IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jculte/v37y2013i2p153-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The creative instability hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Earl
  • Jason Potts

Abstract

This paper provides an analysis of why many ‘stars’ tend to fade away rather than enjoying ongoing branding advantages from their reputations. We propose a theory of market overshooting in creative industries that is based on Schumpeterian competition between producers to maintain the interest of boundedly rational fans. As creative producers compete by offering further artistic novelty, this escalation of product complexity eventually leads to overshooting. We propose this as a theory of endogenous cycles in the creative industries. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Earl & Jason Potts, 2013. "The creative instability hypothesis," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 37(2), pages 153-173, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:37:y:2013:i:2:p:153-173
    DOI: 10.1007/s10824-012-9174-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10824-012-9174-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10824-012-9174-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adler, Moshe, 1985. "Stardom and Talent," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 208-212, March.
    2. Daniel John Zizzo, 2003. "Empirical evidence on interdependent preferences: nature or nurture?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 27(6), pages 867-880, November.
    3. A. Norman & A. Ahmed & J. Chou & A. Dalal & K. Fortson & M. Jindal & C. Kurz & H. Lee & K. Payne & R. Rando & K. Sheppard & E. Sublett & J. Sussman & I. White, 2004. "On the Computational Complexity of Consumer Decision Rules," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 23(2), pages 173-192, March.
    4. Peter E. Earl & Jason Potts, 2004. "The market for preferences," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(4), pages 619-633, July.
    5. Paulo Brito & Carlos Barros, 2005. "Learning-by-Consuming and the Dynamics of the Demand and Prices of Cultural Goods," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 29(2), pages 83-106, May.
    6. Tibor Scitovsky, 1981. "The Desire For Excitement In Modern Society," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 3-13, February.
    7. Anonymous, 1962. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 587-596, July.
    8. Magee, Gary B., 2005. "Rethinking invention: cognition and the economics of technological creativity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 29-48, May.
    9. Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "The Economics of Superstars," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 845-858, December.
    10. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    11. Earl, Peter E. & Peng, Ti-Ching & Potts, Jason, 2007. "Decision-rule cascades and the dynamics of speculative bubbles," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 351-364, June.
    12. Lanham, Richard A., 2006. "The Economics of Attention," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226468822, June.
    13. Earl, Peter E., 2001. "Simon's travel theorem and the demand for live music," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 335-358, June.
    14. Jason Potts & Stuart Cunningham & John Hartley & Paul Ormerod, 2008. "Social network markets: a new definition of the creative industries," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 32(3), pages 167-185, September.
    15. Anonymous, 1962. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 195-216, January.
    16. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Neil M. Kay, 1979. "The Innovating Firm," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-03583-0, September.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:501-511 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Throsby, David, 1994. "The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-29, March.
    20. Donata Favaro & Carlofilippo Frateschi, 2007. "A discrete choice model of consumption of cultural goods: the case of music," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 31(3), pages 205-234, September.
    21. Anonymous, 1962. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 835-844, October.
    22. Becker, Gary S & Murphy, Kevin M, 1988. "A Theory of Rational Addiction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 675-700, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McMahon, James, 2015. "What Makes Hollywood Run? Capitalist Power, Risk and the Control of Social Creativity," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 157994, March.
    2. Bianchi, Marina, 2014. "The magic of storytelling: How curiosity and aesthetic preferences work," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 8, pages 1-30.
    3. Berg, Nathan, 2014. "Success from satisficing and imitation: Entrepreneurs' location choice and implications of heuristics for local economic development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1700-1709.
    4. McMahon, James, 2022. "The Political Economy of Hollywood: Capitalist Power and Cultural Production; introduction," EconStor Open Access Book Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Hollywood: Capitalist Power and Cultural Production, pages 1-10, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    5. Bianchi, Marina, 2014. "The magic of storytelling: How curiosity and aesthetic preferences work," Economics Discussion Papers 2014-23, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    6. Brendan Markey-Towler, 2018. "Antifragility, the Black Swan and psychology," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 367-384, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brinja Meiseberg, 2014. "Trust the artist versus trust the tale: performance implications of talent and self-marketing in folk music," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(1), pages 9-42, February.
    2. Nadia Campaniello & Matteo Richiardi, 2011. "Beggar-thy-neighbor in Art Consumption: Evidence from the “Bel Paese”," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 116, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.
    3. Clément Bonnet, 2016. "Revisiting the optimal patent policy tradeoff for environmental technologies," EconomiX Working Papers 2016-34, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    4. Victor Ginsburgh, 2013. "Mark Blaug and the economics of the arts," Chapters, in: Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes, chapter 15, pages 208-224, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Anabela Santos & Michele Cincera & Paulo Neto & Maria Manuel Serrano, 2019. "How internationalization and competitiveness contribute to get public support to innovation? The Portuguese case," GEE Papers 0121, Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos, Ministério da Economia, revised May 2019.
    6. Popovic, Milenko, 2009. "Dynamic Models of Arts Labor Supply," MPRA Paper 19397, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Li, Qing & Zhang, Huaige & Hong, Xianpei, 2020. "Knowledge structure of technology licensing based on co-keywords network: A review and future directions," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 154-165.
    8. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 202-226, April.
    9. Marco Guerzoni & Massimiliano Nuccio, 2014. "Music consumption at the dawn of the music industry: the rise of a cultural fad," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(2), pages 145-171, May.
    10. Andrew T. Ching & Hyunwoo Lim, 2020. "A Structural Model of Correlated Learning and Late-Mover Advantages: The Case of Statins," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1095-1123, March.
    11. Hervouet, Adrien & Langinier, Corinne, 2018. "Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(1), January.
    12. Philippe Aghion & Stefan Bechtold & Lea Cassar & Holger Herz, 2018. "The Causal Effects of Competition on Innovation: Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 162-195.
    13. Anabela Marques Santos & Michele Cincera, 2018. "Sharing The Risk Of Innovative Investment: Assessing The Effect Of A New European Financing Instrument," Working Papers TIMES² 2018-029, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Stephan & Alice Hallman & Nils Karlsson, 2016. "The “sugar rush” from innovation subsidies: a robust political economy perspective," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 43(4), pages 729-756, November.
    15. Koutroumpis, Pantelis & Leiponen, Aija & Thomas, Llewellyn D W, 2017. "The (Unfulfilled) Potential of Data Marketplaces," ETLA Working Papers 53, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    16. Davide Antonioli & Alberto Marzucchi & Maria Savona, 2017. "Pain shared, pain halved? Cooperation as a coping strategy for innovation barriers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 841-864, August.
    17. Zhao, Dan, 2017. "Choices and impacts of cross-licensing contracts," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 389-405.
    18. Hana Ayala, 2020. "Transnational Resort: a Transformative Investment in the Global Knowledge Economy," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1573-1595, December.
    19. Kamilia Loukil, 2016. "Innovation Policy and R&D Efficiency in Emerging Countries: a Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Eastern European Business and Economics Journal, Eastern European Business and Economics Studies Centre, vol. 2(3), pages 165-192.
    20. Octavian Åžerban, 2020. "From Endogenous Growth Theory to Knowledge Economy Pyramid - Comparative Analysis of Knowledge as an Endogenous Factor of Development," Book chapters-LUMEN Proceedings, in: Marcin Waldemar STANIEWSKI & Valentina VASILE & Adriana Grigorescu (ed.), International Conference Innovative Business Management & Global Entrepreneurship (IBMAGE 2020), edition 1, volume 14, chapter 9, pages 108-128, Editura Lumen.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economics of creativity; Creative industries; Schumpeterian competition; Overshooting; D11; D21; Z11;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • Z11 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economics of the Arts and Literature

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:37:y:2013:i:2:p:153-173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.