This is what happens when we apply a purely industrial paradigm to culture. Another narrative that promotes culture as an economic sector involves putting culture entirely in the market and trusting the so-called consumer economy. However, considering the notion of platformisation – domination by a few big players such as Amazon and Spotify – it’s hard to believe we are still dealing with any kind of free market economy where cultural consumers and producers find each other and ‘may the best man win.’ Products are produced, but consumers are produced too. The market for cultural goods is not shaped by the so-called free democratic choice of individual consumers. Today, the market of creative industries is highly controlled and extractive.
EP: It seems the marriage between culture and economy is not a success story. However, erasing culture from the economy entirely is probably not the right way to go either.
JO: Indeed, let us not remove economics from culture. But let’s turn the lens away from culture to economics, and have a look at the type of economics we are discussing.
Whose economics? The economics of market choices, clusters, entrepreneurship, and startups? Or community economics, post-Keynesian economics, well-being economics, Marxist economics, or post-growth economics? Ultimately, the debate is about how we want to organise our economy in a way that benefits us collectively as humanity and as a planet. How do we make the economy work for all of us?
In my book, I discuss the local economy, which comprises various activities aimed at meeting local needs, such as education, health, public administration, hairdressers, local restaurants, cultural organisations, and more. These services make a city livable and provide the largest portion of employment, while a highly profitable transactional economy creates quite a small percentage of jobs. What strikes me about the creative industry narrative is the idea that culture should align itself with that very small sector of a transactional, innovation- and profit-driven economy.
EP: So, should culture reposition itself as part of the local economy? Would the local economy discourse be a more effective advocacy narrative for the cultural sector?
JO: If the cultural sector is to position itself as an economic sector, its most natural place is within the domain of the local economy. However, this should not become the new advocacy narrative; doing so would merely replace the old one without addressing the core value of culture.
Health and education are also essential components of the local economy. However, would we justify building a hospital solely because it would employ two thousand people? No, instead, we would assess the local population’s health needs and construct a hospital to specifically address those needs. A hospital or school is fundamental to the social infrastructure of any livable city. Likewise, the local ecosystem of cultural organisations plays a crucial role.
If we recognise access to culture as a human right, which I strongly believe we should, the social infrastructure of any livable city must ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate in cultural life. When referring to cultural infrastructure(6), I do not only mean physical buildings but also a wide range of facilities, programmes, educational connections, regulations, and more. Cultural life is an integral part of social and political life, essential in defining citizenship. Culture, therefore, deserves to be considered one of the foundational services that contribute to creating a livable society.
However, what is happening in Europe and many other parts of the world is the erosion of the cultural public sector and any public infrastructure for collective participation in public life. This occurs amidst social fragmentation, the growing gap between the rulers and the ruled, and a lack of public trust towards governments. In parallel, the push for and focus on creative industries continues.
It’s interesting that some of the real creative industries, like companies such as Spotify, don’t mind being associated with art, culture, and creativity. This association creates a positive image and opens the door to discussions about deregulation, tax relief, and reducing state control. However, if the conversation shifts to viewing culture as part of the public service sector, as a right, or as a sustainable development goal, large corporations may not find it as appealing to be grouped with culture and the arts. It’s no surprise that the United States has resisted including culture as a sustainable development goal on the UN agenda.
Culture is now recognised as a standalone goal of sustainable development in the UN’s Pact of the Future(7), but the battle is not over yet.
EP: Would making culture a standalone goal in the UN’s sustainable development agenda bring about radical change? In your book, you argue that even if we introduce culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development – alongside social, economic, and environmental pillars – without rethinking the current economic paradigm, all pillars will continue to revolve around the economic one. This paradigm, as it stands, does not ensure sustainability on our planet.
JO: Though it seemed attractive to add social, then environmental, then cultural pillars alongside the economic, this ignores how the economy is a far more powerful pillar, towering over the rest. The ‘real’ bottom line remains economic – or rather, profit, GDP, growth etc. And this is the other problem, it gives ontological existence to an ‘economy’ that actually needs putting into question: what exactly do we mean by ‘economy’ and when, historically, did it become distinct from (and often antithetical to) the social, environmental and cultural pillars.
However, over the past decade, there has been significant reflection on societal needs, leading to a gradual shift away from GDP-driven growth toward systems that enhance humanity’s collective capacities for development. Many countries are recognising the necessity for a larger role of the state in fostering and safeguarding collective benefits, rather than solely relying on free markets. There is growing awareness of the need to rebuild collective infrastructure and prioritise healthcare, education, and other public services.
Nevertheless, the dominant global paradigm still prioritises economic growth and celebrates neoliberal success. A fundamental shift away from this paradigm is essential to ensure the sustainability of our public goods. This transformation must occur at a global level, that is why the sustainability discussions at the UN are critically important.
To begin with, we need to debate the concept of growth. Over the past 20 years, all economic growth has benefited a very small percentage of the population, exacerbating inequalities. Furthermore, the current paradigm of industries, including creative industries, is founded on the premise of endless consumption and carries a significant ecological footprint. However, in my view, growth itself is not inherently negative, just as degrowth is not a universal solution. It’s about the type of growth, who benefits from it, and the boundaries within which it occurs. There are numerous unmet needs, particularly in the Global South, that require increased economic prosperity.
