an empirical form of human connectedness that can be studied (Arthur, 2009). Of these, we think two are more important than others. One is very old: cities. The other is very new: the internet. We see urban and digital technologies, their productivity and capacity to create new ideas and to distribute them across whole populations, as a proxy for those same qualities in human culture. It follows that we think the predominant conceptualisation of creative industries has not integrated ‘creative production’ sufficiently with ‘digital networks’ or with what we call ‘urban semiosis’”.

About the concept of “Culture”, the authors state that according to their vision, the concept of “ ‘culture’ is misunderstood and restricted in most public thought about the creative industries. […] we see culture as a human invention whose function is to produce groups or ‘demes’ – groups which can survive where individuals do not […]

We argue that what binds these groups is knowledge; and that the ‘output’ of culture is not heritage, customs, art, or even artefacts (goods and services), but innovation: culture is the mechanism for ‘producing newness’ in conditions of uncertainty[…]. Thus, for us, culture faces the future. It is the driver of economy, and not the other way around. It needs to be reconceptualised and integrated into economic thought and policy; equally, those devoted to culture and the arts as presently configured need to understand its role in economic evolution”.

In our opinion, particularly interesting is then the attention that authors pay to the need to integrate discipline and approaches in reflecting on creative economies in its relationships with human development. Such refection is rooted on the concept of “planet”: “[…] we think something rather larger than the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ is missing from most accounts of creative industries, and creativity more generally, whether in its cultural or economic dimension: the planet. It is only since the mid-nineteenth century that ‘we’ (humans in general) have even known the extent of the planet and what it is made of, where its land and sea masses are located, what its geological, biological and human resources comprise, and how its systems interact. […]. Among the slowest disciplines to ‘globalise’ their view of their subject matter

are the humanities (culture) and social sciences (economics), which retain a local, sectarian or national perspective, rather than seeking ways to understand their object of study as a planetary phenomenon. It would be weird if geologists, oceanographers, environmental scientists, meteorologists or even miners restricted themselves to this or that corner of the world without seeking to understand how and where it connects with others. But the study of meaning-creation and the study of wealth-production (i.e. cultural studies and economics; which this book will treat as integrated) have both remained aggressively parochial. The idea of a planetary cultural system, or creative economy, is almost unthinkable in current circumstances, except by visionaries from other disciplines like Jared Diamond (geography) or E.O. Wilson (biology). […] In this book, in contradistinction to that, we treat culture as a ‘semiosphere’ (Lotman, 1990), a dynamic system of differences whose local peculiarities (identities and expression, values, artefacts, actions) can only be explained by means of the dynamics and interactions of the systems that generate them”.

Another notable work is “Creativity in Peripheral Places: Redefining the Creative Industries” by Chris Gibson (2014). This book is dedicated to further exploring the creative industries outside major cities in places that are physically and/or metaphorically remote. The publication aims at exploring and re-defining the concept of creativity as both economic and cultural phenomenon, on the basis of the analysis of several examples such as postcard design, classical music, landscape art, tattooing, Aboriginal hip-hop, rock sculpture and so on. It is interesting to note that according to the authors, creativity is related to a specific “geography”, being evident in suburban, rural and remote areas. Another valuable aspect of this book is that it is based on a multi-disciplinary approach; in fact, it puts together the point of view of communications experts, sociologists, cultural studies experts with the point of view of geographers and historians, with the objective to explore creativity in diverse places outside major cities, e.g. in small places in terms of population or in term of productive, social marginality.

The author states “Examining new industries in previously ignored cities required economic geographers to explore how market logics both similar to and

different from traditional manufacturing shaped the geographical distribution of economic activities. On the one hand, new industries such as music, film and fashion were vertically distintegrated, and relied on dense inter-firm transactions. The size, structure and interdependent relationships between creative industry firms encouraged spatial agglomeration in particular districts, usually in large cities […]other academics (including Allen Scott himself writing recently about the English Lake District) have sought to explore how cultural and creative industries emerge from small, suburban, rural and remote places and are implicated in a range of social. Exploring creative industries in rural and remote places, in socio-economically disadvantaged and suburban places, means researchers cannot take context for granted, unlike in cities where urbanity is a given”.

The last publication we want to focus on is “Creative Industries and Developing Countries: Voice, Choice and Economic Growth” by Barrowclouigh and Kozul-Wright.

The book can be regarded as an interesting work as it focuses on the strategies to develop countries for a better and greater economic growth. Made of three sections, the work analyses the potential impact that creative industries, integrated into global economy, can have to human development.

Particularly interesting is, in our opinion, part two of the book, as it introduces an accurate analysis of theory, illustrating several case studies – starting from the study of example in developed countries- and policy analyses that can be useful to developing countries starting from creative energies.

中文译文

创意经济、文化产业与地方发展

摘要 本文的目的是对创意文化产业和创意经济作为经济增长和地方发展的驱动因素有一个清晰的认识。为此，本文分析了近年来有关创意经济意义的一

些数据，并对创意和文化产业的概念进行了反思。本文一方面关注创意经济与地方发展的关系，另一方面关注地域资本与社会资本的概念。

最后，本文重点介绍了一项正在进行的研究的成果，以及有关上述问题的最新文献，并简要概述了一些重要的著作。

关键词：创意经济，文化经济，文化产业，创意产业，地方发展，社会资本，地域资本。

1.创意经济、文化创意产业的概念和数据概述

近年来，所谓文化经济和文化创意产业的重要性大大提高。当前，文化创意产业是经济增长的驱动因素，也是新经济推动下的全球需求。众所周知，这一概念不仅是指严格意义上的文化领域，而且是指以文化商品和服务为核心的一个新的、强大的、广阔的领域，可以广泛地称为文化领域。

创意经济与创意文化产业息息相关。二十世纪80年代以来，“文化产业”一词被广泛传播，它指的是以象征或表现元素为中心的文化生产和消费形式。自80年代以来，联合国教科文组织将这一概念传播到世界各地，并逐渐将音乐、艺术、写作、时尚和设计、媒体以及手工制作等一系列相关的产业纳入其中。

然而，自十九世纪90年代以来，它也被用来命名创意产业；这一术语是指包括文化产业生产的商品和服务，以及依靠创新生产的商品和服务在内的超大型生产活动。

从“创意经济”一词普及之日起到2001年，所谓的文化创意产业开始以逐渐加快的速度带动经济增长。在全球范围内，如《创新经济报告》(2013)所述，这种经济“2000年在全世界创造了2.2万亿美元，并以每年5%的速度增长”。

就欧洲的情况而言，欧洲对文化和创意产业有着浓厚的兴趣，因为它们是经济增长的源泉：正如欧洲创意产业峰会的报告所强调的那样，“文化和创意产业占欧洲经济的4.5%，这要归功于在欧洲各地创造和传播创意内容的近140万家中小企业。在危机期间，文化和创意产业表现出极大的韧性——它们实际上在继续增长——同时刺激了其他产业的创意和创新溢出。欧洲各地约有850万人受雇于创意产业——如果我们考虑到他们对旅游业和信息技术等其他部门的影响，还会有更多的人就业。”

更具体地看，2014年意大利文化创意产业创造了786亿欧元的附加值，带动了其他经济领域的增长，从而产生了全国15.6%的增加值，相当于2,270亿欧元，其中包括直接由文化(如旅游业)推动的国民经济收入。

根据意大利商会联合会和Symbola的报告（2015年）的最新数据，2012年至2014年，尽管发生了全球经济危机，但投资于创意的公司的营业额增长了3.2%；投资于创意的公司的出口增长了4.3%。此外，文化生产体系中的443,208家企业占国内企业的7.3%，达到意大利生产总值的5.4%，相当于786亿欧元。如果我们把在文化领域活跃的公共机构和非营利性组织包括在内，则有84个，相当于国民经济的5.8%。

必须特别注意文化经济所产生的倍增效应及其对就业的积极影响：事实上，文化和创意产业以及历史、艺术和建筑遗产、表演艺术和视觉艺术等产业实际上雇用了140万人，这意味着整个意大利就业人口的5.9%——超过150万人，如果把公共部门和非营利性部门也算进去的话，达到了整个就业率的6.3%。

2.文化创意产业是地方发展的驱动因素：与地域和社会资本的关系

上一章所提到的创意经济从经济角度的意义反映了必要的国家和国际政策，这些政策将加强文化、地域和社会机构组织各领域之间的密切联系，使文化和创意产业在各地域的经济中发挥作用，并使其成为地方经济发展模式的核心，即使在贫困地区也是如此。

正如欧洲创意产业峰会（2015年）所强调的那样，“创意经济还与国家内的大城市和/或主导区域相联系，甚至集中在那些创意产业繁荣的城市，这些城市可能是一个被贫困和社会剥夺所包围的小飞地。今天，创意经济往往集中在世界大城市，这些城市已经是金融资本、投资和权力的中心，或者具有社会和文化融合的重大历史遗产。更重要的是，由于全球企业层面的融合和收购，向心力得到了加强。这方面的标志是电视、媒体、电影和出版业。此外，更分散的组织形式也是该产业的特点，它们的主要增值活动往往位于和/或控制在全球北部。因此，许多形式的创意经济投资和增长都可能扩大国家之间以及国家内部的贫富差距。[……]然而，发展创意经济可以成为任何纠正不平等努力的一个组成部分，前提是这一进程还会带来更广泛的结构变化，以确保创意工人本身与其他工人相比不

会处于不利地位”。

为解决这些问题，欧盟已采取了多项措施，并为文化创意产业的发展和毛细网络的创建划拨资金，以支持贫困地区的经济。具有代表性的是2014-2020年期间的结构性基金，旨在加强创意产业、多学科环境和其他产业之间的联系。欧洲的资助计划旨在应对这些挑战，例如“创意欧洲”计划的启动，还有其他欧盟资助项目，比如通过教育和培训支持技能发展的ERASMUS PLUS计划；促进中小企业创业、获得融资和进入市场的COSME方案；旨在促进文化和文化遗产领域的研究和创新的HORIZON 2020规划。

在国家层面，为加强创意和文化产业，必须鼓励发展地域网络，并制定政策，支持地方经济和私营部门之间的关系，以及公共和私营部门之间的关系。在对创意经济的所有评估中，发展中国家实际上似乎缺乏关键的制度和/或监管条件。

发展这种网络和关系意味着要清楚地了解一个国家的创意和文化产业的发展与所谓的“地域资本”之间的密切联系；此外，“地域资本”的概念与“社会资本”的概念有关。

众所周知，这两个术语都有几种定义；这些术语指的是确保地方潜在发展的具有经济、文化、社会和环境性质的地域资产体系。后者要想取得成功，就必须利用这一系列复杂的因素。这意味着必须指导国家政策，注意每个地域的特殊性，提高体制质量。它还意味着调查与特定背景下的注册资本的深层关系（Brasili，2014）。

社会资本的另一个概念与地域资本以及地方发展的概念密切相关。自20世纪80年代以来，社会资本的概念在社会学、经济学和政治学中得到了广泛的应用；如今，社会资本的定义众多，无法确定一个普遍接受的概念（Abbafati，Spandonaro，2011）。在这种背景下，为了实现这项工作的目标，可以将其定义为一种基于某种关系和/或社会规范存在的有利可图的资源，即作为一种集体的、不可分割的资源和公众产品（Cartocci），2007）。总之，社会资本水平决定了社会凝聚力的程度，与制度的横向联系和关系性质。因此，它指的是建立和决定公民社会的质量及其成员之间联系的价值体系的自发共享，这直接反映在制度和伦理组织的质量上（Abbafati和Spandonaro，2011）。因此，为了发展与某一地区商品相关的创意经济，必须刺激和加强社会和体制行动者之间的价值和关系网络，

促进支持地方发展的政策，并在新范式的基础上考虑到地域资本的重要性，重点增加位于一定地域内的人类集体的社会资本。在例如意大利这样没有强有力的战略和独特政策的国家，这一点尤其明显：事实上，文化和创意产业政策主要是由各区域制定的。这导致所指出的方法和做法缺乏可持续性和一致性。

3.文献综述

本文从前几章所指出的问题入手，简要介绍了欧洲和世界范围内有关创意文化产业的最新国际文献。

一些值得关注的著作有：John Hartley、Wen Wen、Henry Siling Li的《创意经济与文化对创意产业的挑战、变革和未来》(2014)；John Hartley、Jason Potts、Stuart Cunningham、Terry Flew、 Michael Keane和John Banks的《创意产业的关键概念》(2013)；Rosamund Davies和Gauti Sigthorsson的《创意产业简介：从理论到实践》(2013)；Terry Flew的《创意产业：文化与政策》（2011）；David Hesmondhalgh的《文化产业》(2012)；Luciana Lazzeretti的《欧洲创意产业与创新：概念、衡量标准与比较案例研究》(2014)；Chris Mathieu的《创意产业的职业生涯》（2015）；Bonita Kolb的《创意和文化产业的创业》（2015）；Fiorenza Belussi和Silvia Sedita的《文化产业的情境创意管理》（2015）；Terry Flew的《创意产业与城市发展：21世纪的创意城市》（2014）；Chris Gibson的《周边创意：重新定义创意产业》（2014）；Mark Banks, Rosalind Gill和Stephanie Taylor的《文化工作理论化：文化创意产业的劳动、连续性与变迁》（2013）。

最后，我们想提一下三个著作：Philip Long和Nigel D. Morpeth编辑的《旅游业和创意产业：理论、政策和实践》，Milan Todorovic和Ali Bakir的《创新产业的再思考策略：创新与互动》，以及Bonita M. Kolb的《创意文化产业营销策略》。

在本文中，我们想重点介绍几本这样被认为是具有创新性的观点的书。 关于“创意经济”的一般概念，最近一本值得关注的著作是Hartley、Wen和Siling Li出版的《创意经济与文化对创意产业的挑战、变革和未来》（2014）。

第一本书研究了“创意产业”的概念，将创意创新的概念扩展为一种全球现

象。创意经济与文化追求的是概念性、历史性、实践性、批判性和教育性的问题及其影响。它着眼于理念上的挑战，变化的力量和动力，以及全球范围内创造性工作的未来前景。作者把重点放在所谓的“三大”上，即：创意产业不局限于受过训练的艺术家或企业精英；它们包括(或可能包括)每个人；它们不局限于经济的一个产业；它们表现(或可能表现)所有事物；它们不是发达国家或富裕国家的特征；它们无处不在(或可能无处不在)。

作者对人口、技术、文化等关键概念进行了深入的分析，引用了其中最重要的几个概念。

关于“人口”的概念，他们指出，“当前创意产业概念中缺失的最重要因素是每个人——普通民众，自数字技术、社交网络和用户创造内容出现以来，我们可以看到(而不仅仅是声称)普通民众正在从事大规模创造性生产力，我们称之为微生产力，这是经济发展的主要推动力”。

关于“技术”的概念，他们确实强调，创造力不在于个人，而在于系统：“[…]文化和经济也是一个系统，尽管比迄今为止的任何技术都要复杂和繁多(系统体系)。由于其规模和多样性，‘自然’文化系统是很难被研究的。另一方面，技术系统是人类联系的一种经验形式，可以加以研究(Arthur，2009)。在此，我们认为有两个元素更为重要。其中一个非常古老：城市。另一个非常新：互联网。我们看到城市技术和数字技术，它们的生产力和创造新思想的能力，以及将这些新思想传播给所有人的能力，都可以作为人类文化中这些品质的代表。因此，我们认为，创意产业的主导概念没有充分地将‘创意生产’与‘数字网络’或我们所说的‘城市符号’融合在一起”。

关于“文化”的概念，作者指出，根据他们的观点，“文化”的概念“在大多数公众对创意产业的思考中是被误解和限制的。[…]我们把文化看作是人类的发明，它的功能是产生群体或种群，这些群体能够在个体无法生存的地方生存[…]

我们认为，约束这些群体的是知识；文化的‘输出’不是遗产、习俗、艺术，甚至是手工艺品（商品和服务），而是创新：文化是在不确定性条件下产生‘新事物’的机制[…]。因此，对我们来说，文化是面向未来的。它是经济的推动力，而不是障碍。它需要重新定义，并融入经济思想和政策；同样，那些致力于文化

和艺术的人，按照目前的结构，也需要了解它在经济演变中的作用”。

在我们看来，特别有趣的是，作者注意到，在思考创意经济与人类发展的关系时，需要将学科和方法结合起来。这种反思的根源在于“地球”的概念：“[…]我们认为，在对创意产业和创造力的描述中，无论是在文化层面还是经济层面，我们都忽略了比俗话说的‘房间里的大象’更大的东西：地球。直到十九世纪中叶，‘我们’(一般人类)才知道地球的范围及其构成，它的陆地和海洋位于哪里，它的地质、生物和资源由什么组成，以及它的系统是如何相互作用的。[…]。人文学科(文化)和社会学科(经济)是全球化进程最慢的学科之一，这两门学科保留了地域、宗派或国家的观点，而不是寻求将其研究对象理解为一种地球现象的方法。如果地质学家、海洋学家、环境学家、气象学家甚至矿工将自己限制在世界的这个或那个角落，而不去了解它是如何和在哪里与其他人联系的，那将是很奇怪的。但是，对意义创造的研究和对财富生产的研究(即文化研究和经济学；这本书将被视为一体化的研究)都仍然是非常狭隘的。在目前的情况下，地球文化系统或创意经济的概念几乎是不可想象的，除非是来自其他学科的有远见的人，如Jared Diamond(地理学)或E.O. Wilson(生物学)。[…]在这本书中，与之相反，我们将文化视为一个‘符号域’(Lotman，1990)，这是一个动态的差异系统，其地域特性(身份和表达、价值、手工艺品、行动)只能通过产生这些差异的系统的动态和相互作用来解释”。

另一个值得注意的著作是Chris Gibson的《周边创意：重新定义创意产业》（2014）。这本书致力于进一步探索大城市以外的在那些物理上和/或隐喻上偏远的地方的创意产业。该书通过对明信片设计、古典音乐、景观艺术、纹身、土著嘻哈、岩石雕塑等几个实例的分析，探索并重新界定创意作为经济和文化现象的概念。值得注意的是，作者认为，创造力与特定的“地理环境”有关，这在郊区、农村和偏远地区很明显。这本书的另一个有价值的方面在于它是基于一个多学科的方法；事实上，它将传播学专家家、社会学家、文化研究专家的观点与地理学家和历史学家的观点结合在一起，旨在探索大城市以外不同地方的创造力，例如在人口或生产、社会边缘化的小地方。

作者指出，“研究以前被忽视的城市中的新产业需要经济地理学家探索市场逻辑是如何影响经济活动的地理分布的，这些逻辑既类似于传统制造业，又不同

于传统制造业。一方面，音乐、电影和时尚等新兴产业垂直分散，依赖于密集的企业间交易。创意产业公司之间的规模、结构和相互依赖的关系鼓励了特定地区的空间集聚，通常是在大城市[…]其他学者(包括Allen Scott本人最近撰写的关于英格兰湖区的文章)也在探索文化和创意产业是如何从小的、郊区、农村和偏远地区发展起来的，并与一系列社会问题息息相关。在农村和偏远地区、社会经济弱势地区和郊区探索创意产业，意味着研究人员不能认为环境是理所当然的，而不像在城市中，城市化是必然的”。

我们想重点关注的最后一本著作是Barrowcluiigh和Kozul Wright的《创意产业和发展中国家：评论、选择和经济增长》。

该书可以被看作是一本有意思的著作，因为它侧重于发展中国家实现更好和更大的经济增长的战略。这本书分为三个部分，分析了融入全球经济的创意产业对人类发展的潜在影响。

在我们看来，特别有趣的是该书的第二部分，因为它介绍了对理论的准确分析，说明了几个案例研究——从发达国家的实例研究开始——以及从创造力出发，对发展中国家可能有用的政策分析。