Definitional Tensions, the Creative and Cultural Industries, and the Implications for Policy

This chapter examines why the creative and cultural industries (CCIs) remain so difficult to define and to measure, despite the rise of their policy importance since the 1990s. It argues that the apparent coherence of the sector, which is often codified through ‘map and list’ typologies, obscures real heterogeneity in organisational forms, labour markets, and value logics. Building on classic and contemporary social theory, this chapter shows that the CCI sit at the intersection of economic and cultural rationalities rather than outside either, which problematises attempts to stabilise categories and indicators (Polanyi, 1941 ; Callon, 1998 ; Amin & Thrift, 2007 ). ‘Field’, ‘production-of-culture’, and ‘art-world’ perspectives each illuminate different, partially incommensurable aspects of cultural production ( Bourdieu, 1983, 1993 ; Peterson & Anand, 2004 ; Becker, 1983, 2008). Comparative classification frameworks, such as DCMS, WIPO, UNESCO, and UNCTAD, as well as David Throsby’s concentric circles model, advance the conversation but cannot eliminate theoretical and methodological ambiguities, especially amid platformisation and project-oriented, SME/microdominated labour markets characterised by precarity (Hesmondhalgh, 2013 ; Gill & Pratt, 2008 ; Pratt & Virani, 2015 ; Srnicek, 2017 ). The chapter concludes by proposing principles for future research and policy, such as the need to adopt plural, theory-aware measures; privilege production as well as consumption with regards to metrics-based analysis; and account for organisational fragmentation and contingent forms of value. Only by bringing theory, method, and policy into closer dialogue can we produce valid, comparable, and useful evidence.