Creative Industries vs Creative Economy: Why Precision Matters?

The first thing in my Political Economy of CCIs is an instrumental concept case of Creative Industries, Creative Economy and Cultural Economics.

Why? Let's rely on the big ones: 

In Julio Cortázar's "Rayuela," readers can navigate the novel in multiple sequences - the linear path or the "hopscotch" order. Each route reveals different layers of meaning, much like how we view creative work through different lenses. The Creative Industries lens focuses on specific sectors where creativity drives commercial value - publishing houses that would print Cortázar's work, the design studios that craft his book covers, and the theatres that might adapt his stories. It's about tangible outputs and measurable economic activity.

But the Creative Economy? That's more like Fernando Pessoa's approach to navigation - precise, systematic, yet understanding the vast ocean of possibilities. It encompasses how Cortázar's creativity ripples through society: inspiring new forms of storytelling, influencing educational methods, or sparking innovations in digital narratives.

Here's the crucial point for policymakers: While these concepts are interrelated, policy needs Pessoa's navigational precision, not Cortázar's playful ambiguity.

We can't afford to be abstract when designing support schemes or measuring impact. A fund for Creative Industries needs clear sector definitions and measurable outcomes. Creative Economy initiatives require broader metrics that capture spillover effects and cross-sector innovation.

The magic of creativity might be infinite, but effective policy needs finite, actionable targets. Let's embrace both perspectives while keeping our policy compasses precisely calibrated. How can we do this? I will touch on some potential hints in the following posts (don't stop following; I appear only seasonally 🙃).