Measuring creativity: A case study in the UK's Designer Fashion sector

Abstract

Since before the 1997 General Election, New Labour has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the creative industries in underpinning the national economy and as an engine of economic growth. The Creative Industries Task Force Mapping Documents of 1998 and 2001 sought to define and quantify in broad terms economic activity across 13 distinct creative industries. More detailed estimates have been published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in successive annual Creative Industries Economic Estimates. An assessment is provided of the way in which the creative industries have been measured using the Office of National Statistics' Standard Industrial and Standard Occupational classifications (SIC and SOC). These classifications have themselves been revised since the early 1990s, and further revisions are in prospect from 2007. In this analysis particular focus is given to the ‘Designer Fashion’ sector, illustrated by a number of tables and data analyses. These actual and proposed revisions have helped in documenting the rapidly emerging creative industries, which have reportedly grown at two to three times the rate of the UK economy as a whole. However, as the Regional Culture Data Framework published in 2002 records, serious problems remain in providing valid assessments of the creative industries sectors from ‘official’ published sources, even for the UK as a whole, let alone at the regional level emphasized by the Regional Culture Data Framework's regional sponsors. In any case, often the ‘scaling factors’ applied to official SIC codes to define creative industries appear arbitrary. Many of the Regional Culture Data Framework's recommendations, notably the adoption of a more comprehensive ‘supply-chain’ approach to documenting the cultural sector, make further demands upon the existing official structural classifications and the data bases underpinning them. Even where all elements in the ‘supply chain’ are well documented, there are still questions about the validity of this approach. For example, should wholesale and retail distribution of creative industry products be regarded as part of the ‘Cultural Cycle’? In conclusion, it is suggested that the ‘official’ data has marked limitations in documenting the creative industries and does not realistically or adequately capture the more interesting and dynamic elements of an industry like ‘Designer Fashion’. This is disappointing in a context where central government has placed increasing emphasis upon evidence-based policy to support the development of the creative industries, and where the British ‘Designer Fashion’ sector has lamented the lack of central support in comparison with the French or Italian industries. It is suggested that a more customized approach to collecting data about the creative industries is needed if the results are to usefully inform the further development and profile of these sectors.