Creative Destruction: De-industrialisation

or a ‘Fashion Capital for the Creative Industries’ in London

Yara Evans and Adrian Smith

Department of GeographyQueen Mary, University of London

London E1 4NS

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

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)

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

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

The Clothing Manufacturing Industry: UK and London

‘Worlds of production’ and Garment Producers in LondonAnalysis 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):

Table IV –Two narratives of change in London’s clothing industry, 2004 (% of surveyed firms)

Key variablesDecline

(over the last five years)Growth

(over the last five years)

Annual output 55.0 % 32.5 %

Annual turnover 61.4 % 27.3 %

Order size 56.1 % 19.5 %

Number of employees 55.8 % 14.0 %

Number of customers- 20.0 %

Source: Survey of Clothing Firms, London April-June 2004.

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

Table V - Mix of Activities, Garment Makers, London 2004Activities Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm DLocation North London East London North London Central LondonTime in business 10 years 22 years 20 years 22 yearsTurnover (2003) £150,000 £600,000 £2.5 m £2 mOutput (2003) 10,000 30,000 Undisclosed 60,000Design Yes Yes Yes YesLocation London London London LondonType of Garment Women's designer Womens's evening Evening gowns Women's designerQuality High High High HighOwn Label Yes No Yes YesManufacturing No Yes Yes YesSubcontracts - Yes Yes YesLocation - China,India,Romania Bulgaria Bali ,China, IndiaOrder Size - Small Runs Small Runs Large RunsCustomer - High St Retailers H St Retailers Retail/WholesalersCMT Yes Yes Yes NoProd Location London London London -Type of Garment W's/children's fashion Evening gowns Casual W's -Quality Good/High High Basic -Order Size Small to large runs Small Large -Customer Designer chain H St Retailers H St Retailers -Source: Fieldwork, London, March - August 2004.

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

Clothing employment in the ten most important London boroughs, 1998-2002

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Barnet

Camden

Enfield

Hackney

Haringey

Islington

Newham

Tower Hamlets

Waltham Forest

Westminster

Table VII - London Districts Ranking: Average Scores, Income and Employment, IMD 2004Borough England

Rank:Average

Score

LondonRank:

AverageScore

London Rank:Income

London Rank:Employment

Tower Hamlets 4 1 2 6

Hackney 5 2 3 4

Islington 6 3 11 8

Newham 11 4 1 2

Haringey 13 5 5 5

Southwark 17 6 6 3

Camden 19 7 15 11

Lambeth 23 8 4 1

Westminster 39 9 21 18

Greenwich 41 10 13 14

Barking and Dagenham 42 11 18 21

Waltham Forest 47 12 14 15

Source: The English Indices of Deprivation 2004, ODPM (2004)

•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

Change in the Clothing Industry : Decline and Deprivation in London

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

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.