How Creative are the Super-Rich?

Abstract

his paper seeks to analyse the contribution of the 'creative industries' to the ranks of the super-rich. Rich list 2005-6 data for Australia and several other countries, indicate that while the creative industries represent only a small share of aggregate income (about five per cent) and an even smaller share of the largest national and global companies, they are disproportionately represented as generators of extreme personal wealth (about 10 per cent) and even more-so for the young rich (approximately one-third). Young fortunes are the stand-out feature of the creative industries from this perspective, and a tangible sign of their economic significance in both an open economy and an open society. The paper seeks to explain, from the evolutionary economic perspective, what this empirical finding might mean for public policy. Creative Industries The concept of creative industries originates from a disparate group of economists, economic geographers and cultural and media studies academics who have sought to unify the theories of economic, regional and cultural growth into a single opensystem analytic framework (

The rich, the affluent and the top incomes

“…Which specific sectors are favored by those powers vary according to the structure of production in each country. Science and technology development, for instance, is an important activity for the US rich (Broom and Shay, 2000) and, to some extent, for those in Australia and New Zealand (Potts, 2006). At the same time, part of the literature presents a different argument, that fortunes are predominantly made at competitive industries (Hazledine and Siegfried, 1997;Siegfried and Roberts, 1991;Siegfried and Round, 1994), but this depends on how 'competitive industry' is defined and has been subject to critique (Waldman, 1991).…”

The Rich, the Affluent and the Top Incomes: A Literature Review

“…There are studies based on rich lists from magazines and business reports defining rich as a number of the richest ordered from top to bottom, but the choice for this number does not seem to be driven by a set of principles or criteria. The 'Forbes 200', 'Forbes 400', 'Forbes 500', 'Forbes 1,115', 'Business Review Weekly 200' 'Finans 500' and 'Standard and Poor's 500' (Broom & Shay, 2000;Brzezinski, 2014;Burris, 2000;Canterbery & Nosari, 1985;Goolsbee, 2000aGoolsbee, , 2000bPotts, 2006;Siegfried & Roberts, 1991;Siegfried & Round, 1994;Stilwell & Jordan, 2007) are examples of lines that are reasonable for the purpose of studying the largest fortunes or highest paid executives, as they set an extremely high threshold, both in relative and absolute terms. Apparently, these high thresholds have been set according to data availability imperatives.…”

“…Which specific sectors are favored by those powers vary according to the structure of production in each country. Science and technology development, for instance, is an important activity for the USA rich (Broom & Shay, 2000) and, to some extent, for those in Australia and New Zealand (Potts, 2006). As a matter of fact, part of the literature argues in a different direction, that fortunes are predominantly made at competitive industries (Hazledine & Siegfried, 1997;Siegfried & Roberts, 1991;Siegfried & Round, 1994), but this depends on how "competitive industry" is defined and has been subject to critique (Waldman, 1991).…”

Social network markets: the influence of network structure when consumers face decisions over many similar choices

“…These phenomena, which Schelling (1973) described generally as "binary decisions with externalities," clearly apply generally to the creative industries (e.g., De Vany 2004, Potts 2006, Beck 2007.…”