Events and political capital

1. Events and political capital MLLSM01 Events Policy Lecture 2

2. Political Capital: The Outline • In this lecture I argue that events and festivals help political elites accrue valuable ‘capital’ • I will firstly look briefly at the historical involvement of politics within events and festivals • I will consider how political arguments are made which enable an events (or culture)-led strategy to exist and flourish • I will consider what political benefits accrue and how the consent of the local populace is secured • I will then consider more critical perspectives on the political rationale for hosting events

3. Historical context for political involvement • Historically, dominant institutions and power elites determined the desired version of nationalism and public culture created by their events (Roche, 2000) • Roche argues that the successful hosting of ‘mega events’ was a way for power elites to promote ‘hegemonic’ ideologies to the masses • Marxist political economy scholars use this ‘civic boosterism’ school of thought to explain the significance of hallmark events

4. The politics of bidding • Increased competition for global city status now the key rationale for bidding for large scale events • Sporting mega events have taken from World Fair and Expos in relation to urban, and regional growth and place competition (Hall, 2006: p60). • Globalised media technologies allow ‘sport’ and wider cultural forms to communicate a city or nation’s offering to the world’s audience • This reflects the currency of ‘attention’ (Goldhaber, 1997) • The local political system facilitates development in place of welfare and seeks to secure the consent of the electorate

5. The political ‘benefits’ • Economic impacts remain the dominant discourse used by political elites to promote events – urban/civic boosterism: • Associated with city image enhancement, gentrification and cosmopolitanism • Alongside the growth of ‘cultural’ quarters with their associated invented or created ‘cultural festivals’ • Events ‘animate’ cities (and nations), they are the animators of static attractions (Getz, 1997)

6. The political ‘benefits’ ctnd • A culture or events-led policy also involves a change in the local political landscape as private and semi-private actors (Hubbard and Hall, 1998: 8) influence events policy processes • Infrastructural changes deemed politically rewarding and popular • Growth strategies tied to winning events in the realms of housing, retail, public relations • Politically, sports events seen as a ‘good thing’ . To criticise is to be ‘doubly damned’ (Hall, 2006: p67)

7. The political investments • Growth coalitions promise a series of ‘investments’ to deliver the legacies promoted • ‘Event’ infrastructures • Post event support • Social and cultural change • But, criticised for scant disregard for the powerless who are negatively affected by the status accorded to the event (Hiller, 1998)

8. Securing political consent • The impact of events justified on basis of transformations to the built, cultural and social environment – mega events must be legitimised (Hiller, 2000) • Strategies of consent and coercion to secure popular support (e.g. Sydney, 2000) • Politicians seek to secure an emotional connection with residents , whilst political dissent minimised by failure to follow normal public consultation • The use of power elites to use place marketing strategies to sell culture and politics (Hall & Hodges, 1998)

9. The political ‘benefits’ contested • ‘Spatial injustices’ Macleod (2002) emerge from the rolling out of place marketing and neo-liberalism of which events are a major plank • Include tight regulation, discipline and demarcation of city space to ‘enable’ publicly-funded entrepreneurship to flourish • Deepening social polarities as certain excluded groups are deemed problematic to the continuation of consumerist ideologies • Some (local) cultures and spaces deemed invisible • Consumerist ideology further disenfranchises sections of the population • Beneficiaries are promoted, victims downplayed in bidding process

10. The political ‘benefits’ contested • Many events have • “been associated with large-scale public expenditure, the construction of facilities and infrastructure, and urban re-development and revitalisation strategies which may have undesirable long term consequences for public stakeholders although significant short-term gains for some corporate interests” (Hall, 2006: p59) • By-passing democratic process in the name of securing spectacle • Reinforces a dominant neo-liberal urban entrepreneurial logic within which the public purse subsidises private interests – unaccountable governance? • Urban entrepreneurialism, competitiveness and growth becomes the language of public life

11. The political ‘benefits’ contested • The ‘revanchist city’ – a city in which greater repressive controls are put in place to ensure the free flow of global capital accumulation • Critics argue events and festivals have been created to satisfy the lifestyle aspirations of the gentrified and touristified urban destination • The language of regeneration “anesthetizes our critical understanding” (Smith, 2002: p446) of the social polarisation wrought by these policies • Displacement effects of are stifled in the positive, pro-growth messages emerging from political leaders – propaganda messages designed to secure civic unity (Waitt, 2001)

12. Conclusions • Events are political • Events represent a vehicle for the promotion of neo-liberal discourses of urban entrepreneurialism • Pro-growth public-private coalitions are formed which reconceptualise the relationship between the state and its citizens • Outcome = unaccountable quasi-autonomous organisations which work to a market-logic , excluding certain segments of the population • The bread and circuses formulae of the Romans is intensified as events are used as a means of socialising the population

13. References • Law, C.M. (2002) Urban Tourism, 2nd ed, Continuum, Chapter 7 • Roche, M (2000) Mega Events, London, Routledge • Hall, C. Michael (2006): “Urban Entrepreneurship, Corporate Interests, and Sports Mega-Events: The Thin Policies of Competitiveness within the Hard Outcomes of Neo-Liberalism”, The Sociological Review 54(s2), pp. 59-70.  • Shoval, Noam (2002): “A New Phase in the Competition for the Olympic Gold:  The London and New York Bids for the 2012 Games”, Journal of Urban Affairs 24(5) pp. 583-99.  • Hubbard, Phil and Hall, Tim (1998): “The Entrepreneurial City and the ‘New Urban Politics’” in Hall, Tim and Hubbard, Phil (eds.): The Entrepreneurial City (New York: John Wiley & Sons) pp. 1-23.  • Henry, I .P & Paramio-Salcines, J.L. (1999) Sport and the Analysis of symbolic regimes: A case study of the City of Sheffield, Urban Affairs Review, 34, 641-666 • MacLeod, Gordon (2002): “From Urban Entrepreneurialism to a ‘Revanchist City’?  On the Spatial Injustices of Glasgow’s Renaissance”, Antipode • Jamieson, Kirstie (2004): “Edinburgh: The Festival Gaze and its Boundaries”, Space and Culture 7(1) pp. 64-75.  • Smith, N (2002) ‘New Globalism,, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy’, Antipode, pp427-449