Project Wealth: Culture and Creativity as drivers for Local Sustainable Economic Development

Promoting Local Sustainable Economic DevelopmentCROSS-BORDER COOPERATION

IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Culture and Creativity as drivers for Local Sustainable Economic

Development

Pierluigi Montalbano, Francesco Palumbo, Pietro Antonio Valentino

Please cite this paper as:

Montalbano P., Palumbo F., Valentino P.A. (2014), “Culture and Creativity as drivers

for Local Sustainable Economic Development”, Project Wealth Local Sustainable

Economic Development Research Group Working Papers

Project Wealth Local Sustainable Economic Development Research Group Working Papers

Culture and Creativity

Research Paper

1 | Culture and Creativity as drivers for Local Sustainable Economic Development

Promoting Local Sustainable Economic Development

Culture and Creativity as drivers for Local Sustainable Economic

Development

Pierluigi Montalbano, Francesco PalumboPietro Antonio Valentino

Project Wealth Local Sustainable Economic Development

Research Group Working Papers

This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union under the ENPI CBC Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Project Wealth and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union or of the Programme’s management structures.

Copy-editing: Thom RofeEnglish - Arabic Translation: Nabil ArmalyGraphic Design: Ayelet Tikotzky



Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Cultural heritage and creativity as drivers for LSED: the conceptual framework 4

1.1. Intangible assets as drivers of growth in the economic theory . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2. Culture vs. creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3. A naive model of cultural based LSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Creative Apulia: Facts, figures and preliminary outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1. Facts & Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2. Preliminary outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3 | Culture and Creativity as drivers for Local Sustainable Economic Development 2 | Culture and Creativity as drivers for Local Sustainable Economic Development


Culture and Creativity as Drivers for Local Sustainable Economic Development1

Pierluigi Montalbano, Francesco Palumbo, Pietro Antonio Valentino2

Abstract

This paper addresses the timely issue of culture and creativity as key drivers for Local

Sustainable Economic Development (LSED). The added value of the paper is twofold:

firstly, it presents the conceptual framework and the key determinants for the start-up

of a cultural-based LSED; secondly, it introduces the new Creative Apulia strategy

presenting the overall strategy, the main initiatives and some preliminary results. A

preliminary set of policy recommendations are depicted in the conclusions.

Keywords: culture, creativity, local development

ملخص

تتطرق هذه الورقة إىل املسألة اململحة املتعلقة بالثقافة واإلبداع بصفتهام محفزين أساسيني للتطوير االقتصادي املحيل املستدام- ت.أ.م.م )Local Sustainable Economic Development- LSED(. القيمة املضافة التي تعرضها هذه الورقة هي قيمة مضاعفة: أوال، إنها تعرض اإلطار املفاهيمي واملحددات األساسية لنشوء ت.أ.م.م يعتمد عىل الثقافة؛ ثانيا، هي تعرض اسرتاتيجية أبويال اإلبداعية الجديدة، حيث تعرض االسرتاتيجية اإلجاملية، املبادرات األساسية وبعض النتائج األولية. فصل االستنتاجات يشمل مجموعة أولية من التوصيات املتعلقة بالسياسات املطلوبة يف هذا السياق.

كلامت أساسية: ثقافة، إبداع، تطوير محيل

תקצירהמוסף בר-קיימא. ערכו מקומי כלכלי לפיתוח מפתח כמנועי וביצירתיות בתרבות עוסק זה מאמר

כפול: ראשית, הוא מציג את המסגרת המושגית ואת הגורמים המכריעים המרכזיים הנחוצים להשקתו

של החדשה האסטרטגיה את מציג הוא שנית, תרבותית. מעוגן בר-קיימא מקומי כלכלי פיתוח של

Creative Apulia; המאמר מתאר את האסטרטגיה הכללית, את יוזמותיה העיקריות וכמה מהתוצאות לקידום מדיניות המלצות של ראשונית סדרה גם כולל בעקבותיה. הסיכום שהתפתחו הראשוניות

פיתוח כלכלי מקומי מעוגן יצירתיות ותרבות.

מילות מפתח: תרבות, יצירתיות, פיתוח מקומי

1 Some parts of this working paper were presented in Project Wealth Local Sustainable Economic Development Research Group (WealthR). The group is coordinated by Dr. Itzhak (Kiki) Aharonovich , Mandel Center for Leadership in the Negev, and Asaf Raz, Shatil.

2 Sapienza University of Rome and Apulia Region (Italy). Corresponding author: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



1. Cultural heritage and creativity as drivers for LSED: the conceptual framework

1.1. Intangible assets as drivers of growth in the economic theory

Notwithstanding the role of knowledge as a key driver for economic growth has been

emphasized by the economic theory since the seminal work of Arrow (1962)1 it is

only in the last decades that the economic literature increasingly highlights the role

of intangible factors as key drivers of growth and development (Barro, et al, 1995).

Similarly, it is only since the seminal work of Krugman (1991), that the spatial analysis

of geography has been placed at the heart of the analysis of modern endogenous

economic growth.

The novelty of the current endogenous approach to economic growth lies in its focus on

endogenous resources (not only physical capital but also intangible assets) as well as

on endogenous process (Cozzi 1998; Scandizzo, 1997). More specifically, endogenous

growth fosters additional externalities linked to the intangible assets (such as learning,

networking, personal and social capabilities, etc.) that impact positively the productivity

of factors. Since the accumulation process of culture (in all its meanings: objectified,

institutionalized and embodied, Thorsby 1999) has the peculiar characteristics to

depend from consumption, cultural production actually becomes a key self-sustaining

process of consumption/accumulation of human capital that, among other things,

fosters Local Sustainable Economic Development (LSED).

Moreover, from the 1990s, following on the New Labour government’s Creative Industries

Mapping Documents in Britain, a third wave of literature on local development2 put

the notion of creativity (something at the crossover between human capital, physical

capital and innovation) at the center of the debate. It has been seen as the occasion to

revamping the notion of the economics of territories and promotes new development

strategies able to overcome the crisis of the mercantilist approach (Valentino, 2013).

Information societies, knowledge economies, smart cities have become then the key

factors for a breakthrough of the spatial organization of towns, social relations and

even political participation (Castells, 1996).

1 He actually extended the notion of marshallian externalities (Marshall, 1920).2 Initially essentially policy papers but nowadays this notion is keeping ground also from an academic point of view.



1.2. Culture vs. creativity

Culture and creativity are not synonymous. While culture is generally understood as

the set of knowledge, customs and levels of artistic and scientific development that

defines an era or social group (EECS 102/2004)3, the term creativity is specifically

interpreted as the capacity to think in an innovative way, or to produce new ideas that

bring together existing elements in a new way (be they processes, objects, knowledge,

etc.). This, in turn, should not be confused with the term innovation which refers more

generally to processes and products developed from knowledge, techniques and

tools. This is a crucial distinction because, first, it isolates separate concepts that are

often blurred in current language; second, it highlights in the right manner the deep

interconnections between cultures, creativity and innovation (see also the Council

conclusions on the contribution of culture to local and regional development of 29 April

2010): innovation serves to put into practice the ideas of creative people, and culture

constitutes the fertile ground in which creativity is cultivated. This paves the way for a

spatial analysis of creativity, based on the culture of the regions and the role of applied

scientific research (R&D), which provides technical back-up to creative abilities. Third,

the lack of a clear distinction makes it difficult to pinpoint a single analysis approach: at

one extreme there are those who would limit creativity to cultural activities alone; at the

other extreme are those who think that all industries are intrinsically creative4. Thus,

the process of identifying the so-called creative sectors risks being somewhat arbitrary,

and this could have a knock-on effect on the effectiveness of the creative strategies

and economic policies. As a matter of fact, while the European Commission (cf. the

Green Paper of 27 April 2010) stresses culture’s role as an input into the creative

industries5, UNCTAD highlights the role that creativity also plays beyond the cultural

sphere (i.e. in industries considered creative in the narrow sense, such as fashion

and software)6. Thus, the Commission’s definition encompasses within the cultural

and creative sector all cultural sectors, both non-industrial (the visual arts, the art

market, the performing arts and cultural heritage) and industrial (the so-called cultural

industries: film and video, videogames, radio and television, music, publishing, etc.),

as well as creative sectors in a narrow sense (design, architecture, advertising) that

do not produce culture but use it as an input. UNCTAD, however, groups all activities

that produce creative content under the label of creative industries, thus viewing the

cultural industries as a subset of the creative industries, which specifically comprise:

3 Cf. EESC opinion on Europe’s Creative Industries (OJ C 108, 30.4.2004).

4 This is clearly reflected in a conception of industry based on Schumpter’s idea of creative destruction.5 See also the studies drawn up by KEA European Affairs (http://www.keanet.eu/) in 2006 (The Economy of

Culture in Europe) and 2009 (The Impact of Culture on Creativity).6 Creative Economy Report (UNCTAD, 2008).



cultural heritage (traditional cultural expressions and cultural sites); arts (visual arts

and the performing arts); media (publishing and audiovisuals); and functional creations

(design, new media, creative services)7. See table 1 for glancing at the heterogeneity

of industries classification according to different approaches.

As emphasized by the EECS’ Opinion 503/2010 there is indeed no single, agreed

definition of “cultural and creative industry”, although this is a key requirement for:

i. fostering recognition of its specific features, first of all its degree of publicness

and all the strategic implications ;

ii. analyzing their impact on long-term growth, international competitiveness,

regional development and territorial cohesion;

iii. Encouraging the adoption of sectoral policies, i.e, taking into account the

cultural specificities of the sector.

A prudent behavior linked to the lack of a specific definition of creative industries is

to proximate it to cultural industry, which is undeniably characterized by a stronger

background as a potential resource for development (e.g., there is even a branch of

economics called cultural economics). It stands to reason that using such prudent

behavior we adhere to the “conservative wing” of the literature and so we are

presenting “prudent estimates” of the phenomena under analysis since, on the basis of

other interpretations, creative industries can be seen as a bigger cluster than cultural

industries.

7 Idem



Table 1 - Classification systems for the creative industries derived from different models

UK DCMS model Symbolic texts model

Concentric circles model

WIPO copyright model

Advertising

Architecture

Art and antiques

market

Crafts

Design

Fashion

Film and video

Music

Performing arts

Publishing

Software

Television and

radio

Video and

computer games

Core cultural

industries

Core creative arts Core copyright

industries

Advertising

Film

Internet

Music

Publishing

Television and radio

Video and computer

games

Literature

Music

Performing arts

Visual arts

Advertising

Collecting societies

Film and video

Music

Performing arts

Publishing

Software


Visual and graphic art

Other core cultural

industries

Film

Museums and

libraries

Peripheral cultural

industries

Wider cultural

industries

Creative arts Heritage services

Publishing

Sound recording


Video and computer

games

Borderline cultural

industries

Interdependent

copyright industries

Consumer

electronics

Fashion

Software

Sport

Blank recording material

Consumer electronics

Musical instruments

Paper

Photocopiers,

photographic equipment

Related industries

Advertising

Architecture

Design

FashionPartial copyright

industries

Architecture

Clothing, footwear

Design

Fashion

Household goods

Toys

Source: UNCTAD, creativity report, 2008



1.3. A naive model of cultural based LSED

The simplest theoretical model of culture and development can be simplified as follows:

1) cultural resources attract visitors (i.e., external demand);

2) visitors generate an expenditure;

3) this expenditure is transformed into revenue and capital for local development;

5) this additional revenue is partly transformed into income and new demand

for the local production sectors (multiplying effect) and, partly, in new imports

and so on.

This naive model can be considered as a typical “export-led model” since it needs

the production and sale of services destined not only to internal demand but also to

the demand located outside the area (external or “foreign” demand)8. It is thanks to

technological innovation and creativity, which can multiply the technical “reproducibility”

of cultural services, that it is actually possible to sell outside an increasing amount of

services associated to the same resources, fostering a sustainable long-term process

of growth. The net impact on the local economy is then associated with the net value of

exportable services, that is, the difference between the value of services sold externally

and the costs of goods and services the area has to import in order to produce them.

From this very simple model it is easy to derive two basic policy recommendations:

i) the mere possession of cultural resources is not in itself enough to start a process

of cultural based economic growth; ii) creativity, innovation and technology are key to

promote long-term growth. This for a number or reasons:

a) Cultural based LSED does not produce any relevant effect if an area is poor

in terms of services. LSED requires, therefore, a cultural and creative industry

(i.e., a cultural and creativity production chain) that develops new services

(economic valorization, promotion, information, even in connected sectors

such as that of the entertainment industry) able to satisfy the needs of the

external demand;

b) The cultural based LSED rate of growth (as the economic growth in general,

see Solow, 1956) depends crucially on innovation (mainly technological

innovation) and creativity. Evidently, if the service provided by the Public

Administration or by the companies taking part in the cultural chain is

8 External or “foreign” demand consists mainly of non-resident individuals (tourists and travelers) who use the culturalservices as “services to the person. We are here implicitly assuming a static local economy with no extra saving. In anycase, in a dynamic model the increase of internal demand is constrained by income growth.



inefficient, costs will increase and the quality will decrease and/or the prices

of the products created by the process of enhancement of the cultural

resources will rise. An even more limiting factor could be represented by the

lack of the necessary human capital/skills that play a strategic role in the

cultural sector. For this reason, a qualified training process is key to enhance

the competitiveness of cultural industry.

c) The cultural based LSED requires a “critical mass” of demand, large enough

to ensure the achievement of the total sales necessary to cover the start-

up production. The “critical mass” of demand is easier to achieve when

the cultural resources are located in an urban area or in one adjacent to a

metropolitan area. In the rural areas, referring to a system of small towns

could replace the “city effect” on the demand side and make it possible to

reach scale economies for some of the activities included in the process of the

cultural resources’ enhancement resources. The transformation of a number

of small towns into a system that really performs the role of ‘widespread

city’ is possible by planning top down the territorial development and making

reference to territorial areas that cross over the administrative borders and

bottom up through the integration of the services and tools proper to territory

management.

d) The cultural based LSED should be driven by specialization and comparative

advantages (Montalbano and Triulzi, 2012). As recognized by the EU 2020

strategy, the cultural and creative industries can play a central role for

growth, competitiveness and the future of the EU citizens (EECS’ Opinion

503/2010). This for a number of reasons: First, by their very nature, they

create innovation and jobs, act as an interface between various branches

of industry and are factors for local development and drivers of industrial

change. Second, they are generators of “intangible comparative advantages”

that cannot be reproduced elsewhere. Actually, even if local cultural heritage

can be considered as distinctive, and, therefore, potentially capable of

generating a differentiated income, this does not mean it is protected from

competing phenomena. The overall economic impact of cultural industry is

justified by the actual level of interdependence of the area under analysis

and, therefore, by the total amount of its imports. The higher the level of

dependence of the area from outside, (in terms of supply of both the inputs

requested from the enhancement process and from the other goods and

services directly consumed by the users) the lower will be the multiplier of

internal income. Please recall this is by any means a quest for protectionism

because openness remains key for the attractiveness of external demand

which is the starting point of the entire growth process.



All that considered, an additional set of policy recommendations can be also driven:

during the startup phase, it is necessary to start up activities which use a greater

amount of local input (goods, services and human capital) and, to an increasing extent,

replace the imported products consumed by the final user (i.e., the visitors in our case)

with the local ones: the imported industrial products with the typical agricultural and

artisan products and so on. Once the area is capable of attracting a certain level of

demand (critical mass), the users of cultural resources can start a system of revenue,

at the local level, that can be summarized as follows:

a) the expenditure allocated to the purchase of locally produced goods and

services is transformed partly into revenue (wages, profits and unearned

income), with respect to individuals who partake in the production process;

partly in an additional demand for other production sectors located in the

same area, and, partly, in additional imports;

b) The demand, deriving from the additional revenue and from the new local

production is, in turn, partly transformed into income and new demand for the

local production sectors (multiplying effect) and, partly, in new imports and so

on, up to the point where the initial impetus is exhausted.

In conclusion, the development model based on the enhancement of cultural resources

must be sustained both by internal and external demand and this, in turn, crucially

depends on the availability of new services fostered by innovation and creativity. Local

demand plays a strategic role in the determination of the critical mass necessary for

the startup of the entire process, but the external demand (e.g., tourism) represents the

real “engine” for development. Such an income system can be graphically represented

in Fig. 1.

As a result, while the economic impact associated with tourism (the segment of

external demand with the greatest expenditure capacity) is commonly considered the

most significant one, it is the entire cultural chain who contributes to the growth of

income levels and to that of local employment. In other words, we need to create and

develop an integrated economic area which, however, must not be merely destined

to the creation of cultural products. We need to sustain an industry that embraces

all the sectors and that is capable of starting up the entire production machine and

the resources available in the area. This can be achieved by using, especially for

the development of new initiatives, all the “capital resources” locally available. In

this context also infrastructural resources will possibly be used in a new way, and

the real estate properties of the area will find new enhancement opportunities. Apart

from our naive model, it is worth stressing the irreplaceable role of cultural industry in



promoting “local identity”, in supporting pluralism and cultural diversity, in contributing

to a better quality of life, to tolerance and to countering behavior contrary to human

dignity, to integration and to visitor capacity and, generally speaking, to individual and

collective capabilities and all the multidimensional facets that collectively constitute the

sustainable livelihoods of local communities (Sen, 1988).

Figure 1 –The local development model founded on the cultural resources enhancement

External Demand

INTEGRATED ENHANCEMENT PROCESS

Cultural and Environmental

Internal Demand

Tourism demand

Virtual demand (ICT applications)

Imports for the enhancement process

Local demand

local production:cultural and

evirnmental services

IMPORTS

DEMAND SUPPLY

local production:toursm services

local production:input for tourism and cultural/evirnmental

services

2. Creative Apulia: Facts, figures and preliminary outcomes

Consistently with the creative Europe framework, as synthesized in the Green Paper

and pilot actions, since 2005 Apulia regional policy has been clearly focused on the

creation of a “regional space of creativity”. It means: first, the implementation of a

network of physical spaces of creativity; second, the development of creative SMEs;

third, the support of creative value chains, such as live entertainment, audiovisual and

visual arts, also for tourism aims; fourth, the promotion of agglomeration economies

and regional clusters for creativity.



2.1. Facts & Figures

Consistently with the above LSED conceptual framework, we can look at the various

empirical initiatives of the overall Apulia strategy as key determinants of the Apulian

cultural based model for LSED.

Box 1- Facts and figures: In the period 2007-2013, € 90 mln of public investments;

168 cities involved; 18 ECS created (covering almost the entire Apulian territory);

421 start-up enterprises; 159 old buildings revamped (to be used as “new public

spaces” for the young); 12 theatres re-opened and 185 operators involved.

First, the enhancement of new cultural services. Thanks to the financial support of

structural funds and the partnership with local communities, Apulia region has recently

launched the “Environmental and Cultural Systems” (ECS). ESC promote the adoption

of new integrated cultural services with the aim to enhance attractiveness, cultural

demand and tourism; drive innovations and investments in new technologies (e.g.,

Fab Lab for digital fabrication); support creative entrepreneurship. Furthermore, a new

generation of services - at the cross over of culture and creativity - has been also

launched. They are aimed specifically at transforming cultural heritage in a network

of physical spaces of creativity (e.g., “Urban Laboratories”; “Inhabited Theatres”; “Intramoenia Extra Art” and “Contemporary Circuit”, i.e. forms of cooperation between

local communities and private operators in planning contemporary visual arts exhibitions

throughout the regional territory). Last but not least, co-financing of the most innovative

start-up has been provided (e.g., Active principles initiative).

Second, the attraction of a critical mass of external demand. A significant component

of the overall strategy has been devoted to the financial and technical support of a

number of local cultural activities and initiatives (e.g., Puglia Events, a single gateway

to all the cultural and touristic events hosted by Apulia Region; the BIFEST9- Bari

International Film & TV Festival, etc.).

Box 2 - BIFEST. Some figures: The 2011 edition actually doubled the funding of €

1,3 mln generating an overall income of € 2,6 mln.

Third, the exploitation of the local comparative advantage by investing in the entire

value chains of live entertainment, cinema, audio-visuals and visual arts, trough the

activities of tailored made project and agencies, namely Puglia Sounds and Apulia Film Commission (AFC). Puglia Sounds is a project of the Teatro Pubblico Pugliese

9 See the study “IL BIF&ST‐Bari International Film&Tv Festival‐2011” Agenzia Regionale per la Tecnologia e l’Innovazione.



(TPP), the Apulia regional Agency for theatre, music and dance, aimed specifically at

supporting the local musical value chain and promote it overseas.

Box 3 - Puglia Sounds. Some figures: 500 events; 47 summer festivals; 70

concerts; 600.000 spectators; 53 recording productions; 11 countries.

Box 4 -MEDIMEX. Some figures: In the last edition more than 10,000 visitors and

an overall economic impact of € 2,6 mln, without considering the long-term impacts.

Puglia Sounds promotes also the MEDIMEX10 (Mediterranean Music Expo), the only

Italian international music fair with showcases and concerts, meetings, innovation and

technology.

AFC11 is a regional foundation aimed at supporting the audiovisual production in

Puglia and developing the potential of tourism related to the audiovisual sector (e.g.,

it developed the following initiatives: CINEPORTI, i.e., the creation of two public poles

dedicated to cinema companies, in Bari and Lecce and the CIRCUITO D’AUTORE,

i.e., a supporting strategy of cult movies throughout the regional territory).

Box 5 - AFC. Some figures: in 2013 AFC sustained more than 50 film projects (over

170 since 2007, when the Film Commission was founded) generating local impacts

above € 9 mln. In the period 2007-2010 the ratio between regional/public fund

allocation and direct expenditure was 1:6, i.e., each euro provided through public

funding has been multiplied by 6 in terms of production companies’ expenditure in

the local area

The joint actions of the two regional agencies (TPP and AFC) contributed to the

development of agglomeration economies and regional clusters aimed at promoting

a critical mass of investments in new technologies, talents and abilities. The aim is

to contrast the penetration of big players as well as the adoption of external values

inconsistent with European and national identities. The natural corollary of the above

initiatives is the recent launch of the cluster “Creative Apulia”, i.e., a cluster of 90

enterprises aimed at supporting the creativity chain; the implementation of business and

financial investments in the field; common strategies across companies in interrelated

fields of activities.

10 See the study “Monitoraggio Puglia Sounds” - Istituto Media e Giornalismo dell’ Universitא della Svizzera Italiana di Lugano.

11 See the study “Financial support for the audiovisual industry in Apulia: An analysis of the impact of the Apulia FilmFund” – IEM Fondazione Rosselli



2.2. Preliminary outcomes

The “Creative Apulia” strategy is very recent and its actual implementation is currently

in place. After two cycles of structural funds’ programs we can however start drawing a

first balance sheet. To this end, we present here below some key figures on the culture

and creativity sector in the Apulia Region.

First, in last three years about 55.5 million Euros of additional financial resources

have been invested in Apulia in the sectors of cultural heritage, cultural activities and

creativity (about €12 per head, see Fig. 2). This sum up to the 471,3 millions of euro

spent in the decade 2000-2011 to finance up to 655 new investment projects.

Figure2 - Investments to Apulia (millions euros) in years 2011-13

Second, the strong improvement of the cultural supply. Apulia has got 139 cultural

sites (included 13 state museums and 3 UNESCO sites: Castel del Monte, Alberobello,

Monte S. Angelo) and 594 libraries (1,5 per head). Moreover, Apulia is the best

performer among Southern Italian Regions in terms of theaters (834; 20 per thousand

residents) and music halls (944; 23 per thousand residents) and hosted in 2011 around

8.000 live performances (20% in terms of national data) with over 1,5 millions of tickets

sold. Actually, Apulia hosted in 2011 the 15% of overall number of national visitors

(becoming the second largest Italian Region in terms of attractiveness, after Campania

where the most popular Unesco sites are located, e.g. Pompei). Generally speaking,



Apulia is the best performer in terms of tourism attraction among the Mediterranean

Regions (+45% in the period 2000-2010; + 74% in the Southern area of Salento).

Third, the performance in terms of attractiveness of ICCs. Apulia hosts about 4.800

cultural enterprises and about 8.000 cultural operators (around 4% of the national

data), mainly involved in architectural activities, performing arts, design, audiovisuals

and publishing and mainly concentrated in the area of Bari and Lecce (Lecce is 35° in

the Italian ranking of the European Creativity Index and is the first metropolitan area

among the Southern Italy main towns).

3. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

This paper addresses the timely issue of the culture and creativity activities as drivers

for LSED. First, it presents the conceptual framework and highlights the key factors

behind a cultural based LSED. Then, it introduces the new Creative Apulia strategy

presenting the overall strategy, the main initiatives and some facts and figures. A

number of conclusions and policy recommendations have been driven:

i. The need of a better definition of the culture and creativity sector and a more

accurately statistics. As noted above there is no single, agreed definition

of “cultural and creative industry”, although this is a key requirement for:

fostering recognition of the specific features of CCIs; analyzing their impact

on long-term growth, international competitiveness, regional development

and territorial cohesion (Cf. EESC opinion on Europe’s Creative Industries,

OJ C 108, 30.4.2004).

ii. the acknowledgement that the mere possession of cultural resources is not

in itself enough to start a process of cultural based economic growth and that

creativity, innovation and technology are key drivers of long-term growth.

iii. the focus on four key determinants of a cultural based LSED: services,

innovation, critical mass of demand and comparative advantage. Consistently

with the naןve model presented, Apulia strategy, thanks to the strong financial

support of the structural funds and the partnership process with local

communities, represents undeniably a best practice in terms of LSED (as

emphasized by the EECS’ Opinion 503/2010).

iv. the need to look at the start-up phase as a peculiar stage characterized by a

greater amount of local input (goods, services and human capital) and, to an



increasing extent, the need to replace the imported products consumed by

the final user (i.e., the visitors in our case) with the local ones: the imported

industrial products with the typical agricultural and artisan products and so

on. Only once the area is capable of attracting a certain level of demand

(critical mass), the users of cultural resources can start a system of revenue,

at the local level.

v. the leading role of a cultural and creativity strategy - nested into the regional

priorities for enhancing the full potential of the spontaneous bottom up

processes coming from the local territories. More specifically, regional

strategy should:

a) Strengthening the relation between landscape, environment and cultural

assets overcoming the approach of individual attractors and promoting a

multidimensional but local approach able to enhance the links between

cultural heritage, cultural activities and local stakeholders;

b) Reverting the approach of the scarce added value of cultural and touristic

events. Such events are in fact key for the enhancement of cultural

heritage. The separation between historical assets and activities related

to contemporary arts generates an ethical vision of the assets, with

consequences both on their capability to contribute to innovation and

creativity processes, and on the management of museums, archives,

libraries and archaeological sites;

vi. the empirical evidence of the Apulia’s strategy success story lies on the

following stylized facts and figures: Apulia is the best Southern Italian region

in terms of theaters (834; 20 per thousand residents) and music halls (944;

23 per thousand residents). It hosted around 8.000 live performances in 2011

(20% in terms of national data) with over 1,5 millions of tickets sold. In 2011,

Apulia hosted the 15% of the overall number of national tourists (becoming

the second largest Italian Region in terms of attractiveness, after Campania

where the most popular Unesco sites are located, e.g. Pompei). Generally

speaking, Apulia is among the Mediterranean regions, the best performer

in terms of tourism attraction (+45% in the period 2000-2010; + 74% in the

Southern area of Salento).



4. References

Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The review of economic studies, 29(3), 155-173.

Barro, Robert J., N. Gregory Mankiw, and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (1995). Capital mobility in neoclassical models of growth. No. w4206. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Castells, M. (1996). The Information Age. 3 vols. Oxford, Blackwell 996: 98.

Cozzi, G. (1998). Distribuzione e Crescita. Una rassegna della letteratura recente. Rivista italiana degli economisti, 3(1), 105-150.

EESC’ Opinion 503/2010 on Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries (Green Paper)

EESC’ opinion on Europe’s Creative Industries (OJ C 108, 30.4.2004).

KEA (2006), The Economy of Culture in Europe

KEA (2009) The Impact of Culture on Creativity.

Krugman, P. R. (1991).Geography and trade. MIT press.

Leeuw, F., & Vaessen, J. (2009). Impact Evaluations and Development. Washington, D.C.: Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation (NONIE).

Marshall, A. (1920). Industry and Trade. Macmillan: London.

Montalbano, P. and Triulzi, U. (2007). L’internazionalizzazione della cultura: verso un nuovo paradigma di sviluppo locale e competitivita internazionale. Europa e Mezzogiorno, vol. 55; p. 57-63, ISSN: 1593-9448.

Scandizzo, P.L. (1997), Beni relazionali e crescita endogena, Economia &Lavoro.

Sen, A. (1988). The Concept of Development in H. Chenery and T. N. Srinivasan (eds.), Handbook of Development Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland

Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The quarterly journal of economics, 70(1), 65-94.

Throsby, D., Cultural Capital, Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 23, 1999, pp. 3-12

UNCTAD (2008). Creative Economy Report.

UNESCO (2012). Measuring cultural participation. UNESCO-UIS Ref: UIS/2012/CUL/TD/11

Valentino, P.A. (2013). L’Arte di produrre Arte. Marsilio.



About Project Wealth

Project WEALTH: Promoting Local Sustainable Economic Development (LSED), is implemented with the support of the European Union’s ENPI CBC-MED Program. By fostering an alternative economic paradigm whereby wealth is defined by the well-being of people and the planet, the project encourages new approaches of local and regional sustainable economic development. The project collaboration, lead by Shatil, includes partners from Israel, Italy, Portugal and the Palestinian Authority. It facilitates a range of knowledge exchange and networking platforms that enable the sharing of best practices, as well as the development of local initiatives.

Project Wealth Local Sustainable Economic Development Research Group (WealthR), is a collaboration of Project Wealth, The Negev Center for Regional Development and the Mandel Center for Leadership in the Negev that constitutes an academic platform for researchers from the partnering regions in Project Wealth. It facilitates the exchange of knowledge and development of theoretical and applicable knowledge base emerging from the Local Sustainable Economic Development paradigm. Research findings serve as the basis for position papers and policy change efforts at the national and Euro Med levels.

For more details and updates about Project Wealth:Project Wealth Website: www.lsed-wealth.orgFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/kamambanegevContact: [email protected] Manager: Dr. Gili BaruchEmail: [email protected]: 0732-445445

Statement about the Programme The 2007-2013 ENPI CBC Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme is a multilateral Cross-Border Cooperation initiative funded by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The Programme objective is to promote the sustainable and harmonious cooperation process at the Mediterranean Basin level by dealing with the common challenges and enhancing its endogenous potential. It finances cooperation projects as a contribution to the economic, social, environmental and cultural development of the Mediterranean region. The following 14 countries participate in the Programme: Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Palestinian Authority, Portugal, Spain, Syria, Tunisia. The Joint Managing Authority (JMA) is the Autonomous Region of Sardinia (Italy). Official Programme languages are Arabic, English and French

Project Wealth: Culture and Creativity as drivers for Local Sustainable Economic Development

Documents

Transcript of Project Wealth: Culture and Creativity as drivers for Local Sustainable Economic Development