Relatório Unctad de Indústrias Criativas 2022

U N I T E D N AT I O N S C O N F E R E N C E O N T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T
CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0

TOWARDS A NEW GLOBALIZED
CREATIVE ECONOMY
U N I T E D N AT I O N S C O N F E R E N C E O N T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T
CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0

TOWARDS A NEW GLOBALIZED
CREATIVE ECONOMY
© 2022, United Nations
This work is available through open access, by complying with the Creative Commons licence created for
intergovernmental organizations, at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States.
The designations employed and the presentation of material on any map in this work do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries.
Photocopies and reproductions of excerpts are allowed with proper credits.
This publication has not been formally edited.
United Nations publication issued by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2021/3
eISBN: 978-92-1-001252-2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study, commissioned by UNCTAD, was authored by Hubert Escaith, former Chief Statistician at the
World Trade Organization (WTO), and former United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and
the Caribbean (UN-ECLAC) Director of Division.
The study received contributions from Miho Shirotori, Head, Trade Negotiations and Commercial Diplomacy
Branch (TNCDB), and Marisa Henderson, Chief, the Creative Economy Program of TNCDB, Division on
International Trade and Commodities (DITC), UNCTAD. The study benefitted from substantive inputs and
insightful comments from Sanja Blazevic, Development Statistics and Information Branch, Division on
Globalisation and Development Strategies and Dan Ker, Division on Technology and Logistics, UNCTAD.
The study was enriched by insightful comments and suggestions from eminent reviewers: Professor Jen
Snowball, Department of Economics, Rhodes University and South Africa and Chief Research Strategist,
Cultural Observatory, South African; Michal Podolski, Global Economic Monitoring Branch, United Nations
Headquarters, New York; Raidan Alsaqqaf, United Nations resident Coordinator Office in Abu Dabi;
Rebeca Gallardo Gomez, International Consultant, United Nations Industrial Development Organization;
Rupert Allen, Senior Economist, International Trade, Department of Canadian Heritage, Government of
Canada; and Shain Shapiro, Sound Diplomacy.
iv Creative Industry 4.0: Towards a new globalized Creative Economy
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CCI Cultural and creative industry
DITC Division on International Trade and Commodities
IADB InterAmerican Development Bank
ICTs Information and Communications Technologies
GDP Gross domestic product
GVCs Global value chains
ITU International Telecommunication Union
LDCs Least developed countries
MTO Make To Order
OECD Organisation for the Economic Co-operation Development
RCA Revealed comparative advantages
R&D Research and Development
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SMEs Small and medium-sized enterprises
SOA Service-oriented architecture
TiVA Trade in Value-Added
TNCDB Trade Negotiations and Commercial Diplomacy Branch
UN-ITC United Nations International Trade Center (UN-ITC)
UN-ECLAC United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
UNESCO United Nations Education Science and Culture Organization
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization
WEF World Economic Forum
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
CONTENTS v
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... iii
Abbreviations and acronyms................................................................................................................... iv
Abstract................................................................................................................................................. vi
I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1
II. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE CREATIVE ECONOMY?...........................................................3
A. Creativity as an autonomous economic concept ..................................................................... 3
B. Creativity as cultural and sociological activities ........................................................................ 4
C. Towards a synthesis ............................................................................................................... 5
III. ASSESSING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE CREATIVE ECONOMY........................7
A. Sectoral assessments............................................................................................................. 8
B. Global trade in creative goods and services........................................................................... 15
C. The production of creative “intangibles” ................................................................................ 17
D. The demand-side drivers ...................................................................................................... 20
IV. CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0..........................................................................................23
A. The 4th Industrial Revolution................................................................................................... 23
B. When Industry 4.0 meets the Creative Economy ................................................................... 24
V. CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0 AND THE FUTURE OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES................29
A. Comparative advantages in trade in creative goods and services........................................... 29
B. Creating value: The role of intangibles.................................................................................... 30
C. From “trade in value-added” to “trade in income”.................................................................. 31
D. E-Commerce, E-Mode 4, and market access........................................................................ 31
VI. HARNESSING COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES IN CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0.......................37
A. Smart industrial policies ........................................................................................................ 37
B. Overcoming barriers to internationalization............................................................................. 39
VII. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................41
Endnotes.............................................................................................................................................. 42
Bibliography......................................................................................................................................... 44
Figures
Figure 1. The collectible art and antique market shares in 2020........................................................... 11
Figure 2. Research and Development, employment and contribution to gross domestic products, 2013–2018.. 14
Figure 3. The Smile Curve .................................................................................................................. 20
Tables
Table 1. Cultural and Creative Industries: Revenues and employment, 2013 ........................................ 10
Table 2. Design, patents, and trademarks. Applications by region, 2010–2019..................................... 12
Table 3. Design, patents, and trademarks. Applications by income groups, 2010–-2019...................... 12
Table 4. Classification of creative goods................................................................................................ 15
Table 5. Exports of creative goods by chapter and region, 2019 .......................................................... 16
Boxes
Box 1. The Creative City....................................................................................................................... 18
Box 2. The creative consumers............................................................................................................ 21
Box 3. Digital technologies, creation and distribution............................................................................ 26
vi Creative Industry 4.0: Towards a new globalized Creative Economy
ABSTRACT
This report looks at the implications for the Creative Economy of the rapid changes in automated
technology and advanced internet communication that came to be known as Industry 4.0. Conservative
estimates put the Creative Economy’s contribution to global gross domestic product at about 3 per cent,
roughly in line with its contribution to world trade. This contribution is expected to be strengthened by
a surge in digitalization and advanced technologies that characterise Creative Industry 4.0. Among the
many observations that this report makes, ones that are important from the perspective of sustainable
and inclusive development especially that of small developing countries are that: (1) Creative Industry
4.0 can speed-up the transfer of technology; (2) the size of the domestic market will no longer be a limit
when it comes to developing a product; (3) new niche market opportunities are emerging. Another key
observation is that the availability of adequate technology is not sufficient; it must be made available to
stakeholders. The report highlights a series of policy options aimed at harnessing the potential of Creative
Industry 4.0 for economic and social development.
I.
Introduction
The Creative Economy is an analytical category that encompasses a very diverse array of sectors. It
includes heritage and cultural products, such as handicrafts, and it incorporates the software designers
that fashion the digital economy and influence the future of the whole of society (Dubina and Campbell,
2019). In a world of global networking, via the evolution of digitalization and the changing behaviour of
people, both as producers and as consumers, analysis needs to look beyond individual creativity. Today,
business innovation is the process of both generating and applying creative ideas in a commercial context
(Bakhshi and Mc Vitte 2009). At the same time, even the most traditional, cultural or heritage-dependent
creative activities are being transformed by the evolution of technologies.
This study examines the economic aspects of the interaction between creativity and technological-
business innovations. The objective of the study is to better understand how the 4th industrial revolution,
or Industry 4.0, has changed the way creative actors are performing their activity. In this study, creativity is
regarded as the fuel and the engine of the Creative Economy and refers to the act of generating new ideas
and approaches to technological applications.
The study is organised in two parts. The first part looks at the definitional issues based on a review of
the literature, followed by an assessment of the economic weight of the Creative Economy in terms of
production, employment, and trade. The second part invites the reader to examine possible implications
of Industry 4.0 on various branches of the creative industries. Particular attention is paid to the new trading
opportunities that “Creative Industry 4.0” may provide to developing countries through redefining these
countries’ comparative advantages. The study concludes with policy options for developing countries to
nurture the competitiveness of their creative industries in the new digital economy.
II.
I.
What constitutes the
Creative Economy?
The way in which “Creative Economy” is defined tends to vary in accordance with the perspective or
chosen objective of the observer. Some authors highlight the sociological and anthropological dimensions
(culture, heritage), others look more at creativity from an economic perspective. Historically, authors have
associated creativity with the production of social meaning in the form of texts and symbols (music, image,
stories). Most primitive forms of symbolic production can be traced back to prehistoric sculptures and
cave paintings from the Stone Age. Even when creators were remunerated for their work, the value of their
production was perhaps just symbolic. It is generally accepted that the commercial dimension of creativity
was articulated as an economic concept in early 2000 when authors Richard E. Caves, David Throsby and
John Howkins shed light on this issue in their seminal books.1
This section assesses the various definitions of Creative Economy that have been adopted in the literature,
by countries, and by international agencies. We regroup them into several categories, according to their
main focus: (i) economic value; (ii) sociological value; (iii) business value; and (iv) combination of these.
Needless to say, the categories are non-exhaustive.2
A. Creativity as an autonomous economic concept

The concept of “Creative Economy” is relatively new. While creativity and innovations have been at the
centre of reflections in economics and business for many years,3 it was only in the 1990s that this notion
became a focus of attention. In 1994, the term ‘creative industries’ first appeared in “Creative Nation”, a
report issued by the government of Australia (Afriantari and Harikesa, 2020).4
John Howkins (2001, 2007), the leading pioneer in the identification of the Creative Economy, offers
several definitions. Creativity is the ability to generate something new, either in the sense of ‘something
from nothing’ or giving a new character to something already existing. Creativity becomes an economic
activity when it produces an idea with economic implications or becomes a tradeable product.
4 Creative Industry 4.0: Towards a new globalized Creative Economy
Creativity also flourishes in the sciences and even in management. In the introduction to his 2001 book
“The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas”, Howkins states that “Creativity is present
at all levels of business, from the management of a company to the development, branding and shape of
each product”. Scientific and technological creativity is better defined under the denomination of patent
industries: innovations in pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electronics, and transport equipment, etc. Although
more difficult to define, the trademark and design industries are more widespread than the previous two
categories.
These various activities constitute the core functions of the creative industries. The Creative Economy,
sometimes called the “orange economy”, is a broader concept, which includes interactions with
consumers and associations, as well as the contribution of the creative activities, such as Research and
Development (R&D), which take place outside the creative industry sub-sector. In a later book, Howkins
(2009) emphasises the importance of the territory in creating a favourable eco-system for creativity.
In some countries, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, the term “creative industries” refers to
a much smaller subset of Howkins’ domain: arts and culture. Such is in the case of the Department of
Culture, Media and Sports of the United Kingdom (DCMS). This definition is close to the approach of
sociologists’, and examined in the following section, but it also includes sports (sporting events being
understood here as entertainment, based on individual performance). It opens a way to recognising
indirect contributions of creativity to prosperity and jobs: The creative industries may be seen then as
businesses that are based on individual creativity, talent and skill, and that have the potential to create
jobs and wealth through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property. This approach underlines
the importance large cities attach to their socioeconomic and spatial manifestations in terms of both the
production and consumption of creative products and symbols.5
The definition adopted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reflects its institutional terms
of reference, highlighting the importance of the copyright aspect. In some sense, it is a legal definition
more than an economic one. As WIPO (2015) states, “The concept of copyright and related rights is
defined in national legislation. In most countries, the basic concepts are consistent with the provisions
of [international WIPO and WTO] treaties […] and other relevant international conventions”. Copyright-
based industries are those that are dedicated, interdependent, or that are directly or indirectly related with
the creation, production, representation, exhibition, communication, distribution, or retail of Copyright
protected material.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UN-ECLAC) extended
the concept of cultural industries with the idea of “content industries” (Castro, 2008) to identify cultural
and entertainment industries that use Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). The “content
industries” are closely related to the copyright dimension: publishing, film, TV, radio, phonographic, mobile
contents, independent audio-visual production, web contents, electronic games, and content produced
for digital convergence (cross-media).
B. Creativity as cultural and sociological activities

Cultural industries, according to Markusen, Wassall, DeNatale and Cohen (2008), boil down to activities
that are directly involved in the production of social meaning in the form of texts and symbols.6 Under
this definition, cultural industries “include television, radio, the cinema, newspapers, magazine and book
publishing, music recording and publishing industries, advertising, and the performing arts. These are all
activities the primary aim of which is to communicate to an audience, to create texts”. A more restrictive
definition, and what might be termed a “sociological” interpretation, is offered by Hesmondhalgh (2019). It
is based on the notion of “the signifying system”, where creative activities are related to cultural industries
that are directly involved in the production of social meaning in the form of texts and symbols.
Mercer (2009) adopts a clear anthropological and sociological approach to cultural industries, bundling
together art and culture as ethno-linguistic constructs: “Arts of living, doing, and being, not just arts:
II. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE CREATIVE ECONOMY? 5
that’s what culture is about”. In O’Connor (2010), this social construct is often related to radicalism,
counterculture or, in more recent years, to the rise of the “bourgeois-bohemians” globalized upper-middle
class in Western metropoles. Florida (2003) also highlights the role of a Creative Class living in Creative
Cities.
The United Nations Education Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO), while following the same line
of thought, also incorporates the notion of copyright (i.e., focusing on the formal segment of the industry):
the cultural and creative industries are those that combine the creation, production and commercialization
of creative contents that are intangible and of a cultural nature.
C. Towards a synthesis
Writing from a business school point of view, Roy, Sivakumar and Wilkinson (2004) provide a detailed
discussion of the ways in which supply-chain relationships may contribute to innovation. In this business
perspective, innovation occurs in the “development” phase of a new product, which includes idea
generation, idea screening, concept testing and development.7
Bakhshi and McVittie (2009) conduct an econometric analysis on the relationships between creative
linkages and innovation performance in firms in the United Kingdom. They conclude that if an average firm
duplicates its spending on creative inputs, the likelihood that the firm will introduce a product innovation,
either new to the firm or to its market, is around 25 per cent higher. Bakshi and McVittie (2009) focus
particularly on knowledge transfers embodied in business-to-business (B2B) transactions.
At the InterAmerican Development Bank (IADB), Buitrago, Restrepo and Duque Márquez (2013) propose
to adapt a practical definition of the “Orange Economy” that should start from a common area including: (i)
Creativity, arts and culture as productive endeavours; (ii) Products strongly related to intellectual property
rights, in particular copyright; and (iii) Activities with a direct role in the value chain transforming ideas into
products.
UNCTAD goes further beyond a mere economic definition of Creative Economy and encompasses artistic,
cultural and industrial aspects. UNCTAD and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2008)
summarise the definition of the “Creative Economy” as follows:
a. The Creative Economy is an evolving concept based on creative assets potentially generating
economic growth and development;
b. It can foster income generation, job creation and export earnings while promoting social inclusion,
cultural diversity, and human development;
c. It embraces economic, cultural and social aspects interacting with technology, intellectual property
and tourism objectives;
d. It is a set of knowledge-based economic activities with a development dimension and cross-
cutting linkages at macro and micro levels to the overall economy; and
e. It is a feasible development option calling for innovative multidisciplinary policy responses and inter-
ministerial action.
At the heart of the Creative Economy are the creative industries. “Creative industries” can be defined as
the cycles of creation, production and distribution of goods and services that use creativity and intellectual
capital as their primary inputs. They are classified by their role in heritage, art, media, and functional
creations.
III.
Assessing the socio-
economic impact of the
Creative Economy
The socio-economic impacts of the Creative Economy are multifaceted. Analysing 47 different publications
from the relevant literature, Daubaraite and Startiene (2015) find that the creative industries can influence
the national economy through, inter alia: (i) Fighting unemployment (mentioned in 39 publications), in
particular youth unemployment (mentioned in 3 publications);8 (ii) Contributing to gross domestic product
(GDP) and value added (in 32 publications); (iii) Contributing to exports (in 13 publications); (iv) Contributing
to social inclusion (in 11 publications); (v) Contributing to social and cultural development (in 6 publications);
and/or (vi) Increasing the quality of life (in 5 publications). According to the consulting firm Deloitte (2021),
the importance of the Creative Economy for overall economic performance is likely to grow. This means
its importance for policymaking is also likely to continue to increase.
The 2020 Otis Report on the Creative Economy by the Otis College of Art and Design sees the Creative
Economy as a whole as comprising people with creative occupations, people in a non-creative job working
in creative industries, and workers with creative occupations working in any other industry. The latter
group is quite important, as shown in a survey of nine countries of the Organisation for the Economic Co-
operation Development (OECD) over the 2011–2018 period undertaken by the consulting firm Deloitte.
Deloitte (2021) estimates that the creative industries represent 7 per cent of total employment, a share
that has been growing through time. This number includes an imputation for creative occupations outside
of the creative industries, the second largest group with 23 per cent of total creative employment in 2018
after “IT, software and computers”. The Deloitte report also finds that its estimate of creative employment
outside the creative sectors is the largest source of variation between countries at a similar level of
economic development.
The contribution of the Creative Economy to GDP remains a measurement issue, due both to the
limited availability of specific official statistics (e.g., based on satellite accounts) and to the difficulties of
assessing non-market benefits. Worldwide comparable data are usually scarce and outdated. Using a
conservative definition that excludes crafts and creative activities in non-creative industries, the 2015
report by Ernst and Young Global estimates the Creative Economy’s contribution to global GDP to be
about 3 per cent. Using revised figures for developed economies, UNCTAD (2008) puts the contribution
somewhere between 2 and 6 per cent, albeit national data show large variations between countries.
Looking at the intangible contribution of the creative functions in manufacturing, Chen, Los and Timmer
(2018) find that investment in intellectual property products (computer software and databases, research
and development, mineral exploration and artistic originals) generate an income share of 2.4 per cent of
the value-added in manufacturing.
As mentioned by Clark (2009), a plethora of different definitions means that it is almost impossible to
conduct meaningful analysis across countries. According to this author, whilst output and export figures
based on existing creative industry classification may be justified, it is much less so when using a whole-
sector definition to estimate employment figures. In the words of the author, “many that work in the
creative sectors are not undertaking work that can be considered ‘Creative”.9
A. Sectoral assessments
This section assesses the socio-economic impact in different creative sectors and activities: Crafts; Art,
Culture and Creative Industries; Research and Development; and Copyright industries. From the empirical
perspective, there are two main advantages in focusing on these three categories. First, when taken
together, they cover a large spectrum of economically relevant creative activities. Second, since each
category is measured according to different statistical sources and indicators, it is possible to capture
different dimensions of the Creative Economy.
1. Handicrafts, art, and culture

Handicrafts, articrafts, and art are creative products that incorporate varying degrees of creativity and
carry a strong cultural dimension. They are complementary and not mutually exclusive as the boundary
between crafts and art is fuzzy.
Crafts
The size of the handicrafts global market is very difficult to estimate, due to the coexistence of various
definitions for this sector. Another complicating factor is the informal nature of handicrafts production
and consumption in many countries. Estimates of the commercial market size for crafts in 2020 vary
between US$650–720 billion, depending on the analyst (IMARC, 2021). As mentioned, these are only
rough estimates based on formal channels of distribution, such as department stores, the retail trade and
e-commerce. Its value would probably be much higher if informal trade, i.e. purchases made directly from
the artisan, rural and tourist markets, were taken into consideration.
According to IMARC (2021), woodware, including those products that are used in the manufacturing of
kitchenware, decorative materials, toys, etc., represents the most popular type of handicraft products
across the globe. North America is the leading market as consumers in the region are willing to spend
on handmade jewellery, apparel, and handcrafted home accessories. New trends in “articrafts” promote
the fusion of ethnic and contemporary design that are also appealing to interior designers and corporate
clients.
The handicrafts industry is flourishing in developing regions, including least developed countries (LDCs),
and in many Indigenous communities, partly because of the low capital investment required. The market
for handicrafts has benefitted from the development of tourism and the opening of new e-commerce
channels, which has improved access to overseas consumers. In 2020, the drop in tourism due to the
COVID-related lockdown has taken away an important source of income from artisans in major tourist
destinations such as the Caribbean islands. Looking forward, most analysts expect the worldwide formal
handicrafts market to exhibit double-digit growth during the next five years.
III. ASSESSING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE CREATIVE ECONOMY 9
It is difficult to find comprehensive data on employment in the craft sector as most handicrafts producers
are informal-sector artisans in developing countries. More generally, handicrafts are a cottage industry,
and, in rural areas, handicraft employment is usually seen as a complement to agricultural labour. To give
an idea of the magnitude of this “known unknown”, official estimates suggest that India, one of the world’s
largest handicraft producers and exporters, is home to 7 million artisans, most of whom are in rural and
semi-urban areas. However, data from unofficial sources indicate that the real figure may be as high as
200 million.10 The reason for this disparity is the informal and unorganised nature of this sector.
Art, culture and creative production

There is greater statistical coverage of production and employment in Art and Culture. One of the most
comprehensive mappings of the Art and Culture segment of the Creative Economy was published by the
consultancy group Ernst and Young Global in 2015, to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the UNESCO
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
The report was based on a mix of official statistics, industrial reports and a specific survey and estimates
and was commissioned by several institutions. Most of the data in the study refer to 2013 and relate to the
definition of UNESCO, covering Advertising, Architecture, Visual Arts, Performing Arts, TV, Radio, Music,
Books, Gaming, Movies, and Newspapers and Magazine. It excludes creative employment in non-cultural
industries.
According to the study, cultural and creative industries account for about 3 per cent of global GDP,
provide nearly 30 million jobs worldwide, and employ more people aged 15−29 than any other sector.
Employment in this sector is pro-cyclical because demand in many creative fields depends largely on the
overall state of the economy, due to the optional nature of arts and cultural purchases.
As per Table 1, Asia-Pacific is the world’s biggest market for the cultural and creative industry (CCI),
generating US$743 billion of revenue (33 per cent of global CCI sales) and 12.7 million jobs (43 per cent of
CCI jobs worldwide).11 Europe is the second largest CCI market, accounting for US$709 billion of revenues
(32 per cent of the global total) and 7.7 million jobs (26 per cent of all CCI jobs). North America is the
third largest CCI market with revenues of US$620b (28 per cent of global revenues) and 4.7 million jobs
(16 per cent of total jobs). The North American market is powered by leading cultural and entertainment
players: the region is the largest market for TV (US$182b), movies (US$28b) and radio (US$21b). The
Latin American CCI generates US$124b in revenues (6 per cent of CCI global market) and 1.9 million jobs
(7 per cent of total CCI jobs). Africa and the Middle East CCI market achieves US$58b in revenues (3 per
cent of the total) and provides 2.4 million jobs (8 per cent of total CCI jobs).
The average turnover per employee differs widely between sectors and between regions, as reflected in
Table 1. Revenue per employee depends, among other things, on labour productivity. In the cultural sector,
productivity is usually subjected to the “Baumol Effect” and does not increase much with technology, at
least in the performing arts: it takes the same amount of time to perform a baroque concerto today as it
did in the 18th century. On the other hand, even in this sector, technology has dramatically changed the
way that arts are distributed and consumed. Once recorded, the same baroque concerto can be sold to
and listened by millions of people over many years. Therefore, the “Baumol Effect” does not tell the full
story: technology may reduce the number of performing workers required to satisfy the market and even,
on occasion, boost their income to super-star status.
Table 1. Cultural and Creative Industries: Revenues and employment, 2013
CCI sectors Revenues a Employment Turnover/employee c
Television 477 3.5 135.2

Visual arts 391 6.7 58.1
Newspapers and magazines 354 2.9 123.6
Advertising 285 2.0 145.9
Architecture 222 1.7 133.1
Books 143 3.7 39.0
Performing arts 127 3.5 35.9
Gaming 99 0.6 163.6
Movies 77 2.5 31.0
Music 65 4.0 16.3
Radio 46 0.5 91.6
Total (less double counting) 2 253 29.507 76.4

Asia and Pacific 743 12.7 58.5
Europe d
709 7.7 92.1
North America e 620 4.7 131.9
Latin America and the Caribbean e
124 1.9 65.3
Africa and Middle East f 58 2.4 24.2
Notes: a/ US$ billion; b/ millions of jobs; c/ US$ thousand; d/: Ernst and Young Global included Turkey in Europe; e/: Mexico is included in Latin
America; f/ Ernst and Young Global included Iran in the Middle East.
Source: Author, based on Ernst and Young Global (2015).
A 2014 study by Ernst & Young Global limited (Ernst and Young Global 2014) shows that the Creative
Economy’s contribution to the GDP of the European Union was 4.2 per cent in 2012. A total of 7 million
Europeans, or 3.3 per cent of the European Union’s active population (after removal of double counting), are
directly or indirectly employed in creative and cultural activities. Performing arts (1.23 million), visual arts (1.23
million) and music (1.17 million) employ more than 1 million people each, followed by advertising (818000)
books (646000) and films (641000). Altogether, in 2012 in the European Union, CCIs employed as many
people as the food and beverage services industry. They provided work for nearly 2.5 times more people
than automotive manufacturers and 5 times more than the chemical industry. According to this survey, the
creative and cultural sectors employed on average, more 15 to 29-year–olds than any other sector in Europe
(19.1 per cent of total employment in CCIs versus 18.6 per cent in the rest of the economy).
The CCI sector is also significant in developing and emerging countries. Zou, Siriboonchitta, Yamaka and
Maneejuk (2020) report that in China, the value added of the national culture and related industries in 2018
accounted for 4.3 per cent of GDP, employing 2.35 million persons. As for Latin America and the Caribbean,
Ernst and Young Global (2015) indicates that the CCI sector represented 2.2 per cent of GDP and 1.9 million
job and reports similar numbers for Africa and the Middle East (1.1 per cent and 2.4 million jobs).
In most developing countries, official data may underestimate the weight of the CCIs due to the sector’s
informal nature. Ernst and Young Global (2015) estimates that informal CCI sales in emerging countries
totalled an estimated US$33 billion in 2013 and provided 1.2 million jobs. According to UNESCO (2018),
the Creative Economy generates annual global revenues of US$2.25 trillion and exports of over US$250
billion. When it comes to the booming sub-sector of e-commerce, the CCI sector is a key driver of the
digital Creative Economy, contributing US$200 billion in global digital sales.
The sub-sector of collectible art and antiques (items considered worthy of collecting and traded in auctions
and galleries) is smaller (US$67 billion in 2018, its best year so far). With ups and downs, this market was
growing at an annual average of 5 per cent in the decade up to 2019. However, in 2020, traditional art
suffered greatly from the lockdown, travel bans, and social distancing. Global art sales fell 22 per cent in
2020 to US$50.1 billion, as stated in McAndrew (2021). It was the steepest market drop since the 2008–
2009 financial crisis. On the other hand, global e-commerce sales of art and antiques reached a record high
of $12.4 billion, doubling its 2019 value to represent a record share of 25 per cent of the market’s turnover.
With more than 80 per cent of UNESCO World Heritage properties having closed down due to the
COVID-19 pandemics, the livelihoods of millions of cultural professionals have been seriously jeopardized
according to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).12 As reported by UNWTO, global tourism suffered
its worst year on record in 2020, with international arrivals dropping by 74 per cent, with 1 billion fewer
international arrivals in 2020 than in the previous year, This compares with the 4 per cent decline recorded
during the 2009 global economic crisis.
The actors in this market, which mainly include public or private galleries and individual dealers, are
geographically concentrated in three areas: the United States (42 per cent), Europe (34 per cent) and
China (20 per cent), but their clients, i.e., private collectors, designers, and museums come from all over
the world (Figure 2). McAndrew (2021) estimates that the majority of the 305000 businesses operating in
the global art and antiques market are small and micro-sized businesses, both in terms of turnover and
employees. The sector was estimated to employ directly 2.9 million people in 2020.
Figure 1. The collectible art and antique market shares in 2020 (percentages)
United States, 42% China, 20% European,

14%
United Kingdom, 20%
Others,
4%
Source: Author, based on McAndrew (2021).
2. Copyright industries
Another source of valuable information on a closely related aspect of the Creative Industry is the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Its coverage of “Copyright industries” differs from the standard
definitions of creative industries, some sectors of the Creative Economy being excluded (arts of traditional
crafts, for example, except when exhibited in museums) while ofther sectors are included (TV sets,
computer equipment or blank recording supports). WIPO data also differ qualitatively, as statistics on
copyright industries cover only a proportion of the innovations that are internationally patented.
Table 2. Design, patents, and trademarks. Applications by region, 2010–2019 (counts and percentages)
Industrial design Patent Trademark
Region Annual Annual Annual

\year 2010 2019 growth* 2010 2019 growth* 2010 2019 growth*
Africa 17 100 17 500 0.26 12 700 16 100 2.67 193 300 260 900 3.39
Asia 588 900 928 900 5.19 1 028 800 2 094 800 8.22 2 400 000 10 696 700 18.06
Europe 304 900 331 300 0.93 343 200 363 900 0.65 1 981 900 2 336 800 1.85
LAC 14 500 15 600 0.82 55 400 55 700 0.06 600 700 799 000 3.22
North
34 200 57 400 5.92 525 700 657 900 2.52 501 100 866 300 6.27
America
Oceania 8 900 10 200 1.53 31 600 35 800 1.40 139 900 194 000 3.70
Total 968 500 1 360 900 3.85 1 997 400 3224 200 5.46 5 816 900 15 153 700 11.23
Note: */ Average annual growth rate over 2010–2019.

Source: Author, based on WIPO data.
When looking at the evolution of applications for patents and other types of intellectual property on
innovations (Table 2), two observations can be made. First, there is a wide heterogeneity across regions,
with Asia representing between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of all published applications in 2019. China in
2019 surpassed the United States to become the top filer of international patent applications. This is not
entirely justified by the sheer size of the countries in the Asian region. Controlling for economic size, Republic
of Korea, China and Japan occupy the top spot per unit of GDP on a world basis for patent fillings.
The gap between industrialised and advanced developing countries in terms of innovations is decreasing.
Indeed, the annual rate of growth observed in Table 3 for lower and upper middle income countries is
higher than for high-income ones. The second observation is more worrysome, as the innovative gap
between high and low performers has been increasing over the past 10 years. For example, the annual
average number of patent applications from low-income countries has dropped by 16 per cent since
2010. We will return to this issue when considering the role of the Creative Economy in contributing to the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Table 3. Design, patents, and trademarks. Applications by income groups, 2010–-2019 (counts and percentages)
Industrial design Patent Trademark

Region Annual Annual Annual
\year 2010 2019 growth* 2010 2019 growth* 2010 2019 growth*
High-income 432 500 490 000 1.40 1 395 800 1 593 400 1.48 2864 100 4 104 400 4.08
Low-income 2500 2500 0.00 9700 2000 -16.09 64 500 95 000 4.40
Lower middle-
34 100 46 900 3.60 61 100 80 600 3.13 560 900 971 200 6.29
income
Upper middle-
499 400 821 500 5.69 530 800 1 548 200 12.63 2 327 400 9 983 100 17.56
income
Total 968 500 1 360 900 3.85 1 997 400 3 224 200 5.46 5 816 900 15 153 700 11.23
Note: */ Average annual growth rate over 2010–2019.

Source: Author, based on WIPO data.
The contribution of copyright industries to national employment is slightly higher than their share of GDP
and stands at an average of 5.3 per cent. Mexico and the Philippines (about 11 per cent) have by far the
highest share of their labour force employed in the copyright Industries, albeit with low labour productivity.
The highest labour productivity is found in St. Kitts and Nevis, Panama and St. Lucia.
WIPO (2014) distinguishes between 4 different groups of copyright industries according to the level of
dependence on copyright material – core, interdependent, partial and non-dedicated support industries.
The core group covers Press and Literature, Software and Databases, Radio & TV, Music & Theatre,
Advertising, Motion pictures and video, with the addition of Copyright collecting societies. The report
suggests that developed economies produce more value and jobs in their core group of copyright
industries. For the developing world, non-core goups of sectors are of higher significance in terms of
job generation and value creation. This points to the importance of including non-core sectors in any
analysis of the copyright contribution, including the economic linkages and spillover effects of copyright
in developing economies.
3. Research and Development

Research and Development (R&D) bears perhaps the closest resemblance to the business definition of
creative activity. It also directly relates to the capacity to produce the copyrighted products analysed in the
preceding section. However, the importance of R&D goes much further. From a development perspective,
any review of creative activities would be incomplete without an assessment of the weight of a sector that
is key for creating and transferring technologies.
Mapping the depth of R&D activities at country level remains a challenge as data are scarce and reflect
heterogeneous definitions. Thus, the following sections are mainly illustrative. In order to have comparable
figures for R&D,13 this study uses the same regional disaggregation used in Ernst and Young Global (2015)
while compiling available data from UNESCO and OECD focusing on the year 2015.14 The box and whisker
diagrams in Figure 2 display the 1st and 3rd quartiles, with an inner line indicating the median and X the
mean. The ends of the “whiskers” display the lower and upper limits beyond which values are considered
outliers. The closer the mean is to the median, the more homogeneous the regional grouping is.
In general, there is an important heterogeneity between the regional groupings (Figure 2) and also within
each grouping, except for North America. This mainly reflects the close correlation between R&D spending
and levels of income. It is particularly the case for Africa and Middle East region, because Israel has
been included in the Africa and Middle East group by the Ernst and Young Global (2015) study (Turkey
being classified as Europe). Israel is an outlier for this group, which includes many Least Developed
Countries (LDCs). The Asia and Pacific group is also very heterogenous, as it includes both developed and
developing countries, some of which are classified as LDCs.
The correlation between R&D employment and GDP per capita is very high (0.81 over the whole sample
of countries). It is lower between R&D expenditure (relative to GDP) and per capita income (0.67). The
correlations are particualrly strong for Europe (0.88 and 0.82 for employment and spending, respectively),
and remain high in Asia-Pacific (0.83 and 0.55). Obviously, correlation is not causation, but there is
probably a circular causation between development level, as measured by income, and R&D. First, it is
because commercial R&D is concentrated in the large multinational firms of developed and advanced
developing countries. Second, it is because R&D depends largely on public spending and rich countries
in general have larger levels of public spending. But fostering R&D, and in particular employment in R&D
activities as a vector of technological transfer is also important, at least qualitatively, for low and middle
income developing countries.
Figure 2. Research and Development, employment and contribution to gross domestic products, 2013–2018
(average)
a. Personnel employed in Research and Development (per thousand employees)
Per thousand
25
20
15
10
0
Africa & Latin America Asia & Pacific Europe North America
Middle East & Caribbean
b. Gross domestic expenditure on Research and Development (percentage of GDP)
Per cent GDP

4
3,5
2,5
1,5
0,5
Africa & Latin America Asia & Pacific Europe North America
Middle East & Caribbean
Note: All persons engaged directly in R&D per thousand employed persons, in Full Time Equivalent.
Gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP.
Source: Author, based on UNESCO and OECD data.
B. Global trade in creative goods and services

One approach to measuring the commercial value of the Creative Economy and its evolution through time is
to look at its contribution to international trade. However, mapping trade in creative “goods” and “services”
depends crucially on how such goods and services are defined, which in turn depends on how the Creative
Economy itself is defined. Instead of counting up the value of trade in goods and services that are deemed
to be “creative”, an ideal measure of the contribution of the Creative Economy to trade would be to measure
the creative content of all traded goods and services, in the same way that statisticians measure their carbon
footprint.15 As no such statistics yet exist, we use here the usual approach despite its limitations.
The present UNCTAD classification of creative goods that we are using in this section is composed of
seven sectors (see Table 4). In total, there are [195] individual products, classified at the 6-digit-level of the
2012 Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS2012). The actual “creative contents”
may vary widely from one product to another, which is an important limitation when aggregating results.
Thus, trends rather than absolute values may be more informative, in particular when the data refer to well
identified sub-categories.
Indeed, as it stands, this classification could result in an overestimation of the total figure of trade in creative
goods, because it does not distinguish between products with “high” creativity components and those
with less. For example, the design (CER004) sector covers trade in all fashion items, such as clothing and
shoes. Counting the value of trade in all fashion items regardless of their creative contents may be the
reason why the design sector accounts for 68 per cent of the total trade in creative goods (2019 data).
Table 4. Classification of creative goods
CER001 All creative goods

CER002 Art crafts Carpets, Celebration, Other art crafts, Paperware, Wickerware, Yarn
CER003 Audio-visual Film, CD/DVD/Tapes
CER004 Design Architecture, Fashion, Glassware, Interior, Jewellery, Toys
CER005 New media Recorded media, Video games
CER006 Performing arts Musical instruments, Printed music
CER007 Publishing Books, Newspaper, Other printed materials
CER008 Visual arts Antiques, Paintings, Photography, Sculpture
Source: UNCTAD Stat website.
Using the UNCTAD classification, the value of the world exports of creative goods amounted to US$548
billion in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. This corresponds to slightly less than 3 per cent of the
value of world merchandise exports for the year. Although exports of creative goods increased between
2010 and 2019 by an annual average of 2.4 per cent, in-line with the growth of total merchandise trade,
this figure hides much of the heterogeneity in the evolution of individual sectors.
In 2019, CER004 Design (architecture; fashion; glassware; interior decoration; jewellery; toys) dominated
world trade in creative goods (68 per cent) and benefited from sustained demand (exports increased by
an annual average of 4.4 per cent between 2010 and 2019). At the other extreme, CER006 (musical
instruments and printed music) and CER003 (audio visual records) accounted for only one and three per
cent, respectively, of world trade. The weight of CER003, the Audio-visual chapter, decreased in both
relative and absolute terms, registering an annual average decline of 7 per cent over the 2010-2019
period (see Table 4). A similar trend, albeit less accentuated (-3 per cent per year), is observed for CER007
Publishing (books, etc.). This downward trend is attributable in large part to the process of digitalization,
which resulted in sales of publishing goods being recorded as trade in publishing services instead.
From a regional perspective, over the same period, Africa and the Pacific region (Oceania) registered
a decrease in the value of their exports, while those of North America remained stagnant. In contrast,
Latin America (growing 3.8 per cent per year in average), Asia (2.9 per cent) and Europe (2.2 per cent),
registered positive growth, albeit from very different bases. Once again, it should be stressed that these
aggregate data cover very heterogenous products, and should, therefore, be taken with a pinch of salt.
As mentioned, because of the definitional issues, regional divergences within a given chapter are probably
more informative than the evolution of broadly defined aggregates. For example, one may note for CER005
(recorded media and video games) the divergence between Africa (a drop of 7 per cent in the annual
average) and Latin America and the Caribbean (an increase of almost 15 per cent). Whereas explaining
this divergence would require a dedicated analysis which falls outside the scope of this study, the available
trade data can be used to indicate evolving strengths and weaknesses.
Table 5. Exports of creative goods by chapter and region, 2019 (million dollars and percentage)
Region CER002 CER003 CER004 CER005 CER006 CER007 CER008 Total
Africa 685.6 46.4 1372.7 71.2 8.5 157.8 360.2 2702.5
- Growth rate -2.3 -2.0 -0.2 -7.0 -2.3 -7.6 8.0 -0.9
Asia 29363.9 7486.3 227882.4 30356.0 3895.0 8060.8 11188.4 318232.7
- Growth rate 3.8 -5.5 4.1 -1.6 1.3 -1.2 4.9 2.9
Europe 7216.8 8912.7 121545.9 6797.2 1537.8 18465.1 17302.8 181778.2
- Growth rate 0.1 -7.6 5.1 -4.3 2.7 -2.2 4.2 2.2
Latin America and

565.0 387.5 5947.7 1694.4 151.8 582.2 865.0 10193.6
the Caribbean
- Growth rate 0.4 -6.2 4.1 14.6 5.3 -5.1 9.0 3.8
Northern America 1269.1 1868.4 14046.0 2853.5 544.6 5292.3 7809.0 33682.9
- Growth rate 0.0 -10.6 3.5 -0.7 0.7 -5.3 4.5 -0.1
Pacific 36.7 83.8 624.2 179.7 9.6 271.7 156.4 1362.2
- Growth rate -5.2 -9.7 -0.1 0.9 2.5 -3.8 5.4 -1.5
World 39137.1 18785.1 371418.8 41952.0 6147.3 32830.0 37681.8 547952.0
- Growth rate 2.7 -7.2 4.4 -1.8 1.7 -2.7 4.6 2.4
Note: Values: year 2019; Growth rates: compound average annual growth rate over the 2010–2019 period.
Source: Author based on CEPII-BACI data; see Gaulier and Zignago (2010) for more details.
When looking at the demand-side (imports), one notes a similar heterogeneity across regions and between
products. CER004 (Design) is an exception, with demand growth staying within a narrow 4 per cent-to-5
per cent interval in all regions. While Europe remains the biggest market in terms of volume, Asian and
North American consumers have been the main drivers in terms of growth. These three regions account
for as much as 92 per cent of total imports of creative goods. This market concentration has been
increasing over the years, as imports from other regions have registered low rates of growth.
Due to the limited availability of detailed trade data, the challenge of estimating the value of trade in
creative services is an even greater one than that of measuring trade in creative goods. The UNCTAD
classification of creative services includes: Advertising, market research and public opinion polling services;
Architectural, engineering and other technical services; Audio-visual and related services; Personal,
cultural, and recreational services; Other personal, cultural, and recreational services; and Research and
development services. Regrettably, only a minority of countries report their trade in services data at this
level of detail.
Based on very preliminary estimates, the value of world trade in creative services stood around US$1 trillion
in 2019 (18 per cent of total trade in commercial services). Unfortunately, half of this figure corresponds to
imputations and not to actual information.16 The export growth between 2010 and 2019 is estimated to
have been approximately 9 per cent per year, which is much higher than the estimated annual growth of
creative goods exports during the same period.
Based on the limited available data, most of which relate to developed economies, exports of services for
software development and information systems grew very rapidly, at an annual rate of over 15 per cent,
representing one-third of total creative exports in 2019. Within this group, software development is by
far the dominant activity. Charges for the use of intellectual property (licenses and other royalties), which
was the dominant item in 2010, with 37 per cent of total exports, grew relatively slowly over the decade
and stood as only the third item in importance (28 per cent). Creative business services (architectural,
advertising, etc.) maintained their relative importance (33 per cent of total reported exports). The relative
weight of cultural, heritage and recreational services, shrank over the period and in 2019 stood at only 5
per cent of total creative services exports.
Services can be exported through any of the four modes of supply, two of which are of specific relevance
to developing countries. The four modes of supply are: [1] Cross border supply; [2] Consumption abroad
(services consumed in the territory of the supplier country such as tourism); [3] Commercial presence
(foreign services supplied through commercial presence in the consuming countries); and [4] Temporary
presence of natural persons.
Mode 4 is particularly relevant for a large segment of creative services, such as performing arts (an artist
travelling to a foreign country for a recital) and professional services (a self-employed architect going abroad
to deliver advice to foreign clients). The most common exponent of Mode 2 is tourism, which is a major
source of export earnings for many countries, in particular small developing islands. Honeck (2008) shows
that a flourishing tourism sector in least developed countries (LDCs) can incentivise local manufacturing,
transforming raw materials into high value-added goods.17 Equally, the presence of creative industries,
such as local art and craft, increases the attractiveness of tourist destinations. Phillips et al. (2017) claim
that this is due to the fact that local art and craft “maintain the quality of uniqueness, and represent an
innate connection to the heritage and culture of the destination, as well as the indigenous knowledge and
craftsmanship of local artisans”.
Creative goods and services are also “indirectly” exported when they are used by other domestic industries
that then export their products (Fazio, 2021). This indirect mode of export is better analysed when looking
at trade in value-added along Global Value Chains in order to measure the creative footprint of traded
products (see footnote 16).
C. The production of creative “intangibles”

Most analyses related to the importance of the Creative Economy for development refer to the commercial
value of its production and its contribution to remunerated employment. Yet its contribution to social and
cultural development, which may be substantial, cannot be measured only in terms of the commercial
value of its products and services. This non-economic dimension is noted, for example, in the UNESCO
2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
1. Non-market value of the Creative Economy

Frey (2009) points out that cultural goods and services have symbolic as well as commercial value, which
can be subdivided into: Existence value (people gain benefit from knowing that it exists); Option value
(people value the possibility of enjoying art sometime in the future); Bequest value (people gain satisfaction
from knowing that their descendants will be able to enjoy cultural goods and services); Prestige value
(people gain satisfaction from knowing that the cultural supply in their city or region is highly valued by
persons living outside it); and Education value (people are aware that their cultural supply contributes to
their and/their fellow citizens’ sense of culture).
Since symbols and culture have some of the features of public goods, it is difficult to value them based on
market transactions. Non-market valuation techniques have been developed since the 1960s to address
the issue of estimating the benefits gained by consumers of public and mixed goods. Wiśniewska,
Budziński and Czajkowski (2020) conducted a pioneer non-market evaluation of cinemas by estimating the
change in consumer surplus related to the loss of access to cinemas, museums, and theatres in Warsaw,
Poland, based on the observed individual attendances and their costs. The authors find that whereas
the benefits provided by cinemas to individuals were substantive, cinemas are practically excluded from
public subsidies.
Similarly, free innovations, discussed later in Box 2 (section III.D), do not generate monetary rewards
and are not measured by national accounts. Von Hippel (2017) analyses the motivations of the “free
innovators” in the household sector of the economy who create an innovation using unpaid leisure time
and share their work without protecting their design from adoption by free riders.18
2. Territorial assessment of the Creative Economy

Many researchers have used the “territory” as their domain of analysis and have established a link
between creative industries and economic development of the area where these industries are established
(Correa-Quezada, Álvarez-García, Del Río-Rama and Maldonado-Erazo 2018). Many of these studies
have adopted the “Creative City” paradigm (see Box 1), as in Florida (2002). Using regional European data
for 1999–2008, Marco-Serrano, Rausell-Koster and Abeledo-Sanchis (2014) show that there is significant
feedback (bidirectional causality) between per capita GDP and employment intensity in the cultural and
creative industries.
Box 1. The Creative City
The concept of “Creative City” can be traced back to the late 1970s in Europe then in Australia. It was
initially a crossbreed of urban planning and sociology that promoted an encompassing view of urban life in
cities. When conducting urban development, urban planners were encouraged to facilitate cultural activities
and to encourage creativity. This aim was facilitated by the fact that, in general, urban centres attract higher
skilled people, who tend to be more open-minded. Florida (2002) synthetises their lifestyle as a combination
of three “Ts”: “talent, technology, tolerance”. In 2004, UNESCO launched the worldwide “Creative Cities
Network”, a cooperative framework of about 250 cities that has identified creativity and cultural industries
as a key element of their development plans.
There is also an economic dimension to the concept of “Creative City”, which takes the form of dynamic gains
of agglomeration. Economic growth is created by bringing together creative individuals and entrepreneurs
engaged in creative industries. As successful creative cities become centres of attraction for more talent
and more entrepreneurs, the process is self-reinforcing. They also become academic centres of excellence
and foster scientific and technological innovations.
Box 1. The Creative City (Cont’d)

Creating a “Creative City” requires time, resources and a favourable initial cultural and economic environment.
In order to start the “cultural reaction” process that generates creative activity, the “Creative City” must be
designed in such a way that creative individuals (often informal or underground creators) can meet up with
creative entrepreneurs. This process is not usually spontaneous and requires public policy support and
urban planning to create “spaces” (physical areas, institutions or associations) where these two types of
actors can meet.
A successful programme may, however, also generate negative outcomes, often associated with the
process of gentrification of urban centres. Rises in the prices of housing tend to displace previous urban
dwellers that cannot afford the higher costs of living.
The lockdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have accelerated the pivot towards digitalization. On
the demand-side, households have attended fewer cultural or sport events and consumed more on-line.
On the supply-side, remote working during the COVID19 lockdown in 2020 showed that, for many jobs,
employees do not need to be physically present. The “open space” model may, in the near future, be
replaced by the “dissolving office” with a “liquid work-force” being contracted world-wide (Accenture, cited
in Baldwin, 2019). The post-COVID era may, therefore, lessen the role of the territory as “the” Creative
Economy eco-system.
3. Inter-industry spill-over impacts of the Creative Economy

Another approach looks at how creativity in one industry can dynamically influence the productivity
and growth of other industries. Downstream creative industries producing and selling final goods and
services require creative inputs from upstream suppliers. The relationship runs both ways, as innovative
upstream suppliers allow the innovative downstream industry to continue exploring new products and
new markets.19 Bakhshi (2009) shows that interactions between buyers and suppliers within a supply
chain can support radical innovations when demand for the final product is unstable, which is the case
for many creative businesses.
Spill-overs from the “creative” sector to other industries are closely associated with the notion of
“intangible capital”, a broad category of knowledge-based assets.20 Intangibles, by definition, lack physical
embodiment. In the 21st century economy, their contribution to economic growth is increasing through
the creation of income in global value chains (GVCs), both at the production and at the commercialization
stages. To shed some light on the importance of creative functions, it is illustrative to look at the Smile
Curve, a major concept used for analysing value in the product cycle.
The “knowledge-intensive” functions requiring high creativity are found mostly in R&D, branding and
design (preproduction stages) as well as in marketing, which are classified as “innovation activities” by
Crepon, Duguet and Mairesse (1998) and others. GVC tasks range from preproduction (research and
development, product design, and branding) to production to postproduction (marketing, distribution,
and retailing). It is the firms specializing in pre- and postproduction tasks that organize, manage, and
operate GVCs. In general, the more innovative pre- and postproduction tasks add much more value than
production tasks to a product manufactured and traded along a value chain.23 (Inter-agency Global Value
Chain Report, 2021).
Figure 3. The Smile Curve
Value Added/Unit
Note: */ indicates activities with a high creative content.

Source: Author, adapted from Stan Shih.
D. The demand-side drivers

Most of the definitions we have reviewed so far focus on the supply side. Yet, demand for creative products
may probably play a greater role from a dynamic perspective. Indeed, the notion emerged in the 1990s
that people were “global consumers” as well as workers and producers.21 These “global consumers”,
often —but not only located in Creative Cities, are what drive the fast-moving segments of the Creative
Economy.
UNCTAD and UNDP (2010) highlight the increase in the demand for creative products, which has been
a significant driver of the Creative Economy’s growth. Cultural/creative products are typically “experience
goods and services” for which tastes are acquired through consumption.22 They are also symbolic goods,
whose value derives from cultural values, constructed by imitating others or distinguishing oneself from
others (Chang, 2012).
The consumption of symbols is also related to the satisfaction of basic needs in advanced economies: the
growth of creative industries in developed nations may simply reflect consumer spending moving on from
saturation in other product categories. In other words, creative goods and services are “superior goods”
that are increasingly in demand when household income increases. ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder’:
if creative industries are producers of symbols and social meanings (Markusen et al. 2008), then the
symbolism exists only if it exists also in the eyes of (some of) the consumers. For example, the objective of
creative workers involved in branding, marketing and advertising is to create in the mind of the consumers
an image of social meanings associated with a specific brand. The interaction between producer and
consumer is key according to Bakhshi, Hargreaves and Mateos-Garcia (2013), who understand that the
core function of the creative talent is to appreciate the ‘kind’ of effect that is desired and to devise an
original way of achieving that effect without expressing it in precise terms (or in any terms at all in the case
of open–ended creativity).
The inclusion of sports in several definitions of creative activities (for example in the United Kingdom and
the United States) is probably linked to consumer demand for entertainment, with sports being seen
as competing with other segments of the cultural and entertainment industries, such as movies, opera,
videogames. At the same time, increasing consumer demand for cultural experiences and products such
as crafts and music while on vacation has brought tourism closer to or even within the category of Creative
Economy (UNCTAD and UNDP. 2010, p.21).
In some cases, the “creative” character associated with a product resides almost entirely with the
consumer. This is the case with musical instruments whose design and production are standardised
(even if it requires craftmanship and expertise to make them). It could be argued that creativity mostly
takes place when the instrument is played. As an extension of this, in some cases, and thanks to the
democratization of advanced technologies, consumers are also becoming the producers of innovative
products (see Box 2).
Box 2. The creative consumers

Several recent developments in technology have helped create a class of “creative consumers”, as defined
by Eric von Hippel (2017). Free innovation, according to this author, is an inherently simple grassroots
innovation process, where innovations are developed by consumers. These innovators are self-rewarded
for their efforts (through personal utility, learning, and fun) and they give their designs away “for free”.
Referring to23 the results of nationally representative surveys in a selection of six OECD countries, the author
finds that from 1.5 to 6.1 per cent of members of the household sector engage in product innovation. That
makes for tens of millions of “free innovators”, who, as defined by von Hippel, are consumers who develop
innovation at a private cost during their unpaid discretionary time and do not seek intellectual property right
for their inventions.
General demand is usually irrelevant for these innovators, who care mainly about their own needs.
Innovations mainly result either in improving the functionalities of existing products or in solving specific
needs of a given community. Von Hippel (2017) cites the examples of a home-display system for remotely
monitoring glucose levels that was developed by the parents of a diabetic child, and of an open-source
system for printing artificial hands for children and adults in 3-D, among others.
Technological progress and the availability of cheap advanced digital tools have blurred the boundaries
between amateur and professional art and craftspeople. Dedicated Internet forums and open-source
platforms allow individual creators to develop their innovations collaboratively and share their ideas. As in
the case of design tools, von Hippel (2017) forecasts that “virtual reality tools and other new communication-
related tools not yet envisioned, will extend the scale and scope of free innovation and diffusion”.
IV.
Creative Industry 4.0
The historical concept or definition of the Creative Economy is inadequate to explain the contribution of
creativity to today’s production and consumption. “Change is in the air” claims Sturgeon (2017) when
referring to the imminent arrival of the 4th Industrial Revolution. This “revolution” is driven by progress in
information technology and software, advanced production equipment, robotics and factory automation,
which are expected to generate a quantum leap in how industries produce, and people consume. In this
context, the 4th Industrial Revolution will also change how the creative industries finance, produce and
distribute their products and services. The COVID-19 pandemic has played the role of accelerator in
the digital revolution. For example, Vlassis (2021) looks at the rise of platforms in the audio-visual sector
during the pandemic. A closely related aspect of the de-localization forces induced by Creative Industry
4.0 is analysed below in section III.A.
A. The 4th Industrial Revolution

At the 46th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2016, Charles Schwab characterised
the Fourth Industrial Revolution as “a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical,
digital, and biological spheres”.24
Two key ingredients of the 4th Industrial Revolution will have important implications in defining Creative
Industry 4.0. One is that automation systems are becoming cheaper, smarter, and more adaptable by
“employing” robots as a technically and economically viable alternative to human labour. The other is
lowered costs and greater programming flexibility, which in turn have lowered the volume threshold for
cost-effective production. This has also made using robots for niche tasks in companies working with
small batch sizes an economically viable choice (Tilley, 2017).
The 4th Industrial Revolution is also about communication and cooperation. One of the components of
Industry 4.0 is its service-oriented architecture (SOA), aimed at integrating heterogeneous systems. SOA
has received a great deal of attention as it creates a cyber-physical manufacturing environment that
enables communication and interaction amongst all the players in the value-creation chain (Xu, Xu and
Ling Li, 2018). SOA enables the timely sharing of information and integration of entities that would not
have been able to inter-connect using previous informatic technology. Not only does SOA open the door
to more cooperative production in geographically diversified locations, but it also opens the way for new
marketing and distribution channels of creative goods and services. As the marketing and distribution
of creative products is often identified as one of the main bottlenecks in developing new activities, the
following section will look at these aspects in more detail.
Industry 4.0 goes beyond production: it is also changing the way in which products are distributed and
commercialised. By flattening the world, technology has changed our understanding of international trade.
Globalization today is about more than international supply chains and trade; it also includes trade in ideas
embodied in intellectual property. The revenue from intellectual property rights in the United States almost
doubled between 2005 and 2018 (from US$64 billion to US$119 billion) and represented about 5 per cent
of total United States goods and services exports, according to van der Marel (2021).
Similarly, there is a convergence of taste and consumption patterns among consumers, especially
young adults. This, however, has not resulted in a convergence around a unique globalized standard.
On the contrary, it has facilitated many business models to co-exist, providing smaller firms with niche-
opportunities to compete in a world dominated by large corporations (see Li, 2020, for a definition of
business model). This element of Industry 4.0 is particularly relevant when it comes to the Creative
Economy, which is characterised by heterogeneity.
It is often said that the special circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic have served as an
accelerator for many of the Creative Industry 4.0 trends. According to the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU), global Internet traffic was 66 times higher in 2019 than in 2005, and the number of Internet
users more than doubled from 2010 to 2019 (ITU, 2020). Because of the “stay at home” regime and
lockdowns in 2020 and 2021, people were forced to switch to online solutions. The main winners have
been the global platforms, such as Alibaba, Amazon, Netflix or Tencent, which are integrating e-commerce
and e-entertainment. Vlassis (2021) reviews the rise of global platforms in China and the West, and
highlights the issues caused by these oligopolistic structures in Western economies.
The growth in global e-commerce since mid-March 2020 has accelerated (UNCTAD, 2020b). Indeed,
international trade in bits is expected to register strong growth in the future. The cross-border business
to consumer (B2C) e-commerce market may reach almost US$5 trillion by 2026, against a value of just
US$440 billion in 2019.25 Purchases from mobile devices (m-commerce) are estimated to reach 3.5 trillion
in 2021.26
With COVID-19 bringing global tourism to a standstill, millions of people in quarantine have been seeking
out cultural and travel experiences from their homes. In this process, the crafts industries that rely on
visitors to sell their products have seen their businesses collapse. The crisis has put between 100 and
120 million tourism jobs at risk, according to UNWTO, many of which are in small and medium-sized
enterprises.
B. When Industry 4.0 meets the Creative Economy

The Creative Economy is not unaffected by the 4th Industrial Revolution. New technologies provide new tools
for the creative industry to leverage individual talents or to share and develop new ideas. New technologies
also open new channels to reach consumers. However, new technologies present significant challenges for
some segments of the creative industry. The related literature on both aspects of this subject is now abundant.
Peukert (2018), for example, presents a review of the economic implications of the digital revolution for the
cultural industries. His proposals for a new research agenda ranging from digital participation to artificial
intelligence can be extended to the wider creative industries. In the same vein, Li (2020) examines how digital
technologies may facilitate business model innovations in the creative industries.
IV. CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0 25
1. Creative Industries as incubators of new technologies

Many of technologies that paved the way to Industry 4.0 were born in the workshops of creative workers
working on 3D augmented reality videogames. The movie industry has been using computer-generated
scenography and animations for decades, with digital fakes playing alongside human actors. Sturgeon
(2017) asserts that the new creative capabilities offered by Industry 4.0 should free designers of technical
hurdles, allowing them to rely more on their subjective and artistic judgment. Creative activities such as
architecture have used computer assisted design (CAD) and 3D rendition software for decades; now,
fashion is also using new technologies, as are other branches of art (see Box 3).
New tools promote new ideas. The industry for example has undertaken experimentations with digital
technologies at the downstream end of the value chain, by creating new forms of delivering the product to
the consumers, from augmented reality to motion capture and motion sensors. Today, advanced artificial
intelligence and face recognition techniques allow the creation of synthetic media called “deep fakes”, a
contraction of deep learning and fake, impersonating actual actors with an almost perfect rendition. With
this technology, the industry has the opportunity to revive dead actors and characters with a simple face
swap and coordinated synthetic language.27
Industry 4.0, with associated technologies such as 5G Internet, is a promising framework for the Creative
Economy, as it will be used for integrating and extending design, manufacturing, and distribution processes
at both intra- and inter-organisational levels. As UNESCO (2018) recognises, the cultural industry is
increasingly hyperlinked, multimedia-based, and interactive. New technologies open up access to digital
content, reduce production costs, and increase exposure. For example, prototyping required to test new
designs or products can be made easier and faster with 3D printers. The digital economy also creates
innovative ways to finance small and micro projects, such as crowd funding.
Heritage activities that preserve old traditional techniques can also benefit from advances in technologies
for various aspects of their production cycle, from training and knowledge sharing to procurement and
commercialization. The experience of art dealers in developing online viewing rooms (OVRs) and their
success in attracting younger buyers are an indication of the sector’s strong potential to increase turnovers
and diversify sales. This is particularly relevant for developing countries or for minority communities wanting
to preserve and develop their indigenous cultural heritage.
2. Industry 4.0 as a threat to some creative activities

Several aspects of Industry 4.0 may pose an existential challenge to some segments of creative activities
such as handicrafts. Technology and innovations can allow almost all handmade utility crafts to be
“manufactured”. Design and modelling software can integrate traditional patterns or shapes in new
designs. Industry 4.0, with its capacity to mimic the work and feelings of human beings, can even produce
crafts that may be undiscernible from the original products, even mimicking the small variations and
imperfections that human artisans make. This is particularly important when considering policy options
to achieve the Sustainability Goals (SDGs), since the kind of “natural monopoly” that “the long years
required to master the skills required to be a first-class practitioner” craftspeople enjoyed could be rapidly
eroded by the new generation of advanced robots guided by artificial intelligence capable of reproducing
traditional crafts in mass.
At the same time, Zulaikha and Brereton (2011) argued that traditional crafts can benefit from the
“democratisation” of advanced digital technology in Industry 4.0, both for the production and for the
sale of their trade. As being hand-made is the distinguishing characteristic of traditional craft production,
an innovation strategy should reflect this special craftsmanship. Accordingly, the “traditional touch” of
handicraft products can be protected from undue competition by using appropriate Intellectual Property
instruments.
The attitude of business owners to the new technologies may be an obstacle to adopting Creative Industry
4.0. Are all the craftspeople up to date with and willing to master the challenges of the digital age? Perhaps
there is a difference in attitude between the artist-craftspeople and the ordinary craftsperson, as posited
by Zulaikha and Brereton (2011). The COVID-19 pandemic may have been a turning point in this respect.
During lockdowns, artisans had to turn towards non-traditional channels, such as e-commerce platforms
to buy their inputs and sell their products.
Box 3. Digital technologies, creation and distribution

At the heart of the fashion industry is the notion of design. Every season, designers must come up with
new ideas for the fashion market. To give shape to their ideas, designers have moved from paintbrushes
to pixels. In a few years, in addition to their customary creation of patterns and garments, designers will be
able to dress virtual mannequins to present their products to the public. Designers will also become a more
integral part of the process, moving beyond pure creation to the actual manufacturing of garments, their
vision being embedded more deeply into the DNA of their products (McKeegan, 2019).
As in many other creative industries, this sector was affected by supply-chain disruptions, lockdowns, and
collapsed international travel during the Covid-19 pandemic. In the global luxury market, sales in 2020
shrank by some 22 per cent, according to consultancy Bain and Altagamma.28 In response to the Covid-19
challenge, most high-end brands expanded their e-commerce channels. On-line digital sales are expected
to account for some 30 per cent of global luxury item sales by 2025.
Digitalization has also helped reduce the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on fashion. To remain in activity
during the lockdowns, Hanifa, a Congolese fashion brand created by designer Anifa Mvuemba, turned
to innovative 3D technology. When the brand’s runway show in New York was cancelled, Mvuemba
transformed each garment into a 3D image and fitted them onto the bodies of moving avatars. In May 2020,
she held a virtual fashion show in which each garment appeared to be worn by invisible models strutting
across a catwalk. One of the top marketing trends in 2021 is expected to be 3D modelling augmented
reality that imitates actual life and improves the shopping experience (Kratovich, 2021).
Even academic fine arts are influenced by Industry 4.0. In 2019, Ai-Da, the world’s first robot artist according
to its creators, exhibited its creations at a University of Oxford exhibit, and Christie’s New York became
the first major auction house to auction an AI-generated work. Since 2006, British computer scientist
Simon Colton has been developing creative graphics software to turn digital photographs into works of art
(Haynes, 2019). In March 2021, a major auction house sold a collage of 5,000 individual electronic images
that does not exist in actual physical form. The collage takes the form of a new kind of digital asset, a Non-
Fungible Token, which is authenticated by blockchain and certified for its originality and ownership.
While “e-creation” is still in its infancy for academic art, using digital technologies for sales is an established
practice. Online viewing rooms and online auction sales are among the digital strategies art dealers most
commonly use. Sotheby’s was one of the first online auction platforms on the market, going into partnership
with Amazon in 1999 and then with eBay in 2003. According to McAndrew (2021), online sales brought an
influx of young buyers new to the art market, with 40 per cent of online sales in 2020 coming from young
“millennial” collectors. New technologies are particularly relevant for small art firms. Online art sales made
up a substantially higher proportion of those businesses’ sales, accounting for a reported 46 per cent of the
sales of businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million in 2020.
3. Creative Industry 4.0 and development

Creative Industry 4.0 is not a matter for developed economies only. Middle-income developing countries,
such as Indonesia, identify the Creative Economy as a potential “gold mine” in terms of finding new
emerging markets, particularly for small and medium-sized firms that have access to the appropriate
technology (Afriantari and Harikesa, 2020). The authors give examples of local textiles that can be
branded as high-end fashion items, in addition to crafts, music, and architectural products. UN-ITC’s
Ethical Fashion Initiative also looks to connect marginalised artisans from the developing world — the
majority of whom are women— with international fashion houses. Among the tools used to this end, the
project relies on continuous data gathering, mapping and tracking tools.29
Moreover, Industry 4.0 is expected to lower the barriers to market entry for businesses. The availability
of smaller and cheaper digitalised tools can help developing countries to move out of low volume hand-
made crafts while preserving the originality of their cultural designs. As mentioned by Sturgeon (2017),
new digital tools “present opportunities in developing countries where technical skills might be low, but
IV. CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0 27
knowledge of local market preferences is high”. These new technologies also create new channels for
the marketing and distribution of products, improved productivity and higher volumes of sales, leading to
higher income for artisans.
While Rodrick (2018) reminds us that these advanced technologies can be labour-saving, Creative
Industry 4.0 can also preserve employment and create new job opportunities by opening new markets
and increasing production. Many developing countries, particularly small developing countries, need
to explore the new export channels created by e-commerce in order to expand the markets for their
creative products. As we shall see below, creatives operating in the digital economy can reduce their size
disadvantage by reaching out to customers worldwide.
V.
Creative Industry 4.0
and the future of
comparative advantages
Sturgeon (2017) envisages three broad scenarios for the future of value creation in GVCs, each of which
having very different outcomes for developing countries. One is the reshoring option, which entails driving
a retreat from export-oriented development strategies in developing countries. The second scenario sees
the tools of the 4th Industrial revolution empowering firms in developing countries both to move up in
the value chain more easily and to become less dependent on the coordination of lead firms. The third
scenario is close to maintaining the status quo, utilising comparative advantages in specialised tasks
hence maintaining the existing geographical division of labour. These alternative scenarios illustrate the
possible changes in comparative advantages in the world of “trade in tasks”. These scenarios are also
appropriate from a Creative Industry 4.0 perspective.
A. Comparative advantages in trade in creative goods and services

Comparative advantages cannot be measured directly and must be inferred from observing the volume,
origin, and composition of trade flows. In other words, comparative advantages are “revealed” by trade
data, hence the name Revealed Comparative Advantages (RCA). Balassa (1965) defined one of the
first RCA indices. The Balassa formula remains one of the most widely used today, even if many other
alternatives have been proposed since then (see Escaith 2020 for a review).
RCA is usually defined as the ratio of two shares. The numerator is the share of a country’s total exports
of the product of interest in its total exports, while the denominator is the share of world exports of the
same product in total world exports. A value of an RCA above one for a given product means that the
country has a revealed comparative advantage in that sector. This formula can be applied to both goods
and services and serves to identify the potential benefits to exporters of product specialization.
In a world of global value chains, however, such an indicator may be misleading. This is especially the case
for products with high creative content when the country where creation takes place (an intangible) differs
from the country where final assembly (building the tangible product) is carried out. Merchandise trade
statistics will assign the export value to the country that exports the assembled product, while the actual
revenue flows to other country, using different accounting channels for intellectual property, royalties and
license fees payments in the respective countries’ Balance of Payments.
This is particularly relevant for the Creative Economy: payments for the use of creativity may take the form
of patent royalties, trademark royalties, franchises, copyrighted materials, book publishing royalties, music
royalties, and art royalties. Well-known brands and fashion designers can charge royalties for the use of
their names and designs. Publishers and media pay authors, musical artists, and production professionals
for the use of their produced, copyrighted material. These payments are reflected in trade in creative
services or as repatriation of profits if the exporting plant is a filial of a multinational enterprise.
Measuring these intangibles is difficult, and the statistical coverage of trade in creative services remains
deficient. Yet, the contribution of these intangibles to trade and development is becoming more and more
important in contemporary economics. For these reasons, the Inter-agency Global Value Chain Report
(2021) dedicates a complete chapter to trade in intangible assets. The Report estimates that intangible
assets add on average twice as much value to manufactured products as tangible capital.
B. Creating value: The role of intangibles

In most papers, measuring the contribution of the Creative Economy to economic growth relies on arriving
at an estimate of the value of “intangible capital” and income flows resulting from intangible assets:
intellectual property, such as patents and copyrights, or other intangibles that are currently not treated as
investment in national accounts (such as market research, advertising, training, and organisational capital).
Intangible assets are usually classified in one of three ways: (i) computerised information, (ii) innovative
property, and (iii) economic competencies. The first class includes computer software and databases. The
second class encompasses all the activities linked to innovation such as R&D, copyrights and licenses.
Lastly, the third class includes brand equity (with related expenditure on advertising and market research),
firm-specific human capital, and organisational structure. The third category of assets is not directly
observable using national accounts.
Positive spill-overs from the creative sector to other industries can take several forms (UNCTAD-UNDP,
2008):
• Knowledge and artistic spill-overs, which allow firms to benefit from new ideas, product or
process innovations developed by creative firms.
• Product spill-overs, whereby the demand for a firm’s product increases as a result of creative
product development (e.g., increased demand for improved hardware to run 3D video games).
• Network spill-overs, also called agglomeration economy, which are closely linked to the notion
of the “Creative City”: firms benefit from locating themselves close to large clusters of creative
industries, typical of film or software production.
• Training spill-overs, which are closely related to the network effect, and happen when creative
workers trained in one company move to another one.
There are basically two ways of measuring these external effects. One is to conduct specific surveys and
develop ad-hoc measurement tools. This approach is intensive in micro-data and best used at a territorial
level or for a specific branch of industry. The other is to build an indirect estimate based on input-output
modelling, using growth accounting techniques.
An example of the indirect approach can be found in Chen, Los and Timmer (2018), who used the World
Input-Output (WIOD) database. They find that investment in intellectual property products (IPP) as defined
by National Accounts (computer software and databases, research and development, mineral exploration,
and artistic originals) generates an income share of 2.4 per cent of the value-added in manufacturing
V. CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0 AND THE FUTURE OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES 31
GVCs. According to the authors, the observable part of the Creative Economy output can explain only a
minor part of intangible income, which stood at 27.8 per cent in 2000.
Alsamawi, Cadestin, Jaax, Guilhoto, Miroudot and Zurcher (2020) follow a similar line of research, using a
larger set of developing countries. They find that total intangible capital accounts for about 27 per cent of
income in manufacturing GVCs and that this share increased between 2005 and 2015 in OECD countries.
The situation in non-OECD developing countries is different, as the return to intangible capital decreased
during this period. The authors attribute this to the higher growth of labour compensation in emerging
countries and to more competitive domestic markets, which made it more difficult to maintain high rents
derived from market power. It would, nevertheless, be a concern if the drop in return to intangible capital
reflected lower investment in intangible assets and weaker brands for firms in non-OECD economies (in
other words, if it reflected lower investment in creative content).
C. From “trade in value-added” to “trade in income”

As we have seen, knowledge-related intangibles generate income revenues that are not properly measured
by trade statistics. To assess the true international competitiveness of Country A, we need to answer how
much value-added of other countries’ exports translates into the income gains by the residents of Country
A. This is particularly relevant to trade in creative products that have a large intellectual property content.
But it is also significant for cross-border creative workers (mode 4 of trade in services) when the income
earned by these workers does not stay in the country to which they are contributing value added.
Unfortunately, the ways of calculating bilateral “trade in income” are imprecise, and even more so for
the income generated by the Creative Economy. The first approach would be to balance the value of
exports with the payments for the creative services required to produce these exports. This information,
constrained by the above-mentioned limitations on trade in services statistics, is available at sectoral level
through the Trade in Value-Added (TiVA) databases. The large incidence of foreign-owned capital in many
GVCs implies that profit repatriation is another channel for income being sent back, but this information is
not available in TiVA data. The Smile Curve in Figure 3 tells us that a large share of these profits is related
to the creative functions.
In a seminal paper, Bohn (2019) compares countries’ exports of income with conventional gross export
and value-added export indicators. Excluding small countries tax-havens, the United States and Japan
are the two countries where trade in income is the highest — 50 per cent and 40 per cent higher in 2014
compared to the domestic value-added embodied in exports. The value of income transfer was so big
in Japan that it converted the deficit in the value-added exports of US$72 billion into an income surplus
of US$ 95 billion. In general, the author finds that more advanced economies had a higher net income
surplus relative to their value-added surplus. The opposite was true for many emerging and developing
countries.
From these results, we can extrapolate that the new perspective on competitiveness in “trade in income”
depends significantly on the strength of the domestic creative industries and their capacity to create
intellectual property. Multinational firms in high income countries improve their international competitiveness
by keeping the core innovative functions such as R&D, design, and branding at home and offshore the
manufacturing segment to countries with relatively low labour costs. The nexus between a country’s
creative capacity and its international competitiveness is, therefore, more significant than what traditional
trade statistics suggest.
D. E-Commerce, E-Mode 4, and market access

Revealed comparative advantages reflect not only the competitiveness of an economy, but also the relative
cost of trade. Even if a country’s firms are internationally competitive at factory-gate prices, the additional
trade costs erode its production-cost advantages. These trade costs tend to be high in developing
countries that are far away from major global markets (e.g., Europe, North America, and East Asia). The
rapid changes in business models associated with Industry 4.0 and the rise of the digital economy is
changing this peripheral-country curse.
The growth of the global digital economy has accelerated in the last few years, and its coverage, speed
and accessibility have increased dramatically. A few decades ago, UNIDO (2020) recalls, few would have
imagined that the largest hotelier in the world would function without owning a hotel or guesthouse, or
that a technology start-up could use a single smartphone application to build a US$40 billion taxi business
without owning so much as a car.
In the new ecosystem of trade in digital services, or “trade in bits”, the ways that firms produce and that
households consume have been transformed. Consumers in many countries, developed or developing,
have become accustomed to listening to music, following a TV series or radio program, and playing
games on mobile devices. Digital tools have also offered opportunities for consumers to behave not
simply as consumers but also as the generators of their own content. As a new generation of consumers
becomes fluent in digital technology, they become able to co-create their own solutions. On the supply
side, creative industries such as media companies increasingly resemble tech companies that use and
transform data and online content into high-value services to consumers (Ernst and Young Global, 2014).
A worrying sign is the growing digital divide between countries and regions, and among people. UNESCO
(2018) recognises an “imbalance in the trade of cultural goods and services worldwide, with less than 30
per cent of total global exports of cultural goods originating from developing countries” and “an imbalance
in the level of access artists and cultural professionals have to create or perform in countries of their
choice due to travel restrictions”. In the Post-COVID-19 era, where Mode 4 delivery of services will remain
restricted, poor quality of digital communication will further handicap low-income developing countries.
1. Trade growth at the intensive and extensive margins

When assessing trade growth, analysts differentiate between the extensive margin and the intensive
margin. The extensive margin is related to diversification and can be defined as growth of trade through
expanding the varieties of exported products or export markets. The intensive margin is related to the
value of existing exports and can be further subdivided into changes in volumes and changes in unit prices
for the same varieties of products.
In creative industries, the majority of stakeholders are SMEs, for whom export growth through the
extensive margin can be very costly.30 Growth at the intensive margin, however, also has its limits when
the products are “niche products”, which is often the case for creative industries. Creative Industry 4.0
offers opportunities to overcome these obstacles at both the extensive and the intensive margins.
A common observation has been that, in digital markets, new technologies and delivery platforms reduce
the need for intermediaries. That is, on an online platform, a supplier’s ability to offer products or services
is not constrained by its storage or logistics capacity as was the case with bricks and mortar stores.
Lin (2015) highlights the rapid rate of changes in business models, including online business models of
creative industries. These platforms have applications for all types of businesses, opening doors to new
digitally connected players (Inter-agency Global Value Chain Report, 2021).
However, after reviewing a series of case studies on computer games, music and television in the United
Kingdom, Searle (2011) concludes that while there is evidence that new technologies and delivery platforms
reduce the number of intermediaries, they may also increase their strength. His research suggests that
the digital era is creating fewer and more powerful intermediaries represented by a few internet-based
platforms and social networks. The network effect —the more users a platform has, the more valuable
those users find it— favours concentration. As mentioned, this tendency has accelerated during the
COVID-19 pandemic (Vlassis, 2021). Digital platforms may also use algorithms that unfairly promote their
own products or demand higher fees for greater visibility.31
That being said, new business models should be able to combine the vitality of creative activities and
entrepreneurship with innovations in information technology. According to Ernst and Young Global (2014),
the changes introduced by the new technologies can be summarized as follows:
• Abundance: The abundance and immense diversity of content is now taken for granted by today’s
consumers.
• Personalization: The creative industries embody our appetite for more and more personalized
content and consumption.
• Aggregation: The emergence of “time and content consumption crossroads,” such as Google
and Facebook, has fuelled market segmentation enabled by big data and the renewed search for
relevance.
• Community: Social networks and the digitization of community-based economy.
• Involvement: The role of consumers has changed. They contribute to the production, diffusion,
and marketing of cultural and creative works.
• Illegal content: Unlawful copies and dissemination deprive creators of revenues, in some cases
making it hard to create.32 OECD (2021) indicates that new technological advances, such as
blockchain, offer various means of genuineness identification to creative producers.
E-commerce offers new opportunities, but it is also a demanding business model. A study by the United
Nations International Trade Center (UN-ITC) (2019) on the potential of digital trade for creative industries
in Rwanda concluded that where you export to matters as remuneration from exports varies among
destination markets. The report recommends, therefore, to tailor production of content to suit specific
markets, rather than producing general content for a non-specific audience. Adjusting products according
to market demand, therefore, becomes the key to the survival of smaller players.
Creative enterprises in developing countries often lack the resources needed for an ambitious diversification
strategy, especially when it comes to exploring culturally distant foreign markets. Diversifying products
or contents away from one’s natural ecosystem carries a risk, too. Servicing consumers whose values
and beliefs are different from one’s own may cause misunderstandings and lead to commercial failures
(Shahdad and Nakhaie, 2011). Referring to the fashion industry, Richter and Rinnebach (2014) observe
that the main brands and retailers are now diversifying into emerging markets, which are experiencing
significantly faster growth rates compared to mature and saturated markets. In order to do so successfully,
these firms must understand the specific culture and behaviour of local consumers.
The aforementioned UN-ITC study (2019) also highlights the importance of exploring new business models.
Most creative businesses surveyed by the ITC study were developed with limited financial and human
resources. Their small size forced them to look for synergies with other actors in their local ecosystem (e.g.,
home-grown solutions such as local e-payment, music and film festivals, and co-production schemes)
but also to leverage global digital platforms such as ad-supported free services and revenue sharing with
content contributors. OECD (2021) identifies a series of measures to help small entrepreneurs to harness
the potential of new technologies such as the use of artificial intelligence or e-commerce platforms. This
report also calls our attention to the risks of increased digital gaps between people, places and firms.
New business models may be a (local) solution to market failures. De Beukelaer and Fredriksson (2019)
even suggest that IP piracy might actually contribute to the development of local cultural industries. They
give the example of musicians in Africa who have accrued fame through media exposure resulting from
pirated sales of their music. In some instances, creatives have focussed more on increasing their public
visibility as “social media influencers” than on increasing sales of their music, thereby trading e-visibility for
brand and product marketing.
2. The death of distance

One of the workhorses of international trade analysis is the gravity model. This model suggests that
bilateral trade between two countries is the product of two opposing forces. On one side, there is the
attracting force, which depends on the economic size of the trading partners and, on the other, is the
repelling force, which depends on the physical distance between trading partners. To extend the analogy,
the repelling force can be understood to reflect the costs of trade, which include transportation and tariff
and non-tariff surcharges. Other repelling factors are language and cultural barriers that increase the cost
of information and hamper the prospect of developing new markets or of negotiating new contracts.
These soft barriers are often correlated with geographical distance.
Shifting to internet-enabled trade online can reduce the importance of geographical distance-related trade
costs even when goods still need to be physically transported. Analysing intra-European Union trade
with a gravity model, Gomez-Herrera, Martens and Turlea (2013) find that distance matters far less for
e-commerce than for traditional trade. The rise of digital information technology has even caused some to
proclaim the “death of distance” as a contributor to the repelling force. On the other hand, the report also
points out that when distance matters less, other factors such as a common language tend to become
relatively more important.
Xing (2018) extends the gravity analysis to a panel of developed, developing, and least-developed
countries. As there is no specific bilateral e-commerce trade data for these countries, the research focuses
on the impact of several ICT indicators on business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumers (B2C)
types of trade. The study shows that since developed countries are already well covered by ICT networks,
trade growth will be greater for those at the lower end of the ICT development spectrum. Fixed line and
mobile phone penetration are particularly important for less developed countries, with an increase of 10
per cent in telephony coverage improving export performance by 10 per cent. A 10-percentage point
rise in internet adoption leads to an average increase in trade of 1.23 percentage points in general. The
positive impact upon trade goes as high as 3.25 percentage points for South-North exports.
Geography also matters for the domestic aspects of the Creative Economy. The importance of the
“Creative City” is the clearest example of the benefits of clustering all actors and stakeholders in the same
place. The cost of remoteness is particularly high for individual creators but can —and probably will— be
alleviated by digital communication and production platforms.
Not only do new technologies offer new opportunities and reduce the barrier of physical distances, but
they also compress time. First, the rhythm of innovation is currently accelerating at such a speed that even
researchers and policy makers find it difficult to keep pace with the rapid changes in business models.
Second, consumer preferences and behaviour are in such a state of flux that they outpace the production
responses of content creators.33 In the novel Through the Looking Glass, the Red Queen tells Alice, “It
takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.” Similarly, Creative Industry 4.0 runs the risk
of requiring firms to adapt faster and faster just to stay in the market.
3. The death of market size - Head vs. Long Tails

Another obstacle thought to apply to firms in small developing countries looking for new market
opportunities is that of the size of the domestic market. However, here again, the digital economy is
allowing firms to bypass “traditional small-market-size limits” by allowing them to reach out to many more
customers worldwide. Something similar is observed with crowdfunding investment in music production,
where the capacity to reach many potential contributors compensates for the low level of their individual
contributions.
As discussed above, as customers have become more reachable across the world, an online supplier’s
ability to offer a repertoire of content or services is not constrained by its storage or logistics capacities.
Even traditional arts and cultural institutions use digital technologies to grow their ‘virtual capacity.’ For
example, over ten million tickets for high–definition live broadcasts from the New York Metropolitan Opera
House have been sold since the series started in 2006 (Bakhshi et al, 2013). These new opportunities are
relevant for creative industries as a whole —as illustrated by the Long Tail model— which involves selling a
variety of speciality products to different individuals. Selling in the Long Tail, a slow-moving market, is also
a way of avoiding the above-mentioned dilemma that the fictional Alice faced.
The Long Tail model was introduced by Chris Anderson the Editor in Chief of Wired magazine in 2004.
Most business models target the fat “Head” part of a market (such as the core 80 per cent) in order to
recoup the sunk costs of investment through high volumes of sales. If a product is not popular among
this 80 per cent of consumers, as measured by their purchasing power, it will not offer a profitable return
above the costs of production. Industry 4.0 allows producers to sell in the Long Tail without high sunk
costs. In Make to Order (MTO) business models, products can be customized to different consumers’
specifications and production begins only after a customer’s order is confirmed. With no shelf space to
pay for and, in the case of purely digital services, no manufacturing costs and hardly any distribution fees,
Industry 4.0 makes selling to the Tail economically viable.
Move To Order and Long Tail marketing also allow suppliers to produce and sell non-mainstream products
by betting on the ‘wisdom of the crowd’. This is an important feature for the Creative Industry, which in
general looks to produce highly symbolic products in small series. An example of the Long Tail in the
publishing industry would be selling second-hand books, back number catalogues to connoisseurs, or
vintage music albums fondly remembered by long-time fans or discovered anew by others. The market
for books that are not sold in the average bookstore may be even larger than the market for those that are
(Anderson, 2004). As a result, according to the Long Tail paradigm, almost anything is worth offering on
the off chance that it will find a buyer. Benefits from the Long Tail strategy are shared by both producers
and consumers. For the creative industry, it is an efficient business model, allowing small firms outside the
mainstream market to find customers. For consumers, it provides opportunities to tap a much larger and
more diversified market.
Fishing for consumers in the Long Tail marketplace through e-commerce and adopting an MTO business
model allows businesses to grow at the extensive margin with a single lump-sum investment (website,
etc.) and very low inventories. Moreover, the lump sum investment required to adapt to new technologies
is falling.34 From the perspective of the SDGs, the Long Tail marketplace offers the dual advantage of
helping small producers in remote areas and of offering consumers at the lower end of the income range
new options. Taking the Long Tail approach may, therefore, help many handcrafters to satisfy both existing
and new demand.
By contrast, Bakhshi et al. (2013) point out that, for the majority of companies, ‘living in the Long Tail’
fails to generate significant sales. They attribute the sluggish sales in the Long Tail to an overall decline in
demand for artistic products that lack large production and marketing budgets.
VI.
Harnessing comparative
advantages in Creative
Industry 4.0
Dudukalov and Ushakov (2020) argue that, for all economies, forward-looking modernization policies
require “fuller support for life-long education”, further development of technological and informational
infrastructure, support to innovation and entrepreneurship, and deregulation. They also argue that dialogue
with businesses and other stakeholders at local and national levels should be a standard feature of
policymaking. Writing from their own experience of living in a transition economy, the authors also caution
against the lobbying influence of sectorial interests in shaping policies. Taking an inclusive approach is
what differentiates “smart” industrial policies from traditional “vertical” industrial policies.
A. Smart industrial policies

When industrial policies target global value chains, they are often called “smart industrial policies”, perhaps
to differentiate them from old-style import-substitution policies. This could also be because GVCs include
so many actors at local, regional, national, and international levels that applying a traditional vertical or
“silo” style public policy would not work.
For small developing economies that do not have competitive advantage in a large array of products,
of which there are many, joining a complex international supply chain may be a means of finding a
suitable niche in the value chain (Escaith, 2013). Taking the value-chain approach to figuring out a smart
industrialization policy requires, first, that the policy be cross-sectoral and pay attention to firms in diverse
productive sectors. Second, the policy needs to be granular.35
In particular, public policies must not succumb to the temptation of trying to ‘pick-the-winner’, especially
when new technologies compress both distance and time. A smart Creative Value Chain policy is,
therefore, one that is based on a dialogue between public and private actors, identifies main bottlenecks
and defines stakeholders’ priorities. Michael Porter’s approach to industrialization (1985) suggests that
public and private actors can and should pursue cooperative strategies to create high-value products that
can be sold on the international market.
There should also be a dialogue between the central administration and local governments. Involving the
territorial dimension in any GVC strategy, including one focused on creative industries, is critical to avoid
the persistence of ‘enclaves’, such as export processing zones, and to facilitate the incorporation of more
domestic firms in the value chain. One of the key characteristics of a GVC is that domestic content of
exports is determined not only by the first-tier exporters, but also by their network of domestic suppliers,
which are often small and medium-sized firms.
A Smart Industrial Policy aimed at fostering Creative Industry 4.0 is likely to be one that focuses on the
development of a creative innovation system. According to Bakhshi et al. (2013), fostering the Creative
Economy requires:
• a well-articulated education system, including schools as well as universities, colleges, and training
providers, which supplies talent with the right mix of skills;
• fiscal incentives and funding programs to nurture R&D in the creative industries;
• a financial arm to provide content sectors that are often perceived as a high-risk segment with
better access to venture capital (Bazalgette, 2017);
• a competition regime that protects intellectual property, provides a balanced copyright regime,
avoids abuses of dominant positions, and acts swiftly to remedy them; and
• the issue of a “balanced copyright regime” (protection of copyrights vs. right of access to culture). In
the context of low-income developing countries, this is a complex matter according to De Beukelaer
and Fredriksson (2019). For, while the use of the “cultural exception” may be an effective means of
shielding local creative producers from foreign competition, the ultimate effect on the community
may be to hamper citizens’ right of access to culture. On a related topic, Neuwirth (2005) reviews
the treatment of cultural industries in international trade laws.
The above-mentioned policy elements are of the horizontal type, in the sense that they impact all activities
and all consumers in society. Bakhshi et al. (2013) add another policy layer that aims specifically at the
creative industry: to offer non-market support to the publicly subsidised arts and cultural sector. Creative
activities that are not commercially viable may still possess some of the characteristics of a “public good”
as discussed on market and non-market contributions in section III.C.1. Public support enables these
activities to exist when doing so in a purely commercial environment would be difficult or even impossible.36
Additional challenges in designing a policy to foster the Creative Industry 4.0 stem from the heterogeneity
of creative industries, and the attitude of the business owners to new technologies. When it comes
to creative industry development, the different regions of the world face different challenges and have
already applied heterogenous measures to achieve that end. In other words, recommendations on policy
measures need to be context specific. Despite this, Bakalli (2015) calls for UNIDO to develop a holistic
approach and validate a methodology for the sustainable and inclusive development of micro and small
enterprises in the creative sector.
Craftspeople may nurture negative attitudes towards business and marketing concepts, which would
stand as a barrier to change.37 Their fears and misgivings may be assuaged through policy instruments
that allow craftspeople to test out new technologies for digital fabrication. Such an approach was widely
used in the past in agricultural extension programs. Fabrication laboratories (fab labs), a digital fabrication
network, have stepped into this policy space by showing creatives throughout the world that they have
the potential to create smart devices by themselves. Fab labs, usually linked to universities, try to help
designers to rapidly realise their first prototypes and improve their connections with other stakeholders.
Various programs, implemented by official and non-governmental organizations, whose aim is to foster
artisans’ e-market readiness already exist. Among them, UNCTAD’s eTrade Readiness Assessments
program provides a snapshot of the e-commerce ecosystem in developing countries.38 Similarly, OECD
governments have introduced policies aimed at increasing small entrepreneurs’ use of online platforms,
through awareness campaigns, consultancy vouchers, self-assessment tools or training (OECD, 2021).
In this respect, it is important to note that the creative industries eco-system is a very competitive
environment, even for non-commercial ventures that need to attract public or private sponsors. There is still
much that needs to be learned about the design and implementation of digital-friendly business models in
many parts of the creative and cultural sectors. The next section will show how this knowledge gap hinders
the design of adequate public policies at both national and territorial levels. The network dimension is
particularly important in Creative Industry 4.0 since it gives countries with a large diaspora a comparative
advantage that may prove decisive when it comes to overcoming barriers to internationalization.
B. Overcoming barriers to internationalization

Digital technologies, in particular Internet-based platforms, are instrumental in overcoming barriers to
foreign market access (OECD, 2021). Looking at the specific case of small and medium sized-entreprises
(SMEs) engaged in crafts, Fillis (2004) comments that the Internet also exposes entrepreneurs to a wider
world, leading to an increased awareness of global issues. The overall findings in Xing (2018) confirm
that the level of ICT infrastructure and readiness to adopt e-commerce play an important role in boosting
export growth, especially for those creatives who are in developing countries. The following section looks
at the various dimensions of e-commerce readiness.
Even in large emerging countries, some segments of the Creative Industries are unprepared for the new
economy. This is particularly so for the crafts sector in rural areas, despite the fact that this sector may
potentially benefit more than most from new communication technologies. For example, when reporting
on Indonesia, Zulaikha and Brereton (2015) mention that the development of information technology
has smoothed both transaction and negotiation processes between craftspeople and their business
contacts, which include buyers, capital or material providers, and government and other institutions. They,
nevertheless, warn of the “negative consequences of relationships caused by misunderstanding” unless
the application of ICT is “appropriate to the knowledge, social and economic systems of rural people”.
In brief, the availability of technologies is not in itself sufficient. The need to have a credit or a debit card
in order to complete transactions represents a barrier for some creatives. Even opening a bank account
may prove a constraint in many LDCs. It is, therefore, essential to facilitate access to ICT technologies
and to provide adequate hard infrastructure including postal services, financial services and transport
networks. It is also important to empower creative workers to make the best of new opportunities created
by new technologies. This is an issue of developing soft infrastructure, which ranges from human capital
to favourable institutional environments.
An essential part of the domestic agenda of governments in developing their digital economy should
consist of the establishment of legal frameworks to reduce uncertainties associated with e-commerce
in areas such as consumer protection, data privacy protection, e-payments, facilitation of e-commerce,
and cybersecurity. UNCTAD (2021) observes that many developing countries currently do not possess
national laws regulating domestic e-transactions and online consumer protection, for instance.
As mentioned earlier, new artificial intelligence assisted robotics can replicate almost perfectly hand-made
artisanal crafts and artefacts, allowing cheap but high-quality reproductions to be made anywhere in the
world. There is no way to stop technological progress of this sort being made. However, modern trade
governance offers new ways of protecting the know-how and the originality of traditional creative artisans.
WIPO (2016) reminds us that handicrafts have three components that can be protected by distinct forms
of Intellectual Property: reputation (due to style, origin or quality); external appearance (shape and design);
and know-how (the skills and knowledge used to create and produce). Know-how can be protected by
patents or as a trade secret, external appearance can be protected by copyright or industrial designs, while
reputation can be protected by trademarks, collective or certification marks, geographical indications or
unfair competition laws. Blockchain technology offers new ways of tracing product genuineness (OECD,
2021). These international property (IP) tools should be part of any trade and industrial development policy
aimed at promoting the exports of creative products, avoiding the erosion of comparative advantages and
protecting creative workers.
VII.
Conclusion
Creative Industry 4.0 is expected to benefit from the opportunities brought by new technologies. On
the design and production side, the study has identified four types of opportunity: enhanced efficiency,
unrestricted creativity, greater interactivity; and flexibility that facilitates cost-effective customisation. The
potential of knowledge-based creative products is not limited to the digital creative industry; It is also
relevant for more traditional art and craft activities.
This report has also highlighted gaps in measuring the weight of the creative industries in the economy.
With the apparition of new creative products and new creative functions made possible by advances
in technology, the gap is only growing. The influence of Industry 4.0 on the Creative Economy calls,
therefore, for a renewed discussion on how we measure creative goods and services.
The availability of smaller and cheaper digitalised tools helps developing countries to move out of low
volume hand-made crafts while at the same time preserving the originality of their cultural designs.
Commercialization of creative products and services has become easier and cheaper, allowing businesses
to enter new niche markets. Without access to the Internet, many creators would have found it almost
impossible to start a business selling their own products or services.
Yet, as mentioned above, not all segments of the Creative Economy are ready and able to benefit from
this potential. This is particularly so for handicraft producers in rural areas. The availability of technologies
to many producers of creative products and services remains insufficient. We need to ensure an
adequate provision of necessary infrastructure, programs to empower workers to make the best of new
opportunities, national, regional, and international legal frameworks to support SMEs and consumers in
e-commerce, and modern trade governance to protect the know-how and creativity of individual artisans
and small businesses.
ENDNOTES
1
Throsby, David, 2000. Economics and Culture, Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press. Caves, Richard E, 2000,
“Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce”, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.Howkins,
John, 2002, Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas”. London, Allen Lane.
2
Also interesting the recent article for some further discussion: Angelini, F., Castellani, M. Cultural and economic value: a
critical review. J Cult Econ 43, 173–188 (2019).
3
Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) identified innovation as the critical dimension of economic changes and universalised
the term “creative destruction”. Theodore Levitt (1925–2006) is associated with innovation and the product cycle
approach in the 1960s; he also popularized the term globalization.
4
See https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1948332
5
It may be interested to check Canada`s Cultural Satellite Account and how it approaches the definition at https://www.
canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/corporate/publications/general-publications/culture-satellite-account.html
6
UNESCO defines cultural goods and con sumer products that convey ideas, symbols and ways of life, i.e. books,
magazines, multimedia products, software, recordings, films, videos, audio-visual programmes, crafts and fashion.
7
It may be worth noting that here that the Oslo definition of innovation has been important in expanding the scope of
innovation studies to include not only product, but process and business innovations.
8
The issue of unemployment, which is ranked first in this list, is not restricted to developing countries. Discussing the rural
silk weaving industry in Japan, Tanimoto (2006) concludes that traditional crafts sector provides opportunities to workers
that were not absorbed by the modern industrial sector.
9
The distinction within a creative organization between those performing a creative function and the support staff is
a politically sensitive issue. For example, Markunsen et al. (2008) consider that Florida (2002, 2003) definition of the
“creative class”, which makes this distinction, is “both crude and politically repugnant” (p. 27).
10
‘Handicraft sector’s biggest enemy is its name! Call it ‘creative manufacturing’, S. Khetarpal- Business Today, October 30,
2020.
11
In Indonesia, which brought the 2021 International Year resolution to the United Nations General Assembly, the Creative
Economy contributes 7.4 per cent to the nation’s GDP. It also employs 14.3 per cent of its workforce: from craft to
gaming, fashion to furniture. It compares with only 0.54 R&D worker per thousand employees contributing 0.2 per cent
of GDP (source UNESCO).
12
Sourced from https://www.unwto.org/cultural-tourism-covid-19.
13
Based on surveys, the data cover researchers, technicians and other support personnel involved in R&D activities in
private and public sectors. Sectors of employment are business enterprise, government, higher education, private
and non-profit. Fields of research includes natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences,
agricultural and veterinary sciences, social sciences, and humanities and the arts.
14
This regional grouping is far from being optimum, but I used it to provide comparable data.
15
Without entering into details, such an approach would mix at least three types of data: trade statistics, input-output tables
and employment surveys. The first step is to measure the contribution of creative functions by industry, then to measure
the direct and indirect creative contribution of each industry in exports.
16
Imputations are made applying to the aggregated services exports reported in balance of payments the more detailed
structure observed in similar countries.
17
Honeck (2008) mentions in particular traditional clothing made of local cotton and sold directly to visiting tourists.
18
A major reason for this, according to the author, is that investing time and money to realize the profits attached to
innovation has opportunity costs. Innovators may choose the path of free innovation because they prefer to use their
time and money to follow other opportunities. Another motive for free innovation is that of self-reward or expectations of
generalized recognition and reciprocity from their community.
19
In the type of specialised supply chain characteristic to innovative products, both buyer and seller of intermediate inputs
have high domain specific knowledge, innovation attempts are marked by a high degree of knowledge overlap and cross-
fertilization (Roy, Suvakumar and Wilkinson, 2004).
20
Economic growth is understood here in its national accounts definition, and measured by an increase in the real value-
added generated by domestic industries.
21
As The Economist (March 13th 2021) remarks, the latest incarnation of global consumers looks likely to change how
economics works. The new shoppers (N.B.: those who drive demand for the Creative Economy products) are “value-
conscious and project their ethical values in their decision about what to buy”.
ENDNOTES 43
22
As mentioned by the author, cultural/creative products are often symbolic goods, whose value derives from cultural
values, constructed by imitating others or distinguishing oneself from others.
23
According to the author, this “no-cost” type of innovation has a price: free innovators generally have very little incentive to
invest in diffusing what they create, which reduces the social value of their efforts.
24
See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/
25
Sourced from https://www.fnfresearch.com/cross-border-b2c-e-commerce-market-by-category-852 and https://
unctad.org/news/global-e-commerce-jumps-267-trillion-covid-19-boosts-online-sales
26
Ch. Petrov ‘65 Wowing M-Commerce Statistics for 2021’, available at: https://techjury.net/blog/mcommerce-statistics/
27
As revealed by the website Tech Times: “Disney Is Using Deepfakes and Facial Recognition to Bring Back Dead Actors”
2 July 2020.
28
‘The Future of Luxury: Bouncing Back from Covid-19’. Available at: https://www.bain.com/insights/the-future-of-luxury-
bouncing-back-from-covid-19/
29
See the dedicated UN-ITC website at: https://www.intracen.org/itc/projects/ethical-fashion/
30
In the United Kingdom, for example, 90 per cent of creative businesses have no more than five employees, 80 per cent
no more than two, and 60 per cent just one self-employed entrepreneur (Bazalgette, 2017).
31
Creative products may be best placed to avoid being buried in search engines, as they are often described by very
specific keywords that are more likely to be used by connoisseurs in search of a specific artifact or service.
32
Nevertheless, Searle (2011) reports that a common attitude in the United Kingdom creative industry was that piracy would
always occur and should be minimised, but that it was more important to focus on creating new content.
33
Changes in consumer behaviour is characterised, according to Searle (2011) by two main themes: opportunities and
increased competition. Opportunities creates a potential for success for the business models that are tailored to this
behaviour. At the same time, increased competition in the form of both imitation (with or without piracy) and newer
business models challenging existing ones.
34
As reported by Dümcke (2015), the “business model” concept has been historically defined by “emphasizing value
creation as a part of managing the development of new emerging technology” (p.4). Many different definitions of business
models coexist. A business model is expected to (i) describe the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers
and captures value;(ii) outline how a firm can successfully deliver value to its customers; (iii) underline core logic and
strategic choices for creating and capturing value within a value network; (iv) shed light on the assumptions about how an
entrepreneur or an organization create value and turn it into economic, social and or cultural output.
35
For Dutta (2021), a systemic assessment of the value chain requires identifying all stages that contribute by adding
value to the end-product and help moving it towards the end markets: End markets (creating value for the final user
should remain the centre of attention); Business enabling environment (global, national and local norms and laws, public
infrastructure); Vertical linkages between firms at different levels of the value chain; Horizontal linkages, both formal and
informal, between firms and stakeholders that reduce transaction costs and contribute to efficiency and competitiveness;
and Supporting markets, including financial services, legal and business consulting, and sector-specific actors (e.g.,
procurement and marketing cooperatives).
36
Yet the authors are not naïve about the risks of free riding and mention that this sector “may need incentives from its
funders to undertake digital innovation to maximise audience reach and value. It may further need incentives to promote
spill overs between the subsidised arts and the commercial Creative Economy”.
37
Fillis (2004) mentions in his research on United Kingdom and Irish crafts industries that craftspeople do not feel comfortable
with the word ‘market’ and tend to follow their own creative instincts. It often implies not responding to market demand
in order not to ‘lose touch with the product’. The author concludes that “there is a dichotomy of ‘art for art’s sake’ versus
‘art for business’s sake beliefs. Those following the former approach have no particular wish to embrace marketing […].
Conversely, a number of entrepreneurial marketers […] have used their creative strength to achieve both domestic and
export market sales.”
38
See https://unctad.org/topic/ecommerce-and-digital-economy/etrade-readiness-assessments-of-LDCs
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACS (2017) ‘The ACS, ILO and OAS join forces to establish the Regional Network of Artisans of the
Greater Caribbean’ Association of Caribbean States.
Afriantari, R. and W.A Harikesa (2020) ‘Industry Revolution 4.0: Strengthening the Creative Economy
Sectors through BEKRAF Implementation Programs’ Journal Transborders Vol. 3 No. 2 pp. 28–43.
Alsamawi A., C. Cadestin, A. Jaax, J. Guilhoto, S. Miroudot and C. Zurcher (2020) ‘Returns to
intangible capital in global value chains: New evidence on trends and policy determinants’, OECD
Trade Policy Papers, No. 240, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Anderson, Ch. (2004) ‘The Long Tail’, IDEAS 10.01.2004 https://www.wired.com/2004/10/tail/
Anderson, Ch. (2006) ‘The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More’, Hyperion,
New York.
Bakhshi, H (2009) ‘Creative supply-chain linkages and innovation: Do the creative industries stimulate
business innovation in the wider economy?’ National Endowment for Science, Technology & the Arts,
London, United Kingdom.
Bakhshi, H. and E. McVittie (2009) ‘Creative supply-chain linkages and innovation: Do the creative
industries stimulate business innovation in the wider economy?’ National Endowment for Science.
Bakhshi, H., I. Hargreaves and J. Mateos-Garcia (2013) ‘A Manifesto for the Creative Economy’,
Nesta, United Kingdom.
Baldwin, R. (2019) ‘The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work’ Oxford
University Press.
Bakalli, Marlen (2014) ‘The creative ecosystem: Facilitating the development of creative industries’
Working Paper 08/2014, UNIDO, Vienna.
Balassa B. (1965) ‘Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage’, The Manchester
School, 33(2), pp. 99-123.
Baumol, W. J. and W. G. Bowen (1966) ‘Performing Arts, the Economic Dilemma; a Study of Problems
Common to Theatre, Opera, Music, and Dance’ Twentieth Century Fund; New York.
Bazalgette, P. (2017) ‘Independent Review of the Creative Industries’, Department for Digital, Culture,
Media & Sport, United Kingdom.
Bohn, T. (2019) ‘From Trade in Value Added to Trade in Income’, mimeo, Faculty of Economics and
Business, University of Groningen.
Bowen, H. P., W. Moesen and L. Sleuwagen (2008) ‘A Composite Index of the Creative Economy’
Review of Business and Economics 4:375–397.
Buitrago Restrepo F., I. Duque Márquez (2013) ‘The Orange Economy: An Infinite Opportunity’ IADB,
Washington.
Castro, C. (2008) ‘Industrial de contenido en Latinoamérica’, Documento de Grupo de Trabajo eLAC2007,
CEPAL/ECLAC, Santiago de Chile.
Caves, Richard E. (2000), Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-00164-8.
Chang, S. (2012) ‘Intangible Value Accumulation in Cultural and Creative Industries’, International Journal
of Research in Commerce & Management, Volume No. 3-6, pp. 1–7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 45
Chen W., Los B. and M. Timmer (2018) ‘Factor Incomes in Global Value Chains: The Role of Intangibles’
NBER Working Paper 25242.
Clark, D. (2009) ‘Crunching creativity: an attempt to measure creative employment’, Creative Industries
Journal, 2:3, pp. 217-230.
Correa-Quezada, R.; Álvarez-García, J.; Del Río-Rama, M.D.C. and Maldonado-Erazo (2018)
‘Role of Creative Industries as a Regional Growth Factor’ Sustainability, 10, 1649.
Crepon, B., E. Duguet and J. Mairesse (1998) ‘Research, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric
Analysis at the Firm Level’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology Vol. 7, 2 pp. 115-58.
Daubaraite, U. and G. Startiene (2015) ‘Creative industries impact on national economy in regard to
sub-sectors’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213 pp.129–134.
De Beukelaer, Ch. (2014) ‘Creative industries in “developing” countries: Questioning country classifications
in the UNCTAD Creative Economy reports’ Cultural Trends, 23:4, pp 232–251.
De Beukelaer, Ch and M. Fredriksson (2019) ‘The political economy of intellectual property rights:
The paradox of Article 27 exemplified in Ghana’, Review of African Political Economy, 46(161), pp.
459–479.
Deloitte (2021) ‘The Future of the Creative Economy”, Deloitte LLP, United Kingdom.
Dubina I.N., and Campbell D.F.J (2019) ‘Creativity Economy Versus Creative Economy’ In: Carayannis
E. (eds) Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Springer, New York.
Dudukalov, E. V. and D. Ushakov (2020) ‘Innovative Development as a Factor of European Union
Economy Digitalization’, International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 13(2), pp. 200-10.
Dümcke, C. (2105) ‘New Business Models in the Cultural and Creative Sectors’ European Expert Network
on Culture (EENC), European Commission.
Dutta, S. (2021) ‘Mechanistic Framework of Global Value Chains’ MPRA Paper No. 105223.
EDI (2020) ‘Creative work skills helping drive the 4th Industrial Revolution, the fusion of biological, digital
and physical’ EDI Weekly, https://www.ediweekly.com/
Escaith, H. (2020) ‘Contrasting Revealed Comparative Advantages when Trade is (also) in Intermediate
Products’ MPRA Paper No. 103666, Munich.
Escaith, H. (2013) ‘International Supply Chains, Trade in Value-Added and Development: A Small
Economy’s Perspective’, IDE-JETRO Conference “Global Value Chains: Quo Vadis?” Tokyo, 5 July
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2536952
Ernst and Young Global (2014) ‘Creating growth: Measuring cultural and creative markets in the EU’,
December, EYGM Limited.
Ernst and Young Global (2015) ‘Cultural times: The first global map of cultural and creative industries’,
CISAC and EYGM Limited.
Fazio, G. (2021) ‘A Review of Creative Trade in the Economics literature’ Creative Industries Policy &
Evidence Centre, United Kingdom.
Fillis, I. (2004) ‘Internationalizing Smaller Craft Firm: Insight from the Marketing / Entrepreneurship
Interface’, International Small Business Journal, 22(57), pp. 57–82.
Florida, R. (2002) ‘The Rise of the Creative Class: And How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community,
& Everyday Life’ New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R. (2003) ‘Cities and the Creative Class’ City & Community Journal, Vol.2 Issue 1, pp. 3-19.
Florida, R. (2005) ‘Cities and The Creative Class’ New York: Routledge.
Frey, B. (2009) ‘Cultural Economics’ CESifo DICE Report 1/2009.
Furtado, C. (1978) ‘Criatividade e dependencia na civilizacao industrial [Creativity and Dependency in the
Industrial Civilization]. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Gaulier, G. and S. Zignago (2010) ‘BACI: International Trade Database at the Product-Level’, CEPII,
N°2010-23.
Gomez-Herrera,E., B. Martens and G.Turlea (2013) ‘The Drivers and Impediments for Cross-border
e-Commerce in the EU’, JRC Technical Reports 2013/02, Sevilla.
GreenJournal (2019) ‘The Untold Truth Between our Internet Usage and its Contribution to Climate
Change’ August 27. https://www.greenjournal.co.uk/
Haynes, S. (2019) ‘This Robot Artist Just Became the First to Stage a Solo Exhibition. What Does That
Say About Creativity?’ Times Magazine, June 17.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2019) ‘The Cultural Industries’ 4th edition, Sage.
Honeck, D. (2008) ‘LDC Poverty Alleviation and the Doha Development Agenda: Is Tourism Being
Neglected?’, Working Paper ERSD-2008-03, WTO, Geneva.
Howkins J. (2009) ‘Creative Ecologies: Where Thinking Is a Proper Job’ University of Queensland Press.
Howkins, J. (2001) ‘Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas’, Allen Lane: The Penguin
Press, London.
Howkins, J. (2007) ‘The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas’, The Penguin Press,
London.
IMARC (2021) ‘Handicrafts Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and
Forecast 2021-2026’, IMARC Group, Uttar Pradesh.
Inter-agency GVC Report (2021) ‘Global Value Chain Development Report 2021: Beyond Production’,
Asian Development Bank, UIBE-Bejing, WTO, IDE-JETRO, China Development Research Foundation
International Trade Centre (2019) ‘Creative industries in Rwanda: Digital paths to global markets’ UN-
ITC, Geneva.
KEA (2009) ‘The Contribution of Culture to Creativity’ KEA European Affairs: European Commission.
Kratovich, P. (2021) ‘2020 In Review. E-Commerce Trends 2021’, amasty blog, Amasty LTD.
Lévy-Garboua, L. and C. Montmarquette (2002) ‘The Demand for the Arts’ CIRANO paper 2002s-10,
Montreal.
Li, F. (2020) ‘The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries: A holistic framework
and emerging trends’ Technovation, Article 102012, Vol. 92–93
Lin, A.H (2015) ‘Facilitating Cultural and Creative Industries to Engage the Internet Era: A New E-Commerce
Strategic Framework’ American Journal of Economics, 5(5) pp.534-539.
Marco-Serrano, F., P. Rausell-Koster and R. Abeledo-Sanchis (2014) Economic development and
the creative industries: a tale of causality, Creative Industries Journal, 7:2, pp. 81-91.
Markusen, A., G. Wassall, D.DeNatale and R.Cohen (2008) ‘Defining the Creative Economy: Industry
and Occupational Approaches’, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, February pp.24-45.
McAndrew, C. (2021) ‘The Art Market 2021’, published by Art Basel and UBS, Switzerland
BIBLIOGRAPHY 47
McKeegan, D. (2019) ‘What Will be the Role of the Creative Designer in Industry 4.0 for Textiles?’,
WhichPLM online magazine.
Mercer, C. (2009) ‘Convergence, Creative Industries and Civil Society’ Culture Unbound, 1, 179–204.
Hosted by Linköping University Electronic Press.
Neuwirth, R. J. (2005) ‘The Cultural Industries in International Trade Law: Insights from the NAFTA, the
WTO and the EU’ European University Institute, Florence.
O’Connor, J. (2010) ‘The cultural and creative industries: a literature review’, Creativity, Culture and
Education Series, Queensland University of Technology (second edition).
OECD (2021) ‘The digital transformation of SMEs’, OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, Paris.
OECD (2007) ‘International measurement of economic and social importance of culture’ STD/NAFS,
Paris.
Otis College of Art and Design (2020) website at https://www.otis.edu/creative-economy/2020
Peukert, C. (2018) ‘The next wave of digital technological change and the cultural industries’ Journal of
Cultural Economics (published online) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-018-9336-2
Phillips, W., D. Indar and E. Thorme (2017) ‘An analysis of the art and craft sector and its potential for
sustainable tourism development in the Caribbean’, UN-ECLAC
LC/CAR/TS.2017/11, Port of Spain.
Richter, S. and P. Rinnebach (2014) ‘Redefining Fashion Business Models: Today’s Challenges,
Tomorrow’s Competitive Edge’, http://www.kurtsalmon
Rodrick, D. (2018) ‘New Technologies, Global Value Chains and the Developing Economies’, Pathways
for Prosperity Commission Background Paper no.1, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Roy, S., K. Sivakumar and I.F Wilkinson (2004) ‘Innovation generation in supply chain relationships: A
conceptual model and research propositions’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32, pp.
61–79.
Schwab, K. (2015) ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What It Means and How to Respond’ Foreign
Affairs, December 12 (retrieved from WEF website https://www.weforum.org/).
Searle, N. (2011) ‘Changing Business Models in the Creative Industries: The cases of Television, Computer
Games and Music, Report for the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office.
Shahdad, N. and H. Nakhaie (2011) ‘The Role of Culture in the Development of Electronic Commerce’,
3rd International Conference on Information and Financial Engineering IPEDR vol.12, Singapore.
Sturgeon, T. (2017) ‘The “New” Digital Economy and Development’ UNCTAD Technical Note No8 TN/
UNCTAD/ICT4D/08, Geneva.
Sturgeon, T. and G. Gereffi (2009) ‘Measuring Success in the Global Economy: International Trade,
Industrial Upgrading, and Business Function Outsourcing in Global Value Chains’ Transnational
Corporations, 18(2).
Tanimoto, M. (2006) ‘The Role of Tradition in Japan’s Industrialization: Another Path to Industrialization’,
Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford University Press.
Tilley, J. (2017) ‘Automation, robotics, and the factory of the future’, McKinsey Operations articles,
September.
Timmer, M., S. Miroudot, G. de Vries (2019) ‘Functional specialisation in trade’ Journal of Economic
Geography, Volume 19, Issue 1, January 2019, pp 1–30
UNCTAD (2015, 2018 and 2019) ‘Creative Economy Outlook: Trends in international trade in creative
industries’, several issues under UNCTAD/WEB/DITC/TED/, Geneva.
UNCTAD (2019) ‘Digital Economy Report 2019. Value Creation and Capture: Implications for Developing
Countries’, UNCTAD/DER/2019, Geneva.
UNCTAD (2021) ‘What Is at Stake for Developing Countries in Trade Negotiations on E-Commerce? The
Case of The Joint Statement Initiative’ UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2020/5, Geneva.
UNCTAD and UNDP (2008) ‘Creative Economy Report 2008’, Geneva.
UNCTAD and UNDP (2010) ‘Creative Economy Report 2010’, Geneva.
UN-ECE (2009) ‘Group of Experts on the Impact of Globalisation on National Accounts’, First Meeting,
Geneva, 11-13 May, ECE/CES/GE.23/2009/9 Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva.
UNESCO (2018) ‘Investing in Creativity’, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
Paris.
UNESCO and UNDP (2013) ‘Creative Economy Report: Widening Local Development Pathways (Special
Edition)’ ISBN 978-92-3-001211-3.
UNIDO (2020) ‘Industrial Development Report 2020. Industrializing in the digital age’, Vienna.
van der Marel (2021) ‘Re-Globalization’, ECIPE blog, January, https://ecipe.org/blog/re-globalization/
Vlassis, A. (2021) ‘Global online platforms, COVID-19, and culture: The global pandemic, an accelerator
towards which direction?’, Media, Culture & Society 2021, Vol. 43(5) pp. 957-69.
von Hippel, E. (2017) ‘Free Innovation’ Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
WIPO (2014) ‘Studies on The Economic Contribution of the Copyright Industries: Overview’, World
Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva.
WIPO (2015) ‘Guide on Surveying the Economic Contribution of the Copyright Industries’, Revised
Edition, Geneva.
WIPO (2016) ‘Intellectual Property and Traditional Handicrafts’, Background Brief No.5, Geneva.
Wiśniewska, A., Budziński, W. & Czajkowski, M. An economic valuation of access to cultural
institutions: museums, theatres, and cinemas. J Cult Econ 44, 563–587 (2020).
Xing, Z. (2018) ‘The impacts of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and E-commerce on
bilateral trade flows’ International Economics and Economic Policy volume 15, pp.565–586.
Xu, Li Da, Xu E. and Ling Li (2018) ‘Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends’, International Journal
of Production Research, 56:8, pp. 2941-2962.
Zou, S., S. Siriboonchitta, W. Yamaka and P. Maneejuk (2020) ‘The impact of cultural industry on
economic and employment growth in China’, Journal of Administrative and Business Studies (JABS),
6(4): pp. 129-137.
Zulaikha, E. and M. Brereton (2011) ‘Innovation strategies for developing the traditional souvenir craft
industry’. First International Postgraduate Conference on “Engineering, Designing and Developing the
Built Environment for Sustainable Wellbeing” 27-29 April 2011, Queens-land University of Technology.
Layout and Printing at United Nations, Geneva – 2200316 (E) – March 2022 – 432 – UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2021/3

Relatório Unctad de Indústrias Criativas 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Relatório Unctad de Indústrias Criativas 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Relatório Unctad de Indústrias Criativas 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U N I T E D N AT I O N S C O N F E R E N C E O N T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0

CREATIVE INDUSTRY 4.0

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

A. Creativity as an autonomous economic concept

B. Creativity as cultural and sociological activities

1. Handicrafts, art, and culture

Art, culture and creative production

Table 1. Cultural and Creative Industries: Revenues and employment, 2013

CCI sectors Revenues a Employment Turnover/employee c

Television 477 3.5 135.2

Total (less double counting) 2 253 29.507 76.4

United States, 42% China, 20% European,

United Kingdom, 20%

Source: Author, based on McAndrew (2021).

Industrial design Patent Trademark

Region Annual Annual Annual

Note: */ Average annual growth rate over 2010–2019.

Industrial design Patent Trademark

Note: */ Average annual growth rate over 2010–2019.

3. Research and Development

b. Gross domestic expenditure on Research and Development (percentage of GDP)

Per cent GDP

B. Global trade in creative goods and services

Table 4. Classification of creative goods

CER001 All creative goods

Source: UNCTAD Stat website.

Region CER002 CER003 CER004 CER005 CER006 CER007 CER008 Total

Africa 685.6 46.4 1372.7 71.2 8.5 157.8 360.2 2702.5

Asia 29363.9 7486.3 227882.4 30356.0 3895.0 8060.8 11188.4 318232.7

Europe 7216.8 8912.7 121545.9 6797.2 1537.8 18465.1 17302.8 181778.2

Latin America and

Pacific 36.7 83.8 624.2 179.7 9.6 271.7 156.4 1362.2

World 39137.1 18785.1 371418.8 41952.0 6147.3 32830.0 37681.8 547952.0

C. The production of creative “intangibles”

1. Non-market value of the Creative Economy

2. Territorial assessment of the Creative Economy

Box 1. The Creative City (Cont’d)

3. Inter-industry spill-over impacts of the Creative Economy

Figure 3. The Smile Curve

Note: */ indicates activities with a high creative content.

D. The demand-side drivers

Box 2. The creative consumers

A. The 4th Industrial Revolution

B. When Industry 4.0 meets the Creative Economy

1. Creative Industries as incubators of new technologies

2. Industry 4.0 as a threat to some creative activities

Box 3. Digital technologies, creation and distribution

3. Creative Industry 4.0 and development

A. Comparative advantages in trade in creative goods and services

B. Creating value: The role of intangibles

C. From “trade in value-added” to “trade in income”

D. E-Commerce, E-Mode 4, and market access

1. Trade growth at the intensive and extensive margins

2. The death of distance

3. The death of market size - Head vs. Long Tails

A. Smart industrial policies

B. Overcoming barriers to internationalization

You might also like