the power structure of the fashion

France

industry: Fashion capitals, globalization

and creativity
introduction All major cities are characterized by a ubiquitous ‘atmosphere’ that influences both its
inhabitants and its visitors, and gives a particular feel and shape to ideas and objects originating
from it (Molotch 2003). They have a specific
identity that is characterized by a certain level of resilience, even though it is not necessarily stable or
unambiguous.
In addition, the identity of cities, or ‘urban spaces’, is a social construct (Gottdiener 1994). Such a
construct, although located in a symbolic and imaginary context, is intimately linked to a specific local
production system, a place whose layout depends on relationships between actors who are, in turn, at
least partially shaped by this place (Aydalot 1986; Mora 2006; Porter 1998; Saxenian 1996). Take the
example of Paris. In a way, ‘Paris’ − among other cities − can be thought of as a brand in addition to
the brands of companies that are localized in the Parisian production space, as it is the case of
companies like L’Oréal Paris which do not hesitate to base certain aspects of their ‘brand personality’
(Aaker 1997) on the imaginary and the symbolic elements associated with the French capital. The
location of an activity must not be understood here only as the location of manufacturing, but rather
as the location of the decision-making centres, that is to say the global centres of power.
This article is based on the premise that any city is located in a multi-level imaginary and symbolic
socio-economic space. Globally, different cities and spaces (urban or not) compete for the attention of
a global arena of stakeholders (Sassen 2001). In the late twentieth century, this space has become a
‘space of flows’ in which symbols, objects and (some) humans circulate freely (Castells 2000),
increasing the intensity of the competition. At the intermediate level, for example at the national level,
local production systems, and in particular regions (Storper 1997), are nested and constitute more or
less homogeneous legal and socio-economic spheres. Concrete ties are formed locally and constitute
the substrate of the other levels. These different levels are interrelated, although each of them is
partially autonomous and constitutes a specific field of action. They should therefore be considered
simultaneously, in interaction. This article focuses on the global level, but other levels are not ignored.
It is surprising that when reading fashion magazines, only a couple of urban spaces and cities are
reviewed and thought to be influential fashion centres. In the eyes of fashion industry stakeholders,
New York, London, Milan and Paris matter much more than Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai or São Paulo.
This is a striking fact, notably because some have declared the world to be flat (Friedman 2005),
implying that power is increasingly evenly distributed. It seems that the oligarchic structure of fashion
that emerged in the twentieth century is still predominant and rarely questioned even though in many
other realms − such as finance or international relations − new players have emerged.
This article − which synthesizes empirical studies originating from various disciplines − starts by
presenting the different protagonists who compete in the global arena of fashion capitals, and the
evolution from the monarchical regime centred on Paris to the more recent oligarchy that adds to the
French capital London, New York and Milan. The potential of new players is assessed, and fashion
capitals are positioned in the global fashion system. Scenarios for the evolution of the power structure
of fashion capitals are then defined, not so much to predict the future − a perilous exercise − but to put
into sharper release the current underlying forces that shape the formation of fashion capitals.
Pathways for further research are discussed.
 The power structure of the fashion industry
41

Fashion capitals: from monarchy, to oligarchy, to polyarchy?

The myth of Parisian fashion
In popular representations, the fashion industry is dominated by Paris, which reigns − metaphorically
as a jealous monarch − on global style and glamour. As Crane (2000: 132) explains:

Until the 1960s, the creation of fashionable clothing styles was a highly centralized process in
which, with few exceptions, styles originating in Paris predominated. Other centers of style were
not nearly as influential as Paris and generally followed its dictates. Popular stereotypes of how
fashion operates are drawn from this period and persist today, although fashion now functions
very differently.

This myth of Paris as the global centre of fashion has been upheld by the mass media, for example by
French fashion magazines, which have created several fashion myths around Paris such as ‘la
Parisienne’ (the Parisian woman) (Rocamora 2009). The reign of Paris is also rooted in history, notably
because several of fashion’s main innovations emerged in Paris, such as the designer as star or the
institution of the fashion show (Godart 2012). If we are to understand the keys to success in Parisian
fashion, we must go back to the reign of Louis XIV and the concentration of France’s political power
in Versailles. The influence of French fashions supplanted that of Spanish, Italian or English styles.
This predominance of French fashion was well understood and instrumentalized by French leaders.
Molotch (2003: 166–67) explains:

People often prefer that goods of a particular sort come from a particular distant place, almost as
a matter of type form […] Such ‘valorization of milieu’ is potent. For Paris, fashion centrality has
long been self-conscious […] Colbert, minister to Louis XIV, said that ‘fashion for France should
be what gold mines of Peru were to Spain’.

The Parisian pre-eminence was reinforced by the taste of Queen Marie Antoinette for fashion, a way
for her to increase her influence on a court where her foreign status (she was of Austrian origin) made
her position difficult. The queen also opened the field of fashion to the emergence of ‘griffes’, or labels
(see, for example, Bourdieu and Delsaut 1975), notably through the promotion of her personal
dressmaker, Rose Bertin, who was one of the first (if not the first) to see her name associated with her
creations (Sapori 2003).
This influence, linked to the political power of France at the time, was also supported by economic
and social factors such as the existence of a large textile industry in Paris (long competing with Lyons)
and the emergence of what Lipovetsky (1987) called the ‘hundred years’ fashion’. This fashion regime,
which lasted about a century, was based on the predominance of haute couture, with at its centre
couturiers like Charles Frederick Worth and Paul Poiret.
Paris as a fashion capital has survived World War II, notably because of the role played by the New
Look of Christian Dior in 1947, which reasserted French style on the global stage. French haute couture,
which today gathers no more than 1000 clients around the world, has managed to successfully make
the transition in the 1960s to new ready-to-wear. The vitality of the industry Frédéric Godart 42
 was echoed and amplified by appropriate public policies especially in production in cities
the early 1980s, such as the grouping of fashion shows around the Louvre. such as Roanne and
The role of the former minister of culture of French president François Cholet (Courault
Mitterrand − Jack Lang − was central (Steele 1998; Waquet and Laporte and Doeringer
2002). It is therefore the establishment of a coalition of local and national 2008), Paris is a
stakeholders which helped French fashion to persist in its position as primus central location,
inter pares: ‘From 1980 to 1990, fashion could never have become fashionable because of the
in Paris without a close cooperation between the industry, haute couture, location on its
and political power’ (Waquet and Laporte 2002: 212). Molotch (1976) is territory of large
therefore right to see in cities a place where local political and industrial groups such PPR or
actors, sometimes in association with players that are active at the national LVMH and world-
or even international level, partner to help grow a local economy that is in class
competition with other local economies. 2. See
Also, France benefited from the consolidation of its position in the http://www.marketre
searchworld.net/cont
luxury and fashion industries through the creation, in the late 1980s and ent/view/2647/77/.
early 1990s, of the two fashion groups LVMH and PPR (today Kering). They Accessed 10 March
allowed Paris to retain its dominance despite the emergence of major 2014.The power
structure of the
competing markets and the outsourcing of production to low-cost fashion industry 43
countries. This was achieved through acquisitions of foreign brands and a
strategy of ‘brain drain’ of other fashion capitals’ talents to Paris
In addition, still today, the identity of Paris as an urban centre is strongly
linked to the various segments of the luxury and fashion industries (Steele
2003; Waquet and Laporte 2002; Wilson 2003). This can be also seen in
numerous popular culture productions, such as in Robert Altman’s film
Ready to Wear (1994) (in which global fashion is reduced to the Paris
microcosm) or in the TV series Sex and the City, which ends in Paris,
represented as the world capital of glamour. Of course, the Parisian identity
is not limited to the luxury and fashion industries, and it extends to other
industries and activities such as haute cuisine (Ferguson 1998), the arts and
even various industrial activities such as banking, but the luxury and
fashion industries are at the centre of Paris’s specificity.
Overall, Paris is an influential global city. For example, the French
capital is second only to Tokyo in terms of attractiveness for the seats of
large business groups (Gilli and Offner 2009: 57), and therefore attracts
highly skilled workers. In addition, a 2009 ranking of city ‘brands’ ranked
2
Paris first just above Sydney, London, Rome and New York. In sum, the
imaginary and symbolic importance of Paris results in a very real
territorialization of economic activities in the metropolitan Paris area.
Also, it must be noted that Paris draws some of its power from its domi-
nation of the French space. The ‘Paris’ brand can be extended to France as a
whole, but the Parisian symbolic power somehow absorbs the French
symbolism: ‘All the weight of the image of French fashion has
simultaneously converged on the single name of Paris’ (Waquet and
Laporte 2002: 98). This is mainly due to the often-noted fact of the high
concentration of all forms of power (cultural, economic and political) of the
French national space in the Paris area. As Pinçon and Pinçon-Charlot (2004:
48) write: ‘All the dominant poles in all fields, political, artistic, cultural,
economic, are […] concentrated in Paris.’ Other French cities beyond Paris
occupy a special place in one or more industries, such as aeronautics in
Toulouse or electronics in Grenoble (Grossetti 2001). Yet, in the field of
fashion, despite the existence of important centres of textile or stylistic
 events, including fashion shows and fairs such as ‘Première Vision’. Thus, it is because of the uniqueness of its
territory that Paris has a privileged access to the network of global cities and dominates the symbolic and imaginary
presence of France in fashion and luxury.
In sum, Paris has benefited from what many economists, including Krugman (1993), called ‘path dependency’, that
is to say the benefits provided by a position at the beginning of a socio-economic process. Yet, as Krugman (1991) points
out, ‘history’ is not everything and the ‘expectations’ of social actors can also define the success of a place through
fulfilling prophecy mechanisms. In other words, a location is successful because it was successful in the past, and actors
believe it will still be in the future. Similarly, the effects of aggregation can lead to the emergence of new economic
centres that compete with existing poles (Krugman and Venables 1996). In luxury and fashion, the power of France in
general, and of Paris in particular, is not only the effect of contingent historical phenomena that are still in effect today,
but also of a mobilization of stakeholders around the Paris metropolitan area who have helped to counter or contain
the emergence of new centres.
But the domination of global fashion by Paris is long gone (Godart 2011a). Paris is now part of a wider oligarchic power
structure in which four fashion capitals − Paris, London, New York and Milan − dominate the global fashion scene. Each of these
cities has its own identity and occupies a specific symbolic and economic position in the industry. Paris might still be a primus
inter pares but it has certainly lost its crown (Godart 2012).