• 創意階級的分類與統計

    昨天在若水堂順手翻閱Richard FloridaThe Flight of Creative Class翻譯本。本來以為這本書有提出什麼新觀點,看完後才知道這本書應該算做他總結與回應The Rise of the Creative Class一書所引起的討論。有趣的是,由於這本書旨在警告美國在全球人才競爭中出現危機,所以導言的部份讀起來還頗有李斯那篇諫逐客令的味道。

    另一個在翻閱時想到的問題是關於分類、統計與證明的問題。

    在RF的書裡,他其實是以「統計數字」來證明「創意階級」在就業結構上的崛起、在產值上的成長、在所得上的增加,但這些資料都建立在國家統計數字上,可國家在統計時並沒有把創意階級當作一個部門在特別處理,所以RF的作法是進入細分項,把相關(還是他覺得相關?)的類目抓出來重組。但問題是,統計數字只能給一個表象的回顧,或者一個趨勢,更多的問題(例如:怎麼界定創意階級?生產者服務業包不包括在創意階級裡?又為什麼被包括進去?)與現象是隱藏在統計數字背後的。可這些,RF沒處理。

    尤其是當統計數字可以有不同的解讀方式時,個案的討論更是重要。例如Businessweek對這本書的書評裡有這麼一段話:
    Unfortunately, even the core data Florida uses to prove his thesis explain less than he claims. To show that America's predominance is threatened, he constructs an index of the world's creative classes based on occupations that involve creative thinking. There are up to 150 million such workers in the 39 countries for which he can find reliable data. The U.S. still has the greatest number, with more than 30 million, and the greatest share of the total, at about 20%. But if you take such workers as a share of each country's own workforce, the U.S. ranks only 11th out of 39. "Far from being the world leader, we are not even in the top five," warns Florida.
    但這似乎不是致力於建立Global Creative Index的RF會想停下來處理的。

    當然,另一個RF不會關心的問題是城市政府(或者,都市政權?)在吸引人才流入時所採取的政策傾斜、預算排擠,會引發或掩藏那些社會問題。這部份,Jamie Peck有專文討論
  • You might also like

    No comments:

Powered by Blogger.