Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chutings Presentation
Chutings Presentation
Introduction
The Olympic Games is an international multisport event comprised of summer and
winter games. Each season’s games are hosted every four years, two years apart. By
2010, the Olympic Games will have been hosted by 41 cities in 22 countries. Since
the 2008 Summer Olympic Games will be hold in Beijing, which I am very interested
in, and the 2010 Winter Olympic Games will be held in Vancouver which most
Canadians are interested in, I have selected a topic relating to the hosting
country and the Olympic Games.
In recent years, there have been more and more competitions among cities, regions
and countries to host Olympic Games.
Number of Cities Bidding for Olympic Games
12 10 # of Cities 8 6 4 2 0 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012
Olympic Year
While the attractions of hosting the games are many, I think the biggest reason
many countries bid for the Olympic Games is the economic advantages.
? What economic advantages can make many countries want to host the Games? ? How
does hosting the Olympic Games affect the state’s economy? To find the answers, we
can predict the benefits that
Hypotheses: Hosting the Olympic Games promotes the state’s economic development.
Research Methodology
In order to get an accurate outcome, I will take two steps to do the research. Step
1. Overall Research - How does hosting the Olympics affect different countries’
economy? - Whether hosting the Games always give a positive effect to the state’s
economy? Step 2. Specific Research - How does the event affect different aspects of
a particular country’s economy?
I took
and
as samples since they were held not too long ago, and the size of the hosting
countries are similar to the size of Canada and China.
Review of Material
Financial Balance of Olympic Games Organising Committees (millions of dollars)
Olympics 1972 Munich 1976 Montreal 1984 Los Angeles 1988 Seoul 1992 Barcelona
Operational Costs 546 399 467 512 1611 Revenues 1090 936 1123 1319 1850 Balance 544
537 656 807 239
1996 Atlanta
2000 Sydney
1202
1700
1686
1900
484
239
The 1988 Seoul OGOC has the highest financial balance of 807 million dollars,
Barcelona and Sydney both get a balance of 239 million dollars which is the lowest
balance in the 7 countries. The empirical probability of getting a negative balance
is zero.
The mean balance of the 7 countries is:
X
x
Impact as % of GDP
ImpactAsPercentage...
Data 3 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Dot Plot
1992 Barcelona
Olympics
2000 Sydney
1996 Atlanta
1988 Seoul
x
n 0.47+1.40+0.03+2.41+2.78 = 5 =1.42(%)
The effect on employment has a huge difference in some countries compare with the
others. The Olympics brings Korea and Spain much more new jobs than the other
countries. The mean number of new jobs is:
X
x
n 90,000+77,026+296,640+336,000+73,375 = 5 =174,608
2000 Sydney Summer Olympics Note: Pre-Event is the phase 1994-1999; Event year is
2000; Post-Event is the phase 2001-2005
Effect of Tourism (millions of dollars) Phase Pre-Event (average year) Event year
Post-Event (average year) Indirect Tourists 281.6 513.9 413.4 Olympic visitors 2
146.9 0
Data 4 Dot Plot
In the event year, the tourist expenditure is much higher than the annual average
in the per-event phase. Although after the event, the expenditure is going down, it
still has a high amount. The Olympics do not only contribute profit to the tourism
in the event year, but also during the years before and after the Games.
IndirectTourises
Eveent Year
Pre-Event
Phase
Post-Event
Effect of Australia’s GDP and Employment
Phase Pre-Event (average year) Event year Post-Event (average year) GDP(% change)
0.168 0.307 0.009 Employment(% change) 0.187 0.484 0.005
GDP vs.Government Deficit 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Dot Plot
Phase
The Games make Australia’s GDP increases 0.168% every year during the pre-event
phase. In the event year, the Games make the GDP increase 0.307% which is almost
twice of the amount in pre-event phase. But after the event, the Olympic effect on
GDP is only 0.009%. From this we see that hosting the Olympic Games can increase
the state’s GDP, especially during the event year.
GDP
Event Year
Pre-Even
Post-Even
Effect of Australia’s GDP and Employment
Phase Pre-Event (average year) Event year Post-Event (average year) GDP(% change)
0.168 0.307 0.009 Employment(% change) 0.187 0.484 0.005
In order to find out the Olympic effect on the employment, I did a twovariable
analysis between effects of employment and GDP. If there is a positive linear
correlation between them, we can say that the Olympic effect on employment is
similar to the Olympic effect on GDP.
GDP vs. Employment 0.50 Scatter Plot
Employment
ExportVolume
ImportVolume
0.00 0.10
0.00
0.10
Therefore, hosting Olympics also effects state’s export/import volume in the same
way.
GDP vs.Government Deficit -0.05 Scatter Plot
0.00
0.10
However, a strong negative linear correlation exits between the government deficit
and GDP. That means hosting Olympics decreased Australian government deficit. The
effects increase before the Games and decrease after the Games.
GovernmentDeficit
2002 Salt Lake Winter Games
Salt Lake Olympic Related Employment (by Year)
Olympic Related Employment
14000 12000
Employment
10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year
The highest amount happened in 2001, the year before holding the game.
StateTotalEmploym...
Olympic-Related Employment vs. State Total 1450000 1400000 1350000 1300000 1250000
1200000 1150000 0 2000
Scatter Plot
StateTotalEmploym...
Scatter Plot
That means as the amount of Olympic-related jobs increases, the state total jobs
increases. The Olympics does have a positive effect on the employment.
The hosting country’s industry also gets benefit from the 2002 Games.
Industry Output 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 1996
1998
Earning
2000 Year 2002 2004
Output
400000 300000 200000 100000 0 1996 1998 2000 Year 2002 2004
As the graphs show, during the 6 years before the Olympics, the output and earnings
caused by the Games in U.S. is increasing every year. But after the games, both of
the amounts drop.
Estimated State and Local Government Fiscal Impacts (Thousands of Dollars)
Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Revenue 709 9249 19878 60820
103759 147323 106167 2222 Total Expenditure 466 7825 16726 54839 96828 135778 59982
1744 Net Revenue 243 1424 3152 5980 6930 11546 46185 479
The Games also contribute a high profit to the state and local government,
especially during event year. The mean government net revenue in the 8 years before
and after the Games is:
x X
Here shows the regression between the Olympics net revenue and the year. The
coefficient of determination is 0.4267. However, we can treat the 2003 amount as an
outlier since after the games, the net revenue drops.
50000 40000
Net Revenue
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Net Revenue
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
The coefficient of determination without outlier is 0.958. From this graph, we can
also see a big net revenue increasing happened between 2001 and 2002.
……………….END………...........