Stagnating? Certainly Not Culture!
Stagnating productivity: this was the diagnosis put forward in the mid-1960s by two US economists in the Ford Foundation to define the productive capacity of the cultural sector as opposed to the productive capacity of the manufacturing sector. The two economists defined the latter as "progressive" because of its larger role in increased efficiency and technological advances. These kinds of progress do not affect artistic production, since it is characterized by manual skills and craftsmanship, and is thus less efficient in sheer quantitative terms. Low productivity, which, combined with high and rising costs generates a pathological relation between revenues and costs: as production grows, margins shrink. From an economic point of view this is a dangerously unsustainable situation, if external funders don't step in. The low-productivity stigma does not only affect arts and culture, but also other industries where minds, hands and human bodies, rather than machines, are producing: crafts, sports, education, research, health, personal services. Isn't it about time to change perspective on this issue? Only by looking at culture in purely quantitative terms can industrial sectors be seen as "dynamic", as opposed to "stagnating" creative industries. But does it make sense in this post-industrial age to look only at quantity and efficiency? Shouldn't we rather think in terms of effectiveness, quality, innovation and - why not - sustainability? We have to consider these new dimensions in the objectives being pursued, in the skills and resources commanded, in the complexity of processes employed, and in the standards for evaluating the results being obtained.
Creative industries are among the most qualitatively important and innovative sectors: they are challenging, intriguing, and thus strategically competitive. Conversely, it's the manufacturing industries now stagnating due to negative environmental externalities and the global crisis. Maybe the moment has come to stop seeing creative industries as characterized by "stagnating productivity" and start giving back their due after a century of industrialization, in terms of quality, innovation, competitiveness and economic value. Summing up, as we wait for the market to acknowledge and pay for the historical, social, and human value of culture and the arts, let's stop refering to them as sectors with stagnant productivity.