Commentary

Commentary: Tourism Study Flawed

State needs to abandon subsidy favors

A new study claiming that the Pure Michigan advertising campaign funded by taxpayers returns a sizable investment for the state is dubious for several reasons.

The projections are based on an online survey from Longwoods International, a travel consulting firm that found that every dollar spent by the state returns $4.90 in tax revenue. This is actually up from their previous 2010 study that found that each dollar returns $2.23.

There are multiple problems with this type of analysis. The consulting firm, which has an incentive to find a high return, has apparently never seen a tourism campaign it does not like. Whether it’s showing visitors that the best thing about Canada is its “foreignness,” claiming to generate 7,000 jobs in Philadelphia at a cost of only $600 each or using “hidden motivators” to change people from taking a “left-brain” logical response to vacationing in Hawaii, Longwoods always finds a high return on every dollar invested in tourism.

My colleague Michael LaFaive pointed out the main problems with the group's analysis. For one, scholarly studies will include references to all of its sources, something Longwoods has not done in the past. More significantly, despite this overwhelming return on investment, there is no industry support to directly fund their own advertising. This means that either the government is crowding out private investment or the travel industry does not find this type of advertising worthwhile.

Disregarding the fact that government beneficiaries like Longwoods International always believe government spending is worth the investment, there is still another issue, the fact that these beneficiaries always ignore the cost side. That is, that the money to fund these campaigns has to come from somewhere.

For example, groups that support public arts funding have found that every dollar in grants returns $51. Early childhood education returns $16. Film credits apparently have a six-fold return. Even the RASCO scandal involving convicted embezzler Richard Short was supposed to bring back $45 for every dollar spent.

This raises the question for those who support government investment into these areas: What if the dollar that went into Pure Michigan tourism advertising would have been spent instead by a taxpayer on sending their child to preschool? Apparently, the state’s return would have been $16 rather than a mere $4.90. According to these beneficiary’s numbers, the government would have made us poorer.

The state should focus on select areas of public good, not entangle itself into private industry which breeds corruption and encourages “rent seeking” from groups that otherwise could not survive in a competitive economy. One of former Mackinac Center President Larry Reed’s Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy is apt: “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.” Our elected officials should keep that in mind.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

News Story

Pure Michigan’s Bid For More Tax Money

A new study on Michigan’s 2011 Pure Michigan advertising campaign repeats the common ploy of using  "multiplier" analyses to defend some line items in the state budget. This technique is often used to justify government spending on everything from public transportation to film subsidies.

Multiplier analyses take some economic activity and estimate its net economic impacts. For example, it looks at something like a customer buying a pair of shoes, and estimates what effect the retailer's use of the proceeds from the sale has as that money flows through the economy. Though they often use overblown and sometimes erroneous assumptions, the real problem with such analyses is they rarely ask where the spending comes from in the first place (where did the shoe buyer get the money to buy the new pair, for example).

There are economic consequences to all actions — you can’t drop a dollar bill on a sidewalk without affecting commerce. In this case, the money taken from Michigan taxpayers to pay for tourism ads has an impact that's not considered by the economic models used to justify the ads.

These models are better used to compare spending items, all others being equal (which they never are). For instance, the multipliers from this item can be compared to those of arts subsidies, whose proponents argue that they have a 51-times multiplier.

Government Initiative

Multiplier: "job creation"

 RASCO corporate subsidy

 2.34x

 Transit Spending

 0.6x

Transportation spending

 0.9x

 

Government Initiative

Multiplier (in dollars): "increased economic activity"

 Arts Grants

 51x

Early Childhood Education

 16x

Earned Income Tax Credit

 1.67x

 Film Subsidies

 6x

 Tourism Advertising

 40x

 Transit Spending

 4x

 

While multiplier analyses potentially could be used to weigh the economic consequences of different government spending programs, they appear most in the public arena to justify taking taxpayer resources.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.