DEPARTMENTS
A. The Hillary ModelB. Sport enterprise initiatives
C. Celebrity philanthropy
D. Promotional feats
E. Extremes
F. Team sports
G. Promotional events
H. Recurrent events
I. Global and regional games
J. Sport tourism
K. Diplomacy
L. Sport-Dev-Peace news
M. Dance
N. Martial Arts
O. Left Field
In our first issue, which appear in September 2010, Moving Mountains will present an article by Dr. Nickolas Pappas (City University of New York, Dept. of Philosophy) detailing the ancient roots of Olympic aspirations and controversy. You'll be surprised by his findings
Olympics: Good for Development?
On October 2, American conservatives howled with glee at President Obama's "failure" to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Setting aside the predictable hypocrisy of the Republican pretense that the decision represented a rejection of Obama, his policies, and the Democratic Party in general, it is worth noting that there actually are arguments that the Olympics aren't such a great thing for the host country.
In assessing the economic costs and benefits of the Games, we shouldn't be looking at raw numbers: so many jobs created, so much money spent, and so on. For instance, building a new sports facility or deploying Port-O-Potties is not equivalent to building a new hospital. Marvin Shaffer et al., of the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, point out some of the usual quibbles with Olympic boosterism in Olympic Costs and Benefits: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games (February 2003).
Among their conclusions:
- The Olympic Games could be projected to result in a net financial loss to the Vancouver government, entailing spending cuts elsewhere, increased taxation, and/or increased debt.
- Jobs created would be short-term, and would be clustered in areas where unemployment is not relatively high.
- The arguable benefit to residents of hosting and spectating Olympic Games must be weighed against costs and benefits in five "evaluation accounts:government financial, resident/consumer, environmental, economic development, and social."
The whole idea that Olympics might be good for development is paradoxical. Given the huge logistical challenges, it is not surprising that the International Olympic Committee must choose only established economic powers as sites for the Games. One could argue that the mere prospect of hosting the Games is a significant motivation for lesser-developed countries to get their act together -- improve infrastructure, reduce pollution, and so on. However, that prospect, which will fail to materialize for most candidate countries and cities, introduces planning distortions which will be a burden for years.
In fact, it's been pointed out that in recent decades the only cities that seem not to have suffered post-Olympic economic heartburn are Los Angeles and Atlanta, and that may be due to the fact that the pre-existing economic activity was great enough to absorb the Olympic meatball with barely a burp.
What about peace?
The International Olympic Committee itself has been the subject of charges of corruption (as in the selling of the Salt Lake City games), racism, and commercialism... among other things. But the greatest problem seems to be the politicization of the Games. Hitler memorably tried to use the 1936 Games to promote his propaganda about Aryan superiority. That program backfired, of course, and Jesse Owens' performances probably contributed somewhat to the advancement of human rights -- at least in sports.
Olympic boycotts in the name of peace, human rights, and other noble causes have become rather predictable. In 1956 the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland boycotted the Melbourne Olympics to protest the Soviet repression of the Hungarian uprising by the Soviet Union, while Cambodia, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon removed their hats from the rings in response to the Suez Crisis. Boycotts were threatened over apartheid in 1972 and 1976. The Taiwan-China sovereignty became an Olympic problem. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan let to boycotts of the Moscow Olympics in 1980, and the Soviet bloc returned the favor when Los Angeles hosted the Olympics in 1984.
More recently, there were loud calls for boycotts of the 2008 Beijing Olympics in view of China's human rights offenses, particularly regarding Tibet, as well as its fomenting of conflict in Darfur. The protests and disruptions of the pre-Olympics torch run made headlines for weeks.
President Bush was widely criticized for attending the Beijing Olympics. Presidential candidate Barack Obama, after some vacillation, said he would not have gone. See EcoWorldly.com coverage.
Overall, it seems that the Olympics may provide the motivation for social and political whitewash, but there isn't much evidence of real change.
Suggestion
Here's a suggestion: What if the Olympic venue were selected primarily on the basis of social equity and political stability, with secondary consideration of need and geographical diversity? After selection, an assessment could be made of minimal necessary infrastructural upgrades, and the cost would footed entirely by the IOC? The host contribution could be capped at 10% above the assessed need. That would allow for some patriotic primping, but put a kibosh on the potlatch phenomenon that was on display in Beijing.
