1. Transferability and comparability of information about the cultural industries. Is it a necessary, but impossible, dream? Andy C Pratt (a.c.pratt@lse.ac.uk) Geography and Environment, LSE

2. Introduction Issues raised in the paper –Are we ready for international comparisons? –What can be transferred, and how? –What relation do either have to policy? –At what scale should these questions be addressed?

3. Contexts Big changes Growth and expansion of the ‘tradable cultural industries’ in the last 50 years Increased knowledge, scope and differentiation of culture Increased time for, capacity to, and consumption of, culture Shift, expansion and inhabitation of local cultural circuits to regional, national and international Modes and means of governance of culture, and the cultural industries in particular, are problematised

4. Progress thus far ‘Mapping exercises’ –National, and latterly, regional scales –The drive for comparability at inter-regional scale –Narrow set of indicators Based on employment and output –UK lead role/ exemplar Robust measures Trust Exploration of definitions and fit with current data sources

5. Comparability Is the UK unique? –New Zealand, Canada, and Australia had done it before (at national level) –They have invested more in data infrastructure –Canada had pioneered production chain arguments –Australia ‘time use’ studies Prior examples more orientated to culture and art –Finland, Ireland, France, etc. More recent examples, following the UK –South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, plus others…under the BC initiatives The USA –Focus on the ‘copyright industries’

6. Transferability issues Are any of these comparable? –No, why not? The transferability issue What can be transferred? –A concept? Production chain Data framework –Implementation Data availability Policy ‘need’ and ‘fit’ Political will

7. Key concepts and methods Classification and standardisation –Debates about Occupational v Industrial classifications –Also, Industrial versus Product classifications Capturing the concept/ the ‘thing’ ‘front line workers’ or the ‘industry’/’process’ Classifications (of non-manufacturing) were not meant to capture the process : methods to correct this –Multiplier effects, Input-Output analysis and Satellite accounts –Product classification (but still based on SIC)

8. An example, and some problems UK and Japan –National industrial classifications Small differences in interpretation, unique additions, non- transferable Culture/cultural industries is/are understood differently Classifications change through time –International classification Problems with ‘concordances’ –Data availability Not all data is on-line (especially historical) –Very difficult to collect and analyse Mainly employment data, not turnover –Reliability is OK But with many other countries it is not

9. International standards? What about UNESCO, or, the EU? –Power to set ‘rules’ UNESCO framework is OK as an aspiration EU is getting there –In practice: ‘too many empty cells’ –Resources So, what to do? –Necessity of primary data collection –Importance of qualitative analysis of process –Significance of the institutional /organisational context of different industries –Cross-national studies

10. Governance-information relations Policy context –Information is collected for a purpose related to a general policy/governance environment –The local ‘needs’ are different –Hence, data needs and insights are different for: mixed economy policies Free market policies Guided economy policies –Strict comparison is difficult as the cultural industries are positioned differently in particular nations and regions

11. What next? Trans-local analysis –Capture the flows between places and people –International production chains –Local embedding of cultural industries In practices, history and governance –More complex information requirements on flows and fixity Where is the value added (cultural and economic)? Where is value accumulated? Dynamism of flows of products, people and knowledge –Focus as much on trans-national actors as nation states Data very difficult to obtain

12. Conclusion Progress has been made –But, it is only the start –Measures need comparison –Are we comparing like with like? does the concept of the cultural industries travel? If so, does it change in transit? –Information is interwoven with governance UK model is attractive to those nations seeking a ‘mixed economy’ governance of culture Other models of governance need different information –A SIC based Product Classification system is flawed, but the only likely norm We need to allow for the divergence of culture Processes of cultural re-/production Nature of relationships with wider economy & society, other places

13. UK- Japan data summary GB 1991-6: –All employment +3.2% –Cultural industries +14.3% –CI share of all employment grew +10.7% (from 5.8% to 6.4%) Japan 1990-5: –All employment +3.6% –Cultural industries +5.3% –CI chare of all employment grew +1.6% (from 9.5% to 9.6%)

14. Metropolitan changes London+ SE 1991-6: –All employment +5.2% –Cultural industries +20.1% –CI share of all employment grew +14.2% (from 6.9% to 7.8%) Tokyo 1990-5: –All employment +0.7% –Cultural industries +3.6% –CI chare of all employment grew +2.8% (from 15.4% to 15.9%)