Review of Related Research

McNeil

4/7/13

Kasimati, Evangelia. "Economic Aspects and the Summer Olympics: A Review of Related Research." International Journal of Tourism Research 5.6 (2003): 433-44. Print. Olympic Games have been going on for over 100 years and they began in Athens. This source goes into detail to talk about all of the benefits and effects hosting the Olympics in Atlanta, which is a major part of the South. The Olympics brings a large amount of new money which is expected to flow into the host economy and recirculate within it. Also, the direct effects are the first economic effect of the new money spent by outside visitors. “New money is injected into the host economy in industries such as accommodation, food, transportation, etc.” (434). This money that had begun to be circulated in Atlanta started to get the ball rolling for the economy. “The three most commonly reported multipliers are those of sales, income and employment” (435). These three had made the most impact on the economy of Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics. Jobs around the city were springing up and more people had those opportunities to work them and make money. Tourists from all different countries gathered around and stayed in the South so that they could watch and support athletes coming from their birthplace. Many of these tourists decided to stay over in the South and want to begin to start a new life here for themselves and their families. On the other hand, not always were the changes due to the Summer Olympics a positive thing. “The holiday-makers, business travelers, and even local residents were being diverted elsewhere to escape expected disturbances and congestion problems” (440). Negative effects to this extent left the South at danger of losing many of its residents due to the Olympics. There are several models in this article that show the effects, positive and negative, that the Summer Olympics brought to the South in 1996. The author’s biases show that he is more towards the positive effects rather than dwelling on the negative ones that still grow in the South.

Friedman, Michael S. "Impact of Changes in Transportation and Commuting Behaviors During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma." JAMA 7th ser. 285 (2001): Web. The journal article “describes traffic changes in Atlanta, Georgia, during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and concomitant changes in air quality and childhood asthma events”. During the 1996 Olympics, changes were being made to try and change air quality for everybody in the city. “Preparations for the Olympic Games required a strategy for minimizing road traffic congestion and ensuring that spectators could reach Olympic events in a reasonable amount of time” (Friedman). These effects are still in place today and help the congestions of traffic in the city of Atlanta to be a whole lot better than they would be without them. Cutting down the excess vehicle and carbon exhaust was also a main focus of departments set to handle this problem. “Atlanta’s strategy included the development and use of an integrated 24-hour-a-day public transportation system, the addition of 1000 buses for park-and-ride services, local business use of alternative work hours and telecommuting, closure of the downtown sector to private automobile travel, altered downtown delivery schedules, and public warnings of potential traffic and air quality problems” (33). This was a major project that turned out to be a success according to the numbers and data that was collected by official people. The author’s biases lead me to think that he was definitely for this project to allow limiting the amount of harm to the ozone due to excess traffic. Lots of evidence and data are shown throughout his article with pictures and charts. Being scholarly too, it is very reliable.

Hotchkiss, Julie L. "Impact of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games on Employment and Wages in Georgia." Southern Economic Journal 69.3 (2002): 691-704. Web. “Hosting the 1996 Summer Olympic Games boosted employment by 17 percent in the counties of Georgia affiliated with and close to Olympic activity, relative to employment increases in other counties in Georgia” (691). Big changes in the south were being made at the time and economically it was being boosted very high. “The evidence of an Olympic impact on wages is weak” (691). Although the employment rate was raised significantly, the wage amount was not touched very much.” In spite of the approximate $2.5 billion price tag, the benefits from hosting the Olympics games were expected to out-weigh the costs” (692). The author is already showing to be biased towards the thoughts that it was the Olympic Games that shot employment through the roof. She starts to throw out big dollar amounts and makes readers seem to freak out about how much money one single event to bring to any certain host. “While actual dollar inflows during the Olympics are relatively easy to identify, the "legacy" of the Olympics, in terms of long-term benefits are more difficult to measure” (692). Nobody knew how long that the effects would last from this event being hosted in the south. Also, it brought much positive media attention and construction of different facilities in which are still used today. Positive outlooks on the south make it stand out to be a really nice place and would also make the immigrants that came stay around. “The 17 percent increase in employment translates into approximately 293,000 more jobs” (704). No matter where you are, that many job additions is an extreme amount. Everyone in the New South for the long run wishes some of those jobs may still be around during times like now.

The sources that I have chosen to annotate upon for the Summer Olympics have many commonalities but also differences that come along with those. My first source is mostly a standpoint from the economic side which is probably the most important one. My second source shows how the construction of the foundation of the south was changed in benefit of the citizens living in the south. Also, the author for source two explains how the Olympics directly links to the health of people, mainly children among the ages of 1-16. Source one and source three both talk about from the economic side and explain how the Olympics was a big boost in employment and jobs. Also, all the author’s biases for each of the sources lean towards the positive effects of the Olympics on the south, kind of wiping out all the small negative points.