What’s the Goal? Brazil’s Response to Hosting the World Cup and Olympics
Abstract
Brazil’s plans to host the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics have provoked both
euphoria and criticism domestically. Some believe that hosting successful games will
cement the country’s position as a world power and economic player, but others object
to the government’s extravagant spending on lavish stadia while basic social services
remain neglected. We must then ask: if Brazil already faced daunting tasks in improving
its public programs and increasing development, why did it eagerly vie to take on
the additional burdens of hosting the two largest sporting events in the world?
I argue that Brazil has justified hosting with three promises: an economic boost,
infrastructural impetus, and “feel-good” effect for Brazilians (for example, national
pride and unity). In this paper, I evaluate the claim that Brazilians value the abstract
benefits of hosting mega-events enough to justify their high price tags. Original
survey data and an analysis of views published in a Brazilian newspaper’s letters
to the editor support my hypothesis that Brazilians generally do not value hosting
the World Cup and Olympics while more pressing social concerns remain unaddressed.
Considering the opaque process of bidding for mega-events, it seems plausible that
Brazilian boosters overstated the domestic support for hosting, and that Brazil’s
taxpayers will subsidize mostly private gains from the games.
Type
Honors thesisDepartment
Public Policy StudiesPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/8333Citation
Kraushar, Dana (2014). What’s the Goal? Brazil’s Response to Hosting the World Cup and Olympics. Honors thesis, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/8333.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Undergraduate Honors Theses and Student papers
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info