Since the era of industrial capitalism when location started playing an important role in attracting industry and trade and boosting the economy, the role of knowledge and a high level of skills has grown in post-industrial regional economic theory. What makes the heated debate around creativity and the contribution of Richard Florida’s work particularly valuable is that it fosters an interdisciplinary discussion about the role of creativity, culture, talent, and diversity in urban and regional development. Despite the vividness and edginess of these debates at times, it seems that the related criticisms, based on a body of evidence, did not originally penetrate policymaker discourse, and only one-and-a-half decades later were embraced when problems stemming from socioeconomic crises and the flaws of creative policymaking reared their head more explicitly. Florida’s revelations, which were elevated into the popular arena of city-level policies and governance, did not contain much that was new. This paper tracks how the concept of the “creative class” has been tested, argued about, rejected and applied since then on a wide set of practices and experiences in the urban and regional framework.

中文翻译：

---

重新审视区域和城市发展中创意阶层的范式。概述

自从工业资本主义时代，位置开始在吸引工业和贸易以及促进经济方面发挥重要作用，知识和高水平技能在后工业区域经济理论中的作用不断增强。围绕创造力和理查德·佛罗里达 (Richard Florida) 工作贡献的激烈辩论之所以特别有价值，是因为它促进了关于创造力、文化、人才和多样性在城市和区域发展中的作用的跨学科讨论。尽管这些辩论有时生动而尖锐，但基于大量证据的相关批评似乎最初并未渗透到决策者的话语中，仅仅在十年半之后，当源于社会经济危机的问题和创造性政策制定的缺陷更加明确地抬头时，人们才开始接受。佛罗里达州的启示被提升为城市级政策和治理的流行舞台，并没有包含太多新内容。本文追踪了“创意阶层”的概念从那时起如何在城市和区域框架中的一系列广泛实践和经验中得到检验、争论、拒绝和应用。