Reviving the Flame

Economy & Infrastructure
Table 1 Arguments For and Against the Games
+ -
o New or improved sport/recreational o White Elephant = unused/underused
infrastructure, boost unfinished projects facilities (become financial burden)
o Urban regeneration/makeover
o Temporary (could reduce long-term costs)
o New inward/city investments
vs. Permanent infrastructure (could become
o Development/use of high technology
a white elephant)
o Increased tourism; decreased seasonality o Anti-democratic elements: fast-tracked
o More employment & sales, business
projects, initiatives; ignored procedures
opportunities
o Cost overrun, debts: additional costs after
o Programmes & Policies development (new the Games, opportunity costs, risks of
and enhanced workforce skills)
collusion on projects
Image & Marketing
Social
Environment
o Showcase & enhance destination’s image
(unity, coherence)
o Programmes & Policies development: sport
promotion among population & youth
o Rediscovering, strengthening culture &
heritage; Cultural understanding between
locals & tourists
o Psychic income: community spirit,
national/regional pride, feel good factor,
emotional attachment, renewed civic moral
o Programmes & Policies development:
Volunteer training, enhanced workforce
skills, education, caring for disabled
o Rediscovering, strengthening cultural &
regional culture & heritage; Cultural
understanding between locals & tourists
o More employment, business opportunities
o New, more recreational activities (culture,
sport, shopping)
o Environmental awareness, consciousness
o Programmes & Policies development
o High technologies toward sustainability
o Reinforce negative perception the
organisation was trying to reverse; branding
benefits are likely to be small; increased
scandals
o Empowered activists thanks to international
media attention
o Local & marginalised people may feel
excluded from the event benefits: housing
issues; relocation/displacement; eviction
from land; disruption, incursion of lives;
sanitisation of cities from beggars
o Disproportionate share of the financial,
social burden
o Strenuous use of local resources: funds may
be diverted from primary use; escalating
costs fall on taxpayer money
o Fail to adhere to international standards:
human, labour and gender equality rights;
anti-democratic processes
o Overcrowding
o Strenuous use of local resources =
environmental footprint
o Affect local, regional, national and/or global
environment
Source: Author’s table from various sources (Agha & al., 2012; Cashman, 2003; Chalip, 2014; Leopkey & Parent, 2012; Smith & Fox, 2007)
Literature Review 7