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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT