World Economic Forum - Creative Economy Indicator
Why do some regions succeed in showing a permanent record of economic pros
-
perity while others don’t, or only to a lesser extent? This is a perennial question for policymakers. If this question were asked to an economist he would likely propose a neo-classical production function approach to provide an answer. That is, he would say that differences in economic performance can be attributed to differ
-
ences, and their growth over time, in the quantity and quality of productive factors
2008 / 4 Review of Business and Economics in different regions. Conventionally, these productive factors are human capital, physical capital and natural endowments (which can include natural resources as well as elements such as climate). But after relating aggregate productivity growth to the growth in these productive factors there al ways r emains the well-known
“Solow-residual,” which measures the growth in total factor productivity that can
-
not be explained by the accumulation of productive factors. Instead, this residual contribution is thought to associate with several influences that include creativity, innovation, technical progress, and the quality of institutions in general.
Creativity is what makes people, firms, and regions unique. It is the capacity to find innovative solutions to problems, to create new products or processes – either from scratch or by combining already existing elements – and by doing so contribut
-
ing to the creation of economic value. As such, creativity is clearly linked to inno
-
vation and entrepreneurship in order to guarantee its translation into market oppor
-
tunities. In the context of a globalizing world, where many regions and countries are no longer able to compete in their traditional sectors on the basis of cost minimiza
-
tion or productive efficiency, firms and governments are looking to redefine their economic strategy to find new sources of competitive advantage, and in this entre-
preneurial
-
perity while others don’t, or only to a lesser extent? This is a perennial question for policymakers. If this question were asked to an economist he would likely propose a neo-classical production function approach to provide an answer. That is, he would say that differences in economic performance can be attributed to differ
-
ences, and their growth over time, in the quantity and quality of productive factors
2008 / 4 Review of Business and Economics in different regions. Conventionally, these productive factors are human capital, physical capital and natural endowments (which can include natural resources as well as elements such as climate). But after relating aggregate productivity growth to the growth in these productive factors there al ways r emains the well-known
“Solow-residual,” which measures the growth in total factor productivity that can
-
not be explained by the accumulation of productive factors. Instead, this residual contribution is thought to associate with several influences that include creativity, innovation, technical progress, and the quality of institutions in general.
Creativity is what makes people, firms, and regions unique. It is the capacity to find innovative solutions to problems, to create new products or processes – either from scratch or by combining already existing elements – and by doing so contribut
-
ing to the creation of economic value. As such, creativity is clearly linked to inno
-
vation and entrepreneurship in order to guarantee its translation into market oppor
-
tunities. In the context of a globalizing world, where many regions and countries are no longer able to compete in their traditional sectors on the basis of cost minimiza
-
tion or productive efficiency, firms and governments are looking to redefine their economic strategy to find new sources of competitive advantage, and in this entre-
preneurial