Since I’m following the Eurocup (with all these
astonishing stadiums), writing on the economics of big sports events and also
reading “The Darwin Economy” by Robert H. Frank, which I have to review for a
journal, I have been associating the three things in my mind. In the years
devoted to pursue the dream of organizing a big sport event, public
intervention is radically biased to costly actions related to the event, which
are subject to escalation of commitments and behavior similar to an arms’ race.
This is to the detriment of other public investments, such as in human capital
(health and education) or social expenditure, which are less visible but far
more important. Only large net economic benefits from hosting these events
would justify the bias, and these benefits just do not show up in the empirical
evidence. Financial Times journalist Simon
Kuper has repeatedly pointed out that big sports events should honestly be sold
as big parties and not as investments. But this would not solve the problem, because
as Frank shows in his book, parties are subject to consumption cascades. Nobody
wants to be left behind and this goes also to the detriment of other more
important expenditures where there are not positional externalities or these
are less prevalent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment