When
Richard Florida, the peripatetic celebrity
academic from George Mason University,
was in Australia to promote The
Rise of the Creative Class (2002),
he described Sydney as one of a dynamic
new generation of cities that is attracting
global talent. The following year,
as a guest of the Melbourne Fashion
Festival, he included Melbourne with
Helsinki, Stockholm and Minneapolis–St
Paul as models of creative and inclusive
societies. On a later visit to New
Zealand, he observed that the Lord
of the Rings movies catalysed
a new technology and entertainment
industry for Wellington, earning it
the reputation as a creative city.
Is there a pattern here?
As explained in his bestseller, Florida’s
‘creative class’ is made
up of ‘technological creatives’
in research and development, ‘cultural
creatives’ in film, music, entertainment
and architecture, and people in ‘knowledge
jobs’ such as law, finance and
health care. Enticed by the three
Ts of economic development —
technology, talent and tolerance —
the creative class builds community
spirit, attracts new investment and
drives local economies. Predictably,
his ideas had immediate appeal. How
could Americans, especially those
who see themselves as members of the
creative class, not like a man who
says that diversity, tolerance and
a vibrant cultural life are the ingredients
of the country’s economic success?
How could they dismiss someone who
claims that how we live matters —
that vibrant street life, outdoor
recreation and a music scene are important
in choosing a place to live?
Yet just three years later, in The
Flight of the Creative Class,
Florida warns that America’s
economic future is under threat. Since
9/11 a ‘Reverse Brain Drain’
has meant that the US is losing its
best and brightest to other parts
of the globe. As a result, the US’s
global leadership in innovation and
prosperity is no longer assured. Unless
business and political leaders recognise
the need to support education, technology,
research and development, and community
building, Florida predicts that the
trend will continue and America’s
economic dominance will be challenged.
Of the two books, Rise offers
a more careful and better-organised
analysis. However, for those who haven’t
read it, the first few chapters of
Flight rehearse the arguments.
Two distinct societies have emerged.
One is creative and diverse —
a cosmopolitan mix of high-tech people,
bohemians, scientists and engineers,
the media and the professions: the
creative class. The other is a more
close-knit society of working people
and rural dwellers: the service class.
And Florida sometimes refers to a
third group: the manufacturing class.
Although the creative class comprises
only thirty per cent of the US workforce,
it earns nearly half of the country’s
wages and is characterised by expert
thinking and complex communication.
Creative workers employed in creative
occupations are responsible for wealth
generation. However, at pains to counter-attacks
that he is élitist, Florida
explains that all people are creative
and that the way a community can attract
jobs and economic prosperity is to
engage the creativity of everyone
in that community, not just those
in creative class jobs.
To evaluate a region’s position
in the Creative Economy, Florida has
devised a Creativity Index. Four equally
weighted factors produce the Index:
the creative class share of the workforce;
innovation as measured by patents
per capita; the presence of high-tech
industries; and diversity as measured
by the number of gays. His analysis
has found a correlation between places
open to immigrants, artists, gays
and bohemians, and socio-economic
and racial integration and economic
growth. Of the four, it comes as no
surprise that the Gay Index has provoked
the most interest.
In The Flight of the Creative Class,
Florida explores why creative people
are leaving the US and asks if they
are opting for greener creative pastures.
Not shy of making big claims, Florida
warns that the US is facing its greatest
challenge since the Industrial Revolution:
the new global competition for talent.
As the global talent pool, once the
province of the US and the source
of its prosperity, has begun to disperse
around the globe, the measure of a
successful economy will revolve around
a nation’s ability to mobilise,
attract and retain human creative
talent. Historically, says Florida,
America’s openness to new ideas
has allowed it to dominate the global
competition for talent. However, since
the closing of the US after 9/11,
the number of green cards issued has
fallen, the number of foreign students’
applications has declined, the religious
right has strongly opposed gay rights,
and US companies are going offshore
to recruit talent. The result is a
cost to the US economy.
Economists have long recognised technology
and talent as the key drivers of economic
growth, but Florida adds the idea
of ‘flows’ — the mobility
of people and ideas. It is the open
and inclusive societies that are likely
to mobilise the creative talents of
people. However, according to his
Global Creativity Index, the US is
no longer the undisputed leader of
innovation and openness: it is positioned
fourth behind Sweden, Japan and Finland.
Australia is in the next group, described
as also doing well and unlikely to
be surpassed by emerging giants such
as India and China.
In the last chapter, Florida explains
how to build a creative society. To
make the transition from industrial
to creative societies, countries need
to invest in people, to build up the
creative capital, and to remain open
and tolerant. It can’t be a top-down
plan; it has to emerge organically
from the insights, efforts and energies
of varied groups of people and organisations
working on the concerns of a collective
future. Most importantly, there has
to be investment in research and development.
The regions that succeed will be those
that are magnets for the highly educated,
highly mobile, innovative people that
high-wage, high-growth companies need
to hire. Cities that attract the creative
class welcome newcomers, offer a wide
range of lifestyle amenities, celebrate
their diversity and see their people
as creative. They have a strong urban
core and universities that attract
young people and new ideas.
When Florida admonishes the US for
not investing sufficiently in universities
and research centres, somewhat ironically
he holds up Australia as an example
of a country that has invested heavily
in universities and research centres,
and that nurtures creativity through
open immigration and urban planning.
But as readers well know, many creative
Australians are leaving the country,
the government is hostile to immigrants,
opposed to gay marriage, and has cut
funding to research and development,
the arts and the universities.
Florida argues for measures as large
scale as the New Deal and for innovative
kinds of social institutions and policies.
As the political class is ‘clueless’,
he leaves it to the creative class
to produce the blueprint. It’s
a call for creativity but without
the detail. When ideas about complex
cultural and social change are reduced
to ‘the three Ts of economic
development’, it’s difficult
not to be a little sceptical.
