Arctic Yearbook 2014 - Page 152

152 Arctic Yearbook 2014 economic and social shifts that allow inventing or adopting new knowledge (Bassanini & Dosi 2001). Schienstock (2007) argued that a window of new opportunities is opened up by a combination of a new knowledge paradigm, economic pressures to adapt to the new paradigm, change events that support transformation and available courses of action. Some of these ‘change events’ are in place in the Arctic: a pressure to foster sustainable development, new technological opportunities, the effects of globalization, regional self-determination and the devolution of power. However, a critical and necessary component of change is the agents of transformation (Schienstock 2007). Human agency is a key transformative factor. Agents of transformation can be political institutions, firms or non-governmental organizations. However, in the end, the agents of change are individuals and their groups who ‘make’ the innovation history of the region (Bassanini & Dosi 2001). Creative capital (CC) may be defined as a stock of creative abilities and knowledge(s) embodied in a group of individuals who either possess high levels of education and/or are engaged in creative (scientific, artistic, entrepreneurial or technological) types of activities (i.e “the creative class” (Florida 2002)). So far, there is only limited evidence of the creative class’s transformative role in the periphery. The importance of creative individuals in innovative processes in remote regions has been highlighted in a number of studies from different regions (Aarsæther 2004; Ferrucci & Porcheddu 2006; Hayter et al. 1994; Petrov 2008, 2011; Hall & Donald 2009; McGranahan et al. 2010; Stolarick 2012). Some researchers observed that less favorable business and social environments of the periphery amplify the importance of creativity and require individual innovators and firms to be more creative than in the core (Aarsæther 2004; North & Smallbone 2000; Petrov 2011). More recently, a formal analysis by McGranahan & Wojan (2007) and McGranahan et al. (2010) indicated that major conceptual links between the creative class and economic development exist in American non-metropolitan settings. It is difficult to argue that the creative capital in the peripheral northern communities can make them successful in competing with national and global innovation powerhouses, but it is plausible to suggest that the availability of this factor improves the prospects for future economic transformation and development. This, however, remains the subject of the ongoing research. A necessary first step involves empirical studies of the nature and spatial distribution of creativity in the Arctic. Methodology Much of the creative capital literature is devoted to developing measures to quantify the creative capital. A chosen set of indicators (Table 1) consists of two groups: measures of the creative capital and a proxy of the knowledge sector (Tech Pole Index). The indicators follow the four sector approach proposed by Petrov (2007) and incorporate measure of four types of creative capital: scientists, bohemians, entrepreneurs and leaders, as well as the Talent Index that measure educational attainment beyond bachelor’s degree. Indices used for four types of creative capital are based on occupational statistics (Table 1). The indicators are defined as location quotients (Petrov 2008). The Tech Pole Index (TPI) is used as a proxy of a community’s specialization in high technology sectors Petrov