The London 2012 Olympics; The Pros and Cons
The eagerly anticipated London 2012 Olympic opening ceremony
is only a matter of months away and as the final preparations are made, now
seems like a good a time as any to look at the potential impacts of the
Olympics on London and the UK economy.
It has to be said that only time will tell what the true
impacts of the Games will be, but looking at the success of previous Olympic events, the
question of whether this event is economically beneficial or disruptive needs
to be asked.
So, as oppose to analysing the basic economic cons of the
Olympics, let’s lay down some alternative reasons why the Olympic Games due to
take place this year may be harmful to the UK economy as well as the
environment and society…
- In first place comes the sheer financial cost of the Olympics, coming in way over initial budget forecasts. In fact, the initial estimate, back in 2002, was a hilarious figure of £2 billion ($4 billion) but by March 2008 this had already exceeded $18 billion. This year, a figure of £24 billion as the Olympic funding total was approximated, making the event a highly expensive one for private investors, the government and British taxpayers. The long term impacts of the Games on the budget deficit is likely to be harmful for the economy, when the government attempts to reduce its massive debts. Public spending cuts and higher taxes could follow.
- At number two on the countdown of cons of the Olympics, there is the questionable success of the regeneration project in the Lower Lea Valley. This is an area in London where the number of gangs is very high, with vandalism, burglary and general anti-social behaviour above the average rate for the UK. Does the government believe that by investing in very expensive and sophisticated sports facilities and the Olympic Park, they will transform the attitudes of young people in this area and minimise their need to destroy perfectly good buildings with a spray can? (I'm only referring to a select, stereotypical few.) Looking at previous Olympic stadiums and parks, it is evident that few have been kept in the same pristine condition that they were in during the event; in Athens, the venues for the 2004 Olympics lay run down and unused, despite hopes that they too would regenerate and rebrand the surrounding areas. In Barcelona, the 1992 Olympic zone is left ‘tatty’.
- Next comes the London 2012 logo and mascots. They really are pretty awful; it was said that the logo could even trigger forms of epilepsy…
- Pollution from air traffic and congestion is an unquestionable consequence for the environment. With hundreds of thousands of tourists coming to the UK, airports, motorways and tubes will be jam-packed with aimlessly wondering sightseers.
- While there are many other cons of the Olympics the final point is the trade off the government faces between going all out on this event and spending more on education and infrastructure or dealing more efficiently with the ever increasing budget deficit.
Having said that, without doubt, the Games will have many economic
advantages, which I may explore in another post to come (after all, my aim isn’t
to be a complete pessimist).
