EAEU’s Creative Industries: Regulatory Policy, Policy Priorities, State Support

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a compelling and clear study of the creative industries in countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. Much data has been synthesized here and the authors offer productive proposals about how to improve government support and regulation relevant to the creative industries.

One of the main takeaways from the piece is that there is not a clear definition of the creative industries among the governments of the countries examined in the research. This is an apt observation but, unfortunately, it also applies to the authors of the article. There is a robust debate on the creative industries and the various ways of defining what belongs in it in the literature on this topic but it is not explored in depth here.

One of the central missing components of this study is a clear definition of what counts as creative industries and what does not. Is it based on culture, or a cultural expression, which is relatively specific, or does it relate to any form of innovation, in which case it could apply to any business and the arts and culture would be only a small fraction of this domain? The authors seem not to have a perspective on this question, or they have not offered one in this article. This muddles the recommendations because, since they have not defined the creative industries and what should be included, they cannot offer any expertise to the governments they have examined who need to to clarify this field in order to contribute to promoting it.

The simplest solution to my mind would be to extend the literature review so it actually tackles the thorny issue of what counts as a "creative industry" and what kinds of support such industries require from government. The authors list publications on the creative industry (refs 6-10 for example) but they do not explore these sources in depth or discuss how to assess what creative industries are and how to limit this category productively. This should be done, and also it is important to separate these from innovation in general: on line 87-88, the article provides a list of 4 areas in need of innovation and none of these seem to my mind to apply to the creative industries. This makes it unclear from the outset what the authors' intent is: to promote innovation in electrical engineering and biotechnology or to support the production of arts/culture/creative industries? Throughout the piece, the authors seem to use these ideas interchangeably. This is accurate in a sense, because the governments they study are vague about the creative industries but, as experts in the field, they should clarify this issue (which would make a real contribution to government debates and regulation of the creative industries). This should be done through an elaboration of the literature review but the authors should review the article as a whole to determine where the data they analyze and report is unclear, and in which cases their own text could clarify what should count as creative industries.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for such an in-depth analysis of our article and valuable comments.

1. Based on your recommendations, the literature review was expanded and existing approaches to the definition of creative industries were described, which in turn were supplemented by the author's definition of the creative industries (line 102-118).
2. In particular, based on the analysis of existing literature, a distinction was made regarding those innovations that relate to the creative industries (line 119-134).
3. The authors also focused on the sub-index in the field of creativity (Global Innovation Index 2023), to more clearly separate creative innovations from others (line 78-82).

Your comments and recommendations are extremely valuable and have greatly helped to improve the article.

Best regards,

Authors of the article

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the paper with interest and found it has some merit. However, my impression is that, in its present form, it needs some major revisions before being published. My detailed comments follow.

My main comment is about the relationship/difference between creative and innovative industries. This is highlighted in the paper particularly when mentioning Armenia and Belarus, which have no definition (list) of creative industries, but focus on innovative industries. However, my impression is that the issue should be discussed more precisely and in greater depth. In fact, it depends a lot on what you mean by “innovation”. If the measure for innovation is patents, then we should be careful because creative industries do not patent much. If, instead, innovation is considered in its softer components (e.g., trademarks and/or designs), then creative industries are for sure extremely innovative.

My second comment is about the need of clearly mentioning the sources of information. For instance, the sources of information provided in Table 2 should be clearly stated.

Related to this, it is very hard to assess whether the work is complete. Much more thorough discussion and much more information on the sources should be provided. In addition, my impression is that the work would dramatically benefit from interviews to some relevant stakeholders in each country.

Moreover, the rationale for the criteria established by the authors should be explained much more thoroughly (a clear rationale behind methodological choices is fundamental in any scientific work).

Minor points

• The list of the members of the EAEU should be provided at the very beginning of the paper for the readers who are not familiar with this organization (btw, they are only Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia, correct?)
• I noticed that Russia is always listed first, while the other countries are listed in alphabetical order, but in any case after Russia. Why?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. In accordance with your recommendations, a number of changes have been made to the text.

1. Based on the analysis of existing literature, the «Literature review» section provides a description of the relationship between creative and innovative industries. Thus, the authors classify innovations in creative sphere related to two groups: innovations that have a significant high-tech component at their core, which has been supplemented by creativity; innovations that allow increasing the visibility of creative industries in the modern world (lines 119-134).
2. The text clearly mentions the sources of information, including tables based on external sources.
3. The criteria presented by the authors concerning the levels of development of regulatory policy are described in more detail in the «Materials and Methods» section (lines 201-222).
4. The article has been supplemented at the beginning with a list of EAEU member countries. In particular, the order of countries has been changed, the countries are arranged in alphabetical order throughout the text.

An important recommendation is to include in the text interviews with some relevant stakeholders in each country. In the opinion of the authors, this recommendation deserves significant development and a separate article. The authors decided to delve into this issue in future studies.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback. Your comments and recommendations are extremely valuable and have greatly helped to improve the article.

Best regards,

Authors of the Manuscript

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept.