Culture as a source of economic and social value: Perspectives for the 2014-2020 EU policy cycle

1. Culture as a source of economic and social value:Perspectives for the 2014-2020 EU policy cycle PIER LUIGI SACCO Dean, Faculty of Arts, Markets, and Heritage IULM University Milan

2. Cultural and creative industries in a regional perspective - I • The remarkable growth and success of cultural and creative industries in the last decade has brought considerable attention upon the direct economic impact of cultural production • In order to maintain a proper and effective developmental approach, however, we need a conceptual scheme that allows us to understand (and capitalize) the indirect socio-economic effects of cultural production • Also, we have to keep into account that the new paradigms of cultural production do not necessarily use the market as the value-generating platform (communities of practice)

3. Cultural and creative industries in a regional perspective - II • At the regional level, each region will have its own proper mix of direct and indirect culture-based value generating processes, defining a specific local model (clustering pattern) • Culture-led development does not concern urban areas only, but also rural and low-density ones • The developmental potential of cultural and creative industries requires that they are seen not as an isolated sector, however promising, but as the backbone of a new information, knowledge and content-based economy that infiltrates all aspects of everyday life • In this context, cultural policies may become a major lever of regional policy

4. From Culture 1.0 to 3.0 • 1.0: pre-industrial, small audiences, absorbs resources but does not generate turnover, author/craftsman; at the end of the value chain • First major revolution: technologies that enhance reproducibility and demand • 2.0: cultural industry, large audiences, generates turnover, author vs. audience, a specific sector of the economy (a specific value chain) • Second major revolution: technologies that enhance participation and production • 3.0: communities of practice and not only markets, generates turnover but also indirect non-market value, prosumers and user generated content, a pervasive dimension that permeates the whole economy (culturalization of the economy and culturally mediated value); at the root of the value chain

5. Regions with the largest CCIs size (employment clusters) Ile de France (Paris) Inner London Lombardia (Milan) West-Nederland (Amsterdam) Madrid Catalunya (Barcelona) Denmark Lazio (Roma) Oberbayern (Muenchen) Stockolm Budapest Outer London Berks, Buck and Oxon (Oxford) Atthiki (Athens) Oost-Nederland (Nijmegen) Andalucia (Sevilla) Ireland Zuid-Nederland (Maastricht) Darmstadt (Frankfurt aM) Piemonte (Torino)

6. Regions with the best CCIs focus Inner London Stockolm Praha Bratislavsky kray (Bratislava) Berks, Bucks and Oxon (Oxford) Hamburg Budapest Oslo Oberbayern (Muenchen) Karlsruhe Madrid West-Nederland (Amsterdam) Berlin Ile de France (Paris) Lazio (Roma)

7. Regions with the best growth dynamics in CCIs Niederoesterreich (St Polten) Salzburg Oberoesterreich (Linz) Asturias (Oviedo) Zapadne Slovensko (Nitra) Cumbria (Carlisle) La Rioja (Logrono) Andalucia (Sevilla) Hants/Isle of Wight (Southampton) Castilla-La Mancha (Toledo) Jihovychod (Brno) Pais Vasco (Bilbao) Murcia Valencia Kaernten (Klagenfurt) Lietuva Galicia (A Coruna) Picardie (Amiens) Nyugat-Danantul (Gyor)

8. An 8-tiers approach to the indirect effects of cultural production (and participation) • Innovation • Welfare • Sustainability • Social cohesion • New entrepreneurship • Soft power • Local identity • Knowledge economy

9. Innovation Ranking Innovation Scoreboard 2008 (UE15) 1 Sweden 2 Finland 3 Denmark 4 Germany 5 Netherlands 6 France 7 Austria 8 UK 9 Belgium 10 Luxemburg (UE27 average) 11 Ireland 12 Spain 13 Italy 14 Portugal 15 Greece Ranking Active cultural participation Eurobarometer 2007 (UE15) 1 Sweden 2 Luxemburg 3 Finland 4 France 5 Denmark 6 Netherlands 7 Belgium 8 Germany 9 UK 10 Austria (UE27 average) 11 Ireland 12 Italy 13 Spain 14 Greece 15 Portugal

10. Culture as a pre-innovation platform?

11. Culture as a ‘pre-innovation’ platform Active cultural participation stimulates the capability building of people in terms of attitudes toward the un-experienced: • questioning one’s beliefs and world views, • getting acquainted with, and assigning value to, cultural diversity, • learning to appreciate the transformational impact of new ideas, • building new expressive and conceptual skills…  Strong link with innovation systems

12. Speaking of impact… • In terms of macroeconomic impact, the indirect impact of active cultural participation in terms of innovation could be as relevant as the direct one of the cultural and creative industries’ turnover; • Moreover, it may have effects on all sectors; • It is likely to be even more important in terms of securing the long-term competitiveness of the economy • We may look at regional systems of innovation from a new perspective

13. Welfare • There is a strong statistical association between life expectancy and cultural participation (Konlaan et al, 2000) • There is an equally strong association between cultural participation and psychological well-being (The Italian culture and well-being study, IULM/Bracco)

14. Hierarchy of factors affecting psychological well-being

15. Hierarchy of factors affecting psychological well-being 1 Diseases 2 Cultural participation 3 Income 4 Age 5 Education 6 Gender 7 Job 8 Geography

16. Classical music concerts

17. Theatre

18. Which single variables have the strongest impact on SWB?

19. Towards a cultural welfare perspective?

20. Towards a cultural welfare perspective? • The well-being impact of cultural participation is especially strong among the severely ill and the elderly • Systematic cultural participation in these categories might bring about substantial improvement in their quality of life • At the same time, cultural participation might significantly reduce hospitalization frequency and duration for chronic pathologies • If this is true, the whole program could be financed through the consequential saving on general welfare costs

21. Sustainability • There is a strong relationship between performance of differentiated waste recycling systems and cultural participation (Crociata, Lilla and Sacco, 2011): the cognitive development from cultural participation spills over to motivation and ability to classify different waste items • An indirect systemic effect similar to the innovation one in fostering awareness toward the consequences of individual behaviors for the environmental common good (Agenda 21): from innovation systems to sustainability systems?

22. Cultural access and waste recycling

23. Does culture improve recycling?

24. Does culture improve recycling? • The answer is yes: people with access to cultural experiences recycle more, no matter whether recycle bins are close to or far away from home: not only better capacity, but also better motivation • There is a statistically significant causal relationship from cultural attitudes to recycling habits • The same mechanisms are likely to work also for other forms of environmental responsibility (reduced use of pollutants, resort to ‘green’ mobility networks, etcetera)  more ongoing research • Does relatively poorer performance in recycling of MED countries relate to poor levels of cultural participation?

25. Best 10 EU15 Capital cities for waste management and land use • Amsterdam • Helsinki • Berlin • Vienna • Copenhagen • Stockholm • Brussels • London • Paris • Dublin

26. Social cohesion • certain types of cultural projects may produce strong and significant effects in terms of juvenile crime prevention, pro-social vocational orientation, or conflict resolution (Abreu program, projeto Axé, etc.) • these projects are generally focused on active cultural participation, as it is made possible for instance by programs of music education • the indirect effect of cultural participation on social cohesion is the overcoming of self- and others-stereotyping as provoked by incumbent social prejudices, often linked to ethnicity factors • the Maisons Folie system of cultural facilities realized by the Région Nord-Pas de Calais in the context of Lille 2004 European Culture Capital

27. New entrepreneurship • the cultural and creative field may be a powerful incubator of new forms of entrepreneurship • the rapid growth of the online content industries, just to make a particularly evident example, is creating the stage for a new entrepreneurial cultural with a strong generational basis • the development of creative entrepreneurship still lags behind substantially if compared to the attention and resources devoted to development and support of entrepreneurship in other sectors of the economy • these new forms of entrepreneurship could improve significantly the employability of graduates from the humanities sectors, which are commonly considered to have a weaker employability potential than the graduates from quantitative and technology areas

28. Soft power • cultural and creative production may contribute to a great extent to increase the visibility, reputation and authoritativeness of a country/region at all levels of international relationships, from the political to the economic • high level of soft power may open up new markets to national/regional products through the identification and emulation dynamics which are typical of post-industrial consumption, may attract more visitors, talents and investments, may stimulate new, sophisticated strategies of value creation through branding and marketing tools

29. The IfG/Monocle ranking of soft power 1 UK 1 France 3USA 4 Germany 5 Switzerland 6 Sweden 7 Denmark 8 Australia 9 Finland 10 Netherlands 11 Spain 12 Canada 13 Singapore 14 Norway 15 Japan 16 Italy 17 China 18 Israel 19 Korea 20 South Africa 20 Brazil 22 Mexico 23 India 24 UAE 25 Turkey 26 Russia

30. Knowledge society • the association between active cultural participation and lifelong learning is a pretty natural one, and unlike others is not particularly surprising • one might even think of active cultural participation as a specific form of lifelong learning • as lifelong learning is well targeted by structural funds programming and takes a central place in EU long-term strategies, it could be of interest to launch and pursue innovative programs and actions that exploit the strategic complementarities between the former and culturally and creatively based communities of practice as instances of advanced platforms of cultural and creative production

31. Local identity

32. Local identity • considerable emphasis has been put on the role of the installment of new, spectacular cultural facilities in the catering for global visibility of one specific urban or regional milieu • but the developmental potential of a culturally-rebuilt local identity lies in the capacity to stimulate new dynamics of production of cultural content and new modes of cultural access by the local community, as a consequences of the new opportunities created by the attraction of outside resources • example: the Newcastle/Gateshead urban renewal strategy

33. The usual objection… • Yes but…doesn’t all this eventually depend on income after all? • Not likely: countries with relatively high per capita income perform poorly in innovation (Ireland) • Moreover: cultural access is more important than income in determining well-being • Also: Madrid and Rome have a higher per capita income than Berlin but fare much worse in terms of waste recycling… • …whereas cultural participation reflects the performance in the above dimensions much more accurately

34. In a nutshell… • Culture is not simply a large and important sector of the economy, it is a ‘social software’ that is badly needed to manage the complexity of contemporary regional societies and economies in all of its manifold implications • The total indirect macroeconomic impact of cultural participation is likely to be much bigger than the (already remarkable) direct one • Once we become able to measure the indirect effects of culture on the various dimensions (to ‘capitalize’ culture), it will be possible to bring cultural policy at the top ranks of the policy agenda • These effects are further strengthened by the growth of the cultural and creative industries, but only insofar as such growth is as inclusive and participative as possible

35. Priorities • Cultural participation must be as inclusive as possible • Cultural participation must be as active as possible • Cultural participation has not to do mainly with entertainment, but with learning, capability building and skill development, and overall quality of life • Cultural participation as an indicator of a region’s propensity to change and innovation • Cultural participation as a new factor of smart growth • Cultural participation as a new driver for sustainable use of resources and for more efficient welfare expenditure • Cultural participation as a ‘shock therapy’ for social mobilization

36. Some potential policy guidelines • Culture and innovation + culture and knowledge society: fostering more pro-active cultural participation and linking it better to a ‘creative’ knowledge society • Culture and well-being: developing a systematic cultural welfare program • Culture and soft power + culture and local identity: developing a new, more effective strategy at the regional level • Culture and new entrepreneurship: providing incentives to attract the skilled young A creativity-intensive model of capability through even more direct and pro-active cultural participation

37. EU Strategies and methods of investment • root culture and creative production much more deeply and substantially into the 2020 agenda, and thus in the future of cohesion policy • resources available for culture-based policies under structural funds must at least equal the size and growth potential of the cultural and creative sector (indirect ones included?) • structural funds in the 2014-2020 cycle should combine infrastructural investment, human and social capital investment and exchange of practices • structural funds in the 2014-2020 cycle should combine earmarked funding of instruments and strands specifically devoted to culture and cultural industries, both for direct and indirect channels

38. EU Strategies and methods cont’d • structural funds in the 2014-2020 cycle should foster better recognition and integration of the cultural dimension of development in the overall support frameworks • the new regional policy of the EU must ask future beneficiaries of structural funds to compulsorily include culture in each ‘national strategic reference program’ (nations) and in each ‘operational program’ (regions), otherwise they are not accepted • the EU should provide explicit guidance on how to include culture effectively in these instruments (the 8+1 tiers scheme) • such instruments have to be built from partnerships between regions, cultural institutions, civil society and business

39. EU Operational objectives - broad • gathering and disseminating good practices in the field • promoting the formation of regional clusters and international networks of clusters, and identifying the already excellent ones as benchmarks • developing new administrative and institutional capacity to help regional and local authorities dealing with economic growth, social policy, territorial development and education to include new culture-based strategies in their programs • favoring a simplification and a broader accessibility of the structural funds for cultural and creative players • involving cultural stakeholders in all policy dialogues and in all steps of the implementation of EU cohesion policy

40. EU Operational objectives – specific (examples) • better measurement of the direct and indirect social and economic effects of cultural and creative production • incentivating cross contamination between cultural and creative and non-cultural and creative value chains (cultural welfare, culture-based social cohesion, culture-based sustainability etc.) through specific leadership programs • defining emergent professional profiles and skills in the cultural and creative fields and their occupational and entrepreneurship potential • promoting new incubators and innovation parks with a strong cultural and creative component • gathering a group of experts in local cultural development and governance that work in close contact with DG REGIO in order to boost the cultural dimension of 2014-2020 policy and programmes

41. Thanks! pierluigi.sacco@iulm.it @PierLuigiSacco