The conditions in which creative goods are produced affect labor. In the U.S. context, Richard Caves explained that the production of creative goods is largely susceptible to basic economic properties, including commitment and devotion of labor, skills needed, product differentiation, time and demand, and costs incurred.13 However, in non-free markets and nondemocratic states, many other factors shape, foster, or dictate the conditions of how cultural labor is produced, trained, and socialized. As explained earlier, on the social level, in Asia the state plays a prominent role in driving creative industries that require appropriate types of workers. Even more directly, the state plays an active role in training and nurturing cultural labor for emerging industries. To a certain extent, cultural workers adhere to the values and worldview prescribed or controlled by the state. Even if they are not totally synchronized, in areas like Asia, workers’ innovation under the current neoliberal market is always driven by, intertwined with, and managed by the state and multinational enterprises.14
On the institutional level, the specific features of creative industries structure the know-how, attitudes, and type of creativity needed. This is not just a matter of employing talent. When cultural workers invest their time in creative industries, they internalize the norms and roles imposed by these corporations. The entire range of cultural production, from unpaid digital laborers who participate in the production of blogs and free content to paid, highly skilled cultural labor, is “channeled” and “structured” within capitalist processes of consumption and production perpetuated in multinational corporations.15
In summary, both macro and medium organizations have set boundaries for cultural labor, and hence shaped their values, lifestyles, and even political ideologies. I am not arguing that cultural labor is deprived of free will. Nor do I posit that such labor lacks “creativity,” understood in the Western context. However, rarely can the cultural labor in a particular locale go beyond the ideological boundaries of the workplace and the political or regulatory system of the regime. This chapter formulates a framework that takes into account two major dimensions: creative dependence and creativity tolerance.
In the tumultuous drive toward cultural globalization, subcontracting activities have become a key issue in creativity dependence. The less jobs are subcontracted by the creative industries, the more autonomy companies have to develop their own creativity. On the contrary, the more creative industries depend on subcontracting work, the more labor must have the professional skills and standards that the company requires. In other words, the creativity of the subcontracted labor can only be a replication or derivation of the subcontracting global companies.
The cultural, economic, and political context plays an important role in determining the motivations of cultural labor.16 In addition to financial incentives, the so-called atmosphere, or “people climate,” plays an important role in attracting talented workers to creative enterprises.17 This is further affected by the ideology of the state, which shapes the overall tenor of public attitudes toward innovation and diversity.18 From the perspective of political economy, stronger politico-economic control diminishes the creative expression in the cultural products.
