‘Culture as an Industry Won't Solve Sector's Problems’

4 July 2024

By Elena Polivtseva

In early 2024, Professor Justin O’Connor published ‘Culture is not an industry’. The book has spurred a lot of attention and diverse reactions in cultural policy circles around the world. This is not surprising: as we are clearly running out of concrete and heeded arguments for the value of culture, O’Connor’s book offered a powerful statement proposing a radically different narrative around culture.

The book depicts how the policy discourse framing culture as an industrial sector, which became a trend in the 1980s, has not proven effective - for the economy, society, or culture itself. On the contrary, the last forty years have shown that the reducing culture to an industry has led to the marginalisation of culture on policy agendas and scrapping it away from transformative policies. The ‘culture-as-an-industry’ discourse has worsened working conditions in the cultural sector pushed to spend increasingly more effort and time on quantifying its impact.

I spoke to Justin on 6 June, just three days before the European elections, to delve deeper into some of his ideas and contextualise them within the European political reality. We explored what the cultural sector must do today, in politically challenging times, to be understood and valued.

Today, the world seems to be slowly waking up to the urgency of rebuilding policy foundations that prioritise people’s essential needs over GDP growth (1). So far, culture has been missing from these discussions. How can we ensure that culture is not forgotten or, worse, misunderstood again, like back in the 80s? If culture is not an industry, what is it?

Justin O’Connor is professor of cultural economy at the University of South Australia and visiting chair in the Department of Cultural Management at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China.

EP: You have presented your book in many countries around the world, and it has generated a lot of attention on social media. What kind of feedback have you received so far, and how have your ideas been received overall?

JO: It really depends on the country and context, but I sense a global understanding that the creative industry narrative has run out of steam. In some places, like the Netherlands and Germany, where I presented the book, people were deeply anxious about the future of cultural policies amidst the rise of right-wing politics. In the UK, there is worry about forthcoming long-term cuts to cultural budgets. In China, there is growing interest in developing culture as a public service for the people. In Africa, some are voicing discontent with the creative industry approach, which has not delivered on its promises. Overall, there is not as much excitement about positioning culture as an economic sector as there was in the early 2000s. Instead, there is a strong interest in shaping new narratives around culture, yet there is still a lot of confusion and there are conflicting discourses.

“There is a strong interest in shaping new narratives around culture, yet there is still a lot of confusion and there are conflicting discourses”

EP: Are there also people who disagree with your point that culture is not an industry? Who are these people, and what are their key arguments?

JO: There are indeed many people who are not ready to see the focus on 'creative industries' reduced or disappearing from cultural policy. There are organisations that directly benefit from the numerous programmes researching and developing 'creative industries'. For instance, the UK government has allocated dozens of millions to various creative industry research programmes, often bigger than the budget of many towns, even cities. The beneficiaries of the creative industry narrative include various clusters and consortia centred around universities, research agencies, consultancies, and similar entities. These groups often have more influence on governments than artists and cultural workers.

However, the well-intentioned aura of the industry discourse extends even within the cultural sector itself. Many individuals working in cultural organisations learned the creative industry narrative long ago, encouraged by funders and policymakers, and are unlikely to unlearn it soon. Cultural workers embracing the 'culture as an industry' argument remind me of children repeating adults' words to demonstrate they are growing up.

EP: Do you find the rhetoric of the cultural sector talking about itself as an industry convincing?

JO: The issue is that it is very rare for researchers or consultants in creative industries, let alone for cultural workers, to grasp what a true industrial strategy or policy entails.

An industrial policy(2) is a state-led strategy to direct investment through the private sector toward a recognised industry goal. There has never been a coherent industrial strategy for culture in its typical form. The creative industry discourse has been more of a sophisticated form of advocacy, promoting culture in economic terms. This discourse usually revolves around creative skills, access to finance, intellectual property regulation, and developing metrics about the size and growth of the sector. What the industry discourse has also been about is pushing various cultural sectors to become more entrepreneurial and business-like.

Meanwhile, the principles on which the actual creative industries operate have transformed massively and rapidly. Platformization(3) has eroded the autonomy of those working in the sector, who are now governed by algorithms and various management techniques. Apart from a few winners, creative workers are facing increasingly tough conditions. There is a significant gap in addressing the real internal dynamics of the cultural sector - in its broad definition - as a coherent policy issue, let alone as a genuine industrial strategy.

EP: So, might the problem be that the existing creative industry strategies are not 'strategic' enough and do not sufficiently view culture as an industry in the classical sense of the word? Do you think it would make more sense to fully develop a true industrial strategy for culture, with all of its typical features and techniques?

JO: If we treat culture as a real industry, in the classical sense of the word, a very different picture would emerge. It would involve competing with big players on a global level, making decisions about investing large amounts of money into key areas. You would need to focus on geographical concentrations, drive innovation, maximise profits and exports, and talk about industrial policy in the same way you would about electric vehicles, wine, or dairy industries. However, this is not the same as talking about culture and art.

This is what the Korean government did in the 1990s when they invested heavily in pop music and television, transforming them into global products(4). They were successful, but they did not call it a cultural or art policy. Instead, they used developmental state techniques(5), which have not been applied in Europe.

In the picture: BTS and US President Joe Biden at the White House in 2022. Source.

If in Europe you were to apply purely industrial measures to culture, including state control and regulation, you would need to restrict cultural products from your competitors, for instance, from the US and China. How far would this go, and for what reason? Would you start looking at favourable trade deals for European cultural exports? Would you develop massive cultural industry zones in the middle of Paris and Berlin?

All sorts of contradictions would emerge if Europe went all the way in developing a classical industrial strategy for culture. In the meantime, this would not solve the massive problems of working conditions in the cultural sector, nor would it democratise access to culture or make cultural offerings more diverse. The gap between reality and people’s expectations of what culture is all about would grow even larger.

“All sorts of contradictions would emerge if Europe went all the way in developing a classical industrial strategy for culture. This would not solve the massive problems of working conditions in the cultural sector, nor would it democratise access to culture or make cultural offerings more diverse. ”

This is what happens when we apply a purely industrial paradigm to culture. Another narrative that promotes culture as an economic sector involves putting culture entirely in the market and trusting the so-called consumer economy. However, considering the notion of platformisation - domination by a few big players such as Amazon and Spotify - it's hard to believe we are still dealing with any kind of free market economy where cultural consumers and producers find each other and ‘may the best man win.’ Products are produced, but consumers are produced too. The market for cultural goods is not shaped by the so-called free democratic choice of individual consumers. Today, the market of creative industries is highly controlled and extractive.

EP: It seems the marriage between culture and economy is not a success story. However, erasing culture from the economy entirely is probably not the right way to go either.

JO: Indeed, let us not remove economics from culture. But let's turn the lens away from culture to economics, and have a look at the type of economics we are discussing.

Whose economics? The economics of market choices, clusters, entrepreneurship, and startups? Or community economics, post-Keynesian economics, well-being economics, Marxist economics, or post-growth economics? Ultimately, the debate is about how we want to organise our economy in a way that benefits us collectively as humanity and as a planet. How do we make the economy work for all of us?

In my book, I discuss the local economy, which comprises various activities aimed at meeting local needs, such as education, health, public administration, hairdressers, local restaurants, cultural organisations, and more. These services make a city livable and provide the largest portion of employment, while a highly profitable transactional economy creates quite a small percentage of jobs. What strikes me about the creative industry narrative is the idea that culture should align itself with that very small sector of a transactional, innovation- and profit-driven economy.

EP: So, should culture reposition itself as part of the local economy? Would the local economy discourse be a more effective advocacy narrative for the cultural sector?

JO: If the cultural sector is to position itself as an economic sector, its most natural place is within the domain of the local economy. However, this should not become the new advocacy narrative; doing so would merely replace the old one without addressing the core value of culture.

Health and education are also essential components of the local economy. However, would we justify building a hospital solely because it would employ two thousand people? No, instead, we would assess the local population's health needs and construct a hospital to specifically address those needs. A hospital or school is fundamental to the social infrastructure of any livable city. Likewise, the local ecosystem of cultural organisations plays a crucial role.

If we recognise access to culture as a human right, which I strongly believe we should, the social infrastructure of any livable city must ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate in cultural life. When referring to cultural infrastructure(6), I do not only mean physical buildings but also a wide range of facilities, programmes, educational connections, regulations, and more. Cultural life is an integral part of social and political life, essential in defining citizenship. Culture, therefore, deserves to be considered one of the foundational services that contribute to creating a livable society.

However, what is happening in Europe and many other parts of the world is the erosion of the cultural public sector and any public infrastructure for collective participation in public life. This occurs amidst social fragmentation, the growing gap between the rulers and the ruled, and a lack of public trust towards governments. In parallel, the push for and focus on creative industries continues.

It's interesting that some of the real creative industries, like companies such as Spotify, don't mind being associated with art, culture, and creativity. This association creates a positive image and opens the door to discussions about deregulation, tax relief, and reducing state control. However, if the conversation shifts to viewing culture as part of the public service sector, as a right, or as a sustainable development goal, large corporations may not find it as appealing to be grouped with culture and the arts. It's no surprise that the United States has resisted including culture as a sustainable development goal on the UN agenda. 

Culture is now recognised as a standalone goal of sustainable development in the UN’s Pact of the Future(7), but the battle is not over yet.

EP: Would making culture a standalone goal in the UN’s sustainable development agenda bring about radical change? In your book, you argue that even if we introduce culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development - alongside social, economic, and environmental pillars - without rethinking the current economic paradigm, all pillars will continue to revolve around the economic one. This paradigm, as it stands, does not ensure sustainability on our planet.

JO: Though it seemed attractive to add social, then environmental, then cultural pillars alongside the economic, this ignores how the economy is a far more powerful pillar, towering over the rest. The ‘real’ bottom line remains economic - or rather, profit, GDP, growth etc. And this is the other problem, it gives ontological existence to an ‘economy’ that actually needs putting into question: what exactly do we mean by ‘economy’ and when, historically, did it become distinct from (and often antithetical to) the social, environmental and cultural pillars.

However, over the past decade, there has been significant reflection on societal needs, leading to a gradual shift away from GDP-driven growth toward systems that enhance humanity's collective capacities for development. Many countries are recognising the necessity for a larger role of the state in fostering and safeguarding collective benefits, rather than solely relying on free markets. There is growing awareness of the need to rebuild collective infrastructure and prioritise healthcare, education, and other public services.

Nevertheless, the dominant global paradigm still prioritises economic growth and celebrates neoliberal success. A fundamental shift away from this paradigm is essential to ensure the sustainability of our public goods. This transformation must occur at a global level, that is why the sustainability discussions at the UN are critically important.

To begin with, we need to debate the concept of growth. Over the past 20 years, all economic growth has benefited a very small percentage of the population, exacerbating inequalities. Furthermore, the current paradigm of industries, including creative industries, is founded on the premise of endless consumption and carries a significant ecological footprint. However, in my view, growth itself is not inherently negative, just as degrowth is not a universal solution. It's about the type of growth, who benefits from it, and the boundaries within which it occurs. There are numerous unmet needs, particularly in the Global South, that require increased economic prosperity.

“ The current paradigm of industries, including creative industries, is founded on the premise of endless consumption and carries a significant ecological footprint. However, in my view, growth itself is not inherently negative, just as degrowth is not a universal solution.”

How can we create economic development that benefits everyone, not just a few? So, yes, for culture as a sustainable development goal to make sense and thrive, the economic paradigm must be rethought at a global level. Any human-centred goal, whether cultural or otherwise, cannot thrive within the current extractive economic system(8). However, as I mentioned, the ice is breaking, and new ideas are emerging from various sources. Some foundational ideas for alternative economic models are outlined in the Berlin Summit Declaration(9). 

EP: The European Union is currently defining its strategic priorities for the 2024-2029 policy cycle. It appears that enhancing competitiveness and innovation will be the primary policy goals for the EU. How should advocates of culture, in your view, articulate the value of culture amidst this emphasis on competitiveness?

JO: In a few days, Europe will hold elections (the interview was teken on 6 June - EP), and we are likely to witness a shift to the right, symptomatic of significant cultural divides in European societies. Is this shift due to the absence of a robust competitiveness policy for Europe? Or does it stem from insufficient attention to creative industries within Europe’s competitiveness policy? Obviously not.

Mario Draghi, former President of the European Central Bank, is tasked to prepare a report on the future of European competitiveness to guide the 2024-2029 policy cycle. Source.

There is a general erosion of the social infrastructure, of citizens’ participation in social and political foundations of public life. I believe that community involvement is crucial, and active citizen participation is essential for a vibrant community life. This involves feeling part of society, which ties into social infrastructure and local cultural offerings. We need to create spaces, places, and events that rebuild trust among citizens and towards local authorities.

Moreover, culture plays a vital role in creating public discourse and fostering imagination about the future. Currently, much of this imagination is dominated by a tech-entrepreneur culture from Silicon Valley.

Promoting culture as an industry will not resolve cultural divides, democratic deficits, or the rise of right-wing sentiments. It also won't improve working conditions in the cultural sector. Instead, it may result in the creation of new programmes and budgets that benefit research and consultancy firms rather than cultural workers. Investing in cultural infrastructure could generate more jobs than a creative industry programme.

Therefore, I recommend removing culture from Europe’s industrial strategy and integrating it into its social policy. We need a socially-oriented, post-industry cultural policy for the 21st century. This policy should focus on reforming the social contract locally, revitalising the public sphere, and reclaiming ownership of producing and distributing symbolic spaces, including the arts. I believe we need to reintroduce 'art' as a vital component of a society that values imagination, debate, and negotiation. Art must reclaim its place.

EP: All of this seems challenging in the current political climate. What would you recommend to the cultural sector, which is striving to establish a new, compelling narrative about its own value?

JO: The cultural sector must define what culture means on its own terms. It needs to answer the question: what is the distinctive value that culture brings to the public sphere? The cultural sector must stop using discourses that wash out its value. For instance, stop saying that culture is everything: ways of life, traditions, beliefs, and behaviours.

Then the distinction between ‘intrinsic’ and social and economic is itself a product of neoliberal economics. Separating out the 'intrinsic' is actually a form of neoclassical economic modelling where individual good is purely a matter of the individual and her credit card. It also acts as an oubliette into which art is dropped as policy makers hurry on to the economic value. Which is in fact an aggregation in measurable form of those individual decisions about 'intrinsic' value. Art and cultural value are actually established and shared socially, and the individual judgement of a particular piece of art (song, video game, film) is part of our ongoing conversation about what we value as a society.

The world of culture is about the production and distribution of what we call art and culture: highly symbolic things, such as songs, plays, films, books, games, and paintings. The responsibility of the cultural sector is to take care of this world of symbolic things that has historically proven to be highly valuable to societies, and to support the people who create these symbolic things.

“Of course, you can also say: we create jobs and wealth. But this should not be the start or end of the conversation about the social responsibility of the cultural sector. ”

Of course, you can also say: we create jobs and wealth. But this should not be the start or end of the conversation about the social responsibility of the cultural sector. Speaking about the value of culture on its own terms is challenging in the current political reality. However, start by asking yourself and answering, as a collective, some fundamental questions: What are we for? What do we stand for? What is our most essential contribution? Politics change, narratives shift. Start with consolidating your own understanding of what your value is.

________________________________________________________________________________________

(1)One example of the shift towards addressing essential needs is the 2021 report by the UN Secretary-General, ‘Our Common Agenda’, which introduces the concept of the 'global public good.' The report urges Member States to collaborate more closely and effectively to preserve and provide the numerous resources that belong to all of humanity and are currently under threat (UN 2021).

(2)Industrial policy refers to state intervention aiming at improving the prospects for industrial competitiveness and economic growth (IMF 2023)

(3)Platformisation is defined as the penetration of infrastructures, economic processes and governmental frameworks of digital platforms in different economic sectors and spheres of life, as well as the reorganisation of cultural practices and imaginations around these platforms (Poell, Nieborg, Van Dijck 2019)

(4)The Korean Wave, or Hallyu, is a cultural phenomenon characterised by the rapid rise in global popularity of South Korean culture since the 1990s. This surge in interest has been driven mainly by the spread of K-pop, K-dramas, and films, with notable successes such as the boy band BTS, the television series Squid Game (2021), and the Oscar-winning film Parasite (2019). The Korean Wave is recognized as a form of soft power and a significant economic asset for South Korea, generating revenue through exports and tourism. Critiques highlight that the K-pop ‘idol system’ operates like a cultural factory - a structured mechanism where entertainment agencies recruit, train, debut, and manage their artists, commonly known as ‘idols’.

(5)The developmental state refers to a state formation, often nationalistic, that is capable of intervening in the economy with long-term goals and plans, without stifling economic incentives prevalent in market economies. (Oxford Academic 2022).

(6)In the book ‘Culture is not an Industry’ cultural infrastructure is defined as ‘organisations and institutions, training and education, festivals and events;libraries; galleries and museums; community arts and craft centres; dance, theatre and music schools; radio stations; arts and craft classes; independent cinemas; music, theatre and other performance venues; online publishing; recording studios, film production facilities, and creative workspaces.’ (O’Connor 2024, p. 182).

(7)UN’s Pact for the Future, the document that addresses current and future global challenges. It will be a central focus at the upcoming UN Summit of the Future in September 2024, where countries will negotiate and ratify the Pact

(8)Extractive economies tend to treat most local, regional and even national economies as places from which wealth – resources, money, labour, etc. – can be extracted (Capital Institute 2015)

(9)The Berlin Summit Declaration 2024 is a joint appeal, signed by more than 50 renowned academics who are calling for a new, cause-oriented economic policy. The Declaration was published by the Forum New Economy is a non-partisan platform founded in Berlin in 2019 with the aim of seeking new solutions and a new overarching paradigm for the major challenges of climate change, growing inequality and globalisation, as well as redefining the role of the state.