10-05-081government decentralization and athletic incentives government decentralization and...
TRANSCRIPT
10-05-08 1Government decentralization and athletic incentives
Government decentralization and athletic incentives: the case of former
communist countries
Caroline ButsBruno Heyndels
IASE 10th Annual Conference
(May 9-10, 2008)
10-05-08 2Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Theory on the determinants of sports success
10-05-08 3Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Sports success differs among countries
Depends on:
Economic, demographic, political, climatic,… conditions (Ball, 1972, Bernard and Busse 2004, Levine 1973, Lui and Suen 2007 and Moosa and Smith, 2004)
Most important: GDP and population
Present paper: Does government (de) centralization have an impact?
Case study: former communist countries
10-05-08 4Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Decentralization and sports success
Decentralization creates incentives for:
-Private actors identification
-Public actors prestige, reelection
Reason: decentralization results in competition
10-05-08 6Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Theory on government competition
Mobility-based government competition :
Providing public goods Tiebout (1956)
Tax competition Wilson (1986)
Cultural competition Elias (1991), Frey (1999)Baumol and Baumol (1994)
Non-mobility based government competition :
Yardstick competition Neighbouring policy as reference
10-05-08 7Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Cultural competition
- Habsburg Empire 17th and 18th centuries high number of famous composers (Elias, 1991, p.24)
- Renaissance London high number of professional playwrights (Baumol and Baumol, 1994, p.182)
- Federal or decentralized structure fosters artistic creativity (Frey, 1999, p.71)
Competition among governments could have a similar effect on sports performances
10-05-08 8Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Government competition and sports performances
Decentralization of a state may cause competition among governments, each one wanting to have the best athletes
These investments will positively affect athletic performance
Athletics performances of former-communist countries Decentralization as brake up or unification of a nation
This competition will increase investment in top level sports
10-05-08 10Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Data
- Athletics top 100 year lists (ATFS) calculation of market shares
- Advantage over Olympic medals: no bias due to quota’s
- 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2006
- Only Olympic disciplines
- 32 000 observations
10-05-08 11Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Countries
Three groups :
- Decentralization: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union
- Centralization: Germany
- No such changes: Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania
10-05-08 12Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Hypothesis
Decentralized former communist countries have better athleticsperformances than countries without such a change
Centralized former communist countries perform less than countries without such a change
Keeping in mind:
- Downward trend due to brake up of communism- Other determinants of sports success
10-05-08 13Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Evolution market shares: all Eastern European and Soviet countries
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Evo
luti
on
of
mar
ket
shar
e
(Gärtner, 1989, Shughart and Tollison, 1993 )
10-05-08 14Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Evolution of market shares of country group: no change 1980=100
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Evolu
tion
of
ma
rket
share
s
No change
10-05-08 15Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Evolution of market shares of country group: decentralization 1980=100
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Evolu
tion o
f m
ark
et
share
s
No change
Decentralization
10-05-08 16Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Evolution of market shares of country groups 1980=100
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Evolu
tion o
f m
ark
et
share
s
Decentralization
Centralization
No I nstitutionalchange
10-05-08 17Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Evolution of market shares of country groups 1988=100
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Evolu
tion o
f m
ark
et
share
s
Decentralization
Centralization
No institutionalchange
10-05-08 18Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Conclusion
Graphs seem to confirm the hypothesis!
To do:
- control for other variables regression analysis: panel - all countries general conclusion federal vs.
central
10-05-08 20Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Annex : Former Soviet Union
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Year
% i
n a
thle
tics
top 1
00
10-05-08 21Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Former Czechoslovakia and former Yugoslavia
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Year
Evolu
tion o
f m
ark
et
share
s
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
10-05-08 22Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
Germany
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Year
% i
n a
thle
tics
top 1
00
Germany
East Germany
West Germany
10-05-08 23Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
No (de)centralization
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2006
Year
% i
n a
thle
tics
to
p h
un
dre
d
Albania
Bulgaria
Hungary
Poland
Romania
10-05-08 25Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
References
• ATFS, 1997, Athletics 1997 The International Track and Field Annual, Cheltenham, Sportsbooks.
• ATFS, 1993, Athletics 1993 The International Track and Field Annual, London, Harmsworth Active.
• ATFS, 1989, Athletics 1989, The International Track and Field Annual, Cheltenham, Sportbooks.
• ATFS, 1985, Athletics 1985, The International Track and Field Annual, Cheltenham, Sportbooks.
• ATFS, 1981, Athletics 1981, The International Track and Field Annual, Cheltenham, Sportbooks.
• Allison L., 1986, The Politics of sport. Manchester, Manchester University Press. • Andreff W. and Szymanski S., 2006, Handbook on the economics of sport. Northampton,
Edward Elgar Publishing. • Ball D.W., 1972, Olympic Games competition: Structural Correlates of national success.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, vol. 13, p. 186-200. • Baumol H. and Baumol W.J., 1994, On the economics of musical composition in Mozart’s
Vienna. Journal of cultural economics, vol. 18, p. 171-198.
10-05-08 26Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
References
• Bernard A.B. and Busse M.R., 2004, Who wins the Olympic Games: Economic Resources and medal totals. Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 86, p. 413-417.
• Chew Ging L., Hoffman R. and Ramasamy B., 2002, Public Policy and Olympic success. Applied Economics Letters, vol. 9, p. 545-548.
• Dunning E., Maguire J. and Pearton R., 1993, The Sports Process. Windsor, Human Kinetics Publishers.
• Du Bois C. and Heyndels B., 2007, The more the better: Internationalization, competitiveness and performance in Athletics (1984-2006).
• Elias N., 1991, Mozart: De sociologie van een genie. Amsterdam, Van Gennep. • Frey B., 1999, State Support and Creativity in the Arts: Some New Considerations. Journal
of Cultural Economics, vol. 23, p. 71-85. • Gärtner M., 1989, Socialist Countries’ Sporting Success before Perestroika-and after?
International review for the sociology of sport, vol. 24, p. 283-297. • Houlihan B., 2005, Public sector sport policy. International Review for the Sociology of
Sport, vol. 40, p. 163-185. • IAAF, International Association of Athletics Federation, Top Lists, Online: <http://
www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/index.html> (Last consulted on December 10. 2007)• Kenyon D.A. and Kincaid J. (eds.), 1991, Competition among States and Local
Governments. Efficiency and Equity in American Federalism. Washington, The Urban Institute Press.
10-05-08 27Government decentralization and athletic incentives Pag.
References
• Levine N., 1973, Why do countries win Olympic medals? Some structural correlates of Olympic Games success:1972. Sociology and social Research, vol. 29-3, p. 353-360.
• Lui H.K. and Suen W, 2007, Men, money and Olympic medals. Working paper. • Moosa I.A. and Smith L., 2004, Economic development indicators as determinants of medal
winning at the Sydney Olympics: an extreme bounds analysis. Australian Economic Papers, vol. 43-3, p.288-301.
• Pershin V. and Tcha M., 2003, Reconsidering performance at the Summer Olympics and revealed comparative advantage. Journal of Sports Economics, vol. 4, p. 216-239.
• Poupaux S., Soviet and post-soviet sport, in Andreff W.and Szymanski, S. (eds.), 2006. • Riordan Ji., Elite sport policy in East and West, in Allison L. (ed.), 1986. • Riordan Ja., Sport in capitalist and socialist countries: a western perspective, in Dunning E.,
Maguire J. and Pearton R. (eds.), 1993. • Scherer F.M., 2004, Quarter notes and banknotes. The Economics of music composition in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. New Jersey, Princeton University Press. • Shneidman N., 1979, The Soviet Road to Olympus. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. • Shughart W. and Tollison R., 1993, Going for the Gold: Property Rights and Athletic Effort in
Transitional Economies. Kyklos, vol. 46 (2), p. 263-272. • Tcha M., 2004, The color of medals. An economic analysis of the Eastern and Western
Blocs’ performance in the Olympics. Journal of sports economics, vol. 5, p.311-328. • Wilson J.D., 1986, A theory of interregional tax competition, Journal of Urban Economics
19, 296-315.