I posted recently on Florida's assertion that "policies that operate to the interests of the creative class" are in the economic interests of the rest of the nation as well. Here's an article by Stepen Malanga that calls into question Florida's entire economic thesis that in order to attract highly innovative, high-growth businesses and the "creative class" that typically staffs such businesses, cities must put their emphasis -- and tax dollars -- into creating the kind of atmosphere in which the creative class wants to live, which according to Florida includes a vibrant live-music scene, recreational amenities, and a social climate that celebrates diversity.

Malanga essentially says Florida is the emperor with no clothes: His most creative-class-friendly cities in fact underperform the American economy and actually don't do a very good job of attracting or keeping residents, unless you only count the Internet boom years.

The main issue here is a classic chicken or egg argument -- which came first, the creative economy companies and workers, or the diverse, socially liberal, rock-and-roll atmosphere? Says Malanga:

Not only does [Florida] believe that marginal attractions like an idiosyncratic arts scene can build economic power, but he thinks that government officials and policymakers like himself can figure out how to produce those things artificially. He doesn’t seem to recognize that the cultural attributes of the cities he most admires [like San Francisco and Austin] are not a product of government planning but have been a spontaneous development, financed by private-sector wealth.

Case in point: Having followed Austin politics and culture for some years, I know that the now-city-council-approved slogan "Keep Austin Weird" wasn't something the city council started -- it was a campaign launched by a few business leaders in South Austin in an effort to keep chain retail from driving out more offbeat local businesses. In Austin, the "offbeat culture" came first. It only makes sense that the city would co-opt "Keep Austin Weird" (much to the dismay of the people who actually started it) as they cast about for ways to stem the post-crash bleeding. That was an effort to identify the things that seemed to have worked for Austin and build on those things.

Does this mean that a "Keep Omaha Weird" campaign would bring lots of innovative, high-tech businesses to Omaha? According to Malanga, Omaha would have had to have been wierd in the first place for that to work. Or it would have to become wierd spontaneously and not by city coucil mandate (and government funding).