Keynesian Economics 101: If the economic growth is sluggish, government should spend a way out of it for future prosperity!
Does it really work? Or, does it really work in the context of mega-games? Bloomberg News released this article(May 23, 2014) regarding to the hosting cost of Brazilian World Cup. Together with the video above, we might want to take a second thoughts about Mega-games.
學經濟的多半都知道點凱因斯經濟學，基本的概念就是，如果經濟遭受衝擊而內部需求不足，政府最好多花點錢，讓經濟體回復成長。
這真的是好事嗎？如果套到世界盃的狀況來說，我們可以確定這是好事嗎？
Bloomberg的這篇文章 (May 24, 2014)，提到了巴西2014世界盃蓋了幾座世界數一數二貴的球場。透過巴西的例子，告訴我們：大賽並不是想像中的這麼光鮮亮麗。
Academic Studies: Mega Games are not as good as we thoughtLet's see what scholars have to say about this. They usually goes to a similar conclusion as: (You could try Google Scholar to find the same/other papers. You could also find the two reference papers at the end of this article.)
1. Hosting mega-games is good...for the organizer
2. Slight/none positive impact on the host countries/regions on the previous years before the games
3. Subsequent negative impact on the host countries/regions.不少學術文章也分析過了大型賽事對於當地經濟的影響。我把主要參考的文章放在文末。這些文章多半有相近的結論。
1. 大型賽事對於主辦組織相當有利
2. 賽前的準備期對於主辦國略有(但不明顯)的正面影響。
3. 賽後期間主辦國多半承受負面衝擊。The next question would be: Why would everybody believe the game is good for the host countries?
The reason is most likely due to the "ex ante" evaluation. These estimates are usually "upward-biased". As stated in one of the journal article, the "promoters" tend to drive up the potential benefits of the game. Why they do so? Back to above, the "organizers" enjoy the benefits of the game, they have the full incentive to do so.
如果真如學者們的研究，大型賽事的主辦對於主辦國並沒有太多的直接效益，那麼為什麼還有這麼多國家前仆後繼的想要主辦大型賽事呢？學者們的解釋是：不少事前的預估都過度美化了舉辦大型賽事的好處。也就是說，在賽前相互競爭的主辦國們都會提出他們舉辦比賽的預估值，包括財務預算，比賽帶來的效益，以及賽後場館給當地公眾帶來的好處。為了說服大眾這項"投資"是值得的，這些預估都採取較為樂觀的數字，但實際執行起來卻完全不是這麼一回事。至少，得到好處的只是少數人而已。
Public Spending: Short of supervision
Since the Eurozone crisis, lots of studies has came up with new reviews of Keynesian. Some blame the spending is the cause of problems, while the others argue the spending is still necessary to keep the "life line" for all these countries. The idea of austerity is crazy for these people.
"One problem frequently identified with economic impact studies is that they tend to be upwardly biased since, in general, the studies are commissioned before the event by promoters anxious to claim that investments—usually from the public purse—have been well spent" (Szymanski, 2002)In other words, the public is bombarded with all fabulous news in media about mega games. Yet, they did not know what the number is on the price tag after the game.
如果真如學者們的研究，大型賽事的主辦對於主辦國並沒有太多的直接效益，那麼為什麼還有這麼多國家前仆後繼的想要主辦大型賽事呢？學者們的解釋是：不少事前的預估都過度美化了舉辦大型賽事的好處。也就是說，在賽前相互競爭的主辦國們都會提出他們舉辦比賽的預估值，包括財務預算，比賽帶來的效益，以及賽後場館給當地公眾帶來的好處。為了說服大眾這項"投資"是值得的，這些預估都採取較為樂觀的數字，但實際執行起來卻完全不是這麼一回事。至少，得到好處的只是少數人而已。
Public Spending: Short of supervision
Since the Eurozone crisis, lots of studies has came up with new reviews of Keynesian. Some blame the spending is the cause of problems, while the others argue the spending is still necessary to keep the "life line" for all these countries. The idea of austerity is crazy for these people.
Yet, spending is not the problem, supervision is, as ECB president Mario Draghi keep asking the politicians to carry out "structure reforms"in these years.
Big Games spurs the public investment into the sport-related facility. In that sense, it falls into domain of "public spending." Apparently, we are not short of examples that spending are not well-supervised.
Hence, tax money is squandered, long-term pains loom on horizon.
從歐盟的債務危機開始，許多研究著重於底公共支出是否對於大眾有益爭論：有些人認為，債務必須要嚴肅控管，甚至大幅度縮減，避免未來公眾付出更多的代價；另外一群人認為，就算是出現債務危機，公共支出也不能驟然縮減，甚至還應該增加，來支持公眾的生活。
近年來討論的目標有所轉變：公共支出不再是議題的焦點，如何"監督"公共支出變成問題的核心。如同ECB 總裁持續強調的：結構性的改革很重要。
舉辦大賽會促進許多公共投資，當然就落在公共支出討論的一環。我們很容易就能夠找到監督不周的例子。在這樣的狀況下：稅金被浪費，公眾得承受長期苦果。
Public Spending and Big Games: Two European Cases
In Europe, we have two cases to look at: One in Spain (Public investment), the other in Greece(Big Game)
Public Spending and Big Games: Two European Cases
In Europe, we have two cases to look at: One in Spain (Public investment), the other in Greece(Big Game)
在歐洲，我們有兩個很好的歐洲例子：西班牙(公共建設浪費)，與希臘(大型賽事詛咒)
If we review the cases in Spain, we could see over-investment in public facilities. Reported by Fiona Goven of Daily Telegraph, the "White Elephant" phenomenons are everywhere (Oct. 05, 2011). Only 11 out of 48 Spanish regional airports are profitable, or say, self-sustainable. Most of them are just wasted. They are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and fails to draw visitors and traffics. Yet, local politicians would never to stop finding reasons to "support" the very existence of such public construction.
以西班牙來說，我曾經以英國衛報記者Fiona Govan的文章為基礎，撰寫過"白象機場"一文，揭露了西班牙對於公共建設，特別是地區機場的計劃有多麼誇張。西班牙在進入經濟衰退之前其實是歐盟區債務/GDP比的優等生，在進入經濟衰退時，當時的政府受迫於反對黨的壓力，開始採行不少公共建設計畫，結果？不僅造價昂貴，甚至有些機場還因為後續營運成本過高而必須關閉。
Some believed that 2004 Athen Olympics is the starts of Greece public finance deterioration. (Bloomberg, Aug. 3, 2012) When it comes to the mega-game, the similar situation occurs, if not worse. Spending could be justified in names of "national pride", "international standards", or "publicity promotions." However, such effects are seldom studied or realized afterwards. However, the money spent is real, the debt is real, and pain is surely to come.
如果以大型賽事來看，不少人認為希臘會進入經濟危機，主要是因為2004年主辦的雅典奧運。當時他們花了大概90億歐元，而其中有70億是需要希臘公眾需要買單。而因為短期賽事帶來的價格高漲(而且不易回到賽前水準)，不少觀光客在賽後轉向了克羅埃西亞或者是土耳其作為旅遊目的地，以致於希臘的觀光業並沒有持續性的成長。更別提很多場館根本是建完之後就沒有再次使用。
以西班牙來說，我曾經以英國衛報記者Fiona Govan的文章為基礎，撰寫過"白象機場"一文，揭露了西班牙對於公共建設，特別是地區機場的計劃有多麼誇張。西班牙在進入經濟衰退之前其實是歐盟區債務/GDP比的優等生，在進入經濟衰退時，當時的政府受迫於反對黨的壓力，開始採行不少公共建設計畫，結果？不僅造價昂貴，甚至有些機場還因為後續營運成本過高而必須關閉。
Some believed that 2004 Athen Olympics is the starts of Greece public finance deterioration. (Bloomberg, Aug. 3, 2012) When it comes to the mega-game, the similar situation occurs, if not worse. Spending could be justified in names of "national pride", "international standards", or "publicity promotions." However, such effects are seldom studied or realized afterwards. However, the money spent is real, the debt is real, and pain is surely to come.
如果以大型賽事來看，不少人認為希臘會進入經濟危機，主要是因為2004年主辦的雅典奧運。當時他們花了大概90億歐元，而其中有70億是需要希臘公眾需要買單。而因為短期賽事帶來的價格高漲(而且不易回到賽前水準)，不少觀光客在賽後轉向了克羅埃西亞或者是土耳其作為旅遊目的地，以致於希臘的觀光業並沒有持續性的成長。更別提很多場館根本是建完之後就沒有再次使用。
Shall we blame the Mega-game, or the public investment projects? Maybe not. Remember, we ask for more supervision, and supervision shall make this investment viable. However, many projects are carried out as for political reason, not for the public needs.
我們也可以認為問題並不是在於賽事本身，而是在於整個國家的整體結構性問題。以西班牙來說，各地之間的政黨傾軋跟對於公共支出的監督概念不足，造成不少機場淪為白象；以希臘來說，2001年前為了進入歐元區的財政緊縮，加入歐元區之後就大肆消費，間接造成了他們的無節制公共開支的"傳統"。
Why this girl boycotting World Cup? A punishment
"The 1994 World Cup........, it left event organizers with large profits. The economic success of the host cities, however, is far less clear."(Baade and Matheson, 2004)If the organizer(s) pockets the benefits, did they shoulder the responsibility to oversee the projects?
回到學術文章上，在這篇2004年的研究中，他們得出主辦單位拿到最多的好處的結論。那麼是否他們應該要肩負監督的責任，讓賽事能夠讓主辦國的國民也能夠同享經濟果實？
That is exactly why this Brazilian girl boycotting the game. If the game organizers do not take the local social benefits into consideration, they will face more boycotting of the game. Therefore, they might not have a successful economic benefits in organizing such events. In other words, boycotting the game is the only way to "force" the organizers to deal with these problems directly before the game starts. Or, at least, let organizer "suffer" from their neglects of local demands.
這就是為什麼這位巴西正妹認為，杯葛賽事，讓主辦組織感受到壓力，才會讓他們參與監督的一環。雖然這樣的想法有點過度單純，我個人也不認為拒絕參與賽事能會改變太多東西。至少透過這樣的想法，以及影片中呈現巴西目前面臨的問題，來提高公眾對於大型賽事帶來的成本的關注。比如：公共建設沒有考量到原始在地需求，在世界盃上的開支已經排擠到其他平民更迫切的公眾服務(如醫療)等。
When it comes to public spending, we do really have to take a second thoughts. It is paid from the money from our purse, yet we might not profit from such "investment." Supervision is a more acute issues, and that requires constant efforts of public engagement.
世界盃即將展開，而巴西人們對於政府如何計畫他們的公眾開支，進而進一步監督政府的行動，也正要開始。或許，良好的監督後，我們都還能參加，並且更認同世界盃。
Reference:
Baade and Matheson, 2004, "The Quest for the Cup: Assessing the Economic Impact of the World Cup", Regional Studies, 38.4, pp345-354
Szymanski, 2002, "The Economic Impact of the World Cup", World Economics,3-1
No comments:
Post a Comment