On Saturday, a new fundraising gala will take place at the British Museum, designed to “shine a spotlight on London as a global centre of creativity and culture.” Conceived as a counterpart to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s May Gala to fund the museum’s Costume Institute, this British version aims to highlight London’s position as a creative center. With a themed dress code requesting guests arrive in pink, the Ball celebrates India through the exhibition “Ancient India: Living Traditions.”[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]The British Museum Ball represents London’s latest attempt to leverage fashion, and the creative industries more broadly, to elevate the nation’s status on the world stage. Such a strategy began in the aftermath of World War II. Amid the economic and social changes caused by decolonization, Britain struggled to redefine its place as world power without the credentials of a global empire. Both the government and media slowly recognized the potential for fashion to enhance Britain’s reputation. And by the 1990s, fashion had become a compelling medium for Britain to project cultural strength.Britain’s obsession with fashion came slowly. Indeed, Historian Robert O’Byrne explains that the British public did not always care about fashion, preferring traditional design staples in fabrics like tweed, and regarding designer clothing as frivolous. The British government had previously focused on trade organizations, such as the Clothing Export Council, which mainly provided resources to larger industry retail groups. In the postwar era, Britain began shifting from an industrial to a consumer-based power, making it necessary to pay more attention to industries like fashion as a way to build up the domestic economy.In the 1960s the nation emerged from post-World War II rationing, precipitating a new surge of cultural output in music, film, and fashion. Dubbed the “Swinging ’60s,” this era led TIME to report in 1966 that “London is exporting its plays, its films, its fads, its styles, its people. It is the place to go.” Mary Quant, one of the most iconic designers of this period, is credited with creating the infamous miniskirt and hotpants. The designs coming out of her store Bazaar on the King’s Road were part of the movement away from restrictive styles and codes of etiquette of previous generations, empowering young women specifically toward ideas of sexual liberation. Read More: The 2025 Met Gala Spotlights 250 Years of Black Men’s Fashion HistoryThe 1970s broke the optimism of the previous decade with a new subculture: punk. Punk clothing, launched from Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren’s shop on the King’s Road, was an outward dramatization of Britain’s economic instability. Key signifiers like safety pins, garbage bags, and ripped clothing emphasized the nation’s state of disarray. As punk went mainstream, it morphed into abstract ideas of experimentation, rebelliousness, and creativity that became components of Britain’s cultural identity.In the 1980s fashion found an unlikely candidate for championing the industry—Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Hosting the first government reception to celebrate the launch of London Fashion Week, Thatcher saw fashion as relevant to her own pursuit of making Britain an enterprise culture. She stated, “I really felt it was time that Government ought to show their tremendous appreciation of everything the fashion industry does…I have felt for quite a long time that we don’t give them enough Government moral support for the tremendous work they’re doing.”The British Fashion Council’s founding in 1983 consolidated existing national infrastructure and created a platform to support emerging design talent. By 1995, the BFC had streamlined the machinery of London Fashion Week and secured government funding for exhibitions, support for young designers, and the courting of overseas buyers. Coupled with this growing infrastructure, in 1981 the newly married Princess Diana became a walking billboard for British fashion as one of the most photographed people in this period.In the 1990s, the popularity of British culture increased with the music genre Britpop. Bands like Oasis and the Spice Girls, who debuted in the early 1990s and reached their peak fame in 1997, made London “the coolest city on the planet.” Vanity Fair reported that, “As it was in the mid-’60s, the British capital is a cultural trailblazer.” After Labour politician Tony Blair swept into power in 1997, he offered a “new vision” for the country that included more government involvement with the creative industries. He established the Creative Industries Task Force, which aimed to “build on the strength of the U.K.’s creative industries and help them become a central element in our drive to increase national economic prosperity.”Fashion was an integral part of this multi-pronged initiative to leverage Britain’s reputation as innovative and experimental. Capitalizing on the foundation laid by decades of cultural output, Blair’s government sought to use the creative industries to “challenge outmoded stereotypes of the U.K. abroad.” Blair and his government lifted the creative industries, including fashion, specifically to remake Britain’s image. While the direct monetary contributions from Blair’s government to the creative industries were ultimately minimal, the rhetoric from his government positioned creative industries as integral to promoting Britain’s positive international influence.Today, the British Museum’s Gala uses the capital’s long history of touting the creative output of its talented designers and artists to position London, and Britain, as a cultural power. It remains to be seen whether the British Museum’s Gala will have longevity, yet this event proves that the creative industries are a powerful tool with a critical role in shaping national image and identity.Margot Rashba is a Ph.D. candidate in history at Boston University. Her research centers on dress and fashion in 20th century Britain.Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.