The democratic development potential of a cultural ecosystem approach.

• Author: Barker, Victoria

Culture and development are two complex ideas that create a confusing intersection. (Pratt, 2015: p. 512)

The reliance on culture as a tool to deliver sustainable development goals as well as inclusive economic growth is a notable aspiration at UN, European and UK policy levels (UNESCO / UNDP, 2013, United Cities and Local Governments, 2018; Core Cities, 2019). Indeed, culture has developed an increasingly visible position within the sustainability agenda, being situated as an additional pillar of development (Hawkes, 2001), and to being placed as "not just the fourth pillar but the central pillar" around which stand other aspects of transformative development (UNESCO/UNDP, 2013). Culture has, for its advocates at least, become a key driver and enabler of both human and sustainable development discourse and policy, explicitly in the approach to developing and delivering the broad areas of UN Sustainable Development Goals (Wiktor-Mach, 2018, Duxbury, Kangas & De Beukelaer, 2017). The notion of 'cultural development' itself--aside from the role of culture "in" development--is also increasingly understood in terms of providing effective ways of 'balancing cultural and economic policy objectives' (Duxbury, Kangas & De Beukelaer, 2017: 217).

This history of 'connection' between culture and development is problematic for some (de Beukelaer, 2015) particularly given the flexibility of the terms (Wiktor-Mach, 2018) and the discrepancies in concepts and frameworks (Duxbury, Kangas & De Beukelaer, 2017). This conceptual fluidity has also been seen in discussions of the terminology and definitions of the cultural and creative industries, and furthermore their implicit and explicit value-framings (Gross and Wilson, 2018, Hewison, 2014, Garnham, 2005, Flew, 2010). Arguments around the instrumental uses of culture notwithstanding (Belfiore and Bennett, 2008, Belfiore, 2012), the integration of culture within the development agenda pushes debates beyond established cultural policy approaches, focused on consistency of trade and economic growth (which emerged as an impact of World Trade Organisation free trade agreements and market-led policy approaches: Pratt 2015, Duxbury, Kangas & De Beukelaer, 2017). Further, it opens up the possibility of other impacts and benefits of cultural policy and related activities. Within a development context that seeks to broaden opportunity, the broadening of values and impacts is important; as Pratt points out, the 'flattening' of cultural policy through a consistent trade approach 'can serve to reinforce existing or historic inequalities, and to generate new ones' (2015: 511) and poses a risk to development. Counter to this is the view expressed by Wiktor-Mach that 'bringing culture into the centre of development implies also democratisation of all policies and actions' (2018: 10), but this is perhaps to oversimplify issues around cultural reproduction and access that have been explored in detail elsewhere. In this article, the discussion below is focused on the view of democratic development described above, and considers more inclusive, accessible and participatory aspects of culture than existing economic or industrial development approaches.

An exposition of the debates around culture and development policy could identify four areas of tension (explored in this article). The first of these is around the struggle to move beyond linear approaches to policymaking and development. This linearity is seen in a UK cultural policy context which continues to entertain a struggle between 'the twin logics of paternalism (the deficit model) and the market (the creative industries)' (Gross and Wilson, 2018: 10). Discussion of the UN Sustainable Development Goals outlines a similar conceptual shift toward a broader vision of 'a desirable future that is equitable, inclusive, peaceful, and environmentally sustainable. This bold vision demands creative approaches, beyond the typical linear and sectoral ones that most countries have been used to in recent decades' (UNESCO, 2017). This connects to the second area of consideration, that of the values driving the policy making agenda, which are frequently in tension with the 'values as outcomes' of that policy and activity. This is hugely complex and contested but broader value drivers of policy that extend beyond the economic are frequently referenced (Wiktor-Mach, 2018, Duxbury, Kangas & De Beukelaer, 2017), because 'it is the richness of people's lives, not the richness of economies that ultimately is valuable to people' (UNDP, 2016: 25). The concept of value and richness in lived experience highlights the third area of tension explored in this article, which sits between the national (and indeed international) approaches to policymaking and the locally situated and experienced realities of both culture and development. The need for a locally sympathetic approach was identified within UNESCO's focus on the creative industries and development, which found that 'many of the diverse pathways to development through the culture and creative industries [...] are to be found at subnational level in cities and regions' (UNESCO / UNDP, 2013: 10). Wiktor-Mach points out that this is the very aspect that leads to the inclusion of culture in and across the development agenda because the 'sensitivity to cultural circumstances is described as a contribution of culture towards sustainability' (2018: 7). However, the local-national scale presents particular difficulties. The fourth area of tension is between growth and inclusion, which captures the value debates as well as the spatial scale. This also fits a broader trend toward 'cohesion policy' for structural transformation and inclusive growth.

'The challenge for EU and Member State policymakers is to develop or adapt policy frameworks and strategies that will stimulate growth, but in a manner that also ensures greater inclusiveness'

(Bachtler et al, 2019: 7)

Policy specifically related to development has increasingly referenced culture either as an enabler or delivery mechanism; as a further pillar of development in its own right; and as an outcome of the process. The debates that have been generated by this have identified a range of drivers of cultural activity that align with the areas of tension set out--'not just financial' value, process rather than outcome, and the opportunity to more equitably and inclusively address areas of need. These drivers may explain the relatively recent emergence of ecological metaphors to capture the complex web of connections and actors. This could also be explained in relation to a trend in ecological terminology in discussions of sustainable development, as well as this being a key area of outcomes (Wiktor-Mach, 2018). In the past decade, there have been a number of references to 'ecosystem' in relation to culture, rather than in its original environmental context. This article explores these emerging 'ecosystem' approaches and asks whether they offer a response to this context and a way through the 'confusing intersection' of culture and development identified by Pratt (2015).

The emergence of ecosystem in this context

In 2014, a United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) report focused on rural economies introduced the creative ecosystem as a core approach, developing this from the triple helix model of 'university--government--industry' engagement and the concept of creative clusters to develop economic activity based on creative products and services (Bakalli, 2014). However, where the report does attempt a definition, it is extensive and ambitious without being specific:

'A creative ecosystem is a combination of enterprises, training centres, academia and research units engaged in public and private synergies around joint creative projects in a given immaterial space that can be achieved through the links the system's members maintain between them. This system of partnerships is organized to create a pool from where innovative, creative ideas are extracted that can eventually be used by existing companies.'

(Bakalli, 2014: 43)

The 2014 UNIDO working paper seeks to use ecosystem as a framework for supporting the (local) development of the (global) creative industries, and outlines its aim to: 'develop a holistic approach to CI that can be tailored to the relevant country, region or city. The approach put forward in this paper consists of measures aimed at developing CIs at the macro, meso and micro levels to facilitate inclusive and sustainable developments relevant to the industry.' (Bakalli, 2014: 11)

The 'creative ecosystem' term is used here to describe an approach that develops innovation and creativity, and as a framework for supporting sustainable and inclusive industrial development through entrepreneurship. In introducing a creative ecosystem approach, the working paper considers clusters in relation to the ecosystem and highlights ways in which an ecosystem has spillover effects to other sub-sectors and areas. The use of these allied concepts is worthy of some further scrutiny before considering how the ecosystem model in this context addresses the tensions around linearity, values, locality and inclusivity highlighted above.

Creative clusters are discussed as a sub-set of the industrial clusters approach (Pratt, 2003) in which related businesses are transactionally or geographically connected, generating positive effects on competition and co-operation (Pratt, 2004). This originated with a focus on the competitive advantage of the individual firm (Porter, 1990), and the creative clusters agenda specifically brings together the policy aspiration of promoting local competitive advantage with a focus on the creative industries as a high-growth sector. In the UNIDO discussion there is a contradiction between creative clusters being 'misleadingly considered a sub-set of industrial clusters' and also 'developed as a sub-set of industrial...