Creativity special: Where it's at
29 October 2005 , From New Scientist Print Edition, Richard Florida
THE world is flat - or so says The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. It's the title of his latest book (Allen Lane, 2005), in which he argues that globalisation has levelled the playing field, allowing people the world over to exploit the cutting edge. "You no longer have to emigrate," writes Friedman, "in order to innovate."
But Friedman fails to capture the complex reality of how economic growth and innovation cluster together in the modern global economy. In particular, scientific and technological creativity, the engines of that economy, are more geographically concentrated then ever. Geographer Tim Gulden of the University of Maryland at College Park and I have found that the bulk of the world's patents originate in just a few dozen city-regions - places such as Tokyo, San Francisco, Berlin, Paris, New York and Taipei.
For all the concern over the rising global prominence of Bangalore and Shanghai, those two still do relatively little at the cutting edge. In 2003, the University of California alone generated more patents than either India or China, and IBM accounted for five times as many as the two combined. And while Asian city-regions are major players in commercial innovation, scientific advancement occurs largely in cities across Europe and North America.
The US's success has stemmed in large part from its ability to attract creative talent. During the 20th century, its universities drew eminent scientists such as Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi, fleeing fascism and intolerance in Europe. The creative influx accelerated during the 1980s and 1990s, providing much of the power for America's high-tech economy.
But talent does not just flow between countries. More precisely, it locates in communities, regions and cities. This has been the case for centuries: from Athens to New York, cities have long served as crucibles of invention. This is driven by a key social and economic force: when talented people come together, their collective creativity is not just additive; rather, their interactions multiply and enhance their individual productivity.
Researchers at The Brookings Institution have developed a computer simulation of this effect. The model was formed around two simple principles: first, that creative people cluster together to form teams that turn into companies or organisations; second, that these bodies then search for places in which to locate. Its simulated world emerged as a near-perfect representation of the real one. Creative people and the firms they built clustered in a hierarchy of cities.
But this only raises further questions: why do some city-regions such as San Francisco or Boston become enduring centres of creativity and innovation, while others do not? In the age-old economic models that still dominate thinking about such issues, talent is conceived as a stock, similar to a supply of raw materials that is stored up in one area or another. On the contrary, talent is one of the most mobile resources on the planet, and is getting more so every day.
What makes for a creative centre? A key driver is the presence of one or more world-class universities; many have noted the MIT effect in Boston or the Stanford effect in Silicon Valley. But for universities to help drive growth they must be embedded in a broader cluster of creative industries, supportive institutions, and a diverse and vibrant labour market. The crucial thing is a region's openness to talent: the ability of a place to draw creativity from all quarters of society. My research has found high rates of correlation between, on the one hand, the openness of a city to immigrants, its absence of racial and ethnic segregation, its acceptance of gay and lesbian populations and its enthusiasm for artists and, on the other, its ability to attract clusters of scientific and technological creativity and turn them into economic wealth.
A recent Gallup survey confirms this. It found that people across all racial and class groups value cities that are open and tolerant of a broad swathe of the population. In addition to jobs and incomes, residents also expect the city to give them less tangible things - aesthetic beauty, a connection to place and exposure to new ideas.
Today, centres of creativity and innovation are more concentrated than ever: talented and creative people no longer feel tethered to particular jobs or locations. In the modern global economy, great universities matter, and so do great cities. To sustain creative centres that drive economic productivity and growth, both need to work together.
[New Scientist Magazine is having a special feature on creativity (most articles require subscription)]
THE world is flat - or so says The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. It's the title of his latest book (Allen Lane, 2005), in which he argues that globalisation has levelled the playing field, allowing people the world over to exploit the cutting edge. "You no longer have to emigrate," writes Friedman, "in order to innovate."
But Friedman fails to capture the complex reality of how economic growth and innovation cluster together in the modern global economy. In particular, scientific and technological creativity, the engines of that economy, are more geographically concentrated then ever. Geographer Tim Gulden of the University of Maryland at College Park and I have found that the bulk of the world's patents originate in just a few dozen city-regions - places such as Tokyo, San Francisco, Berlin, Paris, New York and Taipei.
For all the concern over the rising global prominence of Bangalore and Shanghai, those two still do relatively little at the cutting edge. In 2003, the University of California alone generated more patents than either India or China, and IBM accounted for five times as many as the two combined. And while Asian city-regions are major players in commercial innovation, scientific advancement occurs largely in cities across Europe and North America.
The US's success has stemmed in large part from its ability to attract creative talent. During the 20th century, its universities drew eminent scientists such as Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi, fleeing fascism and intolerance in Europe. The creative influx accelerated during the 1980s and 1990s, providing much of the power for America's high-tech economy.
But talent does not just flow between countries. More precisely, it locates in communities, regions and cities. This has been the case for centuries: from Athens to New York, cities have long served as crucibles of invention. This is driven by a key social and economic force: when talented people come together, their collective creativity is not just additive; rather, their interactions multiply and enhance their individual productivity.
Researchers at The Brookings Institution have developed a computer simulation of this effect. The model was formed around two simple principles: first, that creative people cluster together to form teams that turn into companies or organisations; second, that these bodies then search for places in which to locate. Its simulated world emerged as a near-perfect representation of the real one. Creative people and the firms they built clustered in a hierarchy of cities.
But this only raises further questions: why do some city-regions such as San Francisco or Boston become enduring centres of creativity and innovation, while others do not? In the age-old economic models that still dominate thinking about such issues, talent is conceived as a stock, similar to a supply of raw materials that is stored up in one area or another. On the contrary, talent is one of the most mobile resources on the planet, and is getting more so every day.
What makes for a creative centre? A key driver is the presence of one or more world-class universities; many have noted the MIT effect in Boston or the Stanford effect in Silicon Valley. But for universities to help drive growth they must be embedded in a broader cluster of creative industries, supportive institutions, and a diverse and vibrant labour market. The crucial thing is a region's openness to talent: the ability of a place to draw creativity from all quarters of society. My research has found high rates of correlation between, on the one hand, the openness of a city to immigrants, its absence of racial and ethnic segregation, its acceptance of gay and lesbian populations and its enthusiasm for artists and, on the other, its ability to attract clusters of scientific and technological creativity and turn them into economic wealth.
A recent Gallup survey confirms this. It found that people across all racial and class groups value cities that are open and tolerant of a broad swathe of the population. In addition to jobs and incomes, residents also expect the city to give them less tangible things - aesthetic beauty, a connection to place and exposure to new ideas.
Today, centres of creativity and innovation are more concentrated than ever: talented and creative people no longer feel tethered to particular jobs or locations. In the modern global economy, great universities matter, and so do great cities. To sustain creative centres that drive economic productivity and growth, both need to work together.
[New Scientist Magazine is having a special feature on creativity (most articles require subscription)]