Creative Economy

Part I
The Observation and the Dissonance

Appreciation is a beautiful thing. It is in this spirit that I appreciate everyone working tirelessly to awaken our local Creative Economy and advance our National Economic Development Agendas. The recent efforts—from policy and strategy to regulation and implementation—are truly commendable. However, as the global market undergoes a massive structural reorientation, true economic powerhouses cannot be built on patting each other on the back while ignoring deeper systemic misalignments. We must maintain a balance between celebration and critical analysis. Celebration maintains morale, but critical analysis keeps us focused on refinement. A man does not improve by focusing solely on what he is doing right, but on ruthlessly examining his weaknesses. This is not ingratitude; it is the uncompromising pursuit of excellence. This document is meant to make us pause, to evaluate our true readiness for this global transition, and to boldly check our bearings for a necessary course correction. “A stitch in time saves nine.”

Over 33 years of hands-on practice and strategy expertise in the Creative Economy, yet with each local news article and each social media post encountered, I am left increasingly perplexed. Could it be just me who is confused?

One weakness of prolonged experience, in any field, is the indiscriminate illusion of superior knowledge and wisdom it promotes. Especially when the ego is unchecked. So, I have held back, I have observed, and I have cross-checked with others’ research, and still, I can’t shake it, that feeling that something is seriously wrong. Every message, every ‘prompt’ and all the activity around me says we are “sailing” North, so why do I clearly see the sun rising in my rearview mirror, following those boldly marching on ahead of me?

The Creative Economy is nothing new; only the excitement surrounding it is. A new realisation has dawned, and eyes are finally opening to a truth whose origin may even be biblical, that man is creative by nature; a fact that has existed since before the first sin. Creativity and the Creative Economy should therefore be something naturally easy to grasp. That’s the logic, but we are humans, aren’t we? Logic is for the machines.

What is this Creative Economy?Given that our education system has historically and generally steered us away from creative subjects as a serious career path, how certain are we of our understanding of a field we have hitherto shunned with such disdain? What is the source of our newfound belief and confidence in the creative and arts industries as we march boldly through NDS2 towards the 2030 horizon?

Quietly, I have observed, for a while now; The structures, the Regulatory Agencies, the policies, the strategic blueprints and most importantly, the activities and programmes of the local Creative Industries. The activities present the most undeniable empirical evidence that something isn’t quite right.

 At the end of the day, however, this may just be one man’s opinion, but I am convinced that if we are travelling north, I should not be seeing the sun in my rearview mirror.

“What’s in a name?”
 “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” – Juliet mused, in a famous line from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (Act II, Scene II). That was William’s thinking at the time, and contextually correct, perhaps, but more often than not and particularly in matters of a technical nature, a name or misname (misnomer) may betray a real underlying dissonance.

In a community where no adult bears your name, that is usually the first sign that you are an orphan. You wonder why nobody reserved you a seat at dinner, and they swear that they did, but your name is missing. You wonder why no one catered for you; they swear that they did, but there is nothing there that you can eat. As proof, they show you a name on the guest list, but that name is not yours. You are there, but you are not there. That is how I have felt over the years in Zimbabwe’s Creative Economy. A statutory orphan dressed in borrowed policy and strategy robes. Nothing quite fits. While it is safer and more authentic to speak only from one’s lived experience, I know my thoughts and observations resonate with many.

The Ministry of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture (MoSRAC). Is the parent ministry of all Creatives and Creative Industry Organisations. The Ministry under wkhose umbrella the Creative Industries mandate “falls”, bundled together with four other domains of incompatible DNA. Looking closely at the name, we can see some dissonance. However, a casual look seldom rings alarm bells. There is an obvious misalignment with Sport, Recreation and Culture, but “ART”, that seems alright. Art and Creativity are directly related, aren’t they? So, it seems obvious and perfectly normal, if not natural, for the Ministry in charge of the Arts to be the Ministry in charge of the Creative Industries, doesn’t it? “Where is the problem with that?”  You might ask. Well, the obfuscation of Art and Creative, that’s where the problem is.

Read National development strategies, follow policies, events and programmes which run under the Creative Economy and Creative Industries banner. Also follow news reports, interviews and social media posts. Do this for a long enough period, and the orphans will begin to appear. To see this clearly, you will need to have an appreciation of the extent of the Creative Economy and the plethora of Creative Industries.

Part II

The “Orphans” – The Key CE GDP DriversTo understand the scale of this structural misnomer, one must identify the true “Orphans” of the Creative Economy. These are the key GDP-driving sectors that operate on an industrial and technological scale, yet find themselves unrepresented under a traditional “Arts” mandate. In alignment with global UNCTAD frameworks, these heavyweight Creative Sectors include:

• Design Sectors

• 1. Industrial design
  2. graphic design
  3. interior design
  4. fashion design
  5. systems design

• Architecture & Environmental Design

• 1. Urban planning
  2. landscape architecture
  3. structural design

• Technology & Digital Media

• 1. Software development
  2. IT services
  3. UI/UX design
  4. Web Design (e-commerce, etc.)
  5. app development
  6. video game development

• Advertising & Marketing

• 1. Commercial communications
  2. Brand strategy
  3. copywriting
  4. market research

• Publishing & Print Media

• 1. Books
  2. press
  3. digital media publications
  4. specialised literature

• Broadcasting & Media Production

1. Television and radio programming (distinct from the individual performing artists themselves)

• Creative Research & Development (R&D)
  1. The scientific and systematic innovation processes, including structural problem-solving for industrial applications.
     (E&OE)

Part III

The Economic Reality and the 2% Illusion

One thing that is immediately apparent is the impracticality of running the Creative Industries under an Arts Banner and the inappropriateness of applauding Arts programmes, strategies and activities as successes representative of success in the broader Creative Economy.

Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, even at the policy level, the ARTS—particularly in their traditional sense— cannot house the Creative Economy and Creative Industries as the Arts are a subset of the Creative Economy and Creative Industries. Where the two are to be packaged together, it is the Arts which must fall under the Creative Economy and Creative Industry banner, not the other way round. Ideally, if there is to be one umbrella, a Creative Economy and Creative Industries body should oversee the Arts as they find their industrial feet, not the other way round, especially considering the general and traditional understanding of the Arts.

It is tempting to say that this is just a title or naming issue which has no bearing on actual operations. After all, “What’s in a name, right?” However, the negative effect of a misnomer is something that is easy to verify or evaluate. By simply reading through strategy and policy documents, as well as by observation of programmes and activities on the ground, one can gain some useful insights. Recent and past Arts sector awards are quite telling, but this extends to the NGO space as well, where recent and past Creative Economy programmes and activities have really just been Arts and Culture programmes dressed in Creative Economy Masks, while the broader Creative Industries remain unrepresented or under-represented Orphans with no direct policy or budgetary support.

Where things get really interesting is that the “Orphans” are actually the industries which, to date, are responsible for moving the GDP needle and are the producers of the global GDP figures that are often the proxy data validation quoted as “proof of concept” at these ARTS events and in related publications, strategies and programmes.  For Example, $2.3 trillion or ~3% of annual global GDP (UNCTAD, 2023) and 2% of local GDP (ZIMSTAT).

To understand the depth of this discrepancy, we must examine the data driving these figures:

• The Global (UNCTAD) Reality

Of the roughly $2.3 trillion global creative economy, trade growth is structurally driven by services, not physical goods. Global exports of creative services reached a record US$1.4 trillion recently, nearly double the US$713 billion generated by physical creative goods. This massive valuation is driven explicitly by software services, R&D, digital publishing, design, and architecture—the very “Orphan” sectors currently “misclassified” and “ignored” locally.

• The Local (ZIMSTAT) Reality

Zimbabwe calculates its GDP using the 2008 System of National Accounts (SNA). Under this system, the isolated “Arts, Entertainment and Recreation” sector contributed roughly 0.13% to the total nominal GDP in recent data—a fraction of a single percent, and far removed from the 2% average often quoted. Furthermore, recent quarterly data show this traditional Arts sector contracting, while the broader economy recovers. The missing economic impact of the Creative Economy is hidden inside major macroeconomic categories like Manufacturing and the Information and Communication sectors, further proving that an Arts ministry cannot appropriately regulate industrial drivers.

Of the Global figures, the Performance Arts, including Film and Music contribute less than 10% of the Creative Industries’ contribution to GDP. The local (ZIMSTAT) figure of 2% is attributable elsewhere in the Creative Economy, yet these high-visibility sectors of the Creative Economy receive the greatest, if not all, the support. This is, of course, not to say that the Arts should not be getting support; they absolutely should get the support. The Arts are a critical sector, especially in their role in cultural diplomacy and the development of global soft power. They must get support. However, that does not change the fact that this is not the Creative Industries’ subsector that is moving the ~3% global Creative Industries contribution to GDP and is not the subsector that is going to deliver on the aspirations of NDS2 and the 2030 Upper Middle income Economy AGENDA. The Arts sector will definitely contribute and with greater significance as development of the sector continues, but it largely sits in the eye of the storm at present.

There is an absolute and urgent need to reorganise around the Creative Economy and capacitate the core Industries for rapid and definite economic development. While developing the performance and cultural Arts Industries such as music, film and crafts, for example, is important and urgent, these are not the key movers of rapid economic development in the Creative Sector. While generally,  Arts programmes have sought to capacitate and industrialise Artists and improve their livelihoods as part of Creative Economy development efforts, they ignore already existing structured Creative Industries that built and form the already existing Creative Economy and which are badly in need of development and capacitation of key industries which already and have historically, significantly contributed to GDP. The Creative Economy is not something we are “creating” by capacitating and formalising Artists; that economy already exists and has always existed; it already has established players. What is being done, largely through donor aid and grants, is simply creating space for, or co-opting the Artists into an already existing Creative Economy. The Economy has legacy developmental needs outside of the Arts and Culture space.

Can you see the discombobulation and obfuscation that exists within the Creative Economy, and why the current structures are problematic? Locally, there is currently no direct means of dealing with the Creative Economy and Creative Industries except as Orphans under the care of Arts and Culture programmes. It’s the classic tale of the tail wagging the dog. That is as good an analogy as I can give to illustrate the current conundrum.

Part IV

The Solution

Decoupling and Structural Realignment

To realise the ambitions of NDS2 and the 2030 Upper Middle-Income Economy Agenda, we must cease forcing an industrial economic engine to operate under a cultural and recreational mandate. The solution is not to diminish the Arts, but to emancipate the broader Creative Industries. This requires a deliberate, systemic decoupling of the “Orphan” industries from the Arts umbrella, placing them within frameworks designed for industrial and economic scale.

Pillar I

Establishing a Creative Industries Body (CIB)

The core GDP-driving sectors of the Creative Economy require an apex regulatory and advocacy body that speaks the language of industry, not just closed-loop events, exhibition, performance and workshopping.

• Mandate
  The immediate institutionalisation of the “Creative Industries Body (CIB)” as an independent trust and structural authority. The CIB will serve as the bridge between the government and the “Orphan” industries, providing the missing policy advocacy, standards regulation, and cross-sector integration.

• Economic Alignment

Through the “CIB”, these sectors must be strategically aligned with ministries focused on Industry, Commerce, and ICT, ensuring they are recognised as critical infrastructure for national development.

Pillar II

The Educational Leapfrog

The historical failure of our general education system to treat creative subjects as serious, scientific, and economic career paths must be corrected at an institutional level. We cannot build a multi-million-dollar local creative economy using informal, trial-and-error mentorship.

• Mandate
  The deployment of specialised, digital-first educational frameworks, spearheaded by institutions like the Creative Business Institute™ (CBI)™.

• Curriculum Shift

Education must pivot from merely teaching “artistic expression” to the rigorous science of creativity. This includes integrating cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and design thinking into the business curriculum. Practitioners must be trained in standardised creative protocols, cognitive decoupling, and advanced productivity frameworks to systematically industrialise their output.

Pillar III

Standardised Valuation and Metrics
We must abandon the subjective, emotive pricing models native to the traditional Arts. For the Creative Economy to integrate fully into the national financial system, it requires empirical valuation frameworks.

• Efficiency and Mastery Metrics

The industry must adopt proprietary business formulas and value chain frameworks that calculate the true economic value of creative work based on practitioner efficiency, historical mastery, and direct ROI for clients. This turns creative services from a “grudge purchase” into a measurable capital investment.

Part V

Implementation Roadmap
To operationalise this structural shift, the following phased approach is recommended for immediate adoption by state regulatory bodies and private sector stakeholders:

• Phase 1
  Policy Audit and Reclassification (Months 1-6)
  • Formally adopt the UNCTAD classification of the Creative Economy at the national statistical level (ZIMSTAT).
  • Audit current MoSRAC mandates and legally redefine the boundary between “Cultural Arts” and “Industrial Creative Services.”

• Phase 2
  Institutional Authorisation (Months 6-12)
  • Formalise the “CIB” as the officially recognised advisory board and standard-setting entity for all non-performance creative industries.
  • Establish an inter-ministerial task force (MoSRAC, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Ministry of ICT) guided by the “CIB” to ensure cross-pollination of the new creative mandate.

• Phase 3
  Capacitation and Industrialisation (Year 2)
  • Launch institutions like the Creative Business Institute (CBI) to begin the aggressive upskilling of the current informal sector.
  • Introduce state-backed funding, not as “grants for artists,” but as R&D tax credits and industrialisation loans for design, software, and systems firms.

• Phase 4
  Economic Integration (Year 3 and Beyond)
  • Require government and parastatal procurement policies to mandate the use of “CIB”-accredited local creative industries for all national infrastructure, software, and communication projects, thereby retaining the local GDP contribution currently lost to foreign consultants.

Conclusion

The Creative Economy is not a cultural festival; it is a highly sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar industrial complex. By continuing to misclassify our architects of ingenuity as traditional artists or not classifying them at all, we are willingly blinding ourselves to our most potent engine for economic leapfrogging. It is time to clear the discombobulation, properly name the orphans, and build the architecture necessary to house them.

Kmak – March 2026Founder, Creative Business Institute (CBI)™
Design Council of Zimbabwe (DECOZ)™