When money is easy to be had, the creative allowance that fashion enjoys tends to be more available. This is largely due to the assurance that more of the buying public has confidence and fiscal room to experiment. In the 20s and the 80s, the volume of easily accessible credit gave the public an inflated confidence to indulge and the more experimental aspects of fashion came about. People consumed more and that gave designers confidence to produce new ideas to keep up with demand and consumption.

The 60s experienced affluence based on more money versus credit. In particular this affluence came from the youth of the hardworking 50s. With this confidence and a population flush with cash, creativity was able to advance and explode forth.

Of course, when times are tougher the creativity tends to pool towards who has the funds, and so the glamour tends to be reserved for those who can afford it. More so, the glamour tends to be somewhat restrained in cut shape and form. In tougher times where restraint is a factor, be it the 30s, 40s and parts of the 70s, the more conservative aspects come into play.

But another factor is part of the equation. Our internationalization brought about by our increased technologically-based connectedness has allowed us to merge cultural aspects to appeal to a broader global audience. Under prosperity this heralds a greater range of influences to draw upon and experiment with, knowing there is a guaranteed profit. Under times of fiscal duress, the design sales pitch reveals itself as well.

When China’s capacity to support economic growth was more optimistic, designers not only set up shop in that country, but also started to incorporate touches to appeal to the culture. For example, Armani , Ralph Lauren, Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Givenchy and Chanel had incorporated some very Asian design aspects in his collections a few seasons back when China was doing very well. Meanwhile, Chanel and Dior staged shows with all Asian models to better connect with the Asian (and in particular, the Chinese) audience. More Chinese models graced the catwalk, and more wealthy Chinese patrons were allowed the coveted front row seating usually reserved for media, bloggers and magazine editors such as highly-revered Anna Wintour.

Now in the media the market seems to be saturated with investors and news is reporting of economic slowdown within that country. Whether this is temporary or not, it is better to look for new resources rather than risk resting with uncertainty.

Trending companies such as UK’s Mudpie have looked towards other parts of the world showing economic promise, and some of the stealthier designers are looking to forge connections with them. And whereas incorporating cultural aspects was once more likely due to influence form exploration and travel, now it seems more likely an influence in anticipation of forming familiarity and connectivity.

Africa is looking to support prosperity. Increased industrialization and a rising number of a wealthy class eager to spend is all one needs to know to respond in kind. Some astute designers, such as Josie Natori, Michael Kors, Rebecca Minkoff, Zero + Maria Cornejo, Josh Goot and DSquared showed more prominent details of inspiration within their collections and some taking more modern inspiration from very traditional African printwork. Many others, perhaps being more cautious, were more general in their incorporation of African animal prints within their conservatively-cut pieces.

Will those in Africa be enticed as those in China were? Or is it a different market with a different identity and approach to self-image versus prestige? The only way one will know is to see how successful those lines do with regards to international profit. And if it proves successful, you can count on the mother continent upstaging the dragon. Such is the fickleness of fashion. Of course, it’s nothing personal; it’s just business.