FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2278811054> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2278811054 abstract "Cultural subsidies are an important part of the financial model in many media industries. In Germany, film subsidies accounted for more than 280 Mio. EUR in 2011 and represent the second largest category of cultural subsidies (Mikos, Kammholz & Jakisch, 2014). Given these large annual expenditures policy makers, film funding institutes, film producers, and the general public (due to numerous critical press releases, e.g., Posener, 2013) show high interest in the evaluation of the effect of subsidies on the cultural and economic outcome. In this study, we empirically analyze the effect of film-funding subsidies in Germany on movie demand and quality. However, the extent of subsidization of a movie through a film funding institute is not random and estimation results of standard regression models would be biased (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). We show with an OLS regression of pre-funding movie characteristics on the level of subsidies that especially certain genres and production countries as well as book adaptations and movies with longer run times indicate a significant selection effect. The three-stages-least-squares regression of subsidies on total admissions reports a significant negative effect. Thus, ignoring the selection bias would suggest that higher fundings result in lower total demand. Prior research is very scant and ignores the selection effect (Jansen, 2005; Bagella & Becchetti, 1999). Consequently, this research is the first that quantifies the selection effect and provides a propensity score matching approach that balances the pre-funding variables across different subsidy levels to address this pre-treatment bias. The extent to which this bias is reduced depends crucially on the pre-funding variables. We use a rich data set of all movies exhibited in German theatres during 2008 and 2012 (n=1944) and observe for each movie all film subsidies and relevant pre-funding variables. The matching results are used to estimate a dose response function of film subsidies on movie quality and admissions. The dose response function shows a very small positive stagnating effect of subsidies on admissions. Although, we observe a small positive effect of a funding commitment, the marginal impact of additional subsidies on admissions is close to zero. Additionally, subsidies fail to stimulate the critical acclaim by professional movie critics. Higher subsidies do not lead to higher critics ratings which can be seen as a proxy for movie quality. We tested the robustness of our results against different matching strategies and performed our analysis with different matching algorithms which validated our former findings. Our results indicate a very limited impact of film subsidies on cultural and economic outcomes which could question the actual film funding practice. A reduction in subsidies would not harm the quality and success of movies. Further, managers should critically evaluate their expenses in the acquisition of funding money. Key words: film subsidies, selection bias, propensity score matching, movie economics (450 words) References Bagella, M., Becchetti, L. (1999). The Determinants of Motion Picture Box Office Performance: Evidence from Movies Produced in Italy. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 4, pp. 237-256. Jansen, C. (2005). The Performance of German Motion Pictures, Profits and Subsidies: Some Empirical Evidence. Journal of Cultural Economics, 29, pp. 191-212. Mikos, L., Kammholz, A. T., & Jakisch, A. (2014). Filmforderung 2012 - Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Erich Pommer Institute. Posener, A. (26.05.2013). Steuermillionen fur schlechte Filme, Welt am Sonntag, p. 1. Rosenbaum, P. R., Rubin, D. B. (1983). The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika, 70, 1, pp. 41-55." @default.
• W2278811054 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2278811054 creator A5071652022 @default.
• W2278811054 date "2015-06-10" @default.
• W2278811054 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2278811054 title "The Sense and Non-sense of cultural subsidies: The Effect of Film-Funding Activities in Germany on Movie Demand and Quality" @default.
• W2278811054 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2278811054 type Work @default.
• W2278811054 sameAs 2278811054 @default.
• W2278811054 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2278811054 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2278811054 hasAuthorship W2278811054A5071652022 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C100001284 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C149782125 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C165064840 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C17923572 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C40423286 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C84265765 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConcept C99656134 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C100001284 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C105795698 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C111472728 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C138885662 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C149782125 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C154945302 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C162324750 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C165064840 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C17923572 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C2779530757 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C33923547 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C34447519 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C40423286 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C41008148 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C81917197 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C84265765 @default.
• W2278811054 hasConceptScore W2278811054C99656134 @default.
• W2278811054 hasLocation W22788110541 @default.
• W2278811054 hasOpenAccess W2278811054 @default.
• W2278811054 hasPrimaryLocation W22788110541 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W1515172262 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W1537788273 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W1557989278 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W1604162191 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W1605227173 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W1606044816 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W176364505 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W1990724628 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2006299281 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2095318769 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2192420335 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2527786929 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2534855487 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2591340280 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2773940300 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2797497604 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W2942893151 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W3125421094 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W3153605751 @default.
• W2278811054 hasRelatedWork W3163644275 @default.
• W2278811054 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2278811054 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2278811054 magId "2278811054" @default.
• W2278811054 workType "article" @default.