Though not a true believer myself, I can think of a number of positive impacts from the 2010 Olympics. There was, without question, a community spirit seldom if ever seen in Vancouver. There was a renewed commitment to excellence in sport.
However, one thing I couldn’t imagine anyone suggesting is that it was a “rousing financial success”. But that was before I read Jeff Lee’s enthusiastic commentary based on PriceWaterhouse’s most recent report on the economic impacts of the Olympics.
Lee was obviously impressed by PW’s estimate that over the 2003-2010 period, the Games generated $2.5 billion in GDP and 45,000 jobs. The trouble is, those impacts that so impressed Lee are for the most part the result of government spending, and in many respects excessive and wasteful spending at that.
PW points out that the largest source of construction-related economic impact in the 2009-2010 period was due to the City of Vancouver assuming the responsibilities and costs of completing the Olympic Village project. No doubt lots of people worked on that project, and had the cost overrun and City financial loss been greater, so too would have been the economic impact. But one could hardly call that a ‘rousing financial success’.
Another major source of impact was the 2010 security-related spending, in itself almost equal to all of the tourism impacts over the entire 2003-2010 period. Of course spending nearly $1 billion on security will generate jobs. Keynes understood that when he famously commented that digging a hole in the ground, burying a bottle and digging it up again will generate jobs too. It’s just that Keynes would never have called those impacts a success. He recognized that better things could have been done.
The point is, as PW itself states in its report, estimates of economic impact say absolutely nothing about the economic benefits and costs of the Olympics (or anything else). They certainly don’t address whether or not the Olympics could be considered a financial success. That requires careful consideration of how much was spent, what was produced, and what else could have been done.
Generating impacts, especially with multi-million dollar government spending, is easy. Generating value is something else.
One Person’s Progress Is Another Person’s Moral Failure « A Yappy Trade Barrier // Dec 30, 2010 at 8:35 am
[...] Olympics were a success, as Marvin Schaffer points out on Policy Notes, a B.C. oriented blog (See “Olympics – ‘Rousing Financial Success’?”) Schaffer [...]
Dianne // Jan 9, 2011 at 9:45 am
If we want better government policy we need a better system for developing it. The policy development culture in BC is broken. In my experience as a policy analyst, which goes back to 1983, your comments on how politicians view the public’s willingness to hear and deal with the truth is a projection of their own unwillingness. I have seen how the policy development culture in BC often caters to and contributes to this.
In my opinion the public service, which is supported by tax dollars, not political contributions, is meant to serve the best interests of the people of BC. However, I have heard it strongly argued that the policy department is there to serve the Minister and as employees of the Minister policy analysts are obliged to obey his orders.
If the Ministers could separate their political role from their public service role this might work. But in my view, it doesn’t.
What I have seen happen is that the communication branchs of Ministries become as important or more important that the actual research and analyis branchs. They in effect become campaign teams for the Minister. Meanwhile the research and policy branchs are given the mandate to search for information and put together arguments that support the Ministers communication strategy rather than actually investigating the facts and issues in an objective and unbiased manner and developing solid policy to address the problems and serve the people of BC. Generally, policy analysts are asked to act like lawyers arguing the Ministers position rather researching the facts and providing advice on what the best policy options are.
In my case as a policy analyst, I was actually told what facts to use, what to write, what conclusions to draw and then to sign it. I was told that as an employee of the Minister I was to do as I was told. I refused, a great debate ensued, it was decided that policy analysts didn’t actually have to sign the briefing notes but the rest of the orders stood. I lost my job.
In my opinion this is misappropriation of taxpayers money. The Ministry is not doing the job that it is mandated by legislation to do. All the Ministers power and resources are in his or her hands only to serve the people of BC, not to serve his own political career or the party he or she belongs to.
I have heard it said that in corrupt underdeveloped countries the janitors change when the Government changes. BC is not quite that bad. But generally any policy analyst who does not fall in line with a change is government will find themselves side lined or reorged out fairly quickly.
The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to prevent this sort of thing. However there are too many ways to make this culture and this approach invisible. I was told not to take notes on instructions given to me or on policy discussions. I was also told to destroy information that did not support the image of the Minister or the policy options the Minister wanted to promote. More commonly such information is just not filed. We need whistle blower legislation in BC.