by Jon Sanders
Director of the Center for Food, Power, and Life, Research Editor | John Locke Foundation
A presentation prepared by the Labor and Economic Analysis Division (LEAD) of the North Carolina Department of Commerce finds a net "negative budgetary impact" of North Carolina’s film incentives.
In 2012, according to the presentation, $76.9 million in film credits were claimed, with a net fiscal cost of $62.0 million. That would amount to about 19.4 cents returned to state revenues for every dollar spent.
The methodology used in the analysis is still unclear. I haven’t been able to speak with anyone within the Commerce Department yet. One concern is that benefits and costs in the analysis don’t align. E.g., benefits include "Indirect and induced jobs created through multiplier effects" and "New tax revenue from new economic activity," but costs do not account for "Indirect and induced jobs lost" by the state redirecting moneys with their own multiplier effects nor do they account for "Lost tax revenue from lost economic activity."
To explain further: if through taxation you take money that already has productive purposes in other areas, and you put it over here, it’s not enough to quantify its downstream effects over here when you’ve put an end to all the downstream effects elsewhere. Especially when your reason for doing so is to grow the economy, which is what programs such as film incentives seek to do.
If you forcibly transfer wealth from other parts of the economy in order to grow one industry, and you’re doing that to make the state’s economy better, then you don’t know anything about whether the forced transfer works if you focus only on that one industry’s growth. How does that growth compare with the forced declines elsewhere?
You’re also further deluding yourself if you subsequently assume that the existence of the entire industry now rests on the transfer.
As I explained last year,
Having the state intervene to take some of those resources and force them into the less profitable venture would, it is true, produce direct and subsequent economic activity where it wasn’t. But it also takes away from greater direct and subsequent economic activity where it was.
The loss of economic activity from areas where investors and consumers would have directed resources is not studied or reported on as frequently.
If a study intends to prove that an incentive is attractive to the favored industry, it will focus just on the direct and subsequent benefits of the industry. The study will rely on an input/output model such as IMPLAN that doesn’t account for opportunity costs and doesn’t require an economist to conduct.
If a study intends to test whether an incentive is good for the overall economy of the state, it will weigh the direct and subsequent industry benefits against the direct and subsequent lost economic activities overall. It will use a cost/benefit framework and will most likely be conducted by an economist.
This distinction is important to keep in mind as state officials await a study of film incentives, to be done, apparently, from a perspective of supply chain management.
Other state programs are also returning just pennies on the dollar
Nevertheless, a finding of 19 cents returned to the state for every dollar spent on film incentives would be in line with the findings of many other studies conducted for various state agencies or legislatures of their film incentives programs:
Or has a foundational economic assumption been overturned?
Note that these findings stand in stark contrast with industry studies of various state film incentives, which among other things tend to ignore opportunity costs entirely while assuming the incentives are responsible for all film production in the state, rather than marginal productions. They also tend to produce extremely inflated estimated returns on investment.
Some examples include the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) 2014 study for Florida, which projected a return of anywhere from $5.60 up to $20.50 in state revenue per dollar of revenue spent on film incentives, Ernst & Young’s 2009 studies for New Mexico ($1.50 per dollar, nearly eleven times greater than the estimate by the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee’s study) and New York ($1.90 per dollar), and of course the MPAA’s 2012 study for North Carolina, ($8.99 per dollar for "Iron Man 3").
Findings with such enormously high multipliers are simply not believable. It is as if "the authors believe they have overturned the fundamental basis for microeconomic theory," to quote from the Beacon Hill Institute economists’ peer review of a study purporting economic benefits of renewable energy in North Carolina (and projecting a multiplier of 19.3). The quote in context, because it has bearing on film incentives studies as well:
the baseline assumption any reasonable economic analysis should make is that private firms maximize profit.If it were the case that cost-savings of this magnitude were available, then private energy firms would have been leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table — that is, definitely not maximizing profit — for no apparent reason. If the authors believe they have overturned the fundamental basis for microeconomic theory, they should specify why.
Of course, if one started with the expectation that even with film incentives, state governments haven’t overturned the fundamental basis for microeconomic theory, one would find more credible these recurring findings of pennies on the dollar in returns on those involuntary investments.
Click here for the Rights & Regulation Update archive.
You can unsubscribe to this and all future e-mails from the John Locke Foundation by clicking the "Manage Subscriptions" button at the top of this newsletter.