SCIENCE (No Plagairism, A++ Work, On Time)

LAGNIAPPE

Wk4MegaEventsContentServer.pdf

Home >Science homework help >SCIENCE (No Plagairism, A++ Work, On Time)

ECONOMICS AND FINANCE

The Economic Benefits of l\/lega Events: A [\/lyth or a Reality? A Longitudinal Study

on the Olympic Games

ChengiiTien National Taiwan Normal University

Huai-Chun Lo Yuan Ze University

Hsiou-Wei Lin National Taiwan University

This study concerns research related to mega events, such as the Olympic Games, to determine whether the economic impact of the Olympic Games on the host countries is significant. This study uses two methods, panel data analysis and event study, to test hypotheses based on the data from 15 countries that have hosted 24 summer and winter Olympic Games. The results indicate that the economic impact of the Olympic Games on the host countries is only significant in terms of certain parameters (i.e., gross domestic product performance and unemployment) in the short term. These findings provide decision makers with comprehensive and multidimensional knowledge about the economic impact of hosting a mega event and about whether their objectives can be realized as expected.

As "global properties" (O'Reilly, Lyberger, McCar- thy, & Séguin, 2008, p. 392), mega events may have a tremendous impact, which, in general, can be found in economic, tourism, physical, social, cultural, psychologi- cal, and political aspects of a hosting region (Parent, 2008; Ritchie, 1984; Ritchie & Aitken, 1985). Although some may still argue about what can be properly categorized as mega events, the summer and winter Olympic Games without a doubt can be classified as such (Fairley, Kellett, & Green, 2007; Toohey & Taylor, 2008).

Due to the increasing influence of the Olympic Games and the attention it receives worldwide, a number of countries derive pride and prestige from hosting this event and regard it as a showcase to the world or an opportunity to achieve certain objectives. Regardless of a country's specific objectives, the competition to win the bid for hosting the Olympic Games has become more intense, especially since the commercial success of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. Not only the competi- tion, but also the scale, complexity, and cost to host the Olympic Games have grown, thus creating some concems for taxpayers as well as for bidders, who should carefully consider the rewards and risks in pursuing this Olympic dream. Take the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, for example; it cost the host city and country over US $10 million to bid and US $ 10.7 billion to host (Burton, 2003),

and such costs exceed the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of some nations (e.g.. The Bahamas).

Is it worth staging a mega event, such as the Olympic Games? This is an important research question, which was also addressed by Salt Lake Olympic Chief, Mitt Romney, who considered it a fair question (Foy, 2002). Because a wide range of effects can be anticipated as a result of hosting mega events, this question should be asked in terms of the objectives that each host country expects to achieve. These objectives may vary from nation to nation, but the overall objective can involve a strategic and economic focus. "For example, the Athens 2004, Turin 2006, Beijing 2008, and Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympic Games bid and organizing committees all presented the Olympic Games as beneficial to their respective cities to gain new facilities and increase trans- fer to event preparation and hosting knowledge" (Parent, 2008, p. 135). Hence, from a strategic perspective, the objectives may include bringing the country into the limelight or spotlighting the city/state or region; from an economic perspective, the objectives may include attract- ing investment or creating jobs (Nixon & Frey, 1996; Preuss, 2000). Among these objectives, "it is the eco- nomic value accruing to the host that is commonly used as the basis for gathering public backing for such events" (Lee & Taylor, 2005, p. 595). This study will therefore

Tien is with Dept. of East Asian Culture and Development, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, Province of China. Lo is with the Division of Finance, College Management, Yuan Ze University, Taipei, Taiwan, Province of China. Lin is with the Dept. of International Business, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Province of China.

12 Tien et al.

focus on the economic impact of the Olympic Games upon the host countries, aiming to ascertain whether staging the Olympic Games is economically worthwhile and whether the anticipated economic benefits from the Olympic Games are a reality or a myth.

Prior studies from various perspectives report mixed findings in terms of mega events' contributions to the host area's economy (Owen, 2005; Veraros, Kasimati, & Dawson, 2004). To explore the economic impact of the Olympic Games, this study attempts to answer the following research question: Is it worth staging a mega event, such as the Olympic Games? The present study takes an ex post approach by using the panel regression model and event study to test each of the key economic parameters to uncover findings that are convincing enough to ascertain the economic benefits of mega events. Hosting a mega event requires tremendous infrastructure and construction, and this takes a number of years to complete. Hence, the economic impact may not be sig- nificant during, right before, or right after the year of the Olympic Games, so a longer period of time is required to study the event's overall effects. The present study uses a nine-year time span (four years before the Olympic Games, the year of the Olympic Games, and four years following the Olympic Games) to examine the economic impact of hosting the Olympic Games, including GDP performance, unemployment, and investment.

The findings of the current study indicate that host- ing the Olympic Games does not produce a long-term impact on the host countries, but it does produce a short- term impact on the GDP and unemployment of the host countries (the significant impact only occurs before the Olympic Games, not during or after the Olympic Games). Hence, hosting the Olympic Games only generates a short-lived impact on the host countries, which is con- sistent with the finding of Baade and Matheson (2002). In particular, the current study finds that the impact on the GDP and unemployment is more significant in those countries that host the summer Olympic Games, which require more spending than the winter Olympic Games. This study thus makes two fundamental contributions to the literature on mega events. First, it illustrates in a longitudinal manner any economic impact on host coun- tries arising from the hosting of the summer or winter Olympic Games. Prior studies focused on a single country (Brunet, 1995; Hotchkiss, Moore, & Zobay, 2003; Hum- phreys & Plummer, 1995; Madden, 2002), on a single economic aspect (Kavetsos & Szymanski, 2008; Samitas, Kenourgios, & Zounis, 2008; Veraros et al., 2004), or on a single game phase (Pyo, Cook, & Howell, 1988), but not on a selection of host countries from a longitudinal perspective including the pre-Games phase, the Games phase, and the post-Games phase. The findings should enrich future researchers' understanding of the economic impact of hosting the Olympic Games on a selection of host countries from a long-term perspective. Second, the current study explores the economic impact of hosting the Olympic Games during different Games phases, such as the pre-Games phase, instead of merely the Games

phase. This expansion in scope may explain why some prior studies find hosting the Olympic Games to have a weak or insignificant impact. Therefore, the importance of using a longitudinal approach to analyze or extend related issues is highlighted.

This study is comprised of five sections. The first section provides an overview of mega events and their impact. The second section addresses the method and data analyzed from countries that have hosted the Olympic Games since 1964, while the third section presents the results of the models run in the Stata, SPSS, and SAS software programs. Finally, the fourth section addresses the conclusion and implications based on the findings, and the final section discusses limitations that can be addressed for future resetu'ch.

Literature and Hypotheses

Mega Events: The Olympic Games

Scholars still debate what mega events are; however, the Olympic Games can undoubtedly be categorized as a mega event (Home & Manzenreiter, 2006; Roche, 2000). Thus, the current study analyzes mega events, with a focus on the Olympic Games.

According to the Olympic Charter (n.d.), "Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a bal- anced whole the qualities of body, will, and mind" (p. 12). Blending sport with "culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles" (p. 12). Olymp- ism emphasizes the existence of a peaceful society with human dignity achieved through sport events to elaborate a state of mind based on equality; this makes the Games more than just a sport competition.

Scholars disagree about the origin of the ancient Olympic Games, but it is certain that Greece originally held the Olympic Games in the BC era (Barney, 1996; Davis, 2008). The Olympic Games are best known in their modern form, however. The modern Games were first held in 1896 in Athens, Greece. Ever since that time, they have steadily expanded and have attracted thousands of participants and millions of viewers worldwide. The impact from such an event is always expected to be tremendous, but also various and uncertain. Thus, the objectives for hosting the Olympic Games may vary from nation to nation.

Host Countries' Objectives

Mega events help to meet the economic and cultural needs and rights of local citizens and, if they are successful, "long-term positive consequences in terms of tourism, industrial relocation, and inward investments" can be expected (Roche, 1994, p. 2). Thus, the value of and objectives for hosting the Olympic Games should reach beyond medal counts and extend to more wide-ranging effects (e.g., economic, tourist-related, environmental,

Economic Benefits of Mega Events 13

sociocultural, psychological, and political; Ritchie, 1984; Ritchie & Aitken, 1985) because the overall effect of different Olympic Games is "measured in the infrastruc- ture, social, political, ecological, and sporting impulses" (Preuss, 2000, p. 122). In other words, the impact of hosting the Olympic Games can far surpass financial benefits. As a matter of fact, the Olympic Games and their host countries have greatly emphasized sustainable development (i.e., the Green Games of Sydney 2000, the Games of Culture of Athens 2004, the People's Olym- pics of Beijing 2008, and the One Planet Olympics of London 2012), which is, as the United Nations (n.d.) defines it, "development that meets the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future genera- tions to meet their own needs" (p. 6). Hence, sustainable development refers to "a path of socio-economic devel- opment tbat is financially balanced, socially equitable, ethically responsible, and adequately integrated in the long-term ecological balance" (Furrer, 2002, p. 2) of the environment. It is three-dimensional in nature: economic, social, and environmental (Furrer, 2002). Since mega events may have wide-ranging effects on host regions, countries host mega events for a variety of reasons. In general, this study conceptualizes these reasons in terms of both economic and strategic objectives. The economic objectives include GDP performance, employment, and investment. The strategic objectives include regional image and identity, urban infrastmcture, and cultural and political improvements.

Impact of the Olympic Games

Successful events not only improve earnings, employ- ment opportunities, and govemment revenues, but also raise "awareness and knowledge of the country or region involved" (Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005, p. 840). Prior stud- ies have been conducted on the Olympic Games from various perspectives, such as that of power and politics (Hargreaves, 2000; Hazan, 1982; Lenskyj, 2000), culture (Blain, Boyle, & O'Donnell, 1993), urban policy and environments (May 1995; Roche, 1994), tourism (Kang & Perdue, 1994; Lee, Var, & Blaine, 1996), destination image (Gibson, Qi, & Zbang, 2008; Lee et al., 2005), and economics (Kim, Rhee, Yu, Koo, & Hong, 1989; O'Brien, 2006; Porter & Fletcher, 2008; Preuss, 2000, 2004). The present study focuses on economic sustain- able development. The rationale behind this approach is that macroeconomic objectives and impacts should still be the major concems for most host countries. "It is the economic value accruing to the host that is commonly used as the basis for gathering public backing for such events" (Lee & Taylor, 2005; p. 595). In fact, prior studies have addressed the impact of mega events on economic issues using ex ante forecasts or ex post examinations. The latter approach may be more useful in "providing a filter through which the promises made by event boosters can be strained" (Baade & Matheson, 2004, p. 346) and in examining "a local economy for evidence of the net impact of professional sports" (Coates & Humphreys,

1999, p. 603), but the amount of such literature is much smaller (Coates & Humphreys, 1999). To fill the gap, this study focuses on the economic impact of both the summer and winter Olympic Games on host countries by using a quantitative, ex post approach.

The Economic Impact. This study distinguishes finan- cial impact from economic impact. The financial impact may narrowly refer to the impact on the budgetary or financial balance of the organizing committees of the Olympic Games; however, the economic impact may refer more broadly to the impact on the general economy of a host country (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2004). Hence, the current study examines possible economic objectives, such as boosting GDP performance, reducing unemployment, and attracting investment.

"In world sports, the Olympic Games are unparal- leled in their scale" and in "the potential impact they can have on the economies of host cities, regions, and countries" (O'Brien, 2006, p. 240). Regarding GDP per- formance, the arguments have been mixed because the impacts can be uncertain (Kim, Gursoy, & Lee, 2006). The initial investment for hosting the Olympic Games can be tremendous, and, thus, uncertainties may occur and lead to both opportunities and risks. From the perspective of opportunities, successful Olympic Games may trigger economic growth and development (Metropolis, 2002, as cited in Furrer, 2002). However, from the perspective of risks, hosting the Olympic Games may be too expen- sive to generate economic rents and may further lead to worse situations when huge investment projects become "White Elephants" after the events or when these projects create adverse effects that may crowd out a nation's other important projects. Lenskyj (2000) created a summary of criticism against the Olympic Games that includes distortions in the local economy and hindrances to sus- tainable economic development. Taking into account the opportunities and risks, comprehending the impact of the Olympic Games on host countries' GDP performance may be difficult because this strategy to boost GDP performance through hosting mega events is considered "a potentially high-risk strategy for stimulating local economic growth" (Andranovich, Burbank, & Heying, 2001, p. 113). Prior studies on a single host country bave resulted in mixed findings (Brunet, 1995; Humphreys & Plummer, 1995; Madden, 2002), but such studies from a longitudinal perspective are scarce. Hence, the impact of hosting the Olympic Games on the GDP performance of the hosting regions requires further examination, so the current study constructs the first hypothesis in a null form to explore this issue:

Hypothesis 1: Hosting the Olympic Games has no effect on GDP performance.

Host countries regard the reduction in unemployment as an expected benefit of hosting tbe Olympic Games. For example, the increase in the number of tourists and the opening of new facilities (e.g., hotels, sport venues) create jobs and thus reduce unemployment. Prior studies

14 Tien et al.

on the 1996 summer Olympic Games show a positive correlation between hosting the Olympic Games and employment (Hotchkiss et al., 2003). However, few stud- ies have longitudinally tested the impact on employment opportunities on an entire country, which may receive less benefit than the hosting city, and done so using a selection of both summer and winter Olympic Games. Further testing is needed to ascertain whether hosting the Olympic Games may impact employment opportunities; thus, the current study constructs the second hypothesis in a null form to explore this issue;

Hypothesis 2: Hosting the Olympic Games has no effect on unemployment.

A successful major event creates confidence in the city and favors subsequent investment (Metropolis, 2002, as cited in Furrer, 2002). Other than direct invest- ment in the events and their related infrastructure (e.g., transportation and housing), hosting the Olympic Games can be regarded as an attempt to attract international investment or to establish new trade relationships in macroeconomic terms. However, few studies have tested investment in a longitudinal manner using a selection of botb the summer and winter Olympic Games. Further testing is still needed to determine whether hosting the Olympic Games may impact investment; thus, the cur- rent study constructs the third hypothesis in a null form to explore this issue;

Hypothesis 3; Hosting the Olympic Games has no effect on investment in the host country.

Methods and Data

Data and Sample

Data were collected from the Datastream, World Bank, United Nations, Total Economy, and WDI databases and from the official Web site of the Olympic Movement. Due to data availability, this study pools the data based on the Olympic Games (summer and winter) after 1964 (from the 1964 summer and winter Olympic Games to the 2008 summer Olympic Games). The final sample spans 15 countries and 24 games. For the sample of GDP (See Table 1 ; n = 870), the data collection period ranges from 1950 to 2008; however, the first year of data are lost due to the calculation of GDP growth. Therefore, the number of observations is 870. For the sample of unemployment rate and investment, the total number of observations is smaller (n = 613 for unemployment; n = 602 for investments), and the start and end year of data for each country is different; however, if the start and end year of data for each country is fixed, the current study's main findings will not be affected. For example, if the data collection period is set to from 1972 to 2007, or if countries not meeting the required criteria, sucb as the length of time period, or those with missing data are eliminated, the main findings will remain consistent. The present study includes three phases (pre-Games phase. Games phase, and post-Games phase) to study the economic impact. Hence, nine years of data are collected to study each of the Olympic Games under examination (four years before and four years after the

Table 1 a Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Country

USA Austria

Yugoslavia

France

Germany

Italy

Norway

Canada

Japan

Greece

Spain

Australia

Mexico

Korea

China

Total

GDP

Start

1951

Performance

End

2008

N 58

870

Panel Data1

Unemployment

Start

1951

1987

1986

1961

1951

1971

1961

1954

1962

1971

1988

1964

1986

End

2008

2003

2007

2008

N 58

613

Start

1961

1972

1971

1972

1966

1961

1972

1966

1961

Investment

End

2006

2007

2006

2007

N 46

47 602

Economic Benefits of Mega Events 15

Table 1b Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (continued)

GDP Performance

Variable

GDP Performance

Pre-Games Phase

Games Phase

Post-Games Phase

Population Growth

Country of Origin

Unemployment

Variable

Unemployment

Pre-Games Phase

Games Phase

Post-Games Phase

Population Growth

Country of Origin

Investment

Variable

Investment

Pre-Games Phase

Games Phase

Post-Games Phase

Population Growth

Country of Origin

Mean

0.0417

0.0793

0.0782

0.0736

0.0102

0.2667

870

Mean

0.0006

0.0930

0.0914

0.0897

0.0085

0.1746

613

Mean

-0.0003

0.0930

0.0947

0.0914

0.0097

0.2342

602

S.D.

0.0361

0.2704

0.2686

0.2612

0.0097

0.4425

S.D.

0.0082

0.2906

0.2883

0.2860

0.0092

0.3799

S.D.

0.0376

0.2907

0.2930

0.2884

0.0105

0.4239

GDP Performance

0.078**

-0.037

- 0 . 0 7 1 * *

0.314***

0.248***

Unemployment

-0.137***

0.015

-0.025

-0.087 * *

0.035

Investment

0.079

-0.051

-0.004

0.078

0.069

Pre-Games Phase

0.074**

-0.054

-0.001

-0.034

-0.062

Pre-Games Phase

-0.119***

-0.063

-0.002

0.010

-0.058

Pre-Games Phase

0.034

-0.065

-0.002

-0.009

-0.056

Games Phase

-0.022

-0.054

-0.049

-0.044

-0.069**

Games Phase

0.014

-0.063

-0.060

0.010

- 0 . 0 7 1 * *

Games Phase

-0.021

-0.065

-0.063

-0.019

-0.085**

Post-Games Phase

-0.056

-0.001

-0.049

-0.062

-0.080**

Post-Games Phase

-0.018

-0.002

-0.060

-0.032

-0.054**

Post-Games Phase

0.006

-0.002

-0.063

-0.033

-0.094**

Population Growth

0.190***

-0.044

-0.049

-0.062

0.335***

Population Growth

-0.065**

-0.015

-0.013

-0.039

0.210***

Population Growth

0.032

-0.021

-0.027

-0.036

0.496***

Country of Origin

0.178***

-0.062

-0.069**

-0.080**

0.295***

Country of Origin

0.034

-0.058

- 0 . 0 7 1 * *

-0.054**

0 . 1 2 8 * * *

Country of Origin

0.039

-0.056

-0.085**

-0.094**

0.379***

**p<.05***p<.01

year of the Games). For those Games after 1964, this study includes the 2006 Turin Olympic Winter Games and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, with no sufficient length of data for the longitudinal analysis. However, no difference is observed whether the 2006 Turin Olympic Winter Games and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games are included.

Research Design

This study employs two methods, the first of which uses cross-sectional time series regression (panel data) analy- sis to test the hypotheses. Equation (1) uses this model to

test whether hosting the Olympic Games will have any effect on economic performance.

ß,Developing,^+e (1)

where the dependent variable, g', represents dif- ferences in unemployment rates, investment, and GDP growth rate, and the independent variables are as follows: d. 1.1=-2—4 represents three years before the Olympic Games phase; d.^. t=-l—1 represents three years for the Olympic Ganiies phase; d.y t = 2~4 represents three years after the Olympic Game phase; ß^Popg,, repre- sents population growth; and Developing. ^ represents

16 Tien et al.

the country of origin. To reduce and avoid any poten- tially undetected variations due to the country effect (host country) and the time effect (year), tbis study includes dummies for country and year by using cross- sectional time series regression on fixed effects in its model.

The second method is based on event study. Tbis study uses an observation period of nine years (t=-4~-i-4), where t = - 4 — 2 represents the period before the event; t=-l~-i-l represents the period of the event; and t = 1-4 represents the period after the event. The most important characteristic of an event study method is its ability to detect the presence of abnormal performance for observations in the event window. However, before that, normal performance for observations during the event window should be estimated. Following Baade and Matbeson (2004) and Coates and Humphreys (1999), a country's economic development also is likely to be affected by neighboring countries' development, global economies, and its own recent economic performance. Therefore, estimation of a country's normal performance should consider impacts both from other countries and from within its own borders. In terms of the impact from other countries, this study includes countries of similar economic size in the region; that is, if these selected countries bave good economic performance, the observations' normal performance is estimated to be good as well. In terms of the impact from its own economy, having considered the growth of population and economy over the past four years, a country's economic performance should be afïected positively by its prior performance. Hence, an event study method includes the following two steps.

The first step is to estimate the parameters tbat are required to acquire normal performance as represented by Equation (2):

Table 2 Event Study- Host Countries versus Target Groups

where g ;, represents the mean value of the target group to pair with respective targets and the target group describes countries of similar economic size in the region (see Table 2), and Popg¡j is the population growth rate. In addition, this study includes lagged dependent vari- ables not only to reflect a country's recent economic development, but also to account for economic param- eters witb serial correlation. Tbis study uses four periods for lagged variables due to tbe normal business cycle that usually takes a few years to complete, but the observa- tions will be reduced if the cycle is set too long. The parameters for each country (or eacb Olympic Games) will be estimated. Tbe period for estimating Equation (2) is before t-5 to avoid the estimations of parameters being affected by tbe observation period studied. Tbe second step is to gauge the normal performance based on Equation (2) and then determine what is abnormal performance based on the differences between practical and normal performance.

Host Country^

Australia

Austria

Canada

China

France

Germany

Greece

Italy

Japan

Korea

Mexico

Norway

Spain

USA Yugoslavia

Target Group

Western Europe-'

BR1C4''

Western Europe

East_Asian_Tigers4'

Latin America'

Western Europe

G7 Eastern Europe'

' Host countries are excluded from target groups.

2 The G7 includes the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada.

' Western Europe includes Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ger- many, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

" The BRIC4 include Brazil, Russia, India and China.

' The East Asian Tigers4 include South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

' The Latin America hloc includes Argentina, Colombia and Venezuela.

' The Eastern Europe bloc includes Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania.

Measures

Dependent Variables Due to the fact that the size of each host country varies, tbis study calculates tbe growth rate or differences between years to facilitate tbe cross-country study.

GDP Performance. There are a number of metbods to measure a nation's overall economic performance. This study measures GDP performance using the GDP growth rate, not only because it is a popular measurement for macroeconomic performance, but also because it repre- sents tbe market value of goods and services produced by labor and property within the borders of a nation. Hence, this study measures economic performance by collecting annual GDP in a natural logarithmic form and calculating the differences between years in GDP.

Unemployment. Tbis study measures unemployment by calculating the differences between years in unem- ployment rate, because unemployment rate is measured according to the unemployment population scaled by the total labor force.

Economic Benefits of Mega Events 17

Investment. This study measures investment by cal- culating the differences between years in capital formu- lation deflated by the GDP. Because this measure has been scaled, this study uses differences between years for investments.

Independent Variables.

The Games Phase. To distinguish the Games phase from other phases, this study uses binary dummies, where ' 1 ' stands for the Games phase covering one year before and one year after the year of the Olympic Games (t-l to tl), while '0' stands for other years.

The Post-Games Phase. This study uses binary dum- mies, where ' 1 ' stands for the post-Games phase covering three years, from the second to the fourth year, after the year of the Olympic Games (t2 to t4), while '0' stands for other years.

The Pre-Games Phase. This study uses binary dum- mies, where ' 1 ' stands for the pre-Games phase covering three years, from the second to the fourth year, before the year of the Olympic Games (t-2 to t-4), while '0' stands for other years.

Since comparing success among various host countries may be difficult due to factors such as the fundamental differences in existing infrastructure, where developing countries may need to improve infrastruc- tures more than developed countries, and the fact that differences in infrastructure may lead to higher costs for developing countries to host the Olympic Games, we control for two variables to strengthen the rigor of the study and the explanatory power of the findings.

Population Growth. This study controls for factors that may affect the economic impact on host countries of the Olympic Games due to the impact of the effect of the country of origin. Hence, we control for population growth to conduct the analysis with rigor.

Country of Origin. This study includes country of origin in the models to control for any significant differences between host cities from developed countries and host cities from developing countries in terms of any effect on the economic performance of the selected countries. ' I ' refers to developing nations, while ' 0 ' refers to developed nations.

Results To better understand the data. Table 1 presents the sample with the start/end years, descriptive statistics, and correla- tion tables. Due to data availability, the sample size varies in the study of GDP performance, unemployment, and investment. Hence, there are three tables of descriptive statistics and correlations. Because available data for the GDP has the longest span, it starts from 1951 and contin- ues to 2008. For data involving unemployment and invest- ment, the start and end years vary depending on the data availability. As Table 1 shows, the average GDP growth

rate is 4.17% from 1951 to 2008; the average difference is 0.06% for unemployment and -0.03% for investment, respectively, which also signals that unemployment rates and investment are measures after being scaled, as com- pared with the GDP growth rate. Three dummy variables are used to measure the three phases (pre-Games phase. Games phase, and post-Games phase). In the sample of GDP, each phase spans three years, and the theoretical size should be 5.2% (3 divided by 58). However, Table I indicates that the mean value is between 0.07 and 0.08, which is higher than the theoretical size due to the fact that some countries have hosted the Olympic Games more than once (e.g., the United States). In the sample of unemploy- ment and investment, the mean value during each phase is about 9% due to the shorter span of data available. Table 1 illustrates that the population growth rate is about 1 %, as most of the data are from developed countries (73.33%). As Table 1 also shows, multicollinearity is not a problem in the present models (p < .05). Table 2 presents the list of host countries and target groups in the event study.

The results of our investigation of the relationship between the hosting of the Olympic Games and GDP performance are shown in Table 3. In the panel regres- sion method, the results partially support Hypothesis 1 ; this finding implies that hosting the Olympic Games has a positive impact on the GDP performance of the host country, but that the impact is only significant in the pre- Games phase. This finding may further imply that hosting the Olympic Games is such a huge undertaking that host countries should be prepared ahead of time. Furthermore, in comparing the summer and winter Olympic Games, hosting the summer Olympic Games has a significant impact on GDP performance during the pre-Games phase (p < .01), while hosting the winter Olympic Games does not have a significant impact on GDP performance during the pre-Games phase. The estimated coefficient is 0.0148 for the pre-Games phase, which implies that during this phase of all the Olympic Games (the summer and winter Games), the GDP performance of the host countries is 1.5% higher than normal; while in the summer Olympic Games, during the pre-Games phase, the estimated coef- ficient is 0.0198, which implies that the GDP performance of countries hosting the summer Olympic Games during the pre-Games phase can be raised even higher (by 2%). During the Games phase and the post-Games phase, hosting the Olympic Games does not have an impact on GDP performance.

In the event study method, the results partially sup- port Hypothesis 1, thus basically supporting the results from the panel regression method; this finding implies that hosting the Olympic Games has a significant impact on the GDP performance of the host country before the Olympic Games. In comparing the summer and winter Olympic Games, hosting the summer Olympic Games has a stronger impact on GDP performance than hosting the winter Olympic Games. That is, for all the Games (summer and winter), hosting has a significant impact on the GDP performance during the third and fourth years before the year of the Olympic Games {p < .05). Hosting

18 Tien et al.

Table 3 Cross-Sectional Time Series Regression and Event Study Results for GDP Performance

Method 1: Panel Regression Model

Season

Variable

Intercept

Pre-Games Phase

Games Phase

Post-Games Phase

Population Growth

Country of Origin

Adj. R2

Total

Coeff.

0.0594 ***

0.0148 ***

0.0033

0.0011

0.2085

0.0273 ***

4 47 ***

23.05%

870

Method II: Event Study Modei

Season

t N

-4 21

-3 21

-2 21

-1 21

0 21

1 20

2 20

3 19

4 19

Totai

iVIean T

0.0140 ** (2.54)

0.0189*** (3.98)

0.0126 (1.87)

0.0003 (0.03)

-0.0014 (0.14)

-0.0042 (0.60)

-0.0025 (0.27)

0.0028 (0.25)

-0.0109 (1.01)

(6.38)

(3.55)

(0.79)

(0.24)

(1.42)

(4.57)

Summer

Coeff.

0.0667 ***

0.0198 ***

0.0108

0.0085

0.1767

0.0204 ***

3.38 ***

22.34%

580

Summer

Mean

0.0086

0.0216 ***

0.0202 **

0.0195 **

0.0108

0.0037

0.0118

0.0096

0.0043

(6.10)

(3.36)

(1.80)

(1.35)

(1.16)

(3.36)

(1.79)

(4.19)

(2.66)

(2.49)

(2.21)

(0.87)

(1.28)

(1.12)

(0.38)

Winter

Coeff.

0.0566 ***

0.0085

-0.0040

-0.0080

1.0674**

-0.0049

3.70***

28.39%

464

Winter

Mean

0.0190

0.0165

0.0057

-0.0171

-0.0125

-0.0106

-0.0141

-0.0033

-0.0246

(

(5.09)

(1.67)

(0.79)

(1.53)

(2.23)

(0.91)

(1.97)

(2.07)

(0.53)

(1.12)

(0.68)

(0.87)

(0.90)

(0.16)

(1.42)

the summer Olympic Games has a significant impact on GDP performance during the first three years before the year of the Olympic Games (p < .05; similar to the panel regression results, in the third and second years before the year of the Olympic Games, GDP growth is higher than normal, by 2.1% and 2%, respectively), but no impact on GDP performance during and after the year of the Olympic Games (p < .05), which explains wby, during the Games phase of the summer Olympic Games in the panel regression method, no significant impact on GDP performance is shown. Hosting the winter Olympic Games does not have an impact on GDP performance. Overall, based on the findings from both methods, the results from Table 3 partially support Hypothesis 1, which implies that hosting the Olympic Games has a very weak and limited impact on GDP performance, only produc- ing a significant impact on GDP performance for some periods before the Olympic Games.

The results of our investigation of the relationship between the hosting of the Olympic Games and unem- ployment are shown in Table 4. In the first method, the results partially support Hypothesis 2; this finding implies that hosting tbe Olympic Games has a weak impact on unemployment, an impact which is only found to be significant in the pre-Games phase regardless of whether we are dealing with the summer or winter Games. Tbe estimated coefficient is -0.003 for the pre-Games phase; in the summer Olympic Games, during the pre-Games phase, the estimated coefficient is -0.0031, and in the winter Olympic Games, during the pre-Games phase, the estimated coefficient is -0.0030. The results imply that the unemployment rate is reduced annually by 0.3% on average. That is, suppose that the unemployment rate is 5%, then three jobs will be created annually for 50 unemployed workers (per 1000 in the labor force) during the pre-Games phase.

Economic Benefits of Mega Events 19

Table 4 Cross-Sectional Time Series Regression and Event Study Results for Unemployment

Method 1: Panei Regression Model

Season

Variable

Intercept

Pre-Games Phase

Games Phase

Post-Games Phase

Population Growth

Country of Origin

Adj. R2

Total

Coeff.

-0.0102 **

-0.0030 ***

0.0001

-0.0015

-0.0314

0.0022

3.57 ***

23.96%

613

Method II: Event Study Model

Season

t N

-4 16

-3 16

-2 16

-1 16

0 15

1 15

2 15

3 14

4 14

Total

Mean t

-0.0063 ** (2.92)

-0.0049 (1.98)

-0.0030 (1.07)

-0.0039 (1.71)

-0.0021 (0.69)

-0.0010 (0.37)

-0.0020 (0.85)

-0.0057 (1.62)

-0.0068 (1.56)

(2.41)

(2.87)

(0.08)

(1.37)

(0.87)

(1.19)

Summer

Coeff.

-0.0097 **

-0.0031 **

0.0002

-0.0020

-0.0367

0.0022

2.71 ***

21.46%

440

Summer

Mean

-0.0086 **

-0.0093 **

-0.0062

-0.0085 **

-0.0053

-0.0033

-0.0068

-0.0067

-0.0075

r (2.07)

(2.05)

(0.13)

(1.27)

(0.91)

(1.07)

(2.47)

(3.16)

(1.87)

(3.00)

(1.00)

(0.63)

(1.78)

(1.58)

(1.42)

Winter

Coeff.

-0.0047

-0.0030 **

0.0007

-0.0010

0.0126

0.0081 ***

3.13***

30.31%

334

Winter

Mean

-0.0040

-0.0006

0.0002

0.0007

0.0009

0.0022

-0.0046

-0.0061

(1.01)

(2.32)

(0.57)

(0.78)

(0.08)

(4.48)

(1.59)

(0.18)

(0.04)

(0.22)

(0.32)

(1.05)

(1.63)

(1.39)

**p<.05 ***;?< .01

Similar results are achieved with the event study method, the results of which partially support Hypoth- esis 2; tbis finding also implies that hosting the Olympic Games bas a weak impact on unemployment. For the sample including all the Olympic Games (the summer and winter Games), hosting has a significant impact on unemployment only in the fourth year before the year of the Olympic Games (p < .05), when the unemployment rate is 0.63% lower than normal. For the sample only including the summer Games, hosting has a significant impact on unemployment only in the first, tbird, and fourth years before the year of the Olympic Games (p < .05), when the reduction in unemployment rates for these years ranges from 0.85% to 0.93%, compared with normal. For the sample only including the winter Games, hosting the winter Games does not have a significant impact on unemployment. Hence, based on the findings using both methods, hosting the Olympic Games has a weak and limited impact on unemployment.

The results of our investigation of the relationship between hosting the Olympic Games and investment are sbown in Table 5. In the first method, the results support Hypothesis 3; tbis finding implies that hosting the Olym- pic Games does not have any impact on the performance of investment, regardless of whether they are summer or winter Games. In the second method, the results partially support Hypothesis 3; this finding implies that hosting the Olympic Games bas a weak impact on attracting invest- ment to the host country; For all of the summer and winter Games, bosting has a significant impact only in the third year before the year of the Olympic Games, when the investment is higher tban normal by 0.84% of the GDP. The results are consistent with the finding from testing the summer Olympic Games only (p < .05), when the investment is increased by 1.2% of the GDP, compared with normal. Hosting the winter Olympic Games does not have any significant impact on investment. Hence, based on the findings from both methods, hosting the

20 Tien et ai.

Tabie 5 Cross-Sectionai Time Series Regression and Event Study Resuits for Investment

Method i: Panei Regression Modei

Season

Variable

Intercept

Pre-Games Phase

Games Phase

Post-Games Phase

Population Growth

Country of Origin

Adj. R2

Method li: Event Study

Season

t N

-4 14

-3 14

-2 14

-1 14

0 13

1 13

2 12

3 12

4 11

Total

Coeff.

0.0118

0.0019

-0.0021

0.0022

0.0660

0.0018

1.06

11.08%

602

Modei

Totai

Mean T

0.0013 (0.28)

0.0084 ** (2.78)

0.0053 (1.35)

0.0030 (0.80)

-0.0017 (0.31)

-0.0049 (0.61)

0.0008 (0.11)

0.0073 (0.98)

0.0031 (0.67)

(0.80)

(0.34)

(0.38)

(0.36)

(0.09)

Summer

Coeff.

0.0084

0.0021

-0.0033

0.0056

0.0594

0.0029

0.85

11.64%

440

Summer

Mean

-0.0001

0.0120 **

0.0042

0.0046

0.0017

-0.0083

0.0091

0.0112

0.0080

(0.48)

(0.24)

(0.39)

(0.66)

(0.28)

(0.32)

(0.01)

(3.47)

(0.67)

(0.76)

(0.17)

(0.50)

(0.61)

(0.80)

(1.08)

Winter

Coeff.

0.0052

0.0029

-0.0030

-0.0010

0.1570

0.0007

2.04 ***

32.03%

300

Winter

Mean

0.0026

0.0048

0.0065

0.0014

-0.0045

-0.0019

-0.0074

0.0034

-0.0011

(0.60)

(0.90)

(0.94)

(0.29)

(0.38)

(0.05)

(0.34)

(0.99)

(1.23)

(0.29)

(0.81)

(0.35)

(1.73)

(0.54)

(0.19)

**p<.05 ***/?<.01

Olympic Games has a very weak and limited impact on attracting investment.

According to the information in Table 3 to Table 5, the economic impact of hosting the Olympic Games on the host countries is very limited, but significant in some parameters, such as GDP growth and unemploy- ment during the pre-Games phase. The possible expla- nations for this are twofold.' First, the results represent the phase when facilities and infrastructure are being built. Since a great deal of investment goes into build- ing and maintaining facilities and infrastructure which need to be completed before the Games, host countries also enjoy the economic benefit from these investments in the cities/regions hosting the Games during this time period. Second, the Intemational Olympic Committee (̂ IOC) tends to award the Games to countries with good economic prospects in the future to ensure that these countries are financially secure and stable enough to host the Games. For example, the 2008 summer Olympic

Games were awarded to China in 2001 ; the 2014 Olympic Winter Games were awarded to Russia in 2007, and the 2016 summer Olympic Games were awarded to Brazil in 2009. These host countries are members of the BRIC ' ' bloc, which brings together four of the world's largest emerging economies and could become a much larger force in the global economy within the next 50 years (Wilson & Purushothaman, 2003). However, the decision making, actual evaluation, and bidding process in the IOC can be more complex and multifaceted and may require insights from multiple perspectives.

Conclusions and Implications

Is it worth hosting mega events such as the Olympic Games? The answers to this research question may involve both strategic and economic perspectives. The present study attempts to deliberate on this research

Economic Benefits of Mega Events 21

question from tbe economic perspective of wbetber bosting tbe Olympic Games bas relevance to key eco- nomic performance. Based on tbe two metbods used, tbe findings reveal weak support for tbe bypotbeses involving an impact on GDP performance, unemploy- ment, and investments. Tbe economic impact of bosting tbe Olympic Games on bost countries is significant only on a sbort-term basis in some parameters (i.e., GDP per- formance and unemployment in tbe pre-Games pbase). Since some sbort-term pbenomena may be subject to economic momentum, tbis study conducted tests across tbree Games pbases from long-term perspectives in a longitudinal manner. Contrary to conventional wisdom, bosting tbe Olympic Games does not seem to be a sig- nificant tool for acbieving major economic objectives and generating long-term profound impacts for tbe cities tbat stage tbe events (Mibalik & Cummings, 1995; Mibalik & Simonette, 1998; Rocbe, 1994), altbougb some sbort- term impacts may be significant.

Tbe findings furtber bigbligbt concerns over uncer- tainty due to bigb costs and risks arising from tbe bosting of mega events (Burton, 2003; Preuss, 2000). However, some countries bave bosted tbe Olympic Games more tban twice (e.g., tbe United States bas bosted eigbt times including summer and winter Games), wbile otbers may bave submitted bids, but never won (e.g., Bulgaria and Argentina). Tbe motivations behind tbese efforts sbould transcend economic concems. Strategic objectives sbould be considered at least as important as economic objec- tives. In fact, "economizing and strategizing are not mutually exclusive" (Williamson, 1991, p. 76); bowever, in economic organizations, "a strategizing effort will rarely prevail if a program is burdened by significant cost excess in production, distribution, or organizations" (p. 75). From tbis viewpoint, some may argue about wbetber decision making in related governmental agencies is a rational process. Nevertbeless, for tbe main objective of tbis study, tbe evidence is too weak to conclude tbat bosting tbe Olympic Games bas a long-term economic impact on tbe host countries.

We may now ask: Is tbe economic benefit of bost- ing mega events a mytb or a reality? On tbe basis of tbe evidence presented in tbis study, it is a mytb. Tbe pres- ent study draws tbe conclusion tbat countries wisbing to bid for a mega event sbould consider botb economic and strategic objectives to maximize tbe overall possible value from tbe event, altbougb tbe economic impact may be sbort-term and uncertain, wbile tbe strategic impact may not be easy to quantify.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our study bas some limitations. First, a mega event can potentially generate significant economic impacts at a local, regional, or national level (e.g., at tbe regional level in a large economy, sucb as tbe United States, and at tbe national level in a smaller economy, sucb as Greece). Tbe

present study focuses on economic data at the national level, wbicb may constrain tbe explanatory validity in a large economy, sucb as tbe United States. To reduce sucb limitations, we control for some country-level variables to mitigate constraints.

Second, financing sources may vary among bost countries. Some may rely more on public funds (e.g., Montréal 1976 and Munich 1972), wbile otbers may rely more on private funds (e.g., Los Angeles 1984 and Atlanta 1996; Preuss, 2004). Due to data availability, tbis study does not include tbe variable of funding source; bowever, we recognize tbat it would be belpful to include any pos- sible impact from different financing or funding sources on tbe economic performance of a nation tbat bosts tbe Olympic Games.

Tbird, tbe current study may suffer from tbe over- concentration of some data on developed countries due to tbe fact tbat tbe Olympic Games bave been bosted mostly by developed countries (approximately 75% and 95% of tbe summer Olympic Games and winter Olympic Games, respectively, were bosted by developed countries). Tbis fact may limit tbe explanatory power of tbe findings, particularly for developing countries in pursuit of tbe Olympic dream.

Last, but not least, altbougb some press reports on recent post-Olympic Games bave been released from various perspectives, tbis study includes tbe 2006 Turin Olympic Winter Games and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games witb incomplete data in tbe tested Games pbases due to tbe required lengtb of data collection and analysis for tbe current study. However, no difference in results is observed wbetber tbe 2006 Turin Olympic Winter Games and tbe 2008 Beijing Olympic Games are included.

Notes

1. Tbe autbors would like to tbank an anonymous referee for tbese suggestions.

2. Tbis acronym, BRIC, was first coined by Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs in 2001, and represents tbe fast- growing economics of Brazil, Russia, India, and Cbina.

References Andranovich, G., Burbank, M.J., & Heying, C.H. (2001).

Olympic cities: Lessons learned from mega-event politics. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23, 113-131.

Baade, R.A., & Matheson, V.A. (2002). Bidding for the Olympics: Fool's gold? In C.R Barros, M. Ibrahim, & S. Szymanski (Eds.), Transatlantic sport: The comparative economics of North American and European sports (pp. 127-151). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Baade, R.A., & Matheson, V.A. (2004). The quest for the cup: Assessing the economic impact of the World Cup. Regional Studies, 38, 343-354.

Barney, R.K. (1996). The ancient Games. In J.E. Findling & K.D. Pelle (Eds.), Historical dictionary of the modern Olympic movement (pp. xxi-xi). Westport, CT: Green- wood Press.

22 Tien et ai.

Blain, N., Boyle, R., & O'Donnell, H. (1993). Sport and national identity in the European media. Leicester, NY: Leicester University Press.

Brunet, F. (1995). An economic analysis of the Barcelona '92 Olympic Games: Resources, financing and impact. In M.D. Miquel & M. Botella (Eds.), The keys to success the social, sporting, economic and communications impact of Barcelona '92 (pp. 203-237). Barcelona, Spain: Servei de Publicacions de la Universität Autónoma de Barcelona.

Burton, R. (2003). Olympic Games host city marketing: An exploration of expectations and outcomes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 35-45.

Coates, D., & Humphreys, B.R. (1999). The growth effects of sport franchises, stadia, and arenas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 601-624.

Davis, J.A. (2008). The Olympic Games effect: How sports marketing builds strong brands. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

Fairley, S., Kellett, P., & Green, B.C. (2007). Volunteering abroad: Motives for travel to volunteer at the Athens Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, 21,41-57.

Foy, P. (2002, January 11). Olympic budget highlights big cost. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://iocc.ca/docu- ments/OlympicBudgetBigCosts.pdf

Furrer, P. (2002). Sustainable Olympic Games: A dream or a reality! Retrieved from http://www.omero.unito.it/web/ Furrer%20(eng.).PDF

Gibson, H.J., Qi, C.X., & Zhang, J.J. (2008). Destination image and intent to visit China and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 4 2 7 ^ 5 0 .

Hargreaves, J. (2000). Freedom for Catalonia: Catalan nation- alism, Spanish identity and the Barcelona Olympic Games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hazan, B.A. (1982). Olympic sports and propaganda games. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Home, J., & Manzenreiter, W. (2006). An introduction to the sociology of sports mega-events. In J. Home & W. Man- zenreiter (Eds.), Sports mega-events: Social scientific analyses of a global phenomenon (pp. 1-24). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Hotchkiss, J.L., Moore, R.E., & Zobay, S.M. (2003). Impact of the 1996 summer Olympic Games on employment and wages in Georgia. Southern Economic Journal, 69, 691-704.

Humphreys, J.M., & Plummer, M.K. (1995). The economic impact on the state of Georgia of hosting the 1996 summer Olympic Games. Athens, GA: Selig Center for Economic Growth, University of Georgia.

Kang, Y.S., & Perdue, R. (1994). Long-term impact of a mega- event on intemational tourism to the host country: A con- ceptual model and the case of the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6(3/4), 205-226.

Kavetsos, G., & Szymanski, S. (2008). Olympic Games, ter- rorism and their impact on the London and Paris stock exchanges. Revue d'Economie Politique, 2, 189-206.

Kim, H.K., Gursoy, D., & Lee, S.B. (2006). The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South Korea: Comparisons of pre- and post-games. Tourism Management, 27, 86-96.

Kim, J.G., Rhee, S.W., & Yu, J.C. Koo, K. M., & Hong, J. C. (1989). Impact of the Seoul Olympic Games on national development. Seoul, Korea: Korea Development Institute.

Lee, C.K., Lee, Y.K., & Lee, B.K. (2005). Korea's destination image formed by the 2002 World Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 839-858.

Lee, C.K., & Taylor, T. (2005). Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: The case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management, 26, 595-603.

Lee, C.K., Var, T., & Blaine, T.W. (1996). Determinants of inbound tourist expenditures. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 527-542

Lenskyj, H.J. (2000). Inside the Olympic industry: Power, politics, and activism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Madden, J.R. (2002). The economic consequences of the Sydney Olympics—The CREA / Arthur Andersen Study. Current Issues in Tourism, 5, 7-21.

May, V. (1995). Environmental implications of the 1992 Winter Olympic Games. Tourism Management, 16, 269-275.

Mihalik, B.J., & Cummings, P. (1995). Host perceptions of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics: Support, attendance, benefits and liabilities. In Travel and Tourism Research Association 26''' Annual Proceedings (pp. 397-400). Wheat Ridge, CO: Travel and Tourism Research Association.

Mihalik, B.J., & Simonette, L. (1998). Resident perceptions of the 1996 summer Olympic Games—Year IL Festival Management and Event Tourism, 5, 9-19.

Nixon, H.L., 11, & Frey, J.H. (1996). A sociology of sport. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

O'Brien, D. (2006). Event business leveraging: The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 240-261.

Olympic Charter, (n.d.). Olympic charter. Retrieved from http:// www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf

O'Reilly, N., Lyberger, M., McCarthy, L., & Séguin, B. (2008). Mega-special-event promotions and intent to purchase: A longitudinal analysis of the Super Bowl. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 392-409.

Owen, J.G. (2005). Estimating the cost and benefit of hosting Olympic Games: What can Beijing expect from its 2008 Games? The Industrial Geographer, 5(1), 1-18.

Parent, M.M. (2008). Evolution and issue pattems for major- sport-event organizing committees and their stakeholders. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 135-164.

Porter, RK., & Fletcher, D. (2008). The economic impact of the Olympic Games: Ex ante predictions and ex post reality. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 470—486.

Preuss, H. (2000). Economics of the Olympic Games: Host- ing the Games 1972-2000. Petersham, Australia: Walla Walla Press.

Preuss, H. (2004). The economics of staging the Olympics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2004). European economic outlook (PwC European economic outlook Publication No. 17). London, UK: PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Pyo, S., Cook, R., & Howell, R.L. (1988). Summer Olympic tourist market-leaming from the past. Tourism Manage- ment, 9, 137-144.

Ritchie, J.R.B. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events: Conceptual and research issues. Journal of Travel Research, 23{l),2-l\.

Ritchie, J.R.B., & Aitken, C.E. (1985). Olympulse II—Evolving resident attitudes toward the 1988 Olympic Winter Games. Journal of Travel Research, 23(3), 28-34.

Roche, M. (1994). Mega-events and urban policy. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 1-19.

Roche, M. (2000). Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London, UK: Routledge.

Economic Benefits of Mega Events 23

Samitas, A., Kenourgios, D., & Zounis, P. (2008). Athens' Olympic Games 2004 impact on sponsors' stock returns. Applied Financiai Economics, 18, 1569-1580.

Toohey, K., & Taylor, T. (2008). Mega events, fear, and risk: Terrorism at the Olympic Games. Joumai of Sport Man- agement, 22, 451-469.

United Nations, (n.d.). National sustainable development policy. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_ni/ ni_pdfs/NationalReports/barbados/BarbadosSustain- ableDevelopmentPolicy-partl .pdf

Veraros, N., Kasimati, E., & Dawson, P (2004). The 2004 Olympic Games announcement and its effect on the Athens and Milan stock exchanges. Applied Economics Letters, 11, 749-753.

Williamson, O.E. (1991). Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management Journal, 72(1), 75-94.

Wilsoti, D., & Purushothaman, R. (2003). Dreaming with BRICs: The path to 2050. Retrieved from http://www2. goldmansachs.cotn/ideas/brics/book/99-dreaming.pdf

Appendix 1 Summer Games (in the sample) Appendix 2 Winter Games (in the sample)

Year

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Sources: pic.org

Games

XVIII

XIX

XXI

XXII

XXIII

XXIV

XXV

XXVI

XXVII

XXVIII

XXVIV

Games of Olympiad

Host City

Tokyo

Mexico City

Munich

Montréal

Moscow

Los Angeles

Seoul

Barcelona

Atlanta

Sydney

Athens

Beijing

the official website of the Olympic

Country

Japan

Mexico

Germany

Canada

Russia

United States

South Korea

Spain

United States

Australia

Greece

China

Movement: www.olym-

Year

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1988

1992

1994

1998

2002

2006

Sources: pic.org

Games

XII

XIII

XIV

XVI

XVII

XVIII

XVIV

xvv

Olympic Winter Games

Host City

Innsbruck

Grenoble

Sapporo

Innsbruck

Lake Placid

Sarajevo

Calgary

Albertville

Lillehammer

Nagano

Salt Lake City

Turin

Country

Austria

France

Japan

Austria

United States

Yugoslavia

Canada

France

Norway

Japan

United States

Italy

the official website of the Olympic Movement: www.olym-

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.