Musings on Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Monday, May 03, 2004In Defense of the Creative Class
Richard Florida is an accomplished idea entrepreneur, and his ideas regarding the relationships between the "creative class" and economic development have attracted vocal criticism as well as acolytes. In Revenge of the Squelchers, Florida answers his critics. In this essay, Florida notes:
A second line of criticism says that my theory falls victim to a classic "chicken-and-egg" problem by confusing the underlying case of economic growth. What typically comes first, these critics argue, are the jobs. Once a region has those, then the people - as well as the amenities, lifestyle, and tolerance - flow. One conventional economic developer recently put it this way: "Create the jobs and diversity will follow."This kind of thinking does not square with reality. My research and other recent studies have shown that many people choose location first and then look for jobs in those locations. A 2002 survey of four thousand recent college graduates reported in the Wall Street Journal found that three-quarters of them identified location as more important than the availability of a job when selecting a place to live.
It seems to me that there is a reinforcing relationships between jobs, amenities, and the emergence of a creative class. I suspect that historically the impetus for cultural amenities came from industry and jobs. For instance, Chicago was "Hog Butcher for the World" before it was home of world-class art, architecture, and music. On the other hand, anecdotal evidence out here on the economic frontier is consistent with Florida's assertion that an increasing number of people are choosing place and lifestyle over the ready availability of jobs. In fact, I've argued for some time that this translates into an unexpected source of advantage in that the combination of immigrant talent, ambition, and low opportunity cost creates an environment from which promising startups are likely to emerge.
I have no argument with Florida when in asserts, "my core message is that human creativity is the ultimate source of economic growth. Every single person is creative in some way. And to fully tap and harness that creativity we must be tolerant, diverse, and inclusive." Viewed alternatively, a relative insulation from diverse, changing ideas is a source of disadvantage:
Our work finds that places open to immigrants, artists, and gays, and which are less segregated, do best. These places mobilize existing creative energy in their cities and attract creative energy from outside by allowing people to be themselves and validate their identities. In doing so, such places capture a disproportionate share of the flow.
To the extent that the notion that cultural creatives is interpreted as being a static, exclusive class description, it becomes less useful and, indeed, damaging. To paraphrase Robert Axelrod and Michael Cohen, even if a person doesn't happen to have the talent that is currently in demand today, that underappreciated talent could well prove to be foundational for the economy of tomorrow. In their words, "Premature convergence occurs when needed variability is lost too quickly. This can happen when very speedy imitation of an initial success cuts off future...improvements." I believe that Florida is right when he calls for a focus on technology, talent, and tolerance - particularly tolerance.
