Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
-
Upload
terry-flew -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
1/26
Creative Clusters and Universities
Terry Flew
To be published in Daniel Araya and Michael Peters
(eds.), Education in the Creative Economy, Peter Lang
Publishers, 2010 (forthcoming).
The Cluster Concept in Economics and Geography
For much of its history, economics as a discipline has tended to work with a limited
understanding to the significance of space. Models of economic equilibrium have very
often assumed that markets operate, as the geographer Doreen Massey put it, like angels
dancing, on the head of a pin (Massey, 1984: 52). Where the question of where economic
activity takes place, the focus was commonly on the economic development of nations,
most famously articulated by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. The macroeconomic
revolution that followed the publication of John Maynard Keynes General Theory in
1936 was focused upon the flows of goods, services, people and money between nations,
in line with the orientation towards the nation-state that came to characterize the social
sciences from the late 19th century onwards (Taylor, 1996).
1
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
2/26
One of the few major economists to have given explicit attention to questions of where
economic activity takes place was Alfred Marshall. In his Principles of Economics, first
published in 1890, Marshall addressed this question with particular reference to the
changing industrial geography of 19th century Britain. In the first instance, industries
locate near those parts of the country where the physical raw materials are most available
(such as steel mills near coal mines), but the patronage of wealthy individuals and
governments could also attract skilled people to a city or region, as with artisans and
tailors moving to be near particular courts. He observed that the concentration of a
particular region on a single industry had advantages and disadvantages. The advantages
are that labor markets develop in such places and what we today term tacit knowledge is
fostered by the clustering of a particular group of workers in a region. As Marshall put it:
When an industry has chosen a locality for itself, it is likely to stay there long: so
great are the advantages which people following the same skilled trade get from
near neighborhood to one another. The mysteries of the trade become no
mysteries; but are as it were in the air, and children learn many of them
unconsciously. Good work is rightly appreciated, inventions and improvements in
machinery, in processes and the general organization of the business have their
merits promptly discussed: if one man starts a new idea, it is taken up by others
and combined with suggestions of their own; and thus it becomes the source of
new ideas. And presently subsidiary trades grow up in the neighborhood,
supplying it with implements and materials, organizing its traffic, and in many
ways conducing to the economy of its material (Marshall, 1990 [1890]: 225).
2
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
3/26
The obvious disadvantage is that the economic fortunes of the region are very much
hostage to developments in that industry. Over time, cities tend to develop a more diverse
range of activities, and improvements in transport and communication further this trend,
because even though they make it easier to move goods from one place to another
(thereby promoting regional specialization), they also make it easier for people to move
from one place to another. What Marshall observed in 19 th century Britain was not so
much the movement of the population from agriculture to manufacturing, as the use of
large-scale machinery meant that growth in output was steadily less dependent upon
additional supplies of labor, but rather the growth of service occupations and industries,
that cluster around growth centers. The rise of services, for Marshall, tended to increase
the specialization and localization of industries (Marshall, 1990[1890]: 230), as they can
make a region less vulnerable to the cyclical fluctuations and the rise and fall of
particular manufacturing industries.
Marshall observations on regional specialization were not widely taken up by
economists, partly because they opened up the thorny question of what happens to
equilibrium economic models if we allow for falling costs and increasing returns to scale,
which would make monopolies more prevalent and challenge assumptions that the price
mechanism operates primarily to ration scarce goods and services (Warsh, 2006). The
French economist Francois Perroux developed the concept ofgrowth poles to assist
policy-makers to understand how particular regions developed economic dynamism
based upon industrial specialization, and Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal developed
the concept ofcumulative causation to explain why particular regions could experience
eon-going growth based upon the agglomeration of industries and skilled labour, which
3
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
4/26
could occur at the expense of other regions. For the most part, however, these insights
were not taken up in the Anglo-American economic mainstream, and they were also at
the margins of economic geography until the 1970s, which became more interested in
developing a science of the spatial that could make the sorts of universal claims that
characterized economics, rather than studies of regional differentiation, which came to be
seen as limited and parochial (Barnes, 2003).
The rise ofclusters as a stand-alone concept emerges out of the business management
literature, and particularly with the work of Michael Porter from the Harvard Business
School (Porter, 1990). In extending his competitive advantage model from firms to
nations, Porter observed that understanding the dynamic and sustainable sources of
competitive advantage required a shift of thinking away from costs and production
efficiencies towards those elements that promote productivity growth over time and
innovation, and in particular the spillover benefits that can emerge from being in
particular locations, including the presence of related and supporting industries. Porter
argued that location within particular clusters are able provide three sources of
competitive advantage to the firms that are a part of them:
1. Productivity gains, deriving from access to specialist inputs and skilled labour,
access to specialized information and industry knowledge, the development of
complementary relationships among firms (e.g. hotels, restaurants etc. based
around tourism centers), and access to institutions providing public or quasi-
public goods, such as universities and training institutions;
4
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
5/26
2. Innovation opportunities, derived from proximity to buyers and suppliers, on-
going face-to-face contact with others in the industry, and the presence of
competitors which stimulates pressures to innovate in circumstances where cost
factors are similar;
3. New business formation, as there is better information about opportunities, better
access to resources required by business start-ups (e.g. venture capitalists, skilled
workforce), and reduced barriers to exit from existing businesses as takeovers and
mergers are more readily facilitated due to shared informational resources.
Localization, Urbanization and Creative Clusters
Cluster theories bring together two dynamic trends in economic geography. The first is
the tendency towards localization, or the clustering of firms in similar or related
industries in a particular city or region, and the positive externalities that can arise from
such co-location. Marshalls pioneering analysis of such externalities pointed to the
benefits in terms of labor market specialization, tacit knowledge and institutional
specialization, and was developed in three directions in the 1980s and 1990s. First, there
was a growing interest in the significance of industrial districts, or those cities and
regions that appeared to defy trends towards de-industrialization and the shifting of
manufacturing industry towards lower cost centers in the developing world. Work on
manufacturing districts in the Third Italy, to take one example, pointed to an evolving
historical nexus between clusters of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
embedded trust relations that acted as a positive stimulus to innovation, and the
production of quality goods that retained global market demand even in the face of lower-
5
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
6/26
cost alternatives from countries such as China (Piore and Sabel, 1984; Asheim, 2000).
Second, there were those regions where conspicuous value adding to a primary product
had occurred through cluster developments that had a global impact, such as in the wine-
making regions of California and South Australia. Finally, there was the focus on
developing new high-technology districts that could become the next Silicon Valley
(Castells and Hall, 1994; Kenney and von Burg, 2000). The costliness and lack of results
associated with many of the ventures, combined with the realization that the lessons of
Silicon Valley were hard to generalize to other locations (Leslie and Kargon, 1996), has
generated skepticism among economic geographers about the cluster concept, with
Martin and Sunley observing that it is being applied so widely that its explanation of
causality and determination becomes overly stretched, thin and fractured (Martin and
Sunley, 2003: 29).
Urbanization is generally understood as involving the large-scale movement of people to
cities, whether through migration from the countryside or from other parts of the world.
Amin (2003) observes that, historically, the Western city was the factory and the center
of commercial life, in short, the engine of capital accumulation the city became the
source of immobile resources and agglomeration economies for competitive advantage
(Amin, 2003: 115). While the disadvantages of cities such as pollution, overcrowding
and high land rents have seen large parts of industry leave cities to take advantage of
locational advantages elsewhere, cities remain central to post-industrial or knowledge-
based economies on the basis of factors such as the benefits of proximity for diverse
businesses, concentrated consumer demand for services, culture and entertainment,
diversity of populations, the concentration of business, professional and legal services in
6
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
7/26
cities, and ther location of corporate headquarters in global cities. Lorenzen and
Frederiksen (2008) differentiate urbanization economics from those associated with
localization on the basis of the place itself attracting a diverse range of industries and
types of employment, in contrast to the concentration of a particular industry coming to
define the location. The positive externalities that cities develop include their diversity of
industries, the sharing of knowledge among unrelated firms and industries, the diversity
of labor, skills, knowledge and ideas that act as stimuli to innovation and
entrepreneurship, and the range and diversity of institutions and infrastructures (Lorenzen
and Frederiksen, 2008: 159-160). Surveying the literature from economics, geography
and sociology, Amin concludes:
There appears little evidence to support the claim that cities are becoming less
important in an economy marked by increasing geographical dispersal. [They]
assert, in one way or another, the powers of agglomeration, proximity, and
density, now perhaps less significant for the production of mass manufactures
than for the production of knowledge, information and innovation, as well as
specialized inputs (Amin, 2003: 120).
It is insufficient, however, to simply understand the continuing growth of cities as the
result of economic forces. In his epic Cities in Civilization, Peter Hall (1998) observes
that because the city continues to attract the talented and the ambitious it remains a
unique crucible of creativity (Hall, 1998: 7). Through his historical account of great
cities, Hall argues that while no one kind of city, or any one size of city, has a monopoly
on creativity or the good life the biggest and most cosmopolitan cities, for all their
7
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
8/26
evident disadvantages and obvious problems, have throughout history been the places
that ignited the sacred flame of human intelligence and the human imagination (Hall,
1998: 7). The need to think about cultural and economic factors together has, for Hall,
become even more imperative in the advanced industrial or post-industrial nations, as
their cities have become more and more preoccupied by the notion that cultural
industries may provide the basis for economic regeneration, filling the gap left by
vanishing factories and warehouses, and creating an urban image that would make them
more attractive to mobile capital and mobile professional workers (Hall, 1998: 8).
The Rise of Creative Clusters
The notion that city cultures could constitute a key source of location-based competitive
advantage became one of the big ideas of urban economic geography in the 2000s.
Landry (2000) drew attention to the role played by creative cities in catalyzing economic
and social innovation, particularly through the formation of a creative milieu, who
generate what he terms asoft infrastructure of social networks, connections and human
interactions, that underpins and encourages the flow of ideas between individuals and
institutions (Landry, 2000: 133). Florida (2002, 2008) has widely proclaimed that cities
with a reputation for tolerance, diversity, openness to new ideas and cultural buzz act as
talent magnets for what he terms the creative class of ideas-generators who are central to
the knowledge-based and creative industries and are, for Florida, the fastest growing
segment of the U.S. economy, as creativity becomes the decisive source of competitive
advantage in 21st century global knowledge economies (Florida, 2002: 5).
8
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
9/26
The growing interest in creative cities has arisen in part out of the awareness that, in the
21st century, cities have become more important. This was despite forces emerging since
the 1970s, such as economic globalization, the suburbanization of major cities, the
movement of large-scale manufacturing to the developing world, and the rise of the
Internet and globally networked information and communication technologies (ICTs),
which could have promoted population dispersal and the decline of cities. Scott (2008)
links the resurgence of cities to the rise of what he terms the cognitive-cultural economy,
and others term the rise of the creative industries (Hartley, 2005) or the creative economy
(UNCTAD, 2008). Scott links the centrality of cities, or what have also been termed
global city-regions (Scott, 2002), to three core elements of this new economy:
1. The contractual and transactional nature of production in knowledge-intensive
and creative industries, which involve ongoing relationships between shifting
networks of specialized but complementary firms. Geographical proximity
reduces the transaction costs of joining and maintaining such networks across
projects and over time;
2. Specialist workers engaged in these industries are drawn to such urban
agglomerations as the centre of activity, thereby reducing job search costs, and as
talent magnets for those aspiring to work in such industries ;
3. The resulting local system of production, employment and social life in turn
generates learning and innovation, and a creative field or a structured set of
interrelationships that stimulate and channel various kinds of creative energies
(Scott, 2008: 313). This is further promoted by the existence of complementary
forms of social overhead capital that includes the role played by universities,
9
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
10/26
research centers, design centers and other sites that generate specialist knowledge
capital able to be applied in these sectors.
Alongside the resurgence of cities has been a rethinking of the role of culture, from a set
of activities defined by their distance from the economy (the non-commercial arts),
towards culture as a resource. Landry argued that cultural resources are the raw
materials of a city and its value base Culture, therefore, should shape the technicalities
of urban planning rather than be seen as a marginal add-on to be considered once the
important planning questions like housing, transport and land-use have been dealt with
(Landry, 2000: 7). In a similar vein, Venturelli identified culture as the gold of the
global information economy:
Culture can be seen as the key to success in the Information Economy, because
for the very first time in the modern age, the ability to create new ideas and new
forms of expression forms a valuable resource base of a society and not merely
mineral, agricultural and manufacturing assets. Cultural wealth can no longer be
regarded in the legacy and industrial terms of our common understanding, as
something fixed, inherited, and mass-distributed, but as a measure of the vitality,
knowledge, energy, and dynamism in the production of ideas that pervades a
given community the greater cultural concern should be for forging the right
environment (policy, legal, institutional, educational, infrastructure, access, etc.)
that contributes to this dynamism and not solely for the defence of a cultural
legacy or industrial base (Venturelli, 2005: 396).
10
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
11/26
In terms of urban policy, thinking about culture as an economic resource and as an asset
generating competitive advantage has given rise to what Stevenson refers to as a new
civic gold rush in urban planning and cultural policy alike, promoting strategies aimed at
fostering strategically the cultures of cities and regions [where] culture and creativity
have become forms of capital traded in an international marketplace comprised of
cities eager to compete with each other on the basis of imager, amenity, liveability and
visitability (Stevenson, 2004: 119-120).
The creative cities debate can be understood at two levels (Stevenson, 2004; Mommaas,
2004; Cooke, 2008; Costa, 2008). First, there are debates about whether whole cities are
creative, and whether some cities are more creative than others. Such claims have been
made about cities such as London (Landry, 2005), New York (Currid, 2007), Los Angeles
and Paris (Scott, 2000). Creative city indices inspired by the work of Florida and
Landry have generated league tables designed to address such questions. Is San
Francisco more creative than Los Angeles? Is Dublin more creative than Glasgow? Is
Barcelona more creative than Madrid? Is Melbourne more creative than Sydney? Storper
and Scott (2009) observe that aside from problems arising from the metrics used for such
exercises, they are premised upon assumptions that urban growth and the capacity to
attract creative and knowledge-intensive industries is primarily driven by supply
factors, or the ability of local authorities or cultural elites to generate the right settings
to attract creative workers, and systematically downplay the role played by global macro-
economic forces in driving the location of such industries. It is not surprising, then, that
cities such as New York, London, Los Angeles and Paris feature in such discussions, as
11
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
12/26
these are global cities and centers of global information and service industries more
generally.
A second approach focuses upon creative clusters and the capacity of local authorities to
incubate creative industries growth in particular parts of major cities, sometimes referred
to as cultural quarters (Bassett et. al., 2005; Cooke, 2008). Such strategies are closer to
the Marshall-Porter tradition of cluster development, as they are premised upon the
spatial agglomeration of related activities more than a hard-to-define creative ethos
residing in some sections of an urban population. In an evaluation of creative cluster
initiatives in four cities in The Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Tilburg and
Utrecht), Mommaas (2004) observed that strategies have been driven by a heterogeneous
mix of policy priorities including:
Attracting globally mobile capital and skilled labour to particular locations;
Stimulating a more entrepreneurial and demand-oriented approach to arts and
cultural policy;
Promoting innovation and creativity in the society more generally, through
opening up possibilities for greater interaction between culturally vibrant locales
and innovation in other sectors of the economy;
Finding new uses for derelict industrial-era sites such as warehouses, power plants
etc. as sites for post-industrial activities, such as residential apartments, arts
centers and business incubators;
12
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
13/26
Promoting cultural diversity and cultural democratization, and being more
inclusive of the cultural practices of hitherto marginalized social groups and
communities.
Given such an eclectic mix of motivations, it is not surprising that the scorecard for the
new creative urban cultural policies is mixed. In an overview of such developments in
European cities, Bassett et. al. (2005: 150-153) argue that some of the benefits have
included:
Moving questions of culture from the margins to the centre of urban development
strategies;
Broadening understandings of culture from elite arts and formally defined arts
centers to the wider spectrum of informal arts practices, popular culture and
cultural consumption in urban spaces;
More integrated approaches to urban planning and zoning that recognize the
significance of lifestyle and consumption activities as well as production;
Development of new cultural infrastructures that have acted as catalysts for urban
regeneration and given cities more of a cultural image that also acts as an attractor
for tourism and possibly investment.
Problems with these policies have included:
Blurring of the distinctiveness of arts and culture, and absorption into civic
boosterism and strategies primarily focused upon real estate development;
13
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
14/26
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
15/26
describe the grounds of Princeton University in New Jersey, refers to a field, and has
implied a space located outside of the city grounds (Haila, 2008: 31).
The literature on universities and clusters has been overwhelmingly focused upon the
high-technology sectors, with the relationship between the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) and the Route 128 high-tech cluster outside of Boston, and the
relationship between Stanford University and Silicon Valley south of San Francisco,
providing key case studies. Both cases have proved difficult to replicate in other contexts,
despite various attempts worldwide to do so. In the case of MIT, it is important to
understand not only its relationship to proximate ICT companies, but also to nearby
Harvard University and a range of prestigious universities also located around Boston
(Northeastern University, Boston University, Brandeis, Tufts University, and University
of Massachusetts), which make the Boston area one of the most research-intensive
regions in the world. Hulsinket. al. (2007) find that the ICT companies around Route 128
have not been particularly strong on knowledge sharing, and that much of the research
intensity of the region derives from relations among the universities and colleges
themselves, rather than knowledge transfer with industry. The Stanford University/Silicon
Valley link is a more successful example of knowledge transfer through clustering of a
research university with knowledge-intensive industries, although Leslie and Kargon
(1996) note that most attempts to replicate the Silicon Valley model have failed, and
suggest that one reason for this is that both the university and the start-up businesses
emerged together. Interestingly, they observe that attempts to replicate the model in
countries such as South Korea, with the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and
15
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
16/26
Technology (KAIST) have been more successful than the various attempts to reproduce it
in the United States.
Seeking to align universities more closely to industry and policy agendas is consistent
with what Gibbons et. al. (1994) referred to as Mode 2 of knowledge production,
differentiated from Mode 1, or the traditional university model, on the basis of the
following criteria:
MODE 1 MODE 2
Conditions of knowledgeproduction
Grounded within rules andpractices of an academicdiscipline
Grounded in context ofapplication andexpectations of externalclients
Conditions of knowledgevalorisation
Academic discipline as asingle collectivestakeholder
Multiple stakeholders, bothwithin and outside theacademy
Purpose of knowledge Advancement ofdisciplinary knowledge
Solving of practicalproblems as they arise insocial context
Mode of knowledge
production
Individuals or discipline-
based groups
Trans-disciplinary, project-
based teamsWhere knowledge isproduced
Traditional sites:universities and researchcenters
Multiple sites: universities,corporations, governmentagencies, think tanks,activist organizations,consultants etc.
Quality controlmechanisms
Internal mechanisms (e.g.academic peer review)
Multiple criteria(contribution to economicproductivity, socialcohesion etc.)
Source: Gibbons et. al., 1994.
Although this debate has largely occurred in the science and technology areas, Ang
(2004) has noted its relevance to the humanities in general, and cultural studies in
16
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
17/26
particular, where knowledge production has become much more widely distributed, taking
place in many more types of social settings, and involving many different types of individuals
and organizations [and] to the extent that universities continue to provide quality
graduates, they undermine their monopoly as knowledge producers (Ang 2004: 479). Hartley
(2005) also identifies its particular significance in the context of the rise of creative
industries, and for universities based in cities where there is also a large number of people
who are trend-conscious, early adopters, curious about the new, and relatively unencumbered
by family commitments Universities are not just destinations, but hubs, and young people
with time on their hands who are just hanging around are just as important to the creative
sector as more traditional forms of investment (Hartley, 2005: 24-25).
In discussing the possible relationship of universities to creative clusters, we need to be
aware of three endemic questions that arise with the clusters concept itself:
1. Is it primarily about mapping existing centers of cultural development and
leadership, or about policy-driven strategies to create such sites? Storper and
Scott (2009) observe a sleight of hand in existing creative cities literature,
which downplays the role of macro-trends in the global creative economy in
promoting certain sites as creative cities vis--vis the enabling role of supply-
driven or atmospheric factors such as a thriving arts scene or a tolerant and
diverse culture. The result is that every city is presented as having the potential to
become a creative city, even though in practice there are strong correlations
between those cities that are leaders in global financial, service and entertainment
industries and those deemed to have a strong creative infrastructure;
17
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
18/26
2. Is the focus upon bottom-up, grassroots initiatives to cultivate the soft
infrastructure of cultural development, or on the top-down initiatives of
government authorities to bring together cultural and educational activities in
designated cultural quarters? There is considerable evidence that the two can be
in conflict, particularly insofar as creative cluster initiatives come to be more
associated with urban branding and real estate development than with questions
of cultural access and cultural diversity;
3. Are creative clusters seen as primarily sites of cultural production or cultural
consumption? Pratt (2009) has observed that considerably more attention has
been given to the latter than the former, and there tends to be an implicit
assumption that consumption-led urban cultural regeneration will in itself provide
the basis for attracting cultural producers and sustaining cultural infrastructures.
There are also major issues that arise from the characteristically hourglass
structure of the creative industries, with a small number of large employers and a
very large number of individual providers and small-medium enterprises (SMEs),
which means that employment structures in these industries can be highly volatile
(Cunningham, 2005).
When we bring universities into the mix, we need to note a further range of questions that
arise:
Does the university have a range of teaching activities, and associated student
recruitment strategies, that link to the activities associated with a creative cluster?
18
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
19/26
Does the university prioritize research that links in with the firms, industries and
activities associated with a creative cluster?
Does the university see itself as having a role in developing the local cultural
infrastructure, and enabling its graduates to pursue careers linked to this creative
cluster?
Does the university see its graduates as being primarily employed in and around
its local catchment area, or are they expected to move elsewhere upon graduation?
What this would indicate is that the relationship of universities to creative clusters is
likely to be very contingent. For those universities that have been located outside of
major urban centers, there would not appear to be much point in seeking to re-badge local
cultural activities as part of a cultural quarter or creative cluster in the hope that this will
be part of redefining the local area as a creative city. Universities located in parts of cities
that are hubs of cultural activity will need to make some strategic decisions. First, there
are arguments against going down the path of being a more applied Mode 2 university.
Marginson (2006) has argued that globalization and the rise of global league tables for
universities mean that those institutions aspiring to global research university status
should not go down the path of applied, locality-based and industry-focused research, as
global research indicators remain largely driven by what can be termed Mode 1
priorities.
Second, there is a great deal of fluidity within urban spaces for the emergence of creative
clusters, which policy-makers and university administrators will find it difficult to
respond to. If we take one of the better known recent collaborations between a university
19
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
20/26
and a creative movement the role played by Goldsmiths, University of London in the
rise of the Young British Artists of the 1990s and 2000s (Damian Hirst, Tracey Emin
etc.) it is not apparent that this played much of a role in the development of the South
London area of which Goldsmiths is a part, as the dynamics of developing cultural sites
in London were far more contingent in their nature (Pratt, 2009).
Finally, universities that see their future development as being linked to creative clusters
will need to make serious commitments to the individuals and sectors involved. There is a
need to think about curriculum, resourcing, student recruitment, research activities,
cultural development and community engagement, and graduate destinations as a
package, and a will to make genuine changes to institutional practice as required. It will
not simply be enough to point to evidence of co-location as proof of a cluster, since the
clusters literature points to real and substantive differences between simple co-location of
activities and the development of dynamic synergies.
References Cited
Amin, A. (2003). Industrial Districts. In E. Sheppard and T. Barnes (Eds.), A Companion
to Economic Geography (pp. 149-168). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ang, I. (2004). Who Needs Cultural Research? In P. Leistyna (Ed.), Cultural Studies: From
Theory to Action (pp. 478-483). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
20
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
21/26
Asheim, B. (2000). Industrial Districts: The Contributions of Marshall and Beyond. In G.
Clark, M. Feldman and M. Gertler (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography
(pp. 413-431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnes, T. (2003). Inventing Anglo-American Economic Geography, 1889-1960. In E.
Sheppard and T. Barnes (Eds.), A Companion to Economic Geography (pp. 11-26).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Bassett, K, Smith, I., Banks, M. & OConnor, J. (2005). Urban Dilemmas of Competition
and Cohesion in Cultural Policy. In N. Buck, I. Gordon, A. Harding and I. Turok (eds.),
Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban Competitiveness, Cohesion and Governance (pp.
132-153). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Castells, M. & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the World. London: Routledge.
Cooke, P. (2008). Culture, Clusters, Districts and Quarters: Some Reflections on the
Scale Question. In P. Cooke and L. Lazzeretti (Eds.), Creative Cities, Cultural Clusters
and Local Economic Development(pp. 25-47). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cunningham, S. (2005). Creative Enterprises. In J. Hartley (Ed.), Creative Industries (pp.
282-298). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Currid, E. (2007). The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art and Music Drive New York
City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
22/26
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books
Florida, R. (2008). Whos Your City?. New York: Basic Books.
Gibbons. M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994).
The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
Haila, A. (2008). The University of Helsinki as Developer. In D. Perry and W. Wiewel (Eds.),
Global Universities and Urban Development(pp. 27-39). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Hall, P. (1998) Cities in Civilization: Culture, Innovation, and Urban Order. London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Hartley, J. (2005). Creative Industries. In J. Hartley (ed.), Creative Industries(pp. 1-43).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hulsink, W., Manuel, D. & Bouwman, H. (2007). Clustering in ICT: From Route 128 to
Silicon Valley, from DEC to Google, from Hardware to Content. Erasmus Research
Institute of Management Research Paper ERS-2007-064-ORG. URL:
http://repub.eur.nl/publications/index/147990084/. Accessed 10 August, 2009.
22
http://repub.eur.nl/publications/index/147990084/http://repub.eur.nl/publications/index/147990084/http://repub.eur.nl/publications/index/147990084/http://repub.eur.nl/publications/index/147990084/ -
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
23/26
Kenney. M. & Von Burg, U. (2000). Institutions and Economies: Creating Silicon Valley.
In M. Kenney (Ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial
Region (pp. 218-240). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Landry, C. (2000). The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London:
Earthscan.
Landry, C. (2005). London as a Creative City. In J. Hartley (Ed.), Creative Industries (pp.
233-243). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Leslie, S. & Kargon, R. (1996) Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Termans Model for
Regional Advantage.Business History Review, 70(4), 435-472.
Lorenzen, M. & Fredriksen, L. (2008). Why do Cultural Industries Cluster? Localization,
Urbanization, Products and Projects. In P. Cooke and L. Lazzeretti (Eds.), Creative
Cities, Cultural Clusters and Local Economic Development (pp. 155-179). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Marginson, S. (2006).
Martin, R. & Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing Clusters: Chaotic Concept or Policy
Panacea?.Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 3-35.
23
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
24/26
Marshall. A. (1990 [first published 1890]).Principles of Economics. 8th Edition. London:
Macmillan.
Massey, D. (1984). Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Relations and the Geography of
Production. London: Macmillan.
Mommaas, H. (2004). Creative Clusters and the Post-Industrial City: Towards the
Remapping of Urban Cultural Policy. Urban Studies 41(3), 507-532.
Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 29(4), 740-770.
Perry, D. & Wiewel, W. (2008). The University, the City, and Land: Context and
Introduction. In D. Perry and W. Wiewel (Eds.), Global Universities and Urban Development
(pp. 3-24). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Piore, M. & Sabel, C. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.
Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
Pratt, A. C. (2009). Urban Regeneration: From the Arts Feel Good Factor to the Cultural
Economy A Case Study of Hoxton, London. Urban Studies 46(5), 1041-1061.
Scott, A. J. (2000). The Cultural Economy of Cities. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
24
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
25/26
Scott, A. J. (2008). Cultural Economy: Retrospect and Prospect. In H. Anheier and Y. R. Isar
(Eds.), The Cultural Economy (pp. 307-323). Los Angeles: Sage.
Stevenson, D. (2004). Civic Gold Rush: Cultural Planning and the Politics of the Third
Way,International Journal of Cultural Policy 10(1), 119-131.
Storper, M. & Scott, A. J. (2009). Rethinking Human Capital, Creativity and Urban Growth,
Journal of Economic Geography 9(1) , 147-167.
Taylor, P. (1996). Embedded Statism and the Social Sciences: Opening Up to New Spaces.
Environment and Planning A 28(1), 1917-1928.
United Nations Commission for Trade, Aid and Development (2008). Creative Economy.
Geneva: UNCTAD.
Venturelli, S. (2005). Culture and the Creative Economy in the Information Age. In J. Hartley
(Ed.), Creative Industries (pp. 391-398). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Warsh, D. (2006). Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations: A Story of Economic Discovery.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
25
-
8/14/2019 Creative Clusters and Universities_Flew
26/26
26