• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S 2012 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY by Donald Matthew Moore Bachelor of Science Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts in Economics Darla Moore School of Business University of South Carolina 2014 Accepted by: Douglas P. Woodward, Director of Thesis Joseph C. Von Nessen, Reader Lacy Ford, Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies © Copyright by Donald Matthew Moore, 2014 All Rights Reserved. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Three generations of South Carolina political leaders have promoted South Carolina’s “First in the South” presidential primary. With its early primary date, South Carolina receives considerable national and international publicity and would otherwise likely be “flyover country” for most presidential candidates. Instead, South Carolinians in both political parties now have a significant impact on picking the American president. Governor Jim Edwards (1975-1979) was a major force in giving the state Republican Party enough credibility to host a primary. His friend and campaign manager, former South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Dan Ross (1976-1980), shepherded the earlier primary date through the state Republican Party’s executive committee in September 1979. Over the three decades following, many political and media figures have made major contributions to South Carolina’s “First in the South” presidential primary status. I thank them for their guidance and interviews. I would also like to thank the talented researchers at the University of South Carolina for their valuable methodological guidance. Thank you also to the Federal Election Commission, the South Carolina Republican Party, various South Carolina political operatives, local chambers of commerce, Democracy in Action’s Eric Appleman, and Smart Media Group’s Kyle Roberts for providing valuable insights. iii ABSTRACT The 2011-2012 South Carolina Republican presidential primary cycle affected the state’s economy in multiple ways. Presidential campaigns, political parties, third party groups, and so-called Super PACs spent millions in television and radio advertisements. These entities and news networks also purchased goods and services and hired staff. Much of their spending originated from outside of South Carolina. Charleston, Greenville, Myrtle Beach, and Spartanburg hosted four economically significant, nationally televised presidential debates attended by thousands. A large degree of presidential primary activity, including the debates and staffing, took place in these four cities plus the capital city of Columbia. The primary also brought valuable marketing opportunities to the state, colleges, universities, and other areas that hosted events. The key finding of this thesis is that the 2012 South Carolina presidential primary generated a total of $19.5 million in statewide, value-added economic activity and supported approximately 289 full-time equivalent (FTE), non-permanent jobs earning approximately $10 million in employee compensation. Every ten FTE, non-permanent jobs during the 2012 South Carolina Republican presidential primary supported approximately five FTE, non-permanent jobs in the South Carolina economy over the twelve-month primary period. Finally, the presidential primary generated nearly $30 million in statewide marketing value. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF EXISTING RESEARCH ..................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 4: IMPLAN INPUTS ............................................................................................. 9 4.1 PUBLICLY REPORTED SPENDING BY CANDIDATES .............................................. 11 4.2 SPENDING ON TELEVISION AND RADIO ADS ....................................................... 11 4.3 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATES ..................................................................... 12 4.4 OTHER EVENTS ................................................................................................... 15 4.5 EMBEDDED REPORTERS ...................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 5: TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT ............................................................................. 17 5.1 STATEWIDE ESTIMATE ........................................................................................ 17 5.2 REGIONAL REPORT - LOWCOUNTRY ................................................................... 19 5.3 REGIONAL REPORT - MIDLANDS ......................................................................... 21 5.4 REGIONAL REPORT – PEE DEE ........................................................................... 21 5.5 REGIONAL REPORT – ROCK HILL ....................................................................... 22 5.6 REGIONAL REPORT – UPSTATE ........................................................................... 23 v CHAPTER 6: MARKETING VALUE ....................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 28 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A – INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................... 31 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 – Regional Definitions within South Carolina .................................................... 9 Table 4.2 – 2011-2012 Primary Spending in South Carolina by Candidate ..................... 11 Table 4.3 – 2011-12 South Carolina Presidential Primary TV & Radio Buys ................. 12 Table 4.4 – Est. Spending on January 16, 2012 Myrtle Beach Debate ............................. 13 Table 4.5 – Estimated Presidential Debate Spending ....................................................... 15 Table 4.6 – Estimated Special Events Spending ............................................................... 15 Table 5.1 – Statewide Economic Impact of the 2012 S.C. Republican Presidential Primary .................................................................................................................. 17 Table 5.2 – Top 10 Industry Sectors by Value Added ...................................................... 20 Table 5.3 – Statewide Economic Impact of the 2012 S.C. Republican Presidential Primary in the Lowcountry ................................................................................... 21 Table 5.4 – Statewide Economic Impact of the 2012 S.C. Republican Presidential Primary in the Midlands ........................................................................................ 21 Table 5.5 – Statewide Economic Impact of the 2012 S.C. Republican Presidential Primary in the Pee Dee ......................................................................................... 22 Table 5.6 – Statewide Economic Impact of the 2012 S.C. Republican Presidential Primary in Rock Hill ............................................................................................. 22 Table 5.7 – Statewide Economic Impact of the 2012 S.C. Republican Presidential Primary in the Upstate .......................................................................................... 23 Table 6.1 – Estimated Marketing Value of the January 16, 2012 Myrtle Beach Presidential Debate ............................................................................................... 25 Table 6.2 – Applicants to Wofford College by Year ........................................................ 26 Table 6.3 – Nielsen Ratings of South Carolina Primary Debates ..................................... 26 vii Table 6.4 – Estimated Marketing Value of South Carolina Primary Debates .................. 27 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FTE ...................................................................................................... Full-time Equivalent FEC ........................................................................................ Federal Election Commission IMPLAN .............................................................................. IMpact analysis for PLANning MBACC ........................................................... Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce PAC ........................................................................................... Political Action Committee RNC ................................................................................... Republican National Committee SCGOP .............................................................................. South Carolina Republican Party ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This thesis aims to assess the statewide economic impact of the 2011-2012

Load more

  40

Copy Link