The Other School of Economics

For a quick insight into the current financial from an alternative perspective, I would recommend  checking out this very interesting site by “The Other School of Economics” http://lelaissezfaireisover.tumblr.com/

Steve Jobs’ Last Words

A beautiful speech to remember the man by, he loved what he did, and lived and died by that.

The Future of the Grameen Bank

Grameen Bank has been the face of a bank that empowered the poor and its heart represented by its founder, Mohammad Yunus. This morning I was notified of the latest development which I’ve attached below for record purposes. Yunus and Grameen Bank jointly won the Nobel peace prize in 2006 for creating “economic and social development from below”.

By Agence France-Presse, Updated: 5/7/2011
Bangladesh’s Yunus fears for microlender
Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus said Saturday he feared for the survival of his pioneering microlender Grameen Bank, days after his removal as its chief was upheld by the country’s highest court.

The 2006 Nobel winner said the future of the Grameen Bank — the world’s largest microlender which he founded — is at stake as the government meddles in the affairs of the bank, 96.5 percent owned by poor women.

“I am humbly appealing to all for the protection and independence of Grameen Bank and the protection of poor women who are working very hard to stand on their feet,” Yunus, 70, said in his first reaction to the court verdict.

“There is growing doubt as to whether any civil society effort can survive and retain its character and independence in this politically influenced environment,” he said in a statement.

Supporters say Yunus — known as “the banker to the poor” — has been victimised by Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, whom he crossed in 2007 when he briefly set up a political party during a period of military rule.

In sign of growing tension, a Grameen Bank union leader said he was tortured late Friday by unidentified men after the union threatened to stage nationwide demonstrations over Yunus’s sacking.

Sagir Rashid Chowdhury, 38, told AFP he was hauled into a minibus and taken near Dhaka University where he was beaten and threatened with pistols.

“They said they would kill me if I don’t call off the protests. They beat me with sticks. I begged for my life. They broke my hands and left me in a field.” Nurse Golam Mostafa of the government’s orthopaedic hospital confirmed the injuries. “Chowdhury has torture marks all over his body. One of his fingers was also broken.”

There was no immediate reaction available from authorities.

Grameen board members, who challenged Yunus’s removal, alleged earlier they were also intimidated and threatened by unidentified men.

Yunus was first dismissed as head of the microlender on March 2 in a power struggle with the government for control of the bank — but he defied the order, returning to work and filing a legal appeal against the sacking.

But the Supreme Court ruled Grameen Bank was a government institution, not a private bank as Yunus and his lawyers maintained, meaning Yunus must abide by the state’s mandatory retirement age of 60.

The ruling dashed his last hopes to stay at helm of the microlender which has lent more than $10 billion to 8.3 million mostly rural women since its inception in 1983.

Yunus and Grameen Bank jointly won the Nobel peace prize in 2006 for creating “economic and social development from below”.

The model has been copied in other developing countries and Yunus’s sacking was widely criticised by international supporters including the US government.

Yunus maintains the bank is owned by its borrowers and the government should stay out of its business for the sake of the microlender’s furture.

“What happens to Grameen Bank influences the future of the millions of Bangladeshis who benefit from microcredit activities, as well as the future of the institution of microcredit itself,” he said.

“The big questions are: whether Grameen Bank can maintain its independent existence, whether it can be successful in keeping itself away from political influences,” he said.

“What actually happens to financial institutions in our country if political influences start playing a role in these institutions is common knowledge. This experience will not inspire trust in borrowers.”

Analysts say Grameen’s huge influence in Bangladesh and its move into solar panels, mobile phones and other consumer goods has triggered the government’s envy.

Innovation+

Unlocking New Philanthropic Capital: An Interview with Dennis Cavner
By Nell Edgington

http://www.socialvelocity.net/2011/03/unlocking-new-philanthropic-capital-an-interview-with-dennis-cavner/

In this month’s Social Velocity interview we are talking with Dennis Cavner. Dennis is an investment advisor and philanthropist who, along with a few other philanthropists in Austin, has launched a new philanthropic investment vehicle called Innovation+. Through an extensive due diligence process over the last 6 months, Innovation + has identified and vetted a large group of nonprofits ready for significant growth and selected two which they will introduce to prospective growth investors. Their model is a compelling variant on venture philanthropy that seeks to unlock untapped philanthropic capital. It will be interesting to watch.

You can read all of the interviews in our Social Velocity interview series here.

Nell: Explain Innovation + to me. What is it, and how does it work?

Dennis: Innovation + is a new community effort designed to enable transformational social impact. Our goal is to match proven social innovation with human and financial capital to change the world. We seek to identify a small number of nonprofit organizations that are uniquely poised for significant growth, thoroughly vet those organizations and their growth plans, and then select the most promising candidates for investment. We will make a multi-year commitment to each organization we select, assist in the refinement of their plans, help secure funding and additional human resources, and monitor the organization during an execution phase of 3-5 years. Our selection process is not a contest, rather it is a very thorough process of evaluation that results in a partnership between Innovation + and the community organization.

Nell: Why did you, Bill Forsberg and Suzi Sosa, decide to launch Innovation +? What did you think was lacking in the Austin philanthropic market and what are you hoping it will do for the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors?

Dennis: Austin has substantial untapped potential in its non-profit market. There are outstanding organizations, already achieving meaningful impact, that are poised for a strategic investment that can bring about a transformational leap in results and scale. We believe there are substantial pools of social capital that remain uncommitted due to a lack of coordinated effort to identify and vet the most promising opportunities. Our intention is to prove this hypothesis and catalyze a community of venture philanthropists who see this potential for radical positive change for our community and our world. Bill, Suzi and I have all had experience with high growth organizations and came together in this effort over the past year. Over the past twelve years I’ve had the great fortune of involvement with the Livestrong organization (the Lance Armstrong Foundation) as a board member, Chairman, and one of the architects of the Founders Circle that provided the early growth capital for that organization. I’ve seen Livestrong grow from two staff members and an annual budget of $250,000 to generate almost $400 million for the cancer cause and have a profound effect on millions of cancer survivors around the world. If you can make the right investment of time and money at the right time, it is amazing how you can impact people’s lives.

Nell: How are the traditional philanthropists you are talking to viewing this new form of philanthropy? Are they receptive or skeptical or both? What will it take to get them on board?

Dennis: Our target market is “nontraditional” philanthropists: successful entrepreneurs who have done well and want to give back, but who lack the time or other resources necessary to identify and vet the best high growth potential organizations. Not surprisingly, they love the Innovation + approach: find really smart people who are doing proven innovative work, then supply the resources necessary to replicate or scale that model for greater impact. Traditional philanthropists are also very receptive, as they appreciate the extensive due diligence and growth plan evaluation that we are bringing to the process. Our team of community activists bring to the table a broad array of skills and experience from both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.

Nell: What are you looking for in the nonprofits you select? What is the magic combination of characteristics?

Dennis: We are focused on identifying organizations that have high growth potential. To achieve that growth we believe that they must be doing innovative work in their fields, that their models are capable of expansion or replication, and that their leadership is both capable and driven to succeed. We are not interested in startups, so we seek a group that can demonstrate that their innovative work is effective. A sustainable funding model is essential, and we favor organizations that have components of earned revenue in their mix. Strong community partnerships and a clear picture of the partnerships necessary to achieve growth are very important. There is a consensus among our group that leadership is THE key component for a successful growth partner.

Nell: How do you think your model fits into other innovative models of philanthropy around the country?

Dennis: There are some really great things going on around the country, and I am encouraged by all of the creative new efforts. Some will be very successful, others not so much. Experimentation is necessary to find new solutions in a changing world. The Innovation + model is somewhat akin to an investment banking model. We identify a high growth potential organization, vet them very carefully, help them subscribe the financial and human capital needed to execute their plan, then monitor and report. We are not a fund, where investors commit their capital and then we decide where it is invested. Rather, we present an opportunity to a funder and they can either invest or pass, depending upon their interest and appetite. We may partner with nonprofits that are serving the needs of the community in the areas of health care, education, animal welfare, the environment, or other sectors. We are not limited by geographic scope, per se, and favor growth opportunities that have the potential for national expansion. These are audacious goals, but we believe in the power of community to achieve amazing things.

Nell: What do you think is holding philanthropy back from becoming more innovative?

Dennis: I actually believe that we are in the midst of great innovation in philanthropy. It is occurring in pockets, and Austin is one of the key development labs that will lead the way. In addition to the Livestrong example, I can cite the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service at the University of Texas and their Dell Social Innovation Competition, the RISE conference for entrepreneurs and social innovators, and a vibrant and creative business community that will respond positively to innovation. As we have discovered with Innovation +, Austin has a growing number of amazing nonprofits that are inventing new and effective ways of meeting the needs of the community. We are in an era of declining government ability to provide essential support to our citizens, yet the needs continue to grow. Nonprofits and businesses must do a better job of filling the gap of these unmet needs. The formation and deployment of capital in new and more effective ways is critical to achieving that goal, and I believe that Innovation + can help lead the way.

Related posts:

1. Unlocking Philanthropic Capital: An Interview with Sean Stannard-Stockton
2. In the Trenches Raising Growth Capital: An Interview with Anna Land
3. Socap Day 2: Unlocking the Nonprofit Capital Space
4. A Radical Spin on Capital Campaigns: An Interview with George Overholser, Part 1
5. A Place for Government in Social Innovation?: An Interview with Laura Tomasko

About the Author: Nell Edgington is President of Social Velocity (www.socialvelocity.net), a management consulting firm leading nonprofits to greater social impact and financial sustainability. Social Velocity helps nonprofits grow their programs, bring more money in the door, and use resources more effectively. For more information, check out Social Velocity services and clients.
Tuesday, March 8th, 2011 growth capital, Innovators, Nonprofits, outcomes, Philanthropy, scale, Social Entrepreneurship, Strategy

Theology of Land

Land as inheritance

Excerpt from Joshua and the Promised Land, copyright © Roy H. May, Jr.

Yahweh commands Joshua to divide the land as an “inheritance” for Israel. Repeatedly in Joshua 13-19, the land given to the tribes is called “inheritance.” This is another clue for the Book of Joshua and the biblical theme of the land. Land is never just dirt. It is inheritance. Land carries social and spiritual meaning that goes beyond agricultural potential. For traditional farmers, land bonds them to family and God. This bonding imposes limitations and obligations regarding its use and distribution.

Inheritance is a theologically rich concept that guided Israel’s relationship to the land. The basic idea is that the land is Yahweh’s land. “The earth is the Lord’s,” the psalmist could sing (Ps. 24:1). “The land is mine,” says Yahweh (Lev. 25:23). Throughout Joshua 13-19, land is first and foremost an inheritance given to Israel by Yahweh. Land is Yahweh’s gift to be passed on from generation to generation.

The idea that God owns the land had not only theological significance but also real sociological meaning– land in ancient Israel was not conceived of as private property. It was a trust or “loan” administered by Israel on behalf of Yahweh. Land was the inheritance of the tribe. The tribe apportioned the land according to families. The plot or “portion” each family received was their participation in the tribal inheritance. Each family enjoyed lasting rights to use the land, but never as a commodity that could be bought and sold for private gain. Their portion was family property. They managed it on behalf of the entire tribe.

But this sociological significance was never separable from theological or spiritual meaning. For the ancient Hebrew, land as inheritance meant Yahweh’s presence and faithful fulfillment of God’s promise. Land was viewed as the historical manifestation of the covenant Yahweh had made with Israel’s ancestors. Land was the sign of salvation. Thus, in Psalms 16:5-6 and 142:5, “portion” is equated with total assurance of God’s presence, as we sing in the old hymn, “Thou my everlasting portion, More than friend or life to me…” (#407, The United Methodist Hymnal). For ancient Israel, that’s what land as inheritance meant.

So it was with ancient Israel. The Israelites couldn’t do with the land as they might choose. Land as inheritance required that it be used only in ways faithful to Yahweh. This meant social justice. Thus, the Old Testament laws relating to social justice are, to a great extent, laws about the land. The Deuteronomic* laws mentioned in the previous chapter say much about land use. The ancient traditions of Sabbath and Jubilee (Ex. 23: 10-11; Lev. 25; Deut. 15:1-18) are especially direct. These date from the origins of Israel.1 They required that crop land lie fallow during certain intervals. This sustained its capacity to grow crops. Family land that had been lost was to be returned to its original owners (Lev. 25). These laws also required that debts be pardoned (Deut. 15: 1-3) and that Hebrew slaves and bonded servants be set free. The law that part of the harvest be left for the poor (Deut. 24:19-22) is another example of social legislation regulating land use. Managing the land and social justice were united in ancient Israel. This unity is based on the idea of land as Yahweh’s inheritance.

Footnotes
1. Art Davidson, Endangered People (San Francisco:Sierra Club Books, 1993),p.38

Native people upset over land issues

Native people upset over land issues.

The Straits Times | March 17, 2011
By Carolyn Hong, Malaysia Bureau Chief

KUCHING (SARAWAK): A group of villagers in northern Sarawak’s interior set up a blockade last week to stop the construction of a Petronas gas pipeline to Sabah.

The villagers at Long Atip in Baram were demanding that the national oil company first fulfil its promises said to have been made in 2007 to upgrade the road, install lamp posts and provide them generators.

Such blockades are not uncommon, but they are usually aimed at logging and plantation companies that the indigenous people say are rapidly encroaching on their land.

These measures have turned violent on occasion. Last month, the longhouse villagers in the remote Ulu Niah area of north Sarawak clashed with a plantation company that allegedly infringed on their land.

‘We had 2,458ha of native customary land, but we found out that the land was converted into state land,’ longhouse head Changgai Dali told The Star newspaper.

Lawyer Baru Bian said this was just the tip of the iceberg. His firm has filed over 100 such cases in court in the last 10 years, and he believes that there are more than 200 cases in total awaiting judgment.

Mr Baru, 53, heads the opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat in Sarawak and will be contesting the election in the interior. He is a Lun Bawang, a member of a minority tribe in the highlands.

Such land disputes are among the biggest issues in Sarawak, especially native customary land where the government and the native people disagree over the definition.

Under the law, land that was occupied by indigenous people in Sarawak before Jan 1, 1958 is considered native land, usually based on the presence of burial grounds, and the planting of crops and trees. But the people there insist that it should also extend to what they call territorial domain and the forests which provide them sustenance.

The government, however, considers this state land and has awarded concessions to timber and plantation companies.

‘It’s a problem everywhere, from Lundu to Lawas,’ said Mr Baru, naming two towns at the extreme ends of the state.

Even in areas where the native claims are not disputed, problems arise. For instance, not far outside Kuching, several villagers of the Bidayuh tribe said they are still waiting for titles promised to them 10 years ago.

One of them, Mr Smith Jenih, said they need the land titles to get bank loans to start small businesses.

‘This is really the biggest problem for us,’ he said, adding that the lack of titles has also caused quarrels among the villagers who do not know where their properties start and end.

‘We want a solution to our problems before the election,’ said Sibuluh village chief Jien anak Nyobek.

The opposition hopes to capitalise on these longstanding issues but has so far not had much success in the remote interior. It had tried to make inroads among the Ibans in the last by-election in Sibu last May, but that did not happen.

The isolation of these areas and their close-knit communities are the biggest stumbling blocks.

Judaism and Charity

How does the Bible look at philanthropy and in what way does it differ from the way we normally look at it? For those of us searching for deeper insights about charity, we should look into the rabbinical traditions, which hold much wisdom. It can provide us solutions for charity in terms of community enterprise and sustainable development. I want to hear your comments on Judaism and charity.

Judaism and Charity
Article from the socialenterprise.wordpress.com by David Russell

Charitable giving is a requirement of Jewish law. It is prescribed as a mitzvah (commandment). “When your brother will become poor, you will extend your hand to him” (Leviticus 25:35) and care for the “the stranger, and the orphan and the widow” (Deuteronomy 19:29).

Ever since the time of Abraham, there has been an obligation “to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right (tzedakah)” (Genesis 18:19). But “what is right” has been a subject of rabbinic interpretation ever since. The primary sources on this vast subject are Mishneh Torah, the first systematic codification of Jewish law by Maimonides in the 12th century, and the Shulchan Aruch, collated by Rabbi Joseph Karo in the 16th century.

The practice of ma’aser kesafim, giving 10% of one’s income, derives from Jacob’s commitment to God: “of all that you give me I will surely give one-tenth to you” (Genesis 28:22). In the Talmud, an upper limit of 20% of income is set, based on the reasoning that a higher percentage may result in the giver himself becoming needy (Talmud, Ketubot 50a), but this does not apply if there is a need to save life.

Maimonides records eight levels of giving. The highest level is to help the recipient to become self-supporting, by finding or giving a job to the person in need, or making a loan to enable them to start up a business. “The giver who knows not to whom he gives and the recipient knows not from whom he receives” is the second highest level. The least good is the giver that is pained by the act of giving.

Rashi postulates in his commentary on Leviticus 25:35 that there is an even higher level of giving, that is to help people before they even require help on the basis that if a load “is still on the donkey, one person can grasp it and hold it in place. Once it falls to the ground, however, five people cannot pick it up” (Torath Kohanim 25:71). Giving before one is asked is particularly important in protecting the self-esteem of the person in need – as well as encouraging others to give as: “greater than one who does the mitzvah, is one who causes others to do a mitzvah” (Talmud, Baba Batra 9a).

The Talmudic concept of tovat hana’ah affords givers the right to choose the recipients of the money in a manner which provides them indirect benefit (Matnot Aniyiim 1:8). It is advised, though, that all funds should not be given to a single level of priority.

The amount that one gives should be calculated with care and ideally a separate fund should be established for funds to be held in trust for the ultimate recipients (Sefer Ma’aser Kesofim 50-54). Tzedakah should be given with compassion and happiness (Mishneh Torah 9:4). It should be made easy for recipients, so each community should have tzedekah administrators so the poor do not need to go house to house collecting (Sefer Tzedakah U’Mishpat 43). One should not brag about one’s giving, but it is acceptable to put one’s name on a gift for communal use (Shulchan Aruch 249:21).

Talmudic sources also wrestle with the ever-present issue of how givers are to decide on priorities. Most sources place the saving of life first (an interesting insight into the life of the times is the inclusion of ransom for captives in this category). We are told elsewhere that first comes closeness to the giver (relatives ahead of non-relatives); second comes intensity and nature of need (priority for those requiring food over those requiring clothing); thirdly, level of education (Torah scholars take precedence over non-scholars); fourthly gender (women take precedence over men). All these come before lineage, where a Jew takes precedence over a non-Jew.

Whilst strong ties of kinship and community are priorities for giving, as they are amongst all peoples, elsewhere in the Talmud we read: “We feed non-Jewish poor together with Jewish for the sake of peace (good relations).” (Talmud, Gittin 61a).

To conclude, there are no definitive answers to practical dilemmas of giving. Every Jew is commanded to give charity and help the needy. Jewish law leaves that open to interpretation, though within the parameters of these guidelines. Ultimately, this is our choice, and privilege.

First published: Jewish Renaissance Magazine, April 2010 Issue.

For more information on Jewish Renaissance, please visit: www.jewishrenaissance.org.uk

Repositioning Asean in new world order

Feb 24, 2011
By Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, For The Straits Times

AS PUNDITS debate the imminence of the Asian Century, and the impact of the rise of China and India, one phenomenon continues to evolve steadily: the remarkable geopolitical transformation of South-east Asia.

In the past, South-east Asia had been bled and torn apart by some of the 20th century’s nastiest protracted wars.

Today, there is no war between the major powers in South-east Asia, no proxy war involving countries in the region, and no war between South-east Asian countries. What was once a painfully divided region is now a cohesive grouping of Asean 10, with an Asean Free Trade Area, and a dynamic Asean Community in the making.

Asean still has plenty of internal and external challenges, of course. But a fresh forward-looking charter is guiding Asean to adapt in meeting these challenges.

A key part of that transformation is how to reposition Asean in the 21st century world order.

The Asean region now has a population of more than 600 million citizens, with a combined gross domestic product of US$1.5 trillion (S$1.9 trillion) marked by high growth and political stability, a growing middle class, endowed by enormous natural resources, including some of the world’s largest tracts of rainforests. With these considerable assets, Asean can grow internally as well as externally.

Asean has thus become a regional organisation with global significance. There are, however, responsibilities that go with this hard-earned status.

There are several ways in which Asean can contribute to the community of nations.

# First, in its own neighbourhood, Asean can continue to realise the vision of a region becoming ‘a concert of South-east Asian nations, outward-looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity’. This means realising the Asean Community by 2015 in all its politico-security, economic and socio-cultural dimensions; closing the development gap; managing or resolving some of the outstanding conflicts and disputes in the region where possible; bringing Asean to the grassroots; promoting interdependence – all the necessary tools of community-building.

In a volatile world, a resilient and dynamic South-east Asia at the heart of Asia makes a big difference.

# Second, Asean can help shape and evolve the larger regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific. Asean is in the best position to carry out this task: With its dialogue partners, the East Asia Summit, the Asean Regional Forum and the Asean Plus Three forum, Asean is already the hub of the region’s key diplomatic processes. But it should not make the mistake of taking the notion of Asean centrality for granted.

Asean must continue to ensure that dynamic shifts in power relations do not lead to strategic tension but rather result in a dynamic equilibrium, and to a state of regional affairs marked not by geostrategic clash but by growing confluence.

# Third, Asean can help advance cooperation on global issues. Asean will not assume European Union-like common foreign and security policy. But Asean can work towards a more coordinated position to provide a collective push on issues such as climate change, forestry, global financial crisis, transnational crimes and terrorism. Rather than resisting or pushing them away, Asean finds it better to engage all the major and emerging powers to find a common solution. This is why Asean, represented by its rotating chairman, has taken active part in recent G-20 summits.

Asean is said to be among the world’s most successful regional organisations. Not too long from now, an Asean Community will emerge, and it will be confronted with the daunting task to find its rightful place in a still elusive and turbulent world order.

It is a challenge that Asean is ready to meet.

The writer is President of the Republic of Indonesia, and the current chairman of Asean.

Climate Refugees’ Plight in Oscar Spotlight | OnEarth Magazine

In the short documentary “Sun Come Up” that was produced in 2008 on the Carteret Islanders and now nominated for the Oscars, they are portrayed as a resilient people who are forced to navigate their future in the face of climate change.

Unknown to many people and the media was that a project was launched in the Carteret islands in May 2009 that brought much excitement to the people. The mission of the Carteret Islands Transformation project (previously called the LiveFish project) was to empower the islanders through the platform of work and management of their natural resource, fish.

In our engagement with the Carteret islanders, we have found them to be truly a resilient and graceful people. We also realized what this project meant to them. For the first time, they have in their hands the option of staying on in their islands instead of relocation to the mainland in Bougainville, a place and people unfamiliar to them. The project empowered them with a precious gift – choice.

Instead of raising homes in new places where they may or may not be welcomed, many would prefer to save their Home, the island they grew up in and lived all their lives. Housing is actually the simplest issue to address. Even if land is found for them, how do they make their livelihoods? How would they survive with no jobs or opportunities? There are also cultural and political ramifications.

To save their island is not a dream or hope but can be a reality, if the Carteret Transformation project succeeds. It is a bold aspiration but the Carteret Islanders are a courageous people who will do all they can, given the tools, to Raise their island home above the rising sea-levels.

We have met many such amazing islanders, amongst whom are people like Mama Moi and John Salik. They say they will fight to the end to save their island, even if it means they will be the last to leave. The Carteret Transformation project provides the islanders the resources they require to do so, something they previously did not have. If you would like to find out more on how you can help them save their island, contact us.

Climate Refugees’ Plight in Oscar Spotlight | OnEarth Magazine.

The Rise of the Creative Class

Looking into creativity

Creativity plays a vital role in economic development and in ways that we still do not fully appreciate. This has so often been overlooked in an analytically minded world that we really need to stop and think about this.

New thinking is necessary to shift out of old paradigms but for this to happen, we need to nurture and appreciate that creative class of people who have the passion and ability to generate innovation and growth.

The following are excerpts taken from an article by Richard Florida, a professor of regional economic development at Carnegie Mellon University. This article was adapted from his forthcoming book, The Rise of the Creative Class: and How Its Transforming Work.

Characteristics of the Creative Class
Members of the creative class do a wide variety of work in a wide variety of industries-from technology to entertainment, journalism to finance, high-end manufacturing to the arts.

They do not consciously think of themselves as a class. Yet they share a common ethos that values creativity, individuality, difference, and merit.

The distinguishing characteristic of the creative class is that its members engage in work whose function is to “create meaningful new forms.”

The super-creative core of this new class includes scientists and engineers, university professors, poets and novelists, artists, entertainers, actors, designers, and architects, as well as the “thought leadership” of modern society: nonfiction writers, editors, cultural figures, think-tank researchers, analysts, and other opinion-makers.

Members of this super-creative core produce new forms or designs that are readily transferable and broadly useful-such as designing a product that can be widely made, sold and used; coming up with a theorem or strategy that can be applied in many cases; or composing music that can be performed again and again.

Beyond this core group, the creative class also includes “creative professionals” who work in a wide range of knowledge-intensive industries such as high-tech sectors, financial services, the legal and healthcare professions, and business management.

Multi-disciplinary Creative Problem-Solving
These people engage in creative problem-solving, drawing on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. Doing so typically requires a high degree of formal education and thus a high level of human capital. People who do this kind of work may sometimes come up with methods or products that turn out to be widely useful, but it’s not part of the basic job description.

What they are required to do regularly is think on their own. They apply or combine standard approaches in unique ways to fit the situation, exercise a great deal of judgment, perhaps try something radically new from time to time.

Adding Creative Value
These people contribute more than intelligence or computer skills. They add creative value. Firms and organizations value it for the results that it can produce and individuals value it as a route to self-expression and job satisfaction. Bottom line: As creativity becomes more valued, the creative class grows. These talented and creative people are the sort of people who power innovation and growth.

Creative People seek an Environment open to Differences
Many highly creative people, regardless of ethnic background or sexual orientation, grew up feeling like outsiders, different in some way from most of their schoolmates. When they are sizing up a new company and community, acceptance of diversity is a sign that reads “non-standard people welcome here.”

The creative class people I study use the word “diversity” a lot, but not to press any political hot buttons.

Diversity is simply something they value in all its manifestations. This is spoken of so often, and so matter-of-factly, that I take it to be a fundamental marker of creative class values.

Creative-minded people enjoy a mix of influences. They want to hear different kinds of music and try different kinds of food. They want to meet and socialize with people unlike themselves, trade views and spar over issues.

As with employers, visible diversity serves as a signal that a community embraces the open meritocratic values of the creative age. The most highly valued options were experiential ones-interesting music venues, neighborhood art galleries, performance spaces, and theaters.

A vibrant, varied nightlife was viewed by many as another signal that a city “gets it,” even by those who infrequently partake in nightlife.

More than anything, the creative class craves real experiences in the real world. They favor active, participatory recreation over passive, institutionalized forms. They prefer indigenous street-level culture-a teeming blend of cafes, sidewalk musicians, and small galleries and bistros, where it is hard to draw the line between performers and spectators.

They crave stimulation, not escape. They want to pack their time full of dense, high-quality, multidimensional experiences. Seldom has one of my subjects expressed a desire to get away from it all. They want to get into it all, and do it with eyes wide open.

Creative class people value active outdoor recreation very highly. They are drawn to places and communities where many outdoor activities are prevalent-both because they enjoy these activities and because their presence is seen as a signal that the place is amenable to the broader creative lifestyle.

New organizational and cultural patterns required
Places that grow up and prosper in one era, Olson argued, find it difficult and often times impossible to adopt new organizational and cultural patterns, regardless of how beneficial they might be. Consequently, innovation and growth shift to new places, which can adapt to and harness these shifts for their benefit.

The cultural and attitudinal norms of that age became so powerfully ingrained in these places that they did not allow the new norms and attitudes associated with the creative age to grow up, diffuse and become generally accepted. This process, in turn, stamped out much of the creative impulse, causing talented and creative people to seek out new places where they could more readily plug in and make a go of it.

Most experts and scholars have not even begun to think in terms of a creative community. Instead, they tend to try to emulate the Silicon Valley model which author Joel Kotkin has dubbed the “nerdistan.” But the nerdistan is a limited economic development model, which misunderstands the role played by creativity in generating innovation and economic growth.