IBJOpinion

Hicks: Subsidizing filmmaking is a losing proposition

Mike Hicks
June 14, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

If you are fortunate enough to share the same household as an excogitative, romantic teenager, you are aware that John Green’s novel “The Fault in our Stars” is now a very popular movie. I am thusly blessed, but decided to skip the movie this weekend. I doubt any movie can match the wondrous beauty of Green’s prose, and I am sidetracked thinking about the economic development issues surrounding the movie.

Green’s novel takes place in Indianapolis, but the movie was made in Pittsburgh. Parts of the city were transformed into Indy landscapes at great costs and the stars wore Pacers and Butler Bulldog shirts. The economic policy consideration centers on why the movie was not made in Indiana.

The movie industry in the United States is heavily subsidized by state and local governments. Indiana does not have a movie-specific tax incentive, but Pennsylvania does. In fact, nationwide, annual payments to the movie industry probably number in the several billion dollars, with movie-specific tax credits coming close to $2 billion. This raises the types of serious questions that rarely make it into the tax incentive debate.

Having artists and artistic activity in our midst is an important part of a vibrant regional economy. As we become a more affluent nation, we spend more of our income on such things and choose where we live partly based on the abundance of such offerings. Regions without serious cultural attractions will be left behind, but that is not sufficient argument for instituting tax incentives.

Much economic activity can be motivated to relocate through government subsidies.

Movies are especially footloose activities for which tax abatement or direct subsidy will often make the difference between filming locations. Advocates of these types of subsidies make the same mistake many economic developers are inclined to. They focus too much on simply getting the deal, and too little on whether the entirety of the deal is good for the region.

Without even touching upon the fairness of Indiana taxpayers subsidizing Hollywood studios, film tax credits are of dubious value. The jobs they generate are transient, often low-paying and unlikely to meet the simplest benefit-cost calculus. The best argument is that the movie might highlight the region, and that is a costly argument.

We should be open to a broader discussion on film tax credits, but we must ask some tough questions. If we don’t, Hoosiers risk being swindled and the fault will be not in our stars, but in ourselves.•

__________

Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and a professor of economics at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now

ADVERTISEMENT