What support does the knowledge-based production acceleration law offer creative industries, and why are these supports not producing results?

Despite the approval of the knowledge-based production acceleration law, the use of its legal provisions in this field remains limited, even with provisions for supporting natural persons active in creative industries and an expanded list of eligible products. Esfandiar Ekhtiari, Deputy for Development and Planning at the Vice Presidency for Science and Technology, says that over the past four years, the number of creative-industry actors who have used the tax credit has been zero or at most one or two. In contrast,

According to Ambassador Arjan, in recent years, creative industries have become one of the topics of interest to policymakers in the field of science and technology; A field that includes games, animation and digital content production to tourism, fashion and clothing, cultural industries and businesses based on creativity. However, there is a gap between the recognition of this field in upstream laws and documents and the real access of its activists to financial, tax and infrastructure support, which was noticed in the specialized panel "Governance of Creative Industries and the Capacities of the Knowledge-Based Production Leap Law".

The statements made in this meeting highlight three main issues:

First, very limited use of existing support tools

Second, the difficulty of adapting the nature of creative industries to evaluation mechanisms designed for hard technologies

Third, the lack of clear and effective paths for financing, commercialization and market development of these businesses

What are the advantages of the knowledge-based production leap law for creative industries?

In this panel, referring to the capacities of the law on the jump of knowledge-based production, Esfandiar Esfandiar, the vice president for development and planning of the scientific vice president, said that the note of article 6 of this law, which was approved in 1401, has provided the possibility of supporting natural and legal persons active in the field of creative industries.

The importance of this ruling is due to the fact that a significant part of the protection related to knowledge-based companies is focused on legal entities and registered companies; While creative activity is not necessarily limited to a large company or even a legal entity. An individual, group of content producers or independent activists in the cultural and artistic fields may also have a creative idea or product that can be economically developed.

According to Al-Fati, paying attention to natural persons in this note is one of the leading features of the law. He also announced the change in the evaluation and supervision regulations of the Scientific Vice-Chancellor and the expansion of indicators and products included in the evaluation of creative companies.

However, from his point of view, expanding the legal scope of protections has not meant their effective use. Pointing to the gap between the existing capacities and the country's performance in this area, Ekhti said frankly: "We ourselves are not satisfied either."

This comment shows that the issue of creative industries cannot be measured simply by counting laws, regulations or support programs; The more important criterion is how far the activists in this field can use these tools for product development, financing and entering the market.

The use of the creative industries tax credit is almost zero

One of the most important parts of optional statements was dedicated to tax credit; A tool that can cover a part of eligible research and development costs of companies through the tax mechanism, if the legal conditions are met.

According to him, in the last four years, the number of creative industry activists who have used this capacity has been zero or at most one to two cases; A figure that he considered very low.

The importance of this statistic is that tax credit can be an important tool to reduce costs for companies that are developing innovative technology, products or processes. However, if the projects of creative industries cannot pass the evaluation process or the activists of this field do not have the possibility to use the relevant mechanism, the existence of such a tool alone will not lead to practical support.

Of course, the authority did not blame all the responsibility for this situation on government regulations and institutions and emphasized the need for further follow-up by the activists of the creative industries. From his point of view, part of the existing legal capacity has not yet been turned into a specific demand and executive follow-up by the users.

But is the lack of demand the whole story? The statements of other speakers of this meeting show that the issue may be beyond the activists' awareness of the rules or not following them; Because even companies that apply for support may face criteria that do not fit the nature of their activities.

Activists of creative industries say that the problem is not only demanding

Sajjadiniri, one of the activists in this field, who spoke on the panel about the governance experience of creative industries, while emphasizing the progress of recent years, believed that the existence of a law and a national document alone is not enough for the formation of an efficient support system.

Referring to the approval of the law on the leap of knowledge-based production, the drafting of a national document related to the development of technology and culture, and the holding of events at the national level for creative industries, he considered these developments as a sign of progress in recognizing this field. According to him, activists once demanded that creative industries become a policy priority, that a document be prepared for them and that they be considered at the country's decision-making level; Now some of these wishes have been fulfilled.

However, he stressed that criticizing the status quo does not mean ignoring past progress. From his point of view, the main issue is the gap between announced policies and executive mechanisms; Mechanisms that are still not adapted to the characteristics of creative industries in many cases.

Sajjadiniri also emphasized that the governance of creative industries should not be limited to the law of leapfrogging knowledge-based production. According to him, this law is one of the support tools, but the issues related to the market, financing, evaluation, business development and the place of soft technologies should also be seen in the policy of this area.

Predominance of hard technology look; Preventing innovation in culture and art

One of the main criticisms raised in this meeting was related to the technology evaluation approach in the scientific vice-chancellor. Sajjadiniri explained that the support mechanisms formed around knowledge-based companies are traditionally more suited to hard and tangible technologies; Technologies that are usually directly related to equipment, physical products, and fields such as mathematics, physics, and experimental sciences.

On the other hand, fields such as humanities, social sciences, culture, art and soft technologies face more difficulty to be included in these frameworks.

According to him, although the list of products and technologies related to creative industries has expanded in the recent period and some of the previous ones have been modified, these changes are still far from the ideal situation.

This criticism goes back to the essential difference between the two types of innovation. In hard technology, innovation may take the form of a measurable part, device, equipment, or product; But in creative industries, the value of innovation can be formed in an educational method, narrative, animation content, game design, tourism experience or a model for promoting human capital.

If the assessment system focuses mainly on physical product, equipment or engineering technologies, some cultural and creative innovations may not be identified as technology at all; Even if specialized knowledge, new methods and complex processes were used to develop them.

From filming equipment to animation; Difficulty in defining the creative product

To explain this issue, Sajjadiniri mentioned how to set up the list of products and technologies eligible for support. According to him, in some cases, items such as equipment used in filming and sound recording are included in the list related to creative industries; While this approach does not necessarily cover all the capacities of soft technology and innovation in the production of creative content.

He emphasized that the modification of some of these lists was a positive step, but the product-oriented and hard technology view is still prominent in them.

This issue is also important in the field of animation and game making. For example, a studio may produce a distinctive product by using an innovative approach to narrative, character design, education, content production, or audience interaction; But if the evaluation criteria is more focused on information technology, software or specific technical components, an important part of the innovation of that set will not be seen properly.

According to Sajjadiniri, a similar view can be seen in fields such as tourism and fashion and clothing. In these industries, economic value does not necessarily derive from the production of physical equipment or technology, but may be based on design, user experience, cultural knowledge, proprietary content, and service delivery.

Consequently, it is not just a matter of adding a few titles to the product list; Rather, it should be determined what kind of innovations, with what indicators and based on which evaluation process can be supported.

Why creative projects do not get tax credit?

Sajjadiniri's criticism also extended to the stage of evaluating projects to receive tax credits. He believed that at this stage too, the hard technology approach prevails and this issue can limit the possibility of approving creative projects.

According to him, in some technical areas, including medicine and equipment, the path to using tax instruments for eligible projects seems clearer; But in areas where innovation is more evident in content, design, method or user experience, the path to evaluation is more difficult.

For example, if a project in the field of animation focuses on content innovation, rather than the development of a new technical technique or technology, it may face difficulties in the evaluation process. Likewise, a tourism project that uses an innovative model for service delivery or visitor experience design may not easily meet the expected criteria.

Of course, recognizing that each project is eligible for tax credits requires the review of related documents and regulations, and the right to receive this support cannot be determined solely based on the creativity of an activity. The issue raised in the panel is whether the existing criteria can correctly identify different types of innovation or not.

Sajjadiniri also pointed out that when the probability of project approval is low from the beginning, the motivation of companies to enter administrative processes and spend money on preparing documents decreases. In such a situation, the low number of applicants or users is not necessarily only a sign of weak demand and may also be related to the activists' perception of the probability of their requests being successful.