Neil Fraser
28 June 2002
Gave an illustrated talk at a northern suburbs Rotary Club dinner this week and used JHB ART CITY as the theme. As one of JHB ART CITY’s objectives is to showcase the city’s projects-in-progress, it gave me a chance to share visually where they all are at.
As always with those who have generally written off the inner city, there was a great deal of surprise and interest and far less scepticism than I am accustomed to experience from the north!
Although I wasn’t directly talking about the World Summit – now less than 60 days away, - and counting – I was asked the following question: "Why does it need something like the World Summit to get the Council to do what it should be normally doing?"
As I’ve thought about this question subsequently, what has interested me more is the perception behind the question. After all, how many cities in the world let alone in developing countries can host an event of such magnitude without having to do anything at all?
According to the Metro website, 70 000 people are expected (although I hear that bookings are currently far less than that figure) and the City is spending R65 million – R4.75 on roads; R4.5 on sewers; R220 000 on lighting; R4.2 on new buses – I hope someone has remembered to budget for teaching some of the bus company’s employees better manners, some of them must be the most objectionable group of public servants in the city! – R2 to upgrade traffic lights; R1.4 to paint road markings; R5 in upgrading Turbine Hall in Newtown; R2 upgrading parks; R2 on recycling; R1.4 on environmental issues and R6.25 in overtime for council and related agencies’ employees.
OK, I know that only accounts for half the R65 million but that’s all I can get from the web! But I think it is cheap at the price!
One of the reasons quoted by the City as to why the Summit will boost the city’s economy is: "The summit has provided a catalyst for much-needed upgrades to city infrastructure.
Most of these upgrade projects were already in the pipeline – but it required the urgency of the summit deadline to ensure that so many were executed swiftly."
I don’t think so! I don’t buy the fact that most of the projects were in the pipeline but what the heck, none of us locals have ever witnessed so much local authority energy and activity ever! Nor such visual evidence that the City actually does have employees who work in the public realm!
Everywhere one goes there are workers with pots of paint sprucing up pavement markings, cutting grass verges – (and destroying the city’s traditional ‘greening’, the weeds growing out and along pavements) – blacktopping roads; providing new signs; painting, scraping, mowing, cleaning, fixing, straightening!
I think that whatever the motivation, - it is just great! And at R65 million it is cheap! After all, the total investment in the current soccer World Cup was a staggering $2.5 billion by South Korea and $5 billion by Japan.
That translates to not far off R100 billion in our Monopoly money! The direct and indirect economic benefits are estimated at $8.8 billion for South Korea and $26billion for Japan, 2.2% and 0.6% of GDP respectively, hardly chickenfeed!
I tried to check out what Rio spent on the last bash 10 years ago and, more importantly, what the economic impact has been, but was unable to find any information. However, lots of info is available on the web in regard to the economic impact on cities of major sports events.
Prior to the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, the economic track record had not been impressive. The 1972 Olympics in Munich reflected a loss of 178 million pounds sterling; the 1976 Olympics in Montreal lost nearly four times that!
But LA 1984 made a surplus of 215 million pounds sterling whilst the Olympics in Barcelona in 1992 provided the impetus for an investment of over $8billion in infrastructure and housing!
In a paper by GMP Swann of Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, the author, referring to work by French and Disher (1997), says: "Planners identify four broad categories of benefits that can in principle result from such large scale events: (i) the new sports facilities and associated amenities built for the event; (ii) the short-term economic stimulus stemming from new construction and other investment in the advance of the event, and visitor spending during the event; (iii) the marketing opportunity to attract new business and promote tourism; (iv) urban redevelopment.
The first point doesn’t apply relative to the World Summit in so far as sports facilities are concerned, but what has been the experience of other cities in regard to the other points?
In regard to the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, French and Disher’s research suggests that the games were successful in achieving the first three of the four objectives.
It reflects that the biggest disappointment was that the Games did little to help Atlanta solve the social problems of its inner-city neighbourhoods. Initial expectation was that the Olympics would benefit low-income residents but this was evidently too optimistic.
Swann says: "As "devil’s advocate" we should ask what might have happened in the absence of the event? Or in economists language what was the "opportunity cost"? Economists have coined the term, "crowding out" to describe how expenditures on one project may (unwittingly, perhaps) undermine expenditure on another.
If those who invest in anticipation of the event had not done so, what investments might they have made instead? Could these other investments have left a more important legacy to the local economy?
A hard question to answer but an important one if one wants to take a hard-nosed look at the economic benefits of major sporting events.
French and Disher conclude that the 1996 Atlanta Games did little for urban redevelopment in poor areas, and muse on what might have been achieved if a million dollars had been devoted to the most pressing urban problems rather than to building and renovating sports facilities.
This wasn’t the case in Barcelona. Writing about the "Keys to Success of the Barcelona Games", Miquel Botella says: "Everyone agrees that the real success of the Barcelona Olympic Games – and the Paralympic Games – was the transformation which the city underwent, with development which normally takes decades taking place in only six years.
It was publicly stated right from the beginning of the candidature that the games were a pretext – or an opportunity, if you prefer – to transform and relaunch the city. And that is precisely what they have been."
Swann suggests that people may be looking in the wrong place for benefits. "The really important legacy may not be seen in the physical infrastructure, nor in the accumulation of competencies in local industry but in a lasting effect on the consumption and culture of the citizen"
So, whilst the benefits of these massive events are seen by some as the legacy they leave behind in the form of capital, that capital does not have to be only physical but it may also be cultural.
If you watched some of the games on TV in which South Korea participated, you may have been struck by the massive crowds in Seoul watching giant TV screens constantly collecting the detritus they themselves were generating.
Why? Because the South Korean Ministry of the Environment saw the event as an opportunity to realise a "Green World Cup" because "environmental conditions are widely used as a yardstick for measuring the quality of life."
Their leadership on this aspect resulted in civic groups drafting a four-point action plan for citizens. This was posted in subways and included recommendations to grow flowers and plant trees for public display - "these little actions not only satisfy the individuals who do them, but also uplift other people by making our society a better place to live in".
If South Korea can do this through a football event, what should we be doing for the World Summit? A good start would be to heed the Executive Mayor’s call for Saturday 3 August to be ‘Joburg clean-up day’ when Joburgers have been called on to spring-clean our neighbourhoods.
If it does nothing else, wouldn’t it be great if the Summit proved to be the catalyst to restore civic pride, local environmental awareness and improve our service attitude?
Miquel Botella completes his report on the Barcelona Games with this anecdote which he included because it "helped me realise the importance that the citizens had in the success of the event":
"During the Games, a high-level executive from one of the multinational sponsors went into a dry-cleaner’s at eight in the evening when they were closing with a stained suit that he needed first thing the next day.
"The owner, who did not speak English, upon seeing that he had something to do with the Games by the accreditation he was wearing, made it understood to him that, despite the fact that his staff were closing up, he personally would see to the job.
"And the next day at eight o’clock in the morning he handed over the clean suit. This sponsor enthusiastically told me the anecdote of the dry cleaner with precision a few months after the Games, when his memory of the ceremonies, the medals and the records was already visibly fading."
