(WERU) Working papers series - Work and Employment Research Unit
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Work and Employment Research Unit
(WERU)
Working papers series
2011
Number 1
The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy:
a literature review
Galina Gornostaeva
Galina Gornostaeva was the research fellow on WERU’s Olympics project for the
academic year 2009-2010.The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
The Olympics‟ employment and skills legacy:
a literature review
Galina Gornostaeva
This literature review aims to identify interesting and problematic areas in academic
and 'grounded' research on the employment and skills legacy of the Olympic Games.
The issues are complex and the published material is huge. Similar work, however,
has already been undertaken and multiple literature reviews on the subject are in
place, (see, for example, work conducted in the University of East London (Poynter
2006; GLA 2007; Smith 2008) as well as other important publications (Brown and
Massey 2001; Kasimati 2003; GLA 2007; Experian 2006; EdComs 2007). Several
assessments and reviews, which relate directly to the 2012 Olympics in London are
among these publications. There are also studies of other mega-events, such as
sporting and cultural events, which contain economic impact assessments and
evaluations of previous research (SIRC 2004; Langen and Garcia 2009).
The questions raised by the previous literature on the subject are:
1. What are the Olympics and how do they relate to local/regional development?
2. Who are the stakeholders, winners and losers of this mega event?
3. What is the Olympic legacy, and what exactly does 'the employment and skills
legacy' mean? How should the impact of the Olympics be measured?
4. And what are the impacts of and the lessons from previous events of the same
nature?
This review is constructed around these questions, which different authors answer in
different ways.
1. What are the Olympics?
The Olympic games are the events defined by various authors respectively as
'hallmark' (Ritchie 1984), 'mega-events' (Hall 1992; Hall 1997), and 'peripatetic'
(Connell and Page 2005). Mega-events including the Olympics are considered as a
means of image building and competition between cities for jobs and investment
(Shoval 2002) and of attracting a 'visitor class' to cities (Eisinger 2000). They
influence the city's economy by visitor spending and by the need to develop the
services and amenities, which the visitors require. The latter has relevance to the
sport-led regeneration and corresponds with the literature on the property-led and
culture-led regeneration.
The Olympics are also called 'spectacles' (Harvey 1989) and 'circuses' (Eisinger
2000), which are a part of neo-liberalism and entrepreneurialism in cities' politics and
urban governance. If previously city governance employed a 'managerial' approach
with an emphasis on social welfare, a „new urban politics‟ (Cox, 1993) of
entrepreneurialism promotes local economic development in alliance with private
sector agencies and is oriented towards attracting new investment (Owen 2002).
Urban entrepreneurialism is associated with increased centralisation of planning
powers, greater fiscal restraint by governments, increased privatisation of government
operations, the assumption of risk by the public sector, and the relaxation of normal
planning processes (Owen 2002).
2The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
In this context the Olympics and hallmark events in general are incorporated into
urban economic regeneration and development strategies in the hope that they will
generate global investment, high employment multipliers and local tax revenues and
will improve social cohesion (Owen 2002). Critics however emphasise that running a
'spectacle' and achieving local regeneration are tasks which are not easily reconciled
(Eisinger 2000): consumers of the spectacle are mainly middle-class. City renewal by
means of sport/consumption-led regeneration induces gentrification, prising-out and
displacing local small businesses and the disadvantaged populations (Vigor, Mean et
al. 2004).
The Olympics are also researched as a super-mobile Trans National Corporation
(TNC) with its head quarters in Geneva, Switzerland, which moves its operations to a
different city every four years. In many cases, however, the Olympic Games involve
not only private but also substantial public funds. The balance between the two
defines the organisational characteristics of the Games and even, it is believed, their
outcomes in terms of generated revenues and the amount of public debt (Preuss 2004).
The funding pattern varies (Experian 2006) between:
Publicly funded: most funding comes from taxpayers (Munich 72, Montreal
76 and Moscow 80).
Privately funded: most funding comes from revenues from sponsorship and
television rights (Los Angeles 84 and Atlanta 96).
Mixed funding of both public and private (Barcelona 92 and Sydney 00)
Fig 1. Comparative Games Funding, 1972-2000 (Experian 2006)
The Games' organisational and funding models mirror the hosting country's economic
and social policies. As Owen (2002) documented when reviewing existing opinions,
the planning processes for, and the local impacts of, hallmark events epitomise many
3The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
of the characteristics of entrepreneurial governance. Special planning agencies are
usually established to ensure the efficient organisation of hallmark events and these
agencies are often private-sector-led coalitions of local business elites, or crown
corporations with statutory authority, analogous to the public-private partnerships
(PPP) characteristic of entrepreneurial governance. These special planning agencies
typically have considerable planning powers, which allow them to expropriate land
and override city bylaws, zoning regulations and local planning policies.
Following these insights the Games in many cases perform as temporary PPP (Palmer
2009), established for the construction of Olympic venues and developing the
Olympic infrastructure and accompanied by local regeneration programmes, including
those directed toward training and skills improvement, and volunteering. The
literature on PPPs (Palmer 2009) suggests that not only can these funds be directed to
private businesses, but also that there can be some devolution of control and authority
to the private sector, as well as private sector participation in decision making. When
the Olympic Games are over venues become privatised - sold to private owners to
recoup public expenses and involvement of the private sector is supposed to provide
economies of scale and a share in the risk.
A combination of different degrees of ownership, funding and control determines the
type of PPP that is formed. There are several possible combinations of functions that
the private sector can undertake: design, build, finance, operate, maintain, own,
transfer, lease, develop, and buy. The ability of local authorities to make investments
and borrow or repay debts depends on the laws and regulations that govern the
appropriation of returns, property rights and contracts (Palmer 2009). The extensive
literature on PPPs relies on principal agent theory1 and transaction cost theory2, which
can be seen as one of the ways to theorise the economics and governance of the
Olympics.
2. Stakeholders
The stakeholders in the Olympic event are well known and their interests are well
described (Preuss 2004). There is a crude but distinct division of stakeholders into
those who propose, produce and organise the event/project and those who are on the
receiving end - the local community. For example, a successful legacy for the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) may be about achieving a debt-free
Olympics, which may compete with local authorities and communities‟ ambitions to
secure improved living standards. The desire to raise local living standards is likely to
involve additional investment which Olympic organisers neither have a mandate to
nor are they equipped to provide (Keogh 2009). Thgere are four groups of
stakeholders as follows:
Group 1. Sponsors and television companies are interested in immediate profits along
with preserving, promoting and developing their property rights, achieved by
negotiations with Games organisers and by publicity campaigns. There is an
1
PAT formalises assumptions about the distribution of property rights and information in the writing
of the contracts that define organisations and inter-organisational arrangements. In particular, it focuses
on the relationship between principals and agents who exercise authority on behalf of organisations.
2
TCT, focusing on the contracts, views the parties attempting to engage in exchange as contracting
both the terms of the exchange and their execution. Simply put, a contract should also take into account
all of the expenses made in reaching that contract, whether personal or social.
4The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
economic literature describing the position and actions of this group of stakeholders
(Preuss 2004).
Group 2. Private business is also represented by construction and tourist-servicing
firms which directly benefit from visitors or from obtaining a contract for the
construction of the Olympic venues, improving infrastructure and other related
facilities. It is important to bear in mind differences between trans-national
corporations (TNCs), national large companies and small and medium size enterprises
(SMEs), which will have their distinct position in the production chain and role in
providing services to the mega-event organisers. The problem with TNCs is that
profits earned via Olympic investments may be taken oversees and cannot be
considered in estimates of trickle-down effects. However, companies with
headquarters located abroad pay corporate tax and can be involved in various
partnerships if their branch is located in the hosting city. An example of an instrument
for arranging the relationships between businesses (including TNCs) and the local
government is in the Section 106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act
19903.
The literature suggests that the ability to win an Olympic contract relates to the
reputation of the firm, its previous experiences in e.g. Olympic construction, and, not
surprisingly, to its size. The latter can be explained by the need to reduce negotiation
and coordination costs between the Olympic organising committee and the firm,
considering the high risks involved in and the 'just in time' nature of the Olympic
enterprise (Smallbone et al. 2008).
The impact of this group of stakeholders is considered in the multiplier effects
literature as generators of gross domestic product (GDP) and employment. What is
not described well are the affects on businesses displaced by Olympic construction
before the Games, or by increased rents after the Games. SMEs are also influenced by
transport disruptions during the Games and by security measures employed during the
Games. resulting in a disruption of the flow of their regular customers and suppliers.
Group 3. Government: city and/or regional (federal in the case of the USA)
government and/or central government. City governments are initiators of the
Olympic Games, providers of public funds for the construction of the Olympic
amenities and infrastructures. They declare the main aims and legacies of the
Olympics in their cities and countries and are responsible for going along with
Olympics regeneration programmes. They are accountable to their electing
populations for their services and expenditure and are often initiators of the multiple
evaluations of the Olympics. Their main interest is the promotion of their city
3
Section 106 (S.106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority
(LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association
with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement. These
agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development
acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and
infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing (from:
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=71631;http://www.aie.org.uk/aie_data/aie_106.html).
5The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
internationally and the attraction of inward investment and the stimulation of local
development and regeneration. The latter may include implementation of labour
supply and labour demand policies, which involves introducing various training
schemes, and 'employer-obligation' employment schemes (such as employment
ACCORDS in the UK), cultural Olympiads and volunteering projects. There is an
interesting area of research, which considers the changes which occur in the
governments themselves when they come through the experiences of the Olympics;
(for changes in Greater London Authority see Newman 2007).
The theme of the cultural Olympiads and their role in urban regeneration is well
represented in the work of the IMPACTS group related to the Liverpool European
City of Culture research programme (Bond 2008; Langen and Garcia 2009).
Volunteering has become a prominent feature of the Olympics, (see for example
(Panagiotopoulou 2005) and in this respect is well researched, (see for example,
volunteering work and cultural events in Rodenhurst, Comeford-Park et al. 2008). The
extensive literature on volunteering includes research on the background of volunteers
via such variables as age, gender, educational, religious and class, (see for example
(Taniguchi 2010) and research into the link between volunteering and employability
(Catts 2005) via notions of human and social capital (Mayer 2003) (see the major
works in the field: (Jacobs 1961; Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988; Coleman 1990;
Fukuyama 1995; Putnam 1995). The number of organisations dealing with
volunteering and the number of people involved in volunteering is often considered to
be a measure of social capital (for the review of various measures of social capital see
Harper 2001). The proposed link between volunteering and employability triggered
the emergence of governmental policies employing volunteering programmes for
improving labour market supply.
Interestingly social capital and volunteering issues relate also to the notions of
corporate social action, and through this to the governmental polices on labour market
demand (such as the employment ACCORDS in London). For the communities'
influence on corporate social action see for example (Marquis, Glynn et al. 2007) 4.
Moreover the notion of social capital is related by some authors (Putnam 1995) to
economic development in general. This link is used as an argument in promoting
public investments in 'community building', which may improve the chances of local
regeneration (for critique and development of this position see (Woolcock 1998).
Group 4. The forth group of stakeholders includes populations of different kinds.
There is an extensive literature which describes the displacement of ethnic groups and
the homeless from the areas of Olympic construction. The issues related to the
positions and problems of this diverse group relate to the effectiveness of consultation
with the public before the Olympic Games and the effects of gentrification. For a
4
Corporate social action can focus on any number of diverse social needs or issues including, but not
limited to, the arts, housing, the physical environment, education and schooling, human welfare,
poverty, disease, wellness, and general improvement in the quality of life. Corporate activities that
address such social concerns can take a variety of forms including cash contributions, investments in
social initiatives or programs, employee volunteer efforts, and in-kind donations of products or
services, and can represent varying levels of monetary and time commitment.
6The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
related literature see the website of the Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions5
http://www.cohre.org/mega-events-report (CHRE 2007). On displacement related to
the Olympic Games in Sydney see (Lenskyj 2002; Lenskyj 2004) and in London
(Cheyne 2009; Porter 2009). A whole website is devoted to the critiques of Olympic
Games: http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/931.
Existing research covers various aspects of Olympic stakeholders' interests and
activities and some literature looks specifically at their interconnectedness. For
example, the government has a dual interest in delivering the Games and at the same
time serving the interests of local businesses and populations. An example is the
research on how the present regulatory framework in the UK and Europe limits the
extent of policies directed towards the promotion of local businesses and local
employees for the contracts and jobs available in Olympic projects (Smallbone, et al.
2008).
3. What is the Olympics' legacy?
Considering the characteristics of the Olympic Games and the stakeholders listed
above what would be the Olympic legacy? The legacy has increasingly become a part
of the Olympics in recent years but it remains a concept that is ill defined and often
contested (Keogh 2009). Quite often the word „legacy‟ is used to describe the post-
event benefits, including benefits for local development (Clark 2008). However, it is
well recognised that mega-events in general and the Olympics in particular bring not
only benefits, especially where local development is concerned, but also disbenefits.
Therefore the term legacy is modified and other terms are used instead such as
'sustainable legacy' and 'legacy momentum'. For instance, in the economic sphere
legacy momentum refers to the capacity of the city and the regional economy to
continue an upward growth path following the immediate post-Games downturn in
economic activity (GLA 2007). Others prefer to replace the term 'legacy' with the
term 'impact', considered over varying timescales and including both positive and
negative impact (Keogh 2009; Owen 2002).
City officials tend to believe that the Olympic Games and other mega-events stimulate
local development and help local regeneration. First, it is suggested that the
immediate growth in construction activities before the event and increased tourism
during the event give a boost to the local economy. Second, there are often world-
class facilities and infrastructure, including housing, remaining after the event, which
will be used again and again to generate income. Third, employment multipliers can
be generated. Fourth, it is believed that there is an 'attention economy' in place – the
image of the city promoted during the event can help to attract inward investment in
the future.
However, critics suggest that there is generally little tangible, direct economic benefit
for most citizens, who instead often bear a public debt. Moreover, the Olympics
simply lead to the redistribution of spending to different parts of the urban economy
as resources are diverted from welfare programmes, thus magnifying social inequities
and intensifying the marginalisation of some community groups (Owen 2002). So,
5
COHRE is a Geneva-based, international non-governmental human rights organisation founded in
1994. COHRE is the leading international human rights organisation campaigning for the protection of
housing rights and the prevention of forced evictions.
7The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
there is always the issue of opportunity costs in public spending. For instance if the
local government spends large sums on building and operating a sports facility, then less
it may spend less on public health, public safety, education, infrastructure and other
publicly provided goods. In the long run, this could reduce earnings in cities. Although
the proponents of these subsidies claim that tax revenues will increase as a result of the
construction of new sports facilities, no retrospective research has examined this issue
(Coates and Humphreys 2003). Furthermore, despite the wealth of data on state and
local government spending and revenues, according to Coates and Humphreys (2003),
there has been no research into the impact of mega events on government budgets
It has also been noticed that there is very slim evidence that trickle-down effects occur
and that the local economy and/or residents benefit. Analysis of professional sports,
for example, suggests that the majority of the revenues go into salaries for players,
managers, coaches, trainers and scouts. Most of these individuals, especially the more
highly paid ones, do not live full time in the city where the games take place. Unlike the
wages and salaries paid to employees of local restaurants, movie theatres, car dealerships,
department stores, the large salaries earned by players and coaches leak out of the local
economy (Coates and Humphreys 2003).
Proponents of stadium- and arena-led growth, however, contend that restaurants, bars,
and hotels in the area will expand their business as fans patronize the establishments
before and after the events. If this argument is correct, then property values and rents
should rise as the present value of the new stream of profits is capitalized into property
values and that can lead to gentrification and displacement of businesses and residents.
On the other hand, property values may fall as the presence of crowds in the
neighbourhood makes it a less pleasant place in which to live or operate a business
(Coates and Humphreys 2003).
Sport facilities may even have a net negative economic impact on income and
employment. Coats and Humphreys (2003) observed the reduction in income per capita
in cities with professional sports teams and suggested that the sports environment in a
city, like good weather or access to a coast, performs as a wage influencing externality
because it may be viewed by workers as an amenity from which they receive
compensating wage differentials. Therefore firms in a city with professional sports teams
can hire workers at a lower wage than firms in cities without professional sports teams
(Coates and Humphreys 2003). However, event organisers often suggest that any
negative economic outcomes are counterbalanced by non-financial outcomes such as
increases in civic pride and goodwill, and international exposure resulting from the
event (Owen 2002).
Critics suggest that the term 'legacy' itself was introduced by protagonists of the
Games and leading institutions with the aims of serving as a justification for large-
scale programmes of public investment and that it is used as a smokescreen for
wasteful and opportunistic expenditures on a 'white elephant' mega-event (Macrury
2008).
Some authors go even further, suggesting that there are two types of studies related to
the Olympics. The first type is conducted by consultancy firms before the Olympics.
Most of these studies use econometric techniques to assess the effect that professional
sports had on urban economies They then predict the economic impacts and growth in
income and average earnings of workers in various sectors of a city's economy, and
8The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
employment. The second type of research comes from retrospective studies published in
peer-reviewed academic journals (Coates and Humphreys 2003).
A useful outcome of this discussion is the conclusion that 'legacy' is understood
differently by different stakeholders participating in (or witnessing) mega-events.
There is also a useful differentiation between economic and socio-cultural legacies of
Olympic Games.
4. Impacts of the previous Games.
One can argue that the problems surrounding the Olympics can be resolved easily and
their impacts well predicted as the phenomenon is not new and a lot of research has
been completed. However, specialists in the field point out that each Olympic Game
is different and to make analogies is risky. First, countries holding Olympics differ by
such parameters as economic base; political objectives; governance structures,
infrastructure needs; and funding arrangements (Experian 2006). Second, the impacts
of the Games are defined, measured and modelled differently in different countries
(Experian 2006). Even objective which host cities tried to achieve were identified
differently:
Promotion of a new image: Munich 72, Seoul 88, Sydney 00;
City redevelopment: Munich 72, Montreal 76, Seoul 88, Barcelona 92, Athens
04, Turin 06, Beijing 08, London 12;
Demonstration/promotion of upcoming economic power: Tokyo 64, Seoul 88,
Beijing 08.
The main quantitative method of estimating the Olympic legacy in terms of
employment is by 'multipliers'. Specialist literature reviews devoted to the multiplier
effects explain the plusses and minuses of this technique (Kasimati 2003; Phythian-
Adams 2008). Kasimati (2003) points out that no economic impact studies were
conducted before the Los Angeles Games in 1984. In each of the Games which
followed, however, there were one or several studies of this sort, most of them ex-ante
and therefore predicting the impact of hosting the Games. They were conducted on
the basis of a set of assumptions, such as expected growth and the conditions of the
market which, if not correct, can distort the results. Other difficulties in respect of
such studies have arisen in relation to the technical problem of separating the impact
of the Olympics, from the influence of general economic trends (growth, recession,
etc.), the calculation of the opportunity costs (the crowding out and displacement of
other investment), and the potentially damaging social impacts on local communities
and local small businesses.
There are three types of multipliers used according to (Kasimati 2003):
1. Sales or transactions multipliers, which measure the direct and secondary
effect of the injected money on the business activity and turnover.
2. Household income multipliers, which concentrate on the direct and secondary
effects on the household income.
3. Employment multipliers, which measure the number of new full-time jobs
resulting from the money injected in the economy.
The employment multipliers are considered to be the least reliable. Their basic
assumption of full utilisation of existing employees may create errors in calculating
the increase in the level of employment, particularly for „one-time‟ mega-sports
9The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
events such as the Summer Olympic Games. The short duration of the Games does
not necessarily justify the hiring of new employees, the generation of permanent full-
time jobs and the sustainability of the employment effects. Entrepreneurs will
probably exhaust other alternatives such as asking existing employees to work
overtime or perform other tasks, before hiring the additional workers to satisfy the
temporary high demand.
Some assessments measure the ex-post (after the Games) economic impacts and are
therefore an attempt to understand what actually happened (Baade and Matheson
2002). Before and after studies rarely tell the same story (Experian 2006). Some
commentators point out that the employment effects were significantly lower than
projected and that any increase in activity was temporary in, for example, Atlanta 96,
(Baade and Matheson 2002) and Sydney (Treasury 1997). Several ex-ante
assessments related to London Olympics in 2012 are already in place (Experian 2006;
EdComs 2007).
The impacts of the different Games vary significantly (Experian 2006):
The number of new jobs ranged from 6,300 in Manchester to 77,000 in
Atlanta to 445,000 in Athens
the number of tourist visits because of the Games ranged from 0.4 million in
Barcelona to 6 million in Athens.
The period for assessing impacts ranged from 5 years in Barcelona to 12 years
in Sydney.
The spatial impact area is national in some studies (Barcelona, Sydney,
Athens) and regional in another (Atlanta).
Despite the variability of evidence about the impact of the Olympics, there are some
'solid' facts. Growth in employment definitely takes place. The best record of this
growth is found in the work of Preuss (1998, 2004), see Fig. 2 below. The growth of
employment is temporary, however, and occurs mainly in relation to: built
environment (construction) staging the Games (event management, venue
management, technology/IT, security, transport and other activities such as ticketing)
and in showcasing (service sector for tourists) (Experian 2006). However, there is
little or no evidence on the extent to which jobs are filled by locals, or even by
nationals; nor is there information on diversity.
Employment growth is most marked in the pre-Games phase. Long term unemployed
and „workless‟ communities were largely unaffected by the staging of previous
Games (GLA 2007). Volunteering played a significant role in each city, but did not
become a community resource sustained after the event. Many volunteers were
trained for specific low skilled, customer focused service tasks and there was little
evidence of volunteer skills transferring to the post-Games economy (GLA 2007).
The recruitment, training and management of voluntary staff is often very difficult
and it is unclear whether this contributes to social regeneration (Smith 2008). Even in
the case of Manchester's Commonwealth Games, where disadvantaged groups were
involved and a nationally recognised vocational qualification was awarded, there was
no report on take-up.
Be that as it may, there is a belief that it is not the 'hard' legacies expressed in what
remains after hosting the Games, which are important - the improved infrastructures
10The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
and improved indicators (Sadd and Jones 2008). It is the 'soft' legacies or social
impacts of events and their long term implications that are often overlooked. Such
impacts include developing a sense of place and community pride in conjunction with
improvements in the quality of life (Ritchie 1984; Cashman and Hughes 1999) and
the enhancement of social capital, vital in maintaining a productive and lively society.
However, Malfas, Theodoraki and Houlihan (2004) argue that whilst events may seen
attractive through the positive economic benefits they accrue, the social impacts can
be negative, particularly when residents are forced to leave their publicly funded
housing projects to make way for event infrastructure.
Fig. 2: Influence of Olympic Games on the long-term job offer, Preuss (1998:
78)6.
6
To a host city, it is of special interest to see how the number of jobs will develop in phase IV. Four
cases are offered which strongly depend on the size of the economic impulse. Following long-term
employment, effects are possible, causing the number of jobs to:
(a) return to the level before the Games. It cannot be excluded that there might have been a further fall
without the Olympics. However, this situation is typical for the tourism branch with periodically
recurring events. This situation is also probable for Olympic Games without large investments (e.g. Los
Angeles‟84). Neither are long-term jobs nor follow-up investments (maintenance, etc.) induced.
(b) permanently rise because the structural changes in the city lead to further investment and the
settling of businesses (growth center concept). Planners of Olympics and analysts most frequently (and
most preferably) predict this case. It cannot be stated for sure whether such an effect was triggered by
the Olympic Games.
(c) remain on a lower level than before the Olympics. It could be caused by a bad image of the Games
or by displacements during the Olympics and the related demand migration. Of course, the level can
also fall due to factors which are independent of the Games.
(d) remain on a higher level than before the Games. This case is very probable because long-term jobs
are primarily created in leisure industry and tourism sector caused by the improved tourist
infrastructure.
11The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
5. Conclusions
This condensed literature review identifies some gaps in the research on the legacy of
the Olympics in terms of employment and skills. First, the trajectory of pre-Olympic
employment, though challenged by evidence of displacement of population and
businesses, has not been explored in detail in terms of the lost (or gained) economic
opportunities which the displaced small and medium enterprises faced. Second,
structural changes in employment and jobs taking place over all phases of the
Olympics - pre-, during, and post - have not been analysed for the parts of the city
most influenced by hosting the Olympics. As a part of this possible area of research a
third important strand of investigation can be identified - the impact of Olympic-
related contracts on selected businesses or individuals in the host city (see an attempt
of doing so in Smallbone et al. (2008). And finally, as Watts (2003) suggests, there is
scope for investigating the long term social impacts and social capital building related
to skills, training and volunteering.
Bibliography
Baade, R. A. and V. A. Matheson (2002). Bidding for the Olympics: Fool‟s Gold?
Transatlantic Sport: the Comparative Economics of North America and European
Sports. C. P. Barros, Ibrahimo, M., Szymanski, S. London, Edward Elgar: 127-151.
Bond, H. (2008). Estimating the Economic Benefits of Event Tourism: A Review of
Research Methodologies. B. Garcia. Liverpool, IMPACTS.
Bourdieu, P. (1986 . ). The forms of social capital. Handbook of theory and research
for the sociology of education. J. G. Richardson. New York, Greenwood Press
241-258.
Brown, A. and J. Massey (2001). Literature Review: The Impact of Major Sporting
Events. Manchester, Manchester Institute for Popular Culture, Manchester
Metropolitan University.
Cashman, R. and A. Hughes, Eds. (1999). Staging the Olympics: the Event and its
Impact. Sydney, University of New South Wales Press.
Catts, R. (2005?). Social Capital and Employability, University of Sterling.
Cheyne, J. (2009). "Olympian Masterplanning in London." Planning Theory &
Practice 10(3): 395–418.
CHRE, C. o. H. R. a. E. (2007). "Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-Events,
Olympic Games and Housing Rights." Retrieved 22 March, 2010.
Clark, G. (2008). Local Development Benefits from Staging Global Events, OECD.
Coates, D. and B. P. Humphreys (2003). "Professional Sports Facilities, Franchises
and Urban Economic Development." Public Finance and Management 3(3): 335-357.
12The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
Coleman, J. S. (1988). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." The
American Journal of Sociology 94(Supplement): S95-S120.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory Cambridge, Harvard University
Press.
Connell, J. and S. Page (2005). "Evaluating economic and spatial effects of an event:
the case of the World Medical and Health Games." Tourism Geographies 7(1): 63-85.
EdComs (2007). London 2012 legacy research: final report. London, DCMS and COI.
Eisinger, P. (2000). "The politics of bread and circusses: building the city for the
visitor class." Urban Affairs Review 35(3): 316-333.
Experian (2006). Employment and skills for the 2012 Games: research and evidence.
Final report. London, Learning and Skills Council & London Development Agency.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New
York: , Free Press
GLA (2007). A Lasting Legacy for London? Assessing the legacy of the Olympic
Games and Paralympic Games. London, London East Research Institute of the
University of East London.
Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark tourist events: impacts, management and planning.
London, Belhaven Press.
Hall, C. M. (1997). Mega-events and their legacies. Quality management in Urban
Tourism. P. Murphy. Chichester, UK, Wiley: 75-87.
Harper, R. (2001). Social Capital: A review of the literature, Social Analysis and
Reporting Division, Office fo National Statistics.
Harvey, D. (1989). "From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation
in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism." Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human
Geography 71(1): 3-17.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities.
Kasimati, E. (2003). "Economic Aspects and the Summer Olympics: a Review of
Related Research." International Journal of Tourism Research 5: 433–444.
Keogh, L. (2009). London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role of
Communities and Local Government and the regeneration of East London. London,
Department for Communities and Local Government.
Langen, F. and B. Garcia (2009). Measuring the Impacts of Large Scale Cultural
Events: A Literature Review. Liverpool, University of Liverpool.
13The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
Lenskyj, H. J. (2002). The best olympics ever? Social impacts of Sydney 2000. .
Albany, State University of New York Press.
Lenskyj, H. J. (2004). Making the world safe for global capital: The Sydney 2000
Olympics and beyond. Post-Olympism? Questioning sport in the twenty-first century.
J. Bale and M. K. Christensen. Oxford, Berg: 135–146.
Macrury, I. (2008). "Re-thinking the Legacy 2012: the Olympics as commodity and
gift." Twenty-First Century Society 3(3): 297 - 312
Malfas, M., Theodoraki, E., and B. Houlihan (2004). "Impacts of the Olympic Games
as megaevents." Municipal Engineer 157(3): 209-220.
Marquis, C., M. A. Glynn, et al. (2007). "Community Isomorphism and corporate
social action." Academy of Management Review.
Mayer, P. (2003). The Wider Economic Value of Social Capital and Volunteering in
South Australia. South Australia, University of Adelaide, the Office for Volunteers or
the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, South Australia.
Newman, P. (2007). "Back the Bid": The 2012 Summer Olympics and the
Governance of London" Journal of Urban Affaires 29(3): 255–267.
Owen, K. A. (2002). "The Sydney 2000 Olympics and Urban Entrepreneurialism:
Local Variations in Urban Governance." Australian Geographical Studies 40(3): 323–
336.
Palmer, G. (2009). Public-Private Partnerships. Literature Review - Draft, Aid
Delivery Methods Programme.
Panagiotopoulou, R. (2005). Citizen participation in the Olympic Games. Athens,
University of Athens.
Phythian-Adams, S. L., Sapsford, D., Southern, A. (2008). Considering the Economic
Impacts of the 2008 European Capital of Culture: A Review on the Literature
Concerning “Economic Multiplier” Effects. Liverpool, University of Liverpool.
Porter, L. (2009). "Planning Displacement: The Real Legacy of Major Sporting
Events." Planning Theory & Practice 10(3): 395–418.
Poynter, G. (2006). "From Beijing to Bow Bells: Measuring the Olympics Effect."
Working Papers in Urban Studies, LERI, University of East London.
Preuss, H. (1998). Problemizing Arguments of the Opponents of Olympic Games.
Global and Cultural Critique: Problematizing the Olympic Games. Fourth
International Symposium for Olympic Research, The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada, The International Centre for Olympic Studies.
Preuss, H. (2004). The Economics of Staging the Olympics: A comparison of the
Games 1972-2008. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
14The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review
Putnam, R. (1995). "Bowling alone : America's declining social capital." Journal of
Democracy 6(1): 65-78.
Ritchie, J. R. B. (1984). "Assessing the impact of hallmark events: conceptual and
research issues." Journal of Travel Research 23(1): 2-11.
Rodenhurst, K., L. Comeford-Park, et al. (2008). Volunteering for Culture: Exploring
the Impact of being an 08 Volunteer. B. Garcia. Liverpool, IMPACTS, University of
Liverpool.
Sadd, D. and I. Jones (2008). "Implications and Issues of London 2012 for the Sites‟
Residents." London Journal of Tourism, Sport and Creative Industries 1(1): 22-29.
Shoval, N. (2002). "A new phase in the competition for the Olympic gold: the London
and New York bids for 2012 Games." Journal of Urban Affairs 24(5): 583-599.
SIRC (2004). Measuring Success 2: The Economic Impact of Major Sports Events.
London, Sports Industry Research Centre (SIRC), Sheffield University, UK Sports.
Smallbone, D., J. Kitching, et al. (2008). Procurement and supplier diversity in the
2012 Olympics. London, Small Business Resrach Centre, Kingston University.
Smith, M. (2008). When the Games Come to Town: Host Cities and the Local
Impacts of the Olympics. London East Research Institute Working Papers. London,
University of East London.
Taniguchi, H. (2010). "Who Are Volunteers in Japan?" Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly 39(1): 161-179.
Treasury, N. S. W. (1997). Economic Impact of the Sydney Olympic Games.
Research & Information Paper., NSW Treasury. The Centre for Regional Economic
Analysis, University of Tasmania.
Vigor, A., M. Mean, et al., Eds. (2004). After the Gold Rush: A sustainable Olympics
for London, ippr and DEMOS.
Waitt, G. (2003). "Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics." Annals of Tourism
Research 30(1): 194-215.
Woolcock, M. (1998). "Social capital and economic development: Toward a
theoretical synthesis and policy framework." Theory and Society 27: 151-208.
15You can also read
