An Economic Classification for

the Culture Sector: the Québec Experience

Christine Routhier, Research Officer

Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec

Institut de la statistique du Québec

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Workshop on the International Measurement of Culture

Paris, December 4 & 5, 2006

An Economic Classification for the Culture Sector: the Québec Experience 1

Introduction

The Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québecis pleased to participate in this workshop on the importance of the economic and social measurement of culture and would like to thank the OECD for the invitation. In 2003, the Observatoire developed a classification system for culture activities focusing specifically on the Québec context. The work involved in formulating such aclassification was a relatively formidable task and this experience will be the subject of our lecture today.

Above all, it may be helpful to mention that the Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec is a government agency which was created in 2000. The Observatoire is an integral part of the Institut de la statistique du Québec, the official statistical agency of the Government of Québec.

The mandate of our agency is to produce and disseminate official statistics on the arts, media and culture in Québec, one of the Canadian provinces. The Observatoire was expressly created to meet the statistical needs of stakeholders involved in the different fields of culture and of the government agencies responsible for culture.

The statistical work of the Observatoire deals with the culture markets, in other words the attendance rate at movie theatres, museums and live entertainments shows as well as the sale of books and sound recordings. The Observatoire also produces statistics on the profile of various types of cultural establishments or cultural workers, on the cultural consumption practices of Québeckers and on the cultural expenditures of the government.

Our presentation will deal with the following items:

  1. How the Observatoirecircumscribed the sector of culture and communications.
  2. What are the principal limits of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) in terms of culture and how does it justify the creation of a culture classification that is unique to the Observatoire?
  3. Short description of our classification, the Québec Culture and Communications Activity Classification System (QCCACS).
  4. Presentation of a few conceptual problems encountered during the development of QCCACS.
  5. Examples of a few projects in which the Observatoire used QCCACSto produce statistics.
  1. The perimeter of culture according to the Observatoire

de la culture et des communications du Québec

In the beginning, before undertaking its first statistical studies, the Observatoire had to explicitly describe and define the boundaries of its field of observation. The result of this reflection is recorded in a document which is available on our Web site[1]and of which I will review the major points relating to the perimeter of the culture and communications sector.

First, we decided to define culture and communications as an activity sector that is characterized by the production and dissemination of symbolic or information-based content. Then, we divided this sector into a dozen or so cultural fields: 1) visual arts, fine crafts, and media arts, 2) performing arts, 3) museums and heritage, 4) libraries, 5) books, 6)periodicals, 7) sound recording, 8) cinematography and audiovisual, 9) radio and television, 10) multimedia, 11) architecture and design, 12) advertising, 13) public administration and associations.

We had to make choices with respect to what we would include in the culture and communications sector and what we would exclude. For instance, we decided to include advertising, which is not a part of culture according to the European Commission’s[2], Leadership Group on Cultural Statistics (LEG) but is included in Statistics Canada’s[3] vision of culture. We also included multimedia (which roughly corresponds to what some call “new media”) and fashion design which ispart ofthe field of “architecture and design”.

As regards exclusions, let us of course mention the sector of environment and nature. However, museums, exhibition centres and interpretation centres focussing on natural and environmental sciences (for example zoos and botanical gardens) are considered a part of the cultural sector. Sports do not form a part of the culture and communications sector under the meaning of the Observatoire, even when there is an artistic component such as ice skating shows likeDisney on Ice or the Ice Capades. Conversely, the televised broadcast of a hockey game is considered as a part of culture.

It is important to mention that, for us, the term “communications” refers to mass media and that we therefore exclude telecommunication services such as telephone systems and Internet providers from this section, with the exception of enterprises engaged in cable distribution which we have included in the field of “radio and television”.

  1. What was the purpose of creating theQuébec Culture

and Communications Activity Classification System (QCCACS)?

Having defined the boundaries of our observation field, the next step consisted in organizing the observed world using a classification and nomenclature that gave direction to our statistical work. Within the sector of culture and communications, we needed to be able to categorize the types of activities (or establishments), the types of products and the professions.Understandably, the normal reflex was to turn to the classifications that were in effect in Canada. With regard to activities, this meant falling back on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the standard classification used by Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Unfortunately, it quickly came to light that NAICS did not meet the particular needs of Québec’s Observatoire. In fact, despite the level of refinement and efficiency attained by NAICS, we couldonly refer to it partially to organize the statistics on culture. That is how we were able to identify three major flaws in NAICS.

Certain activity subsectors related to culture are absent from NAICS

NAICS is divided into 20 sectors, two of which are specifically devoted to culture:

  • 51 - Information and Cultural Industries;
  • 71 - Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (which not only contains cultural industries but the entire entertainment industry as well).

NAICS also contains several industriesinvolving culture-oriented establishments outside these two sectors, for instance“45392Art Dealers”,“45121 Book Stores and News Dealers”oreven“54192 Photographic Services”.In fact, Statistics Canada designed a grid which groups all the NAICS industries that must be taken into account to produce cultural statistics3.

However, NAICS does not describe some of the culture activities for which the Observatoire wishes to produce statistics. These cultural activities are not the subject of specific subsectors but are rather amalgamated with other economic activities. For instance, the notion of fine crafts does not exist in NAICS. In NAICS, establishments which produce goods are generally classified according to the materials used or to the types of products manufactured.No distinction is made between the size of these establishmentsor the way thesegoods are manufactured, namely whether they aremanufactured industrially or handcrafted.

For instance, a pottery artisanwill be categorized under the same NAICS industry as a factory that manufactures porcelain sinks, namely “32711 Pottery, Ceramics and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing”.Of course, allartisanal productsare not necessarily fine crafts. Nonetheless, according to the way the economic data on production is organized under NAICS, it is impossible to calculate or estimate the value of fine crafts in Canada or in the province of Québec.

Here is another example of a culture subsector that is not present in NAICS: the publishing of multimedia products such as video games or educational CD-ROMs. The multimedia industry is not the subject of a particular industry or subsector in NAICS. Establishments which specialize in multimedia are integrated into various industries, such as “51121Software Publishers”or “54151Computer Systems Design and Related Services”.Here, as well, it is impossible to find out the value of the multimedia industry from Canadian statistics[4].

Certain types of cultural establishments are engulfed in vastnon-cultural industries

As NAICS deals with the economy in general, it comprises industries that are relatively encompassing. However, to restrict oneself to the sector of culture and communications calls for a much more narrow approach, with smaller and more specific industries. For example, the Observatoirewould be able to produce statistics on regional culture councils (in Québec, they are local non-governmental associations which promote the development of culture in a given region). In NAICS, however, regional culture councils would be lost in avastindustry such as “81331 Social Advocacy Organizations”.

There are many more examples illustrating this particular lack of precision. For instance, agencies engaged in the research and development of museology and heritage are naturally not specifically identified in NAICS and fall under a large industry, namely“54172 Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities”.

For certain types of cultural establishments, no distinction is made in NAICS between the different fields of culture

It is important to remember that the mandate of theObservatoireis to produce statistics required by the persons working in the different segments of culture in Québec: such as the visual arts, book publishing, cinematography, etc. On the other hand, some key categories of cultural establishments belong to industries that cross each other.This means that similar establishments form one single block, whether they belong to different cultural fields or not. For instance, industry“71151 Independent Artists, Writers and Performers”comprises a diversity of creators such as writers, actors, journalists and sculptors. Nevertheless, the Observatoire needs statistics on each of these types of creators, so it needs categories that are narrower in scope in order to identify them.

QCCACS objectives

To put it briefly, NAICS did not attain the level of preciseness required for the culture and communications sector. Therefore, the Observatoire decided to create its own classification system and set five objectives to do so.

  1. The classification needed to be sufficiently detailed to a) feature a large variety of economic activities within the culture and communications sector, and b) make it possible to cover each of the cultural fields while respecting their respective boundaries.
  2. It had to reflect the Québec context and meet the particular needs of the Québec stakeholders in terms of culture. InQuébec, the division of labour in the cultural field is understandably not the same as that in other societies; therefore a particular breakdown and nomenclature were needed to reflect the cultural reality of Québec.
  3. It needed to emulate the classification work produced in other areas ofthe world (France, UNESCO, European Community, Canada) so our statistics could be compared with those of other societies.
  4. As far as possible, we wanted to tie in our classification system with NAICS in order to be able to establish relationshipswith existing Canadian statistics and to link the cultural fields to the rest of the economy. This explains why some categories of the establishments defined by the Observatoire are a mirror image of the NAICS industries.
  5. We also wanted to secure the approval of our main clients, namely associations representing the cultural communities of Québec.

While designing our system, many questions were raised with respect to the logic used in establishing the rules of classification and of inclusion/exclusion, the nomenclature and the manner in which the definitions were formulated. At the outset, we had no idea of the various pitfalls we would encounter or of the difficulty in finding elegant solutions to all of these cases. Conceptually speaking, it was an undertaking that proved to be much more difficult than anticipated; for the objective was to create, on paper, a theoretical model which would represent a set of very diverse economic activities, at times unknown to each other, that we wanted to see as a whole.

It is important to stress that some of the choices that we made were purely arbitrary. Some stray from logic but are based in tradition (for instance including cable distributors in the culture industry while excluding Internet providers) or based on the political and administrative structure of culture in Québec (the scope of action of the ministère de la Culture et des communications, the various grant programs, laws, etc.).

Before expounding onsome of the major conceptual problems that arose andon the solutions put forward by the Observatoire, I will give a brief description ofour Québec Culture and Communications Activity Classification System (QCCACS).

3.Description of QCCACS

Our classification system is presented in a body of work which can be downloaded from the Web site of the Observatoire[5] free of charge.The various categories of establishments are divided into cultural fields and each establishment category has a specific name and is the subject of a definition. This work also contains cross-reference tables between the 2002 NAICS and the 2004 QCCACS classification systems.

We selected a classification structure that essentially uses the same logic as NAICS. As explained earlier, NAICS divided the economy into 20 “sectors”. Therefore, we decided to refer to the culture and communications field as a “sector” and divide this “sector” into 15 “fields”:

11 Visual Arts, Fine Crafts, and Media Arts

12 Performing Arts

13 Heritage, Museum Institutions, and Archives

14 Libraries

15 Books

16 Periodicals

17 Sound Recording (records)

18 Cinematography and Audiovisual

19 Radio and Television

20 Multimedia

21 Architecture and Design

22 Advertising and Public Relations

23 Organizations Dedicated to Representation and Advancement

24 Public Administration

90 Establishments involved in more than one field of culture and communications

Each field is divided into a “group” corresponding to the different categories of cultural establishments that exist in Québec. Our “groups” are therefore the equivalent of what NAICS refers to as “industries”. Here is an example of a group and its definition:

18206Dubbing Studios

This group comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing dubbing services for films or television programs. Dubbing consists in substituting dialog from one language for dialog from another language.

Exclusions:

  • Sound Recording Studios (17203);
  • Postproduction Studios and Other Services Related to the Production of Films and Television Programs (18205).

We would like to stress that the term “establishment” includes self-employed workers. In fact, there are groups in QCCACS that are mainly composed of self-employed workers rather than ofenterprises or agencies. This is reflected in the name of the group, for instance,“11101Visual Artists”or“90109 Independent Journalists”. Independent workers are considered as the smallest form of establishment encountered in a given industry. In the culture and communications sector, they forma proportionally larger group than their counterparts working in the other sectors comprising the economy.

The different types of establishments are classified in QCCACS according to their principal activity. It is the principal activity[6]of a given establishment that will determine the field and the group under which it will be classified.

Each groupcarries a name and a 7-digit code that is broken down as follows:

Example: 11303.01, Contemporary Art Dealers

11303.01Field: Visual Arts, Fine Crafts, and Media Arts

11303.01Function: Dissemination/Distribution

11303.01Group: Art Dealers

11303.01Subgroup[7]: Contemporary Art Dealers

We adopted a practice developed by UNESCO which consists in identifying the types of cultural establishments according to their function in the production scheme. Generally speaking, cultural-based goods and services go through three stages before becoming available for public consumption: creation, production and dissemination. To this cycle is added the training function that groups establishments in charge of training persons working in the cultural sector. Therefore, within each of the 15 cultural fields, the various listed establishments are divided into four categories: creation, production, dissemination/distribution and training.[8]

Some establishments carry out more than one function at once. This is the case of visual artists for whom the creation and production of their art work constitute the same activity or of certain theatre companies that assume both the production and presentation of their shows. These establishments are classified under one function or the other according to their principal activity or to the activity which constitutes their principal function or is at the top of their production scheme. Therefore visual artists will be classified under “creation” and theatre companies under “production” even though they also act as presenters.

It is important to mention that our classification system was developed with the assistance of persons working in the different cultural fields described in QCCACS. This form of consultation was necessary to make sure that our categories of establishments adequately reflected the cultural reality of Québec. This exercise enabled us to better understand the inner workings of various cultural industries and the interaction between the different types of establishments which compose the book or film industry for instance. However, there was a second, more important reason that led us to consult the cultural communities: in the end, the statistics produced according to our classification system had to be recognized as pertinent by our major clients. By involving the associations from the cultural sector before the production of statistics and by securing their approval of the classifications, we avoided possible criticism.

Certain choices, certain definitions as well as the exact name of certain groups were the subject of long debates with the representatives of the cultural communities who sit on the permanent advisory committees of the Observatoire. We, the Observatoire, were the guardians of logic and were deeply committed to respecting the objectives mentioned earlier while our colleagues from cultural-based associations had, at times, the need to defend economic or political interests through the classification. Nevertheless, we were able to reach a consensus in the end.

  1. A few examples of the conceptual problems

encountered while creating QCCACS

The development of the classification system lasted a little over one year. During the course of development, many questions were raised, specifically with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of particular types of establishments that came to mind. For instance, we debated on whether QCCACS had to include stores that sold musical instruments and art materials. We finally decided to exclude them from the sphere of culture in order to include only the stores which sold cultural products, such as record stores, art galleries or book stores. Many questions were raised but for the purpose of this presentation, I will hold myself to presenting the three basic problems that challenge the principles of economic classification.