Convegno AIDEA, Lecce 19-20 Settembre 2013
1.6 “Patrimonio culturale e creazione di valore: prospettive di crescita per l’impresa e il territorio”
CULTURAL CREATIVE NETWORKS AS DRIVERS FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION: PUGLIA SOUNDS
Barreca Manuela
Università della Svizzera Italiana
Lugano, Switzerland
Prof. Catalfo Pierluigi
Catania University
Catania, Italy
Fiorani Gloria
Tor Vergata University
Rome, Italy
Prof. Marco Meneguzzo
Tor Vergata University
Rome, Italy
Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the role of cultural sector as a privileged field of research able to demonstrate from one side its pivotal role in catalyzing local-development and from the other hand the importance of networking among the different actors involved in the process of policy making able to define culture as a main driver of innovation for territories in investing the establishment of the creativity districts. In this scenario Puglia Region appear an interesting area to study given its strong investments in resources and policy in the last years 5 in the cultural and creativity sector. All this dynamism brings to light the experience of Puglia Sounds as part of the Apulia Operational Program 2007-2013, IV Axis focused in the “Valorization of natural resources and cultural activity and development” financed by the European Union. The value of this project is to place music as a focal point of a series of initiatives aiming to support the creation of a regional music system, able to contribute to emphasize the existent link between the development and valorization of the regional music industry and its role of new and innovative production as a segment that can affect positively the economic and cultural growth of the Regions. Our case study is built adopting different levels of analysis both qualitative and quantitative, in order to figure out with clear results about the analysis of the different types of activities set in action by Puglia Sounds in order to institutionalize the Apulia Music system, showing also how the system in general and through the introduction of networks is capable to optimize resources and turn the Puglia Regions into an all year round destination of music and culture supply.
Key words: creativity, cultural district, innovation, network, policy-making
CULTURE AND CREATIVIY: A STATE OF ART
Despite the current challenges that cultural and creative field has to face as a consequence of the financial crisis that has caused a dramatically cutting of public funding (Bonet and Donato, 2011), the sector has demonstrated that can still plays an effective role in outline a set of policies focusing on the capacity of Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs)[1] to generate positive impacts on growth and employment, fostering innovation and competitiveness to develop strategic investments and synergies among public and private actors, research centers and innovative labs in order to contribute to the development and attractiveness of local, regional and national territories, based on the creative economy.[2] At European level, to overcome the past weakness shown by the Lisbon strategy in 2010 the new strategy came up on the stage known as Europe Vision 2020 Strategy aims to lead together a comprehensive roadmap for the EU’s economic recovery and growth for the next ten years. This strategy is trying to point out the importance for the European countries to use their strengths and resources promoting a development based on knowledge and innovation to compete globally in a long term vision. In this scenario cultural and creative sector is seen as “a major source of dynamism for the European economy as a sector that has been growing faster than most and that has the potential to generate creativity, innovation and enterprise across a wide range of activities” (CSES, 2010), developing new “effective system of governance and new management models capable to set and coordinate policy actions among the EU, national level and consequently to the regional one” (EU, 2012). Also UNESCO (2012) underlines in its statements the important role of cultural sector as “core of development policy constitutes an essential investment in the world's future” and the inevitability need to create partnerships “that bring together international organizations, networks, and cooperation with the public and the private sectors”.
In the past years European Union has commissioned a number of studies[3] that have remarked how cultural and creative industries (hereafter CCIs) can be an essential asset for Europe's economy.
The results have shown an impressive performance in the years that has consecrated CCIs as vital driver for development in Europe, in terms of economic impacts, spill-over effects and in particular showing the massively and intrinsic value of culture to generate trust and inclusiveness to construct social capital providing a platform for innovation and creativity. In detail facts and figure have revealed some important insights about the strong dynamism shown in these years from the sector that has grown faster than the general economy in Europe (see Table n.1).
a) CCIs definitions of the phenomenon (creativity):
- The idea given by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS, 2001) in UK describe in particular the creative industries as “those activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skills and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property”.
- In 2008 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD, 2008) in collaboration with other UN agencies (UNDP, UNESCO, WIP and ICT) have developed the first report on creative economy describing creative industries as “cycles of creation, production and distribution of goods and services that use creativity and intellectual capital as primary inputs; constitute a set of knowledge-based activities that produced tangible goods and intangible intellectual or artistic service with creative content, economic value and market objectives”.
Table n.1: The economic impact of CCIs in European Union
Economic impacts / Turnover € / EU GDP / Employment564 billion / 3,3%, / 6.7 million people
Growth 20% over the 1999-2003
12.3% higher than the general economy:
- estate accounts for 2.1%,
- food & beverage and tobacco manufacturing 1.9%,
- chemical and plastic product industries 2.3%, / 4.714 CCI
1.171 cultural tourism.
Source: OMC, 2012 - EENC,2013
b) CCIs multidimensional impact on projects and initiatives in setting up a “knowledge economy” to highlight the important role of culture not only in the economic growth, but also in social development, as a catalyst for social innovation, generating tangible and intangible for the local community:
- improvement of urban quality of life spreading of a “creativity atmosphere” around the cities and surroundings (creative entrepreneurship incubators, design-oriented accelerators, relational spaces, residential spaces for artists and creative professionals, spaces of knowledge production, commercial and cultural production spaces),
- maximization of the “spill-over effect” on innovation and creativity of the cultural sector crossing other sectors for integrated strategies (e.g. ICTs, e-learning, education, research, tourism, environmental, sport, etc.),
- “learning creative skills” increasing investment in human capital, promoting specialization, creative talent and managerial competences in the process of job creation,
- “digitalization shift” for the creation, production and consumption of the cultural goods and services and its diffusion on social network, media and portable devices,
- social cohesion and inclusion agenda.
c) CCIs governance and managerial aspects to facilitate the creation of new flexible models, helping the establishment of network to develop synergies and active collaboration among the various actors of the cultural and creative sector, other ambits, institutional and private agents and the local community at different territorial level of action depending on their purposes.
Given the area of interest in this paper focused on the Italian state of art in CCIs in the following table will be bring to the light the current trends of the sector raised in the last report (2011-2012) of Unioncamere in collaboration with Symbola Foundation. The report entitled “’L’Italia che verrà – Industria Culturale, Made in Italy e Territorio” is the first report in Italy to quantify the weight of culture in the national economy. The report shows that in 2011 the cultural production system produced a value added of almost € 76 billion, equal to the 5.4% of the whole economy, with exported goods in the sector amounting, in the same year, to more than 38 billion euro. In addition, the cultural sector has led to an employment increase: in 2012 more than 32,000 new jobs were created by the cultural production system; between 2007 and 2011, the employment rate of the sector registered an average increase of the 0.8% each year, while the whole economy displayed a 0.4% decline; finally, in 2011 the cultural system included 1,390,000 workers, the 5.6% of the workforce of the whole country.
CULTURAL NETWORKS AND CULTURAL DISTRICT: A SHORT LITERATURE REVIEW
In this study the theoretical framework refers to a multidisciplinary area of interests. A first analysis is concerning the area of cultural policy and management well-established internationally and progressively consolidated in Italy in the recent years, thanks to an interesting synergy between cultural economists, business economists and managerial scientists that have given a strong attention to the cultural sector. The main research field in this paper belong to management sciences seen the use of conceptual models and interpretative schemes characterizing logics of network management as coordination and management of networks (Mandell 2001, Moon 2001, Klijn 2010).
Firstly, in the last year there has been an increasing attention on the decision-making policies by local government towards new model of thinking the promotion of their urban development planning in terms of social, cultural, economic growth, employment, also concerning social cohesion and quality of life (Meneguzzo, Fiorani, Armenia, 2008). At this point the question rising clearly in mind, can public institutions deal with the necessity of set up a system able to converge all the different interest of the stakeholders involved? (Badia, Donato, Gilli, 2012). To better respond to this new set of concerns, local actors are now committed to experience new form of programming and management and placing the traditional apparatus, speaking in terms of governance and network theories. In particular looking at the paradigm of public governance characterized by cooperation-type between public-public and public-private partnership where the establishment of a strong interaction and involvement of different stakeholders from public, private and no profit is considered essential in order to steering system, network and developing regulatory capacities (Meneguzzo, 1995, 1997). As stated and confirmed by OCSE (2001) today regional and local governments actively seek a wide-ranging partnership among all stakeholders involved, which at different levels work together establishing synergies capable of design strategies, adapt policies to local conditions and take initiatives consistent with shared priorities. Networks[4] of partnerships and public-private cooperation are becoming a popular tool to improve local governance. (OECD, 2001). The new level of interdependence and sharing responsibility, suggests a new role of the public administration as central actor, manages and implements the whole system of relationships established among the actors involved (vertical and horizontal collaborations). The evolution the Network management (Kickert et al., 1997) arises from the need to develop new forms of management in line with the new features of the external environment considered complex, dynamic and diverse (Kooiman, 1993). Based on network management approach public purposes depend more and more by the joint actions of a plurality of actors who are part of a complex network (Kickert, Klijn, Koppenjan,1997,1999) where the success depends on the ability to exercise the governance of the system.
Secondly, a strong belief has arisen about the relevant role of culture concerning the value of the relationship between territorial economic development and cultural assets (Meneguzzo, Fiorani, Armenia, 2008). Moreover, from an academic perspective, the cultural sector itself has always represented an interesting case of analysis, since the beginning of the ’60 (pioneering studies Baumol and Bowen, 1966; Blaug 1976), when it was introduced as new research area in the field of economics: “economics of the art” focused on the relations of cultural resource and the broader economics system of agents. Over the past years the interest has turned into the instituting of policies and strategies based on the network approach. As already mentioned, the starting point of our reflection is the literature references that have been developed in the main international research network, such as AIMAC (International association of art and cultural management) thanks to the pioneering works on cultural management elaborated by Colbert (2003), and ENCATC (European network on Cultural Management and Cultural Policy education) and the number of articles published in the recent years on the themes of networks and cultural districts, specifically to define the architecture of the decision-making at strategic level of integrated territorial system. Network in the cultural field, especially in Italy has played an important role in recent years, especially in the definition of integrated projects between culture, tourism, environment and local development in its various meanings (Bagdadli and Meneguzzo 2002; Bagdadli 2003; Salvemini and Soda 2001; Meneguzzo and Trimarchi 2004). Over the years public networks have become increasingly important as a result of the spread of the Public Governance paradigm (WB, 2000; Reichard, 2001; Ansell and Gash, 2007; Cepiku, 2005; Meneguzzo, 1997, Kickert, Klijn, Koppenjan, 1997; Rhodes, 1996; Pollitt, 1990; Hood, 1991) as part of the phase of major reforms and modernization process in public administration launched in the late 1980s and 1990s in Europe. For scholars (Agranoff and McGuire 2001a; Milward and Provan 2003, 2006; Ferlie and Andresani 2006), practitioners and even policy-makers, public networks represented, in fact, the easier way to reduce fragmentation and improve coordination among public agencies, thus raising the efficiency and effectiveness of the service provision (Cristofoli, 2012). In this scenario, public networks, in particular those established within regional and local governments address such issues as health, social care, local development, education and culture.
Discussing the typologies of networks, defined as “set of cooperative relations connecting autonomous entities” (Powell and Smith-Doerr, 1994 in Bagdadli, 2003), we can identify different typologies according to the purpose of their formation.