Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
centre for analysis of risk and regulation Mega-Events and Risk Colonisation Risk Management and the Olympics Will Jennings DISCUSSION PAPER NO: 71 DATE: March 2012 Mega-Events and Risk Colonisation Risk Management and the Olympics Will Jennings Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1 Mega-events and risk ....................................................................................................... 4 Organising risks ............................................................................................................ 6 Experiencing and anticipating risk .................................................................... 10 The mega-event paradox ............................................................................................. 12 Mega-events and risk colonisation: risk management and the Olympics .. 16 The Olympics and risk management ................................................................. 16 Risk colonisation and mega-events................................................................... 20 References ...................................................................................................................... 22 The work was part of the programme of the Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation. Published by the Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation at the London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE UK © London School of Economics and Political Science, 2012 ISSN 2049-2718 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. ii Mega-Events and Risk Colonisation Risk Management and the Olympics Will Jennings Abstract This paper uses the idea of risk colonisation (Rothstein et al. 2006) to analyse how societal and institutional risks simultaneously make mega-events such as the Olympics a problematic site for risk management while contributing to the spread of the logic and formal managerial practice of risk management. It outlines how mega-events are linked to broader societal and institutional hazards and threats but at the same time induce their own unique set of organisational pathologies and biases. In this context, it is argued that the combination of societal and institutional risks create pressure for safety and security which in turn give rise to the growing influence of risk as an object of planning, operations and communication both in organisation of the Games and governance of the Olympic movement. This is consistent with the colonising influence of risk over time: both in the creation of formal institutions (such as risk management teams and divisions) and the proliferation of the language of ‘risk’ as an object of regulation and control. 1 Mega-events such as the Olympic Games present a special case for understanding the relationship between large-scale projects and societal and institutional risks, and how these in turn give rise to pressures for the management of risk. This paper applies the idea of risk colonisation (Rothstein et al. 2006) to analyse how societal and institutional risks make mega-events such as the Olympics a problematic venue for risk management while contributing to the spread of logics and formal organisational practice of risk management (e.g. Jennings and Lodge 2011). In light of trend towards the increasing attention to risk and its management in modern states and societies (e.g. Giddens 1991; Beck 1992; Jasanoff 1999; Hood et al 2001; Garland 2003; Power 2004), large-scale, spectacular ‘mega’ projects and events make for an extreme collision of wider societal and institutional forces. These intersecting trends highlight the confounding paradox of mega-projects (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003). That is, the puzzle of why vast and complex undertaking of this sort remain popular with governments and planners in view of their inherent riskiness, both in manufacturing societal risks (such as hazards related to pollution or transport accidents and threats from terrorism) and risks to institutions (for example, suffering from poor track records in terms of cost over-runs and shortfalls in their completion times, financial revenues and economic impacts). This paradox becomes all the more apparent when societal and institutional pressures for the management of hazards and threats are taken into account. The awkward relationship between risk and mega-events can therefore be unpacked to explain the colonising influence of risk over time in governance of the Olympics through the creation of formal institutions (such as risk management teams and divisions) and the proliferation of the language of ‘risk’ as an object of regulation and control. Mega-events are organised in a setting in which there is heightened institutional attention to risks, due to societal and institutional pressures for safety and security and to pathologies and biases specific to the organisation of mega-events in particular. This creates a climate in which there is intense dialogue about risk ahead of the event in the public domain (most of all in the media) and within stakeholder organisations. Mega-events are large-scale events, linked to international sport, culture and leisure (Hall 1989: 263), with complex logistical operations that are reliant upon advance planning and wide-ranging programmes of investment in the construction of infrastructure, venues and facilities. Such events are non-routine and of limited time duration, requiring the management of large movements of spectators/visitors, workforces and participants. Further, mega-events tend to be global in scope with regard to their governance (under transnational authorities such as the International Olympic Committee), participation, tourist arrivals and penetration of media markets. Within countries the economic scale of mega-events, involving high levels of public and/or private investment, has consequences for the distribution of resources, with repercussions for host cities and national economies. These are, then, ‘short-term events with long-term consequences for the cities that stage them … associated with the creation of infrastructure and event facilities often carrying long-term debts and always requiring long-term use programming’ (Roche 1994: 1). According to this definition, mega-events are made up of wider programmes that include, but are not limited to, large-scale construction projects known as ‘mega-projects’ (Flyvbjerg et al. 2 2003). In the mega-event context such construction works range from athletics stadiums and other sporting venues to residential accommodation, telecommunications networks, public transport infrastructure, energy and water supplies and the landscaping of public spaces (while some pre-existing venues and facilities are overlaid for the duration of the event). This paper argues that the planning and operational features of mega-events are linked to the production (or attraction) of social and economic harms, at the same time as creating institutional demand for the language of risk and for methods of risk management. The public visibility and symbolism of such events also tends to encourage debates about risk. There is much debate over the social and cultural origins of the notion of risk (e.g. Douglas and Wildavsky 1982). In this paper, the relationship between mega-events and risk is organised in relation to the theoretical distinction between societal and institutional risks (drawing upon Rothstein et al. 2006). The former refer to objective risks to society and its environment (i.e. dangers to host populations, participants, workforces or spectators and to land, air, water, buildings and infrastructure), while the latter refer to risks to the activities of organisations (i.e. threats to legitimacy or reputation and to internal operations such as financial liabilities, cost over-runs, non- delivery). This distinction reflects the tensions inherent to thinking about risk, between approaches that focus upon the regulation of social and environmental hazards (e.g. Beck 1992; Hood, Jones et al. 1992; Breyer 1993; Hood et al. 2001; Vogel 2003), and latterly the threat from terrorism (e.g. Ericson and Doyle 2004; Haggerty and Ericson 2006), and those geared around the risks of risk management to institutions themselves (e.g. Power 2007). The construct of risk used in this analysis therefore integrates ‘objective’ forms of risk with the ‘constructed’ manifestation of risk as an object of communication and managerial planning and control within institutional settings, and the framing of hazards and threats to organisations. The Olympics represents an ideal case for analysis of the relationship between mega- events and risk for a number of reasons. Foremost it satisfies any accepted definition of what constitutes a mega-event: it is recognised as the world’s largest and most visible international sporting event, involving the coordination of hundreds of thousands of officials, participants, security personnel, accredited media and spectators, and often entails extensive programmes of construction of sporting venues and infrastructure. Further, the persistence of institutional forms over time (in