You say 'creative', and I say 'creative'.

This article examines the conceptual referents of the term 'creative' as used in the terms 'creative industries', 'creative class' and 'creative city'. The way in which these conceptually divergent usages can be conflated, and the difficulties this poses for policy, is considered with a particular focus on the deployment of the term within the current 'Liverpool Cultural Strategy'. It is argued that both within and without the purview of this strategy, multiple aims for policy intervention are obscured by the use of this single term. It is also argued that this obfuscation is encouraged by a Floridian conception of creativity as a single, unified entity, but that the adoption of such a Floridian conception is not followed through to Florida's ultimate conclusions regarding the potential for the adoption of the creative agenda to exacerbate social problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]