IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1607.04484.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games

Author

Listed:
  • Bent Flyvbjerg
  • Allison Stewart
  • Alexander Budzier

Abstract

Given that Olympic Games held over the past decade each have cost USD 8.9 billion on average, the size and financial risks of the Games warrant study. The objectives of the Oxford Olympics study are to (1) establish the actual outturn costs of previous Olympic Games in a manner where cost can consistently be compared across Games; (2) establish cost overruns for previous Games, i.e., the degree to which final outturn costs reflect projected budgets at the bid stage, again in a way that allows comparison across Games; (3) test whether the Olympic Games Knowledge Management Program has reduced cost risk for the Games, and, finally, (4) benchmark cost and cost overrun for the Rio 2016 Olympics against previous Games. The main contribution of the Oxford study is to establish a phenomenology of cost and cost overrun at the Olympics, which allows consistent and systematic comparison across Games. This has not been done before. The study concludes that for a city and nation to decide to stage the Olympic Games is to decide to take on one of the most costly and financially most risky type of megaproject that exists, something that many cities and nations have learned to their peril.

Suggested Citation

  • Bent Flyvbjerg & Allison Stewart & Alexander Budzier, 2016. "The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games," Papers 1607.04484, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1607.04484
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04484
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert A. Baade & Victor A. Matheson, 2016. "Going for the Gold: The Economics of the Olympics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 201-218, Spring.
    2. Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2016. "The Fallacy of Beneficial Ignorance: A Test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 176-189.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Schnitzer & Lukas Haizinger, 2019. "Does the Olympic Agenda 2020 Have the Power to Create a New Olympic Heritage? An Analysis for the 2026 Winter Olympic Games Bid," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Eva Kassens-Noor & John Lauermann, 2017. "How to Bid Better for the Olympics: A Participatory Mega-Event Planning Strategy for Local Legacies," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(4), pages 335-345, October.
    3. Kassens-Noor, Eva, 2019. "Transportation planning and policy in the pursuit of mega-events: Boston's 2024 Olympic bid," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 239-245.
    4. Storm, Rasmus K. & Thomsen, Frederik & Jakobsen, Tor Georg, 2017. "Do they make a difference? Professional team sports clubs’ effects on migration and local growth: Evidence from Denmark," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 285-295.
    5. Flyvbjerg, Bent & Ansar, Atif & Budzier, Alexander & Buhl, Søren & Cantarelli, Chantal & Garbuio, Massimo & Glenting, Carsten & Holm, Mette Skamris & Lovallo, Dan & Lunn, Daniel & Molin, Eric & Rønnes, 2018. "Five things you should know about cost overrun," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 174-190.
    6. Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo & Maria Rita Pierleoni, 2018. "Assessing The Olympic Games: The Economic Impact And Beyond," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 649-682, July.
    7. Matthias Firgo, 2019. "The Causal Economic Effects of Olympic Games on Host Regions," WIFO Working Papers 591, WIFO.
    8. Deneckere, Raymond & de Palma, André & Leruth, Luc, 2019. "Risk sharing in procurement," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 173-220.
    9. Olmos, Lorena & Bellido, Héctor & Román-Aso, Juan A., 2020. "The effects of mega-events on perceived corruption," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1607.04484. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (arXiv administrators). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.