DOCSLIB.ORG

Is There Any Real Economic Benefit to Hosting a World Cup? - Pacific Standard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Is There Any Real Economic Benefit to Hosting a World Cup? - Pacific Standard 11/13/2018 Is There Any Real Economic Benefit to Hosting a World Cup? - Pacific Standard HOME ECONOMICS IS THERE ANY REAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO HOSTING A WORLD CUP? IAN HURLEY · JUN 21, 2018 The Luzhniki stadium in Moscow, Russia. (Photo: Lars Baron/Getty Images) We spoke with four economists about Russia's claims of a World Cup-related ¹nancial windfall. They were all skeptical. Back in April, Russia—the host country for this year's World Cup—claimed that the tournament would generate almost $31$31$31 billionbillionbillion ininin grossgrossgross domesticdomesticdomestic productproductproduct growthgrowthgrowth over the next 10 years. It credited tourism, infrastructure investment, and subsequent knock-on effects from those investments as the sources of its predicted growth. That Russia made such claims isn't, on its face, surprising: In the run-up to a World Cup, host nations often boast of the rewards—both politicalpoliticalpolitical and financial—that come with holding the tournament. In Moscow's case, that promise of riches is essential in justifying the $14 billion price tag the government picked up in order to build the necessary stadia, transport, and other infrastructure necessary for the tournament, as reported by the MoscowMoscowMoscow Times TimesTimes. https://psmag.com/economics/is-there-any-real-economic-benefit-to-hosting-a-world-cup 1/4 11/13/2018 Is There Any Real Economic Benefit to Hosting a World Cup? - Pacific Standard But these promises aren't always fulfilled. In response to the Russian government's predictions, Moody's Investor Service released a report that voicedvoicedvoiced skepticismskepticismskepticism about the supposed financial benefits. "Russia will only experience a short-lived economic benefit from hosting the 2018 FIFA World Cup tournament," the report stated. "Much of the economic impact has already been felt through infrastructure spending, and even there the impact has been limited." In the last iteration of the tournament, held in Brazil in 2014, there were also major questions around the economic rewards for government spending. In the small working-class town of Manaus, the Arena Amazonia became a symbol of the excess and needless spending that comes along with FIFA's marquee event. The stadium cost an estimated $46 million to build, and after hosting only two matches it now sits unused. In fact, the judges overseeing an ongoingongoingongoing corruptioncorruptioncorruption casecasecase about the artificially inflated building costs of various World Cup stadia suggested that, perhaps, the structure would better serve the community by becoming a prison. Pacific Standard reached out to a group of sports economists to discuss the real value of a World Cup to the host country, and how the Russian government arrived at its lofty economic estimates. In general, what does holding a World Cup mean for the economy of the host country? What factors, on a country-by-country basis, could positively or negatively influence the economic impact of hosting the World Cup? JohnJohnJohn L.L.L. SolowSolowSolow (economics professor, University of Iowa): Generally speaking, economists do not believe there is much lasting positive economic impact of hosting mega-events in total, although there are winners and losers. This is the result of two responses to these events that are often overlooked—substitution and crowding out. Substitution is the idea that people who spend their entertainment dollars at the event would have spent those entertainment dollars elsewhere, and so while restaurants and hotels around the event may do better business, this comes at the expense of other restaurants and hotels. And the owners and employees of those restaurants and hotels whose business declines spend less, so the multiplier effect of successive rounds of spending apply to these declines as well. JohnJohnJohn VroomanVroomanVrooman (sports economics professor, Vanderbilt University): Estimations of net economic impact of hosting one-time sporting mega-events like the World Cup are grossly over-exaggerated by the host country. The overall direct impact is probably zero-sum at best because of the negative congestion costs and crowding out of other economic activity. There are also significant underlying distributional factors that falsely prioritize the political agendas of football/soccer and hospitality industries. As a result, the wildly optimistic economic spread and multiplier effects for the World Cup are clearly self- promotion schemes designed to justify something-for-nothing state subsidy of the private business of professional football. https://psmag.com/economics/is-there-any-real-economic-benefit-to-hosting-a-world-cup 2/4 11/13/2018 Is There Any Real Economic Benefit to Hosting a World Cup? - Pacific Standard VictorVictorVictor A.A.A. MathesonMathesonMatheson (economics and accounting professor, Holy Cross University): The World Cup does boost tourism; however, the boost is not necessarily very large. In South Africa [in 2010], the total increase in international visitors was only about 200,000 total during the World Cup. Even under very optimistic visitor spending estimates you might be talking about $1 billion in additional tourism revenues, which doesn't come close to covering the expenses of hosting the tournament. Infrastructure investment might pay some long-run returns, but you don't have to host a money- losing tournament to build new roads and airports, and to the extent that your infrastructure spending goes primarily toward stadiums, essentially every economic study shows that stadiums are a terrible economic investment. CraigCraigCraig A.A.A. DepkenDepkenDepken IIIIII (economics professor, University of North Carolina–Charlotte): Among many host countries the net impact on tourism is relatively minor. Most host countries already have a large tourism industry and the World Cup replaces normal tourists with football tourists. There is relatively little evidence that there are long- term impacts of hosting mega-events such as the World Cup. The infrastructure spending represents an opportunity cost—spending on building [and] renovating stadiums for the World Cup could have been spent on road repair or other infrastructure. In many cases, stadiums are built with the hopes of hosting future events but such hopes are not fulfilled. It is typical for the bid proposals to include estimates of increased tourism but these forecasts are not usually built on solid statistical models of past performance in other countries using data that is freely available from, for instance, the World Tourism Organization. It does not take much effort to see that countries with the largest tourism numbers tend to be host countries and that, after hosting, host countries do not receive a noticeable increase in their already large tourism numbers. How do discrepancies like the one between the Russian government and Moody's come about? Is the Russian government exaggerating the economic benefits for some reason? And how much does the size of the country and its existing infrastructure to host a major sporting event influence the potential economic benefits of the World Cup? Solow: Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, the Sochi Winter Games were also supposed to generate regional economic development. Sochi was the most expensive Olympics ever, yet today you can easily find pictures online of the abandoned and crumbling facilities and empty hotel and vandalized apartments. The same is true for the Beijing Olympics—the fabulous Herzog and De Meuron Beijing National Stadium (the Bird's Nest) is apparently still a tourist attraction, but the rest of the facilities are abandoned and decaying. Why do governments make these claims? I can't be sure, but generally when politicians talk I look for the special interests. Some construction companies somewhere made a lot of money building those stadiums, and their owners are often politically connected. Sell the taxpayer on the future benefits, make a lot of money on the contracts, and then when the benefits don't appear and the taxpayers are left with a white elephant of a site, well, I'm all right, I got mine. https://psmag.com/economics/is-there-any-real-economic-benefit-to-hosting-a-world-cup 3/4 11/13/2018 Is There Any Real Economic Benefit to Hosting a World Cup? - Pacific Standard Vrooman: The usual rule of thumb is to move the decimal point one place to the left for the self-promoting and economic estimates of the heavily politicized events like the World Cup. So the more accurate estimate would be $3.1 billion. The limitations of the Russian economy and the state of Russian domestic football both restrict the broadly distributed economic impact of the current World Cup, as much of the benefit of the tournament will head to the highly visible and economically ambitious Russian Premier League. Exaggerating the economic impact of the World-Cup mega-event is self- promotion. Playing the meta-game of political football on the World Cup pitch is a very expensive quick fix. Matheson: The Russian government is lying. The country is likely to experience at most $1 billion in increased tourism spending. Russia is releasing these figures for purely propaganda reasons to make its autocratic leadership look good in their people's eyes. Notice that Moody's, with no reason to prop up [President Vladimir] Putin and nothing to gain from promoting phony claims, disputes the $30 billion figure. Countries with good infrastructure stand to gain far more from the World Cup than smaller countries with underdeveloped infrastructure. For example, the United States spent a total of $5 million in stadium infrastructure improvements in 1994 to host the World Cup. Russia spent over $5 billion on stadium upgrades for 2018, Brazil spent over $3 billion, and South Africa spent about $2 billion. Qatar is reportedly spending $200 billion in their total preparations for 2022. Depken: The $30 billion claim is not credible on the surface. Most of our academic studies in the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Beijing National Stadium
    THE BEIJING NATIONAL STADIUM THERE ARE MANY REASONS TO REMEMBER THE 2008 Area: 254,600 square meters OLYMPIC GAMES, AND ONE OF THESE IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE Track Provider: Mondo Spa IMPRESSIVE EVENTS BROADCASTED TO AUDIENCES Height: 69,2 meters AROUND THE WORLD FROM THE OLYMPIC STADIUM IN Start date of construction: December 24, 2003 BEIJING, A BUILDING UNIVERSALLY DUBBED WITH THE Cost of project: $423 million NICKNAME "THE BIRD'S NEST". Structural engineering: Arup Number of workers: 17,000 Steel used: 44,000 tons Capacity: 80,000/91,000 (2008 Olympic games) (China) AN ARCHITECTURAL MIRACLE The reason for the name immediately strikes the eye : an intricate system of ties and a complex steel structure makes the building look like a huge nest, that can hold up to 91,000 spectators and has one of the world's fastest athletic tracks. The history of this architectural miracle began with an annoucement issued on December 19, 2002. On March 26, 2003 a team of international experts examined the proposals coming from all over the world. In April, the winner was announced: the swiss Herzog & De Meuron firm, which along with Arup Sport and the China Architecture Design & Research Group would deliver the full project in December 2007. Everything was perfect, up to the last details. On June 28, 2008 a grand opening ceremony drew the curtain on this colossal stage that would for about a month put the Chinese dragon under the worlds’ astonished eyes. THE MYTH Creating a building of this magnitude was not an easy task. In China everything is a symbol and a reference to the past and the National Stadium in Beijing was no different.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beijing National Stadium
    THE BEIJING NATIONAL STADIUM THERE ARE MANY REASONS TO REMEMBER THE 2008 Area: 254,600 square meters OLYMPIC GAMES, AND ONE OF THESE IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE Track Provider: Mondo Spa IMPRESSIVE EVENTS BROADCASTED TO AUDIENCES Height: 69,2 meters AROUND THE WORLD FROM THE OLYMPIC STADIUM IN Start date of construction: December 24, 2003 BEIJING, A BUILDING UNIVERSALLY DUBBED WITH THE Cost of project: $423 million NICKNAME "THE BIRD'S NEST". Structural engineering: Arup Number of workers: 17,000 Steel used: 44,000 tons Capacity: 80,000/91,000 (2008 Olympic games) Olympic Editions (China) AN ARCHITECTURAL MIRACLE The reason for the name immediately strikes the eye : an intricate system of ties and a complex steel structure makes the building look like a huge nest, that can hold up to 91,000 spectators and has one of the world's fastest athletic tracks. The history of this architectural miracle began with an annoucement issued on December 19, 2002. On March 26, 2003 a team of international experts examined the proposals coming from all over the world. In April, the winner was announced: the swiss Herzog & De Meuron firm, which along with Arup Sport and the China Architecture Design & Research Group would deliver the full project in December 2007. Everything was perfect, up to the last details. On June 28, 2008 a grand opening ceremony drew the curtain on this colossal stage that would for about a month put the Chinese dragon under the worlds’ astonished eyes. THE MYTH Creating a building of this magnitude was not an easy task. In China everything is a symbol and a reference to the past and the National Stadium in Beijing was no different.
    [Show full text]
  • Flexible Stadium Design in the Context of Olympics and Post- Olympics Usage By
    Flexible Stadium Design in the Context of Olympics and Post- Olympics Usage By Oliver Beacham B. S., Civil Engineering Cornell University, 2014 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING ARCHIVES in Civil and Environmental Engineering MASSAC KT! T1 rqTF S OF Kes cco at the JUL 02 2015 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2015 LIBRARIES @ 2015 Oliver Beacham. All Rights Reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted Signature of Author: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering May 15, 2015 Certified By: Signature redacted Pier e Ghisbain Lecturer, Civil and Environmental Engineering Thesis Supervisor Certified By: Signature redacted Jerome J. Connor Prof sor of Civil and4nvironmental Engineering Thesis Co-Supervisor Accepted By:_ Signature redacted II V H/idiM.Nepf Donald and Martha Harleman Professor of Civil and Environmental ngineering Chair, Graduate Program Committee Flexible Stadium Design in the Context of Olympics and Post- Olympics Usage By Oliver Beacham Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 15, 2015 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering Abstract The design of the London Olympic Stadium for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games represented a shift in traditional stadium design for major sport events on the scale of the Olympics or World Cup. Emphasising design with a focus towards post-Olympics usage, the London Olympic Stadium through features like a demountable second seating tier, reclaimed steel elements, and structurally isolated fagade, set a strong precedent for flexible Olympics stadium construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Women's Football, Europe and Professionalization 1971-2011
    Women’s Football, Europe and Professionalization 1971-2011 A Project Funded by the UEFA Research Grant Programme Jean Williams Senior Research Fellow International Centre for Sports History and Culture De Montfort University Contents: Women’s Football, Europe and Professionalization 1971- 2011 Contents Page i Abbreviations and Acronyms iii Introduction: Women’s Football and Europe 1 1.1 Post-war Europes 1 1.2 UEFA & European competitions 11 1.3 Conclusion 25 References 27 Chapter Two: Sources and Methods 36 2.1 Perceptions of a Global Game 36 2.2 Methods and Sources 43 References 47 Chapter Three: Micro, Meso, Macro Professionalism 50 3.1 Introduction 50 3.2 Micro Professionalism: Pioneering individuals 53 3.3 Meso Professionalism: Growing Internationalism 64 3.4 Macro Professionalism: Women's Champions League 70 3.5 Conclusion: From Germany 2011 to Canada 2015 81 References 86 i Conclusion 90 4.1 Conclusion 90 References 105 Recommendations 109 Appendix 1 Key Dates of European Union 112 Appendix 2 Key Dates for European football 116 Appendix 3 Summary A-Y by national association 122 Bibliography 158 ii Women’s Football, Europe and Professionalization 1971-2011 Abbreviations and Acronyms AFC Asian Football Confederation AIAW Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women ALFA Asian Ladies Football Association CAF Confédération Africaine de Football CFA People’s Republic of China Football Association China ’91 FIFA Women’s World Championship 1991 CONCACAF Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football CONMEBOL
    [Show full text]
  • CHANGING the GAME: a Critical Analysis of Large-Scale Corruption in Mega Sport Event Infrastructure Projects Author: Maria Da Graça Prado
    CHANGING THE GAME: A critical analysis of large-scale corruption in Mega Sport Event infrastructure projects Author: Maria da Graça Prado Abstract Corruption in the delivery of infrastructure for Mega unlocking the black box of how public money is spent. Sport Events (MSEs) seems to have become a common Partnerships with project preparation facilities can mitigate curse. High costs, low levels of monitoring and complex the long-standing issue of poor planning, and an open- logistics create the perfect storm for corruption, repeating book approach to cost management can provide a better a history of malpractice that leaves poor, unsuitable and understanding of contractors’ costs and performance inflated infrastructure as a legacy. Tools for transparency to help improve MSE estimations. Channels to report and collaboration are key allies to changing this game. wrongdoing and integrity pacts tailored to the reality of An open data system can help citizens and civil society MSEs can foster new routes to transparency and reduce to identify red flags in the implementation of projects, the opportunities for corruption. Athletes at the Birds Nest Stadium, Beijing, China Pete Niesen / Shutterstock.com Page 1 Introduction The modus operandi observed over the entire Corruption is an inherent risk of major infrastructure gamut of activities leading to the conduct of the projects. Neil Stansbury lists specific features that make “Games was: inexplicable delays in decision making, which put pressure on timelines and thereby led infrastructure projects particularly prone to corruption, to the creation of an artificial or consciously including their size and unique nature, a complex created sense of urgency.
    [Show full text]
  • Click Here to See All Our References at Events!
    Audio, Video and Communications for Broadcasters AEQ REFERENCES SPORTS AND LARGE BROADCAST EVENTS AEQ REFERENCES SPORTS AND OTHER LARGE BROADCAST EVENTS At the following major events, we have undertaken the supply and/or the Installation, engineering and operation of equipment for Transmission, Venue inter- connection or - communication purposes, Unilateral Commentary Signals, Commentary Positions, Audio Distribution and Commentary Switching Facilities; Last updated: June 2020 Page 1 of 87 AEQ C\Margarita Salas 24, 28919, Leganés, Madrid (Spain) – CIF: A28620649 Tel: (+34) 91 686 13 00 - Email: [email protected] - Web: www.aeq.eu 2020 Antenna Hungária Relies On IP Audiocodecs Phoenix Alio For Its Sports Events Broadcasting THE BROADCASTER ANTENNA HUNGÁRIA USES AEQ’S PHOENIX ALIO IP AUDIOCODECS TO SUCCESFULLY BROADCAST THE EUROPEAN WATERPOLO CHAMPIONSHIPS 2020 IN BUDAPEST. Budapest is a European city very involved in the celebration of continental sports events. Antenna Hungária, is today the largest audiovisual services company in Hungary. It has the most extensive facilities and the most qualified personnel to provide radio, television and telecommunications services in Hungary. Antenna Hungária has the largest fleet of OB vans units in the country, and during these days it was in charge of the European Men's and Women's Waterpolo Championships broadcasting. This competition was being held in Budapest's Duna Arena in 2020 with the participation of 16 countries, to be precise: Germany, Croatia, Slovenia, Spain, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Turkey. To broadcast the audio of the event with the highest quality, the member of EBU (European Broadcast Union) host broadcaster Antenna Hungária, has relied on AEQ's PHOENIX ALIO portable IP audiocodecs.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Olympic Stadiums
    3. Olympic stadiums We have included eight Olympic stadiums in the study and we have chosen to include venues for the Summer and Winter Games as well as stadiums that have been constructed as a consequence of an Olympic bid from a candidate city which ended up not being awarded the Olympic Games. As the figures below show, the main stadiums for the Summer Olympics are much more expensive to construct and modernise than the corresponding venues for the Olympic Winter Games. The total costs of the Olympic stadiums are just over $2 bn. giving an average price of close to $270 million per venue. Figure 3.1: Construction price Olympic stadiums 1996-2010 (million dollars) Contruction Price Turner Field 346 Nagano Olympic Stadium 107 ANZ Stadium 583 Rice-Eccles Stadium 67 Olympic Stadium Spiros Louis 373 Beijing National Stadium 428 BC Place 104 Atatürk Olympic Stadium 144 0 200 400 600 800 All prices in 2010 dollar value Figure 3.2: Price per seat Olympic stadiums 1996-2010 (dollars) Price per Seat 8000 6908 6978 7000 5361 6000 5355 5000 3571 4000 3000 1448 1905 1879 2000 1000 0 Turner Field Nagano ANZ Rice-Eccles Olympic Beijing BC Place Atatürk Olympic Stadium Stadium Stadium National Olympic Stadium Spiros Louis Stadium Stadium All prices in 2010 dollar value 17 One of the explanations why the stadiums for the Olympic Summer Games are more expensive to construct is that the capacity in general is significantly higher for those venues than for the Winter Olympic venues. Often it is also necessary for the hosts of the summer Olympics to build a main stadium, because the majority of the candidate cities do not have a stadium which is big enough and provides running tracks.
    [Show full text]
  • 0 Qsummary Mark RELAY
    Doha (QAT) 27 September - 6 October 2019 SUMMARY 4 x 100 Metres Relay Women - Round 1 First 3 in each heat (Q) and the next 2 fastest (q) advance to the Final RECORDS RESULT TEAM COUNTRY VENUE DATE World Record WR 40.82 United States USA London (Olympic Stadium) 10 Aug 2012 Championships Record CR 41.07 Jamaica JAM Beijing (National Stadium) 29 Aug 2015 World Leading WL 41.67 Germany GER Olympiastadion, Berlin (GER) 1 Sep 2019 Area Record AR National Record NR Season Best SB 4 October 2019 RANKPLACE HEAT LANE BIB TEAM REACTION RESULT 1 12 8 JAM JAMAICA 0.172 42.11 Q SB 2 22 4 GBR GREAT BRITAIN & NI 0.130 42.25 Q SB 3 32 6 CHN PR OF CHINA 0.155 42.36 Q 4 11 3 USA UNITED STATES 42.46 Q 5 21 4 TTO TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 42.75 Q SB 6 31 7 SUI SWITZERLAND 42.82 (.811) Q 7 42 2 GER GERMANY 0.158 42.82 (.817) q 8 52 7 ITA ITALY 0.154 42.90 q NR 9 41 2 NED NETHERLANDS 43.01 10 62 3 NGR NIGERIA 0.171 43.05 SB 11 72 5 GHA GHANA 0.143 43.62 SB 12 51 5 KAZ KAZAKHSTAN 43.79 13 61 9 DEN DENMARK 43.92 1 6 AUS AUSTRALIA DNF 2 9 BRA BRAZIL 0.139 DQ 163.3(a) 1 8 FRA FRANCE DQ 170.7 NOTE IAAF Rule 170.7 - Passing the baton outside the takeover zone IAAF Rule 163.3(a) - Lane infringement ALL-TIME TOP LIST SEASON TOP LIST RESULT TEAM VENUE DATE RESULT TEAM VENUE 2019 40.82 UNITED STATES (USA) London (Olympic Stadium) 10 Aug 12 41.67 GERMANY (GER) Olympiastadion, Berlin (GER) 1 Sep 41.07 JAMAICA (JAM) Beijing (National Stadium) 29 Aug 15 42.11 JAMAICA (JAM) Doha 4 Oct 41.37 GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICCanberra (GDR) (Bruce Stadium) 6 Oct 85 42.21 UNITED STATES
    [Show full text]
  • Rana Florida CEO, Creative Class Group
    Rana Florida CEO, Creative Class Group Creative Spaces: Stadiums that Could Teach the Super Bowl a Few Tricks Most people will be tuning into Super Bowl on February 5 to watch the game (or maybe to scrutinize the ads or enjoy the halftime show). I will be checking out the stadium. Having lived in the Midwest, the East Coast, the north, and the south, I am always on the lookout for the cities that have the best cultural amenities and walkability. Admittedly, I am not a huge sports fan outside of tennis, but I do enjoy going to games when the stadiums are embedded in the urban fabric and there are lots of options for other things to do within walking distance. When I was growing up, we used to go to Detroit Pistons games but we had to drive miles on the highway to get to the Palace of Auburn Hills, which was surrounded by a vast parking lot. When I moved to Washington D.C., I thought it was so much fun to see the Wizards play at the Verizon Center because Penn Quarter was so lively, filled with restaurants, bars, cafes, and shops. There weren't miles of parking spots to cross before finally getting somewhere -- in fact we didn't have to park at all. The metro stop was directly beneath the arena, allowing fans from all over the region to have quick and hassle-free access to the games and performances. Location is not the only important consideration for a stadium -- design, art, and architecture matter too.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Public–Private Partnership a Panacea for Infrastructure Development? the Case of Beijing National Stadium
    Is public–private partnership a panacea for infrastructure development? The case of Beijing National Stadium Yongjian Ke Abstract: Public–private partnership (PPP) is such a hot concept that nowadays it is discussed everywhere be it a public sector management journal or a public sector management conference. Governments subject to severe fiscal pressure in developing countries like China, where PPP law is not in place yet, regard it as a panacea or fixed solution for infrastructure development. This paper hence attempts to provide reference to this point by investigating the Beijing National Stadium. There was a significant change in the Project Company on 20 August 2009. Three main reasons for the contract change were (1) wrong identification of the retractable roof as one of the output specifications, (2) adoption of PPP without a careful feasibility study and (3) strong government interference like suspension of selling name-right and prohibition of holding small-scale or small events. It was found that PPP would not be more appropriate than conventional procurement in this project. It was therefore proved that PPP is not a panacea for infrastructure development. It is expected that a review of the Beijing National Stadium can provide valuable information for when and how to implement PPPs. More considerations on receiving value for money in the whole project lifecycle (including the operation) should be taken in a PPP project. Keywords: public–private partnership; Beijing National Stadium; social infrastructure; China 1. Introduction Public–private partnership (PPP) is a joint working arrangement between the public and private sectors to deliver policies, services and infrastructure (HM Treasury 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study on Beijing National Stadium: Bird Nest Olympic Stadium
    International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 Case Study on Beijing National Stadium: Bird Nest Olympic Stadium Ankisha Mehta1, Archana Thakur2, Chirag Atha3 1,2,3MBA Student, Project & Construction Management, MIT-COM, MIT ADT University, Pune (MH), India ----------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract - The modern day Olympic Games has been 2. CONCEPT than just a sporting event where hundreds of athletes gather in a host country to compete against each other The sport stadium design was evolved by the formation of and challenge in becoming “faster, higher and stronger”. nesting birds. The architects have succeeded in translating With the advances in the mass media its also an excellent the thought, so that their work on the project soon gained opportunity for the host country to showcase itself to the the nickname “bird’s nest” almost spontaneously among the Chinese population. world. As, a part of this presentation effort it holds a potential to be architectural icon for the Games. The design is revolving on the nests of birds, not solely aesthetically but also at a structural level. The entire In the run-up to the 29th Olympic Games in Beijing 2008, structure, visible from the outside, mirrors the branches of China wasted no time in announcing to the world the the nests that working together with each other achieve arrival of China as an economic superpower on the unimaginable resistance to the elements. world stage. Old stadiums were refurbished and new At the center of the area that also houses other Olympic ones built.
    [Show full text]
  • BEIJING REPORT ACTUAL LAYOUT.Indd
    INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BEIJING 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME Independent Environmental Assessment: Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in February 2009 © 2009 UNEP ISBN: 978-92-807-2888-0 Job Number: DCP/1017/NA Produced by the UNEP Division of Communications and Public Information Cover design: © BOCOG. Based on the visual concept of passion, vigour, culture and celebration, the torch relay graphic for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games featured the traditional Chinese phoenix pattern and the lucky cloud pattern. Graphic courtesy: Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad (BOCOG). This post-Games assessment takes an impartial look at Beijing’s work to fulfill its environmental commitments for the 2008 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games. The report builds on the data and findings of Beijing 2008 Olympic Games: an Environmental Review, published by UNEP in 2007. The extent to which new findings and recommendations are included has been influenced by the available data at the time of publication. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for sale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP. The designation of geographical entities in this report, and the presentation of the material herein, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the publisher or the participating organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]