Creative Destruction: De-industrialisation

1. Creative Destruction: De-industrialisation or a ‘Fashion Capital for the Creative Industries’ in London Yara Evans and Adrian Smith Department of Geography Queen Mary, University of London London E1 4NS

2. Synopsis • London, Fashion and the Creative Industries • The Clothing Manufacturing Industry in UK/London • Garment producers in London and ‘Worlds of production’ • De-industrialisation and community restructuring • Creative Destruction: creative industries, marginal communities and the clothing industry in London

3. London, Fashion and the Creative Industries • Agenda for London: development of creative industries • Fashion design: a central plank in agenda • Designer fashion: central to ‘creative London’ • Public and private agencies: ‘London as a fashion capital’ • Initiatives: LFF, Capital Fashion, London Apparel Resource Centre • Issue with new agenda/policies : • emphasise significance of designer fashion in clothing industry • sideline the diversity of clothing manufacturing (CMT/Design) • Need to recognise linkages and interactions between • ‘worlds of production’ (Storper 1997)

4. The Clothing Manufacturing Industry: UK and London • UK: major economic sector/ source of jobs but in decline • Employment: 800,000 (early 20thc); 59,000 (early 21thc) • London: important economic activity/source of jobs but in decline • Structure of industry : • functional (vertical): buyer/agent; manufacturer; CMT • ethnic:recent immigrants as business owners and employees • subsectoral: women’s outerwear (casual, light, heavy); leather • Industry’s specific spatiality: • Production base and ethnic workforce: North and East London • Other features of industry: • ‘sweatshop’; unregulated/ informal practices

5. The Clothing Manufacturing Industry: UK and London • De-industrialisation of Garment Manufacturing in UK/London: • market forces • domestic policy • Market Forces (1970s): • globalisation of clothing production: new, low-cost producers in East Asia, North Africa, Central/Eastern Europe • Domestic Industrial/Trade Policy (1980s) • ‘Sunset’ Industry: no protective measures; industry’s contribution to economy limited by informal practices • Outcomes: • large-scale outsourcing of production in UK to new producers • Marks & Spencer: ‘Made in UK’ policy: 90% (1980s); 10% (2003) • increased importing of ready-made garments into UK

6. ‘Worlds of production’ and Garment Producers in London • Analysis of empirical results of research on garment producers in London through Storper’s notion of World’s of Production (1997) • ‘market’ world of production • uncertainty/competition/downward pressure on prices • ‘interpersonal’ world of production • design-intensive activity/close interaction/sharing of knowledge/ideas • Framework helps understand the dynamics of change in industry • Results reveal two main trajectories of change that mirror • interconnected worlds of production: • decline (dominant trend): • growth (smaller trend):

8. Moving across Worlds of Productions: Market/Interpersonal • Survival and growth through use of various strategies: • changing position in supply chain • moving to short-run, high-value, quick response production • subcontracting production to firms abroad • developing higher-value design-led clothing production • spreading risk across a range of activities

10. Change in the Clothing Industry : Decline and Deprivation in London • Industrial decline and manufacturing job loss: dominant trend • Relationship between • de-industrialisation of clothing production • socio-economic marginalisation in declining areas

13. Change in the Clothing Industry : Decline and Deprivation in London • Correspondence between: • geography of industrial decline and de-industrialisation • geography of deprivation • Worst affected areas in both processes: • North and East London • Policy for sector (e.g. Haringey City Growth Strategy): • bring together designers and manufacturers to produce short-run, high-value design garments

14. Disjunction: industrial decline, impacts and policy emphasis • On the one hand: • empirical results: • industry in decline but survival of minority of firms • large-scale industrial decline associated with deprivation • On the other hand: • policy emphasis on small-scale production of high-value, design clothing • Disjunction: • focus/reach of policies for the industry • extent and socio-economic impacts of local de-industrialisation

15. Creative destruction or a future for the creative industries in marginal communities in London’s clothing industry? • Argument: • Contribution of small-scale, flexible production of ‘creative’ fashion design in London to declining clothing industry: limited • job creation: short of what’s needed • designers: creative talent but incipient business skills • clothing producers: sceptical about working with designers • new businesses: no permanence • Policy emphasis on creative industries/fashion design for clothing industry in London ignores wider issues of social exclusion and economic justice.