CORRUPTION

Interview with Professor Emerita Helen Jefferson Lenskyj
International Affairs Forum
countries. From a historical perspective, what
is the economic impact to the host country?
Who stands to gain the most and least in host
countries?
Lack of transparency and accountability,
in relation to building Olympic facilities and
infrastructure is a systemic problem in host cities
and countries…
Budgets for the construction of Olympic
facilities and related infrastructure are routinely
underestimated. Details of the proportion of
public money directed towards these projects—in
the case of Sydney 2000, totaled about 50% of
the total costs. These figures are rarely disclosed
in full, until after the event. A government audit
conducted during construction of the Sydney
facilities found that so-called “indirect benefits”
were listed, while “indirect costs” were not.
Politicians and bid committees exploit the idea
of “legacies”, often implying that these are free
benefits to local communities, when in fact,
residents have made significant contributions to
their costs through local, state, and/or federal
taxes. Government spending priorities are often
shaped by the demands of Olympic projects and
hosting the event, and security budgets are a
particularly costly item.
Increased tourism is consistently touted as an
economic benefit to the host country, although
research has shown that this boost is often
short-term, especially when a host city is already
a global tourist destination, such as London.
Within the hospitality industry, benefits accrue to
hotel and resort owners, while new, low-paying
service jobs are likely to be taken up by those
with few other employment options, for example,
racialized and ethnic-minority women.
Olympic construction generates jobs for
tradespeople, mostly men, in the sevenyear
lead-up to
the games, but
“job shuffling”,
rather than new
employment
opportunities
for previously
unemployed people,
often occurs. Human
rights organizations
have documented
the exploitation and abuse migrant laborers
employed on Olympic projects experience, most
recently in Russia.
Games in Rio were fraught with concerns
including an unstable political and economic
environment, Zika virus, and security. Among
these issues, was water pollution at certain
water event sites. According to reports, the
Brazilian government promised to install
eight treatment plants on Rio’s polluted
rivers, but just built one. They also promised
to treat eighty percent of the sewage flowing
into Guanabara Bay, but were only treating
about half. Meanwhile, four weeks before the
start of the games, the head inspector for
the IOC said she was confident the Rio de
Janeiro Olympics are “ready to welcome the
world.” What is your response?
Lack of transparency and accountability, in
relation to building Olympic facilities and
infrastructure is a systemic problem in host cities
and countries, and is by no means limited to
Rio. Similarly, construction that is over-budget
is commonplace. The “ticking clock” requires
extra expenditure to ensure that facilities are
62