centreforcities discussion paper no. 8 December 2006 setting the bar preparing for ’s Olympic legacy

Tracy Kornblatt

Abstract focus on the longer term regeneration opportunities in , and match people to Olympics jobs where possible. A year after winning the bid, London is gearing up to deliver 3. Marginal benefits outside London: Other regions of the the London 2012 Olympic Games. The Games plan promises to UK should manage down their expectations for 2012 and regenerate the East London site and its surroundings. This avoid competing for small slivers of Olympics cash. paper assesses the likely economic impact of the Games on East 4. Focus on the soft stuff: The indirect, ‘soft’ impacts, includ- London, and the UK. ing accelerated infrastructure investment, are likely to be We need to be realistic about what the Games can deliver. substantial and lasting. Games planners should focus on Not all local residents will be able to access the employment these indirect benefits to maximise the Games’ legacy. opportunities created by the Games. And areas outside of 5. Be clear about costs: Current uncertainty over the final London will not all gain as much as they anticipate. To avoid costs threatens to undermine the goodwill behind the disappointment later, we should all adjust our expectations Games. The final distribution of costs should be clarified as now. soon as possible to allow forward planning for other proj- A substantial, lasting London 2012 legacy is within reach. ects across the UK. But London needs to make sure that the potential gains are realised. The benefits will not just happen automatically. Drawing on the lessons from past Games, this paper focuses on Success depends on whether we have put in place the appropri- the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ benefits of 2012. Direct employment and ate mechanisms and partnerships to deliver a legacy of wider new infrastructure benefits are likely to be relatively small and economic benefits. focused on London. But ‘soft’ benefits – enhancement of image, the acceleration of planned secondary investment, and increased We highlight five lessons for the London 2012 Olympics: civic pride and health – are potentially larger, and may apply 1. Be realistic: Ministers and delivery agencies need to manage right across the UK. expectations about the direct benefits of the 2012 Games, In London, development related to the Olympic Games over- especially in the host boroughs. We should avoid creating an laps with the long-term redevelopment of the Lower ‘expectations gap’ between perceived and actual gains. (LLV). Our assessment aims to isolate the value-added impact 2. New jobs, but not for everyone: Many of the jobs created of the Games from that of other projects such as the Lower Lea by the Olympics will go to those living outside the host Valley Regeneration strategy and improved transport infra- Boroughs. Local employment and training strategies should structure, which were planned previously.

1 discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities Introduction modest, with benefits mainly limited to the One year on from the jubilation of winning capital? the bid, the London 2012 Olympic Games This paper aims to answer these questions. are coming under intense scrutiny. The total It discusses the likely impacts in London, budget has already risen by more than £1bn, drawing on lessons learned from past and will rise further. And in the last few Olympics. The analysis focuses on two linked weeks (late November 2006), we have seen categories: ‘hard’ benefits including employ- confusion over the Games’ VAT bill, the res- ment, infrastructure and gains to key sectors ignation of the chairman of the Olympic like tourism; and wider ‘soft’ benefits includ- Delivery Authority (ODA) and disagree- ing enchanced image (‘image gains’), acceler- ments over the long-term use of the main ation of additional investment and secondary Olympic stadium. infrastructure, and increases in civic pride and “The honey- This recent spate of bad news has added to health. the uncertainty surrounding the 2012 Games, moon is over. and risks undermining public goodwill. The But this pres- honeymoon is over. But this actually presents Words of warning ents a useful a useful opportunity to adjust our expecta- tions of the Games – which have been too There are lessons to be learned from other opportunity to high for too long. This paper sets out a more Games. But assessing the economic impacts adjust our realistic vision of the economic impact of the of the Olympics is difficult. expectations of Games. First, different Games have had different the Games – To start, let’s remind ourselves why we bid goals and levels of planned regeneration. As for the Games in the first place. London is such, the outcomes of Games have varied which have aiming for major regeneration impacts as a widely – from the largely successful transfor- been too high result of the Olympics: mation of Barcelona in 1992 to Montreal’s for too long” ‘… the most enduring legacy of the 30-year struggle to pay off its Olympic debt. Olympics will be the regeneration of an So caution is needed when comparing Games entire community [the ] experiences. for the direct benefit of everyone who lives And second, the evidence base is not ideal. there.’ (London 2012, 2004, p. 19) There is a lack of information about many of the key ‘soft’ benefits. Studies often use very These were bold claims, and not guaranteed. different measurements and produce very dif- As ippr and Demos made clear in their After ferent results (Preuss 2004, UBS 2006). And the Gold Rush report, the desired develop- there is an obvious incentive for official stud- mental result is not a foregone conclusion. It ies (commissioned by the host cities), which requires careful planning and management form the majority of the evidence, to be opti- (Vigor et al 2004). mistic about the likely results (Preuss 2004, Britain will host the Games in just over five UBS 2006). years’ time. So now is a good time to remind ourselves of these legacy issues. We need to understand what the real economic and Learning from the past: the ‘hard’ regeneration benefits of the London 2012 and ‘soft’ benefits of Olympic Games Games are likely to be, and we need to shape strategy, delivery and expectations accordingly. It is important to separate the direct impacts of Above all, we need to avoid over-promising the Games with their wider, indirect catalytic what the Games will actually achieve. Will effects. Our analysis of the economic impacts the Olympics be a transformational event, of the 2012 Games is based on a historical with substantial gains for East London and assessment of the direct (‘hard’) and indirect other parts of the UK? Or will it be more (‘soft’) benefits of previous Olympic Games.

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 2 Briefly: impact assessments have already been ● ‘Hard’ benefits are those that are largely released, and many more are in the pipeline. direct and relatively easy to isolate and Key studies include Department of Culture, assess. For example, the impact on the Media and Sport (DCMS) and labour market, housing market, business PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (2005), and infrastructure investment. For 2012, Blake (2005), UBS (2006), Atkinson et al we conclude that the ‘hard’ benefits (2006) and Experian (2006). The Centre for around employment and new infrastruc- Local Economic Strategies also recently ture are likely to be relatively small and released a report highlighting concerns about focused on London. future legacy benefits ( Jackson 2006). ● ‘Soft’ benefits include image gains, The geographical context of London 2012 improved civic pride and health, and the is important. The main aim of the London acceleration of secondary investment. We 2012 Games is to secure the economic, physi- conclude that these ‘soft’ benefits are cal and social regeneration of a large part of potentially larger, and may apply right East London. As such, the plans integrate across the UK. the London 2012 Games into the broader framework of the existing Lower Lea Valley Annex A sets this out in detail. (LLV) Regeneration Strategy, whose goals are similar in terms of transforming the region: London’s legacy: what might be ‘To transform the Lower Lea Valley to achieved? become a vibrant, high quality and sus- First, what do we know about the potential tainable mixed use city district, that is fully impact of the London 2012 Games? Various integrated into the urban fabric of London and is set within an unrivalled landscape Map 1: Indices of deprivation scores that contains new high quality parkland Olympic and water features.’ (, 2006 p.1) Enfield boroughs

Barnet Waltham Forest The LLV Strategy is ambitious, aiming to Harrow Haringey Redbridge deliver 30-40,000 new homes and 50,000 Havering Brent Hackney new jobs across the four host boroughs dur- Camden Barking and Dagenham Hillingdon Islington 1 Newham ing its first 10 years (by around 2015) – Ealing WestminsterTower Hamlets more than doubling current levels of employ- Hammersmith and Fulham Southwark Hounslow ment in some of the most deprived London Lambeth Greenwich Bexley Wandsworth Lewisham neighbourhoods (Mayor of London 2006, Richmond upon Thames LDA 2006). See Map 1, left, for Indices of Merton Deprivation (ID) rankings of the districts in Kingston upon Thames Bromley the Games area. Sutton Croydon There are some clear overlaps between the Olympics Masterplan, the LLV Regeneration Strategy and Transport for London’s East London plans. The fact that much of the wider regeneration strategy was planned before 2004 Indices of Deprivation Scores the Olympic bid suggests that there will be 9.67 - 13.50 low deprivation post-Games demand for the infrastructure. 13.51 - 17.77 The Olympics deadline can help to bring 17.78 - 25.95 25.96 - 35.38 forward elements of the LLV Regeneration 35.39 - 45.88 high deprivation 1. Stakeholder interview, October 2006.

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 3 London 2012: an overview How much? At the time London was chosen to host the What? 2012 Games, total costs were estimated at The London 2012 Games are centred on the around £5.4bn. Infrastructure costs were esti Lower Lea Valley, a largely undeveloped ex mated at nearly £2.4bn, plus just over £1.0bn industrial site in East London. The plan con for the wider regeneration of the area post tains major land reclamation (200 hectares), 2012.2 Separately, it was estimated that stag plus the construction of transport facilities and ing the Games would cost £2.0bn – and this parkland. The sporting venues and Olympic money would be raised privately. Village will be converted for postGames use. The total cost is now set to rise further. Costs break down as follows: Where? Running the Games: £2.0bn The main site contains land from four Building the site boroughs: ● Games site and infrastructure: £2.4bn ● Hackney ● Cost overruns to date: £0.5bn ● Tower Hamlets ● Delivery partner: £0.4bn ● Waltham Forest ● Security costs: unknown ● Newham – current estimate: £0.2bn3 ● VAT: unknown – current estimate £0.25bn Most of the events will take place on this site, ● Contingency fund of 2060 with others happening in neighbouring per cent: unknown Greenwich (considered the fifth host borough) Other costs and . Tennis and boating events ● Regeneration: £1.0bn will be further afield, and the football will be at ● Preparing UK athletes: £0.3bn various UK stadiums in the early rounds before a Wembley final. The unknowns in the budget will push up the Key builds on the site are the Olympic final costs. The London Assembly suggests Stadium; Aquatics Centre; Velopark; Olympic that the final budget could be as high as £8 Village; Broadcast and Press Centre, and the 10bn (Campbell, 2006).4 transport hub at . The Stratford interchange is integral to, but separate from, Who is paying for it? the overall Olympic project – and is not cov ered by the Olympic funding described below. Running the Games ● Covered through revenue ticket sales, corpo When? rate sponsorship, official suppliers, and a Early elements of the plan are underway, grant from the International Olympics including land purchase, burying powerlines, Committee (IOC) (this grant includes a por and transportsystem construction. Venue con tion of TV licensing revenues). struction will pick up momentum in 2007 and continue until 2012, with most of the venues Building the site scheduled for completion in 2011 for testing. ● Core costs covered by National Lottery

box cont. next page

2. This infrastructure expenditure is not entirely an Olympic expense, and is not always included in Olympic budget calculations. 3. This is the original security cost estimate at the time of the bid (before July 7 attacks). It is thought to be far understated. Ken Livingstone has already suggested the estimate has risen to £0.85bn (Campbell 2006), which is still short of the amount spent on security for the Athens Games (£1bn). 4. Costs may rise for a number of reasons. London’s security bills may well rise further, depending on international events. And the ODA has requested a further £11.5bn to cover regeneration. There is some dispute about how far infrastructure costs will rise – HM Treasury suggests cost overruns could be 60 per cent, while the ODA suggests a figure of less than 30 per cent (see BBC 2006, Gardiner 2006, and Beard 2006).

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 4 (£1.5bn), LDA (£0.25bn) and London council the preparation and staging of the 2012 tax payers (£0.63bn). Londoners will pay £20 Olympic and Paralympic Games. extra council tax every year for 20 years. ● The ODA (Olympic Delivery Authority) is ● Overruns, VAT, security and contingency – responsible for delivering the Olympic venues unknown. Overspends are due to be met by and infrastructure, and acts as a single plan a mixture of London council taxpayers and ning authority for the Olympic Park. the National Lottery, but the balance of con ● The London Development Agency (LDA) tributions is not yet clear. oversees the regeneration and economic development legacies for London – and is Other costs the owner and assembler of the land of the ● Regeneration costs funded by the taxpayer site (which is leased to the ODA). ● Additional athlete preparation covered by ● The Department for Culture, Media and Sport HMT (£0.2bn), private sector (£0.1bn – not (DCMS) is responsible for delivery of the yet guaranteed) legacy of the London 2012 Games (UK wide). Who is in charge? There are four key organisations: Sources: Salman 2006, DCMS and PWC 2005, ● “Many of the The London Organising Committee of the UBS 2006, insidethegames.com, Campbell Olympic Games (LOCOG) is responsible for 2006, Gardiner 2006, Beard 2006 gains in the area will stem from the strategy, which can help boost confidence and This UBS study points out that even a gener- broader LLV private investment.5 Also, funding streams ous estimate of 1,000 construction jobs going strategy and and delivery arrangements are more certain to each of Hackney, Newham, and Tower investments, with the Olympics than with the broader Hamlets would represent less than a typical rather than LLV Regeneration project, again helping to annual fluctuation of construction employ- boost investor confidence.6 ment in each of those boroughs (UBS 2006). from the The 2012 Games will help support the Games LLV Regeneration efforts. But projections of Geography of impacts directly.” the Olympic benefit need to be viewed with caution. Many of the gains in the area will Employment impacts will vary by geography, stem from the broader LLV strategy and with Greater London the biggest beneficiary investments, rather than from the Games (see Table 1, next page). directly. Similarly, not all of the costs associ- The Games are expected to add 38,875 net ated with LLV are costs of the Games. full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs to the London economy, and 7,966 to North East Labour market impacts London. Most of North East London’s job gains will be in the years preceding 2012, Existing studies suggest that net employment with only 311 additional jobs post-Games. benefits are likely to be relatively small, as This data indicates the location of created was the case in previous Games: jobs, not the residence of those filling the ‘Overall, the direct employment conse- positions. For example, we expect that most quences of the Olympics should be a positive of East London’s construction jobs will go to for East London, but a small scale positive.’ non-local employees. One London official (UBS 2006) commented that they were aiming to do ‘as well’ as the Greenwich Dome project at

5. Stakeholder interview, September 2006. 6. For more on the LLV Regeneration Strategy, see Mayor of London (2006).

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 5 Table 1. Summary of net full-time equivalent (FTE) impacts on employment

Spatial level Pre-event During event Legacy/ Overall (2005-2011) (2012) post-event (2005-2016) (2013-2016) UK 2,955 3,261 1,948 8,164 Greater L’don 25,824 3,724 9,327 38,875 NE* London 7,344 311 311 7,966

Reproduced from DCMS and PwC (2005); data summarised from Blake (2005). (Data is for FTE jobs, direct impacts; figures are net.) Notes: *Includes the East London area of the , including the following boroughs: Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, City of London, Greenwich, Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, and Tower Hamlets, as specified by DCMS and PwC. The rows in this table should not be summed. The UKwide impact is provided in the UK row. “Because Impacts were considered for different areas. Due to displacement and shifting, the impact in of the specialist London is greater than for the UK as a whole. We find this data to be reasonably consistent with nature of other estimates, including UBS (2006) and Experian (2006). stadium and sport securing local labour, where just 12 per cent result of the Games. construction, of construction workers were local.7 Because Although the Olympic Park is unlikely to we can expect of the specialist nature of stadium and sport- draw many tourists away from established ing construction, we can expect many of London sights, East London may see many of these these jobs not to go to local residents. increases in business tourism if the Olympic jobs not to site proves suitable for conference events and go to local Sectoral impact, job shifting and gatherings (UBS 2006). displacement residents.” Job shifting and displacement effects must also be considered. Other industries will Blake (2005) predicts 8,164 net FTE jobs experience job losses, most notably manufac- will be created across the UK as a result of turing (-31,529 FTE jobs) and finance the Games, between 2005 and 2016 (Blake (-1,067 FTE jobs) (Blake 2005). Blake pre- 2005). This job growth contains substantial dicts the contraction in manufacturing will be churn. Industries of job growth include con- mainly in the years leading up to the Games. struction (9,560 FTE jobs), hotels (7,211 This is because manufacturing will gain little FTE jobs), bars (5,405 FTE jobs), and sports from the construction activities, and will lose facilities (4,767 FTE jobs). workers to the expanding construction sec- While construction industry impacts are tor’s higher wages. This contraction can also relatively certain, employment impacts on be explained by the highly specialised nature hotels, bars, restaurants and other sectors are of stadium and sport construction, where dependent on tourism. Estimates for suppliers (manufacturers) may not be as likely Olympic impacts on tourism vary somewhat. to be local as the more traditional construc- Blake (2005) suggests that long term, the tion work that is being displaced.8 Such UK’s tourist sector could grow up to 7 per shifting is good for longer-term employment cent by 2016, or – less likely, and on the only if it is in line with post-Games demand, other extreme – shrink by 4 per cent as a otherwise it may be counter-productive.

7. Stakeholder interview, October 2006. 8. Stakeholder interview, October 2006.

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 6 Atlanta 1996 Londoner is willing to spend about £22 per Almost entirely privately funded, Atlanta attempted little in the way of year for 10 years for the intangible benefits of regeneration and struggled with image issues, both domestically and hosting the Games. Perhaps more surprising- abroad. ly, the average non-Londoner (estimated from surveys in Manchester and Glasgow) is What worked willing to pay £10 per year for ten years for ● Put Atlanta on the map internationally these benefits (Atkinson et al 2006). ● Use of temporary and existing facilities was efficient Image is set to be a key element of the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics. In What didn’t work terms of the UK as a whole, there may be a ● Conflict among residents, the business community, and local offi gain in terms of image, increasing tourism cials and raising international profile. With ● Atlanta was ‘virtually at war with journalists,’ which was reflected London’s already-strong international brand, in coverage (Whitelegg 2000, p 811) the risks in terms of damage to image are Sources: Newman (1999), Preuss (2004), Whitelegg (2000), French and potentially great, while the gains for London Disher (1997), Humphreys and Plummer (1992) are likely to be small. But the much-needed image gains for East London could be sub- Soft benefits stantial.11 London 2012 is also hoping to capture the It is too early to say whether the Games will imaginations of hard-to-reach UK groups, achieve the wholesale regeneration of inner bringing them into training programmes and “London’s East London. Hopes are high that the other public services. The London international Olympics will reposition and rebrand the Employment and Skills Taskforce (LEST), brand is host boroughs, triggering investment and an idea set out by ippr and Demos (Vigor et 9 already strong. raising local aspirations. al 2004), is hoping to improve training for The Lower Lea Valley will undergo mas- disadvantaged residents both for jobs related But the image sive change and investment in the next to the 2012 Olympics and more broadly gains to East decade, and the Olympics will be a part of (LSC and LDA 2006). London could that process. We already see clear evidence LEST recently announced the Pre- that London 2012 is helping to bring for- Volunteer Programme (PVP) and London be substantial.” ward investment into the LLV. Transport Employer Accord, to help connect local resi- improvements in East London were already dents to Olympic opportunities. The PVP planned, but they now have a firm deadline. will train up to 20,000 people from the most This increased certainty around transport disadvantaged communities in London. PVP and other infrastructure improvements has graduates will then become part of the given an added boost to the area. One major 70,000 London 2012 volunteers, and will – in retailer told us that its decision to locate a theory – be connected to employers signing store in the area was influenced by attention the London Employer Accord. on the Olympics.10 And we believe that More broadly, the Employer Accord will London 2012 is making many in the private help employment and training agencies to sector take another look at the LLV. link up with businesses to facilitate opportu- There is evidence that London’s Games nities for disadvantaged residents (LEST will increase civic pride across the UK. One 2006a, 2006b). In addition, the Construction study suggests intangible benefits to UK resi- Skills Academy will help provide training for dents worth the equivalent of around £2 bil- local residents, and aim to connect them to lion. Surveys reveal that the average local employment opportunities.

9. Stakeholder interview, September 2006. 10. Stakeholder interview, October 2006. 11. Stakeholder interview, September 2006

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 7 Lessons for London munities in east London which suffer The Games are still over five years away – but from low basic skills and high unemploy- the big decisions need to be taken now. So ment’ (Richard Caborn, Sports Minister, what are the strategic lessons for decision- 2006). makers in London and in Whitehall? ● ‘Here in East London, the Olympics are Following are five key lessons. a huge opportunity to attack the high levels of worklessness’ (David Miliband, “Local residents 1. Be realistic Secretary of State, 2005, quoted in Crookston 2006, p. 1). need to be Ministers, the GLA, Boroughs and ODA ● ‘Much has been made of the potential better informed need to keep expectations reasonable around jobs created by the construction boom for about the likely the direct benefits of the Games. There is a local people who are out of work’ (Niven, impacts of the danger of overstating the case, and stoking 2006). excessive expectations. Games, so they Lyn Brown, MP for , reports Local residents need to be better informed can respond that many of her constituents believe the about the likely impacts of the Games, so sensibly to London 2012 Games will provide a whole they can respond sensibly to the different new quality of life – with new homes, jobs, opportunities on offer. Olympics delivery the different and educational opportunities (Brown 2006). partners and local government should be opportunities Other studies have highlighted potential gaps clearer and more realistic with local residents on offer.” between residents’ expectations and likely real about the actual opportunities available. impacts (Carey and Ahmed 2006). These misplaced expectations have been 2. New jobs, but not for everyone encouraged by ambitious statements from ministers and others. For example: The number of London 2012 jobs is likely to ● ‘The jobs bonanza from the 2012 be relatively small. In addition, many of these Olympics will be used to lift thousands jobs will likely go to those living outside the of children out of poverty, Chancellor host boroughs. The London labour market is Gordon Brown said today.’ (Waugh, vast and even low-skilled workers are able to 2006). commute and compete against residents in ● ‘The Government believes that the the LLV for jobs (Crookston 2006, Gordon London 2012 Olympic games and 1999). Paralympic games present a huge The London Employment and Skills employment opportunity for local com- Taskforce (LEST) Pathfinder partnership includes the five host boroughs, the GLA, Sydney 2000 Jobcentre Plus, Learning and Skills Council, The Sydney Olympics prioritised a sustainable Olympics and made LDA, ODA, and private-sector stakeholders. international image and tourism promotion a priority. So far, plans include augmenting existing training and other schemes, as well as new What worked programmes, to connect LLV residents to ● Established the ‘Green Games’ precedent Olympic opportunity. Most of this activity is ● Government investment in international campaigns to boost expected to be covered by existing budgets. tourism profile Looking ahead, it is important that these ● Boosts in national pride programmes continue to recognise the com- plexity of problems faced by LLV residents, What didn’t work who include some of the capital’s most ● PostGames ownership and use of venues was unclear; some of deprived. As Crookston (2006) suggests, the new sports venues have been left empty for long periods. intensive programmes – including child care Sources: Madden (2002), Preuss (2003), Chalip (2002), Tibbott (2001) and transport – would be needed to connect

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 8 Athens 2004 aged to visit other parts of the UK. Athens succeeded in completing its Olympics infrastructure at the last But expectations outside London feel over- minute. PostGames, there is some concern about general economic inflated. Some Regional Development decline in Greece, and limited use of facilities and infrastructure. Agencies have excessively high hopes that jobs and investment benefits will spread right What worked across the UK.14 Local strategies are gearing ● Athens adjusted flexibly to unprecedented security measures up to bring in tourists and attract training camps. Birmingham estimates that it could What didn’t work benefit by up to £10m from the London ● Though still early, some transportation is not meeting with as 2012 Games. Sheffield is hoping for up to much postGames demand as expected £15m (Culf 2006). And Doncaster is hoping ● PostGames, the Greek economy has struggled its airport will make it an Olympics training ● Greece’s tourism industry has fallen out of the world’s top ten and tourism destination.15 Is this realistic? destinations. The expense of regions competing against each other for these benefits could whittle Sources: Kasimati (2003), BalfousiaSavva et al (2001), Papanikos (1999), away any gains. The Government should cau- Blake (2005), World Tourist Association data, in UBS (2006) tion regions against competing unnecessarily for Olympic investment. Instead, regions local residents to jobs and make them com- should look for collaborative opportunities petitive applicants. (for example, as suppliers) and share in the Relatively few LLV residents will end up in Games investment. In practice, outside Olympics jobs. As one representative from London and the South East, job and invest- the construction industry put it, a good num- ment benefits will be limited. “Residents ber of the construction jobs for the Olympics will be highly specialised: ‘It doesn’t make 4. Focus on the soft stuff should be sense to train up East Londoners in equipped Astroturfing.’12 Soft impacts are likely to be substantial and for job Residents should be as equipped as possible lasting. Most obviously, the Games will bring opportunities for the full range of opportunities available, forward investment and help kick-start the and LEST can help this process. But there regeneration and repositioning of the LLV. where possible will be a limit to the scope and effectiveness The delivery of substantial infrastructure ... but there of these programmes. projects will be accelerated, with considerable will be a improvements to the physical landscape, 3. Marginal benefits outside London business and residential environment. limit to the More broadly, London as a whole may scope and The hard benefits of the Games are likely to derive image benefits from the Olympics. But effectiveness be London-centric, and it is important that given the capital’s existing profile as a thriv- of these expectations in the rest of the UK are kept in ing global city, additional effects may well be check. marginal (Shoval 2002, Crookston 2006). programmes.” There is potential for other non-London The key task for the GLA and Games deliv- locations to gain some employment and ery bodies is to minimise risks to London’s investment benefits – for example, hosting image and brand – both in the run-up to the the US’s or Australia’s training camps could Games, and in the delivery of the legacy bring in over 1,000 athletes and support staff afterwards. for a month or so.13 Equally, tourists put off Volunteers and Pre-Volunteers have an London during the Games could be encour- opportunity to gain skills and experience that

12. Stakeholder interview, October 2006. 13. Stakeholder interview, October 2006. 14. Stakeholder interview, September 2006 15. Stakeholder interviews, December 2005.

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 9 Sydney 2000 funds for delivering the Games are diverted The Sydney Olympics prioritised a sustainable Olympics and made from local programmes into the Olympic site. international image and tourism promotion a priority. In 2003, the Government and the Mayor of London agreed that cost overruns should What worked be split between the National Lottery and the ● Established the ‘Green Games’ precedent Mayor (DCMS 2003). With cost overruns ● Government investment in international campaigns to boost from the initial budget now imminent, tourism profile Mayor Ken Livingstone has suggested that ● Boosts in national pride central government should foot the bill: ‘We are still in the early stages of what that addi- What didn’t work tional cost may be but… clearly that is some- ● PostGames ownership and use of venues was unclear; some of thing that must be funded by the govern- the new sports venues have been left empty for long periods. ment.’ (BBC, 15 November 2006) Sources: Madden (2002), Preuss (2003), Chalip (2002), Tibbott (2001) Uncertainty does not just have impact on the Games. The use of Lottery and main- may help put them one step closer to stream government funding is ultimately a employment. In this way, London 2012 pres- transfer of national funds for use in London ents a special opportunity to reach deprived (Blake, 2005). So, for other regions, further residents and help put them one step closer diversion could be worrying. For example, “The delivery to employment. Camelot, the private lottery operator, esti- of substantial Benefits related to enhanced civic pride mates that around 60 per cent of the money infrastructure may be one of the major gains from the raised from the Olympic lottery may be Games. These benefits can be enhanced diverted from other lottery games (DCMS projects will through programmes like localised ‘Street 2006b). And Bill Elson, of the London be accelerated, Olympics,’ as recommended in ippr and Forum, has already with Demos’s 2004 report After the Gold Rush expressed concerns that an Olympic diversion considerable (Vigor et al 2004). Such activities would pro- of funds will affect the Thames Gateway mote grassroots participation in neighbour- project (Elson 2006). improvements hoods across the UK. to the physical Health impacts could also be given more landscape, attention in these early phases of planning. Conclusions The Olympic Park site promises to become a The Olympic Games offer potential econom- business and centre of physical activity post-Games, but as ic development benefits, but over the years residential Vigor et al (2004) suggested, more could be they have not proven to be a windfall, so they environment.” done to encourage walking and cycling net- must be carefully managed to maximise the works throughout the host boroughs, and to benefit. boost youth sport through growing the UK Done wisely, the Olympics can deliver School Games (an idea first set out in Vigor London a significant economic regeneration et al 2004). dividend. The key benefits are less tangible and longer term – particularly the catalyst 5. Be clear about costs effects on the delivery of investment into East London, and the subsequent kick-start Cost overruns are not unusual. Mega-events to the regeneration and re-imaging process. can often double in cost from bid to comple- Outside of London and the South East, tion (Preuss 2004).16 But the uncertainty the hard benefits of the Games are unlikely around the 2012 budget is a real concern, not to be substantial, and it is important to get just for London but for the rest of the UK. them into perspective. Other regions and The main risk for the rest of the UK is that cities should avoid competing for tiny slivers

16. For more on megaevents see Flyvbjerg et al 2003.

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 10 of Olympics jobs or investment, but they ments to use the catalytic effects of the should harness all the civic and social benefits Games as economic development tools. But that will be available. as an economic development strategy, the The promises of an Olympics legacy for Games may be no more effective than alter- London are real. The Games will not effect native public investments (see evidence from an instant transformation, but they will make Baade and Matheson (2002) below). an important difference. The task now is to Second, the number of net jobs created is set expectations in perspective and to make likely to be relatively small – and many offi- the most of the Games. cial projections present gross estimates, which may be misleading. The Games themselves add jobs to the local economy, but they also cause displacement and crowding out of other Annex A: ‘Hard’ and soft’ benefits of jobs. previous games Quality of data sources should be consid- ered. For example, some of the studies that “The Games Our analysis of the economic impacts of the cite impressive numbers of Olympics-created 2012 Games is based on a historical assess- jobs use gross, not net, figures. Such studies will not effect ment of the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ benefits of previ- include: an instant ous Olympic Games. ● Atlanta – 77,026 jobs (Humphreys and transformation, The first section of this Annex covers the Plummer 1992) ● but they will hard benefits to the labour market, housing Barcelona – 296,640 jobs (Brunet 1995) market, key business sectors and infrastruc- ● Sydney – 53,600 jobs (Madden 2002). make an ture investment. The second section covers important the intangible, soft benefits to city image, the In contrast, most independent studies say the difference.” bringing forward of other investment and net employment impacts of the Games are improvements to civic pride and health. quite small (Preuss 2000, Preuss 2004, To aid comparison across cities, as closely Kasimati 2003, Baade and Matheson 2002, as possible we cover investments directly Blake 2005). For example: related to the Games themselves. Where pos- sible, we compare the actual impact of past ● Evidence from American economists Games with ‘no-Games’ scenarios. Baade and Matheson on the Los Angeles and Atlanta Olympics indicates net ‘Hard’ benefits employment gains were modest at best – with 5,043 jobs created in LA during the Labour market impacts Games, and no net gains afterwards It is difficult to isolate how many jobs are (Baade and Matheson 2002). created as a result of the Games and even ● In Atlanta, in an unlikely best-case sce- more challenging to determine cost per job nario, the public cost per each full- or and value for money. But the balance of evi- part-time Olympic job was US$63,000, dence indicates that net employment benefits which was comparable to the cost per are often short-term and relatively small. full-time job for other public investments First, experience shows that most Olympic- in the region (ibid). related short-term employment consists of pre-Games construction and Games-time Housing market impacts service jobs (Preuss 2004, Blake 2005). In The Olympics have not shown a consistent Sydney and Barcelona, there is evidence that direct impact on house prices. For a start, the Games jump-started longer term jobs some Olympics use mainly existing facilities growth in the conference/events and tourism or new constructs that are not in residential sectors, respectively, but these opportunities areas. Additionally, the direct infrastructure appear few. There is potential for govern- (stadia and athletic facilities) associated with

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 11 the Olympics can have varied impacts on (Preuss 2004, Blake 2005). local communities, some positive, others neg- With careful planning, some host cities ative. Depending on the design, some stadia, have used the Games as one part of a strategy for example, bring noise and traffic that can to raise long-term demand in associated sec- be unpleasant. tors, notably tourism and conferences/events. The impact on housing markets will vary Increases in infrastructure capacity (hotels widely, depending on the Games plan and the and other venues) have been leveraged use of secondary investment in transport, through image benefits and city marketing shops and broader regeneration. Some host efforts. cities – Barcelona and Athens, for instance – In Barcelona, for example, tourism rose converted their athletes’ villages into conven- from 2 per cent of GDP before the Games to tional housing, which delivers a direct housing 12.5 per cent of GDP afterwards, and had impact. Atlanta demolished houses in neigh- grown to 15 per cent of GDP by 2005. “Based on past bourhoods near the Games, increasing house Overnight stays increased by 87 per cent Games, the prices, but displacing local residents and between 1990 and 1997 (Daly and Fickling diminishing quantity of affordable housing. 2002, Chibber 2005, UBS 2006).19 sectors that An indirect impact on house prices is likely, In Sydney, conference bookings have stand to benefit but neither consistent nor clear. In London, increased since the Games (Madden 2002), most are for example, there is conflicting evidence. The although other measures suggest that tourism construction Halifax House Price Index indicates that the gains were below expectations (partly because five Olympic boroughs experienced varying of a pre-Games decline and the events of and front-line levels of growth. Three of the boroughs saw September 11, 2001). services (hotels, growth of house prices at or below the However, the Games may also discourage restaurants and Greater London average in the year following people from visiting the host city. 20 Pre- the bid. The other two boroughs (Hackney Games, some visitors are turned off by the Games-related and Tower Hamlets) saw house prices grow at Olympic construction. For example, tourism hospitality)” more than twice the Greater London in Sydney dipped before the Games (Madden average.17 2002). During the Games, ordinary tourists Land Registry Office data indicates less are replaced by Games tourists, who have dif- impressive growth following the bid ferent spending patterns, leaving some busi- announcement. Average house prices in four nesses, like restaurants, with declines in trade out of the five Olympic boroughs grew at a (Blake 2005). Tourism benefits in the host lesser rate than in Greater London as a city may be somewhat offset by fewer tourists whole.18 These are only indications, however, to neighbouring areas, which happened in and we cannot be sure what role the London Barcelona and Los Angeles (UBS 2006). 2012 Games, as opposed to transport and Not all Games bring tourism benefits. other investments, played in price changes. Post-Games, Greece has fallen out of the world’s top ten destinations (World Tourist Business impacts Association data, in UBS 2006). It is too What about the impacts on markets for early to know how much of this is Games- goods and services? Based on past Games, related, or how long the trend will last, but it the sectors that stand to benefit most are does indicate that not all Games bring a construction and front-line services (hotels, tourism boost. restaurants and Games-related hospitality) Most employment gains are likely to be local

17. Data on house prices, especially this recent, will be subject to future revision and should be viewed with caution. 18. Growth in percentage terms. Author’s calculations of Land Registry Office Property Prices database, Crown Copyright. Comparison of growth over time period: Apr/Jun 2005 – Apr/Jun 2006. 19. With Barcelona’s particularly touristfriendly waterfront redevelopment, we cannot assume that the entire gain in tourism is attributa ble to the Games, although we believe that a significant portion of the tourism gain in the years closest to 1992 was directly related. 20. One study by the ETOA (2006) goes as far as reporting that there is no strong link between athletic events and gains in tourism.

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 12 to the host city’s region or province.21 The sec- instead relying on existing networks or tem- tors gaining from the Games tend to be those porary solutions, such as dedicated bus net- that provide local and/or face-to-face services. works and traffic lanes. Most Olympics-asso- There are limited opportunities to redistribute ciated train lines, airport improvements, and these benefits around the host country. new roads have been part of existing local “The sectors development plans, as in Barcelona and gaining from the Impacts of infrastructure investment London, for example. Games tend to Most Games tend to involve major infra- structure investments, and these are often ‘Soft benefits’ be those that adapted from existing development strategies provide local – hence the ‘pulling forward’ effect (see The potential soft benefits of the Olympics and/or face- below). But other infrastructure investments include image gains, improved civic pride and to-face services.” are specific to the Olympics and would prob- health, and the acceleration of secondary ably not otherwise have been part of the investment. But these softer benefits are not area’s development plan. These projects form always easy to isolate or assess. the direct infrastructure benefits of the Games. Image gains Of course, these include athletic facilities, The image-gain potential of the Games is which are often designed to be a positive substantial. One report estimates that 95 per legacy, providing sporting venues that can be cent of the world’s population with access to used by residents or to host future large-scale a television will watch some part of the athletic events. For example, Barcelona host- London 2012 Olympics (UBS 2006). ed the 2003 Swimming and Diving World How will this benefit the host city? A good Championships at its 1992 Olympic swim- Games could substantially improve investor ming facility. and visitor perceptions. After the Barcelona But these benefits cannot be realised with- Games, more than 200 US companies out sufficient planning and post-Games opened an office in Catalonia (UBS 2006), demand. Because of engineering and con- and both Sydney and Barcelona experienced struction problems, Montreal’s Olympic sta- significant post-Games boosts in tourism, “In some cases, dium spiralled in cost from an estimated also as a result of the portrayal of positive 22 it is better C$150 million to C$800million (CBC 1999). images. In some cases, it is better to build a tempo- But image is not easy to control. For exam- to build a rary venue and not incur post-Games upkeep ple, during Atlanta’s two weeks in the world’s temporary expenses. More recently, venues in Sydney spotlight, the press focused on the stiflingly venue and not and Athens have been left empty and are hot weather, poor planning, poor transport, incur post- falling into disrepair. To avoid this, Atlanta failing result service, and the fatal terrorist relied heavily on constructing temporary ven- bombing at Centennial Park. Atlanta was Games upkeep ues, which was probably an efficient choice, ‘virtually at war with journalists’ (Whitelegg expenses.” given the relatively low level of post-Games 2000, p. 811), as the international press pre- demand generally. sented the Games as a near-disaster. The key is to match Olympics construction Even a well-planned Games faces image with post-Games demand as closely as possi- risk. Host cities with an already high interna- ble to maximise benefit. This is the main rea- tional profile are subject to higher levels of son that most Games have avoided dedicated image risk (and potentially have less to gain) – and expensive – transport infrastructure, than lesser-known host cities (Shoval 2002).

21. Baade and Matheson (2002) discuss this in reference to Atlanta and Brunet (1995) in reference to Barcelona. 22. Atlanta also saw increases in business relocations after the Games, though these are not necessarily thought to be related to the Olympic image, both because Atlanta was already a rapidly growing city, and because the image projected during the Games was not hugely positive (as we explain). Also, the businesses that relocated went largely to the suburbs, not downtown, as the Olympic Organisers had planned (French and Disher 1997).

discussion paper no. 8: December www.ippr.org/centreforcities 13 2006 Barcelona 1992 projects can be agreed on too quickly, with Commonly thought to be one of the most successful Games, the inadequate research and scrutiny, resulting in 1992 Olympics transformed Barcelona, which remains the iconic hard-to-reverse planning and infrastructural image of Olympic regeneration. errors (Preuss 2004). Sub-optimal planning may have played a role in some of the problems What worked with Montreal’s stadium, for example. ● Brought forward extensive secondary infrastructure projects Civic pride ● Infrastructure has found solid postGames demand The civic pride and social impacts of the ● Very substantial international image and tourism gains Games are difficult to measure, but still sub- stantial. These impacts can be lasting, for What didn’t work good or ill. For example, in Atlanta there ● Some residents were disappointed with displacement and lack of were negative impacts, with the preparations affordable housing postGames. divided by ‘race’, ‘vision’, and ‘questions of Sources: Calavita and Ferrer (2000), Hargreaves (2000), and turf ’, and accentuated divisions across gender Chalkley (1998), Daly and Fickling (2002), UBS (2006), Preuss (2004) and class (Rutheiser, 1996: 6). By contrast, the Barcelona Games boosted the For London, a terrorist attack is clearly a city’s civic pride (Botella 1995), despite some major risk. concerns that they were elitist (Garcia-Ramon and Albet 2000, Calavita and Ferrer 2000). “Olympic Bringing forward investment projects can be The most evident soft benefit of winning the Health agreed on too Games is the ‘bringing forward’ of existing The London 2012 Games have been champi- quickly, with investment or regeneration strategies, because oning potential health-benefit impacts to UK the Games represent an immovable deadline. residents (London 2012 2004, DCMS 2006a, inadequate This provides certainty for investors and DCMS and PwC 2005). There is little evi- research and delivery agencies, with the Games used as a dence on such impacts (Vigor et al, 2004). scrutiny, resulting catalyst for regeneration. One study cites evidence from Australia that Within the economics of the Games, these obesity continued to increase before and after in hard-to- investments are not completely attributable to the Sydney Games (UBS 2006). This sug- reverse the Olympics, as many would occur anyway if gests that Games-related health benefits are planning and there is sufficient demand, but the value not a given. infrastructural added by the Games can be substantial. Barcelona is the classic example. After errors” decades of inadequate infrastructure invest- ment, city officials created a General Metropolitan Plan (GMP), which outlined development priorities for the city, long centreforcities

before the Olympic bid was made (Calavita The Centre for Cities is an independent urban research and Ferrer 2000, Weaver 2003). Barcelona unit based at ippr, the Institute for Public Policy later brought forward several GMP elements Research. We are taking a fresh look at how UK cities function, focusing on the economic drivers as part of its preparations for the 1992 behind city growth – investment, enterprise, Games (Calavita and Ferrer 2000). The innovation, skills and employment. added momentum of the Games helped the This paper is part of our rolling series of discussion completion of major secondary infrastructure papers which will be posted on our website www.ippr.org/centreforcities investments, including transport improve- Tracy Kornblatt is an economist at the Centre for ments, the redevelopment of many urban Cities. She can be contacted at [email protected] squares, and revitalisation of the waterfront. But moving projects through too quickly can also pose risks that must be managed. Olympic

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 14 References Crookston, M. (2006) How Can the East End Get the Most Out of the Olympics’ Job Potential? London: Llewelyn Davies Andranovich, G., Burbank, M.J., and Heying, C.H. (2001) Yeang ‘Olympic Cities: Lessons Learned from MegaEvent Politics’. Culf, A. (2006) ‘Cities on their marks for 2012 piggyback race.’ Journal of Urban Affairs 23(2): 113131 The Guardian, October 12 Arup (2006) ‘London’s 2012 Olympics shouldn’t cost the Earth.’ DCMS (2003) ‘Government Response to “A London Olympic Web Feature, accessed at: www.arup.com/united Bid for 2012” (HC268)’ Report to the Culture, Media, and kingdom/feature.cfm?pageid=6662 (accessed 22.08.06) Sport Select Committee, Session 20022003. London: TSO Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., and Szymanski, S. (2006) ‘Are We DCMS (2006a) Benefits Note. Web publication, accessed at: Willing to Pay Enough to ‘Back the Bid? Valuing the www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/2012_olympic_games/ben Intangible Impacts of London’s Bid to Host the 2012 efits.htm (accessed 14.08.06) Summer Olympic Games.’ London School of DCMS (2006b) Funding Note, accessed at: Economics/Imperial College London, mimeo www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/2012_olympic_games/fun BBC (2006) ‘Cost of Olympics to Rise to £5bn.’ BBC News ding.htm (accessed 14.08.06) Online, November 15, accessed at: DCMS (2006c) Welcome>Legacy: Tourism Strategy for the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6151176.stm. 2012 Games – A Consultation. London: DCMS Accessed on 15 Nov. 2006. DCMS and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) (2005) Olympic Baade, R. and Matheson, V. (2002) ‘Bidding for the Olympics: Games Impact Study. London: PricewaterhouseCoopers Fools Gold?’ in Barros, C. Ibrahim, M. and Szymanski, S. DCMS/Strategy Unit (2002) Game Plan: a Strategy for Delivering (eds.) Transatlantic Sport, London: Edward Elgar Publishing Government’s Sport and Physical Activity Objectives. BalfousiaSavva, S., Athanassiou, L., Zaragas, L., and Milonas, London: Cabinet Office A. (2001) The Economic Effects of the Athens Olympic Daly, E. and Fickling, D. (2002) ‘Barcelona and Sydney: the Games. Athens: Centre of Planning and Economic hosts who got the most.’ The Observer, December 8 Research. Quoted in Kasimati (2003) Dann, B. (2004) Legacies of the Games: Longterm Impacts of Beard, M (2006) ‘Cost of Staging Olympic Games Could Be the Olympic Games on the Host Cities of Atlanta and Twice Original Estimate.’ The Independent 16 November Sydney. Unpublished research: Duke University Blake, A. (2005) The Economic Impact of the London 2012 Elson, B. (2006) Published letter to Lord Davies, Government Olympics. Nottingham: Christel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport. January 26. Research Institute, Nottingham University Business School Available at: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:qu7 Botella, M. (1995) ‘The Keys to the Success of the Barcelona WkHxXM4MJ:www.ltgf.co.uk/letter%2520to%2520peers.do Games’ in Spa, M., and Botella, M. (eds.) The Keys of c+thames+gateway+concerned+funds+Olympics&hl=en&gl Success: the social, sporting, economic, and communica =uk&ct=clnk&cd=1 tions impact of Barcelona ’92. Bellaterra: Servei de Essex, S. and Chalkley, B. (1998) ‘Olympic Games: Catalyst of Publicaciones de la Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona urban change’. Leisure Studies 17(3): 187206 Brown, L. (2006) Speach to The London 2012 Olympic Park Estates Gazette (2006) ‘Gap Years.’ August 5: 5355 Legacy, hosted by the Fabian Society and BAA, European Tour Operators Association (ETOA) (2006) Olympic Manchester, 27 September Report. London: ETOA Brunet, F. (1995) ‘An Economic Analysis of the Barcelona ’92 Experian (2006) Employment and Skills for the 2012 Games: Olympic Games: Resources, Financing, and Impact’ in Spa, research and evidence. London: Learning and Skills Council M., and Botella, M. (eds.), The Keys of Success: the social, and London Development Agency sporting, economic, and communications impact of Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and Rothengatter, W. (2003) Barcelona ’92. Bellaterra: Servei de Publicaciones de la Megaprojects and Risk: An anatomy of Ambition. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Caborn, R. (2006) Hansard Source, 13 September. Available at: French, S.P. and Disher, M.E. (1997) ‘Atlanta and the Olympics: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/c A oneyear retrospective.’ Journal of the American Planning m060913/text/60913w2377.htm#0609193000162 Association, 63(3): 379392 Calavita, N., and Ferrer, A. (2000) ‘Behind Barcelona’s Success GLA/LDA (2006) Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Areas Planning Story: Citizen Movements and Planners’ Power’. Journal of Framework. London: GLA Urban History 26(6): 793807 GarciaRamon, M.D., and Albet, A. (2000) ‘PreOlympic and Campbell D (2006): ‘Revealed: the true cost of the Olympics’, PostOlympic Barcelona, a ‘model’ for urban regeneration The Observer, 19 October today?’ Environment and Planning A, 32: 13311334 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) (1999) ‘The Big Gardiner, J (2006). ‘Overspend could up Games bill by 60%, Woe.’ Accessed at: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC1411316 says Ken.’ Regeneration and Renewal, 17 November. 7926/sports/montreal_olympic_games/clip12 (accessed Accessed at: http://regennet.hbpl.co.uk/pp/news/i 20.08.06) ndex.cfm?fuseaction=FullDetails&articleUID=1851a985 Carey, S. and Ahmed, N. (2006) Bridging the Gap: The London 407047809bfc3317655a6f3a&e=1 (accessed on Olympics 2012 and South Asianowned Businesses in Brick 17.11.06) Lane and Green Street. London: The Young Foundation and Gordon, I (1999) ‘Targeting a Leaky Bucket: The Case Against Agroni Localised Employment Creation.’ New Economy, (6:4): 199 Chalip, L. (2002) Using the Olympics to Optimise Tourism 203 Benefits. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Olimpics, Universitat Gratton, C. Shibli, S. and Coleman, R. (2005) ‘Sport and Autonoma de Barcelona Economic Regeneration in Cities.’ Urban Studies 42: 5/6: Chibber, N. (2005) ‘Spain Out to Woo Indian Tourists.’ 985999 Rediff.com, October 29 discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 15 Hargreaves, J. (2000). Freedom for Catalonia: Catalan Business School, University of Manchester Nationalism, Spanish Identity and the Barcelona Olympic Sydenham, T. (2006) ‘Olympics – the London Games will gener Games. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ate thousands of jobs, but they offer an opportunity for so Humphreys, JM and Plummer, MK (1992) The Economic Impact much more.’ Regeneration and Renewal, October 6 on the State of Georgia of Hosting the 1996 Olympic Tibbott, R. (2001). ‘Olympic Economics: Sydney and the Games. Atlanta: Commission for the Olympic Games Inc. Destination Economy.’ Locum Destination Review. Available Hutton, W. (2006) ‘It’s Now a Race Against the Penny Pinchers.’ at: www.locumdestination.com/pdf/LDR3 The Guardian, July 30 Olympic_economics.pdf. (accessed on 20.10.06) HM Government (2006) London’s Challenge for 2012: Building Tomlinson, A. (2000) ‘Carrying the Torch for Whom? Symbolic on Success. London: HM Government Power and the Olympic Ceremony’ in Schaffer, K. and Jackson, M. (2006) ‘London 2012: the story so far.’ CLES Smith, S. (Eds.) The Olympics at the Millenium: Power, Bulletin No. 43. Manchester: CLES Politics, and the Games. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Kasimati, E. (2003) ‘Economic Aspects and the Summer Rutgers UP Olympics: A Review of Related Research.’ International The Economist (2005) ‘And the Winner Is.’ The Economist, Journal of Tourism Research. Vol. 5: 433444 July 7 LDA (2006) Lower Lea Valley Regeneration Strategy Technical UBS Investment Research (2006) Winning by Taking Part: East Documentation: Technical Document 2. London: LDA London’s economy and the Olympics. London: UBS Limited LEST (2006a) London Employment and Skills Taskforce for UK Sport (2004) Measuring Success 2: The Economic Impact 2012 – London Employer Accord. London: LDA of Major Sporting Events. London: UK Sport LEST (2006b) London Employment and Skills Taskforce for Vigor, A., Mean, M., and Tims, C. (2004) After the Gold Rush. 2012 – The PreVolunteer Programme (PVP). London: LDA London: Institute for Public Policy Research and Demos LSC and LDA (2006) London Employment and Skills Taskforce Waugh, P. (2006) ‘Olympic job boom must help the poorest for 2012: An action plan to maximise the employment and children.’ Evening Standard, 17 October skills benefits of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Weaver, M. (2003) ‘The Olympic Fig Leaf.’ The Guardian, 15 in London. LDA: London May London 2012 (2004). London Candidate File. London: London Whitelegg, D. (2000) ‘Going for Gold: Atlanta’s Bid for Fame.’ 2012 International Jounal of Urban and Regional Research, 24 (4): Madden, J.R. (2002) ‘The Economic Consequences of the 801816 Sydney Olympics: The CREA/Arthur Andersen Study.’ Current Issues in Tourism. 5:1 Matros, A. and Namoro, S.D. (2004) Economic Incentives of the Olympic Games. University of Pittsburgh Mayor of London (2006) Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework: Consultation Draft – May 2006. Summary. London: Mayor of London Miliband, D. (2005) ‘Power to the Neighbourhoods.’ Speech to BURA Annual Conference. 12 October. Accessed at: www.davidmiliband.info/sarchive/speech05_11.htm (accessed on 19.9.06) Newman, H.K. (1999) ‘Neighborhood impacts of Atlanta’s Olympic Games.’ Community Development Journal, 34 (2): 151159 Niven, R. (2006) ‘Building Work in Progress.’ New Start. 21 July Papanikos, G. (1999) Tourism Impact of the 2004 Olympic Games. Athens: Tourism Research Institute. Quoted in Kasimati (2003) Preuss, H. (2000) Economics of the Olympic Games: Hosting the Games 19792000. Sydney: Walla Walla Press Preuss, H. (2004) The Economics of Staging the Olympics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Rutheiser, C. (1996) Imagineering Atlanta. Verso: London Salman, S. (2006) ‘After 2012.’ Building. 16 June Schaffer, K. and Smith, S. (2000) ‘The Olympics of the Everyday’ in Schaffer, K. and Smith, S. (Eds.) The Olympics at the Millenium: Power, Politics, and the Games. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers UP Shoval, N. (2002) ‘A New Phase in the Competition for the Olympic Gold: The London and New York bids for the 2012 Games.’ Journal of Urban Affairs 24(5): 583599 Springs, J. (2006) ‘Thames Gateway Fears Funding Shift.’ Local Government Chronicle 24 August Swann, G.M.P. (2001) ‘When do Major Sports Events leave a Lasting Economic Legacy?’ Draft Paper, Manchester

discussion paper no. 8: December 2006 www.ippr.org/centreforcities 16