Antonio Bariletti and Eleonora Sanfilippo<\/p>\n
October, 2015<\/p>\n
Abstract: <\/strong>The notion of \u201ccreativity\u201d has assumed a growing importance in the recent economic literature on happiness, motivations and life-satisfaction. Starting from the seminal contribution of Scitovsky, the effects of \u201ccreative goods\u201d and \u201ccreative activities\u201d on consumers\u2019 well-being, in connection with cultural, sociological, psychological and educational aspects, have been analyzed. An increasing interest in these concepts has also been shown recently by policy-makers and international institutions (see, e.g., the UNCTAD Reports on Creative Economy, 2010, 2013), in particular in relation to economic growth. On the other hand, a clear and rigorous analytical definition of this category of goods and activities and deep investigation of its peculiarity in comparison with other types of products and activities, broadly defined as comfort or defensive ones, is still lacking in the economic literature. This is why, despite its wide use in economics, the nature of the distinction still remains somehow vague and not univocal. The aim of this paper is to provide a contribution to help clarify this distinction by reconstructing its meaning and scope in the works of Scitovsky (1976, 1992) and Hawtrey (1925) \u2013 the first economists who have tried to provide an analytical content to the notion of creative goods and activities in their theoretical frameworks. <\/p>\n JEL codes: B31, B41, D01, D11<\/p>\n Keywords: Scitovsky, Hawtrey, Cambridge, creative goods, creative activities, consumers\u2019 satisfaction, education, culture, cultural policy. <\/p>\n