A new study questions the policy of state and local governments throwing massive tax subsidies at corporations to lure jobs and bolster the economy – and particularly cites the political backlash over Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio’s doomed deal that tried to get Amazon to open a headquarters in Queens.

New York was listed as among the states that spent the most per capita on government subsidies to firms, along with Michigan, West Virginia and New Hampshire. The incentives collectively accounted for nearly 40% of state corporate tax revenues.

Meanwhile the average tax subsidy for the sample nationally was $120,000 per job.

The largest, most profitable firms got the lion’s share of the subsidies.

“While we find some evidence of direct employment gains from attracting a firm, we do not find strong evidence that firm-specific tax incentives increase broader economic growth at the state and local level,” said the report authored by Columbia University Prof. Cailin Slattery and Princeton’s Owen Zide, which was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The analysis looked at data over a 15-year period and evaluated state and local government corporate subsidies in 2014.

“Although these incentives are often intended to attract and retain high-spillover firms, the evidence on spillovers and productivity effects of incentives appears mixed,” the analysis said.

The report specifically cites the Amazon debacle in New York City. Cuomo and de Blasio negotiated a $3 billion tax break and subsidy incentive package for Amazon to create at least 25,000 jobs and included a corporate heliport on or near a site in Long Island City.

But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other opponents argued the incentives for one of the world’s richest companies were unnecessary and that the congestion and higher costs outweighed Amazon’s presence.

Amazon abandoned the deal last February amid the resistance, which also included a campaign to unionize its workforce.

“Many questions remain unanswered. ….Does targeting subsidies at the largest firms have anticompetitive effects in the product market?,” the authors ask.

“At the local level, is the newly-attracted firm stimulating hiring of local residents that were previously unemployed and working in low-wage jobs? Or as was argued in the case of Amazon’s proposal for putting a headquarters in New York City, are all the good jobs going to people moving in from other locations, while leaving locals with more congestion and higher prices?”