Regional Studies

ISSN: 0034-3404 (Print) 1360-0591 (Online) Journal homepage: http://rsa.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20

Creativity support policies as a means of

development policy for the global South? A critical
appraisal of the UNESCO Creative Economy Report
2013

Rolf Sternberg

To cite this article: Rolf Sternberg (2017) Creativity support policies as a means of development
policy for the global South? A critical appraisal of the UNESCO Creative Economy Report 2013,
Regional Studies, 51:2, 336-345, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1174844

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1174844

Published online: 02 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 93

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://rsa.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cres20

Download by: [Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB)] Date: 09 February 2017, At: 03:01
REGIONAL STUDIES, 2017
VOL. 51, NO. 2, 336–345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1174844

POLICY DEBATES

Creativity support policies as a means of development policy for

the global South? A critical appraisal of the UNESCO Creative
Economy Report 2013
Rolf Sternberg

ABSTRACT
Creativity support policies as a means of development policy for the global South? A critical appraisal of the UNESCO
Creative Economy Report 2013. Regional Studies. Cultural segments of the economy have long been the popular
targets of policy-makers intending to promote the economy. The United Nations Creative Economy Report intends to
harness the creative economy for goals of economic development policy to the benefit of developing countries. This
paper demonstrates that the idea of the creative economy, understood as a development policy tool, has several
serious theoretical–conceptual weaknesses. Popularity does not mean the policy tools are or will be successful. For
that reason, and with all due respect to the strengths of this concept, they should be subject to critical analysis in
each individual case.
KEYWORDS
creative economy; creative class; development policy; developing countries

摘要
支持创造力的政策作为全球南方的发展政策工具？对联合国教科文组织 2013 年创意经济报告的批判性评价, Regional
Studies. 经济的文化部分，长期以来作为期盼提升经济的政策制定者所针对的大众目标。联合国的《创意经济报告》，
企图驾驭创意经济，旨在促进能够嘉惠发展中国家的经济发展政策。本文显示，理解为发展政策工具的创意经济之概
念，具有若干严重的理论—概念弱点。普及并不表示政策工具是成功的、抑或将会成功。为了上述原因，以及为了此
一概念效力的冒昧直言，它们应该在每个单独案例中受到批判性地分析。
关键词
创意经济；创意阶级；发展政策；发展中国家

RÉSUMÉ
Des politiques en faveur du soutien de la créativité comme outil de la politique de développement dans les pays du Sud?
Une évaluation critique du Rapport sur l’économie créative 2013 de l’UNESCO. Regional Studies. Depuis longtemps les
secteurs culturels de l’économie sont des cibles très appréciées de la part des décideurs politiques qui envisagent de
promouvoir l’économie. Le Rapport sur l’économie créative de l’Onu cherche à exploiter l’économie créative pour
réaliser des objectifs en matière de politique de développement économique au profit des pays en voie de
développement. Cet article démontre que la notion d’économie créative, que l’on entend ici comme outil de la
politique de développement, fait preuve de plusieurs graves lacunes à la fois théoriques et conceptuelles. La popularité
ne veut pas dire que les outils de politique réussissent ou réussiront. Pour cette raison, et compte tenu des forces de
cette notion, on devrait les soumettre à l’analyse critique au cas par cas.
MOTS-CLÉS
économie créative; classe créative; politique de développement; pays en voie de développement

CONTACT
sternberg@wigeo.uni-hannover.de
Institute of Economic and Cultural Geography, University of Hannover, Schneiderberg 50, Hannover D-30167, Germany.

© 2016 Regional Studies Association

 A critical appraisal of the UNESCO Creative Economy Report 2013 337

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Politiken zur Unterstützung der Kreativität als Mittel der Entwicklungspolitik für den globalen Süden? Eine kritische
Bewertung des Berichts über die Kreativwirtschaft 2013 der UNESCO. Regional Studies. Die kulturellen Segmente der
Wirtschaft sind schon seit langem beliebte Ziele von Politikern zur Förderung der Wirtschaft. Im Bericht über die
Kreativwirtschaft der UN wird versucht, die Kreativwirtschaft für die Ziele der Politik zur Wirtschaftsentwicklung in
Entwicklungsländern zu nutzen. In diesem Beitrag wird nachgewiesen, dass die Idee der Kreativwirtschaft als Instrument
der Entwicklungspolitik mehrere schwere theoretisch-konzeptionelle Schwächen aufweist. Eine Beliebtheit bedeutet
nicht, dass die politischen Instrumente erfolgreich sind oder sein werden. Aus diesem Grund sollten sie – bei allem
gebührenden Respekt vor den Stärken dieses Konzepts – in jedem Einzelfall einer kritischen Analyse unterzogen werden.
SCHLÜSSELWÖRTER
Kreativwirtschaft; kreative Klasse; Entwicklungspolitik; Entwicklungsländer

RESUMEN
¿Políticas para apoyar la creatividad como medio de las políticas de desarrollo para los países del hemisferio sur? Valoración
crítica del informe sobre la economía creativa 2013 de la UNESCO. Regional Studies. Los segmentos culturales de la economía
son desde hace tiempo objetivos populares de los responsables políticos a la hora de fomentar la economía. La finalidad del
informe sobre la economía creativa de Naciones Unidas es sacar partido de la economía creativa para los objetivos de la
política de desarrollo económico en países en desarrollo. En este artículo se demuestra que la idea de la economía
creativa, entendida como una herramienta de política de desarrollo, tiene varias graves deficiencias teórico-conceptuales.
El hecho de que las herramientas políticas sean populares no significa que tengan o vayan a tener éxito. Por este motivo,
y con el debido respeto a los puntos fuertes de este concepto, deberían estar sujetas a análisis críticos en cada caso individual.
PALABRAS CLAVES
economía creativa; clase creativa; política de desarrollo; países en desarrollo

JEL E, E6, E69, O, O1, O18, R5, R58

HISTORY Received September 2014; in revised form April 2016

WHY CREATIVITY IS (STILL) HIGH ON THE
POLICY AGENDA
Creative and/or cultural segments of the economy have
long been the most popular targets of policy-makers
intending to promote the economy of their respective
region, particularly since the advent of Florida’s (2004,
2005) perfectly marketed idea of the ‘creative class’ and
the creative economy it supposedly characterizes. Florida’s
argumentation that the members of the creative class are
decisive initiators of economic growth, particularly in (lar-
ger) cities, is the subject of hefty criticism from scholars of
various academic fields (e.g., Krätke, 2011; Peck, 2005).
Some of his expert colleagues on the economics side, for
example, consider the level of innovative thinking in Flor-
ida’s theories to be rather limited, as two of his three ‘T’s
(technology, talent, tolerance) could easily be replaced by
human capital and their impact on the economic growth
of cities had long been known (cf., e.g., Glaeser, 2005;
cf. also Marrocu & Paci, 2012). Criticism is even stronger
from some economic geographers, who take issue in par-
ticular with the lack of transferability of Florida’s empirical
findings, which are based solely on US. regions, the lack of
causal correlation between the number of members of the
creative class and economic growth, the missing empirical
evidence of soft location factors such as openness and tol-
erance as factors that shape migration decisions and desti-
nation choices for example, and numerous other actual or
putative shortcomings (e.g., Alfken, 2015; Markusen,
2006; Sternberg, 2012; Storper & Scott, 2009) as well as
his uncritical application of the concept in public policies
(Galloway & Dunlop, 2007).
But this sometimes harsh criticism from the academic
world has not so far done anything to hurt the popularity
of Florida’s ideas within the policy world, partly because
there is only a small overlap between the academic world
and the policy world, in other words policy-makers are
often either not aware of or do not understand such aca-
demic criticism. In addition, economic policies to support
creativity need not necessarily be limited to Florida’s
interpretation of creativity as there are many other under-
standings of creative economy, such as Throsby’s (2008)
concentric circles model of creative and cultural industries.
Supporting a creative economy, however it may be defined,
has become an important objective of economic and cul-
tural policy, which have become increasingly strategically
linked in recent years. This is true at all spatial levels of pol-
icy interventions: at the local level of individual cities, just
as at the regional level, such as for city regions or federal
states, right up to the level of complete countries or supra-
national groups of countries like the European Union. For
example, in Germany almost all cities each of the 16 federal
states have developed their own strategies and policy
instruments to support their creative economy. Most of
these federal state programmes are oriented towards the
nomenclature recently developed for the whole of Germany
and based on the classification of industries put forward by
Söndermann (2012).

REGIONAL STUDIES
338 Rolf Sternberg
There are now attempts to support the creative econ-
omy even at the global level. The Creative Economy Report
2013, Special Edition, from the United Nations (2013) fol-
lows two earlier reports by the United Nations (UN) that
contain an initial, empirical global survey of creative econ-
omies in (selected) developing countries (United Nations,
2008, 2010). It is important to emphasize that the popular-
ity of these programmes is not a short-term fad; rather, it
has been observable worldwide for around a decade.
There is currently no foreseeable end to this popularity.
This cannot be because there are already many positive
ex-post evaluations of creative economy support policies.
On the contrary, there are very few respectable evaluations
that are oriented towards evaluation criteria and methods
recognized in the academic world (Jayne, 2005).
Why these programmes are so popular among policy-
makers, even in comparison with supposed panaceas of
economic development policies from earlier times, such
as high-tech industries (in the 1980s) or regional–sectoral
clusters (in the 1990s) (see also Sternberg, 2012)? First,
these programmes are relatively cost-effective compared
with other policy options. In most cases, they do not
require any expensive infrastructure, because soft locational
factors, rather than hard, are more considered to have a
positive influence on creative economies. Second, the
label ‘creative’ has almost exclusively positive connotations,
particularly when linked with culture, as it often is in sup-
port policies to the benefit of creative economies. Some-
times, the creative economy is even put on an equal
footing with the cultural economy, in contrast to Florida
(2004). Also, culture has forever been a term with positive
implications and therefore ideally suited to policy pro-
grammes that are to be financed by the tax payer, particu-
larly as investments in culture may also entail long-term
economic development effects (Falck, Fritsch, & Heblich,
2011). Third, a creative economy policy strategy is very easy
to relate to older and, in some cases, still popular target
groups of policy-makers, such as entrepreneurs, new
firms, or clusters – which is why such terms are to be
found in all creative economy support programmes. Entre-
preneurs and entrepreneurship per se inherently entail a
high degree of creativity, as an entrepreneur cannot succeed
without creativity and entrepreneurship is an important
conduit for the (economic) creativity of firms and regions,
for example (Krauss & Sternberg, 2014). The idea of
regional–sectoral clusters is based on the concept that
spatial proximity facilitates networking and linkages
between economic actors of the same or related industries.
The creative economy, which is more commonly located in
large cities, has better chances of development in such clus-
ters, and vice versa: The chances of a cluster developing
within the creative economy is greater when the creative
economy reaches a certain minimum size.
These correlations between entrepreneurship and clus-
ters on the one hand and the creative economy on the other
also play an important role in the Creative Economy Report
of the UN (2013) to be discussed in this article. The report
intends to harness the creative economy for goals of econ-
omic development policy, i.e., to the benefit of developing
REGIONAL STUDIES
countries. That this initiative is emanating from a globally
active institution such as the UN is only logical. One inten-
tion of this paper is to demonstrate that the creative econ-
omy as a development policy tool not only has strengths,
but also serious theoretical–conceptual weaknesses. Popu-
larity does not mean the policy tools are or will be success-
ful. For that reason, and with all due respect to the
strengths of this concept, they should be subject to critical
analysis in each individual case.
THE UNESCO CREATIVE ECONOMY
REPORT 2013: PHILOSOPHY, METHOD,
RESULTS AND POLICY SUGGESTIONS
The Creative Economy Report 2013 was jointly published by
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-
tural Organization (UNESCO). The two earlier creative
economy reports published in 2008 and 2010 demon-
strated that the creative economy is among the most rapidly
growing sectors of the world economy and has great poten-
tial for transformative countries’ economies in terms of
income generation, job creation and export earnings.
The authors see the creative economy as an important
and to date underexploited opportunity for further develop-
ment in developing countries. The focus of the report is
therefore primarily limited to these countries. The report
interprets the creative economy ‘in humanistic terms –
i.e., creativity as an embodied, lived quality informing a
diverse range of industries and activities’ (p. 154). The
key question of the report, therefore, is ‘how to capture
the vibrancy and scale of creative economies beyond econ-
omic indicators’ (p. 16). The report outlines various path-
ways to development through cultural and creative
industries and expects significant results in terms of inclus-
ive social and economic development. The authors empha-
size that the best of these pathways are to be found at the
sub-national level in cities and regions.
Contents
The report starts with arguments stressing the relevance of
spatial clustering and agglomeration, the dichotomy of for-
mal and informal, or the implication for inequality of the
creative economy, as well as the definitions and terminol-
ogy that are used. Chapter 2 examines the role of the
local level in fostering creative economies, with a dedicated
focus on the role of cities. The rather heterogeneous chap-
ter 3 explores three non-economic ways in which creativity
and culture contribute to development: via cultural
expression, via cultural heritage, and via urban planning
and architecture. Chapter 4 provides a panoply of local
creativity in many different local settings in Africa, the
Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and
the Caribbean, based upon case studies. In Chapter 5 the
critical factors are taken into account when designing a pol-
icy for local creative economy development (e.g., financing
or intermediaries and institutions). Chapter 6 proposes a
range of qualitative and quantitative indicators of effective-
ness and success for use by local policy-makers by
 A critical appraisal of the UNESCO Creative Economy Report 2013
differentiating between economic, social, environmental
and cultural outcomes. Chapter 7 analyses aspects of the
UN as a strategic partner of local creative development
initiatives. The assessment is based upon initiatives carried
out under the aegis of the UNESCO International Fund
for Cultural Diversity (IFCD) and the UNDP-Spain Mil-
lennium Development Goals Achievement Fund (MDG-
F) Thematic Window on Culture and Development. The
eighth and concluding chapter summarizes the lessons
learned, and proposes ten policy recommendations.
Definitions and methods
Florida’s understanding of the term ‘creative economy’ is
discussed in the report, but not applied. Instead, cultural
industries are considered ‘as a positive label. This referred
to forms of cultural production and consumption that
have at their core a symbolic or expressive element’
(p. 20). A clear differentiation between creative industries
and cultural industries or cultural economy is not made.
The report incorporates a method mix of quantitative
and qualitative attempts. The latter predominate clearly,
as many case studies of individual initiatives, programmes
or industries from a large variety of different countries
and sub-national regions are a characteristic feature of
this report. Of an equally qualitative nature is the first port-
folio analysis of the impact of initiatives funded through the
UNDP-Spain Millennium Development Goals Achieve-
ment Fund Thematic Window on Culture and Develop-
ment and the UNESCO International Fund for Cultural
Diversity in which techniques of text analytics are used,
but not explained further. Quantitative data, taken
among other sources from the two earlier creative economy
reports, complement the qualitatively gained data.
Results
According to the report, the creative economy is now one
of the most rapidly growing sectors of the world economy.
World trade of creative goods and services totalled a record
US$$624 billion in 2011, more than doubling between
2002 and 2011. The average annual growth rate of exports
of creative goods was 12.1% during the same period in
developing countries and therefore higher than for the
rest of the world.
Among the key lessons learned is that ‘local creative
economies are highly diverse and multifaceted’ (p. 154),
which is why there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions. In
addition to these economic implications, the report empha-
sizes in particular the non-monetary impact and the non-
economic effects of the creative economy for the develop-
ment of local areas in the global South. The report argues
that successful cultural and creative industries are not just
those that maximize exports, or generate significant royalties
or wages. They may and should do both, but neither of these
outcomes is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for
human wellbeing.
(p. 154)
339
All the same, one important economic factor is among the
major challenges in the creative economy development
across the global South: financing. Other critical factors
of creative economy development at the local level are the
lack of human capacities and infrastructure. While stressing
the creative economy’s important empowering dimensions
(e.g., cultural work can complement the maintenance of
traditions and participation in community decision-mak-
ing), the value of promoting participation in the cultural
and creative industries is considered independent from
economic benefits.
Policy recommendations
Ten policy keystones are recommended (pp. 155ff.):
. Recognize that the creative economy also generates non-
monetary value.
. Make culture a driver and enabler of economic, social
and environmental development.
. Reveal opportunities through mapping local assets of the
creative economy.
. Strengthen the evidence base through rigorous data
collection.
. Investigate the connections between the informal and
formal sectors.
. Analyse the critical success factors that contribute to for-
ging new pathways for local creative economy
development.
. Invest in sustainable creative enterprise development
across the value chain.
. Invest in local capacity-building to empower creators
and cultural entrepreneurs, government officials and pri-
vate sector companies.
. Engage in South–South cooperation to facilitate pro-
ductive mutual learning.
. Mainstream culture into local economic and social
development programmes.
THE MAIN STRENGTHS
Local sources of creativity
The report emphasizes at several points the importance of
local sources for the emergence, valorization, effect and dis-
tribution of creativity. This is scientifically plausible and of
considerable political relevance. As economic geographers,
in contrast to some economists (Friedman, 2005), correctly
emphasize, the local environment is becoming more
important for economic, social and ecological processes,
i.e., for what characterizes sustainable development, not
despite ongoing globalization, but because of it (e.g., Rodrí-
guez-Pose & Crescenzi, 2008). This apparent paradox is
reflected in the empirical finding that in an era of globali-
zation, the local/regional level (not the nation-state) is
gaining significance, for example for firms’ decision on
where to locate, but also for people’s migration decisions.
For the economic, cultural and social implications of the
emergence of creativity, this means, for example, that
local links to the domestic environment of the (potentially)
REGIONAL STUDIES
340 Rolf Sternberg
creative person have a decisive influence on the nature and
scope of that person’s creativity. Up to a certain point,
therefore, creativity is a reflection of the local environment
where the person lives. Or lived: Migrants who lived a long
time in a region other than their current region may very
well take some of the influences from the sending region
to the receiving region and then, in a mix of old and new
cultural influences, use them to generate creativity in the
new region. This kind of local links may generate
location-specific creativity that only exists at this one
place. This makes it possible to create precisely those sym-
bolic values that more and more consumers of products
worldwide are looking for).
Similar to the emergence and distribution of new
knowledge, the emergence and distribution of creativity
therefore also clearly has local sources. A further parallel
to new knowledge is that creativity primarily emerges and
spreads through social relationships between people.
Despite new information and communication technologies
which at least technically make it easier to overcome geo-
graphical distance, face-to-face contacts remain important
when it comes to creativity. And these face-to-face contacts
are, and remain, dependent on spatial proximity. The
emphasis on regional–sectoral clusters in the report argues
in a very similar manner.
The emphasis on local sources of creative economy has
consequences for policy interventions. As the report under-
standably focuses locally on cities, support policies should
primarily concentrate on cities and use/develop instruments
with locally specific effect. This is a clear rebuttal of one-
size-fits-all policies and calls for a certain degree of creativ-
ity among policy-makers themselves, however: they cannot
simply imitate what has already been successfully
implemented elsewhere.
The focus on cities is also plausible because the growth
of cities continues unabated worldwide and the number of
people living in cities, globally, now exceeds the number
living outside cities. In developing countries in particular,
the percentage of people living in cities is increasing at a
disproportionately high rate, in both absolute and relative
terms. The report gives appropriately detailed attention
to the work of Allen Scott (Scott, 2006, 2010), who
emphasizes the increase in significance as well as the chan-
ged role of (large) cities for creativity and cultural econom-
ies. Even without entirely sharing the report’s overly
optimistic tone when it states that cities and city-regions
on every continent are now emerging as major economic
and cultural motors (p. 33), it is undisputed that cities
(and not their hinterlands or rural areas) will in future be
greater sources of cultural creativity than in the past.
Urbanization economies, that are so important for a
creative economy, can also only be generated in (larger)
cities. This also applies in a lesser form to localization econ-
omies, without which the clusters of creative sectors as
emphasized in the report would scarcely be able to emerge.
One point which comes up a little short in the report
should at least be mentioned, however, and that is that
local may also mean rural – and rural areas are still home
to hundreds of millions of people in developing countries!
REGIONAL STUDIES
Case studies of ‘cultural regions’
A second strength of the report lies in the 38 case studies of
‘cultural regions’ of various different countries, continents
and cultural environments, as spread around as an addition
to the text in the form of boxes, primarily in chapter 4. Case
studies from Africa, the Arab States, and the Asia-Pacific
region are also presented on approximately the same scale
as well as, to a slightly lesser extent, case studies from
Latin America and the Caribbean. The emphasis of this
part of the report is on the ‘development of capacities, con-
tent and consumption for and by local and regional audi-
ences and their productive engagement with the cultural
and creative industries’ (p. 53). Particularly as there is a
lack of internationally comparable data on (cultural) crea-
tivity at the local level, the presentation of as many case
studies as possible is an important asset of this report.
Although they do not claim to be representative these
case studies illustrate in an impressive manner the great var-
iety of cultural creativity at various places in the developing
world. Heterogeneity is a feature not only of the case studies
in the developing countries overall, but also of each of the
four world regions observed. One example: What do the
impressive Nairobi GoDown Arts Centre (box 4.2, p. 58)
and the entrepreneurship model (‘Maaya’) of the Festival
sur le Niger (box 4.1, pp. 55f.) have in common apart
from the fact that they are (rather successful) case studies
from the same world region, ‘Africa’? Not much. The
report emphasizes that it presents ‘selective case studies’,
but unfortunately without stating the selection criteria.
Indicators and measurement section
The greatest strength of the report in my view is the largely
successful attempt to make a contribution to the empirical
documentation of the scope and therefore of the relevance
of the creative economy in developing countries at the local
level. Chapter 6 deals with indicators and measurement
and the related (very big) problems. This is a mammoth
task: The definitions of creative economy differ between
local regions of the same or even of various countries
even more than at the country level. Often they are lacking
entirely. Linked with this is the problem of the lack of data
with the comparability necessary for policy support pro-
grammes, for example.
This makes chapter 6 highly relevant for creative econ-
omy support policies:
How are we to identify the specific dimensions of the cultural
and creative industries that should be the focus of investment
and measure the sorts of economic and social impacts that
might be expected? […] Hence, indicators will be suggested
that will assist in illuminating them for the benefit of city
mayors, urban planning officials, etc.
(p. 123)
Policy-makers need clear, empirical evidence, indicators,
and output measures in order to decide which projects,
initiatives, local regions or individuals should receive support
and which should not. Culture and creativity may be rather
soft and intangible constructs, but when it’s a question of
public support and funding, hard facts are needed.
 A critical appraisal of the UNESCO Creative Economy Report 2013
It makes a lot of sense always to ask the local (or
regional or national) planners and policy-makers four cat-
egories of questions recommended in the report:
. What are our capacities to support the arts and culture in
their contribution to sustainable development?
. What is our potential? Do we have any particular strength
in the cultural area that can be used to fix existing pro-
blems or to create new development opportunities?
. What are the areas in which serious problems might be
addressed through cultural industry development?
. What will be the indicators of success? This question
addresses the monitoring and evaluation processes, i.e.,
how the outcomes of a project or an initiative may be
defined and measured.
The report then presents a list of resources that help estimate
the chances of success of any given political measure. Differ-
entiation according to creative workforce, creative
businesses, cultural institutions, heritage buildings and
sites, and intangible cultural heritage (each with around 10
indicators) is very helpful, even if it is not always consistent.
Subsequently, slightly fewer, but still sufficient, indicators of
the capacities of a creative economy are cited, broken down
into government participation, private sector participation,
social capital/civic society, education/training in arts and cul-
ture, and media and communications. Finally, the outcomes
of a creative economy support policy/a respective project/
initiative are classified and assigned indicators. The three-
category classification corresponds to the classic understand-
ing of sustainability (economic, social, environmental), com-
plemented by the cultural dimension, which the report
considers superordinate to the other three dimensions.
The 30 or so indicators for each of these four dimensions
generate in their entirety a multifaceted picture of potential
outcomes. This chapter is doubtless of great use as an aid
to orientation for members of the creative economy and pol-
icy-makers/local planners.
THE MAIN WEAKNESSES
Is it possible for an economy to be non-
creative?
Any scientific consideration of creativity and creative
economy must deal with the issue of the definition of
terms – not an easy matter for each of the many academic
disciplines this concerns (for psychology, see Sternberg &
Lubart, 1991; for economic geography in connection with
creative regions, see Andersson, 1985). The authors of the
report were also aware of this, which is why they spent sev-
eral pages discussing alternative understandings of key terms
such as creative economy, cultural industries, and creative
industries. Unfortunately, in most cases, such discussion is
as far as it goes and no operationalized decision is taken as
to what a creative economy in particular is and how it
could be documented empirically at the local level. Instead,
the authors repeatedly emphasize a very broad (but not pre-
cisely defined) understanding that focuses on a culture-based
interpretation of creative economy. Symptomatic of this is the
341
reference to the definition by Cunningham, Banks, and Potts
(2008, p. 17) of a creative economy ‘as a complex system that
derives its ‘economic value’ from the facilitation of economic
evolution – a system that manufactures attention, complexity,
identity and adaptation though the primary resource of crea-
tivity’ (p. 21). As necessary as it is to define this term that is
so difficult to delineate in a few words, such definitions are
all the more unsuitable when they are to be used for the pur-
poses of empirical documentation of the creative economy in a
specific region/city. An economy without creativity is difficult
to imagine. The association with culture narrows it down
somewhat, but also expands it in other respects. What this
means for empirical research on creative economies is that
the assignment of specific firms, industries, cities or regions
to a creative economy is at least partially arbitrary and random
– and therefore easy to manipulate. With such a broad defi-
nition it is relatively easy to define every firm, industry, city
or country as creative.
The six alternative ‘classification systems for the cultural
and creative industries’ listed in the report do not solve this
problem, as the authors do not make a clear decision for one
(or other) of these classification systems; they simply list them.
The assumed culture–creativity nexus
The second weakness is the close link between culture and
creativity, as becomes clear in the definition of the creative
economy. As understandable as it is to emphasize cultural
identity as an important addition to purely economically
interpreted development in developing countries, when a
report on creative economy (sic!) primarily interprets crea-
tive as cultural and largely ignores the economically relevant
aspects of creativity (e.g., research and development, tech-
nological innovations), the economic element of the ‘crea-
tive economy’ is not adequately taken into consideration.
This shortcoming is not trivial: In a globalized economy
with – at least according to the preference of multinational
firms – increasingly homogenous needs and global markets,
it is important to note that cultural creativity is most defi-
nitely not always economically relevant and, in turn, econ-
omically relevant creativity is only cultural in nature in (a
small) part. The authors were aware of that, as a restriction
to the cultural dimension of creativity is intended.
Understanding of ‘development’ (when
economic growth is not meant)
It is common sense in economics and economic geography
that the development of cities, regions, countries, and
groups of countries is not the same as (economic) growth.
While economic growth just means a quantitative increase
of economic measures (e.g., gross domestic product
(GDP)/capita, average personal income, employment),
development also has a qualitative dimension, i.e., quanti-
tative and qualitative growth Two aspects of the report are
questionable in this respect. First, too little attention is paid
to the at least statistical, but partially also causal correlation
between growth and development, including the spatial
perspective (e.g., the 2009 World Development Report
entitled ‘reshaping economic geography’; The World
Bank, 2009). Development requires a certain amount of
REGIONAL STUDIES
342 Rolf Sternberg
quantitative economic growth, for the characteristics of
qualitative growth, which are correctly considered impor-
tant, are easier to achieve in wealthy than in less wealthy
countries, regions and cities. If the inequality of personal
income, one of the most important aspects of qualitative
(economic) growth, is taken into consideration, then the
statistical correlation between the level of economic devel-
opment and economic inequality is not linear, but an
inverted ‘U’-shape or is not existing at all, which also
applies to sub-national regions (McCann, 2013). Unfortu-
nately, the report constantly emphasizes but not empirically
demonstrates that cultural values are more important for
the development of a region than pure economic growth.
Policy support of culture costs money – which developed
countries have (in particular some prosperous cities within
such countries). This is most likely not the case for the
majority of the developing countries addressed in the
report. I agree entirely that
development cannot be limited to growth of gross domestic pro-
duct (GDP), but must also embrace the opportunity to choose a
full, satisfying, valuable and valued way of living together, the
flourishing of human existence in all its forms and as a whole.
(p. 16)
But: not limited to GDP growth does not mean without
GDP growth! On the contrary, GDP growth with a certain
level of economic development is what enables the financing
of culture and respective policies in the first place. This does
not mean that poor, developing countries have no culture or
creativity, but the economic outcomes expected of creative
economies in those countries in the course of a development
strategy are limited and these countries are less likely to be
able to afford effective support policies (which cost money)
for such creative economies. In times of intense globalization
and the continuing triumphal march of capitalist economies
worldwide, it would be naïve to believe that a general focus
on cultural values would bring the development of the global
South forward significantly.
Tellingly, several of the numerous case studies in the
report do not originate from current developing countries,
but from emerging countries such as China and India, in
some cases even from developed countries such as the
Netherlands.
Creative people do not always migrate as
Florida wishes us to believe
An important argument of the respective literature says that
members of the creative class are spatially highly mobile
and that they are attracted by places characterized by
large communities of other creative class members. If this
would be the case, creative industries and cultural economy
could indeed be considered a panacea for some of the econ-
omic problems (of cities) in the Global South. However,
empirical evidence, different from Florida’s own work
(restricted to US regions), supporting this argumentation
is scarce (e.g., Wojan, Lambert, & McGranahan, 2007).
Results from qualitative research among designers and
advertizers in Germany show that Florida’s simple logic
REGIONAL STUDIES
of the creative class concept that jobs follow people as
these creative people migrate according to soft locational
factors (such as cultural amenities) and therefore towards
large cities is not always correct (Alfken, 2015). Rather,
migration motives do heavily depend on the respective
life course stage and for many of the latter the intention
of the creative class members to move to a large city with
opportunities in the creative class sector is not very wide-
spread (see also Borén & Young, 2013). In rural areas,
however, the situation is often different as the absence of
urban amenities might be considered a substantial push
factor for out-migration. In fact, McGranahan and
Wojan (2007) find that in rural US regions natural and
outdoor amenities and education opportunities foster the
employment rates of the creative class. Several empirical
studies using the rich Swedish data on interregional
migration reveal that members of the creative class are
neither more spatially mobile than the rest of the employ-
ment sector nor are amenity-related migration motives
really important (but social relations and occupational fac-
tors are), other than expected by Florida (Niedomysl &
Hansen, 2010). Migration of creative people from rural
areas or smaller cities towards large urban agglomerations
(and hubs of the globalized cultural industry) lessens the
potential for those regions to attract and retain creative
and innovative people so that this migration loss of periph-
eral urban regions can obviously not been repositioned as
cultural gain (Bennett, 2010). As a consequence one should
be quite careful when assuming that the supposed spatially
mobile creative class completely moves into the cultural/
creative hot spots of a developing country in the Global
South – just because of the agglomeration of cultural indus-
tries. Empirical studies using quantitative techniques also
find little evidence for amenity-related factors influencing
the growth rates of regional artist populations (Alfken,
Broekel, & Sternberg, 2015).
Local development versus catching up of the
global South
This argument is closely linked with the one described
above. The report suggests in several places that successful
local creative economies in developing countries could con-
tribute to helping the countries in question and therefore
the global South as a whole in its catch-up process relative
to emerging economies and developed countries. This
view, too, is naïve and overly optimistic. There can be no
doubt that the local focus of creative economies makes
sense as its takes into consideration and promotes at the
same time the emergence of (regionally) specific creativity.
Under favourable conditions, this may also lead to moder-
ate local economic growth and to local economic develop-
ment. Indeed there is some empirical evidence for the idea
that culture and creative industries contribute a great deal
to qualitative development and to quantitative economic
growth in terms of income and employment (Bandarin,
Hosagrahar, & Sailer Albernaz, 2011). But: in the medium
term at least, this will not lead to a significant catch-up of
this local region relative to other regions/cities in the same
countries. The same applies to developing countries overall
 A critical appraisal of the UNESCO Creative Economy Report 2013
and their catch-up relative to the global North. In addition,
the latter has a strongly growing creative economy of its
own which is far stronger in absolute terms than the crea-
tive economy of the global South where the average size of
most firms in this sector is very small (Barrowclough &
Kozul-Wright, 2008). There is currently little at the global
level to suggest that in the creative economy, which will no
doubt continue to grow in the future, the disparities
between developing countries (excluding China and
India, which are no longer developing countries) on the
one hand and developed economies and emerging econom-
ies on the other will become smaller. If anything, the oppo-
site should be expected! This is even more relevant as the
report uses a country classification that overrates the share
of developing countries in terms of exporting creative
goods (see the critical comments and constructive advices
in De Beukelaer, 2014).
Not every city has got what it takes to be a
‘creative economy’
The focus on local resources of creative economies is one of
the strengths of the report. But it would negligent to believe
that every city had the same chances of becoming a creative
economy or to develop a successful public policy to support a
creative economy. Urbanization and/or localization econ-
omies mostly connected with cities, are without doubt a
necessary condition for the emergence of a creative economy
as both Florida’s creative class hypothesis argues. These
urbanization and localization economies are not a sufficient
condition, however: not every city is (equally) creative (e.g.,
Mossig, 2011; Alfken et al., 2015). The mistake some scho-
lars and policy-makers made with other once popular, sup-
posed panaceas of local development policies (such as
clusters and high-tech parks, see Sternberg, 2012) should
not be repeated here, because the simple fact is that cities
vary considerably. With a view to local policy-makers, it is
worth repeating an old mantra of local economic develop-
ment policy which is also connoted with urban agglomera-
tion and is now popular in developing countries, too: the
promotion of sectoral–regional clusters of related industries.
Here, too, empirical research very quickly found that a suc-
cessful cluster is neither a sufficient nor a necessary con-
dition for an economically successful region; there are
several economically successful cities and regions that did
not or do not have this kind of sectoral–regional cluster
(Sternberg, 2010). It can only be hoped that these erroneous
conclusions are not repeated in the global support for crea-
tive economies, in particular in cities in the global South
that is already underway.
Reducing sub-national spatial inequalities by
supporting the creative economy?
A characteristic feature of many developing countries is the
large spatial economic disparities between the sub-national
regions (e.g., The World Bank, 2009). A typical situation is
the dominance of one primate city. The report gives the
impression that local creative economies and their pro-
motion with public policies could reduce these disparities.
That is rather improbable for two reasons. First, a creative
343
economy needs urban agglomeration effects to be able to
contribute to the existence and growth of creativity. This
is also demonstrated most convincingly by the report in
chapter 2. These urban agglomerations are also the econ-
omically strongest regions in the country, however, which
means when the local creative economy is strong, it con-
tributes to the further economic growth of what is already
the strongest urban region – and in doing so typically
increases the interregional disparities. Second, in principle,
creative economies can and should of course also develop
and grow in rural regions, too, in order at least potentially
to reduce the interregional disparities between urban and
rural regions. But this tends to be rather rare for reasons
already mentioned and will only happen to a lesser extent
than in urban agglomerations although some potentials
exist in rural regions as well (e.g., Bennett, 2010).
Neglecting economic aspects of creative economies (to
the benefit of the cultural perspective) also has a negative
effect in the report as regards the reduction of interregional
economic disparities. If a reduction of interregional econ-
omic disparities within developing countries were to be
possible through creative economies at all, it would have
to (also) be achieved thanks to economic effects. But econ-
omic effects are much undervalued in the report and
instead some naïve hope raised of being able to catch up
based solely on culturally driven development. There is
another reason why this is naïve, not just because
‘decision-making and resource allocation within the com-
munity economy are seldom free from the politics of per-
sonal gain and a communitarian ethos is not always easy
to maintain’ (p. 16): with respect to Maslow’s (1954) theory
of human needs and Hofstede’s (1984) critique one can
argue that in a developing country, in contrast to developed
countries, the primary expectations of citizens are very
much centred around the satisfaction of their basic needs,
i.e., a wealthy environment and personal gain.
Can the experiences of cities in developed
countries (in terms of the creative economy) be
applied to cities in developing countries?
Empirically and scientifically documented experiences with
creative economy support policies come, by their very
nature, primarily from developed countries where they
were first practiced and researched (see also EU OMC,
2012). It is understandable, but also negligent, to want to
transfer these experiences from totally different environ-
ments to cities in developing countries. The institutional
environment differs considerably between cities in devel-
oped countries and cities in developing countries – in favour
of the former. Since in a globalized world, however, the
creative economies in cities of developed and developing
countries do not (and cannot) act in isolation of one another,
but are – at least for some products of the cultural/creative
industries such as internet-based new media products and
services – in competition with one another, this institutional
disadvantage of cities in developing countries can have a
negative impact on them. They have to try and find their
own path, adjusted to their own local conditions, and not
try to push their way onto the global market too fast.
REGIONAL STUDIES
344 Rolf Sternberg
There is another aspect, too. The report emphasizes that
demand in developing countries is not primarily for the basic
needs to be satisfied by industrialization, but for higher-
value, cultural products and services. I dispute that. The
majority of countries in the global South want to catch up
economically. Some formerly developing countries have
already achieved that and are therefore now emerging econ-
omies such as China, Brazil, or India. They achieved this on a
grand scale through industrialization, in other words with an
internationally competitive manufacturing sector, a globally
(still) growing share of the global economy, which is partially
relocating to developing countries and emerging economies.
There is still a great need in these two groups of countries to
catch up in terms of totally mundane (admittedly modern)
manufacturing and service products that to a considerable
extent are related to the satisfaction of basic needs. But this
also includes access to financeable individual means of trans-
port, i.e., there are still millions of people who, for example,
want to buy their first car as soon as they are financially in a
position to do so as the recent decades in China have shown.
That these – more or less – basic needs are satisfied is a matter
of course for most people in most developed countries, but
not in many developing countries. Despite justified warnings
from the global North of the ecological consequences, people
in the global South will want to satisfy these basic needs
(first). Only then will they look to satisfy their cultural
needs – as in earlier times in the global North, too, following
Maslow’s idea of human needs and Hofstede’s important cri-
tique regarding the cultural (and thus country-specific)
differences concerning the hierarchy of these needs. The
local economies in the developing countries are gaining
more and more global influence in the satisfaction of these
basic needs and can generate a great deal of added value
that, in total , will be more important for development and
growth than the cultural creative economy.
The policy side: more local creativity due to
‘development interventions’?
The report expresses the overly optimistic expectation that
public or private agents could create a local creative econ-
omy through their ‘development interventions’, more seen
from a demand-side perspective being very different from
the traditional supply-side interventions during the pre-
internet era (see also Flew & Cunningham, 2010). The
report was published by an important policy organization,
which is why this goal is understandable. But of course
this does not mean that this is a realistic goal. I am more
sceptical. As has been argued in more detail elsewhere
(Sternberg, 2012), policy-makers in regions and cities of
the global North eagerly backed the ‘creative economy’
horse that Florida had very successfully let loose. Florida’s
creative economy saw a repeat in those countries of what
Michael Porter had practiced equally successfully 15 years
before with his ‘horse’ – cluster and cluster policies. All
these policy interventions were only ever successful at a
very few locations in the Global North that had/have the
necessary locational characteristics – but they were never
successful in all cities (Sternberg, 2010). The effects
intended by the policy-makers sometimes did come to
REGIONAL STUDIES
be, but it was sometimes because of the policy interventions
and sometimes despite them. A causal link was and is rare,
but not impossible.
The report contains a long list of critical success factors
for development interventions, most of which (at least in
part) could only be achieved by government policies. To
mention just some of the most important ones: financing;
intermediaries and institutions; transnational connections
and flows technical and entrepreneurial leadership. But this
is beyond policy-makers in many developing countries, too.
CONCLUSIONS
The report is an important and necessary complement to
the two previous creative economy reports published by
the UN in 2008 and 2010 which primarily presented quan-
titative data on creative goods (trade data in particular) at
the country level, which reduced a relevant data gap at
the time of publication. The special edition report dis-
cussed in this article represents a significant step forward,
as it emphasizes the local level with a clear focus on devel-
oping countries. The report gives lots of helpful tips for
local planners and policy-makers intending to support the
local creative economy. These include the numerous
examples of initiatives from very different parts of the
world and different cultural areas. This portrayal is the
first of its kind. The presentation and argumentation of
the indicators for documenting a creative economy may
also be of great practical use.
On the other hand, it is necessary to warn local decision
makers against taking too seriously the sometimes overly
optimistic hopes of economic effects of a solely culturally
interpreted creative economy. It is true that the old devel-
opment interventions paradigm to the benefit of develop-
ing countries was excessively economically oriented in its
argumentation. But the UN report gives vehement and
one-sided preference to the other extreme: without the
economy, development of the ‘creative economy’ (sic!) can-
not work. Development as qualitative economic growth
first (but not exclusively) requires quantitative economic
growth, which should admittedly give greater consideration
to criteria of ecological, social and cultural sustainability
than was the case in earlier times.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://
10.1080/00343404.2016.1174844
REFERENCES
Alfken, C. (2015). Ich will nicht nach Berlin! – Life course analysis of
interregional migration behaviour of people from the field of
 A critical appraisal of the UNESCO Creative Economy Report 2013
design and advertising. Environment and Planning A, 47, 2187–
2203. doi:10.1177/0308518X15599287
Alfken, C., Broekel, T., & Sternberg, R. (2015). Factors explaining
the spatial agglomeration of the creative class: Empirical evidence
for German artists. European Planning Studies, 23, 2438–2463.
doi:10.1080/09654313.2014.979767
Andersson, A. E. (1985). Creativity and regional development. Papers of
the Regional Science Association, 56, 5–20. doi:10.1007/BF01887900
Bandarin, F., Hosagrahar, J., & Sailer Albernaz, F. (2011). Why
development needs culture. Journal of Cultural Heritage
Management and Sustainable Development, 1, 15–25. doi:org/10.
1108/20441261111129906
Barrowclough, D., & Kozul-Wright, Z. (Eds.). (2008). Creative
industries and developing countries. London: Routledge.
Bennett, D. (2010). Creative migration: A Western Australian case
study of creative artists. Australian Geographer, 41, 117–128.
doi:10.1080/00049180903535626
Borén, T., & Young, C. (2013). The migration dynamics of the ‘crea-
tive class’: Evidence from a study of artists in Stockholm, Sweden.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103, 195–210.
doi:10.1080/00045608.2011.628263
Cunningham, S., Banks, J., & Potts, J. (2008). Cultural economy: The
shape of the field. In H. Anheier & Y. R. Isar (Eds.), The cultural
economy. The Cultures and Globalization Series 2 (pp. 15–26).
London: SAGE.
De Beukelaer, C. (2014). Creative industries in ‘developing’ countries:
Questioning country classifications in the UNCTAD Creative
Economy Reports. Cultural Trends, 23, 232–251. doi:10.1080/
09548963.2014.912043
European Union Open Method of Coordination. (2012). Expert
group on cultural and creative industries. Policy handbook on how
to strategically use the EU support programmes, including
Structural Funds, to foster the potential of culture for local, regional
and national development and the spill-over effects on the wider econ-
omy? Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/culture/library/
publications/cci-policy-handbook_en.pdf
Falck, O., Fritsch, M., & Heblich, S. (2011). The phantom of the
opera: Cultural amenities, human capital and regional economic
growth. Labour Economics, 18, 755–766. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.
2011.06.004
Flew, T., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Creative industries after the first
decade of debate. Information Society, 26, 113–123. doi:10.1080/
01972240903562753
Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class. And how it’s transform-
ing work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic.
Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge.
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus &
Giroux.
Galloway, S., & Dunlop, S. (2007). A critique of definitions of cultural
and creative industries in public policy. International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 13, 17–31. doi:10.1080/10286630701201657
Glaeser, E. L. (2005). Review of Richard Florida’s ‘the rise of the
creative class’. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35, 593–
596. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2005.01.005
Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life con-
cept. Academy of Management Review, 9, 389–398.
Jayne, M. (2005). Creative industries: The regional dimension?
Environment and Planning C, 23, 537–556. doi:10.1068/c0453
Krätke, S. (2011). The creative capital of cities: Interactive knowledge cre-
ation and the urbanization economies of innovation. Chichester: Wiley.
Krauss, G., & Sternberg, R. (2014). Introduction: On the relation-
ship between entrepreneurship and creativity. In R. Sternberg
& G. Krauss (Eds.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship
and creativity (pp. 1–20). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Markusen, A. (2006). Urban development and the politics of a crea-
tive class: Evidence from a study of artists. Environment and
Planning A, 38, 1921–1940. doi:10.1068/a38179
345
Marrocu, E., & Paci, R. (2012). Education or creativity: What mat-
ters most for economic performance? Economic Geography, 88,
369–401. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01161.x
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper
& Row.
McCann, P. (2013). Modern urban and regional economics (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGranahan, D., & Wojan, T. (2007). Recasting the creative class to
examine growth processes in rural and urban counties. Regional
Studies, 41, 197–216. doi:10.1080/00343400600928285
Mossig, I. (2011). Regional employment growth in the cultural and
creative industries in Germany 2003–2008. European Planning
Studies, 19, 967–990. doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.568807
Niedomysl, T., & Hansen, H. K. (2010). What matters more for the
decision to move?: Jobs versus amenities. Environment and
Planning A, 42, 1636–1649. doi:10.1068/a42432
Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 740–770. doi:10.
1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00620.x
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Crescenzi, R. (2008). Mountains in a flat
world: Why proximity still matters for the location of economic
activity. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1,
371–388. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsn011
Scott, A. (2006). Creative cities: Conceptual issues and policy questions.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, 1–17. doi:10.1111/j/0735-2166.
2006.00256.x.
Scott, A. (2010). Jobs or amenities? Destination choices of migrant
engineers in the USA. Papers in Regional Science, 89, 43–63.
doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2009.00263.x
Söndermann, M. (2012). Kurzanleitung zur Erstellung einer statis-
tischen Datengrundlage für die Kulturwirtschaft. Statistische
Anpassung der Kultur- und Kreativwirtschaft in Deutschland.
Retrieved from http://www.kulturwirtschaft.de/wp-content/
uploads/2011/01/Kurzanleitung-KKW_20120124.pdf
Sternberg, R. (2010). Neither planned nor by chance: How
knowledge-intensive clusters emerge. In D. Fornahl, S. Henn,
& M.-P. Menzel (Eds.), Emerging clusters. Theoretical, empirical
and political perspectives on the initial stage of cluster evolution
(pp. 295–323). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sternberg, R. (2012). Learning from the Past? Why ‘creative indus-
tries’ can hardly be created by local/regional government policies.
Die Erde, 143, 293–317.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of
creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1–31.
doi:10.1159/000277029
Storper, M., & Scott, A. J. (2009). Rethinking human capital, crea-
tivity and urban growth. Economic Geography, 9, 47–167.
The World Bank. (2009). Reshaping economic geography. The
World Development Report 2009. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Throsby, D. (2008). Modelling the cultural industries. International
Journal of Cultural Policy, 14, 217–232. doi:10.1080/
10286630802281772
United Nations. (2008). Creative economy report. The challenge of asses-
sing the creative economy: Towards informed policy making. Geneva
and New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.
unctad.org/creativeeconomy
United Nations. (2010). Creative economy report 2010. Creative econ-
omy: A feasible development option. Geneva and New York: United
Nations. Retrieved from http://www.unctad.org/creative-
economy
United Nations. (2013). Creative economy report 2013 special edition.
Paris: UNDP/UNESCO.
Wojan, T. R., Lambert, D. M., & McGranahan, D. A. (2007).
Emoting with their feet: Bohemian attraction to creative milieu.
Journal of Economic Geography, 7, 711–736. doi:10.1093/jeg/
lbm029
REGIONAL STUDIES