A study of Seattle media obsession with studies
Want a stadium? More arts funding? Pork for bio-tech? Just turn to the new boom business journalists can't resist: the economic-impact industry.
Every time an economic study comes out, you know the pigs are at the pastry cart.
Economic studies don't just happen. They are planned, a part of political and public relations strategies to get media attention and guide – or stampede – opinion toward seeing the enlightened self interest in giving more money to the haves. They're an attempt to convince us to fork over our hard earned dollars to subsidize successful businesses by showing the trickle-down benefits of trickle-up spending.
Just about everyone here does studies these days. A quick scan of Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times archives shows just how useful they are in getting ink. I'm sure if I donned the green eye shades and hit the microfilm, I could find enough to fill every recycling bin in town and make Richard "Zero Waste" Conlin happy.
The Sonics have a study to help them get tax money for a new arena. The supporters of the NASCAR track proposal had one to try and pry money from the state. Seattle Center, searching for major bucks from the public for a rehab, has a study. The Seahawks had a study to help them get a stadium. The Mariners had a study, too. The bio-tech industry, which has successfully extracted money from the state, got it with the help of a study. Even the Washington tree-fruit industry has a study: Apparently, we need reminding that apples still matter in Washington.
Just the term study sounds academic, disinterested, objective, studious. But somehow these studies always come to the same conclusion: X industry generates multi-millions of dollars in local jobs and benefits. X industry ought to be taken more seriously because without it, we'd be screwed. In fact, supporting X industry with your tax dollars, ticket fees, public subsidies, tax breaks, incentives, matching funds, free parking, donations, etc., is simply pouring more chocolate syrup on a giant civic sundae. And here's the cherry part: Even if the numbers don't make sense, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Folks, there are always the intangible benefits.
One of the most study-happy "industries" is the arts. Local arts groups put out economic impact studies every couple of years. One problem in comparing them is that their focus or methodologies seem to change slightly, so it's difficult to get apples-to-apples comparisons. But the drumbeat is very familiar.
R.M. Campbell of the P-I wrote a study story on Wednesday, June 6: "Local arts groups rev an economic engine: Non-profits generate $330 million annually in Seattle, study finds." The study was funded by Americans for the Arts, a national lobbying group. Seattle was included in the study thanks to a grant from Paul Allen, who seems to like paying for studies. According to the story, this study was a breakthrough.
"This study is a mythbuster," Robert Lynch, president and chief executive of Americans for the Arts, said in a statement. "Most Americans understand that the arts improve our quality of life. This study demonstrates that the arts are an industry that stimulates the economy in cities and towns across the country.
"A vibrant arts and culture industry helps local business thrive."
It's the archetypal study: It re-enforces a pre-determined mission (the arts matter!), touts the intangibles (quality of life!), takes credit for non-arts related economic activity (what would you do without us?), and elevates the arts to the status aerospace (we're an industry!). Thank goodness someone as objective as Americans for the Arts settled those questions. Doesn't their name just scream lack of bias?
As Campbell wrote this story, it must have seemed oddly familiar, because just two and a half years ago he wrote a very similar one, headlined, "Study shows the arts are a boon to the local economy."
That study was by ArtsFund, which produces such studies every couple of years. According to their 2004 study, the economic impact of the arts in King and Pierce counties was "$1 billion in direct and indirect business activity." Note the indirect claim. It allows the featured number to be inflated because they claim credit for activity up and down the economic food chain.
That study was preceded, naturally, by another in 1999 and, before that, one in 1993 (funded by, yes, Paul Allen). Melinda Bargreen of The Seattle Times wrote about both in a story headlined, "Study reveals 1990s arts boom." The study showed "the arts in King County alone spawning $338.2 million annually in business sales," up 62 percent from the previous study.
In recent memory, have the arts ever not boomed? Have they ever not been an economic dynamo?
Peter Donnelly, then head of the Corporate Council for the Arts, which sponsored the 1990s studies, was delighted because (agenda revealed) the study would "be extremely helpful in establishing credibility in making the case for arts giving." Or, rather, the credibility of arts "taking." He made no bones that the purpose of the report was to get more money for the arts.
But Donnelly was satisfied with neither the bottom line nor the intangibles reported in the study. "If anything," he said with true showbiz hype, "[the study] understates the impact of the arts." For you see, the arts are so big, so important, their true import cannot be contained in a single study!
Which is why, I guess, they need to do study after study, and why the newspapers need to write about them year after year, much like Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" continually reporting that Francisco Franco is still dead. We need constant reassurance that the arts in Seattle are still booming!
Someday, I hope Paul Allen will fund a study on the economic impact of the study industry. I have a feeling the benefits are both infinite and intangible.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 7:58 a.m. inappropriate
Pigs everywhere: Speaking of "pigs at the pastry cart" can anyone explain the scope and limitations and the multiplier effect of Pigs on Parade? Does the visual blight that this project brings to the community really benefit the market or is the perceived benefit an assumption that is limited by the scope of its design (or their designs)?
This was a good piece and the kind of writing I was hoping for in Crosscut.
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 8:18 a.m. inappropriate
Undeniably, theater subsidies benefit the eateries near the theaters. and the fare: at the eateries is far more adventurous than what regional theaters dare offer. there's a lag here. Subsidizing the theaters - to focus on the one area where
have intimate und unhappy experience in the Seattle area - also neuters them.
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 8:54 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Undeniably, theater subsidies benefit the eateries near the theaters. and the fare: I read a study last week from the Food and Beverage Lobby that said that eateries are directly and indirectly responsible for $1 billion in economic activity.
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 9 a.m. inappropriate
_: Arts organizations aren't populated by "haves". Their boards yes, but not most of the staffs or artists. More power to them even if their studies don't always make sense.
I also kind of want the Sonics to stay, so I'll overlook their "studies" too. ("kind of" as in no major bailouts, but improvements to their current lease or a minor subsidy for a new arena would be ok.)
Car racing on the other hand I despise. And their studies were patently absurd.
They overcounted hotel room spending. Since our hotels are already nearly full in the summer, they should have counted the DIFFERENCE between race-week occupancy and normal occupancy, a pretty small figure. Instead they counted total occupancy by racing fans, a much larger figure.
And there's the issue of entertainment dollars spent by locals, who would have generally spent their money locally anyway.
And no matter how much large families in winnebagos spend at Gulp n Blow and Wal Mart, are they really adding more than they cost us?
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 9:36 a.m. inappropriate
Point is lost on me: You seem to be suggesting that these studies are invalid, yet you don't offer any specific methodological critique. You express skepticism because they all conclude a positive economic impact, but this shouldn't be surprising since they all focus on industries that do, in fact, have a positive economic impact. Perhaps you are questioning the point of these studies, but the point is obvious: they seek to inform the voting public about the means and extent of a given industry's economic impact.
There are many lazy and simple-minded voters who prefer to vote from their gut rather than exercising their sagging powers of reason, and no doubt they wish all these studies with their complicated facts and figures would just go away. Perhaps the point of your article is to champion this dull witted approach to decision making?
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 12:20 p.m. inappropriate
Disinflating Economic Impact: Recently I read an analysis of economic impact studies that has me believing that the more outlandish impact claims overstate their impact on a region by an order of magnitude. Typically, impact studies are done with the simple purpose of laying claim to government subsidy using the virtuous circle logic that goes like this:
1. subsidy for program or facility attracts out-of-region visitors and cash flows--->
2. which are spent in the the local community -->
3. creating jobs in the local community -->
4. for residents who pay taxes in the local community -->
5. which produce a net inflow that can be used to subsidize the work of government including -->
6. subsidy for further programs and facilities.
Where these studies go wrong is that they often don't exclude the impact of local residents, who don't bring in new money; they cannibalize discretionary new money coming in from some other outside source (say a tourist dollar that buys Seattle "art" instead of a handful of Space Needle pins); some of the jobs created go to out-of-towners instead of locals (for example, I'm aware of a large KC 1% for the arts contract going to a California artist); or the types of jobs created don't generate significant tax revenues (consider food-service workers at an arts fair).
Another problem with these studies is that impact is stated in terms of sales, because the methodology requires various multipliers to define the volume of new money circulating through the region in question. So the $1 million spent by tourists is multiplied by 3 or 5 or some other reasonable multiple depending on the type of sales activity. However, as a measure of impact, the more useful and actionable measure for government is the increase in personal income, which can be translated more easily into jobs and homes and tax revenue.
My hunch is that the economic impact of the Arts in the region is virtually nil because most of the activity occurs within the region. On the other hand, impact studies should show that the interregional impact on Seattle is pretty high (as the Arts study seems to show) because of the influx of people coming from the Eastside to see or purchase various Seattle art products.
Having not actually looked at the Arts study, I can't say that it is hyper-inflated. However, I now have a number that I use to "disinflate" the claims of the typical "over-the-top" study. I use a factor of 20 because I once saw a study by John Crompton who compared two different studies for the same sort of economic impact, one using an inflated methodology and the other a more sober assessment of impact, and the difference was a factor of 20. This seems to work pretty well when looking at your average $1 billion annual impact from a study, which suggests that $50M annually is more like the real impact and the amount a government can afford to spend and expect to get its money back in tax revenue.
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 2:26 p.m. inappropriate
Oink, Oink: I'll 2nd Stambor's compliment.
And take the opportunity to jump on the soapbox myself.
Not sure who's all doing the studies these days, but it used to be the fact that it was never anyone associated with the UW Department of Economics.
One of the seminal studies of this nature was done by Bill Beyers, chair of the Department of Geography at the UW. Although he calls himself an economist he is much more the quack. Witness for example his recent timely citing of the internet boom as proof of the value of the new 'service' economy.
That's a study to read!
As I recall Papa Gates signed off on it. I could never recall the source for verification, so whose to say. I think it might have been the UW Alum rag, 'Columns'.
-Douglas Tooley
Tacoma, WA
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 4:41 p.m. inappropriate
Pork Economics: I'll second Mr. Tooley's comment about Bill Beyers.
I was a Geography major but took my economics classes from the UW Economics Department.
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 10:41 p.m. inappropriate
Pointless General Criticism - Be Specific!: I second Sean's comments that the criticisms are shallow. If you're serious about critiquing these analyses, try specific criticisms.
For those critical of Beyers, again: what are your specific criticisms? Your generalist comments are unfair and untrue. For example, a UW article from 1997 about the economic impact of the Seahawks and Mariners:
Looking at new money only, the economic impact of teams such as the Seahawks and the Mariners begins to shrink. In 1995, the football team's out-of-state revenue generated $66.7 million in local economic activity. The impact of that money amounted to 1,388 jobs in King County. The Mariners' out-of-state funds generated only $42.9 million and 427 jobs according to a 1993 study Beyers and (Dick) Conway did for the team.
"Compare this to Boeing, a corporation with 99 percent of its impact in new money," says Beyers. "It's new money generates $25 billion in direct economic activity. The scale is totally different." Research institutions such as the UW and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center foster more economic growth too, since they bring in hundreds of millions in new money, Beyers adds, far more than professional sports.
Looking at the sports jobs that are created with new money, there is another hitch. Almost none of these positions are "family wage" jobs. "A major portion are day-of-game and relatively low wage jobs," Conway says, such as parking attendants and food vendors.
"It's not a lot of job generation," Beyers says. There are approximately one million jobs in King County. "You don't make public decisions about having enterprises like this in our midst on the basis of job creation."
Posted Fri, Jun 8, 7:23 a.m. inappropriate
Be Specific - and Complete!: I'll have to admit I haven't read the study. As with Ms. Stambor I do have other direct knowledge of credibility on these subjects.
I will however counter with a more specific example of some recent reading that generally shows demonstrates the practice. The Washington State Bar codifies their administrative rules in the Rules for Proffessional Conduct - obtainable from the Bar for $5(though the version is, officially, unofficial).
I'm tracking down some related conflict of interest complaints about goverment ment lawyers treating of the public treasury. The RPC has some great language about responsibility to society etc, than basically mitigates it entirely by stating that is the judgement of the lawyer as to what is appropriate or not - never mind, specifically, a quite large body of law around the specific concept of 'fiduciary responsibility'.
I'll put Beyer's study on my list, but since you are such an expert why don't you tell us his final conclusions as to the actual impact, not just the rationalizations included theirein.
-Douglas Tooley
Tacoma, WA
Posted Fri, Jun 8, 7:41 a.m. inappropriate
And get your dates right: I know you are citing an unnamed UW publication, however I think the dates are wrong.
I for one recall having a specific discussion about the Kingdome Baseball study with Mr. Beyers in 1990 or so, way before the revisionist history you vaguely refer to. Perhaps there were two.
In 1992 or 1993 I recall having discussions with Dick Morrill, also a member of that department, which generally referred to Mr. Beyer's consulting relationship with the 'powers' that be. Doctor Morrill would retire from that department shortly thereafter. I'd guess Ms. Stambor might also have good things to say about Dick.
Your challenge to debate is accepted. Are you willing to identify yourself and back up your words?
-Douglas Tooley
Tacoma, WA
Posted Fri, Jun 8, 9:06 a.m. inappropriate
Missing the point: The column's important point was that studies are just one piece of a PR campaign. They offer the right answers, all cloaked in an academic air, and reporters eat it up almost everytime. Actually looking at the data and the whole framework of the study takes time, and it is work. So much easier just to go to the executive summary and list all the findings in neat little bullets. And of course, the strategy includes new studies at the proper intervals to control the spin. Knute, maybe you should take up some of the posters' challenge and look closely at one of these studies to show -- as I'm sure you will -- that it asks only the questions the funder's of the study want answered.
Posted Fri, Jun 8, 12:58 p.m. inappropriate
In the couple days since the appearance Mossback's study of studies with its focus on arts studies, I commissioned a study of my own, and it's come back with some revealing conclusions.
First...my bona fides: I am an artist. My moniker? It's literal; I'm a piper, and occassionally exercises dubious fiscal judgment and pays me to pipe. I'm particularly fond of piping at funerals since the guest of honor is never heard to complain.
Because I am an artist who enhances the economy and would like to enhance it even more than I do now (that new Chrysler 300 is sweet, isn't it?), my study concluded that I should be given money in large amounts in order to (1) enhance my artistic contribution (I need some new chanter reeds and bag seasoning), (2) stimulate local economic activity in the Scottish goods, automotive, fine dining, entertainment, electronics (why should the whole world have bigscreens save me?), and travel (I'd like to see my grandson in North Carolina) sectors, and (3) reduce future strain on the alread over burdened Social Security System, my study concluded some fairly significant things, to wit:
A. I should be given large - enormously large - sums of money;
B. Those sums should be given me by...you;
C. Because of privacy considerations and because it's not nice to be nosey (this is Seattle, after all), you should give me money no questions asked;
D. It should be in cash. Large amounts, but in the form of bills of smaller, easily fungible denominations with non-sequential serial numbers;
E. You must continue to give me money until I tell you to stop; and
F. Because I am concerned about you getting an over-inflated sense of your own worth, you must give me much money, but you may not tell a soul on the planet that you are doing it. Let's just call it our precious secret, eh what?
The benefits to humanity at large and the community in particular should be obvious: (1) the arts (my piping) are patronized, (2) a not-starving-but-certainly-would-like-to-eat-much-better artist will be supported, (3) certain sectors of the economy will receive a substantial boost within 48-hours of you giving me money, and (4) your anonymous contribution (it's probably best that you don't even tell me your name) will warm your heart and enhance your self esteem and relieve you of the guilt I know you feel because you have so much while I need so much, and that's just not a progressive moral virtue.
Following me so far? Good...I'm glad...because here's what you all need to do: Reply to this posting with your enthusiastic endorsement of this arts grant proposal (after all, that's what it is), tell me how much you will give (the more you give, the better you look and more virtuous you seem...Of course you'll want to outshine all other posters, too...Good old American competition!), and tell me how you intend to get the money - no coins, please! - to me (I don't make collections, you must deliver; it will enhance your entire contribution experience).
Thank you, Mossback, for inspiring this artist to follow in the footsteps of larger, more "sophisticated" arts organizations and take a leaf from their collective book.
BTW...I trust you'll be the first to offer up on my behalf? If you do, I promise to pipe your remains into the nether reaches when comes the time...but only if you keep this deal between you, me, and the modem.
Isn't this about the way it works?
The Piper
Posted Fri, Jun 8, 1:09 p.m. inappropriate
Weak Attack on Studies: Your article is a weak attack on strong economic impact studies using tested methodology accepted by social scientists.
Not once do you provide a valid analytical or methodological critique in your rant. Rather, you only spout your opinion of disbelief with nothing to support it but a lot of hot air.
You, sir, are a blowhard.
FYI - Studies are conducted once every few years to measure growth in the industry. The results of a study this year will not provide the same results as a study five years from now. This is a method to measure change over time. But you would have to be objective about studies to think long enough to figure this out. (The author obviously has a bias against studies, learning, education, government, and especially the arts. I bet attacking an arts study really challenged your subjectivity, didn't it.)
Posted Fri, Jun 8, 9:25 p.m. inappropriate
Some information for you...: In regards to the Americans for the Arts' economic impact study:
A 24 page explanation of the study and its methodologies can be found here:
http://www.AmericansForTheArts.org/economicimpact
A larger, 300 plus page explanation of the study will be released in mid-June according to the organization's website. It should also be noted that the economists behind this study are from the highly respected Georgia Institute of Technology.
Posted Sat, Jun 9, 12:42 p.m. inappropriate
RE: And get your dates right: My points are:
1) If you have specific criticisms, state them. Do some basic research. You still haven't stated one issue with the methodology of any of these studies. It's easy to make general accusations without support. What specific complaints do you have about these studies? Berger seems to think they are all junk, but doesn't take the time to examine specifics.
2) The accusations made about Beyers misrepresent his statements. I state his conclusions that the Mariners have a small economic impact. What part of that don't you understand?
You say my dates are wrong without any support beyond a discussion you had with Beyers "in 1990 or so." A UW Geography website with Conway information links to the UW article I reference (click "Dick Conway's Studies" then "The Dick & Bill Show Impact Studies" on the page). Beyers' website at the UW says the studies were in 1991 and 1994. If the UW article is incorrect, it's off by one year. So what is your point?
Posted Wed, Jun 13, 10:32 a.m. inappropriate
RE: And get your dates right: The general foundation for Mr. Berger's humorous piece about economic impact studies is well accepted. It may well be that there are some who still debate those facts, but you can take this article as a statement of fact to the prevalence of that opinion.
I know Mr. Beyers, I know the people he associates with, and some who have at least attempted to engage him in an academic discussion of this subject, as have I, at least generally.
It is possible that Mr. Beyers has been painted in Mr. Berger's box unfairly, but your cite does not prove it - nothing more than a sophisitacated PR strategy would include, along with an impact study.
You are correct in taking me to task for not reading those papers. My discussions with Beyers were only in passing - I was an Econ honor's graduate focusing on GIS within the Geography Grad School who did seek to, at some point, engage in the debate I am now having with you. ( I was 30 at the time and working full time, swing shift, in the field for King County as a Knox/Logan Permatemp.)
Even with your fine cites I'll still stand behind my guns on Beyers and economic impact studies - most likely the study you cite is a attempt at post google revisionist history.
If I am wrong, I will freely apologize to Mr. Beyers for that. He is however responsible for the misuse of his work and for his role as Chair of the Department of Geography. He is very, very much a deadbeat in regards to the latter, take my word.
I know you are posting anonymously, as you are free to do - but you do lose a little bit of credibility by that, and your 'scrooge' moniker doesn't really help that. You have not, also, fully responded to my arguments.
Those studies are on my reading list, but not at the top of it.
-Douglas Tooley
Tacoma, WA
Posted Wed, Jun 13, 1:43 p.m. inappropriate
Specifics? Evidence?: You are still making accusations without any specifics. I'm happy to debate specific criticisms if you'd provide one. You also don't provide any evidence that I'm revising history. Where's the evidence?
Specifics? Evidence?
You are willing to attack the fact that I have a post name, but ignore the substance of my arguments.
Posted Thu, Jun 14, 11:50 p.m. inappropriate
Right conclusion, poor analysis: Knute's conclusion is most likely accurate – of course most of these so-called "studies" are done to further an interest-group agenda – but his analysis is...well there is no analysis, no de-construction of even one study to show its methodological weakness.