Fall 2011

Doctoral Seminar

HEC Montréal, Joint Ph.D. ProgramGlobalization and the Economics of Creativity and Innovation.

Patrick Cohendet, Ph.D. Professor, Service de l’enseignement des affaires internationales Office: 3.226; E-mail: patrick.cohendet@hec.caTel: (514) 340-6909

COURSE OUTLINE:

In 2008, an important report of the UNO asserts that the XXIth century will be marked by the central role of the interface between creativity, culture and economy, while underlining that the creativity can be found in all societies and all countries, rich or poor, technologically developed or not. Understanding this major evolution means deciphering « the rationale behind the emerging concept of the 'creative economy' » (United Nations, 2008, pp.11-12).

During the last years, many reports were produced by the other international organizations (OECD), by the increasing number of country (Great Britain, Italy, New Zealand, Australia), or of regions (Ontario, Euskadi), drawing the attention on the emergence of the creative economy and on its major impact for the economic development and the regime of growth. The economic crisis of the end of decade was only sharpening this attention, as far as the development of the creative economy is considered by many as one of the major perspectives of ending the crisis (Cunningham, 2006; Hamel, 2008).

These reports place the creative activities in the interface of the economy, the technology, the culture and society, by insisting on their potential of production of growth, of wealth and creation of jobs through the creation, the circulation and the combination of intellectual capital. The term "creative Economy" appeared in 2001 in John Howkins's book (The creative Economy) on the relation between the creativity and the economy. According to this author, the novelty does not lie in the creativity or the economy in itself but in the nature and the intensity of the links which unite them. Besides, the increasing importance of the creative economy would be due to the conjunction and to the interpenetration of two factors, the globalization and the connectivity, which upset the models of production, the modes of consumption and distribution,

and invite to reinterpret in depth the links between culture, technology and economy (Castells, on 1996).

As regards the heart of the new economy, the reflection gradually appeared from a questioning on the increase in importance of the so-called "creative" industries. These creative industries depart from traditional models of industry, but they do not limit themselves to the sub-group of "cultural" industries. Institutional researches led in Great Britain at the end of the 90s revealed the economic weight of specific industries among which the business logics and the dynamics of production were widely based on the processes of creation and conception: the creative industries (CITF, 1998). They cover about fifteen sectors (software, architecture, videogames, performing arts, advertising, etc.) which " have their origin in the creativity, the skills and the talent and which have a potential of wealth and the job creation thanks to the generation and the exploitation of the intellectual property "(DCMS 2001, p. 4). As demonstrated by Howkins, the creative industries begin to weigh very heavy at the world level. For the UNO, since the beginning of the 90s, their growth rate is the quadruple of that of manufacturing industries.

If the attention concerns to the creative industries today, the creative economy does not limit itself to this type of activities. If many analysts (Nuala Beck, on 1992; Kevin Kelly, on 1999, Daniel Bell, on 1999, Reich, on 2001; Tyler, on 2002), underline the fact that the engines of the " new economy " are widely based on the control of high technologies, and in particular technologies of information and the communication, these last ones also allow the acceleration of the evolution of traditional industries by facilitating the circulation and the combination of knowledge (Castells, 1996). Beyond the only creative industries, the creative economy offers the opportunity to rethink in depth the complex interactions between the economic, cultural, technological and social aspects which guide the dynamics of the economy, by promoting at the same time the social integration, the cultural diversity and the human development. Furthermore, all the reports, in particular that of the UNO, underline that such an opportunity is not "reserved" only in the developed countries: supported by relevant public policies, the creative economy can generate new interactions at micro as well as at macro levels of any country or zone of the world including the less developed, and stimulate new avenues of creation of wealth.

The course is declined on four themes. The first two themes describe and analyze the categories and the concepts. The two following ones apply them to two main categories of active units of creativity (firms and territories) and consider the implications of these evolutions on globalization. A transverse basic idea to the whole project: the role of "communities" in the emergence of the creative forms.

The first theme is the most central: it is a global theoretical reflection on the notion of creative economy, by considering the creative industries as a new paradigm. The emergence of the creative economy offers a unique opportunity to rethink the economic dynamics by integrating

into the same analytical vision science, technology, business and art/culture. This theoretical stake indeed answers an empirical need arisen from the evolutions of the demand for economic goods (requirement of multiple characteristics: technical, aesthetic, symbolic, ethical, ecological, etc.) and possibilities opened by the wide and global diffusion of the ICT (Information and communication technologies). The new model of innovation which appeared with ICT (open source) does not doubtless limit itself to this sector and to its privileged fields of application. It is thus necessary to conceptualize otherwise the process of innovation (once restricted to the only interactions between science, technology and industry) and to integrate in particular the complex connections between science, arts, culture, business, environment and industry which open considerable potentialities of new “open” innovations. Certain major concepts of the economy of the innovation certainly are to be revisited, as the distinction between radical innovations and incremental innovations, or the neo-Schumpeterian analyzes of the relation between invention and innovation in long-term cycles.

The second theme concerns the dynamics of innovation. It is a question of understanding how the creative process emerges, develops and diffuses from the creative individual to the market. Such a perspective raises the issue of the debate on the talent of the individual creator (the act of creation) versus the social process of construction of the creativity which calls for an in-depth analysis of the conditions of the creation, of its implementation and its final results. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze and to theorize about the interaction between: a) individual creativity; b) collective creativity carried by various types of social groups (either formal as teams, semi-formal as groups of experts, or widely informal as communities of practice, epistemic communities, etc.); c) organizational creativity carried by firms; d) distributed creativity carried by diverse types of territorialized or virtual / distant networks (cf. fourth theme)

It is also necessary to approach the role of transverse categories as communities or constructed intermediates of the creation that are the standards, the “codebooks” in Paul David's sense, the prototypes, scenarios, etc. The question of the new regime of intellectual property (IPR) evoked in the first theme must be taken back here, with the issue of the balance between IPR viewed as tools of exclusion and IPR viewed as tools of sharing knowledge. It is clear that this theme of research leads to break or to rethink the disciplinary borders. For example, the classical analytical distinction between the psychological field of creation (which would be the one of the invention/discovery) and the economic field (how to manage the phases of industrial implementation and the distribution of the novelty) does not hold any more when we consider the collective character of the creativity and the importance of the social interactions of the individual. What all the recent contributions of the economists suggests it is to understand the process of creation as involving simultaneously creative individuals, communities and institutions, but to varying degrees according to the phases of the process.

The third theme concerns "the theory" of the creative firm. The issue at stake is to conceive a theoretical frame which distinguishes it from the traditional firm. In the knowledge based economy, the activities of creation are going to occupy a ceaselessly increasing place in the strategies of innovation of companies. This inevitable phenomenon opens fundamentally new horizons as well in the field of the economy as that of the management, and raises in particular strategic issues in terms of acquisition and sharing of knowledge, and of the development of the individual, collective and organizational creative capacities. The development of the creative economy supposes to wonder about the role and the functioning of firms seen as the central processing units of any economic system, but the challenges are particularly many for companies in the new context which tends to weaken the traditional meaning of the limits of the firm and to question the classic distinctions between process of exploration and exploitation. The works on the recent key experiences (such as Linux, Debian, Procter&Gamble, etc.) show that we can approach the question of the creativity in a very rich way through the concept of open model of innovation.

The fourth theme raises the question of the creative territories. The development of the creative economy supposes to re-conceive the question of the innovative territories beyond the industrial clusters and the other constructed innovative forms of agglomeration on the performance of the spatial relations between science and industry. This subject took recently a specific importance and a particularly polemical dimension with the notion of " creative cities " often associated with the work of Richard Florida, but also worked in depth by an increasing number of academics (Scott, 2000, 2005, 2008; Scott and Garofoli, 2007; Grabher, 2001; Pratt, 2009, 2010, etc.). As a matter of fact, a lot of at once theoretical and empirical literature was dedicated to concepts as that of "learning territory ", but, on this field also, can we reduce the creation to the mere diffusion of new information? Are the approaches in terms of "talents" and "creative class" operational? The cultural approaches of territories must be certainly completed by the description of communities and "places" which are not defined simply geographically. The creative territories constitute a central object of research, but they join the wider problem of the territorialisation (see Barnes and alii, 2003) which it is necessary to be able to report, in the context of the globalized economy.

STUDENTS EVALUATION

A student’s learning will be assessed in several ways, according to his/her understanding of central issues and the fulfillment of the above objectives. Assessments will bear the following respective weights:▪ Class participation 15%▪ Article discussion and written summaries 30%

▪ Integration of assigned readings 10%▪ Term paper 45%

Proposal 10%‐ Manuscript 25%‐ Class presentation 10%‐

COURSE MATERIALS:

The following are relevant works for each session and topic. Their common thread is briefly underlined, and required readings are marked “main references”. This list is of course not an exhaustive one.

Week 1: From the Knowledge-based Economy to the Creative Economy: some main evolutions of the global industrial system.

The objective of this first session is to characterize the recent evolution of the economic system

by showing that the passage in a creative economy can be interpreted as a new regime of

growth which prolongs the period of Knowledge- based Economy (identified at the beginning of

the 90s by the economists of the OECD, such as Mr Abramowitz or P.David). At the origin of the

regime of the Knowledge-based Economy, the accumulation of the intangible capital (and thus

the accumulation of knowledge) would have substituted itself for the accumulation of the

physical capital as main engine of the growth. Models of endogenous growth (based on the

accumulation of knowledge) correspond well to this period marked by the development of

"interactive and closed" models of innovation (concentrated on what is produced in terms of

knowledge inside a given firm, even if the creative spark can be introduced outside of this firm,

as von Hippel has shown). The period of the creative economy can be interpreted as the logical

result of the evolution of the Knowledge based Economy, where the knowledge reveals

gradually one of its major properties: it is not so much indeed the accumulation of the

knowledge that creates economic value, but the capacity to quickly access the knowledge which

we need to act, produce, and create. The new regime of growth could so be interpreted as a

regime based on the dynamics of variety (not simply on a dynamics of accumulation).

Main references

1. Howkins, J. (2001) The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. New York : Penguin Books

2. United Nations/ UNCTAD (2008). Creative Economy Report. The Challenge of Assessing the Creative Economy: Towards Informed Policy-Making. Genève: UNCTAD. (http://www.unctad.org/creative-economy)

3. Romer, P. M. (2010). “What Parts of Globalization Matter for Catch-Up Growth?”, American Economic Review, 100(2): 94-98.

4. Paul Krugman, The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 (December 2008) ISBN 0-393-07101-4

5. Ruth Towse Towards an economics of creativity? , Erasmus University Rotterdam, Paper presented at the Vienna Workshop on Creative Industries, 20 March 2004

6. S. Becker with Erik Hornung and Ludger Woessmann, Education and Catch-up in the industrial Revolution, forthcoming 2011 at the American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJMacro)

Additional references.

1. d’Aspremont Cl., R. Dos Santos Ferreira and L.-A. Gérard-Varet, "Strategic R&D investment, competitive toughness and growth", International Journal of Economic Theory, 6, 273-295, 2010.

2. Foray, D. (2000) L'économie de la connaissance. Paris : La Découverte Repères.3. Amin A., Cohendet P. (2004), Architectures of knowledge: firms, capabilities and

communities, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK4. Galbraith, J. K. (1973). Economics and the Public Purpose. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.5. Alchian, A. (1950) : “Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory”, Journal of Political

Economy, vol.58, pp. 211-2216. Michael G. Heller, Capitalism, Institutions, and Economic Development.  New York:

Routledge, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-415-48259-2.7. Richard N. Langlois, The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and

the New Economy. The Graz Schumpeter Lectures 2004. London: Routledge, 2007. 8. Boulding, K. E. (1978). Ecodynamics: A new theory of societal evolution. Beverly Hills,

California : Sage Publications9. Beck, N; (1992). Shifting Gears: Thriving in the New Economy. Toronto : Harpercollins

Canada.10. Bell, D. (1999). The Coming of Post-industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.11. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy,

Society and Culture Vol. I. Cambridge, MA. et Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishing.12. Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity, The Information Age: Economy, Society and

Culture Vol. II. Cambridge, MA. et Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishing.13. Gorz, A. (2003). L'immatériel: connaissance, valeur et capital. Paris : Galilée.14. Kelly, K; (1999). New Rules for the New Economy. New York : Penguin Books.15. Sen, A. (1993). Markets and Freedoms: Achievements and Limitations of the Market

Mechanism in Promoting Individual Freedoms. Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 45, n°4, pp. 519-541.

Week 2: The characteristics of the creative economy and their consequences on the global economy.

In the new glance which embraces today all the human sciences, and particularly the economy,

on creativity, this one is no more connected to the vision of a production of new knowledge

which shifts the border of the state of the art in a discipline given (a vision which was situated in

paradigm of the accumulation). Creativity is nowadays connected to the production of new

knowledge which "associates", binds, and connects domains of knowledge which had never

been bound together in this way. The various texts of this session try hard to characterize the

notion of creativity associated essentially with a new way of conceiving the sources of

innovation in society.

Main references.

1. David W. Galenson, Understanding Creativity, NBER Working Paper No. 16024, May 20102. Åke E. Andersson, Economics of Creativity , chapter 5 of the book New Directions in

Regional Economic Development , Advances in Spatial Science, 2009, 79-95,Springer verlag3. R. Florida, « The Great Reset », Randomhouse eds, 2010.4. Lessig, L. (2004). Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. New York : Penguin

Press.5. von Hippel, E. Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press: 2006.6. H. Tsoukas, A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations,

Organization Science, November 1, 2009; 20(6): 941 - 957.

Additional references.

1. R.Baumol, W. J. et Bowen, W. G. (1966). Performing arts, the economic dilemma : A study of problems common to theater, opera, music, and dance. Millwood, New York : Kraus Reprint Co.

2. Benhamou, F. (2008). Les dérèglements de l’exception culturelle. Paris : Seuil.3. Ginsburgh, V. A. et Throsby, C. D. (2006). Handbook of the Economics of Art and

Culture, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier.4. Cunningham, S. D. (2006). What price a creative economy? Platform Papers.5. Throsby, C. D. (1994). The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural

Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 32, n°1, pp. 1-29.6. Heilbrun, J. et Gray, C. M. (2001). The Economics of Arts and Culture. New York :

Cambridge University Press, 2ème édition.7. Castells, M. (1998). End of Millennium, The Information Age: Economy, Society and

Culture Vol. III. Cambridge, MA. et Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishing8. P.Cohendet, D. Grandadam, L. Simon “Economics and the ecology of creativity:

Evidence from the popular music industry”, (2009), International Review of Applied Economics, vol23, n6, pp709 à 722

Week 3 : Models of innovation and the creative economy: towards interactive models of open innovation.

In the context of a creative economy, the main authors advance the idea that it is not any more

the only mechanism of the invention (situated in paradigm of the accumulation) that is

generative of creativity, but diverse industrial arrangements in networks in an interactive model

of open innovation. In particular, one of the main ideas would be that in the context of creative

economy, the positive externalities (related to the production of knowledge) and the negative

externalities (related to the environment) can be internalized "from the beginning", in the phase

of conception of products or processes. Beyond the examination of the main models of

innovation, this session will try hard to clarify the fundamental distinctions between innovation,

invention and creation.

Main references.

1. Schumpeter J.A. (1941): Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York, Harper & Row. Traduction française, Capitalisme, Socialisme et Démocratie, Paris: Payot

2. Arthur, W. B. (2006). The Structure of Invention. Research Policy, vol. 36, n°2, pp. 274-287.3. Jensen M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E. et Lundvall B.-Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and

modes of innovation. Research Policy, vol. 36, pp. 680-693.4. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from

Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.5. Lakhani K., Panetta J.A (2007), “The principles of distributed innovation”, Innovations, p. 97-

111.6. Rasulzada, F. et Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational Creativity and Innovation, Creativity

Research Journal, vol. 21, n°2/3, pp. 191-198112.

Additional references.

1. Cowan, R. and Jonard, N. (2009) “Knowledge Portfolios and the Organization of Innovation Networks” Academy of Management Review, 34: 320-342.

2. Laursen, K., Salter, A. J., 2006, Open for Innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms, Strategic Management Journal, 27, 131-150.

3. Le Masson, P., Weil, B. et Hatchuel, A. (2006). Les processus d’innovation, conception innovante et croissance des entreprises. Paris : Hermès Lavoisier.

4. Matthiews, Mark (2008). Science and Innovation Policy and the New (and Old) Economics of Creativity. Cultural Science, vol.1, n°1.(http://www.culturalscience.org/journal/index.php/culturalscience/article/viewArticle/9/22)

5. Cunningham, S. D., Cutler, T. A., Ryan, M. D., Hearn, G. N. et Keane, M. A. (2003). Research and Innovation Systems in the Production of Digital Content and Applications. Content and Applications, Creative Industries Cluster Study Volume III. Commonwealth of Australia (DCITA) Canberra.

6. Berkun, S. (2007). The Myths of Innovation. Sebastopol, California : O'Reilly Media7. Hatchuel, A. (1996). Les théories de la conception. Cours de l'Ecole des Mines, option

Ingénierie de la conception. Paris.8. Weil, B. et Hatchuel, A. (2009). C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Research in

Engineering Design, vol. 19, n°4, pp. 181-192.9. A. K. Gupta, P. E. Tesluk, and M. S. Taylor

Innovation At and Across Multiple Levels of AnalysisOrganization Science, November 1, 2007; 18(6): 885 - 897.

10. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape

11. Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H. et Kjær, J. S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation: Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy, vol. 34, n°10, pp. 1533-1549.

12. Thiebaud F., De Guio R. and Cavallucci D., « Caractérisation et Comparaison des méthodes de créativité », IJODIR, Vol. 3, n°1&2, 2002

13. Dasgupta P., David P. (1994), “Towards a New Economics of Science”, Research Policy 23, 487-522.

14. Lee Fleming, Mark Szigety (2006), Exploring the Tail of Creativity: An Evolutionary Model of Breakthrough Invention, in Brian Silverman (ed.) Ecology and Strategy (Advances in Strategic Management, Volume 23), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.335-359

Week 4 : The creative industries: a new engine of growth for the global economy? The creative industries at the crossroad of science, industry, culture, arts and business.

The objective of this session is to bring to light the characteristics of the creative industries seen as the central industrial element of the creative economy. According to the report of the UNO (2008 ): ”The creative industries comprise advertising, architecture, arts &crafts, design, fashion, film, music, performing arts, publishing, software, toys and games, TV and radio, and video games. They integrate science, technology and arts, and use creativity and intellectual capital as primary inputs”. A more precise analysis of these very innovative industries shows certain paradoxes: they generally have no laboratories of R*D, no activity of formalized R*D, no subsidiary specialized in R*D, not enough stowage in the classic modes of financing of the innovation and few implications in the alliances and the international partnerships of R*D. It is thus a question of understanding, through an in-depth study of these industries, how they form their capacity to innovate, and how they succeed in achieving their economic performance from interactive systems of open innovation.

Main references.

1. Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, Massachusets : Harvard University Press.

2. Hartley, J. (2005). Creative Industries. Carlton : Blackwell Publishing. 3. Eikhof DR, Haunschild A. (2007). For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative

production. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(5): 523-538.4. F. Ted Tschang (2007) Balancing the Tensions Between Rationalization and Creativity in the

Video Games Industry, Organization Science, Vol. 18, No. 6, November-December 2007, pp. 989-1005,

5. UNESCO (2009) Creative Industries - UNESCO Culture, UNESCO, http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35024&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, retrieved 2009-11-24.

6. Cohendet, P., Simon, L. ( 2007) “Playing across the Playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the video-game firm”. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Special issue : Paradoxes of Creativity: Managerial and Organizational Challenges in the Cultural Economy, vol.28, n°5, pp.587-605

Additional references

1. Cunningham, Stuart D. (2002) From cultural to creative industries: Theory, industry, and policy implications. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: Quarterly Journal of Media Research and Resources(102). pp. 54-65.

2. CITF (1998). Creative Industries Mapping Document. DCMS - Government of UK.3. DCMS (2006), Creative Industries Statistical Estimates Statistical Bulletin, London, UK:

Department of Culture, Media and Sport http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/70156235-8AB8-48F9-B15B-78A326A8BFC4/0/CreativeIndustriesEconomicEstimates2006.pdf, retrieved 2007-05-26

4. Banks, M., Lovatt, A., O’Connor, J. et Raffo C. (2000). Risk and trust in the cultural industries, Geoforum, vol. 31, pp. 453-464.

5. Throsby, C. D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.

6. Hesmondhalgh, David (2002), The Cultural Industries, SAGE7. Ginsburgh, V. & Throsby, D. (2006). Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture.

North-Holland.8. B. Townley, N. Beech, and A. McKinlay, (2009) Managing in the creative industries:

Managing the motley crew, Human Relations, 62(7): 939 – 9629. Kogut, B. and Anca Metiu (2004). "Distributed Knowledge and Creativity in the

International Software Industry," Management International Review, 44.

Week 5: The dynamics of creativity from the emergence of the creative idea to the market.

The analysis of the dynamics of the creativity which is proposed in this session has for ambition to better understand the way we pass conceptually from the creative individual to the collective processes and finally to the mechanisms of market. It is a question in particular of enlightening the conditions in which the talent of the individual creator (the act of creation) can be relieved by a social process of construction of the creativity which calls for a new approach of the process of creation, of its implementation and of its results.

Main references

1. Christensen, J. L. et Lundvall, B.-Å. (2004). Product Innovation, Interactive Learning and Economic Performance, Amsterdam : Elsevier

2. Uzzi B. et Spiro J. (2005), « Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem », American Journal of Sociology, vol. 111, pp. 447–504.

3. J. Tirole and G. Weyl, Materialistic Genius and Market Power: Uncovering the best innovations, mimeo IDEI Toulouse, 2010.

4. Cowan, Robin, Nicolas Jonard and Jean-Benoit Zimmermann “Evolving Networks of Inventors” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 16, pp. 155-174, 2006.

5. Anja Schulze, Martin Hoegl (2008), Organizational knowledge creation and the generation of new products ideas: a behavioral approach, Research Policy, Volume 37, Issue 10, December, Pages 1742-1750

6. Richard C.M. Yam, William Lo, Esther P.Y. Tang, Antonio K.W. Lau (2011, forthcoming) Analysis of sources of innovation, technological innovation capabilities and performance, Research Policy

Additional references

1. Pavitt, K. (1998), “Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn’t”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.7, n°3: 433-452

2. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.3. Simon, L. (2006). Managing creative projects: An empirical synthesis of activities.

International Journal of Project Management, vol. 24, n°2, pp. 116-126.4. Bilton, C., R. Leary. (2002) : “What Can Managers Do for Creativity? Brokering Creativity

in the Creative Industries”. International Journal of Cultural Policy. vol. 8 n°1, pp. 49 – 64 5. Callon, M., Latour, B. (1991), La science telle qu’elle se fait, Paris, La Découverte.6. Callon M., Foray, D. (1997) : “Nouvelle économie de la science ou socio-économie de la

recherche scientifique”. Revue d'Economie Industrielle, 79 (1er trimestre), pp.13-357. P.Cohendet, Jean-Alain Héraud, P. Llerena.(2010), « La dynamique de l’innovation: une

interprétation de l’approche de Michel Callon en termes de communautés de connaissance », Contribution à l’ouvrage en l’honneur de Michel Callon, PUF.

8. Cowan, Robin and Nicolas Jonard “Merit, approbation and the evolution of social structure”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol 64, pp. 295-315, 2007.

Week 6 : The dynamics of the creative process : The role of knowledge communities.

The academic literature on the dynamics of the creativity suggests that the process of creation is not restricted to the sole role of some talented individuals. Nor it is restricted to the control and the strategic vision of institutions (companies or laboratories). These are authorities where contracts are signed, where people are hired or dismissed, and where collective skills are maintained. But, these institutions are not actively involved in the elaboration of the common base of knowledge (or codebooks) for developing innovation. The building of these codebooks is indispensable to the development of the innovation. Without them the potentially innovative ideas risk not to reach a sufficient maturity to be viable on the market. The communities of

knowledge (a term which recovers communities of practice, epistemic communities or virtual communities) are precisely the active units which undertake this process of codification: Their role is essential in the first stages of the creative process. What all the recent contributions in the academic literature suggest is thus to understand the process of creation as involving simultaneously creative individuals, communities of knowledge and institutions, but to varying degrees according to the phases of the process. As soon as a creative idea appears, her developer tries hard to convince communities of knowledge of the interest of the novelty, in particular the interest to undertake the efforts of codification of the new idea. However, as the process of codification grows, and as the base of the knowledge increases and strengthens, the role of communities becomes more secondary, whereas that of institutions increases. Once the process of codification is stabilized, the institutions become the dominant actors.

Main references

1. Tirole, J.,(2006) « The Dynamics of Open Source Contributors », American Economic Review, vol. 96, n°2, p. 114-118.

2. Brown JS, Duguid P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science 2(1): 40–57.

3. Bogenrieder, I., Nooteboom, B. (2004): “Learning Groups: What Types are there? A Theoretical Analysis and an Empirical Study in a Consultancy Firm”, Organization Studies, vol. 25, n° 2, pp.287-313

4. P.Cohendet (2006) “On Knowing Communities,” Cohendet, P., in B. Kahin and D. Foray (eds), “Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy”, MIT Press.

5. Andrew B. Hargadon, Beth A. Bechky, When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work, Organization Science, Vol. 17, No. 4, July-August 2006, pp. 484-500

6. Tirole, J. and Josh Lerner (2005)« The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond », Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 19, n°2, p. 99-120.

Additional references.

1. Boland, R.J, Tenkasi, R.V., (1995) : “Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing”, Organization Science, vol6, n°4, pp. 350-372.

2. Sawhney, M. et Prandelli, E. (2000). Communities of Creation : Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets. California Management Review, vol. 42, n°4, pp. 24-54.

3. Wenger E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

4. Jaeger, P., Haefliger, S. & Von Krogh, G. (2010) A directing audience: How specialized feedback in a virtual community of consumption stimulates new media production. (Working paper EPZ 2010).

5. Andriessen, J.H.E., Verburg R.M., (2004): “The development and application of the Community Assessment Toolkit”. www.communities-research-group.tudelft.nl

6. Jeppesen, L.B. (2009).Profiting from innovative user communities: How firms organize the production of user modifications in the computer games industry. Copenhagen Business School, Working paper

7. Cohendet, Patrick.; Llerena, P. (2008) “The role of teams and communities in the emergence of organizational routines”, in Handbook of Organizational Routines; Markus Becker ed. Edward Elgar,.

8. Mumin Dayan, C. Anthony Di Benedetto (2011) Team intuition as a continuum construct and a new product creativity Research Policy, In Press

Week 7: The dynamics of creativity and the intellectual property rights.

In the field of intellectual property rights (IPR), a traditional distinction separates, on one side the IPR in the industrial activities (patents), and from other one of the IPR in the artistic and cultural activities (copyrights). In a creative economy, this border becomes profoundly blurred, and in particular in the creative industries. Furthermore, these industries precisely integrate as well industrial dimensions as artistic ones. The process of creation requires generally not only the expression of the creative individual talents but also the collective expression of the creativity which is necessary among others for the writing of manifestoes, styles, trends, etc. This collective expression of the creativity tries to lean on particular IPR (creative commons, copylefts, etc.) which develop today on a large scale. What suggest the works on the subject, it is that every creative industry tends to privilege a specific mode of "assembly" of IPR characterized not only by a particular balance between "individual" rights (patents vs copyrights) but also especially by a particular balance between individual and collective rights. The objective of this session is to analyze the profound current evolutions in the field of the intellectual property.

Main references

1. West J. [2006], “Does Appropriability Enable or Retard Open Innovation?”, in Chesbrough ed. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 109-133.

2. Lerner, J. and J. Tirole (2001), ‘The open source movement: Key research questions’, European Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 35, 819-826.

3. Winter S. G. (1993), « Patents and Welfare in an Evolutionary Model », Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 2, pp. 211-231.

4. Hall, B., (2010) The use of IP and open innovation in structuring knowledge relationships between firms. Presentation to the Knowledge in Organizations Conference, Monte Verita, Ascona, Switzerland.

5. Arundel A. (2001), “The Relative Effectiveness of Patents and Secrecy for Appropriation”, Research Policy 30, 611-624.

6. Kingston W. (2001), “Innovation Needs Patent Reform”, Research Policy 30, 403-423.

Additional references.

1. Hall, B., Adam Jaffe and Manuel Trajtenberg, Market Value and Patent Citations, Rand Journal of Economics 36 (2005): 16-38: 

2. J. Tirole, C.Henry, M.Trommeter, L. Tubiana, B.Caillaud, «  Les droits de propriété intellectuelle »’ Les rapports du Conseil d’Analyse économique. N° 41, la Documentation française, 2003.

3. Benghozi P.-J. et Paris, T. (1998). Évolutions économiques et techniques et nouveaux modèles de protection de la propriété littéraire et artistique. Réseaux, n°88-89, pp. 11-23.

4. Arundel A., Kabla I. (1998), “What Percentage of Innovations are Patented? Empirical Estimates f Jaffe A. (2000), “The US Patent System in Transition: Policy Innovation and the Innovation Process”, Research Policy 29, 531-557.

5. Kortum S., Lerner J. (1999), “What is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting?”, Research Policy 28, 1-22.

6. Laurent Bach, Patrick Cohendet, Julien Pénin and Laurent Simon “Creative industries and the IPR dilemma between appropriation and creation: some insights from the videogames industries” (2010), Management International, vol14, n3, pp 59-72.

7. Kogut B., and Anca Metiu (2001) “Open-Source Software Development and Distributed Intelligence” (with Anca Metiu), Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 17: 248-64.

8. Hagedoorn J. (2003), “Sharing Intellectual Property Rights – An Exploratory Study of Joint-Patenting amongst Companies”, Industrial and Corporate Change 12, 1035-1050.

Week 8 : Towards a theory of the creative firm?

The development of the creative economy supposes to question the role and the functioning of firms seen as the central processing units of any economic system. Challenges are particularly critical for firms in the new context: how to reconcile creative activities and routinized activities, or in a more general way, how balance process of exploration and process of exploitation; how to assure the governance of the firm, in particular the modes of coordination and the systems of incentives in a context of creative economy? There are two manners to deepen the reflection on this major theme. We can analyze the way the firms of the "traditional" industries adapt themselves to the new requirements of the competitive environment by increasing their creative efforts (passage in the projects modes and in the modular solutions, the search for "ambidextrous" solutions to reconcile exploration and exploitation, priority given to a model of open innovation, etc. The firms of the creative industries could also be analyzed as « laboratories » that produce new methods of coordination to develop creativity. This is the perspective which is adopted in this session.

Main references

1. Nonaka I. et Takeuchi H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How the Japanese Companies Create the Dynamic of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY

2. Kogut, Bruce, and Edward Bowman, eds. Redesigning the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, July 1995.

3. Dahlander, L. & Magnusson, M. How do firms make use of Open Source communities? Long Range Planning 41, 629-649 (2008).

4. Bercovitz, J. E. L. & Feldman, M. P. (2007). “Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances”, Research Policy, 36(7): 930-948.

5. Andriopoulos C, Lewis M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20(4): 696–717.

6. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts (1988), ‘Economic theories of the firm: past, present, future’, Canadian Journal of Economics, 21, 444-458.

Additional references.

1. Gupta AK., Smith KG, Shalley CE. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 49(4): 693-706.

2. Penrose E. (1959): The theory of the growth of the firm, Oxford Uni. Press3. Alvarez, J. L. et Svejenova, S. (2005). Sharing Executive Power: Roles and Relationships

At The Top. New York : Cambridge Press.4. Cohendet, P., Llerena, P. and Simon, L. (2010). The innovative firm: Nexus of

communities and creativity. Revue d’Économie Industrielle.5. DeFillippi, R. et Arthur, M. (1998). Paradox in Project-Based Enterprise: The Case of Film

Making. California Management Review, vol. 40, n°2, pp. 125-139.6. Jones, C. (1996). Careers in Project Networks: The Case of the Film Industry. Dans

Arthur, M. B. et Rousseau, D. M., The Boundaryless Career : A New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 58-75.

7. Jones, C. et Thornton, P. (2005). Introduction to Transformations in Cultural Industries. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 23, pp. ix-xix.

8. Tschang FT. 2007. Balancing the tensions between Rationalization and creativity in the Video Games Industry, Organization Science 18(6): 989–1005.

9. Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H.2009. Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects. Organization Science 20(4): 781-796

10. Tushman, M. L. et O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, n°4, pp. 8-29.

11. March, J. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, vol. 2, n°1, pp. 71-87.

12. Lampel, J., Lant, T. et Shamsie, J. (2000). Balancing Act: Learning from Organizing Practices in Cultural Industries. Organization Science, vol. 11, n°3, pp. 263-269.

13. Parmentier G, Mangematin V. 2009. Innovation et création dans le jeu vidéo : comment concilier exploration et exploitation ? Revue française de gestion 191(2): 77-90.

14. Raisch S, Birkinshaw J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management 34, (3), 375–409.

Week 9 : Multinationals and creativity.

The perspectives of development of a creative economy bring to rethink the role of multinationals in the process of creation of wealth. One of the most lively debates in the literature is related to the questioning of the traditional model which supposed that products were beforehand conceived in the country of origin of the multinational, then gradually diffused diffuse from the markets of the most developed countries to the markets of the least developed countries. This debate and the main recent contributions the subject will be in the heart of the discussions of this session. Les perspectives de développement d’une économie créative amènent à repenser le rôle des multinationales dans le processus de création de richesse

Main references

1. J.Cantwell and Y. Zhang "The innovative MNC: the dispersion of creativity, and its implications", in S. Collinson and G. Morgan (Eds.), Images of the Multinational Firm, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2008.

2. Andreu, R., Ciborra, C. (2002), “Knowledge across Boundaries: managing knowledge in distributed organizations”, in C.W. Choo and N. Bontis (eds), The strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York, Oxford University Press, 575-86.

3. Nohria N., Ghoshal S. (1997), The differential Network: Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

4. Gil R, Spiller PT. 2007. The Organizational dimensions of creativity, California Management Review 50 (1): 243-259.

5. C. Andriopoulos, P Dawson (2009) Managing change creativity and innovation, Sage.

6. H. Barnard and al. "Knowledge in the theory of the firm and MNC: asset or action?", Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 21-27.

Additional references

1. J.Cantwell and L. Piscitello, "Recent location of foreign-owned R&D activities by large multinational corporations in the European regions: the role of spillovers and externalities", Regional Studies, Vol. 39, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 1-16.

2. J.Cantwell and R. Mudambi "MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 12, December 2005, pp. 1109-1128.

3. S.S. Athreye and al. "Creating competition? Globalisation and the emergence of new technology producers", Research Policy, Vol. 36, No. 2, March 2007, pp. 209-226.

4. Simon, L. (2002). Le Management en Univers Ludique : Jouer et Travailler chez Ubisoft, une Entreprise du Multimédia à Montréal (1998-1999), Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Montréal.

5. Simon, L. (2006). Managing creative projects: An empirical synthesis of activities. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 24, n°2, pp. 116-126.

6. Hagedoorn J., (2002), “Inter-Firm R&D Partnerships: An Overview of Major Trends and Patterns since 1960”, Research Policy 31, 477-492.

7. Llerena, P., Burger-Helmchen, T. & Cohendet, P. Division of labor and division of knowledge: A case study of innovation in the video game industry. Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth 313-333 (2009).

Week 10: On creative territories.

The mechanisms of geographical agglomeration of activities were abundantly studied in the economic literature, either through the categories of "industrial districts" (the Marshall Islands 1890; Jacobs, on 1969; Breakdown, on 2004), of "systems of innovation " (Freeman, on 1987; Lundvall, on 1992), or of " clusters geographical " (Anderson, on 1994; Carry(Wear), on 2000). In these approaches, the formal and informal relations between the scientific institutions and the industrial firms are considered as opportunities of economic "externalities" which are at the origin of the creation of wealth in these territorial milieus. However, all these territorial concepts neglect the consideration of the potential of creation of wealth resulting from the world of the arts and from the culture. The objective of this task so is to try to characterize and to interpret the notion of " creative territory ", conceived as a "widened" mechanism of agglomeration, where externalities are generated by the interactions between the domains of science, industry, culture, arts and business.

Main references

1. Saxenian, A., (1994), Regional advantages: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Harvard University Press.

2. Rychen, F. and Zimmermann, J. B. (2008) Clusters in the Global Knowledge-based Economy: Knowledge Gatekeepers and Temporary Proximity, Regional Studies, 42(6), pp. 767-776.

3. Agrawal, A., I. Cockburn (2003) : “The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems”, Internat. J. of Indust. Org., 21 (1) 1227–1253

4. Scott, A. J. et Garofoli, G. (2007). Development on the Ground: Clusters, Networks and Regions in Emerging Economies. New York : Routledge.

5. Porter, M. E. (2000) Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy, Economic Development Quarterly, 14 (1), pp. 15-34

6. Storper, M., Venables, J. (2004) : “Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy”, Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 4, n°4, pp.351-370.

Additional references.

1. Marshall, A. (1890, 1961) Principles of Economics, London, Macmillan.2. Allen, J. (2000) : “Power/Economic Knowledges: Symbolic and Spatial Formations”. in

Bryson, J., P.W. Daniels, N. Henry, J. Pollard eds. Knowledge, Space, Economy. Routledge, London UK, 15–33.

3. Barnes, T. J., Peck, J., Sheppard, E. et Tickell, A. (2003). Reading Economic Geography. Oxford : Blackwell Publishing.

4. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. (2004): “Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation”. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 28, pp. 31-56.

5. Feldman, M. (2003): “The Locational Dynamics of the US Biotech Industry: Knowledge Externalities and the Anchor Hypothesis”, Industry and Innovation, Vol.10, Issue 3, pp. 311 - 329

6. Grabher, G. (2001). Ecologies of Creativity: the Village, the Group, and the Heterarchic Organisation of the British Advertising Industry. Environment & Planning A, vol. 33, pp. 351-374.

7. Scott, A. J. (2005). On Hollywood: The Place, the Industry. Princeton University Press.8. Rullani E. (2001), The Industrial Cluster as a Complex Adaptive System as published in

“Complexity and Industrial Clusters : Dynamics and Models in Theory and Practice, Physica-Verlag, 2002.

9. Asheim, B. T. and Gertler, M. (2005) The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. and Nelson, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 291-317.

Week 11 : Creative cities.

The concept of creative city won in popularity at the conclusion of the works of Florida (Florida, on 2002; Florida and. Al ., on 2008) which suggests that the creative cities can develop by supplying, through an investment in cultural infrastructures and the other associated amenities, a fertile place to attract a " creative class " of workers who will be at the origin of the creation of new products and process contributing to feed the economic growth and the creation of wealth. The session will analyze the works of Florida and the other works (Landry, Scott, etc.) on the creative city and the criticisms which expressed themselves on the subject in the recent literature.

Main references

1. Andy Pratt , Paul Jeffcutt (2009), Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy, Routeldge 20092. Landry, C (2008) The Creative City: A toolkit for urban innovators, London, Earthscan3. Feldman, M. P., Audretsch D.B. (1999) : “Innovation in Cities: Science-based Diversity,

specialization, and Localized Competition”, European Economic Review, vol.43, pp. 409-429.4. P. Cohendet;  D. Grandadam; L. Simon “The Anatomy of the Creative City” (2010), Industry and

Innovation, , vol7, n1, pp 91 – 1115. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York : Basic Books.6. Scott, A. J. (2000). The Cultural Economy of Cities. London : Sage.

Additional references.

1. Scott, A.J. (2005) : “Creative Cities: Conceptual Issues and Policy Questions”. OECD International Conference on City Competitiveness. Santa-Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. 3-4 March 2005.

2. P.Cohendet, L.Simon “Knowledge intensive firms, communities and creative cities”, in Communities of Practices” A.Amin, J.Roberts, (eds) Oxford University Press, 2008.

3. Pratt, A. C. (2006) Advertising and Creativity, a Governance Approach: A Case Study of Creative Agencies in London, Environment and Planning A, 38, pp. 1883-1899.

Week 12 : The competition between creative cities : a new form of global competition.

If the theories developed by Florida expose themselves to numerous criticisms, they opened a field of very rich debates in the literature which agree on the idea that a very important part of the competitiveness in a knowledge-based economy now rely not so much between firms or other industrial organizations, but between creative cities.

Main references

1. Scott, A. J. (2008). Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global Resurgence of Cities. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

2. Cooke P, L Lazzeretti – 2008, Creative cities, cultural clusters and local economic development, New Horizons in regional science.

3. Mommas, H. (2004) Cultural Clusters and the Post-Industrial City: Towards the Remapping of Urban Cultural Policy, Urban Studies, 41(3), pp. 507-532.

4. Cohendet, P., Grandadam D , Simon L. « Montréal, ville créative : diversités et proximités, in L’économie de la connaissance et ses territoires », Thomas Paris et Pierre Veltz eds, Hermann éditions Paris, 2010.

5. P.Hall “Creative cities and economic development”, Urban Studies, 2000.6. Okano H., (2010) City marketing and performance evaluation for creative cities keynote paper

pressented at The Cities, Culture, and Society (CCS) Conference, University of Munich, February 2010.

Additional references

1. Scott, Allen J. (2000) The Cultural Economy of Cities London: Sage.2. Hall, Sir P. (1998). Cities in Civilisation: culture, innovation and urban order. London,

Weidenfeld3. P.Cohendet; Laurent Simon; F. Sole Parellada; J. Valls Pasola, Barcelona – Montréal as

Creative cities: an Introduction. (2009), Management International, Juin, vol 13, pp.1-22.

Week 13 : Presentation of students works.