jurnal-scott-craft fashion cultural products

7/27/2019 Jurnal-Scott-Craft Fashion Cultural Products

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jurnal-scott-craft-fashion-cultural-products 1/19

The Craft, Fashion, and Cultural-Products Industries of Los Angeles: Competitive Dynamicsand Policy Dilemmas in a Multisectoral Image- Producing ComplexAuthor(s): Allen J. ScottSource: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp.306-323Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American GeographersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564007

Accessed: 12/10/2010 03:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association of American Geographers and Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aag

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564007?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564007?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aag




The Craft, ashion,and Cultural-ProductsIndustries f Los Angeles:

CompetitiveDynamicsand Policy

Dilemmas in a MultisectoralImage-ProducingComplex

AllenJ.Scott

SchoolofPublicPolicy nd SocialResearch,nd DepartmentfGeography,UniversityfCalifornia,os Angeles

Los Angeles has long been one of the criti-cal pulses of the economic and culturalconditionof twentieth-centuryapitalism.

Even beforeWorld War 11 ts aircraftnd mo-tion-picturendustries ave it peculiarvisibilityand global reach. Inthe post-War decades, air-craft manufacturingdeveloped into a full-blown aerospace-defense industry,makingSouthern California he largesthigh-technologyproductionregion ntheworld (although incethe late1980s, severe job losses have occurredas a result of declining federal spending on

armaments).The motion-picture ndustry lsogrew rapidlyafterWorld War 11, ontinuallyincreasing ts internationalnfluenceand spin-ning off many new entertainmentndustries,especially intelevisionand music recording. naddition,over the last few decades, Los Ange-les has witnessed major ifnot always steadygrowth n a series of craft-based, esign-inten-sive industries r sectors likeapparel,furniture,printing nd publishing, nd so on. Togetherwith the entertainment ndustries,the lattersectors can be viewed as constitutingmuch ofthe core of a regionalensemble of craft, ash-ion, and cultural-products ndustries or cul-tural-productsndustriesor hort).

This regional ensemble forms a many-fac-eted, multisectoral mage-producingcomplex,where the term "image-producing"refers eryliberally o those kinds of economic activity(e.g., the manufactureof clothingor jewelry,film-making,nd music recording) hatdependfortheir success on the commercializationofobjects and services that transmit ocial and

culturalmessages, either s a primary r a sec-

ondary function. The individual sectors thatmake up the complex, moreover,have strongactual and potentialconnections with one an-other in termsof their nput-outputtructures,the kinds of labor pools that theytap, and thefinalmarkets nwhich theysell theirproducts.Most importantly or present purposes, theoutputs of each sector are heavily aden withsemiotic content, constitutingn interlockingfield of meanings with strong developmentaland innovative ynergies.

The power ofthese synergies sgreatlymag-

nified by the circumstance that the cultural-products industriesof Los Angeles cater tooverlapping markets/audiences that sharesimilar, if increasingly diversified, populartastes. They are furtherreinforced by thestrong patialagglomeration hatcharacterizesthe locational patternof producers in theseindustries. hus, on the one hand, the cultural-products industriesconstitute a system thatconstantly reates and recreates images of LosAngeles as a place, i.e., as a locale associatedwith distinctive ura and mystique ntheformof certain impressions, personae, memories,styles,trends, and so on; and on the otherhand, these industries consume the sameplace-specific cultural phenomena as criticalinputs. Indeed, the very prosperityof theseindustriesdepends at least in partupon theircapacity to draw upon, and to reproduce inever more imaginative roductconfigurations,the attributes f Los Angeles as a place. Inthisregard, the clusteringwithinLos Angeles ofpowerful motion-pictureand television-pro-

gramming ndustriesprojectingextremelydis-

Annals of the Association of Anierican Geographers, 86(2), 1996, pp. 306-323?t1996byAssociationfAmerican eographersPublished y Blackwell ublishers,38 MainStreet, ambridge, A02142,and108 CowleyRoad,Oxford,X4 IJF, K.



Craft, ashion, nd Cultural-Productsndustries 307

tinctivevisual and auditory mages worldwideis clearly a major externality or all the othercultural-productsndustries f the region.

This paper describes the broad featuresofthe cultural-products ndustriesas resurgent

elements of contemporarycapitalism,outlinestheir functional nd geographical connectionsto Los Angeles, and explores the possibilitiesof formulating olicies that mightboost theirperformance ntermsof local job creationandregional economic development. I am particu-larly oncerned here withthe problem of theinnovative capacities and commercial pros-pects of these industries n relation to placeand local identity.n thissense, the paper canbe seen as an attempt o investigate he con-nections between two principal sets of phe-nomena, namely:1) the organization nd loca-tionallogic of flexibleproductionsystems cf.,Castillo 1994; Harrison 1992; Leborgne andLipietz1992; Piore and Sabel 1984; Salais andStorper 1993; Saxenian 1994; Scott 1988;1993a; Storper1989; among others); and 2) (ina much less ambitiousway) the notion ofplaceas a unique structureof mental associationsthat can be turned to commercial purpose.1This second level of investigationmakes spe-cial reference, of course, to Los Angeles as

icon and symbol (Davis 1990; Entrikin 991;Jencks1993; Molotch 1996; Soja 1989; Sorkin1992). The net effect s an account of (and acorrespondingset of policydeductions about)the interrelations f economic geography andcultural eographyinthe peculiarurbanmilieuof Southern California,and of the strikinglyoriginaland dynamic trajectory f local eco-nomic development that has ensued.

Structurend PerformanceftheCraft, ashion, ndCultural-Productsndustries

Organizational haracteristics

The cultural-productsndustriesnLos Ange-les are represented by a range of manufactur-ing and service sectors engaged inthe creationof marketable utputsthatcan be variously e-scribed as personal ornaments, aestheticized

commodities,modes of social display, orms fentertainmentnd distraction,nd instrumentsof persuasion.

Production activities n these industries regenerally-though by no means exclusively-describable in termsof flexible pecialization,a term coined by Piore and Sabel (1984) todesignate economic operations that (in con-

trastto mass production) are oriented to theproductionof smallbatches of outputforspe-cialized marketniches, and where competitivestrategy ypically ntailsconstant product dif-ferentiation nd/or significant evels of cus-tomization.In the cultural-productsndustries,the element of fashion, style, nd fad and thepressures on producers to make theiroutputsdistinctive ccentuate thistendency to flexiblespecialization (cf., DiMaggio 1977; Hirsch1972; Petersonand Berger1975; Shapiro et al.1992). Hence, many segments of the cultural-products industries esisthigh evels of mecha-nization and the search for nternal conomiesof scale, above all in those sectors where hy-per-innovationprevails,and theyare typicallyquite labor-intensive.n some cases (as in seg-ments of the clothing ndustry), irms mploypredominantly ow-skilledworkers in a low-technologywork environment. n other cases(as in segments of the motion-picture ndus-try), heyuse skilled labor in technology-andinformation-intensiveorkenvironments.As a

consequence of these circumstances, ndivid-ual establishments n the cultural-productsn-dustries are usuallysmall in size, though largefirms are not uncommon, especially and in-creasingly n distributionctivities Aksoy andRobins 1992; Driver and Gillespie 1993; Lashand Urry 994; Storper1993; Vogel 1986). Theproductionsystem, oo, is highly usceptibletoverticaldisintegration,or he uncertaintiesndinstabilitieshatflow from he competitiveen-vironment n which producers operate tend toaccentuate the play of externalas opposed tointernaleconomies of scale and scope. Forthese reasons, cultural-products industriesfairly egularly luster into transactions-inten-sive agglomerationsof specialized firms.2 x-amples of thisclustering an be found in Lon-don with its book and magazine publishingtrades and itstheatrical nd musical undertak-ings; nPariswith tshigh-fashionlothingbusi-ness and manyadditional mall ndustriesmak-ingarticlesde Paris; nthe Northeast nd Cen-terof talywith tsnumerousspecialized manu-

facturesrangingfromceramics to shoes; and,of course, in Los Angeles with its diverse col-lection of cultural-productsndustries.



308 Scott

These examplesrepresentultural-productsindustrialgglomerationshichhave achievedhigh eputationsverratherengthyeriods ftime, utnot llcultural-productsndustrialg-glomerationsre equally uccessful.3he flour-

ishing ases typicallyncorporatet least omecombinationfthefollowingttributes:

(1) Theirproducts re of high ualitynd di-versity,nd producersdisplay capacityfor onstantlyhanging esign configura-tions ver time.

(2) Producers re extremelynnovativen alldimensionsftheir usiness ctivities.hiskeeps them headof competitorsnd imi-tatorsn otherplaces,and inthemostdy-namic cases, enables themto shape and

anticipateonsumerdemandsratherhanfollow hem.(3) Their products enjoy strongcollective

reputationffects erived rom heir lacesoforigin.Authenticitys an importantn-gredientf such effects,n the sense thatconsumers ften ut premiumn certainkindsof connectionsbetweenthe prod-ucts hat hey uy nd the ntrinsicualitiesof the places where these products remade.This nturns bound up with on-sumers'mpressionsf hereal rfactitiousidentitiesf those same places. We maysay,withonlyslight xaggeration,hatHollywoodmovie can only be made inHollywood.

Regional oncentrationsfcultural-productsindustries ith hese attributesi.e.,competi-tiveadvantages) ften chievemastery,ortime t least, ver widermarkets. uthow wemayask are such features reatedand sus-tained nparticulareographic ontexts? nd

howmight ublicpolicy orgeuch featuresnregions hateitherhave fallenbehind n thecompetitiveace or have been unableto es-tablisha viable cultural-productsndustrialcomplex?

Cultural-Productsndustrial gglomerationsand theirDevelopmentalPotentials

A brief esponseto thesequestions an bedistilledrom he recent iteraturen regionaleconomic developmentand locationalag-glomeration.4hisresponseconsists fthreemainremarks,ach of whichdescribes n im-

portant acetof competitivedvantage n re-gional conomicsystems.

First,he clusteringf nterrelatedconomicactivitiesncreasesthe (static)efficiencyftransactingnd nformationxchangebetween

producers. eneficialroximityffectsrefur-ther enhanced by the formationf durablecommunitiesf workerswithin nd aroundclusters f producers, o that supply fag-glomeration-specifickills,sensitivities,ndtacitknowledgesalways vailable o employ-ers. In the cultural-productsndustries,om-munitiesike these are of paramountmpor-tancegiven he roleof abor s an indispensa-ble pointofmediation etween ocal cultureandfinal roducts.

Second,once these static ffects ave been

secured, moredynamicetofprocesses hencome intoplay. heserevolve round earningand innovation.Any localized networkorcomplexof industrialroducers an be seenas a structuredetof real ctivitiesnd poten-tial pportunities.ndividualsositionedwithinsuch networksre especiallywell situated otake advantage fthe available pportunitiesbecause theyare more likely hanothers ohavetherequisite nowledgendabilityo act(cf.,Pred 1967). This kindof knowledge s

often ncodified,xistings an 'atmosphere'

ofagglomeration-specificnformationnd ac-cumulated xperience.Transactions-intensiveindustrialgglomerationsrealsosites f nces-sant nteractiono that nformationlows bun-dantlyhroughhe ystemndnew knowledgeis typicallyenerated t each fresh ncounterbetweentransactorsde Vet and Scott1992;Russo 1985; VonHippel1988). This nforma-tion-conservingnd enhancingproperty fproximitys a significantource of untradedinterdependenciesinking roducers nto a

collectivebody,and it intensifieshe roleofagglomerationss fountainheadsfinventive-nessand localizedcompetitivedvantages.

Third,evels feconomic ompetitionn nygivenagglomerationre often ntense, husmotivatingndividual roducersto maintainhigh evelsof excellence (Porter 990); buteven where competitions strong, ertainkinds f ollaborativendcooperativerrange-ments an helpproducershone their erfor-mance o evensharpertandards. ccordingly,institutionsacilitatingollective ction ndor-der willoften pringntobeing n givenag-glomerationss various roups nd individualsjoin together n search of more efficient




configurations f economic activity han thosethat emerge out of simple "arm's-length"mar-ket relationships cf. Olson 1965). Institutionslike these may take the formof partnerships,voluntary ssociations,governmental gencies,or any sort of private-public nterprise.They

will usuallyprovide at leastcertain riticalkindsof public and semi-public goods, e.g., basicinfrastructure,echnological research incen-tives, abor-trainingacilities,ertificationf theauthenticityf ocal products, nd so on. Theseinstitutions ay also be used as remedial agen-cies wherever opportunistic nd free-rider e-haviorthreatens o undercutgeneral economicwell-being, e.g., in touristcomplexes wherethe reputation of the whole depends verymuch on the reputation f the individualparts.

They may intervene, as well, to regulatepat-ternsof interaction etween participantsnthelocal economy (e.g., just-in-time etworking)in the interests f superiorproductivity r com-petitiveness.

These propositions on the benefits of ag-glomerationderive from conception ofcom-petitive dvantage as an outcome ofthe inter-twining fmarket nterprise nd collective ac-tion in dense transactions-intensivelustersofproducers.And preciselybecause any agglom-eration s alwaysat leastinsome minimal ense

a collectivity,t is also a form of communalproperty and a legitimate-indeed compel-ling-object of policy attention.The most vi-brant cultural-products ndustrialagglomera-tions today are all characterized by elementsof these prerequisitesof success, underliningonce again the importance of place as: 1) arepository f particular inds ofproductionca-pabilities, kills, nd know-how; 2) a stock ofcommercializable cultural ssociations and im-ages; and 3) a set of localized political and

quasi-political nstitutions.Notwithstandinghe emphasis here on thenotions of agglomerationand place, industriallocalities n modern capitalism re farfrombe-ing self-containedand isolated units; rather,and to an increasing degree, the entireworldcan be seen as theirsphere of marketopera-tions (Aminand Thrift992; Scott and Storper1992). One consequence ofthis sthat pecial-ist,oftenmulti-national,istributionompanieshave tended to spring nto being at the inter-face between upstream agglomeratedproduc-

tion systems in the cultural-productsndustryand downstream global markets. Benetton,IKEA,The Gap, the film nd music distributors

of Hollywood,theU.S. televisionnetworks, recases in point. These distributorsoperatealongside and in addition to the numerousagents, contractors,dealers, representatives,jobbers, and "impannatore"who work withinindividual agglomerations trading on intra-

agglomeration nformation aps. In this regard,one of the more intriguinguzzles of regionaldevelopment theory concerns the new formsofeconomic and geographic activityhathaveariseninresponse to the explosion of informa-tion in modern industrialystems see, for ex-ample, Hepworth 1990). While conventionalwisdom sees this explosion as givingrise to awholesale geographic dispersal of economicactivity,nder suitable conditionsitcan be justas much an inducementto intensifiedgglom-

eration-all the more so where the augmentedstock of information alls for increased inter-personal mediation of transactions betweenunits of production.

The Craft, ashion, ndCultural-Productsndustries fLos Angeles

Definitionsnd Data

The cultural-productsndustries f Los Ange-les consist of a multiplicityf manufacturingand service activitieswithvaryingdegrees ofoverlap. In terms of generalfunctional harac-teristics,wo broad groupsof industries an berecognized at the outset. One of these is com-prised ofmanufacturingectors, e.g., clothing,furniture,nd printing nd publishing,whoselabor force s to a significantegree composedof blue-collarworkers; the other is comprised

of service sectors, e.g., motionpictures, elevi-sion programproduction,the music industry,and advertising,whose labor force is mainlywhite-collar.n fact, he manufacturing/servicedistinction hat the official tandard IndustrialClassificationmposes on us when dealingwithstatistical ata for hese industriess almost en-tirely rtificial,nd the sectors identified re allin various degrees typified y featuresof both"manufacturing"nd "service" functions.Forour purposes, what they share in common isthat:1) theirproductionprocesses are charac-

terized by strong elements of craft, n thesense thattheyare dependent on large inputsof multivalent umanlabor; 2) theirmarkets re



310 Scott

subject to rapid changes in consumer tastesand fashions;and 3) theirproducts all play onsystemsof cultural llusion as an intrinsic artof their ommercial appeal.

Data on numbers of employees and estab-

lishments n the cultural-productsndustries fLos Angeles are set out in Tables 1, 2 and 3,for the years 1962, 1977, and 1991, respec-tively.There is much at faultwith these data,and they need to be scrutinizedwith due cau-tion. In the firstplace, the definitions f theindividual ectorswithin he Standard ndustrialClassification change (often radically) fromtime to time,and inter-temporalomparisonsare not feasible in many cases. In the secondplace, the sectors identifiedn these tables arenot always devoted exclusively to the making

of culturalproducts. For example, SIC 22 (tex-tile-mill roducts) in Los Angeles includes pro-ducers of industrialfabrics and cordage forheavy-dutyuses, thoughmost of the sector isdominatedby smallmanufacturersf fancytextile goods, especially knitwear fashions.Similarly, hile manyestablishments n SIC 27(printingnd publishing) urnout genuine cul-turalproducts like greetingcards, magazines,and books, others are engaged in activitiessuch as the printingof business forms and

commercial directories.Some attemptto re-solve thisproblemhas been made byreferringin certaincases to three- and four-digitndus-trial ategories in Tables 1, 2, and 3, but evenwhere these moredetailed industrial ategoriesare used the problem cannot be solved withfinalityn the basis of official tatistics. n the

thirdplace, some important ultural-productsindustries n (and around) Los Angeles simplycannot be identified n the various StandardIndustrialClassifications.There is no specialdesignation nanyof the classifications, ast or

present, fortheme parks, interior ecoratorsand designers,recording tudios,or car designstudios; and in classificationsn use beforethepresent one was adopted in 1987, advertisingand architectural ervices are grouped withmiscellaneous service categories.

Withthese reservations nmind,threemainobservationscan be made on the basis of Ta-bles 1, 2, and 3. Firsts the extraordinaryiver-sityof the cultural-productsndustries n LosAngeles; although apparel, printing nd pub-lishing, nd motion picturesclearly dominate,

furniture,oys,advertising,nd the productionof music are also prominent.Second is thesmall average size of establishments thoughlarge establishmentsdo of course exist), andtheir tendency to become even smaller overtime. Third is the vigorous growth of theseindustriessince the 1960s. Indeed, employ-ment in the culturalproducts industries f LosAngeles County is now greaterthan it is inhigh-technology ndustry mainly aerospace-defense sectors) which in 1991 accounted for

a total of 265,000 workers. Since 1991, more-over, the gap between the two groups hasgrown even wider as the cultural-productsn-dustries have continued to expand, and ashigh-technologyndustryhas declined due tothe severe nation-wide shrinkageof defensecontractingwork.

Table 1. Selected Craft, ashion,and Cultural-Productsndustries n Los Angeles County,1962.

AverageEstablishment

SIC Industry Employment Establishments Size

22 Textilemillproducts 5,209 178 29.323 Apparel and relatedproducts 47,869 1,707 28.025 Furniturend fixtures 21,902 884 24.827 Printingnd publishing 36,936 1,619 22.831 Leatherand leatherproducts 4,609 139 33.2391 Jewelrynd silverware 663 76 8.7394 Toys and sportinggoods 5,379 156 34.5396 Costume jewelryand notions 860 54 15.9731 Advertising 6,575 506 13.0781 Motion-pictureproductionand 26,423 575 46.0

distribution782 Motion-picture ervice industries 5,012 96 52.2

792 Producers,orchestras, 4,762 506 9.4entertainersTotals: 166,199 6,496

Source: U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Bureauof the Census. 1962. CountyBusinessPatterns.




Table 2. Selected Craft, ashion, nd Cultural-Productsndustriesn Los AngelesCounty, 977.



22 Textilemill roducts 9,654 227 42.5

23 Apparel nd other extile 78,418 2,559 30.6products25 Furniturendfixtures 33,727 892 37.827 Printingnd publishing 45,392 2,162 21.031 Leather nd leather roducts 5,000-9,999 172 29.1-58.13652 Phonograph ecords 2,897 132 21.9391 Jewelry,ilverware,nd plated 1,888 164 11.5

ware394 Toys nd sporting oods 8,822 198 44.6396 Costume ewelry nd notions 1,995 84 23.8731 Advertising 6,764 594 11.4781 Motion-pictureroductionnd 33,720 1,383 24.4

services782 Motion-pictureistributionnd 6,450 199 32.4

services792 Producers, rchestras, 9,936 1,000 9.9entertainers

Totals: 244,663-249,662 9,766Source:U.S.DepartmentfCommerce, ureau ftheCensus. 977. County Business Patterns.

The Geography nd EconomicPerformanceof the Cultural-Productsndustries f LosAngeles

As we wouldexpect nthecase of ndustriesmarked y high evels fvertical isintegrationand a transactions-intensiveode of opera-tion, lmost ll ofthecultural-productsndus-

tries n Los Angelesform ightly-knitnd dis-tinctivendustrialistricts ithinhe confinesof the metropolitanrea (cf.,Christophersonand Storper 986; Molotch1996; Scott1988;1994; 1996). Figure provides first limpseof thelocational atternormed ya selectedsetofthese ndustriesi.e., clothing, urniture,jewelry,entertainment,nd advertising).t

Table 3. Selected Craft, ashion,and Cultural-Products ndustries n Los Angeles County,1991.



22 Textilemillproducts 10,724 267 40.223 Apparel and other textile 99,902 4,024 24.8

products

25 Furniturend fixtures 28,136 809 34.827 Printingnd publishing 58,280 2,686 21.731 Leatherand leather products 2,760 96 28.83652 Prerecorded records and tapes 1,695 57 29.7391 Jewelry,ilverware, nd plated 2,484 207 12.0

ware394 Toys and sportinggoods 3,230 135 23.9396 Costume jewelryand notions 2,052 43 47.7731 Advertising 11,685 948 12.3781 Motion-pictureproductionand 118,171 3,790 31.2

services782 Motion-picturedistributionnd 11,369 259 43.9

services792 Producers,orchestras, 14,392 2,216 6.5

entertainers8712 Architectural ervices 6,441 709 9.1Totals: 364,880 22,737

Source:U.S.DepartmentfCommerce, ureau f the Census.1991.CountyBusinessPatterns.



312 Scott

Burbank 0 5 Mi\ I I.

North II

Hollywood 0 5 Km

ENTERAINMENT

ADVERTISING

| Cen tury10

Santa 0 _Monica

.0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~A

X ~~~~~CLOTHING

FURNITURE Huntington

Selected ndustrialistri4tj

Figure 1. Major craft, ashion, nd culturalproducts industrial istrictsn Los Angeles. The map representsaschematic view of what are actually very much more complicated locational patterns.Areas of circles areproportional o the logarithmftotalemployment.

should be stressed that the broad geographicoutlines of Figure1 are highly eneralized, forwhile the industrial districts shown are amarked element of the industrialandscape ofLos Angeles, they are by no means the onlyloci of the industries hey represent; n all casesthere are many production units scatteredthroughout he metropolitan rea, sometimesspilling beyond the confines of Los AngelesCounty into adjacent counties. The music-re-

cording industry,o cite one example, is con-centrated n Hollywood thoughthere are alsotwo sub-clustersof recordingstudios (one in

Burbank, the other in Santa Monica), with anumber of dispersed establishments at otherlocations (Figure 2).

At the same time, individualcultural-prod-ucts industrialdistricts re prone to internalstructural nd spatial differentiation.owhereis this tendency more pronounced than intheentertainment ndustrydistrict which com-prises a bewilderingvariety fsub-clusters nddistrictsncorporatinguch specialized sectors

as animatedfilms, pecial effects, hotographicprocessing, sound recording, television pro-gramming, ideo production,film diting, nd



Craft, ashion, and Cultural-Productsndustries 313

I RecordingCompanies|0 20 Mi

0 20 KmLO)

.. .*t it LOS ANG ELESBurbank

101 * *5 * sCOUNTY

1~~~~~~~~1y

SantaSMonica * 0

t. \ 11ORANGEWa; I-<~~~~~OUNTY

Figure 2. Geographical distribution of major and independent recording companies in the greater Los Angelesregion. The map shows the central cluster of firms in Hollywood, with two subsidiary clusters in Burbank andSanta Monica. Locations are plotted by address as given in the Recording Industry Sourcebook (1 993).

many others.These industrial istricts, oo, ex-hibit a locational patternthat contrasts con-spicuouslywiththe pattern fhigh-technologyindustrial istrictsn the region. In the formercase, these largely oincide withthe inner oreofthe metropolitan egion, whereas in the lat-ter, he districtsor technopoles) are scatteredaround thewiderperiphery f thebuilt-up reaof SouthernCaliforniaScott1993a). One note-worthy xception to the centripetal patialten-dencies of the cultural-productsndustrial is-tricts n the region is automobile

design-ofwhich Southern California is now a majorworld centerwithclose to two dozen design

studiosbelonging to American,European, andJapanesefirms. hese studiosdraw on thetwo-fold dvantages ofSouthernCalifornia s a cen-ter of skilledtechnical labor and as a post forobserving the latest in car styling nd fash-ions-another of the region's peculiar culturalobsessions. The majority f these automobiledesign studios are located in what appears tobe an incipient agglomeration in OrangeCounty,with a secondary cluster in VenturaCounty (Figure3). Both of these locales pro-vide up-scale

suburban environments com-bined with an abundance of skilledengineer-ingand softwareworkers.



314 Scoff

VENTURACOUNTY \0 20Mi

* VlvoGenral*VW/Aydi*Vovo enealMotorsr 0 20Km

* I ~~~LOSNGELES*BMWCONYSNBRADOA

JD owerAssoc.CONY/ SNBRADO

A / ~~~~~~~~~COUNTY

Honda~~Suzuki

rI RIVERSIDESToyota rMtuih

................* Yamaha C U T*Subaru....... ~~~~~~~Hyundai0 Mazda Kia. 1

LW * S~~awasaki>Mercedes-Benz

ORANGE/. C~~~~OUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

44 44~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nissan

Figure3. Automobiledesignstudios nSouthernCalifornia. ote theemerging gglomerationnOrange County.Source: Author'sresearch fromvariousdirectories.

If he region'scultural-productsndustriesregenerally uite similar n their ocationalstruc-ture, heyoftendifferharply rom ne anotherinregardto their conomic fortunes nd pros-pects. One group, represented above all bymotion-pictureproduction and services, hasperformedbrilliantly,s evidenced by its re-markable250 percentemploymentgrowthbe-tween 1977 and 1991. The other, as repre-sented by the furniturend jewelry ndustries,has been either tagnantor decliningover thesame period (Tables 2 and 3). The clothing n-dustry alls omewhere between these two ex-tremes,with ome segmentsattaining igh ev-els of success and othersexperiencing consid-erable stress. The formersegments revolve

mainly around fashion-oriented casual wearand sportswearmanufacturers ith such famil-iarlabels as Guess?, Bugle Boy,Rampage, and

Carole Little; he latter re dominated by non-designer-label, low-cost producers selling tocut-price retailers Torres 1995). In fact, theclothing ndustry s a whole inLos Angeles hasdone remarkablywell over the lastcouple ofdecades, and Los Angeles (with 99,902 em-ployees in1991) has now surpassed New York(with ust56,745 employees in the same year)to become the premier lothingmanufacturingcenter inthe UnitedStates.A full valuationofthese contrasting atterns feconomic perfor-mance would requirea majoreffortfanalysisthat goes far beyond the frameworkof thepresent study.However, a preliminarynquirycan be sketched in tentative trokes.

The mostsuccessfulcultural-productsndus-

tries in Los Angeles have tended to maintainhigh levels of skill,worker remuneration, ndmarket ppeal, and to have worked out viable,




if imited, orms f nter-firmollaborationndcoordinationnthequestfor utstandingrod-ucts. These industriesre mostclearly epre-sented by the entertainmentector (motionpictures,elevision, nd music),but also by a

diversityfother usiness ctivitiesike arde-sign, hemeparks nd allied ouristttractions(from isneyland o Universal ity), dvertis-ing, rchitecture,nd interioresign.As Jencks(1993) has indicated, major"LA School" ofarchitectures now clearlydentifiablen theworkof figuresikeFrankGehry, ranksrael,John erde, harlesMoore, EricOwen Moss,and others.Allofthese industriesnd tradeshave capitalized n an "LA ookand feel"-re-laxed, informal,olorful,xperimental,cca-sionally antastic,eisure-oriented,emocratic,andaccessible omass sensibilities-and uchof their uccess has been a functionftheirabilityo project hese qualitiesnbothoriginaland nostalgic orms.6 he more dynamic fthem re also subject o complex nter-industryspillovers fculturalssociations nd imagina-tiveenergy-frometdesign o interior eco-ration, rom raphic rtsto advertising,romarchitectureo themeparksand vice versa,and especiallyfrommovies and televisionshowstomusic, lothing,oys, ublishing,nd

so on,sometimesntheform fexplicitie-insand licensingrrangements.ollywoodpro-duction ompaniesnowroutinelyapitalize nthese affinitiesycontractingith arge om-paniesto display rand-nameroductsnthefilms heymake Waskoet al. 1993).

The least uccessfulultural-productsndus-tries are those thathave adopted the "lowroad"to competitivetrategy,s exemplifiedbyfurniturend ewelry.heseare ndustries-as I have demonstratedt length lsewhere(Scott 994; 1996)-thathavefor hemostpartfailed to exploittheir ocational dvantageswithin hecultural-productsndustrialomplexofLosAngeles.Astheyhave found hemselvesmore and more iableto intense ompetitionfromround heglobe, producersnthese n-dustries avetended orespondbyunidimen-sional cost cutting ather hanby tryingomove intohighermarket iches ike hemoresuccessfulcultural-productsndustries. heyhave tended to opt forthe purely hort-runadvantages fsubstitutingnskilledow-wage

immigrantndfemale aborfor killed, igher-wage labor. heproblemwith his pproach sthatwhile tmaybe advantageousoproducers

in the immediate resent, t s ultimatelyelf-defeating,or here re always thermanufac-turing egionsnotherparts f the world hatcan cut their osts more deeply.Best 1989)has shown how a very similar ompetitive

strategyed to deterioratedabor relations,slimmernd slimmer rofit argins,ndeven-tual ollapse n the North ondonfurnituren-dustry ver the 1960s and 1970s.

In the case of the furniturend jewelryn-dustries fLos Angeles, heproblem s com-pounded byburdensome tate nd local envi-ronmental nd labor regulations hat havemade it ncreasinglyifficultor argenumbersof already marginal roducers o remain nbusiness.To be sure,there s a small et ofextremely nnovative nd quality-consciousfurniturend ewelrymanufacturersnLosAn-geles-and these have strongiestothewiderdesign ommunitynthecity-but hey ppearto represent distinctminority.or themostpart, hese industrieserve low-endmarketsunder conditions f acute competitionndwith ow levelsof non-marketnstitutionalo-hesion.Consider he case of ewelrymanufac-turersnLos Angeles.Despite strong elationsof trust etween groups ffirms,he ndustryas a whole exhibitsittlen hewayofcollective

consciousness r organization hatmightn-able itto mobilize ts resourcesmore aggres-sively nd more maginativelyScott 994).

TheEntertainmentndustry:MainspringsfSuccess

Of all the morevibrantultural-productsn-dustriesn LosAngeles,t sthe entertainment-industryomplexthathas pushedfurthestnthe frontiersf organizationalynergy,om-mercialccomplishment,nd innovation.

The entertainmentusiness ngeneral s in-clined o verticalisintegration,o that hepro-duction ffilms,elevisionhows, nd musicalrecordingsubdivides nto multitudefde-tailed asks arried utby pecialized irmsndsubcontractorsScott 1984; Shapiro et al.1992; Storper and Christopherson 987).These specialized producers re broughto-gethernintricate etworksfdeals, projects,and tie-ins hat ink themtogethern ever-

changing ollaborativerrangementsnd jointventures.hemajor ilmtudios, Vnetworks,andrecording ompanies ften ccupya cen-



316 Scott

tral ositionnthis rocessby coordinatinghefinancingnd production f final utputs, uteven themajors lso put ut much f he ctualmanufacturingo independent irms.6t mustbe stressed-contraryo the claimsofAksoy

and Robins 1992)-thatthesemajorcompa-nies are not so much threato or a negationof Hollywood's vertically isintegrated ndflexiblypecializedproduction ystem s theyare a criticalsset.Theyhavecontributed as-sively o thedevelopment nd growthfHol-lywood verthe ast ewdecades bydistribut-ing ndmarketingtsproductsworld-widendbythenpumpingmoneyback intothe localproductionystem. heyplay his ositive ole,moreover,espite, reven becauseof, hefactthatmanyofthemhave been absorbedintointernationalulti-mediaonglomerates. hemajorsnowfunctionrincipallys potent is-tributiongents,and theyhave been enor-mously ffectivenprojecting ollywood ul-turalproductsonto global markets.7 venthough ome geographicdecentralizationfthe industryo otherregionshas occurred(Christophersonnd Storper 986;StorperndChristopherson987), itremains ne of themostrapidly rowing ectors n Los Angeles,and its ntrinsiconnection o theregioneems

assuredfor heforeseeable uture.At the same time, number f importantorganizations elpto keep theentertainmentindustryconomically nd culturallyowerful.Itdraws onsiderabletrengthromheprofes-sional ssociations hat oordinatemuchof tspoliticalndpublic elationsctivities.hree fthe most mportantf theseare located nLosAngeles,namely,heAcademy fMotionPic-tureArts nd Sciences, heNational cademyof RecordingArts and Sciences, and theNationalAcademy of Television Arts and

Sciences. These organizationsre responsiblefor the annual Academy Awards,GrammyAwards, nd Emmy wards, espectively.woother rganizations,he MotionPicture sso-ciation fAmericawith mportantffice acili-ties n LosAngeles), ndtheRecordingndus-try ssociation fAmerica epresenthe ndus-trynWashington .C. wherethey obby hefederalgovernment nd foreigndiplomaticdelegationsn behalf f theirmembers.

Thevitalityf theentertainmentomplex s

furthereinforcedythepublication nd cir-culation fmanynewspapers nd magazinessuch as Billboard,Casting Call, Drama-Logue

Casting News, The Hollywood Reporter, ndVarietynthe ocalcommunity.hesepublica-tions are widelyread, and they provide awealthofusefulnformationn new produc-tion ndfinancialpportunities,ob openings,

and emerging echnologies s well as newsabout local,national, nd internationalnter-tainment usiness ctivities.

The existence of powerfulprofessionalguilds nd laborunions lsohelps he ndustrybyprotectinghe interestsnd sustaininghecommitmentfworkers n an extremely n-predictablemploymentnvironment.omeofthemorenoteworthyf theseare the Writ-ers'Guild fAmerica, heScreenActors' uild,theDirectors' uild, heAmerican ederationofMusicians,heAmerican ederation f Tele-vision nd RadioArtists,nd the InternationalAllianceof Theatrical nd Stage Employees.The unions nd guildshelp to build oopera-tiverelationsetweenmanagementnd labor,and innumerousways preserve rderlyocallabormarketsfordetails ee Christophersonand Storper 989; and Paul and Kleingartner1994). Perhaps heirmostpositive ffect asbeento impede arge ections f heentertain-ment ndustryrommplementinghe kinds fcheap-labor trategieshatthe furniturend

jewelryndustries avepursued, hereby on-tributingothemaintenancefentertainment-industrykills nd product uality.

Lastly,argenumbersof universities,ol-leges, and schoolsthroughoutouthern ali-fornia nsurea steady upply fskilled aborto the ndustry.mong hese retheSchoolofArts ndArchitecturendtheSchool ofThea-tre,Film,nd Television t UniversityfCali-fornia, os Angeles,the School of Cinema-Televisiont theUniversityfSouthern alifor-nia,theOtis College ofArt nd Design,theCalifornianstitutef the ArtsnValencia, ndthe Los AngelesCountyHighSchool for heArts.8

Reprise

The cultural-productsndustryfLosAnge-les is one of the largestnd,with ertain x-ceptions, ne ofthemostdynamic egmentsof heentireocaleconomy.Aboveall, tdraws

enormous trengthromtsmany-sidedrgan-izational-institutionalase as well as from tslocation na city hathas earned a reputation




as a place in which-ever more forcefully-much of the cultureof global capitalismsforged nd in which the instrumentsf itspropagation ave been broughto a high itchofperfection.

Toward a Twenty-First enturyProduction Complex

Eventhough he cultural-productsndustryofLosAngeles s remarkablyynamic n thewhole, itsoccasionalfailures nd deficienciesare troubling.he industryacesfierce ompe-titiont theglobal cale as otherplaces,fromTokyo o LasVegasto London,have cut into

some of tsmost ucrative arkets. he histori-cal geography f capitalisms repletewithcases ofprosperous egions hatmanagedfora time o becomedominatingociof a certainkind feconomicactivitynly o subside ntoenervations they ailedomaintainheiread-ing edge. It s thereforefcriticalmportanceforocalpolicymakerso faceuptothecurrentproblems hat confront he cultural-productsindustryoday, s wellas those thatmay riseinthefuture. wo nterrelateduestions allfor

attention.he firstswhat,f nything,anpoli-cymakers o to ensure hat uccessful ectorsmaintainnd augment hose capabilitieshathave hitherto ept them in the forefrontfnational ndworldmarkets?hesecondis, rethere nycoursesofaction hatpolicymakerscan pursue hatmight ersuadethose sectorsthathave single-mindedlymplementedost-cuttingtrategieso shifto another rajectoryinvolvingompetitionn thebasisofproductquality atherhanpurely n thebasisofcost?

Some preliminarynswers to these two

questions an be developedbyreferenceackto the theoretical nd substantive onsidera-tions discussed earlier n thispaper.The an-swers I develop also draw on an emergingbodyof literaturen thepotentialitiesfcul-tural-productsndustries or local economicdevelopment n general e.g., Bassett1993;Benkertt al.1992;CornfordndRobins 992;Crewe and Forster 993a; 1993b; Lash andUrry 993; Molotch1996; Shapiro tal.1992;Wynne1992). It houldbe stated t once that

the policy approach proposed does not in-volve nanysense the"pickingfwinners."tis based rather n a bottom-up pproach di-

rected o improvingotal tocks fagglomera-tioneconomiesand hence to stimulatingheentrepreneurialnd creative apacitiesof alllocal firms. he approach, oo, is one that c-knowledges hepossibilityf, nd seeks to fa-

cilitate,manykinds funexpected nd unpre-dictable utcomes newfirmormation,ech-nologicaland organizational mprovements,new kindsofproductdevelopments, nd soon) as agglomerativeorces ccelerate hroughtime.The arguments presented nly ngen-eral erms,nd no attempts made to translateit nto n explicit ction genda with definiteshapeand form. urthermore,nyclaims s tothe ppropriate inds forganizationsragen-cies needed to implement pecific ypes ofpolicy re keptdeliberately uted.

Theapproachnvolves ivemain ines fpol-icy ntervention9:

(1 The competitiveuccess of the cultural-products ndustriess intensely ependenton excellence n technologynd design.Today, these industries re undergoingrapid ransformationith he pplication fcomputer ardware nd software ystemstovirtuallyvery spectof heir perations.Multi-media echnologies, n particular,

holdoutgreatpromise or he furtherx-pansionofentertainmentnd informationsectors nLosAngeles. ndividualirms,fcourse,can do much to help themselvesintheserespects, hough hey ften nder-invest n basicresearch eeds because it salways ifficultor nygiven irmosecureexclusiveappropriationi.e., to preventleakage)ofanynewknowledgetsprivateresearch ctivities ight enerate.As a re-sult,public nvestmentntechnologynddesign centersproviding gglomeration-

specific ervicesmaybe requirednorderto boost ocalproductivitynd innovative-ness. An importantroblem n thiscon-nection s how to construct heorganiza-tional interfacebetween such (public)centers nd privateirmso as tooptimizethe flow ofuseful nformationn both di-rections.

(2) Similarly,ducational ervices nd worker-trainingeeds arecommonlyubject ose-vereproblems funderprovisionnd mar-

ket failureSabel 1995). Skilled abor isessential o the ong-run iabilityf hecul-tural-productsndustry,orwithoutt,high



318 Scott

product ualitys impossibleo attain. c-cordingly,ollective rovisionfadequateinstructionalnstitutionso servethe localindustrys an essentialngredientf suc-cess.As indicatedarlier,n impressiver-

rayof educational ervices n support fthe cultural-productsndustrys alreadynplace in the Los Angelesarea; but muchremains o be accomplished,speciallynupgradingaborskillsn craftmanufactur-ing ectors ike lothing,urniture,nd ew-elry.

(3) Market ompetitions one of the condi-tions underwhich industrialfficiencyssecured.However,whencompetitionm-pedes producersfrompooling certainkinds fresources nd endowmentse.g.,technologies,kills,nformation)o thedet-rimentof competitive dvantage,thenameliorativenterventions appropriate.Certain ormsfcollectivection nd insti-tution-buildingan mitigatehe worstef-fects f cut-throatompetitionyhelpingto build rust,o overcomebarrierso co-operation,nd to forge ffectiveonven-tionsof businesspractice.The entertain-ment ndustryith tspervasive ulture fcontractual ollaborationround specific

projectshas made some headway n re-solvinghesekinds f ssues,but he"low-road" ndustriesfSouthern aliforniae-main argelyntouched.

(4) Industrialgglomerationsypicallyontainlargenumbers f small pecialist roduc-ers.Suchproducersreusuallyn essentialunderpinning f agglomeration cono-mies. Preciselybecause they are small,these producersoftenface problems nraisingapital, atheringusiness nforma-tion, and providing ritical ervicesfor

themselves (e.g., accounting, payrollpreparation,aborrecruitment).othpri-vate and publicorganizationsan playasignificantole in responding o theseproblems ypooling hedemands fmanysmall irmsnd efficientlyervinghem na collective asis.One example f his he-nomenon s the PacificDesignCenter nWest Hollywood.The Center providesshowrooms nd other facilitiesorhigh-end interioresigners nd householdfur-

nituremanufacturers,lbeitmanyof thelatter refrom utside outhern alifornia.The inaugurationfperiodichigh-prestige

design and fashionfairswould also domuchto help largeand smallproducersthroughoutheregion o buildnationalndinternationalecognitionf their roducts.

(5) In view of the dense interdependencies

that un hroughny gglomeration,n or-ganizationaltructurehat oordinateso-cal economicdevelopmenttrategiesndthat ushesfor onsensuson thesestrate-giesamong mportantocalconstituenciesis highly esirable.Manyregionsndiffer-ent parts f theworldhaveput ntoplacesystemsof local economic coordination(e.g.,regionalconomiccouncils r devel-opment onsortia)nd there s muchthata comparableystemmightccomplish orthecultural-productsndustryfLos Ange-

les.10 o takeonlyone example, hedete-rioratingeighborhoodsnd socialclimateof Hollywood re clearlyharmfulo thearea'sfunctions theheartlandfSouthernCalifornia'scultural-productsndustries.Forceful olitical ctionis needed to re-verse his rend ndtobreak he free-ridersyndromehatmpedesprivate evelopersfrom espondingffectivelyo marketig-nals.11

These pointsrepresent eneralizedpolicyconcerns hat n one wayor another rerele-vant n anymodern ndustrialgglomeration,no matterwhat tseconomicbase (e.g.,cul-tural-products,high-technologyindustry,financial ervices).They also suggestsomelines f ttack nthree ver-archinghallengesthat re highlypecifico thecultural-productsindustryfLos Angeles. hefirstfthesechal-lenges store-orientt east ignificantortionsof those industries-furniture,ewelry, ndparts of the clothingindustry-that ave

headed downthe"low road"ofdevelopment.The second is to encourage heformationfmoretightlynit nteractiverrangementse-tween differentegments fthe cultural-prod-ucts industryn orderto enhancethe inno-vativepotentials f the region, s well as toensure that uccesses in one sectorcan beleveragednto ommercialdvantages or heothers e.g., the commercial pin-offsromsuchrecentmajorHollywood ilmss MalcolmX, Dick Tracy,Batman,andJurassicPark into

theclothing,oy,music, nd publishingndus-tries).The third nd perhapsmost mportantchallenges toprotecthose criticalualities f




Los Angelesas a place-bound ystem f cul-tural ssociations hatbegetpotent nd com-mercializablemages, ounds,and styles,ndthatgive theoutputs f ts ndustries uniquecachet. This challengeinvolves shoringup

thosemonopoly owersofplacethat osAn-gelesalready ossesses n bundance-but hatarealways rone orapid rosionunder tress.Despite tsmany ocialproblems, osAngeles,likeParis,London,HongKong,or Rio de Ja-neiro, s one of thoseuniquecities hat s in-stantlyecognizables having distinctiveul-tural llureor mystique.t is an allurecom-posed of relativelytablebackgroundf un-shine, surf, nd palm-tree-linedoulevards(with heoccasional,but hrilling,int f ugu-brious resences), omplemented yan ever-changing oregroundf media personalities,movie tars, op singers, ads nd fashionsineverythingromcars to interior ecors toclothing),nd lifestylexperiments.his llure,moreover,sconstantlyeingre-creatednthefilms, elevision rograms,ound recordings,andother ulturalroductshat low ut of heregion othe rest f theworld. t s one of thecity's ecisiveeconomic assets, nd is poten-tiallyhe basis on which its variouscultural-productsectors ouldcometoconstitutene

ofthemostvibrantndustrialomplexes fthetwenty-firstentury.An assumption requentlymade by local

economic-development ractitionerss thathigh-technologyndustryepresentshe onebest pathway o regionalprosperity. s thepresentnvestigationasshown,however,ul-tural-productsndustriesan also be an ex-tremely owerful ehicleof ob creation ndgrowth. aradoxicallyinview of its ongandmassiveengagementwiththe aerospace-de-fensebusiness)Los Angelesmayfind hat tsdestinyultimatelys more closelybound upwith ultural roductshan t s withhigh ech-nology. would add the cautionary ote thatanyfailure n thepart fthe industryo leadratherhanto follow onsumer astes eavesthe dooropen to its ompetitorsnd imitatorsto reproduce ts chievementsnd to surpassiton globalmarkets. his s not a pleafor heindustryo become something ther han heinstrumentf demotic, ost-bourgeoisulturethat thas alwaysbeen,though t smeant o

be a reminder hatthe endemic economictemptationshatprofit-maximizingirms aceto routinize roduction, o standardize ut-

puts, ndsystematicallyo fall ackon oldfor-mulae s, n theend, a recipefor isaster. nyflaggingn the ndustry'sapacity or reativityand originalityill be met by sharplynten-sifiedompetitiveressuresrom ther egions

that re already oisedto play major ole nthe internationalultural-productsndustryfthe next entury. llof whichunderlinesncemore the urgency orprudent ttention ypolicymakerso theproblems f the industryand to theincessanthreat fdeteriorationfitshomebase.

Cityof Dreams

Inthispaper, have sketched ut some oftheeconomicdynamicsnd policydilemmasof the craft,ashion,nd cultural-productsn-dustriesf LosAngeles. have insisted,boveall,on thecriticalmportancef thesynergiesthat ie at the ntersectionetween gglomera-tionprocesses nthese ndustriesndthecul-turalmeaningof place. These synergies reone ofthe drivingorces ehind herisingor-tunesof at leastsignificantegments f thecultural-productsndustryf Los Angeles, ustas they re alsothefoundationftheavatar f

Los Angeles s the "City f Dreams."The in-dustrial-urbanystem fSouthern aliforniasinpermanentlux s a result f thestream finnovativend creative nergies hat mergeoutof his ortex f ctivity;ndthese nergiesalso serve-so longas theycan be perpetu-ated-to sustain heregion's ultural-productsindustriess one ofthemainspringsf he cul-ture f global apitalism.

That aid,the cultural-productsndustriesfLos Angelesfacea number f pressing rob-lems ndpredicaments,ndtheywill ertainlycome up against dditional ilemmas n thefuture.have tried oderive, herefore,setofgeneralizedpolicyprescriptionsordealingwith omeofthesedifficulties.heseprescrip-tions are based on the theoretical emarksaboutthe ogicof gglomerated anufacturingand service omplexeswithwhichthepaperbegan, s wellas on thesubstantiveommen-tary hat onstituteshemainbodyofthepa-per. They involveneither entralized co-nomic planning,nor the kinds of en-

trepreneurialocal government ction thatwere so often dvocatedas an economic-de-velopmenttrategynthe1980s.12Rather,hey



320 Scott

entail hebuildingfa local nstitutionalilieuthat ffersttractiveevelopmentalonditionsby ecuringertainriticalxternalconomies,i.e.,those that re apt to be missing r de-stroyed nder onditionsf puremarketom-

petitionespecially he exacerbatedforms f

competitionhathave been unleashed nthenew globaleconomy).As a corollary,hesesame prescriptionsuggest hat ocal policy-makersneed to pay close attentiono thosefragilerocesses fculturalreationndrepro-ductionhat rethe essential asisof heentiresystem.

I have said ittle r nothingboutwhat hesegeneralized rescriptionsmplyor ocal politi-cal life rfor he conception nd thepracticeof citizenship. bviously,hey allfor higher

commitmento notions fcollaboration,oop-eration,nd sense ofcommunityhan s cur-rentlyhecase inSouthern alifornia;hey lsopresuppose ntensifiedorms f local politicalmobilizationnd self-consciousness.nsofarstheseprescriptionsre viable, hey ointnthedirection f some intriguingew approachesto local social democracy,both within heworkplace and in urban society at large.Authors ikeAminand Thrift1995), Pincetl(1994),and Putnam1993) havebegun to ad-

dress omeof these

approachesbasedon no-

tions of associationism,voice,"and regionalcorporatism.he connectionsbetweensuchnotions ndtheforms f regionalnalysis re-sented nthepresent apermeriturthercru-tiny.

Acknowledgments

This researchwas supported bythe California ol-icySeminar. am gratefulo PatrickBurnsforhis ableresearch assistance, and to Jeffole, Michael Curry,and Nicholas Entrikin or theirusefulcomments onan earlierdraft. also wish to acknowledge mydebtto the original nd seminalwork of ProfessorHarveyMolotch ofthe Departmentof Sociology,Universityof California, anta Barbara. Molotch's research ondesign-intensive ommodity production in Los An-geles helped significantlyo shape myown thinkingabout the economic potentialof local cultures.

Notes

1. There is an emerging iteraturen thistopic by

geographers and others. See, for example, Bas-sett (1993); Kearns and Philo (1993); Williamset al. (1995); and Zukin (1991).

2. The interrelationsetween the vertical rganiza-

tionofproductionnd locational ynamicsrediscussed t lengthn Scott 1988;1993a).

3. Examplesf tagnatingrfailingegionsbound.A seriesofnoteworthyases is representedymany fthetraditionalraftndustrialistrictsfFrance uchas Besanconwatches nd clocks),theCholetais shoes and textiles), yons silk),

Roanne knitwear),t.Etienneribbons), royes(hats), hiers cutlery),ndValencienneslace).4. Somerecentxamples fwhathas nowbecome

an enormous nd multidisciplinaryiteraturereArthur1990); Becattini1987); Benko (1991);Enright1995);Porter1990); Pyke t al. 1990);Saxenian 1994); Scott 1988; 1993a); and Stor-perandWalker1989).

5. This s a very ifferentind furban ulturen-deed from he one thatDiMaggio 1982) hasdescribedfor the case of nineteenth-centuryBoston, here social lite,ntentn consolidat-ing nd legitimizingtsdistinctiveositionnso-ciety,ook ontrolf hemeans f ulturalepro-

duction.6. This s incontrasto an earlier eriod upto thelate1940s for he motion-picturendustry,helate 960s nthecase of elevision,ndthe mid-1950s for he music-recordingndustry) henthese ndustrieseremuchmoreverticallynte-gratedhan hey retoday. or urtheriscussionof this ssue,see Dunnett1990); Lury 1993);Petersonnd Berger1975); and Storper1989;1993).

7. The productsof the motion-picturendustrynowconstitutene ofthe argestxports ftheUnited tates nterms f dollar alue.

8. Manydifferentducationalnstitutionslso serve

other egmentsfthecultural-productsndustryinLosAngeles,notablyheArtCenterCollegeofDesign nPasadenawhichhas an unrivalledprogramn automobile esign (and providesmuch fthestafff the ocalautomobile-designindustry)ndtheFashion nstitutefDesign ndMerchandising. here is also an importantGemologicalInstitutef American n SantaMonica which trains killedewelrydesignersandgemologists,houghvidentlythas had ittleimpact n the largelytagnantewelryndustryof LosAngeles.,

9. Formoredetailed nd complementarynalysesof heproblemsf ocal conomicdevelopment

under onditionsfflexiblypecializedndustri-alizationee,for xample, ianchi1992);Brusco(1992); Friedmann1993); Pyke (1992); Scott(1993b); Scottand Bergman1995); Sternberg(1991);Storper1994);andWynne1992).

10. The Southern alifornia ssociationf Govern-mentshas recentlyroposed heformationfaRegional conomic trategiesonsortiumnor-der to promoteocal economicdevelopmentntheregionSCAG1994).One possibilitys thattheproposed onsortium ightstablishubor-dinate ouncils r committeeso servespecificsectorse.g., hecultural-productsndustry).

11. Crewe and Forster1993a; 1993b) provide n

insightfulase study f nurban conomic ede-velopmentrogramnvolvingherestorationndrecyclingf the architecturalabric f the Not-tinghamaceMarket.




12. By "entrepreneurialocal governmentction"mean strategiesuch as offeringax breaksorsubsidies o drawfirmso the ocalarea,orset-ting p aggressive ublic elationsampaignsnan efforto attractirmsromther egions.

References

Aksoy, A., and Robins,K. 1992. Hollywood forthe21st Century: Global Competition for CriticalMass in Image Markets. Cambridge JournalofEconomics 16:1-22.

Amin, A., and Thrift,N. J. 1992. Neo-MarshallianNodes in Global Networks. InternationalJournalof Urban and RegionalResearch 16:571-587., and . 1995. Institutional ssues for theEuropean Regions: From Markets and Plans to

Socioeconomics and Powers of Association.Economy and Society 24:41-66.Arthur,W. B. 1990. Silicon Valley Locational Clus-

ters:When Do IncreasingReturns mplyMonop-oly? Mathematical Social Sciences 19:235-251.

Bassett, K. 1993. Urban Cultural Strategies and Ur-ban Regeneration: A Case Study and Critique.Environment nd PlanningA 25:1773-1788.

Becattini,G., ed. 1987. Mercato e Forze Locali: IIDistretto ndustriale. ologna: IIMulino.

Benkert, W., Gnad, F., Kunzmann, K. R., Sbnder-mann, M., Joh,A., and Vermeulen,P. 1992. Dy-namik der Kulturwirtschaftordrhein-Westfalen

im Vergleich.Bonn: ARCult.Benko, G. 1991. GCographie des Technopfles.

Paris: Masson.Best, M. H. 1989. Sector Strategies and Industrial

Policy: The Furniture ndustry nd the GreaterLondon Enterprise oard. In Reversing ndustrialDecline? Industrial tructure nd Policy nBritainand her Competitors,ed. P. Hirt nd J. Zeitlin,pp. 191-222. Oxford: Berg.

Bianchi, . 1992. LevelsofPolicy ndtheNature fPost-Fordist ompetition.InPathways to Indus-trialization nd Regional Development, ed. M.Storper nd A. J.Scott,pp. 303-315. London:

Routledge.Brusco, S. 1992. Small Firmsand the Provisionof

Real Services. In IndustrialDistricts and LocalEconomic Regeneration, ed. F Pyke andW. Sengenberger,p. 177-196. Geneva:Inter-national abourOffice.

Castillo,J. .1994. So Many Post-Fordisms:More onthe Reorganizationof Production and the Or-ganizationof Work.WorkingPaper No. 10. Uni-versity f California, os Angeles: Lewis CenterforRegional PolicyStudies.

Christopherson,S., and Storper,M. 1986. The Cityas Studio; the World as Back Lot: The ImpactofVertical Disintegration n the Location of theMotion-Picture ndustry. nvironment nd Plan-ningD: Society and Space 4:305-320.

and . 1989. The Effects f FlexibleSpe-cialization on IndustrialPoliticsand the LaborMarket: The Motion-Picture ndustry. ndustrialand Labor RelationsReview 42:331-347.

Cornford, J., and Robins, K. 1992. DevelopmentStrategiesnthe Audiovisual ndustries: he Case

of North East England. RegionalStudies 26:421435.

Crewe, L., and Forster, . 1993a. Markets, Design,and Local Agglomeration: he Role of the SmallIndependent Retailer in the Workings of theFashion System. Environment nd Planning D:Society and Space 11 213-229.

, and . 1993b. A Canute Policy FightingEconomics? Local Economic Policy in an Indus-trialDistrict:The Case of the NottinghamLaceMarket. Policyand Politics21:275-287.

Davis, M. 1990. City of Quartz. London: Verso.

de Vet, J-M.,and Scott, A. J. 1992. The SouthernCalifornianMedical Device Industry: nnovation,New FirmFormation, and Location. ResearchPolicy 21:145-161.

DiMaggio, P. 1977. Market Structure, he CreativeProcess, and Popular Culture:Toward an Organ-izational Reinterpretation f Mass Culture The-ory.Journal fPopular Culture 11:436-452.. 1982. Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nine-teenth-Century oston: The Creation of an Or-ganizational Base forHigh Culture in America.Media, Culture, nd Society4:33-50.

Driver, ., and Gillespie, A. 1993. Structural hange

in the Culture ndustries:BritishMagazine Pub-lishing in the 1980s. Media, Culture, Society15:183-201.

Dunnett,P.J.S. 1990. The World Television ndus-try. ondon: Routledge.

Enright,M. J. 1995. Organizationand Coordinationin Geographically Concentrated Industries.InCoordination and Information:Historical Per-spectives on the OrganizationofEnterprise,d.D. Raff nd N. Lamoreaux, pp. 103-142. Chi-cago: University fChicago Press.

Entrikin, .N. 1991. The Betweenness of Place: To-wards a GeographyofModernity. altimore: he

JohnsHopkins University ress.Friedmann,D. 1993. Getting ndustry o Stick: En-

hancing High Value-Added Production in Cali-fornia. n Policy Options for outhernCalifornia,ed. A. J. Scott, pp. 135-177. Working PaperNo. 4. University fCalifornia, os Angeles: Le-wis Center for Regional Policy Studies.

Harrison,B. 1992. IndustrialDistricts:Old Wine inNew Bottles?RegionalStudies 26:469-483.

Hepworth,M. E. 1990. Geography of the Informa-tionEconomy.New York: Guilford ress.

Hirsch, P. M. 1972. Processing Fads and Fashions:An Organization-SetAnalysis fCultural ndustrySystems.AmericanJournal fSociology 77:639-659.

Jencks, . 1993. Heteropolis:Los Angeles, theRiots,



322 Scott

and the Strange Beautyof Hetero-Architecture.London:Academy ditions.

Kearns,G., and Philo,C., eds. 1993. Selling laces:The City as CulturalCapital, Past and Present.Oxford: ergamon ress.

Lash, S., and Urry, .1994. Economies of Signs and

Space. London: age.Leborgne, ., and Lipietz, . 1992. Conceptual al-

lacies nd Open Questions n Post-Fordism.nPathways to Industrialization nd Regional De-velopment, d. M. Storper nd A. J. Scott,pp. 332-348. London:Routledge.

Lury,G. 1993. CulturalRights:Technology,Legality,and Personality.ondon and New York:Rout-ledge.

Molotch, H. 1996. LA as Product: How DesignWorks n a Regional conomy. orthcomingnThe City: Los Angeles and Urban Theoryat theEnd of the Twentieth entury, d. A. J. cott andE.Soja. Berkeley ndLosAngeles:UniversityfCaliforniaress.

Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action.Cambridge,Massachusetts: arvardUniversityPress.

Paul,A., and Kleingartner,. 1994. Flexible roduc-tion and the Transformationf Industrialela-tionsn heMotion-PicturendTelevisionndus-try. Industrial and Labor Relations Review47:663-678.

Peterson, . A., and Berger, . G. 1975. Cycles nSymbol roduction:heCase ofPopularMusic.

American Sociological Review 40:158-173.Pincetl, . 1994. Challenges o Citizenship-LatinoImmigrantsnd Political rganizing nthe LosAngeles Area. Environment and Planning A26:895-914.

Piore,M. J., nd Sabel, C. F. 1984. The Second In-dustrialDivide: PossibilitiesforProsperity.NewYork: asicBooks.

Porter,M. 1990. The CompetitiveAdvantage ofNa-tions.NewYork: heFreePress.

Pred, A. 1967. Behaviorand Location. Foundationsfor Geographic and Dynamic Location Theory,2 Parts, und Studies n Geography,eriesB,

HumanGeography,No. 27. Lund:C. W. K.Gleerup.

Putnam, R. D. 1993. Making Democracy Work:Civic Traditionsin Modern Italy. Princeton:Princeton niversityress.

Pyke, F. 1992. Industrial evelopment through mallFirm ooperation. eneva: nternationalabourOffice.

Pyke,F., Becattini, ., and Sengenberger, ., ed.1990. Industrial istricts nd Inter-Firmoopera-tion n Italy. eneva: InternationalnstituteorLabour tudies.

Recording ndustry ourcebook. 1993. LosAngeles:

Ascona Communications.Russo,M. 1985. Technical hange ndthe ndustrial

District: he Role of Interfirmelationsn the

Growth ndTransformationfCeramic ilePro-ductionn taly. esearch olicy 4:329-343.

Sabel,C. F, 1995. Bootstrappingeform: ebuildingFirms,heWelfare tate,nd Unions. oliticsndSociety 23:5-48.

Salais,A., and Storper,M. 1993. Les Mondes de

Production: Enquete sur l'ldentit6Economiquede la France. aris: ditions e l'Ecoledes HautesEtudes n Sciences Sociales.

Saxenian,A. 1994. Regional Advantage:Culture ndCompetition in Silicon Valley and Route 128.Cambridge,Massachusetts: arvardUniversityPress.

SCAG. 1994. SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan.Los Angeles: outhernalifornianssociationfGovernments.

Scoff, .J. 1984. TerritorialeproductionndTrans-formationn LocalLaborMarket: heAnimatedFilmWorkers fLosAngeles. nvironmentndPlanningD: Society and Space 2:277-307.. 1988. Metropolis: Fromthe Division of LabortoUrban orm. erkeleyndLosAngeles:Uni-versityfCaliforniaress.1 93a. Technopolis: High-Technology ndus-

try nd RegionalDevelopment inSouthern Cali-fornia. erkeleynd Los Angeles:UniversityfCaliforniaress.. 1993b. The New Southern aliforniancon-omy: Pathways o Industrial esurgence. co-nomic Development Quarterly :296-309.. 1994. Variationsn the Themeof Agglom-

eration nd Growth: he Gem and Jewelryn-dustryn LosAngeles nd Bangkok.Geoforum25:249-263.. 1996. Economic ecline ndRegenerationna RegionalManufacturingomplex:SouthernCalifornia'souseholdFurniturendustry.orth-coming inEntrepreneurshipnd RegionalDevel-opment 9.

Scott, A. J.,and Bergman, D. 1995. The IndustrialResurgence f Southern alifornia?dvancedGroundTransportationquipmentManufactur-ing nd Local Economic evelopment. nviron-ment and PlanningC: Governmentand Policy

13:97-124.Scott,A. J., nd Storper,M. 1992. Regional evel-opment Reconsidered. In Regional Develop-ment and Contemporary IndustrialResponse:ExtendingFlexible Specialisation,ed. H. ErnsteandV.Meier, p. 3-24. London:Belhaven.

Shapiro, D., Abercrobie,N., Lash, S., and Lury,C. 1992.Flexiblepecialisationn heCulturen-dustries. n RegionalDevelopment and Contem-porary IndustrialResponse: ExtendingFlexibleSpecialisation,d. H. Ernste nd V. Meier,pp. 179-194.London:Belhaven.

Soja, E. 1989. Post-ModernGeographies: The Reas-

sertion of Space in Critical ocial Theory.Lon-don:Verso.

Sorkin, M., ed. 1992. Variations n a Theme Park:




The New American City and the End of PublicSpace. New York:Noonday Press.

Sternberg, E. 1991. The Sectoral Cluster in Eco-nomic Development Policy: Lessons fromRoch-ester and Buffalo, ew York.Economic Develop-ment Quarterly :342-356.

Storper,M. 1989. The Transition o Flexible Special-isation in the US Film ndustry: xternalEcono-mies, the Division of Labour, nd the CrossingofIndustrial Divides. Cambridge Journal of Eco-nomics 13:273-305.. 1993. Flexible Specialisation n Hollywood: AResponse toAksoy and Robins. CambridgeJour-nal of Economics 17:479-484.. 1994. Regional Technology Coalitions: An Es-sential Dimension ofNationalTechnology Policy.Unpublished paper, Lewis Center for RegionalPolicy Studies, University f California, os An-

geles.Storper, M., and Christopherson, S. 1987. FlexibleSpecialization and Regional IndustrialAgglom-erations: The Case ofthe US Motion-Picturen-dustry.Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 77:260-282.

Storper,M., and Walker,R. 1989. The Capitalist m-perative: Territory, echnology, and IndustrialGrowth.Oxford: Blackwell.

Torres,V. 1995. Bold Fashion Statement:Amid Aero-space Decline, L.A. Garment Industry merges

as a Regional Economic Force. Los AngelesTimes, March 12 (Business Section):1, 6.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Cen-sus. 1962. County Business Patterns.Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing ffice.. 1977. County Business Patterns.Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing ffice.. 1991. CountyBusiness Patterns.Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing ffice.

Vogel, H. L. 1986. Entertainmentndustry conom-ics. Cambridge: Cambridge University ress.

Von Hippel, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation.New York: Oxford University ress.

Wasko, J.,Phillips,M., and Purdie, C. 1993. Holly-wood Meets Madison Avenue: The Commer-cializationof US Films.Media, Culture nd Soci-ety15:271-293.

Williams, A., Shore, G., and Huber, M. 1995. The

Arts and Economic Development: Regional andUrban-Rural ontrasts nUK LocalAuthorityoli-cies forthe Arts.Regional Studies 29:73-80.

Wynne, D., ed. 1992. The Culture ndustry. lder-shot: Avebury.

Zukin, S. 1991. Landscapes of Power: FromDetroittoDisney World.Berkeley nd LosAngeles:Uni-versity f California ress.

Submitted 10/94; Revised 4/95; Accepted 5/95.

Scott,Allen J.1996. The Craft, ashion, and Cultural-Productsndustries f Los Angeles: Com-

petitiveDynamics and Policy Dilemmas in a Multisectoral mage-ProducingComplex. Annals ofthe Association of American Geographers 86(2):306-323.Abstract.

The general unctionalharacteristicsfthe craft,ashion,nd cultural-productsndustriescul-tural-productsndustriesor hort) re described, nd the tendency f hese ndustrieso formdense locationalgglomerationssanalyzed. hese agglomerationsre not ust oci f conomicactivity,ut lso places with efiniteulturalnd social dentitieshat an be turned nto om-petitive dvantages. he growth f the cultural-productsndustriesn Los Angelesover the

decades following orldWar I s described nd two maingroups f sectors re identified.first roup, haracterized specially y the entertainmentectors,has risen o world-widesignificancehroughts bilityo maintainigh evels f kill,nnovativeness,nd product uality.A second group, haracterizedspecially y thefurniturend ewelry ndustries,sstagnantrdecliningndhastended opursue ompetitivetrategies arked y nsistentabor-costutting.A series f policy ssues s thendealtwith, aying articularttentiono the tasks f:1) re-ori-enting hose sectors hat re fallingehind nthe competitive ace; and 2) maintaininghedynamic, ynergisticualities fthe cultural-productsndustrialomplex s a whole over thelong run.KeyWords: gglomeration,ompetitivedvantage, raftndustries,ultural roducts,externalities, lexible pecialization, ndustrialocation, ocal economic development, Los Ange-les, place.

Correspondence: School of Public Policy and Social Research, University f California,LosAngeles, Los Angeles, California, 0095.

jurnal-scott-craft fashion cultural products

Documents