| |
|
The Richard Florida debate continues
Sunday, January 09, 2005 Meanwhile the great Richard Florida debate continues. Our colleague, Valdis Krebs, pointed a group of us in Cleveland to this one. In a recent article, Florida defends himself against "The Squelchers". It appears, not everyone is convinced that he has answered his critics. Read more. Florida is right in pointing to creativity as a key driver of advanced industrial economies. To my mind, though, he has made himself the issue. Here some ways for Florida to to get out of the box where his critics have put him. Don't present your theory as "your theory" Florida published his book in 2002. Four years before, the Blair government in the U.K. took the first step toward redefining the role of arts and culture in economic development. They applied Michael Porter's concept of clusters to "the creative industries". Learn more from this web site. In 2000, the New England Council issued a report that followed this approach. Learn more Also in 2000, Charles Landry published an important book called The Creative City (now in its fourth printing). All of these efforts owe a deep debt to Jane Jacobs. Florida acknowledges Jacobs (pp. 41-43), but one reason he has provoked criticism, I suspect, is that he has claimed too much with too little. A little humility will be helpful. Don't read too much into the data Academics hate to play fast and loose with the facts. They are very conservative in this regard. Florida, has offended some of his academic colleauges by building his arguments on a relatively thin layer of data analysis. Some of my economist colleagues simply shake their head at how Florida confuses correlation (A and B appear together) with causation (A causes B). It's not surprising, then, that some critics go after his facts. That's too bad, because Florida's arguments do not have to be statistical. He could have structured his arguments differently, much like Jane Jacobs or Charles Landry have done. Here is the important thing to remember about economic development statistics: they do a pretty good job of telling us where we've been, but they're not very good at telling us where we are going. Don't promote simplistic formulas for complex issues Policy wonks (I put myself in this category) shake their heads for another reason. Florida has taken a vitally important concept and drawn some simplistic and impractical policy prescriptions. His 3T policy formula -- technology, talent, and tolerance -- is too broad to be very useful beyond a lunch speech. It's very good to be more tolerant...but how exactly do you do that? (Civil rights leaders have been trying to figure that one out for decades.) Find better words When you are promoting ideas, words matter. Florida has unfortunately shot himself in the foot with some goofy word choices. The "Bohemian Index" may sound clever, but it doesn't sell in a lot of places. Here's another: Florida's notion of a "creative class" represents a throwback to 19th century social theory. Again, it's an awkward word choice. To posit that there is a "creative class" implies that there is an "uncreative class" (although he takes pains to say that he believes everone can be creative). The truth is that every brain has enormous creative potential and that we do not have a brain to waste. To my mind, he would have been far better off using the existing concepts of "creative industries" or "creative cities". Move on. Don't take it personally The real tragedy of Richard Florida's work is that by his language, he has succeeded in making himself the issue. And the controversy is diverting us from what really matters: Figuring out how to connect creativity and innovation with economic development in deep and profound ways. Others are not waiting for us to figure this out, as you can see here, here and here. posted by Ed Morrison | |
|
|
|
|||||
|
 |
|||||||
|
||||||||
