The Creative Class: A Key to Rural Growth
Some rural
areas can generate economic growth by attracting
people in creative occupations who value natural
amenities.
David
A. McGranahan and Timothy
R. Wojan
|
|
The
creative-class thesis—that towns
need to attract engineers, architects,
artists, and people in other creative
occupations to compete in today’s
economy—may be particularly relevant
to rural communities, which tend to
lose much of their talent when young
adults leave for college, the Armed
Forces, or “city lights.” |
|
The
creative class lives mostly in urban
settings, but is also found in rural
areas with mountains, lakes, and other
rural amenities. |
|
Nonmetro
counties with higher proportions of
people in creative class occupations
tended to have higher rates of patent
formation and manufacturing technology
adoption in the 1990s— and higher
rates of job growth in 1990-2004. |
|
This
article is drawn from . . . |
ERS
county-level Creative
Class Codes.
“Recasting the Creative
Class To Examine Growth Processes in Rural
and Urban Counties,” by David A. McGranahan
and Timothy R. Wojan, Regional Studies
41(2007): 41:2 (April 2007)
Natural
Amenities Drive Rural Population Change,
by David A. McGranahan, AER-781, USDA, Economic
Research Service, September 1999.
“Ambient Returns: Creative
Capital’s Contribution to Local Manufacturing
Competitiveness,” by Timothy R. Wojan
and David A. McGranahan, Agricultural
and Resource Economics Review, 36:1 (April
2007) |
You
may also be interested in . . . |
“The
Emergence of Rural Artistic Havens: A First
Look,” Timothy R. Wojan, Dayton M. Lambert,
and David A. McGranahan, Agricultural
and Resource Economics Review, 36:1 (April
2007)
“Understanding Rural
Population Loss,” by David A. McGranahan
and Calvin L. Beale, in Rural
America, Vol. 17, Issue 4, Winter
2003. |
The names are familiar—California’s
Silicon Valley, North Carolina’s Research
Triangle, and Boston’s high-tech Route 128
Corridor. Over the past several decades, research
has shown how university research facilities, high-tech
firms, and other creative endeavors have sparked
significant growth in these and other urban economies.
While high-tech firms and major research and development
(R&D) activities are not typically located in
rural areas, talent and creativity are needed throughout
the U.S. economy—in the creation of new types
of products and in the adoption of new production
and information technologies and new marketing strategies.
ERS researchers explored the importance
of the “creative class”—people
in highly creative occupations such as business
ownership and top management, science, engineering,
architecture, design, arts, and entertainment—for
rural growth in the 1990s (see box, “How
Is the Creative Class Measured?”). They
found that the creative class was present in rural
areas, particularly in high-amenity areas, and that
its presence was associated with measures of creativity,
such as patent awards and technology adoption, and
with growth in jobs during 1990-2004. Many rural
analysts have declared that the era of smokestack
chasing is over; the creative-class analysis suggests
that chasing talent is a viable alternative for
sparking local growth.
The Creative Class Theory
Many economists and geographers
point to high-tech firms, research and development
(R&D) activity, and patents as sources of new
economic growth, but regional scientist Richard
Florida focuses on people, arguing that the knowledge
and ideas requisite for economic growth are embodied
in occupations involving high levels of creativity.
These occupations constitute the “creative
class,” the ultimate source of economic dynamism
in today’s “knowledge economy.”
The geographic mobility of the
creative class is central to Florida’s thesis.
He argues that people in these occupations tend
to seek a high quality of life as well as rewarding
work, and they are drawn to cities with cultural
diversity, active street scenes, and outdoor recreation
opportunities. Good local universities alone will
not lead to local economic dynamism as graduates
may move to more attractive places upon obtaining
their degrees. In this context, the key to local
growth is to attract and retain talent, as talent
leads to further job creation.
While developed with major metropolitan
areas in mind, the creative-class thesis seems particularly
relevant to rural areas, which lose much of their
young talent as high school graduates leave, usually
for highly urban environments. These rural areas,
especially, need to attract talented young families,
midlife career changers, active retirees, and others
to maintain their talent base and thereby their
economies. Given that rural earnings tend to be
lower than urban earnings, especially for those
with a college degree, rural quality of life would
seem an essential part of that attraction.
Where Is the Creative
Class?
The creative class is predominately
urban. In both 1990 and 2000, two-thirds of the
“creative-class counties,” those ranking
in the top quarter in the proportion or residents
employed in creative-class occupations, were metropolitan
even though nonmetropolitan counties are twice as
numerous. Metropolitan creative-class counties are
found across the country, but especially in the
major urban areas.
In 2000 (as in 1990), about 260
or 11 percent of nonmetro counties ranked as creative-class
counties. Regional differences are more pronounced
than with metro creative-class counties; New England
and the mountain areas of the West have higher shares
of rural creative-class-counties than the Midwest
and South. Consistent with the thesis that quality-of-life
considerations strongly motivate the creative class,
counties high in natural amenities are most likely
to be creative-class magnets. Pitkin County, Colorado
(which contains Aspen), for example, had the largest
creative-class proportion of all nonmetro counties
in both 1990 and 2000.
Counties dominated by colleges
and universities also ranked high in creative-class
proportions. Tompkins County, New York, for example,
has Cornell University. Jefferson County, Iowa,
a Midwestern creative-class magnet, is home to Maharishi
International University. As a draw for Transcendental
Meditation adherents, the county has attracted many
urban professionals who have started or work for
more than 100 software development and professional
service firms located there. Most of the nonmetro
creative-class counties in low natural-amenity areas
have colleges or universities.
Mountain landscapes and universities
are not required to attract the creative class to
rural areas. Llano County does not contain a large
college or university but is in the Texas Hill Country
near Austin and borders on two large lakes. Robust
growth in the number of artists in the county during
the 1990s is representative of “artistic havens”
emerging in select rural counties. Cook County,
Minnesota, is a hiking and canoeing area, but it
also has the oldest active artist colony in Minnesota.
With a playhouse and a music association, it is
where “culture merges with woods and water”
(Grand Marais Chamber of Commerce).
Do Areas With More Creative
Class Show More Creativity?
A critical link in the creative-class
argument is that places with a higher concentration
of creative occupations actually have more creative
activities. One often-used measure of local creativity
is the ratio of patents to employment or population.
The 1990s patent rate (number of patents in 1990-99
per 1,000 employed in 1990) was, on average, much
higher in metro (4.9) than nonmetro counties (1.7)—not
surprising given the urban location of research
universities and R&D activities. However, within
nonmetro areas, the average patent rate was twice
as high in creative-class counties (3.3) as in other
counties (1.5). Creative-class counties tended to
generate more patents whether or not universities
were present. Thus, while the aforementioned Tompkins
and Jefferson Counties were in the top quarter of
all counties ranked by patent rate, so were Llano
and Pitkin Counties (although not Cook County).
The adoption of new technologies
and ideas is a natural spinoff of knowledge and
creativity. Rural economies have few firms making
high-tech products, but the incorporation of these
products in production and communications is important
for competitiveness. While no economy-wide indicators
of adoption are available, the 1996 ERS Manufacturing
Survey measured the adoption of advanced production
and information technologies and new management
practices. A scale of 16 adoption items—ranging
from computer-assisted design to satellite communications
to self-directed work teams—indicates advanced
technology use. Those establishments using nine
or more practices were considered “high adopters.”
Branch plants aside (their technology use is likely
to be influenced by their headquarters), establishments
in nonmetro creative-class counties were more likely
to be high adopters (20 percent) than establishments
in other nonmetro locations (15 percent). Creative-class
presence also made a difference in metro counties.
Counties with high proportions
of creative-class residents appear to have more
creative activity with regard to patents and technology
adoption. It is not clear, however, if this simply
reflects self-selection (that is, people who invent
and/or adopt new technologies and practices may
tend to locate in high-amenity, creative-class settings)
or if high creative-class environments engender
more patenting and technology adoption.
Is the Rural Creative
Class Associated With Local Growth?
The creative class was highly
associated with growth in rural areas in 1990-2004.
Other nonmetro counties grew relatively slowly in
the 1990s, but creative-class nonmetro counties
tended to gain jobs over the period at a faster
rate than their metro counterparts.
While rural creative-class counties
may grow because of the presence of the creative
class, it is possible that the amenities that attracted
the creative class were responsible for the higher
job growth in creative-class counties in the 1990s.
However, whether considering high-amenity, recreation,
high-education, or other attributes, counties with
a high proportion of creative-class residents generally
had job growth rates that were twice as high as
counties with less creative class presence.
A larger ERS analysis, which included
2,145 nonmetro counties in the 48 contiguous States,
took into account a number of other possible influences
on the location of the creative class and its relationship
with rural growth during the 1990s. The analysis
included measures of landscape and climate, settlement
density and commuting, industry structure (farming,
mining, manufacturing, business services, and recreation),
racial/ethnic composition, labor market characteristics,
age structure, and—to capture regional influences—aggregate
job growth in the surrounding counties. This analysis
found that both the level and change in the creative
class were linked directly to job growth.
The presence of the creative class
may itself create amenities. For instance, a place
that has attracted artists and designers may appeal
to people who like artistic communities. And, the
influence may be indirect—people may be drawn
to a community by the restaurants, stores, and other
consumer services that develop in response to the
consumption patterns of the creative class. However,
ERS analysis showed that both the 1990 creative-class
proportion and the 1990-2000 creative-class growth
were more highly related to job growth than population
increases during the 1990s, suggesting that the
central influence of the creative class is a more
effective use of local resources and opportunities
and hence greater growth in jobs, which facilitates
population growth.
The creative-class analysis suggests
that rural growth depends greatly on the attractiveness
of rural communities, their landscapes, and their
climates. Visits to websites of chambers of commerce
and local development organizations in rural areas
show that many rural communities are advertising
their quality-of-life amenities to prospective businesses
and residents. However, economic evaluations of
the impact of public and private investments on
growth still rarely consider quality-of-life factors.
The creative-class study suggests rural growth impacts
cannot be understood without taking these factors
into consideration.
Despite an urban affinity, the
creative class—perhaps more able and apt than
others in the workforce to choose where to live
based on quality-of-life considerations—can
be drawn out of cities to high-amenity rural locations.
Their activities, in turn, appear to generate new
jobs and local growth. Rural areas lack the business
and consumer services available to urban businesses
and residents, but rural areas tend to have the
upper hand in landscape, which may service the creative
temperament.
How Is the Creative Class Measured?
Richard Florida’s measure
of creative class, discussed in his book,
The Rise of the Creative Class, included occupations
that he judged to entail high levels of creativity.
In practice, this turned out to be virtually
all occupations where incumbents tend to have
high levels of schooling. ERS analysts refined
the creative class measure in two ways. First,
they used O*NET, a Bureau of Labor Statistics
data set on skills generally used in occupations,
to identify occupations in Florida’s
list that typically involve “thinking
creatively.” This skill element is defined
as “developing, designing, or creating
new applications, ideas, relationships, systems,
or products, including artistic contributions.”
Second, the analysts screened
out as many occupations as possible that typically
require high levels of creativity (such as
schoolteachers, judges, and medical doctors)
but whose numbers are proportional to the
residential population they serve. These refinements
resulted in an estimated creative class share
of the workforce of 21 percent in 1990 (23
percent in metro areas and 14 percent in nonmetro
areas), a much smaller share than the 30 percent
found using Florida’s original measure.
While by no means perfect, the amended measure
is closer than Florida’s original measure
to the
conceptual meaning of creative class. Using
Florida’s original measure, 1990-2004
job growth in nonmetro creative class counties
was 30 percent, much lower than the 44 percent
found using the revised measure. |
|