Perhaps unsurprisingly, most things are cyclical in nature so it should come as no surprise to see a resurgence of economic impact studies touting the economic benefits the arts bring to a metropolitan area. The 10/29/2013 edition of Philly.com published an article by Joseph N. DiStefano how the Avenue of the Arts is turning around a dying financial district. An AP article by Brett Zongker on 12/5/2013 reports that the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the National Endowment for the Arts estimate the creative industries account for just over $500 billion in goods and services.
If you can remember far enough back, the last cycle of positive impact studies came in the wake of the post 9/11 recession. After a few years, it wasn’t uncommon to hear voices playing down the studies or accusing them of artificially inflating the arts’ economic contribution.
Consequently, it is interesting that more and more of my colleagues have been in touch with similar complaints about the latest round of studies but when it comes down to it, it is important to keep in mind a few critical points when considering an arts economic impact study:
- Don’t try to compare them. A good economic impact study should be unique to the respective metropolitan area; so there should be next to no connection between one report and another, unless there are some undeniable common threads such as the same firm was used to create the reports.
- Consider the source. It should come as no surprise that some consultants will produce reports that say more or less whatever a client wants but that doesn’t mean all reports are biased.
But I’m curious to know what you think. Have you encountered an economic impact study that was particularly good or bad?