It seemed logical to me that if macroeconomics, mesoeconomics and microeconomics are terms that describe economies of differing scales, that nanoeconomics might be a good term for the smallest 'atom' in the system - the individual person and what goes on in their own mind affecting their economic behaviour. I'm interested because individual artists and cultural workers have been my primary focus of study and their personal livelihood sustainability a focus of my work since 1995.

A quick internet search on the term 'nanoeconomics' returned three main definitions of this term:

• the economics of children (small people - see www.nanoeconomics.org),
• the economics of nanotechnology (Wikipedia definition), or
• the theory of economic behavior of individual economic agents in market or nonmarket conditions (K. Arrow, 1987), otherwise the 'economy of physical persons' (N.P. Redaktsiya, 1996)

Interesting how the particular point of view of the definition-writer - their lens on the economy, so to speak - has led to these differing definitions of nanoeconomics. But no surprise. Logic is, the third definition follows the semantic pattern.

We need to take a good hard look at the 'economics of physical persons', in addition to that of small groups of people. The increase in nonstandard work brought about by the decrease in the number of secure, full-time, full-year employer-employee positions has moved beyond the arts sector. Artists are simply the best example of this type of livelihood environment, and the most long-standing. Their experience is a cautionary tale for all of us, NOT a self-fulfilling prophecy.

People - across their lifetimes, and all the transitioning that that entails - are the new knowledge capitalists (Drucker says) as owners of the means of creative production, if the production starts with ideas. And it is not only the hard and soft skills that people develop over a lifetime, but what they believe about themselves and about how the world works that will determine their ability to generate sustainable livelihood and effectively participate in democratic action. Or not.

It's this internal component that has been the most frustrating for anyone in charge of building an economy. We call it 'attitude' or 'confidence' and we try to squeeze it into - or out of - people. We don't know what to do to make it happen. People's irritating control over their own inner life is the last roadblock to making it all work.

It is the implication of this idea - largely driven by several years experience working with creative and unconventional people through a conventional employment industry paradigm - that has me thinking about the concept I am calling 'nanoeconomics'.

I believe that our antiquated view of labour as primarily a commodity and of labouring individuals as dispensible, interchangeable or re-skill-able cogs in the machinery of production must shift 180 degrees. And that all systems currently in place to intervene and support and build a labour force for a knowledge economy, including public schooling all the way through university and employment and career counselling are founded in and built on this antiquated view. It's externally directed, dependent on experts and driven by measurement methods and statistical sources that are increasingly inappropriate.

Until these structures and the policies they are built on are replaced, all efforts to build a creative economy from the top down, or even from the bottom up, will be severely hampered. A creative economy must be fed and supported by creative people.

And the way to maximize the creativity of each indispensible, unique, self-managing member of society is from the inside out. We can't MAKE it happen. But we CAN - and in working with nearly 2000 artists I can tell you we can - create an environment where it will happen.

All people are born adaptive, flexible and creative, not just artists, and thus we must get out of the way and stop saying one thing and doing everything else. Become more conscious of this cognitive dissonance and less focussed on using fear to get people to make choices we think are best for them. Move towards an asset-based approach in our programs and policies, to encourage and maintain the inherent creativity everyone brings to the community, and focus on helping people develop the competencies they need to build a lifetime of contribution.

Think how artists will soar, then.