State policy makers across the United States have ramped up efforts to attract film and television production through tax-based subsidies that provide producers with money to finance productions. To better understand the role of tax-based financing, we examine evidence concerning the fiscal impacts of film and television subsidy programs, and the methods used to calculate job creation and tourism impacts. We also look at the potential for developing film and television industries outside Los Angeles and New York. Our findings illuminate why policy makers need to carefully evaluate the methods used to rationalize public expenditures on incentives for economic development.
Albrecht, Greg.2005. Film and video tax incentives: Estimated economic and fiscal impacts. Baton Rouge: State of Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office, March.
2.
Bomey, N.2008. Film incentives have drawn $225 million in movie projects . Ann Arbor Business Review. May 30.
3.
CEIDR (Center for Entertainment Industry Data and Research).2006. The global success of production tax incentives and the migration of feature film production from the U.S. to the world. Year 2005 Production Report. Los Angeles: CEIDR. http://www.CEIDR.org.
4.
Christopherson, S.2002. Project work in context: Regulatory change and the new geography of media. Environment and Planning A34:2003-015.
5.
Christopherson, S.2006. Behind the scenes: How transnational firms are constructing a new international division of media labor. Geoforum37 (5): 739-51.
6.
Christopherson, S.2008. Beyond the self-expressive creative worker: An industry perspective on entertainment media. Theory, Culture and Society25 (7-8): 73-95.
7.
Christopherson, S., and J. Clark.2007. Remaking the region: Power, labor, and firm strategies in the knowledge economy. New York: Routledge Press
8.
Christopherson, S., M. Figueroa, L. Gray, D. Richardson, and N. Rightor.2006. New York’s big picture: Assessing New York’s role in media production. Report to The New York Film, Television, and Commercial Initiative. New York: School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, August.
9.
Christopherson, S., and M. Storper.1986. The city as studio, the world as backlot: The impact of vertical disintegration on the location of the motion picture industry. Society and Space4:305-20.
10.
Cieply, M.2009. Study says film subsidies create jobs in New York. New York Times. January 27.
11.
Cobb, Kathy.2006. Roll the credits . . . and the tax incentives. Fedgazette . Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, September.
12.
Coe, Neil M.2000. On location: American capital and the local labor market in the Vancouver film industry. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24 (1): 79-94.
13.
Coe, Neil M.2001. A hybrid agglomeration? The development of a Satellite-Marshallian industrial district in Vancouver’s film industry. Urban Studies38 (10): 1753-75.
14.
Columbia Journalism Review.Who owns what. Data from 2008. http://www.cjr.org/resources/ (accessed March 4, 2009).
15.
Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD).2008. The economic and fiscal impacts of Connecticut’s film tax credit. Hartford: Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism.
16.
Currid, Elizabeth.2007. The Warhol economy: How fashion, art and music drive New York City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
D’Amico, S.2008. A primer on the Massachusetts film tax incentives. http://www.sdamico.com/issues/tax_credit.htm.
18.
Economics Research Associates.2006. Trends in film, music and digital media (ERA Project 16686). Baton Rouge: State of Louisiana Department of Economic Development.
19.
Epstein, E.J.2005. The big picture: The new logic of money and power in Hollywood . New York: Random House.
20.
Ernst & Young.2009a. Economic and fiscal impacts of the New Mexico tax credit. Santa Fe: New Mexico State Film Office.
21.
Ernst & Young.2009b. Estimated impacts of the New York State film credit. New York: Motion Picture Association of America.
22.
Fisher, P.2007. The fiscal consequences of competition for capital. In Reining in competition for capital, ed. A. Markusen.Kalamazoo, Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Press.
23.
Foderaro, L.W.2008. Gone with the cash: Films go for the best tax breaks. New York Times. March 29. http//www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/nyregion/29film.html.
24.
Hakim, D.2006. Bid to lure films works so well it’s nearly broke . New York Times. March 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/nyregion/14films.html?_r=1.
25.
Hefner, F.2008. Impact analysis for film production in South Carolina . Charleston, SC: College of Charleston. Available from the author.
26.
InterVISTAS Consulting, Inc.2005. Film and television industry review. Report prepared for Ministry of Economic Development of the Province of British Columbia, Canada. Available from the Ministry.
27.
Laubacher, R.2006. Lens on the Bay State: Motion picture production in Massachusetts . Boston: Alliance for Independent Motion Media.
28.
Leslie, D.1997. Abandoning Madison Avenue: The relocation of advertising services in New York City. Urban Studies34 (9): 568-90.
29.
Litvak, I., and M. Litvak.2009. Economic development and U.S. state film incentives. Economic Development Journal8 (1). Washington, DC: International Economic Development Council.
30.
Lorenzen, M.2007. Internationalization vs. globalization of the film industry . Industry and Innovation14 (4): 349-57.
31.
Luke, P.2008. Michigan political report: Michigan movie credit has huge opening. Mlive.com, Everything Michigan, Lansing Bureau . May 15.
32.
MacDonald, P., and J. Wasko.2008. The contemporary Hollywood film industry . Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
33.
Maltby, R.1998. "Nobody knows everything": Post-classical historiographies and consolidated entertainment. In ContemporaryHollywood cinema, ed. S. Neale and M. Smith.New York: Routledge.
34.
Markusen, A., ed. 2007. Reining in the competition for capital. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Press.
35.
Markusen, A., and D. King.2003. The artistic dividend: The hidden contributions of the arts to the regional economy. Minneapolis: Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, University of Minnesota.
36.
Markusen, A., and K. Nesse.2007. Institutional and political determinants of incentive competition. In Reining in competition for capital , ed. A. Markusen.Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Press.
37.
Markusen, A., and G. Schrock.2006. The artistic dividend: Urban artistic specialization and economic development implications. Urban Studies43 (10): 1661-86.
38.
Meehan, E.2008. Ancillary markets-Television: From challenge to safe haven . In The contemporary Hollywood film industry, ed. P. MacDonald and J. Wasko.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
39.
Molotch, 1976. The city as a growth machine. The American Journal of Sociology82 (2): 309-32.
40.
Morawetz, N., J. Hardy, C. Haslam, and K. Randle.2007. Finance, policy, and industrial dynamics-The rise of co-productions in the film industry. Industry and Innovation14 (4): 421-43.
41.
Morton, B.2009. N.Y. film, TV productions eye move to Vancouver. Vancouver Sun. February 25. http://www.vancouversun.com (accessed March 19, 2009).
42.
Motion Picture Association of America. 2009. http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUsMembers.asp (accessed March 4, 2009 ).
43.
Mt. Auburn Associates.2000. The creative economy initiative: The role of the arts and culture in New England’s economic competitiveness. Boston: New England Council.
44.
New Mexico Tourism Office.2008. The impact of film tourism on the state of New Mexico. Santa Fe and Bernalillo NM: South-west Planning & Marketing and CRC & Associates, December.
45.
Office of Economic Analysis, City and County of San Francisco.2006. Economic impact report of the proposed film rebate program (File N. 060065). March 24.
46.
Outcome Management Services.2005. A review of the large budget screen production grant (Phase I). Report prepared for the Office of the Minister of Economic Development of New Zealand.
47.
Popp, A., and J. Peach.2008. The film industry in New Mexico and the provision of tax incentives. A report submitted to the Legislative Finance Committee of the State of New Mexico. Las Cruces, NM: Arrowhead Center, Office of Policy Analysis, New Mexico State University.
48.
Popp, A., and J. Peach.2009. Comparisons of Arrowhead Center film impact study and the Ernst & Young film impact study. Las Cruces, NM: Arrowhead Center, Office of Policy Analysis, New Mexico State University. Available from the authors.
49.
Rantisi, N.2004. The designer in the city and the city in the designer . In Cultural industries and the production of culture, ed. D. Power and A. Scott.New York: Routledge.
50.
Rhode Island Department of Revenue, Office of Revenue Analysis.2008. A macro analysis of the return on investment on the Rhode Island motion picture production tax credits. Providence: Department of Revenue, State of Rhode Island .
51.
Riley, R., D. Baker, and C. Van Doren .1998. Movie-induced tourism. Annals of Tourism Research25 (4): 919-35.
52.
Saas, D.R.2006. Hollywood east? Film tax credits in New England. Policy Brief (06-3). Boston: New England Public Policy Center, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
53.
Schatz, T.2008. The studio system and conglomerate Hollywood. In The contemporary Hollywood film industry, ed. P. MacDonald and J. Wasko.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
54.
Scott, A.2004. Cultural-products industries and urban economic development . Urban Affairs Review39 (4): 461-90.
55.
Scott, A.2005. On Hollywood: The place, the industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56.
Tooke, N., and M. Baker.1996. Seeing is believing: The effect of film on visitor numbers to screened locations. Tourism Management17 (2): 87-94.
57.
Weinstein, B., and T. Clower.2000. Filmed entertainment and local economic development: Texas as a case study. Economic Development Quarterly14 (4): 384-97.
