Creative Economy: Reviewing Global Political Narratives

Indonesia, as the biggest Muslim country in 2019, promoted the creative economy as a crucial entity for achieving sustainable development, as adopted in UN Resolution No. 74/198. It demonstrates the acceptance of the creative economy as an international approach to the development strategy post-pandemic COVID-19. Considering the restructuring sustainable development framework that internalized the current issue of creative economy, this paper aims to discuss the conceptualization of creative economy as a global discourse. It used a narrative literature review by combining a bibliographic analysis process in order to explore a consistent, comprehensive, and in-depth understanding of existing knowledge on the subject of the creative economy. Data sources obtained from the internet consist of Scopus and Google Scholar journal articles. The official government and international organization websites are also used to confirm the research arguments. The study examines the conceptualization of creative economy, which refers to cultural economy, cultural industry, creative industry, and cultural policy. The diffusion of ideas played by multi-actors in a networked process led to the acceptance of the creative economy as a global discourse. The United Nations has a platform role in institutionalizing the ideas and beliefs about the creative economy as a significant entity for the global development agenda.


Intrsoduction
Indonesia initiated a United Nations resolution on November 14, 2019, titled "International Year of Creative Economy for Sustainable Development, 2021."This resolution emphasizes the prominent role of the creative economy in realizing the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).A total of 81 countries supported Indonesia's proposal, believing that the creative economy can contribute positively to achieving SDGs, particularly in areas such as quality education, gender equality, economic growth, employment opportunities, decent work, reduction of inequalities, urban and settlement development, as well as sustainable production and consumption.Indonesia's initiative was accepted and adopted by the UN's Second Committee, responsible for issues of development and global economic growth, and was endorsed through UN Resolution No. 74/198 (Kemlu RI, 2020).
The proposal acknowledges the need to promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth, foster innovation, and provide opportunities, benefits, and empowerment for all while respecting all human rights.There is a need to identify sustainable contexts to support developing countries and economies in transition towards the creative industry sector, including issues of production diversification, exports, and sustainable growth.This resolution encourages all countries to pay greater attention to the creative economy in line with national priorities, to enhance awareness, promote cooperation and networking, encourage the sharing of best practices and experiences, enhance human resource capacity, promote a supportive environment at all levels, and address challenges within the creative economy (Kemenparekraf, 2021;UNESCO, 2021).This momentum highlights the restructuring of the global development agenda, in which The International Year of Creative Economy for Sustainable Development, 2021 demonstrates the international community's acceptance of the creative economy as a significant entity for achieving sustainable development.
It is interesting to highlight the creative economy as the issue in IR studies dealing with the relations between the creative industry, cultural diplomacy, and soft power that emerged post-World War II.Almost all studies acknowledge the importance of the creative industry due to its contributions to 1) increasing national income.Indonesia experiences the urgency of SMEs as the driving forces of the regional economy dealing with the management of human resources and the need for foreign investment (Amytia Resty Dwiyanti & Al Syahrin, 2018;Asfi & Daulay, 2018;Kemenparekraf, 2020;Zuliyati, 2015).As the main actor in running the policy of regional economic development, the local government is not only responsible for the improvement of tourism but also the micro-economy (Azizah & Muhfiatun, 2018;Hermawan, 2013).It is similar to India and its economic contribution to Bollywood (Eleni Merkouri Maria-Marina Metaxas Theodore, 2015;Khan & Debroy, 2002;Metaxas et al., 2016;Triphati, 2017) and Korea with its Hallyu wave (Kwon et al., 2015;Santos & Marques, 2022).
2) strengthening international partnerships.After the Cold War, nations began interacting within the international system, particularly focusing on culture.The Western world recognized this key factor and endeavored to disseminate Western culture globally, especially in the Eastern world.Cultural-based strength was embedded in international cooperation between Western and Eastern countries (Mortazavi et al., 2018).Hence, the advancement of the creative industry is believed to serve as a modality of soft power that supports a country's foreign policy interests.Regarding the roles of actors, Chinese artists in residencies in Spain have influenced diplomacy between the European Union, Spain, and China (Fernández, 2021).Similarly, the MI Project 2015 has influenced Europe's perspective on the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia through a study of the phenomenal works of Nizami Ganjavi (Samadova, 2020) 3) enhancing a country's image.The government's capacity building to strengthen its influential image is supported by media roles.India also has the All India Radio (AIR) service, which broadcasts in 27 languages to over 100 countries.According to the AIR website, the External Services' objective is to project "India's developmental and policy perspective along with its arts and culture" across Asia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK (Hall, 2013).Similarly, the Hallyu Wave stands as one form of smart power, elevating a nation's image in the international community, combating negative stereotypes, strengthening its influence globally, and advancing South Korea's national interests (Kim & Jin, 2016).Insistent incidents of Afro-phobia/xenophobia in South Africa have strained diplomatic relations between Pretoria and Abuja.Authors explore the role of various sectors within the creative industry, such as the film industry, Afro-pop music, national festivals, and cultural art groups, to enhance interactions among communities and alleviate the impacts of Afro-phobia (Ogunnubi & Idowu, 2022).
In the relationship between cultural diplomacy and soft power, several studies highlight the importance of the creative industry in efforts to build a country's image, especially as an instrument of cultural diplomacy.It has been observed in China's government experience through contemporary art (Chao & Browning, 2023) and digital comedy seen as Nigeria's soft power (Idowu & Ogunnubi, 2023), fostering identity and nationalism, thereby boosting the confidence of both domestic and diaspora communities.In case studies of India and South Korea, culture, being a significant source of soft power, has garnered serious attention from the governments through investment support and worldwide promotion.The Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) stands as an established institution for public diplomacy in cultural and academic exchanges.Founded soon after Independence in 1950, it operates 24 centers overseas and 14 regional offices in India as an extension of the government's efforts to disseminate Indian culture worldwide through diaspora services, educational scholarships, and academic exchanges (Hall, 2013;Kusumaningrum, Febriana, et al., 2023).
Music and film become the media of the internationalization of values, norms, and culture of a country, learning from the history of trade and cultural diffusion.Therefore, this work would like to recall the urgency of the state and the issue of the creative economy in the digital age, considering the 2021 creative economy for sustainable development.The existence of a digital society influences the manifestation of the creative economy in the agenda of sustainable development.It was developed by the advancement of information technology, especially Internet connections.Digital information has become a personal commodity since social media became part of the needs and lifestyles of all elements of society, especially the millennials (Kusumaningrum, 2018;Kusumaningrum, Kurniawati, et al., 2023).The development of information technology services and telecommunications businesses is driving the formation of a digital society not only as a foreign market but also as a social movement (Nur Kusumaningrum et al., 2017).Given the importance of this discussion, it is interesting to discuss how the creative economy emerged as a global discourse that eventually became a policy trend after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research Method
The research method applies to a narrative literature review.It provides a broad overview of a field, providing context, historical developments, and different points of view.These reviews can be valuable for becoming familiar with the topic, understanding its development, identifying key debates, and getting an idea of the current status of research (Baumeister & Leary, 1997;Gordon, 2018;Juntunen & Lehenkari, 2021).In a narrative review (Figure 1), there are at least five steps to arrange a comprehensive research design.First, the author explores a specific topic or research question.Secondly, it conducted literature collection to gather relevant studies, articles, and publications.Thirdly, the author summarizes and synthesizes information from these sources.Fourth, it continues with the step to analyze the findings, identify trends, patterns, and discrepancies, and offer interpretations or insights.Finally, the discussion of the implications of the findings suggests areas for further research or propose practical applications.
The author found 9 key literature sources published from 2004 to 2018, with the title and abstract relevant to the objective of the study, using the keyword "creative economy discourse" on Google Scholar (Figure 2).The researchers organize data in the form of tables or charts to visualize relationships between various variables or themes in order to identify specific patterns, trends, or correlations.Additionally, the researchers also utilize various secondary data sources, including official government and international organization websites, to confirm research findings and strengthen the validity of the results.

The conceptualization of creative economy as a global discourse
The conceptualization of the creative economy as a global discourse emphasizes the state economic development or economic governance, both at the national and subnational/regional levels, through the commercialization of culturally-based products driven by creativity and innovation.Research findings indicate that the conceptualization of the creative economy as a global discourse is consistently associated with four main clusters of discussion: cultural economy, culture industry, creative industry, and culture policy.
The discourse of the creative economy emerged as a narrative that promotes creativity and cultural industries as a solution to urban economic development issues, particularly in the context of the "creative city."This narrative presents creativity as a catalyst for urban renewal, emphasizes the significance of creative industries, and suggests that cultural activities and events can attract creative communities from abroad to settle in the city.This discourse presents creativity and cultural industries as a prescription for economic development challenges, aiming to create a more inclusive and democratically 'creative' society.Consequently, the concept of the creative economy is closely related to discussions about creative cities (Gibson & Klocker, 2004;Waitt & Gibson, 2009).
Furthermore, the discourse of the creative economy evolved into discussions and analyses surrounding the economic aspects of the creative industries.It involves understanding the economic contributions, opportunities, and challenges presented by sectors such as design, arts, media, and entertainment.This discourse explores how creativity and innovation can drive economic growth, job creation, and cultural development (Comunian, 2011;Henry & de Bruin, 2011), as well as attract investment and promote innovation (Lee, 2016).Moreover, the discourse of the creative economy refers to the framing of national culture and artistic production within the framework of economic growth, considering poverty alleviation and sustainable growth.This concept emerged in the 1990s and became a global political discourse phenomenon, taking into account poverty alleviation and sustainable growth as concepts that emerged in the 1990s and became a global political discourse phenomenon (Vickery, 2018).
Therefore, the development and promotion of the creative industry as a key component of the national economy is believed to require state intervention.Considering that the discourse of creativity is closely related to the global economy and emphasizes competition among nations, the creative economy seems to become a national renewal project aimed at enhancing a country's competitive position.Drawing from the experience of the UK government, the discourse of the creative economy is shaped by both national and international factors, reflecting the global nature of the creative industry and economic competition among nations (Schlesinger, 2007).
Some studies argued that the discourse of the creative economy emphasizes discussions and frameworks for economic development strategies that center on the production and consumption of goods and services with high symbolic value.It involves the recognition and promotion of the economic potential of creative industries, such as media, design, visual and performing arts, as well as the inclusion of fields like science, engineering, and high-tech (Grodach, 2013).This idea focuses on promoting entrepreneurship, intellectual property rights, and the trade of cultural products and services (Seoane, 2017).
Based on the research findings, the terms "creative economy" and "cultural economy" are often used interchangeably in the literature.The cultural economy refers to the economic aspects and dynamics of cultural activities, creative industries, and cultural products.This term encompasses the production, distribution, consumption, and trade of goods and services that hold cultural or creative significance.This concept recognizes the economic value generated by cultural and creative endeavors and how they contribute to economic growth, job creation, and overall societal development.The cultural economy encompasses various sectors, including creative industries, cultural tourism, cultural goods and services, intellectual property, and cultural events/festivals.
Meanwhile, the discourse of the creative economy related to the culture industry refers to the mass production and commercialization of cultural products and experiences, often with the aim of attracting a wide audience for specific gains.This concept was introduced by philosophers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in their essay "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception," published in 1944.This work offers a critical perspective on how mass media, entertainment, and cultural products can shape and control public perceptions, values, and preferences.The term "culture industry" implies that cultural production has become similar to other industrial sectors, characterized by standardized processes, predictable formulas, and a focus on generating revenue.Critics of this concept argue that mass-produced cultural content may prioritize profit over genuine artistic expression and could contribute to cultural uniformity/homogenization.
Overall, the concept of the culture industry provides a framework for analyzing how the production and consumption of cultural commodities are influenced by economic and commercial forces, shaping the values, beliefs, and identities of contemporary society.
The third key cluster is the creative industry, which refers to a range of economic activities centered around the creation, production, and distribution of creative and cultural products and services.These industries are characterized by their emphasis on deriving value from intellectual property, artistic expression, and cultural content.The concept of the creative industry acknowledges the economic potential of creativity, innovation, and cultural diversity.The relationship between the creative economy and the creative industry lies in the interplay between concept and practice.The creative economy provides a broader conceptual framework for identifying economic potential within cultural and creative activities.
On the other hand, the creative industry applies this concept in tangible forms through the production, commercialization, and distribution of creative products and services.In other words, the creative economy provides the theoretical and strategic foundation, while the creative industry represents the practical implementation of this concept.Both aspects mutually support each other to enhance economic growth, drive innovation, promote culture, and generate products and services with economic and creative value.

Demeiati Nur Kusumaningrum
Creative Economy: Reviewing Global Political Narratives

| 51
Finally, the discourse of the creative economy extends to the 'culture policy' cluster.Cultural policy refers to a set of government measures, strategies, and actions aimed at promoting and supporting cultural activities, artistic expression, heritage preservation, and creative industries within a society.Cultural policies are designed to shape the cultural landscape, foster artistic and cultural development, and ensure that cultural values and expressions are both protected and accessible to the public.

Actor and network: The process of diffusion and institutionalization
The creative economy has evolved into a global norm that the global community has accepted, supported by the role of the United Nations (UN) as a driving force in the diffusion of norms, simultaneously serving as a platform to institutionalize ideas and shared beliefs about the significance of the creative economy for the functioning of the global development agenda.The conceptualization of the creative economy indicates the diffusion of ideas/norms that are influenced by various actors within a networked process, leading to the establishment of acceptance of the global discourse.
The work of Gibson and Klocker (2004) criticizes how academics and their research are classified within the framework of the creative industries and how this classification is accepted even in regions considered marginalized, including peripheral countries.Through a reflective approach, they first perceive academics and their publications as symbols of knowledge production.Secondly, there is a circulation of academic knowledge about 'creativity' itself within the discourse of economic development.Their argument is grounded in the success of a number of 'popular' books and the lack of reflective critique in the production, distribution, and reception of ideas contained within these publications.Gibson and Klocker's (2004) writing is based on theories of (geo)politics of academic knowledge production related to the rise of the 'creative economy' narrative.
The dissemination process is referred to as a "scene," and actors considered credible are labeled as "celebrity academics."As a result, their research finds the existence of power relations over knowledge and its acceptance caused by academics and publications from the North, particularly from countries like the UK and the USA, which are deemed more superior or "global."Consequently, the freedom of knowledge production and its dissemination through international publication networks and citations, referred to as the "scene," leads to the emergence of "celebrity academics" whose works are cited, discussed, and followed more, treated as theories that are more valid and global.Academics from the Global North are seen to receive more facilities and privileges compared to academics from the Global South, who are considered more "marginalized." Meanwhile, Philip Schlesinger (2007), in "Creativity: From Discourse to Doctrine?" presents a report on the development of the creative economy discourse in the United Kingdom.
Using Fairclough's theory, Schlesinger explains that domestic politics and international pressures have influenced the evolution of UK economic policy.Since the Labour Party came to power with the election of Tony Blair in 1997, the conception of the creative economy in the UK was based on two perceptions.First, it was seen as an effort to position the UK as a single player -a "competitive nation" in the global competition through the instrument of the "knowledge economy."Second, it was a strategic response to the emergence of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), which were understood to pose a threat to the existence of creative economic activities in the UK.Thus, education and training schemes became pivotal.Second, the importance of government intervention in the market.Policy frameworks were created to establish favorable conditions for enhancing corporate performance, including creativity as an inherent part of the expected performance.
The conceptualization of creativity and the role of the younger generation as a new economic resource initially emerged from the analysis of academics who served on the National Creative and Cultural Education Board, chaired by Professor Ken Robinson from the University of Warwick.The report titled "All Our Futures" emphasized a broader view of creativity in business and education.Its arguments were socially inclusive, marketoriented, and highly related to competitiveness and government agendas.Robinson's ideas had a significant influence, with over 100,000 copies of the summary of "All Our Futures" distributed.His concepts set the context for the Creative Partnerships program in 2002, funded by the government.
The doctrine of creativity was reinforced by Sir George Cox, an expert from the University of Warwick, whom the UK Treasury appointed to conduct a review of the creative economy in 2005.Sir George has spoken at conferences on innovation and business-related topics in around 23 countries worldwide, including sessions at the World Economic Forum in Davos.He has also written for publications like The Times, Financial Times, and The Telegraph, as well as various journals.He frequently contributes to radio and television news and current affairs programs.
Cox's review identified two main areas: "building strong relationships between businesses and creative professionals, and strengthening links across university departments and industries" -"Re-engineering business."The Cox review focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which were considered to contribute 50 percent of the UK's GDP.The idea of the creative economy gained traction within academic networks, technocracy, and the financial sector, leading to the establishment of the "The Creative Economy Programme" (CEP) partnership project in the UK.
The interesting study titled "Creative Small Cities: Rethinking the Creative Economy in Place" by Gordon Waitt and Chris Gibson (2009) originates from a specific context of advocating creativity by questioning the importance of city size in discussions about creativity and the potential for creative regeneration.Research on the creative economy tends to view large cities as the epicenter of creativity.However, many workers in the 'creative' industries choose to live and work in small city centers, often overlooked.This paper aims to enhance the theoretical discourse on urban regeneration, deindustrialization, and the 'creative city model,' with a focus on the significance of place in these processes.
Applying an empirical approach through a case study of a city in Australia-Wollongong, located in New South Wales-this research demonstrates that, irrespective of the city's population size, creativity is intricately embedded, competing, and interacting in constructing narratives of place based on class heritage.Consequently, the creative class within the perspective of urban regeneration often operates in uncertain times and occasionally in surprising ways, involving both residents and community figures.Wollongong was chosen as the first city with an economic development objective centered on the cultivation of local culture.
The findings of the Waitt & Gibson (2009) study are intriguing as they delve deeper into analyzing the sources of the 'cultural industry' in Wollongong, which originates from grassroots artistic endeavors and later transforms into the creative class of the 'working class.'The researchers successfully identified the community's perception of the significance of creative industry regeneration, revealing two main clusters: creative industries perceived as masculine and, conversely, feminine.What makes this study unique is that the creative industries that emerged were situated on the coastal outskirts, away from the city center, influenced by proximity to Sydney, which facilitated trade access and provided a favorable climate for the creative class to operate.Therefore, in the case of Wollongong, the regeneration of the creative class did not stem from government design for economic development or global cultural trends.Unfortunately, there exists a gap not addressed in the Waitt & Gibson (2009) ' and Florida's (2002) 'creative class' concept, which is considered to have limited theory due to its top-down and one-size-fits-all approach.The cultural policy perspective focuses on developing assets for attraction and growth, imposing the idea that 'creative' cities require specific local assets such as cultural facilities, cultural cafes, cultural diversity, and high-tech provision.However, this theory fails to explain how the creative class interacts with these types of assets or what competitive advantages they provide.
Most policy implementations suggested by the 'creative class' theory are geared towards creating a façade that portrays the creative class residing in an appealing cosmopolitan city.Yet, the 'creative class' encompasses professions with significantly varied approaches to life and culture (Markusen et al., 2008).
It is challenging to argue that highly skilled knowledge workers in the new media sector would be interested in visiting art galleries or participating in ethnic festivals."What is not debated here is that there is intrinsic value in the 'culture' that appeals to the 'creatives'" (Pratt, 2008, p. 108).Many of Florida's indices (2002a) are based on the presence of specific assets ('hard' factors) and infrastructure, as well as specific creative professions for his 'cultural index' and 'coolness index.'Cultural infrastructure, such as museums and galleries, and nightlife and clubs are considered proxies.This paper aims to define and understand the concept of the creative city and its more recent interpretations.The research then outlines the principles and limitations of complexity theory and previous associations with the creative economy literature.The Newcastle Gateshead case study is presented, and empirical material is used to demonstrate that the 'creative city' manifests as a complex adaptive system (CAS).The research emphasizes the importance of micro-interactions and networks among creative practitioners, publicly supported cultural sectors, and urban cultural infrastructure.The presented research findings were collected over two years in Newcastle Gateshead and the North East region of England between 2004 and 2006.The methodology includes 136 interviews and data collection by analyzing the local creative/cultural professional social networks in the private, public, and non-profit sectors employing an ethnographic approach.
Unfortunately, Comunian's (2011) findings do not specifically explain the concept of a "system" that can be applied to research in other creative cities as case studies.Moreover, the justification of the "agent" only refers to artists and fails to adequately consider other societal structures in the distribution and consumption of the creative industry.Thus, for the author, the complexity theory in this research remains challenging to identify (1) among the diverse "creative class," which sectors of the creative industry are being studied?, (2) whether artists are influenced by 'hard' factors investment, which is interpreted as government-provided infrastructure?, (3) how are the relationships formed as a result of interactions between artists as agents and fans or cultural enthusiasts in the conceptualization of creative city development?
The book titled "Entrepreneurship and the Creative Economy," written by approximately 14 authors with 10 chapter titles, including an introduction by its editors Henry Collete & Anne de Bruin, was published in 2011.This book supports previous writings dominated by European or Western thoughts by emphasizing the concept of the creative economy, how to cultivate creativity through engagement in the creative industry, development policies, and educational advancements that also serve as efforts to explore strategies for sustaining the market.The writings edited by Henry & Bruin (2011) provide an overview of the situation in New Zealand, with case studies on various creative industries such as music, fashion design, and gaming.The authors adopt a methodology based on conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches, utilizing diverse social and geographic contexts to explore the nature of the creative economy.Thus, the overall presentation of this book is expected to elucidate the creative economy from the perspective of processes, policies, and practices within the global agenda.Carl Grodach's article titled "Cultural Economy Planning in Creative Cities: Discourse and Practice" (2013) discusses how a city conceptualizes and plans the "cultural economy" as a policy.Grodach's study has a narrower scope compared to Schlesinger (2007), who focused on the government of a country -the UK.The research subject is similar to that of Waitt & Gibson (2009) and Comunian (2011), which delve into the creative city model.However, Grodach doesn't just observe a single city like Waitt & Gibson (2009); it includes Austin, Texas, and Toronto, Ontario.What's most interesting is that Grodach maintains the use of the term "cultural economy" rather than "creative economy."He believes that there is no uniform definition of culture or the creative economy.The creative economy typically focuses on the production and consumption of goods and services with high symbolic value, often relying on specialized labor and intellectual property, including fields like media (film and television, magazines and book publishing, advertising), design (architecture, fashion), both commercial and non-profit, and visual and performing arts.The definition of the creative economy tends to extend to fields such as science, engineering, and high-tech sectors alongside cultural industries (Hospers, 2006).While there is debate about what constitutes cultural economy or creative economy, relating it to the city tends to complicate this definition.
Furthermore, the research by Hye-Kyung Lee (2016) stems from the emergence of the creative economy as a primary focus of economic development in Korea.The government has implemented policies to promote the creative economy, recognizing the potential for innovation, entrepreneurship, and the integration of culture and technology in driving economic growth and job creation.The successful commercialization of the country's popular culture and the establishment of the cultural industry in the 1990s also contributed to the emphasis on the creative economy.The study's findings indicate that the Korean government has implemented policies to promote the creative economy, with a focus on sectors such as technology-based industries and the cultural industry.These policies aim to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and the integration of culture and technology to drive economic growth and create new job opportunities.
However, Kyung Lee (2016), in the article titled "Politics of the 'Creative Industries' Discourse and Its Variants," does not explicitly discuss the processes of diffusion, internalization, or institutionalization of global norms, focusing solely on the discourse and policies related to the creative economy in Korea.Although the presentation mentions the transnational journey of discourse from the North to the South and from liberal democracy to transitional economics, it has been influenced by the perception of globalization as a new inevitability.
Furthermore, the research by Hye-Kyung Lee (2016) stems from the emergence of the creative economy as a primary focus of economic development in Korea.The government has implemented policies to promote the creative economy, recognizing the potential for innovation, entrepreneurship, and the integration of culture and technology in driving economic growth and job creation.The successful commercialization of the country's popular culture and the establishment of the cultural industry in the 1990s also contributed to the emphasis on the creative economy.The study's findings indicate that the Korean government has implemented policies to promote the creative economy, with a focus on sectors such as technology-based industries and the cultural industry.These policies aim to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and the integration of culture and technology to drive economic growth and create new job opportunities.
There are international norms that influence the discourse of the creative economy in Brazil, as Seoane's study (2017) proves the accuracy of the role of international institutions discussed in detail by Vickery (2018).The report titled "Creative Economy Report 2010" by UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) is mentioned as one of the influential international documents shaping the Demeiati Nur Kusumaningrum Creative Economy: Reviewing Global Political Narratives | 55 discourse of the creative economy in Brazil.This paper also highlights the influence of international organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in shaping the discourse of intellectual property rights (IPR) and the trade of the creative economy.Although this paper discusses the existence of international norms and their influence on the discourse of the creative economy in Brazil, Seoane (2017) does not delve into the mechanisms through which these norms shape the political process.
In Brazil, the national Ministry of Culture under Dilma's presidency created the Secretary for the Creative Economy position, which led to the elaboration of a national creative economy plan with guidelines for implementing the strategy at all policy levels.This plan included the stimulation of creative entrepreneurs and the mapping of the creative economy, reflecting elements of UNCTAD's proposal and considering culture as an axis of development.However, the Brazilian plan also showed discursive modifications, with a stronger focus on cultural diversity, sustainability, innovation, and social inclusion, attempting to shift the focus from purely commercial objectives towards addressing inequality issues.
Despite these intentions, the actual implementation of policies in Brazil has been criticized for being limited to stimulating creative entrepreneurs, providing a small amount of training, and establishing observatories to reinforce the policy discourse.The major success has been in institutionalizing the idea of the creative economy as a new objective for public policies.However, this has not necessarily translated into addressing the broader issues declared as objectives, suggesting that the notion of development is still predominantly restricted to 'economic growth.'Critics argue that this approach may sideline instruments that could contribute more directly to social and environmental objectives through cultural policies.
Based on Vickery's work (2018), the author understands that the emergence of the "creative economy" as a new economic framework is supported by the strengthening construction of relationships between culture, economy, and development policies in UN forums, primarily UNESCO and UNCTAD, as central actors.The discourse of "culture" as an individual attribute within their social environment is conceptualized as a "new resource" from a neoliberal perspective that benefits Western countries after World War II.Culture becomes a commodified object that contributes to the creation of more democratic welfare.Through the support of intellectuals from the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity in 2001, initially emerging as a safeguard against the domination of foreign cultures as a trend, it shifted into a strategic overview for new-style development policies that capitalize on domestic/local resources with lower investment/capital.The principles of efficiency and distribution of these new resources, referred to as "culture," found momentum in the face of competitive trade.The alliance between UNCTAD and UNESCO, along with a multitude of scholars and international NGOs, allowed the 2013 Creative Economy Report to provide corrections and slightly redirect the discourse of development with the discourse of "Creativity as a Global Policy Concept." Unfortunately, Vickery (2018) fails to explain how these global norms are internalized in the policies of developing countries.Furthermore, it leaves questions unansweredhow do the countries initiating UNESCO and UNCTAD forums take action?What are their interests in utilizing UN forums as institutions to promote the idea of the creative economy?Rather than emphasizing the role of global forums as spaces for discourse development, Vickery's (2018) writing doesn't specifically explain the relationship between actors and their interests.Thus, in understanding the global structure, how do advanced countries as actors shape power relations in the process of institutionalizing ideas so that the discourse of the creative economy can be accepted?

The state's approach to the development of the creative economy
The approach to promoting and supporting cultural and content industries in the UK and Korea has some notable differences, reflecting each country's unique cultural policy framework, economic strategies, and historical contexts.
In the UK, the concept of "creative industries" was introduced in the late 1990s, emphasizing the economic potential of sectors like music, film, art, and design.The UK's approach has been characterized by a focus on promoting the idea of creative industries itself, with an emphasis on the economic contribution of these sectors to the national economy.The UK government has supported the creative industries through various measures, including tax reliefs, funding schemes, and initiatives to foster innovation and international trade.
In contrast, Korea's approach has been more interventionist and developmental, reflecting the country's historical emphasis on state-led economic development.
The Korean government has played a significant role in steering institutional reforms and resource redistribution to support the cultural and content industries, including the enactment of the Cultural Industries Promotion Basic Law in 1999, which declared the state's responsibility for the promotion of cultural industries, ranging from media to traditional crafts and food.The definition of these industries later expanded to include various types of 'content.'Korea's focus shifted from 'cultural' to 'content' industries, as indicated by the transformation of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism's Cultural Industries Directorate into the Cultural Content Industries Directorate in 2008.The Korean government has actively promoted popular culture under the banner of 'content industries,' with a significant expansion of policy in this area taking place during a period when public policy as a whole was increasingly subject to neoliberal thinking.Despite this, the state maintained a strong leadership role and the power to deliver resources, which is a characteristic of some East Asian countries' cultural policies.
The Korean government's approach has also involved significant financial investment in the cultural industries, with spending on these sectors increasing sharply over time.The establishment of the Cultural Industries Fund in 1999 and subsequent legislation, such as the Contents Industries Promotion Law in 2010, provided a clear legal grounding for state support.Various centers and festivals were set up with support from central or local governments to provide infrastructural support to the industries.
In the case of Brazil, there are differences between the creative economy and Cultura Viva programs in their objectives, approaches to culture, and the constituents they address.These differences illustrate the contrasting visions of development and the role of culture within it, with the creative economy leaning towards the commercialization of culture and Cultura Viva emphasizing cultural access and social inclusion.
The creative economy program in Brazil emphasizes the economic benefits of culture, focusing on stimulating medium-and smallsized enterprises to generate economic growth, trade, and employment.In contrast, Cultura Viva prioritizes cultural fruition, production, and distribution, aiming to support non-profit cultural projects and address the concerns of resource-scarce groups.
The creative economy program views culture primarily as a resource for economic growth, with a focus on commercial culture and the creation of business incubators for creative economy projects.Cultura Viva, however, focuses on relations between non-profit organizations and the state, funding community culture projects and promoting networks in a bottom-up and participatory way.It also emphasizes the use of culture to contribute to citizenship and supports the dissemination of cultural practices through digital means.
The creative economy program targets formal economic actors such as medium and small enterprises and large firms within the creative industries, often ignoring resourcescarce groups.Cultura Viva, on the other hand, specifically aims its instruments at resourcescarce groups, supporting 'points of culture' and networks among them distributed across the country, including rural and peripheral urban areas.
The creative economy discourse in Brazil initially acknowledged the need to discuss and adapt IPR regimes to the specificities of

Conclusion
The creative economy refers to an economic approach that focuses on harnessing the potential of creativity, innovation, and culture as the primary resources for generating economic value.This concept acknowledges that intellectual creations, artworks, and cultural products hold significant economic potential.The creative economy involves sectors spanning various creative industries such as arts, design, media, entertainment, architecture, and more.The primary goals of the creative economy are to maximize the economic value of creative and cultural assets, stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and foster innovation.
The conceptualization of the creative economy emerged as a refinement of previously used terms like cultural economy, cultural industries, and cultural policies.The creative economy encompasses not only cultural activities but also technological innovations and other forms of creativity.Both concepts highlight the economic significance of cultural and creative activities, as well as the potential of these activities to contribute to the local and global economy.
The creative industries are acknowledged for their potential to contribute to economic growth, job creation, and cultural exchange.Often, these industries intersect with technology and innovation, as many creative products and services are now delivered through digital platforms.The concept of the creative industries also emphasizes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights to ensure that creators receive fair compensation for their work.
The state's approach to the development of the creative economy often involves a top-down strategy, where policy discourses and measures are implemented in a manner that assumes a universal model of development that can be applied across different contexts.This approach is characterized by the identification of 'deficiencies' and the subsequent implementation of policies to address these gaps, as seen in the logic of UNCTAD's report, which promotes the creative economy as a 'feasible development option.'It suggests policy instruments for 'developing countries' to follow.Governments and organizations worldwide are increasingly supporting and investing in the creative industries as a means to promote economic development, facilitate cultural expression, and drive innovation.The growth of the creative industries has been enabled by technological advancements and shifts in consumer behavior, making creative products and services more accessible to a global audience.
Thus, the acceptance of creative economy by global communities as an international norm originates from the recognition of the validity of the contexts presented in United Nations reports, particularly those produced by UNCTAD and UNESCO, over the years, which continue to unfold in global forums.It has subsequently been internalized as an idea worth pursuing, thereby motivating more strategic policy research for development performance in developing countries.Moreover, Western countries, such as the British and the United States, have previously harnessed the framework of the creative economy for their national policies, setting good practices to be followed.Their policy frameworks that institutionalize the 'creative economy' as a new resource are regarded as 'something appropriate' and propagated as a global development concept.Instead of intending to provide a recipe for developing nations to compete in what is criticized as an unfair global market, developed countries have actually benefited from the trading system of cultural products intertwined with intellectual property ownership (IP).
This study relies on narrative literature analysis based on document analysis, which is naturally limited to the perspectives of academics.There is a need for research that can balance the viewpoints of bureaucracy and practitioners within creative economy policies.Considering that the policy implementation in
Brazilian creative workers.However, it later ceased support for Creative Commons after expanding to the national level.Cultura Viva, conversely, speaks of creative commons, copyleft, and other ways of sharing cultural productions that oppose the traditional IPR regimes.