Creativity global index report martin inst. sep 2011

Creativity
and Prosperity:
The Global
Creativity Index

The Martin Prosperity Institute (MPI) is the world’s leading think-tank
on the role of sub-national factors—location, place, and city-regions—
in global economic prosperity. It takes an integrated view of prosperity,
looking beyond traditional economic measures to include the importance
of quality of place and the development of people’s creative potential.

AbouT The AuThors

richard Florida is director of the Martin Prosperity Institute and professor of
business and creativity at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
(florida@rotman.utoronto.ca).

Charlotta Mellander is research director of the Prosperity Institute of Scandinavia,
Jönköping International Business School (charlotta.mellander@ihh.hj.se).

Kevin stolarick is research director of the Martin Prosperity Institute, Rotman School
of Management, University of Toronto (kevin.stolarick@rotman.utoronto.ca).

Kimberly silk helped with sourcing and references.

Zara Matheson produced the maps.

Michelle hopgood designed the graphics.

Creativity
and Prosperity:
The Global
Creativity Index

Martin Prosperity Institute
January 2011

exhIbITs

Exhibit 1 The global R&D investment map 4
Exhibit 2 The global researchers map 5
Exhibit 3 The global innovation map 6
Exhibit 4 The global technology map 7
Exhibit 5 The global human capital map 8
Exhibit 6 The global Creative Class map 9
Exhibit 7 The global talent map 10
Exhibit 8 The global racial and ethnic openness map 11
Exhibit 9 The global openness to gays and lesbians map 12
Exhibit 10 The global tolerance map 13
Exhibit 11 The Global Creativity Index map 14
Exhibit 12 Top 25 overall Global Creativity Index rankings 15
Exhibit 13 The GCI and economic output (correlations) 17
Exhibit 14 The GCI and economic output 18
Exhibit 15 The GCI and global competitiveness (correlations) 19
Exhibit 16 The GCI and global competitiveness 19
Exhibit 17 The GCI and entrepreneurship (correlations) 20
Exhibit 18 The GCI and entrepreneurship 21
Exhibit 19 The GCI and inequality (correlations) 22
Exhibit 20 The GCI and income inequality 23
Exhibit 21 The GCI and human development (correlations) 23
Exhibit 22 The GCI and human development 24
Exhibit 23 The GCI and happiness (correlations) 25
Exhibit 24 The GCI and happiness 25
Appendix A Global technology rankings 32
Appendix B Global talent rankings 34
Appendix C Global Creative Class rankings 36
Appendix D Global tolerance rankings 38
Appendix E Overall Global Creativity Index rankings 40

ii | Creativity and Prosperity: The 2010 Global Creativity Index

ConTenTs

executive summary iv

Introduction 1

Part 1: The Global Creativity Index rankings 2
Creativity and the 3 Ts of economic development 3
The global technology maps 4
The global talent maps 7
The global tolerance maps 10
The Global Creativity Index 14

Part 2: Creativity and sustainable Prosperity 16
Global creativity and economic output 17
Global creativity and economic competitiveness 18
Global creativity and global entrepreneurship 20
Global creativity and economic inequality 21
Global creativity and human development 22
Global creativity and happiness 24

Conclusion 27

Appendix 28
Methodology, variables, and data 28
Global technology rankings 32
Global talent rankings 34
Global Creative Class rankings 36
Global tolerance rankings 38
Overall Global Creativity Index rankings 40

references 42

Acknowledgments 45

www.martinprosperity.org | iii

exeCuTIve suMMAry

The economic crisis has challenged popular conceptions of economic growth, both in terms of what
it is and how to measure it. While engendering growth and bolstering competitiveness remain high
on the agenda, immediate attention has shifted to creating jobs, lifting wages, addressing inequality,
and fostering long-term, sustainable prosperity. This new edition of the Global Creativity Index (GCI),
which we first introduced in 2004, provides a powerful lens through which to assess these issues.
The GCI assesses the prospects for sustainable prosperity across 82 nations according to a com-
bination of underlying economic, social, and cultural factors that we refer to as the 3 Ts of economic
development—Technology, Talent, and Tolerance. It also compares the GCI to a series of other metrics
of competitiveness and prosperity—from conventional measures of economic growth to alternative
measures of economic equality, human development, and happiness and well-being.

Our key findings are as follows:
overall ranking:
Sweden takes first place on the GCI, maintaining the top position it held in our 2004 edition. The
United States takes second place, improving its earlier fourth place finish. Finland takes third place,
followed by Denmark in fourth, Australia in fifth, and New Zealand in sixth. Canada takes seventh
place together with Norway; Singapore and the Netherlands round out the top ten. Despite their rapid
economic rise, the BRIC nations still do not crack the upper tiers of the GCI: Russia ranks 31st, Brazil
46th, India 50th, and China 58th.
Creative Class:
The Creative Class—made up of workers in fields spanning science and technology, business and
management, healthcare and education, and arts, culture, and entertainment—is a driving force
in economic growth. The Creative Class makes up 40 percent or more of the workforce in 14 nations.
Singapore has the highest creative ranking, followed by the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, Swe-
den, Belgium, Finland, Norway, and Germany. Canada ranks 12th, with 40.84 percent of its workforce
in the Creative Class, and the United States ranks 27 th, with 34.99 percent.
Technology:
Technology is a key factor in economic progress. From new inventions like software, robotics, and
biotechnology to improvements in manufacturing systems and processes, technology makes econo-
mies and societies more efficient and productive. We assess technological capacity through three
measures: research and development spending, R&D workforce, and patented innovations. Finland
takes the top spot in technology, followed by Japan in second place, the United States in third, Israel
in fourth, and Sweden in fifth. Canada ranks 11th.

iv | Creativity and Prosperity: The 2010 Global Creativity Index

Talent:
There is a broad consensus that the ability to generate, attract, and retain skilled and enterprising
people—talent—is essential to sustained economic success. We measure a country’s talent as a com-
bination of two factors: its average levels of educational attainment and the percentage of its work-
force in the Creative Class. Scandinavian countries leap to the top, with Finland and Sweden
taking first and second place, Denmark in fourth, and Norway sixth. Singapore ranks third, with
New Zealand in fifth and Australia in seventh. The United States is eighth, just ahead of Greece and
Slovenia in the ninth and tenth spots. Canada ranks 17 th.
Tolerance:
Tolerance is the third key factor in economic growth and prosperity. The ability to attract both talent
and technology turns on openness to new ideas and openness to people. We measure tolerance as a
combination of two variables, based on Gallup surveys of openness to ethnic and racial minorities and
openness to gays and lesbians. Canada takes the top spot, followed by Ireland, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, and Australia. Spain, Sweden, the United States, Uruguay and the United Kingdom round
out the top ten.
Creativity and Prosperity:
We compared the 3 Ts metrics and the GCI to established measures of economic and social progress.
The GCI is closely associated with conventional measures of economic output and economic competi-
tiveness. And it is also associated with broader measures of human development and life satisfaction
or happiness. Nations that score better on the 3 Ts not only have higher levels of economic output but
also higher levels of human development and happiness. We also find that the GCI is associated with
greater economic equality—nations which score higher on the GCI have less inequality. Our find-
ings suggest that there are two distinct paths available to greater economic competitiveness. On the
one hand, there are nations like the United States and the United Kingdom, where higher levels of
economic output and competitiveness occur alongside higher levels of inequality. On the other hand,
there are a greater number of nations like Sweden and Norway, where high levels of economic output
and competitiveness occur alongside far greater equality. This suggests a high-road path to sustain-
able prosperity, where the fruits of economic progress are broadly shared.

www.martinprosperity.org | v

Creativity global index report martin inst. sep 2011

InTroduCTIon to social inclusion, public health, and sustainable transporta-
tion—providing a more robust gauge of economic and social
progress. As our economy begins its slow recovery from its
gravest crisis in generations, it’s essential that we seek not just
to hasten the return of short term growth but to lay the founda-
tions for sustainable, long-term prosperity.
Our research takes up this effort to broaden both our under-
standing and our measures of economic and social well-being.
The first part of this report presents our rankings of 82 nations
on the GCI, which takes three main classes of economic inputs
The economic crisis has challenged popular
into account: Technology, Talent and Tolerance (described in
conceptions of economic growth. Fueled by
greater detail below). We also examine the relationship of these
overly risky financial speculation and outright
three classes of factors and the overall index to a series of mea-
chicanery at times, the pursuit of short-term
sures of economic and social progress, ranging from conven-
profits led some of the world’s most advanced
tional measures of economic growth and competitiveness to
and affluent economies to the brink of collapse
broader measures of economic equality, human development,
and to the prospect of years, possibly decades,
and subjective well-being. Our methodology, data sources, and
of intractable unemployment and stagnation.
variables are laid out in detail in the appendix to this report.
We learned the proverbial hard way that the
unbridled pursuit of economic growth does
not always go hand in hand with rising living
standards. While engendering growth and bol-
stering competitiveness remain on the agenda,
attention has shifted to creating jobs, lifting
wages, addressing inequality and fostering
long-run, sustainable prosperity.
This latest edition of the Global Creativity
Index (GCI) addresses these challenges head-
on, helping to shift the dialogue from a nar-
row focus on competitiveness and growth to
a broader focus on creativity, prosperity and
well-being. Our research is part of a broader
challenge to the way we understand economic
growth and development. Over the past decade
or so, a growing number of students of econo-
mic progress have concluded that we need to
improve the frameworks, language and metrics
that we use to gauge society’s overall wealth,
and that we need better measurements of hu-
man development, well-being, and happiness.
One notable high-level effort was under-
taken by French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s
blue-ribbon Commission on the Measurement
of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
Chaired by the Nobel Prize winning econo-
mists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, the
commission’s report challenged conventional
measures of economic growth and develop-
ment [1]. “What you measure affects what you
do,” noted Stiglitz at the release of the commis-
sion’s report. ”If we have the wrong metrics,
we will strive for the wrong things.” [1] The
commission proposed a range of additional
measures of social and economic well-being—
from socioeconomic development, sustainable
consumption, production, and development,

www.martinprosperity.org | 1

section 1:
The Global Creativity
Index rankings

2 | Creativity and Prosperity: The 2010 Global Creativity Index

CreATIvITy And The Technology
3 Ts oF eConoMIC Long recognized as a key driver of wealth and progress,
technology is the first essential factor. Karl Marx and later
develoPMenT Joseph Schumpeter recognized that advances in technology
are what enable capitalism to constantly revolutionize itself [4,
9]. “Capitalism not only never is but never can be stationary,”
Schumpeter wrote in 1942, as the Great Depression transi-
tioned into a full-blown war economy [9]. In the late 1950s,
Robert Solow devised a mathematical formula to capture
technology’s role as a driving force in economic growth,
for which he received the Nobel Prize in economics [10].

Following Adam Smith, classical economists Talent
identified three key factors of production as
Talent is the second key factor. Starting in the 1960s, Peter
the foundations of economic development:
Drucker and Fritz Malchup detailed the economic importance
land, labor, and capital [2–4]. But physical
of knowledge [11, 12]. Knowledge workers not only invent new
factors alone no longer determine progress in
machines that turn out old products more efficiently—they
today’s modern, advanced economies, where
come up with completely new products that create whole new
factors like technology, innovation, knowl-
markets. Paul Romer’s theory of endogenous growth, with its
edge, and human capital play much greater
corollary that investment in R&D and education yield tangible
roles. Underpinning all of them is the role of
returns over the long term, formalized this phenomenon [13].
creativity. Economic growth and development
The generation of new knowledge thus becomes the key driver
turns on harnessing human creativity across
of economic growth. While knowledge is something that can be
the entire spectrum of innovation through
codified, creativity and the creation of new ideas, knowledge,
production—from the creation of new tech-
and technologies comes from people. Economists agree that
nologies and new firms to new and improved
skilled, ambitious, and entrepreneurial people—who they refer
processes, more efficient manufacturing and
to as “human capital”—are a central force in economic progress
production systems, and increasing effective-
today [14–16].
ness in the delivery of services.
Creativity differs in a fundamental way
from more traditional, tangible factors of
Tolerance
production like land or raw materials: it is Tolerance is the third factor in the ranking of economic prog-
not a stock of things that can be depleted or ress. While most economists tend to see technology and talent
worn out, but an infinitely renewable resource as stocks of endowments, the reality is that they are flows. The
that can be constantly improved. Everyone is ability to identify the economic and non-economic factors that
potentially creative. Our future progress and account for these flows is essential to an understanding of eco-
prosperity depends not just on the efforts of a nomic progress. People are not forever-wedded to one place;
privileged knowledge elite but on how well we they can and do move around. The technology and talent that
can unleash the creativity of each and every they bring with them are mobile factors, and accordingly flow
human being. into and out of cities and regions and nations.
Creativity is mobile and portable—people
can and do move. But, it is almost always as- New ideas are generated most efficiently in places where dif-
sociated with specific places, as Jane Jacobs ferent cognitive styles are tolerated—and different cognitive
has shown [5, 6]. Places—countries, cities, styles are linked to demographic diversity, as economist Scott
regions—bring together the key inputs from Page has shown [17]. Openness to diversity is also in line with
diverse groups of people to the firms and the broad cultural shift from materialist values about money
institutions that shape economic and social and things to newer “post-materialist” values, which favor self-
progress. For these reasons, place has come expression and a wider quest for happiness and well-being,
to replace the corporation as the key economic as identified by Ronald Inglehart [18–20]. Tolerance—open-
and social organizing unit of our time. ness to diversity—provides an additional source of economic
The GCI offers a new, more unified way advantage which works alongside technology and talent. The
to assess the key inputs that drive long-term places that are most open to new ideas and that attract talented
economic prosperity based on what we have and creative people from across the globe broaden both their
elsewhere dubbed the “3 Ts of economic devel- technology and talent capabilities, thereby gaining a substantial
opment,” Technology, Talent and Tolerance economic edge.
[7, 8].


The 3 Ts of economic development work together in mutually We assess national technological capacity
reinforcing ways. Any one “T” is a necessary but in itself insuffi- through the use of three measures:
cient condition for economic success. For a nation or region
1. the financial resources devoted to
to effectively compete in the creative economy, all 3 Ts have
research and development as a share
to work together. This is precisely what the GCI measures—
of total economic output;
the interaction of these 3 Ts—and as such it provides us with a
2. the share of human resources devoted
powerful leading indicator of the key ingredients for long-term
to R&D, measured as the share of the
economic prosperity.
total labor force made up of researchers;
and
3. patents granted per capita, the conven-
The GlobAl TeChnoloGy MAPs tional measure of innovation. If the first
two measure critical inputs to the pro-
Technology is a key factor in economic progress. From
cess of technology generation, the third
new inventions like software, robotics and biotechnology
is a measure of innovative output.
to improvements in manufacturing systems and processes,
technology makes economies and societies more efficient The Global R&D Investment Map (exhibit 1)
and productive. shows how nations stack up on research invest-

The global R&D investment map Exhibit 1

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1st 80th


Global Technology—Technion university, Israel
ment. Israel is in first place, followed by
After years of discussion and related activities and with Albert Ein-
Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Switzerland.
stein’s deep involvement, Technion University was founded in
The United States, South Korea, Germany,
1924 in Haifa, Israel. Its first graduating class was 16 students
Denmark, and France round out the top ten.
who majored in either Civil Engineering or Architecture. By 2010,
Canada ranks 13th.
Technion had awarded 90,604 degrees. Technion graduates
We now turn to our second measure of
comprise the majority of Israeli-educated scientists and engi-
technology—The Global Researchers Map
neers and over 70% of the country’s founders and managers of
(exhibit 2), which measures researchers per
high-tech industries. Israel is home to the greatest concentration
capita. Now Finland takes top place, followed
of high-tech start up companies anywhere outside of the Silicon
by Sweden, Japan, Singapore, and Denmark
Valley—many started by Technion graduates. High-tech industry
to make up the top five. Norway, the United
now accounts for more than 54% of Israel’s industrial exports,
States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand
and over 26% of the country’s total exports. Nine out of every
round out the top ten.
1,000 workers are engaged in R&D, nearly double the rate of the
Our third measure of technology, The Global
United States and Japan. Seventy-four percent of managers in
Innovation Map (exhibit 3), assesses innova-
Israel’s electronic industries hold Technion degrees.
tive output, which we measure as patents per
capita. The United States takes first place, http://www1.technion.ac.il/en/about

The global researchers map Exhibit 2

Rank
10 20 30 40 50
1st 60th


followed by Japan, Switzerland, Finland, and Israel. Sweden, The United States ranks third, finish-
Germany, Canada, Denmark and Hong Kong round out the ing sixth in R&D investment and seventh
top ten. in researchers, but solidly in first place for
The Global Technology Map (exhibit 4) puts all three of the innovation. With its infrastructure for entre-
technology measures together to show how the world’s nations preneurial venture capital finance in Silicon
stack up on an overall index of technology. Valley and elsewhere, the United States has
Finland takes the top spot overall, ranking first in researchers, seen a long list of high-tech startups turn
third in R&D investment, and fourth in innovation. Home to into global giants, including Microsoft, Apple,
Nokia and many innovative small firms, Finland is an acknowl- Google, and Yahoo.
edged leader in innovative communications technology. Israel’s fourth place rank might come as
Japan takes second place, ranking fourth in R&D invest- a surprise to some, considering its small size,
ment, third in researchers, and second in innovation. Japanese but it ranks first in R&D investment. Israel
companies have not only consistently pushed the technology has the highest concentration of engineers in
envelope, they have followed through, building reliable, sub- the world—135 per 10,000 people, compared
sequent generations of products, from high quality cars to flat to 85 per 10,000 people in the United States.
panel displays. A recent book by Dan Senor and Saul Singer,

The global innovation map Exhibit 3

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1st 80th


Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Eco- The GlobAl TAlenT MAPs
nomic Miracle shows how Israel has pursued
a technology strategy based on launching new We turn now to the second T, talent. There is a broad consensus
innovative firms [21]. that a country’s ability to generate, attract, and retain skilled
Sweden takes fifth place and Switzerland, people will be a key factor in its future economic success.
Denmark, Korea, Germany and Singapore We measure talent as a combination of two factors. The
round out the top ten. Canada ranks 11th. first is the conventional measure of human capital based on
While much has been made of the ascen- educational attainment. The second is a measure of the Creative
dance of the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, Class, which includes workers in fields such as technology,
and especially India and China—generally, science, and engineering; business, management, and finance;
they do not rank highly on our technology design and architecture; arts, culture, entertainment, and
measure. The highest ranking BRIC nation media; law, healthcare, and education.
is Russia, in the 28th spot. China ranks 37 th, We begin by looking at how nations stack up on the first of
about the same as Latvia and Bulgaria. Brazil our talent measures, global human capital (exhibit 5), which
takes 48th place and India 49th, just behind charts the level of educational attainment. Human capital is
Serbia and Croatia. measured as the share of the population in the proper age group

The global technology map Exhibit 4

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1st 80th


Global Talent—singapore and higher education
Singapore is home to five public universities: the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore Management University, the Singapore University of Technology and Design, and the
Singapore Institute of Technology. Additionally, SIM University (UniSIM) provides university education to
working professionals and adult learners.
Singapore is also home to several specialized private universities. The University of Chicago Booth School
of Business offers an Executive MBA. DigiPen Institute of Technology provides university education and
training in game software engineering. ESSEC Business School is a major player in international manage-
ment education. The German Institute of Science and Technology-TUM Asia is a subsidiary of Technische
Universität München and provides a variety of engineering and technical degrees. The INSEAD-Wharton
Alliance combines INSEAD’s resources with those of Wharton’s to deliver business education and research
across a global learning network. The S P Jain Institute of Management & Research offers an Executive
MBA programme and a Global MBA programme conducted jointly from both the campuses in Dubai and
Singapore. At the Tisch School of the Arts Asia, students have the opportunity to earn a Master of Fine Arts.
UNLV Singapore offers a fully accredited Bachelor of Science Degree in Hotel Administration as well as an
Executive Masters Degree in Hospitality Administration.
http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/post-secondary/

The global human capital map Exhibit 5

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1st 80th


that has engaged in tertiary education. While in the Creative Class. Aside from Singapore, which takes the
Finland takes the top spot with 90.8 percent top spot, and Australia in fourth place, the map is dominated
and South Korea takes second (89.8 percent), by Scandinavian and Northern European nations: The Neth-
there are several surprises among the top erlands (46.2 percent), Sweden (43.9 percent), Switzerland
ten, notably Greece in third place, Slovenia in (44.8 percent), Belgium (43.8 percent), Denmark (43.7 percent),
ninth, and Latvia in tenth. New Zealand, Swe- Finland (43.4 percent), Norway (42.1 percent), and Germany
den, the United States, Norway, and Denmark (41.6 percent).
round out the top ten. Canada ranks 21st. Canada ranks 12th with 40.8 percent of its workforce in the
The global Creative Class map (exhibit 6) Creative Class. With 35 percent of its workforce in the Creative
illustrates how nations stack up on Creative Class the United States ranks 27 th, just behind Slovakia and
Class membership. The range is quite large, Hong Kong (both 35.2 percent). Of the BRICs, Russia ranks
from 47.3 percent on the high end to 2.4 highest at 20th (38.6 percent). Brazil is 57 th (18.5 percent), and
percent on the low end. Fourteen countries China 75th (7.4 percent).
have 40 percent or more of their workforce The global talent map (exhibit 7) shows how nations rank

The global Creative Class map Exhibit 6

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1st 80th


on our overall Talent Index. There are dramatic differences The GlobAl TolerAnCe MAPs
between this list and the global technology map. The Scandina-
vian countries are at the top with Finland and Sweden taking We now come to the third T, Tolerance.
first and second place; Denmark and Norway are in fourth and Courting divergent ideas and inputs isn’t
sixth place. Singapore ranks third, with New Zealand in fifth just a matter of political correctness—it’s
and Australia in seventh. The United States is eighth, just ahead an economic growth imperative. Openness
of Greece and Slovenia in the ninth and tenth spots. Canada to different types of people and different life-
ranks 17 th. Of the BRICs nations, Russia ranks highest at 13th, styles generally goes along with openness to
with Brazil in 66th, India in 75th, and China in 76th place. different cognitive styles. Places that welcome
diversity foster creativity.
We measure tolerance as a combination
of two variables, both taken from the Gallup
World Poll. The first is the percentage of re-
spondents who believe that the city or area
where they live is a good place for ethnic and
racial minorities to live. The second is the

The global talent map Exhibit 7

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1st 90th


percentage that answers that the city or area Sweden, South Africa, and Singapore (81 percent), United King-
where they live is a good place for gay and dom (79 percent), and Uruguay and Hong Kong (77 percent).
lesbian people to live. Previous research has We now turn to the global openness to gays and lesbians map
shown that openness to gays and lesbians is (exhibit 9). The Netherlands takes the top spot, with 83 percent
associated with higher levels of both regional of residents surveyed reporting their location is a good place for
and national economic performance [22, 23]. gay and lesbian people. Canada is second (77 percent), followed
We begin with the global racial and by Spain (75 percent). Ireland and Uruguay are next (both with
ethnic openness map (exhibit 8), which 70 percent). Belgium (67 percent), Australia and Sweden (66
charts national rankings on openness to percent), Denmark (65 percent), and the United Kingdom (63
racial and ethnic minorities. Canada takes percent) round out the top ten. The United States
first place, with 91 percent of its residents is found in 12th place.
surveyed reporting that their location is The global tolerance map (exhibit 10) plots how nations
open to racial and ethnic minorities. New stack up on our overall Tolerance Index. Canada takes the top
Zealand takes second spot with 87 percent, spot. Ireland ranks second. The Netherlands ranks third: it is
followed by Ireland (85 percent), Australia the only country among the top five that is more open to gay
(84 percent), the United States (83 percent), and lesbian people (83%) than to racial and ethnic minorities

The global racial and ethnic openness map Exhibit 8

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1st 80th


The global openness to gays and lesbians map Exhibit 9

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1st 80th

(73%). New Zealand ranks fourth, followed by nearby Austra-
lia in fifth place. Both have open immigration systems and
have made it a priority to attract foreign talent. For example,
Peter Jackson’s Park Road Post film studio in Wellington has
attracted not just movie makers but software experts, market-
ers, writers, musicians, and other creative people from all over
the world.
Spain, where the Zapatero administration made tolerance
and openness a priority, is in sixth place, followed by Swe-
den. The United States ranks eighth, perhaps reflecting recent
increases in anti-immigrant sentiment and social conservatism
toward gays and lesbians. Uruguay is in ninth place and the
United Kingdom rounds out the top ten.


The global tolerance map Exhibit 10

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1st 90th

Global Tolerance—uruguay
Located in the southern part of South America on the Atlantic coast between Brazil and Argentina, Uruguay,
among the smallest countries on the continent, has been dubbed “The Switzerland of South America.”
It has earned this title for several reasons. The administrations of President Jose Batlle in the early 20th
century established widespread political, social, welfare and economic reforms that established a socialist
tradition. Its banking laws have many similarities to its Alpine cousin. The country has an eclectic society
which showcases a rich European heritage, a broad variety of artistic and cultural attractions, and one of
the most progressive educational systems in the region. While many Uruguayans identify themselves as
“white,” their lineages include Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Mestizo, Amerindian, and African-Uruguayan
elements. Spanish is the official national language, although Portuguese, Brazilero (a Spanish-Portuguese
mix), English, French, German, and Italian are spoken widely in the Montevideo metropolitan area. While
representing less than 1% of the total population, Jews, mostly in Montevideo, make up one of the largest
Jewish communities in South America. Half of the country’s population lives in Montevideo, and 92% of
the country’s population is living in an urban area. Uruguay is popular among travelers from the Western
Hemisphere and Europe.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uy.html


The GlobAl CreATIvITy Index MAP— We have now seen how nations stack up
on each of the 3 Ts of economic development
brInG IT All ToGeTher and on the GCI. But how do these scores relate
to economic growth and competitiveness, and
We now bring it all together. The Global Creativity Index map
to broader measures of happiness, well-being,
(exhibit 11) combines all of the previous 3 T measures into
human development, and longer-run prosper-
one overarching metric of a nation’s long-term creativity and
ity? We turn to this issue next.
prosperity potential.
Sweden takes first place overall, maintaining the top position
it held in the 2004 edition of the GCI. The United States takes
second place, improving its earlier fourth place finish. Finland
takes third place, followed by Denmark in fourth, Australia in
fifth, and New Zealand in sixth place. Canada takes seventh
place together with Norway. Singapore and the Netherlands
round out the top ten. Rounding out the top twenty are Belgium,
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, Germany,
Spain, Taiwan, Italy, and Hong Kong. Israel ranks 25th. Of the
BRIC nations, Russia ranks highest on the GCI, at 31st, followed
by Brazil in 46th, India in 50th, and China in 58th place.

The Global Creativity Index map Exhibit 11

Rank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1st 90th


Top 25 overall Global Creativity Index rankings Exhibit 12

ToTal Rank CounTRy TeChnology TalenT ToleRanCe global CReaTIvITy Index

1 Sweden 5 2 7 0.923

2 United States 3 8 8 0.902

3 Finland 1 1 19 0.894

4 Denmark 7 4 14 0.878

5 Australia 15 7 5 0.870

6 New Zealand 19 5 4 0.866

7 Canada 11 17 1 0.862

7 Norway 12 6 11 0.862

9 Singapore 10 3 17 0.858

10 Netherlands 17 11 3 0.854

11 Belgium 16 12 13 0.813

12 Ireland 20 21 2 0.805

13 United Kingdom 18 19 10 0.789

14 Switzerland 6 22 20 0.785

15 France 14 23 16 0.764

15 Germany 9 26 18 0.764

17 Spain 24 28 6 0.744

18 Taiwan — 32 21 0.737

19 Italy 26 18 23 0.707

20 Hong Kong 22 37 12 0.691

21 Austria 13 30 35 0.663

22 Greece 38 9 37 0.638

22 Slovenia 23 10 51 0.638

24 Serbia 28 35 27 0.614

24 Israel 4 20 66 0.614


section 2:
Toward sustainable Prosperity


The economic crisis has brought us face-to-face • Do more creative nations generate higher levels
with the fact that unbridled economic growth of happiness for their residents?
does not necessarily equal sustainable pros- To get at this we examine the relationship between
perity. Economists have been seeking fuller the GCI and a comprehensive measure of global
frameworks and better metrics with which to happiness or subjective well-being provided by the
evaluate the underpinnings as well as the path Gallup Organization’s World Poll.
to longer-run, more sustainable prosperity.
This report is in line with this broader effort.
In that light, we now examine the relationships The GCI And eConoMIC ouTPuT
between our measure of underlying creativity,
the GCI, and a series of measures of economic Let’s begin with the relationship between global creativity
and social progress. We structure our inquiry and the standard measure of economic output—gross domestic
around four key questions. product per capita. The figure below (exhibit 13) shows the cor-
relation between the GCI and each of the measures for the 3 Ts.
• Are more creative societies also
With a correlation of 0.84, the GCI is closely associated
more productive and competitive?
with gross domestic product per capita. Of the 3 Ts, talent has
Here we look at the association between
the strongest relationship to GDP (0.78), followed by technol-
the GCI and standard measures of eco-
ogy (0.72), and tolerance (0.63). It is interesting that when the
nomic output and competitiveness, like
three are combined in the GCI the correlation is considerably
gross domestic product and the World
stronger (0.84). This shows how the 3 Ts work together and
Economic Forum’s Global Competitive-
how nations scoring high in all three enjoy higher material
ness Index.
standards of living.
• Are creative societies more or less exhibit 14 shows the broad relationship between the GCI and
equal than their counterparts? gross domestic product per capita. The line fits extremely well;
Here we look at the relationship there are only a few extreme outliers at the top and the bottom
between the GCI and measures of of the chart. Clearly, the relationship between the GCI and gross
socio-economic inequality. domestic product per capita is quite close.
Nations above the fitted line have higher gross domestic prod-
• Are more creative nations associated
uct per capita than their GCI scores would predict, while those
with higher levels of human develop-
below the line have lower economic output than predicted. On
ment more generally?
the one hand, the United States, Norway, Switzerland, Japan,
Here we compare the GCI to a broad mea-
Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Israel, Austria, Germany, and
sure of human development, the United
Korea all have levels of gross domestic product per capita which
Nation’s Human Development Index.
are slightly higher than their GCI scores would predict. On the
other hand, Canada, the Netherlands, Finland, Australia, and

The GCI and economic output (correlations) Exhibit 13

Talent

Tolerance

Technology

Global Creativity Index

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Correlation with Economic Output (GDP per capita)


New Zealand have levels of gross domestic product per capita exhibit 15 shows the correlation between
which are slightly lower than their GCI scores would seem the Global Competitiveness Index and the
to warrant. Perhaps more significantly, very low GCI scores GCI, as well as each of our 3 T indices. The
appear to be associated with even lower levels of economic out- GCI is closely associated with the Global Com-
put per capita, as the cases of Nicaragua, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, petitiveness Index (with a correlation of 0.79).
Uganda, and Madagascar indicate. The correlations are also substantial for each
of the 3 Ts—led by Technology (0.82), then
Talent (0.66), and Tolerance (0.59).
The GCI And eConoMIC CoMPeTITIveness exhibit 16 shows the broad relationship
between the GCI and the Global Competitive-
We now turn to the relationship between the GCI and a well- ness Index. Though still fairly strong, the
established measure of global competitiveness—the Global relationship between the GCI and the Global
Competitiveness Index developed by Harvard professor Competiveness Index is not as pronounced as
Michael Porter for the World Economic Forum. The Global it is with gross domestic product per capita—
Competitiveness Index is a comprehensive measure of overall there is more “scatter” about the line. On the
competitiveness and included factors associated with economic one hand, the United States, Singapore, Swit-
output, innovation, efficiency, and business climate among zerland, the United Kingdom, Japan, Hong
others [24]. Kong, Germany, and Denmark all perform

The GCI and economic output Exhibit 14
Estonia
Lithuania Hong Kong
Uruguay Austria Denmark
Argentina Greece Norway
Cyprus Israel Singapore
11.0 Chile
Poland Portugal
Japan
Netherlands
Ireland
Slovakia Switzerland
Malaysia Germany
Brazil
South Africa
Macedonia
10.0 Kazakhstan
Panama
Romania
Trinidad and Tobago
Saudi Arabia

Mexico
9.0 Egypt
Peru
Turkey
Economic Output

Azerbaijan
Jamaica
Thailand
El Salvador
8.0 Iran
Sweden
United States
Finland
Canada
Paraguay Australia
New Zealand
Indonesia Belgium
7.0 United Kingdom
China France
Honduras Armenia Spain
Italy
Ukraine Slovenia
India Republic of Korea
Philippines Hungary
6.0 Viet Nam Georgia Serbia
Pakistan Ecuador Czech Republic
Cambodia Bolivia Latvia
Sri Lanka Russian Federation
Kyrgyzstan Croatia
Uganda Bulgaria
5.0 Mongolia Nicaragua R 2 Linear = 0.701
Madagascar

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0


Note: Economic Output measured as log of grossas log of gross domestic product per capita
Note: Economic Output measured domestic product per capita.


The GCI and global competitiveness (correlations) Exhibit 15

Talent

Tolerance

Technology


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Correlation with Global Competitiveness Index

The GCI and global competitiveness Exhibit 16
Republic of Korea
Hungary
Portugal
Japan
Czech Republic
Estonia
United Arab Emirates
Costa Rica
Lithuania
Poland Sweden
Cyprus United States
6.0 Chile
Malaysia
Finland
Denmark
South Africa Singapore
Slovakia Netherlands
Brazil Switzerland
India United Kingdom
Panama Germany
China France
Mexico Taiwan
Egypt Hong Kong
Sri Lanka Austria
Peru
Turkey
Global Competitiveness Index

Trinidad and Tobago
5.0 Thailand
Saudi Arabia

Azerbaijan
Indonesia
Canada
Australia
Viet Nam El Salvador New Zealand
Norway
4.0 Belgium
Ireland
Spain
Ukraine Italy
Jamaica Romania Israel
Honduras Kazakhstan Slovenia
Macedonia Greece
Philippines Serbia
Georgia Russian Federation
Armenia Latvia
Ecuador Croatia
Bolivia Uruguay
Pakistan Madagascar Kyrgyzstan Bulgaria
3.0 Cambodia Paraguay Uganda Argentina R 2 Linear = 0.616
Mongolia Nicaragua

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0



The GCI and entrepreneurship (correlations) Exhibit 17

Talent

Tolerance

Technology


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Correlation with Entrepreneurship

better in terms of competitiveness than their GCI scores would
lead one to expect. Canada performs just slightly better than its
GCI scores predict. China and India both perform significantly The Global
better on competitiveness than their GCI scores suggest they
entrepreneurship Monitor
should. On the other hand, New Zealand, Ireland and Spain
perform lower on competitiveness than their GCI scores would The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) is
seem to predict. a not-for-profit academic research consortium
whose goal is making high quality information
on global entrepreneurial activity available to
The GCI And enTrePreneurshIP as wide an audience as possible. GEM is the
largest single study of entrepreneurial activity
Joseph Schumpeter long ago showed how innovation and in the world. Started as a partnership between
entrepreneurship come together to set in motion the “creative London Business School and Babson Col-
destruction” that drives economies forward. Some 20 per- lege, it was initiated in 1999 with 10 countries.
cent of the Fortune 500 companies were founded in the last GEM 2010 is currently conducting research in
thirty years, including Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon. 59 countries. The research program, based
Entrepreneurship is an integral component and a key driver on a harmonized assessment of the level of
of economic growth and prosperity. national entrepreneurial activity for all partici-
To get at this, we employ a new measure: the Global Entre- pating countries, involves exploring the role of
preneurship Index, which covers 54 nations worldwide [25]. entrepreneurship in national economic growth.
The index shows the wide disparity in entrepreneurial activity Systematic differences continue, with few
across the nations of the world. Canada, Israel, and the United highly entrepreneurial countries reflecting low
States have the highest levels of entrepreneurial activity, while economic growth. There is, further, a wealth of
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, and Japan have the low- national features and characteristics associ-
est. One in every twelve workers in the United States is involved ated with entrepreneurial activity. The program
in a start-up company, as compared to fewer than one in 67 creates both individual national papers and
persons in Finland, according to the study. an annual global report. Over 120 scholars and
exhibit 17 shows the correlation between the Global Entre- researchers are actively participating in the
preneurship Index and the GCI as well as each of our 3 T indices. GEM project.
Of the 3 Ts, Talent has the strongest relationship to the Global
http://www.gemconsortium.org
Entrepreneurship Index (0.74), followed by Tolerance (0.71), and
Technology (with a weaker correlation of 0.55). The correlation


for the overall GCI (0.81) is the strongest, The GCI And InequAlITy
again showing the combined strength of the
3 Ts working together. We now turn to the relationship between global creativity and
exhibit 18 shows the broad relationship inequality. Some would argue that the shift to a creative knowl-
between the GCI and the Global Entrepre- edge-based economy exacerbates levels of inequality. High-
neurship Index. The fit is good but there are a paying, family supporting manufacturing jobs have declined
large number of countries above and below the and the labor market has split into higher-pay, higher-skill
line. On the one hand, New Zealand, Australia, knowledge and professional jobs on the one hand, and lower-
Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and pay, lower-skill service jobs on the other. A series of studies
Hong Kong all perform better on the Global documents the growth in income inequality in the United
Entrepreneurship Index than their GCI scores States. According to data from the Congressional Budget Office
would predict. Canada is just slightly above released in June, 2010, average after-tax incomes for the top one
the fitted line, while the United States, perhaps percent of American households rose by 281 percent between
surprisingly, is just below it. On the other hand 1979 and 2007. This compares to increases of 25 percent for the
Germany, France, Belgium, and Singapore have middle fifth of households and 16 percent for the bottom fifth
lower levels of entrepreneurial activity than (all figures are adjusted for inflation) [26].
the GCI would predict.

The GCI and entrepreneurship Exhibit 18

Sweden
New Zealand
Australia

0.8 Finland
Denmark
Canada
Netherlands
Norway

0.7 Italy
Hong Kong
Austria
Slovenia

0.6 Portugal
United Arab Emirates United States
Latvia
Chile
Kazakhstan Poland
Romania Malaysia
Philippines
0.5 China
Mexico
Peru
Entrepreneurship

Ireland
United Kingdom
0.4 Switzerland

Belgium
Turkey
Jamaica
0.3 France
Germany Singapore
Thailand Spain
Iran Hungary
Greece
Indonesia Israel
Serbia
0.2 Croatia
Czech Republic
Macedonia Japan
Bolivia Uruguay
Ecuador Argentina
Egypt South Africa
0.1 Uganda Brazil R 2 Linear = 0.658

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0



But is this the case across nations? Does increasing creativ- European countries, including Sweden, Den-
ity necessarily lead to increased economic inequality? To get mark, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and
at this, we examine the relationship between the GCI and a Germany. Japan is represented as well. Among
standard measure of income inequality—the Gini Index. the less developed nations, we find high levels
exhibit 19 shows the relationships between income inequal- of inequality in South American nations like
ity and the GCI overall as well as each of the 3 T indices that Paraguay, Bolivia, Panama, Brazil, Honduras,
comprise it. While this may come as a surprise for those familiar Ecuador, and Argentina. Of the BRIC nations,
with the case of the United States, we find that the GCI is in fact China, Russia and particularily Brazil all ex-
systematically associated with lower levels of socio-economic hibit much higher levels of inequality than
inequality—and hence greater equality—across the nations of their GCI scores would predict.
the world. There appears to be two distinct paths avail-
Each and every one of the correlations between the GCI and able to high creative development: for every
the Gini is negative. The correlation between inequality and high-creativity, high-inequality nation there is
the overall GCI is −0.43. The Gini is also quite negatively asso- a high-creativity, low-inequality counterpart.
ciated with Technology (−0.47) and Talent (−0.52) but much This is a likely reflection of these countries’
less so with Tolerance (−0.06 and not statistically significant). differing levels of social welfare. Though more
This last is a bit surprising as one might expect more tolerant systematic study is needed before we can draw
societies to be more equal on balance. That said, we believe the any firm conclusions, this finding gives us rea-
overall finding of a negative association between creativity and son for optimism; at the same time, it suggests
inequality to be an important one, for it implies that the general that sustainable, long-term prosperity requires
trajectory of economic development is associated with lower a significant investment in education and skill
levels of inequality. development. This is the topic to which we
exhibit 20 is a scatter-graph which plots the association now turn.
between the Gini measure of income inequality and the GCI
for the nations of the world. The fit is not especially good and
there are lots of countries above and below the line. This sug- The GCI And huMAn
gests that there are two distinctive paths for high creativity
countries. On the one hand, there are countries like the United
develoPMenT
States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and to a lesser extent,
What is the connection between creativity
Australia and New Zealand, where high levels of creativity,
and human development? To get at this,
productivity and economic competitiveness go hand in hand
we explore the association between the GCI
with higher levels of inequality. But there are also a substantial
and the United Nations’ Human Development
number of countries where high levels of creativity, competi-
Index [27]. “People often value achievements
tiveness and productivity combine with much lower low levels
that do not show up at all, or not immediately,
of inequality. These are largely Scandinavian and Northern

The GCI and inequality (correlations) Exhibit 19

Talent

Tolerance

Technology


−0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0

Correlation with Income Inequality


The GCI and income inequality Exhibit 20

India
Georgia
Philippines R 2 Linear = 0.185
Panama
Bolivia
Ecuador
China Portugal
70 Peru Russian Federation
Mexico Costa Rica
Uganda Estonia
Turkey Latvia
El Salvador Uruguay
Honduras Argentina
Paraguay South Africa
60 Brazil
Chile
Income Inequality

United States
Nicaragua Greece Australia
Malaysia
Jamaica Israel New Zealand
50 Madagascar Singapore
Canada
Netherlands
Ireland
United Kingdom
Switzerland
France
40 Spain
Cambodia Italy

Viet Nam Kazakhstan
30 Armenia
Romania Belgium
Egypt Croatia
Pakistan Kyrgyzstan Germany
Indonesia Trinidad and Tobago Bulgaria Austria
Mongolia Slovakia Slovenia Sweden
Sri Lanka Poland Hungary Finland
20 Azerbaijan Lithuania Czech Republic Denmark
Thailand Ukraine Japan Norway

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0


Note: Income Inequality measured as a Gini Index. a Gini Index
Note: Income Inequality measured as

The GCI and human development (correlations) Exhibit 21

Talent

Tolerance

Technology


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Correlation with Human Development Index


in income or growth figures,” wrote Mahub ul Haq, founder significantly worse on Human Development
of the UN Human Development Report [27]. The UN Human Index than its GCI score would seem to war-
Development Index takes a wide variety of human development rant. Four less-developed nations—Cambodia,
factors into account, from health conditions and life expectancy Pakistan, Madagascar, and Uganda—lag signif-
to education levels and standards of living. icantly on Human Development when their
exhibit 21 shows the associations between the Human GCI score is taken into account.
Development Index and the GCI, as well as each of the 3 T
indices that comprise it. The overall GCI is closely associated
with the Human Development Index (the correlation is 0.82). The GCI And hAPPIness
Since the Human Development Index includes a measure of
education, we would expect it to be strongly associated with This leads us to a final question: What is the
our talent index (and it is, with a correlation of 0.83). But it relationship between global creativity and
is also correlated with technology (0.63) and tolerance (0.57). overall happiness? There is considerable
exhibit 22 plots the GCI against the Human Development ongoing debate concerning the relation-
Index for the nations of the world. The fit is good, with outliers ship between economic development and
mainly at the lower left hand quadrant of the graph—among subjective well-being. Much of this debate
the least developed nations of the world. has revolved around the effects of money
The United States performs considerably less well on the or material well-being on happiness. It was
Human Development Index than its GCI score would predict; initially found that the relationship between
Canada performs slightly better. Of the BRICs, India performs income and happiness only holds within, and

The GCI and human development Exhibit 22

Greece Australia
Japan Norway
Israel Canada
Republic of Korea Netherlands
Czech Republic Ireland
Estonia Switzerland
1.0 Macedonia United Arab Emirates France
Romania Lithuania Spain
Panama Poland
Kazakhstan Cyprus
Mexico Slovakia
Trinidad and Tobago Chile Sweden
Ecuador Malaysia Italy United States
0.9 Thailand Peru Hong Kong Finland
Jamaica Turkey Austria Denmark
Saudi Arabia Slovenia New Zealand
Iran Hungary Singapore
Belgium
United Kingdom
Human Development Index

0.8 Serbia
Germany

Viet Nam Portugal
Indonesia Brazil Latvia
Ukraine Russian Federation
Armenia Costa Rica
Georgia Croatia
0.7 Philippines Uruguay
China Argentina
Bolivia Bulgaria
Egypt Nicaragua
Sri Lanka South Africa
Kyrgyzstan
Mongolia
0.6 Azerbaijan
El Salvador India
Honduras
Paraguay
Pakistan
Cambodia
0.5

Uganda
Madagascar

0.4 R 2 Linear = 0.666

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0



The GCI and happiness (correlations) Exhibit 23

Talent

Tolerance

Technology


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Correlation with Life Satisfaction

The GCI and happiness Exhibit 24

9.0
Panama
Romania Denmark
Kazakhstan Finland
Mexico Norway
Ecuador Netherlands
8.0 Trinidad and Tobago Ireland
Bolivia Switzerland
Peru
Turkey Portugal Austria United Kingdom
Thailand Czech Republic
Jamaica Costa Rica Greece
7.0 Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Israel Italy

Cyprus Sweden
Brazil United States
Life Satisfaction

Malaysia

El Salvador Poland
6.0 Viet Nam
Honduras Chile
Paraguay France
Germany
Spain
Iran
Taiwan
Hong Kong Singapore
Indonesia
Japan Australia
5.0 Slovenia New Zealand
Republic of Korea Canada
Hungary Belgium
India Serbia
China Croatia
Armenia Russian Federation
Philippines Estonia
4.0 Pakistan
Macedonia Latvia
Georgia Uruguay
Cambodia Egypt Argentina
Sri Lanka Lithuania
Kyrgyzstan Slovakia
Uganda Nicaragua
Mongolia Bulgaria
3.0 Azerbaijan South Africa
R 2 Linear = 0.551
Madagascar Ukraine

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0



not across countries, the so-called “Easterlin effect” [28]. More
recent econometric studies by Angus Deaton [29] and Betsey
Stevenson and Justin Wolfers [30], based on new data collect-
ed worldwide by the Gallup Organization, have challenged this
view, finding that income exerts strong effects on happiness
across the board. Carol Graham seeks to square this analyti-
cal circle, calling attention to the paradox of the “happy peasant
and the miserable millionaire,” suggesting that while people
can adapt to be happy at low levels of income, they are far less
happy when there is uncertainty over their future wealth [31,
32]. Some have gone so far as to suggest that life satisfaction
and well-being be utilized to supplement more conventional
measures of economic output like Gross Domestic Product.
John Helliwell [33, 34], Joseph Stiglitz [1], Ed Diener [35], and
Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch [36], among others, have
made the case for a measure of Gross National Happiness.
We examine the relationship between the GCI and a compre-
hensive measure of happiness and life-satisfaction collected by
the Gallup Organization’s World Poll [37]. The World Poll covers
roughly 150 nations and measures life satisfaction using a stan-
dard set of core questions which ask individuals to rank their
satisfaction with aspects of their life in real time.
exhibit 23 shows the associations between well-being or life
satisfaction and the overall GCI as well as the 3 T indices that
comprise it. Life satisfaction is approximately equally related to
all 3 Ts, with only a slightly stronger relation to Tolerance
(0.66), followed by Talent (0.65) and Technology (0.65). The
overall GCI is closely associated with life satisfaction (a correla-
tion of 0.74). Once again, we note that the association is consid-
erably stronger when the 3 Ts are combined into the overall GCI
measure. This again illustrates the power of the 3 Ts working
together to condition higher levels of life satisfaction and well-
being.
exhibit 24 plots the GCI against life satisfaction. The fit is
reasonably good, with outliers mainly at the bottom quadrants
of the graph—that is, among the less developed nations. The
relationship between the GCI and life satisfaction is strongest
among the more advanced nations. Denmark, Finland, the
Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Canada
have higher levels of life satisfaction than their GCI scores
would predict. The United States has a level of life satisfac-
tion that is roughly in line with its GCI score. Singapore, the
United Kingdom, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Korea have lower
levels of life satisfaction than their GCI scores would predict.
Among the BRICs, Brazil has a significantly higher level of life
satisfaction than its GCI score would predict, while Russia’s is
considerably lower. Both India and China have lower levels of
life satisfaction than the GCI would predict.


ConClusIon Creative Class makes up only 7.4 percent of China’s workforce.
Our measures of global creativity are also closely associated
with both established and alternative metrics of economic and
social progress. Nations which score high on the GCI have higher
levels of economic output, entrepreneurship, and overall econo-
mic competitiveness. Nations that invest in creativity and that
achieve on the 3 Ts of economic development also have higher
levels of human development, life satisfaction, and happiness.
Our study also helps us better understand the relationship
between creativity, economic progress, and inequality. Nations
In the wake of the economic crisis of 2008,
which score high on the GCI have on balance greater levels of
economists have been rethinking conventional
equality. While some countries, like the United States and the
conceptions of economic growth—not only how
United Kingdom, achieve high GCI scores alongside relatively
best to measure it but what exactly it is. Though
high levels of inequality, in general elevated levels of global
the challenges of job creation and the restora-
creativity are associated with lower levels of inequality. This
tion of competitiveness remain high on most
suggests that the old notion that it is large disparities in income
policy-makers’ agendas, broader questions
that create the incentives and motivations that drive economic
about how best to foster long-run, sustainable
progress is no longer valid; at the same time it outlines a high-
prosperity while addressing the issue of eco-
road path to prosperity, where the fruits of economic progress
nomic inequality are also of vital importance.
are broadly shared. Looking forward, sustained economic prog-
To get at this, we have examined 82 nations
ress can no longer tolerate the waste of human talent, but must
through the lens of the Global Creative Index
increasingly turn on the full development of each and every
(GCI), which reflects three key factors that
human being.
shape long-run economic prosperity: Technol-
ogy, Talent, and Tolerance. Then we system-
atically examined the relationship between
the GCI and a series of measures of economic
and social progress, including conventional
measures of economic output and competi-
tiveness and broader measures of inequality,
human development, and happiness.
Sweden takes first place on the GCI. The
United States is second, followed by Finland,
Denmark, and Australia. Canada ranks eighth.
New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and the
Netherlands round out the top ten. There have
been some notable changes in rankings since
our initial version of the GCI in 2004. Though
Sweden retains its place at the top of the list,
the United States has moved up to the second
position from fourth, Australia has moved from
twelfth to fifth, New Zealand from 18th to sixth,
and Canada from 11th to eighth.
What’s most notable is that four of the top
ten positions are occupied by Scandinavian
countries. Australia and New Zealand, which
have made attracting talent a priority, have
dramatically improved their positions as well.
Despite their rapid economic rise, the BRIC
nations still do not crack the upper tiers on the
GCI: Russia ranks 31st, Brazil 46th, India 50th,
and China 58th. The creative class, a key force
in economic growth, makes up more than 40
percent of the work force in 40 nations. Of the
BRIC, only Russia comes close, with 38.6 per-
cent of its workforce in the Creative Class. The


APPendIx

MeThodoloGy, vArIAbles, And dATA
The data in this report cover 82 nations for the period 2000 to 2009. Note that we use different years
for different variables, and sometimes utilize running averages, depending on data availability. The
following describes the main variables and data sources used in this report.

TeChnoloGy
We use three variables for technology: R&D investment, research, and innovation.

Global r&d investment
This measures R&D spending as a share of GDP. It is adapted from World Development Indicators
of the World Bank. It is defined as “current and capital expenditures on creative work undertaken
systematically to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humanity, culture, and
society, and the use of knowledge to devise new applications. R&D covers basic research, applied
research, and experimental development.”

Global researchers
This variable measures professional researchers engaged in R&D per million capita. It is adapted
from World Development Indicators and covers the years 2000 to 2005. Professional researchers
are defined as “professionals engaged in conceiving of or creating new knowledge, products, processes,
methods, and systems and in managing projects concerned. Postgraduate students at the doctoral
level (ISCED97 level 6) engaged in R&D are considered researchers.”
The World Development Indicators are published by The World Bank on a yearly basis. The data
is reported for 127–146 different countries depending on the year. However, since countries do not
always report on an annual basis, we use averages for several years. This results in higher numbers
of observations and also smoothes out extreme values. [38].

Global innovation
This variable measures patents granted per capita. It is adapted from the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) and covers the years 2001–2008. US patents are a reasonable proxy for
global innovation as inventors from around the world file for patent protection in the United States
and the USPTO tracks inventors’ national origins. We count the number of granted US patents for
each nation in the world. [39].


The technology index
The Technology Index combines all three of these variables in a single measure. The overall Technol-
ogy Index is based on a principal component analysis, where the correlations between the overall
index and the three constituent measures are as follows: Global R&D Investment (0.878), Global
Researchers (0.894), and Global Innovation (0.943) with patents per capita. In other words, the over-
all technology score is based on the value for each sub-variable, and not its ranking. We estimate the
index for countries with missing values by running regressions based on the variables for which we do
have values. The R2s for these regressions are as follows: 0.535 for Global R&D Investment, 0.588 for
Global Researchers, and 0.702 for Global Innovation.

TAlenT
We employ two measures of talent: human capital and Creative Class population.

human capital
The human capital variable is based on the standard measure of educational attainment. Specifically
we use data on the rate of enrollment in tertiary or post-high school education from the World Devel-
opment Indicators. The data is reported to the UNESCO Institute by national education agencies.
Tertiary education is defined as “a wide range of post-secondary education institutions, including
technical and vocational education, colleges, and universities, whether or not leading to an advanced
research qualification, that normally require as a minimum condition of admission the successful
completion of education at the secondary level.” The data cover the years 2004 and 2006 and are
based on annual school surveys, normally conducted in the beginning of the year, and do not therefore
reflect dropouts or actual attendance.

Creative Class
The creative class variable is based on data from the International Labour Organization [40] and covers
the years 2004–2007. It is calculated as the share of a country’s labor force that is engaged in a higher
degree of problem solving in their everyday work. It includes occupations such as computer science and
mathematics; architecture, engineering; life, physical, and the social sciences; education, training, and
library science; arts and design work, entertainment, sports, and media; and professional and knowl-
edge work occupations in management, business and finance, law, sales management, and healthcare.

The talent index
The Talent Index combines these two variables in a single index which is based on a principal component
analysis, where the correlations are 0.872 for the Creative Class variable and the Human Capital vari-
able respectively. In other words, the overall talent score is based on the value for each sub-variable and
not its ranking. We estimate missing values through a regression analysis, which generates an R2 value
of 0.501.


TolerAnCe
We employ two measures of tolerance; both are from the Gallup Organization’s World Poll. [37]

Tolerance toward ethnic and racial minorities
The survey asks “Is your city or area a good or bad place to be in for ethnic and racial minorities?”
Our variable scores the share of the respondents who said their place is a good place. The value is
for the year 2009.

Tolerance toward gays and lesbians
The survey asks “Is your city or area a good or bad place to be in for gay and lesbian people?” Our
variable scores the share of the respondents who said their place is a good place. Again, the value
is for the year 2009.
The Gallup World Poll survey is based on approximately 1,000 interviews per country (adjusted
depending on population size) which are conducted in approximately 150 countries. The sample
represents roughly 95 percent of the world’s adult population and is stratified proportionally, with the
distribution of the population across cities and rural areas of different sizes. (For more information
about the sampling procedure, see: http://www.gallup.com/consulting/worldpoll/108082/Sampling.
aspx). The target population is all civilian, non-institutionalized, and ages 15 years or older. For more
information about the methodology, see: http://www.gallup.com/consulting/worldpoll/108079/
Methodological-Design.aspx).
These tolerance measures differ from those used in the earlier version of the Global Creativity
Index that was presented in Richard Florida’s The Flight of the Creative Class [8], which were based
on variables from the World Values Survey. The new measures represent an improvement across two
dimensions. First and foremost, the newly available Gallup World Poll data provides a better, more
direct measure of tolerance. And second, the World Poll data covers a larger number of countries.
That said, these two sets of variables are closely correlated. Our Gallup World Poll measure of Racial
and Ethnic Tolerance is correlated at .501 with our earlier tolerance measure, while the Gallup Gay
and Lesbian Tolerance measure is correlated at 0.822 with our earlier measure.

The tolerance index
The Tolerance Index is based on the two measures above. The two are equally weighted into a factor
where both correlate at 0.92. We estimate missing values based on a regression analysis, which gener-
ates an R2 value of 0.432.

The GlobAl CreATIvITy Index
To create the final Global Creativity Index, we constructed the talent, technology and tolerance
variable based on principle component analysis. In other words, each of the scores are based on
the actual performance and not the rank of each individual variable. We thereafter ranked each of
the 3 T variables, with the highest number to the best performer. We added the ranks together and
divided by three. In the case where we had a value for just two of the three variables, these two were
added and divided by two. To get the Global Creativity Index score, the average score of the 3 Ts were
divided by the number of observations overall.


eConoMIC And soCIAl ProGress MeAsures
We employ the following measures of economic and social progress in our analysis.

economic output /GdP per capita
We employ the conventional measure of economic output: GDP per capita. The data are from World
Development Indicators for the year 2005. [38].

Global competitiveness index
We use the Global Competitiveness Index developed by Michael Porter for the World Economic Forum.
It is based on the following categories: basic requirements (including institutions, infrastructure, mac-
roeconomic stability, and health and primary education), efficiency enhancers (including higher edu-
cation and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market sophistication,
technological readiness, and market size), and innovation factors (including business sophistication
and innovation). [24].

Global entrepreneurship index
This variable is based on the Global Entrepreneurship Index developed by Zoltan Acs and Laszlo
Szerb. The index consists of several measures of entrepreneurial attitudes, activity, and aspiration,
and covers the years 2004–2008. [25].

Income inequality
This variable is based on the standard measure of an Income Inequality—a Gini Index. The Gini
Index measures the distribution of incomes in a nation, ranging from 0 to 100 where 0 represents
absolute equality and 100 absolute inequality. This variable is from the World Bank’s World Develop-
ment Indicators for the year 2007 [38].

human development index
This variable is based on the United Nations Human Development Index, a composite measure which
aims to capture three dimensions of human development: health and measured life expectancy, edu-
cation level, and standard of living. We employ the 2009 index, which is based on data from 2007 [27].

happiness/ life satifaction
This variable is from the Gallup Organization’s 2009 Gallup World Poll. It is representative of 95
percent of the world population, and is based on telephone surveys and face-to-face interviews which
pose this question: “Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to ten at the
top. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you, and the bottom
represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally
feel you stand at this time, assuming that the higher the step the better you feel about your life, and
the lower the step the worse you feel about it? Which step comes closest to the way you feel?” Our
variable is the national average rank of life satisfaction [37].


Global technology rankings* Appendix A

COUNTRY R&D INVESTMENT RESEARCHERS INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY INDEX

Finland 3 1 4 1
Japan 4 3 2 2
United States 6 7 1 3
Israel 1 — 5 4
Sweden 2 2 6 5
Switzerland 5 11 3 6
Denmark 9 5 9 7
Republic of Korea 7 16 — 8
Germany 8 13 7 9
Singapore 11 4 11 10
Canada 13 9 8 11
Norway 18 6 18 12
Austria 12 14 13 13
France 10 15 16 14
Australia 17 8 17 15
Belgium 14 17 15 16
Netherlands 16 18 12 17
United Kingdom 15 — 14 18
New Zealand 25 10 20 19
Ireland 23 19 19 20
Russian Federation 22 12 36 21
Hong Kong 41 26 10 22
Slovenia 20 22 22 23
Spain 29 21 23 24
Czech Republic 21 27 26 25
Italy 27 34 21 26
Estonia 33 20 30 27
Serbia 19 — 59 28
Croatia 24 28 31 29
China 26 39 — 30
Lithuania 36 23 34 31
Portugal 35 24 35 32
Hungary 32 30 24 33
Ukraine 28 — 50 34
Uganda 30 — 72 35
Slovakia 44 25 39 36
Poland 45 29 44 37
Greece 39 32 33 38
Latvia 47 31 42 39
Bulgaria 46 33 41 40


COUNTRY R&D INVESTMENT RESEARCHERS INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY INDEX

Brazil 31 43 46 41
India 38 36 27 42
Costa Rica 51 — 28 43
Azerbaijan 55 — 65 44
South Africa 34 46 32 45
Armenia 61 — 51 46
Georgia 62 — 45 47
Chile 40 41 55 48
Romania 50 35 52 49
Kyrgyzstan 65 — 66 50
Turkey 37 44 54 51
Philippines 68 — 56 52
Trinidad and Tobago 69 — 40 53
Malaysia 42 45 25 54
Argentina 48 37 37 55
Peru 70 — 61 56
Jamaica 73 — 49 57
Honduras 76 — 64 58
Cyprus 53 40 29 59
Kazakhstan 60 38 63 60
Macedonia 56 42 62 61
Mexico 49 49 — 62
Uruguay 59 47 48 63
Thailand 58 48 47 64
Panama 52 54 53 65
Bolivia 57 53 67 66
El Salvador — 57 60 67
Viet Nam 64 52 70 68
Sri Lanka 67 51 58 69
Madagascar 63 59 71 70
Paraguay 71 55 69 71
Ecuador 72 58 57 72
Pakistan 66 56 — 73
Indonesia 74 50 — 74
Cambodia 75 60 — 75

*missing values for countries: Egypt, Iran, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and United Arab Emirates.


Global talent rankings Appendix B

COUNTRY HUMAN CAPITAL CREATIVE CLASS TALENT INDEX

Finland 1 8 1
Sweden 5 5 2
Singapore — 1 3
Denmark 8 7 4
New Zealand 4 14 5
Norway 7 9 6
Australia 12 4 7
United States 6 27 8
Greece 3 29 9
Slovenia 9 22 10
Netherlands 24 2 11
Belgium 22 6 12
Russian Federation 13 20 13
Latvia 10 23 14
Estonia 16 15 15
Lithuania 11 28 16
Canada 21 12 17
Italy 18 16 18
United Kingdom 23 11 19
Israel 26 13 20
Ireland 25 19 21
Switzerland 35 3 22
France 27 17 23
Republic of Korea 2 51 24
Hungary 20 24 25
Germany 31 10 26
Ukraine 14 31 27
Spain 15 34 28
Poland 19 30 29
Austria 32 21 30
Czech Republic 33 18 31
Taiwan — 33 32
Slovakia 46 25 33
Portugal 28 41 34
Serbia — 38 35
Argentina 17 62 36
Hong Kong 50 26 37
Bulgaria 41 35 38
Croatia 39 37 39
Kazakhstan 30 42 40
Egypt 48 32 41
Costa Rica — 43 42


COUNTRY HUMAN CAPITAL CREATIVE CLASS TALENT INDEX

Cyprus 47 36 43
Bolivia 45 — 44
Japan 29 63 45
Uruguay 42 49 46
Macedonia 53 39 47
Georgia 43 50 48
United Arab Emirates — 47 49
Malaysia 51 40 50
Mongolia 38 54 51
Panama 37 65 52
Kyrgyzstan 44 60 53
Chile 34 67 54
Sri Lanka — 53 55
Thailand 36 68 56
Saudi Arabia 56 44 57
Ecuador — 55 58
Turkey 52 52 59
Jamaica — 61 60
Armenia 54 — 61
Peru 49 64 62
Romania 40 72 63
Philippines 55 59 64
Mexico 58 58 65
Brazil 60 57 66
Azerbaijan 66 45 67
South Africa 65 48 68
Nicaragua — 69 69
Trinidad and Tobago 67 46 70
Iran 59 66 71
Paraguay 57 70 72
El Salvador 62 71 73
Pakistan 69 56 74
India 68 — 75
China 61 75 76
Honduras 63 73 77
Viet Nam 64 74 78
Uganda 71 — 79
Indonesia — 76 80
Cambodia 70 77 81
Madagascar 72 78 82


Global Creative Class rankings Appendix C

RANK COUNTRY CREATIVE CLASS SHARE

1 Singapore 47.30
2 Netherlands 46.24
3 Switzerland 44.84
4 Australia 44.52
5 Sweden 43.88
6 Belgium 43.84
7 Denmark 43.71
8 Finland 43.35
9 Norway 42.11
10 Germany 41.57
11 United Kingdom 41.27
12 Canada 40.84
13 Israel 40.21
14 New Zealand 40.11
15 Estonia 39.64
16 Italy 39.26
17 France 39.24
18 Czech Republic 38.89
19 Ireland 38.84
20 Russian Federation 38.63
21 Austria 37.49
22 Slovenia 37.06
23 Latvia 35.47
24 Hungary 35.26
25 Slovakia 35.22
26 Hong Kong 35.22
27 United States 35.22
28 Lithuania 34.99
29 Greece 32.62
30 Poland 32.37
31 Ukraine 31.70
32 Egypt 31.38
33 Taiwan 31.34
34 Spain 30.98
35 Bulgaria 29.07
36 Cyprus 29.00
37 Croatia 28.85
38 Serbia 28.57
39 Macedonia 28.36
40 Malaysia 26.21


RANK COUNTRY CREATIVE CLASS SHARE

41 Portugal 25.28
42 Kazakhstan 24.77
43 Costa Rica 24.60
44 Saudi Arabia 23.15
45 Azerbaijan 22.67
46 Trinidad and Tobago 22.55
47 United Arab Emirates 22.02
48 South Africa 21.71
49 Uruguay 21.62
50 Georgia 21.40
51 Republic of Korea 21.30
52 Turkey 20.96
53 Sri Lanka 19.51
54 Mongolia 19.40
55 Ecuador 19.04
56 Pakistan 18.59
57 Brazil 18.52
58 Mexico 18.48
59 Philippines 18.41
60 Kyrgyzstan 18.40
61 Jamaica 18.32
62 Argentina 18.29
63 Japan 17.54
64 Peru 17.51
65 Panama 16.77
66 Iran 15.61
67 Chile 14.90
68 Thailand 14.66
69 Nicaragua 14.49
70 Paraguay 12.43
71 El Salvador 12.37
72 Romania 11.76
73 Honduras 9.44
74 Viet Nam 7.41
75 China 7.37
76 Indonesia 4.30
77 Cambodia 2.52
78 Madagascar 2.36


Global tolerance rankings* Appendix D

RACIAL AND ETHNIC
COUNTRY GAYS AND LESBIANS TOLERANCE INDEX
MINORITIES

Canada 1 2 1
Ireland 3 5 2
Netherlands 16 1 3
New Zealand 2 12 4
Australia 4 8 5
Spain 14 3 6
Sweden 7 8 7
United States 5 12 8
Uruguay 11 5 9
United Kingdom 9 10 10
Norway 16 12 11
Hong Kong 11 16 12
Belgium 21 6 13
Denmark 21 9 14
South Africa 7 21 15
France 30 14 16
Singapore 7 34 17
Germany 25 17 18
Finland 27 18 19
Switzerland 39 16 20
Taiwan 13 37 21
Brazil — 21 22
Italy 30 19 23
Nicaragua 21 27 24
Cyprus 23 — 25
Costa Rica 25 27 26
Serbia 13 49 27
Chile 36 24 28
Malaysia 30 — 29
India 16 52 30
Argentina 45 23 31
Ecuador 33 31 32
Portugal 39 29 33
Hungary 33 34 34
Austria — 31 35
Mexico 52 23 36
Greece 41 31 37
United Arab Emirates 41 — 38
Panama 44 37 39
Madagascar 18 65 40
Philippines 62 25 41
Sri Lanka 21 67 42


RACIAL AND ETHNIC
COUNTRY GAYS AND LESBIANS TOLERANCE INDEX
MINORITIES

Trinidad and Tobago 27 55 43
Romania 33 54 44
Bulgaria — 42 45
Croatia 41 47 46
El Salvador 55 34 47
Macedonia 30 57 48
Czech Republic 64 27 49
Armenia 49 — 50
Slovenia 55 39 51
Bolivia 49 42 53
Peru 49 42 53
Paraguay 58 39 54
Slovakia 52 44 55
Honduras 47 52 56
Kazakhstan 36 67 57
Poland 60 47 58
Uganda 36 70 59
Latvia 58 54 60
Japan 62 47 61
Republic of Korea 52 62 62
Georgia 43 72 63
Turkey 58 62 64
Kyrgyzstan 47 71 65
Israel 72 40 66
Thailand 66 50 67
Iran 65 — 68
Estonia 70 47 69
Viet Nam 64 59 70
Jamaica 58 68 71
Azerbaijan — 70 72
Mongolia 68 57 73
Russian Federation 68 62 74
Lithuania 72 59 75
Egypt 72 — 76
Ukraine 74 62 77
Indonesia 70 73 78
Saudi Arabia 75 — 79
Cambodia 77 62 80
Pakistan 76 — 81

*missing value for China.


Overall Global Creativity Index rankings Appendix E

GLOBAL
TOTAL RANK COUNTRY TECHNOLOGY TALENT TOLERANCE CREATIVITY INDEX

1 Sweden 5 2 7 0.923
2 United States 3 8 8 0.902
3 Finland 1 1 19 0.894
4 Denmark 7 4 14 0.878
5 Australia 15 7 5 0.870
6 New Zealand 19 5 4 0.866
7 Canada 11 17 1 0.862
7 Norway 12 6 11 0.862
9 Singapore 10 3 17 0.858
10 Netherlands 17 11 3 0.854
11 Belgium 16 12 13 0.813
12 Ireland 20 21 2 0.805
13 United Kingdom 18 19 10 0.789
14 Switzerland 6 22 20 0.785
15 France 14 23 16 0.764
15 Germany 9 26 18 0.764
17 Spain 24 28 6 0.744
18 Taiwan — 32 21 0.737
19 Italy 26 18 23 0.707
20 Hong Kong 22 37 12 0.691
21 Austria 13 30 35 0.663
22 Greece 38 9 37 0.638
22 Slovenia 23 10 51 0.638
24 Serbia 28 35 27 0.614
24 Israel 4 20 66 0.614
26 Hungary 33 25 34 0.606
27 Republic of Korea 8 24 62 0.598
28 Portugal 32 34 33 0.577
29 Czech Republic 25 31 49 0.553
30 Japan 2 45 61 0.541
30 Russian Federation 21 13 74 0.541
32 Costa Rica 43 42 26 0.528
32 Estonia 27 15 69 0.528
34 Latvia 39 14 60 0.520
35 Croatia 29 39 46 0.516
36 United Arab Emirates — 49 38 0.513
37 Uruguay 63 46 9 0.500
38 Argentina 55 36 31 0.484
38 Lithuania 31 16 75 0.484
40 Bulgaria 40 38 45 0.480
41 Slovakia 36 33 55 0.476
41 Poland 37 29 58 0.476


GLOBAL
TOTAL RANK COUNTRY TECHNOLOGY TALENT TOLERANCE CREATIVITY INDEX

43 Nicaragua — 69 24 0.474
44 Cyprus 59 43 25 0.463
45 South Africa 45 68 15 0.459
46 Brazil 41 66 22 0.455
47 Chile 48 54 28 0.451
48 Malaysia 54 50 29 0.439
49 Ukraine 34 27 77 0.419
50 India 42 75 30 0.382
51 Panama 65 52 39 0.346
51 Romania 49 63 44 0.346
51 Macedonia 61 47 48 0.346
54 Philippines 52 64 41 0.341
54 Armenia 46 61 50 0.341
54 Kazakhstan 60 40 57 0.341
57 Georgia 47 48 63 0.337
58 China 30 76 — 0.327
59 Ecuador 72 58 32 0.321
60 Bolivia 66 44 53 0.319
61 Mexico 62 65 36 0.317
62 Egypt — 41 76 0.316
63 Sri Lanka 69 55 42 0.305
63 Trinidad and Tobago 53 70 43 0.305
65 Kyrgyzstan 50 53 65 0.297
66 Peru 56 62 53 0.287
67 Uganda 35 79 59 0.276
68 Turkey 51 59 64 0.272
69 Mongolia — 51 73 0.270
70 Azerbaijan 44 67 72 0.236
71 El Salvador 67 73 47 0.220
71 Thailand 64 56 67 0.220
73 Jamaica 57 60 71 0.215
74 Honduras 58 77 56 0.203
75 Madagascar 70 82 40 0.199
76 Saudi Arabia — 57 79 0.191
77 Paraguay 71 72 54 0.179
78 Iran — 71 68 0.171
79 Viet Nam 68 78 70 0.102
80 Pakistan 73 74 81 0.053
81 Indonesia 74 80 78 0.037
82 Cambodia 75 81 80 0.020


reFerenCes 18. R. Inglehart, The Silent Revolution:
Changing Values and Political Styles
Among Western Publics. 1977, Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press. xii, 482 p.
19. R. Inglehart and P. Norris, Rising Tide:
Gender Equality and Cultural Change
Around the World. 2003, Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press.
xiv, 226 p.
1. J.E. Stiglitz, A. Sen, and J.P. Fitoussi, Report by the Com-
20. R. Inglehart and C. Welzel, Moderniza-
mission on the Measurement of Economic Performance
tion, Cultural Change, and Democracy:
and Social Progress. 2009, Commission on the Measure-
The Human Development Sequence. 2005,
ment of Economic Performance and Social Progress: Paris.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2. A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
x, 333 p.
Wealth of Nations. 2nd ed. Great Books of the Western
21. D. Senor and S. Singer, Start-up Nation:
World. 1990, Chicago; London: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle.
viii, 515 p.
2009: McClelland & Stewart Ltd.
3. D. Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.
22. R. Florida and G. Gates, Technology and
2005, New York: Barnes & Noble Books. xvii, 350 p.
Tolerance. The Brookings Review, 2002.
4. K. Marx, et al., Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist
20(1): p. 32–36.
Production. 1887, London: Swan Sonnenschein, Lowrey
23. M. Noland, Popular Attitudes, Global-
& Co. 2 v.
ization and Risk. International Finance,
5. J. Jacobs, The Economy of Cities. 1969, New York: Random
2005. 8(2): p. 199–229.
House. 268 p.
24. M. Porter, J. Sachs, and J. Warner. The
6. J. Jacobs, Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of
Global Competitiveness Index. 2008.
Economic Life. 1st ed. 1984, New York: Random House. ix,
25. Z.J. Acs and P. Stenholm, A Global Entre-
257 p.
preneurship Index Using Gem Data. 2008.
7. R.L. Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s
26. A Sherman and C. Stone. Income Gaps be-
Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday
tween Very Rich and Everyone Else More
Life. 2002, New York, NY: Basic Books. xxx, 434 p.
Than Tripled in Last Three Decades, New
8. R.L. Florida, The Flight of the Creative Class: The New
Data Show. Poverty and Income 2010;
Global Competition for Talent. 2004, New York: Harper-
Available from: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/
Business. 326 p.
index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220.
9. J.A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.
27. Human Development Report 2010, in
2nd ed. 1947, New York: Harper. xiv, 411 p.
The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways
10. R.M. Solow, Growth Theory and Exposition. 1970, Oxford:
to Human Development. 2010, United
Clarendon Press. vi, 109 p.
Nations Development Program: New York.
11. P.F. Drucker, The Age of Discontinuity; Guidelines to Our
28. R. Easterlin, Will Raising the Incomes of
Changing Society. [1st ed. 1969, New York: Harper & Row.
All Increase the Happiness of All? Journal
xiii, 394 p.]
of Economic Behavior & Organization,
12. F. Machlup, The Production and Distribution of Knowl-
1995. 27(1): p. 35–47.
edge in the United States. 1962: Princeton University Press.
29. A. Deaton, Income, Health and Wellbeing
13. P. Romer, Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of
Around the World: Evidence from Gal-
Political Economy, 1990. 98(5): p. 71–102.
lup World Poll. The Journal of Economic
14. E.L. Glaeser, Are Cities Dying? Journal of Economic Per-
Perspectives: A Journal of the American
spectives, 1998. 12(1): p. 39–160.
Economic Association, 2008. 22(2): p. 53.
15. R.E. Lucas, On the Mechanics of Economic Development.
30. B. Stevenson and J. Wolfers, Economic
Journal of Monetary Economics. [Offprint]. p. 3–42.
Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reas-
16. C.R. Berry and E.L. Glaeser, The Divergence of Human
sessing the Easterlin Paradox. Brook-
Capital Levels Across Cities. Papers in Regional Science,
ings Papers on Economic Activity, 2008.
2005. 84(3): p. 407–444.
2008(1): p. 1–87.
17. S.E. Page, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity
Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. 2007,
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. xxiv, 424 p.


31. C. Graham, S. Durlauf, and L. Blume, The
New Plagrave Dictionary of Econom-
ics’. The Economics of Happiness, 2nd ed.:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
32. C. Graham, Happiness around the World:
The Paradox of Happy Peasants and
Miserable Millionaires. 2009: Oxford
University Press.
33. J. Helliwell, How’s Life? Combining
Individual and National Variables to
Explain Subjective Well-Being. Economic
Modelling, 2003. 20(2): p. 331–360.
34. J. Helliwell and R. Putnam, The Social
Context of Well-Being. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Bio-
logical Sciences, 2004. 359(1449): p. 1435.
35. E. Diener, Guidelines for National Indica-
tors of Subjective Well-Being and Ill-Being.
Applied Research in Qualit of Life, 2006.
1(2): p. 151–157.
36. R. Di Tella and R. MacCulloch, Gross
National Happiness as an Answer to the
Easterlin Paradox? Journal of Develop-
ment Economics, 2008. 86(1): p. 22–42.
37. Gallup. Gallup World Poll. 2010; Available
from: http://eu.gallup.com/poll/118471/
world-poll.aspx.
38. T. World Bank. World Development
Indicators. 2009; Available from:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator
39. Index of Patents Issued from the United
States Patent and Trademark Office. 2010,
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
40. International Labour Organization.
LABORSTA Internet. Available from:
http://laborsta.ilo.org/.


Acknowledgments

oUR teAm contAct Us
Phone: (416) 673-8580
Fax: (416) 673-8599
Authors Email: info@martinprosperity.org

Richard Florida Martin Prosperity Institute
Charlotta Mellander Joseph L. Rotman School of Management
Kevin Stolarick University of Toronto
MaRS Centre, Heritage Building
101 College Street, Suite 420
Project team Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1L7

Patrick Adler Richard Florida, Director
Vasiliki Bednar
Maggie Chen
Marisol D’Andrea
Mark Denstedt
Michelle Hopgood
Brian Hracs
Karen King
Dieter Kogler
Zara Matheson
Joe Minichini
Kim Ryan
Kim Silk
Kevin Stolarick
Ian Swain
Jacqueline Whyte Appleby

Design by michelle Hopgood.
Maps by Zara matheson.

Creativity global index report martin inst. sep 2011

More Related Content

Similar to Creativity global index report martin inst. sep 2011 (20)

More from Sergey Lourie (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Creativity global index report martin inst. sep 2011