1994 - roche - mega-events and urban policy
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
1/19
Annab o our ism Research Vol. 21, pp. I-19, 1994
0160-7383/94 6.00 + .OO
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
Copyright 0 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.
MEGA EVENTS AND
URBAN POLICY
Maurice Roche
Sheffield University, UK
Abstract: The paper argues that the search for explanation should guide
mega-event research. The influence of planning, political, and urban
contextual processes and factors on mega-event production is illustrated
through a discussion of comparative event research and a case study
of Sheffield’s Universiade 1991. This research indicates the important
influence of contextual societal change, urban leadership, and nonrational
planning in event production processes. These factors are important for
understanding both event causation and also the potentially rational char-
acter of event policymaking. The strengths and limitations of “planning”
and “political” approaches to understanding events are considered. A rele-
vant research agenda is briefly outlined. Keywords: mega-events, mega-
event planning, mega-event politics, contextual explanation, situated ra-
tionality.
R&urn& Les mtga-tvtnements et la politique urbaine. La recherche sur
les mtga-CvCnements doit surtout fournir des explications. L’influence de
la planification et des facteurs et processus contextuels, politiques et ur-
bains, est illustree par une discussion de la recherche comparative sur les
evtnements et par une etude de l’universiade de 1991 a Sheffield. On
souligne I’influence importante des changements sociaux et contextuels,
les initiatives urbaines et la planification non rationnelle sur la gentse
d’un Cvenement. Ces facteurs permettent de comprendre la causalite des
kenements ainsi que le caracttre rationnel de la formation des politiques
pour les 6vCnements. Les points forts et les limitations de la planification
et des approches pour comprendre les tvtnements sont consider&. On
esquisse tgalement un programme de recherches. Mots-cl&: mega-
tvenements, planification des mtga4vtnements, explication context-
uelle, rationalit sit&e.
INTRODUCTION
Mega-events large scale leisure and tourism events such as Olympic
Games and World Fairs) are short-term events with long-term conse-
quences for the cities that stage them. They are associated with the
creation of infrastructure and event facilities often carrying long-term
debts and always requiring long-term use-programming. In addition,
Maurice Roche is Lecturer in Sociology at Sheffield University (Sheffield SlO 2TN,
United Kingdom). His research interests include the sociological and policy aspects of
sport, leisure, and tourism, and he has published a number of papers in these areas in
recent years.
1
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
2/19
2
MEGA EVENTS
if successful, they project a new (or renewed) and perhaps persistent
and positive image and identity for the host city through national
and international media, particularly TV, coverage. This is usually
assumed to have long-term positive consequences in terms of tourism,
industrial relocation, and inward investments. As a result, city leaders
and event organizers typically claim that mega-events help to address
the economic and cultural needs and rights of local citizens, rgardless
of whether the citizens have actually been consulted about or involved
in their production. This paper is concerned with the social produc-
tion, and the social conditions of production, of such events.
“Mega-event” or “hallmark” event research has tended to focus on
effects, particularly economic effects, rather than causes. The issue of
event causation, and related issues such as the “functionality” of events
for modern society, has tended to be better identified and addressed in
retrospect, in historical studies, rather than in contemporary perspec-
tives (Allwood 1978; Benedict 1983; Lavenda 1980; Ley and Olds
1988; McArthur 1986; Rydell 1984). Contemporary mega-event re-
search has developed an elaborate understanding of events as causal
factors explaining their effects. However, with few exceptions, it has
contributed little to the social scientific task of developing an explana-
tory understanding of these events in terms of their production, their
conditions of production, and their causes. The methodological limita-
tions of much early event research is well-known (Burns and Mules
1986; Roche 1989; Schaffer and Davidson 1980; Travis and CroizC
1987), as are its limitations of scope. These have been revealed by
more recent work on the broader non-economic (political, ecological,
psychological, and community) impacts of mega-events (Ahn 1987;
AIEST 1987; Burns, Hatch and Mules 1986; Marris 1987; Mueller
and Fenton 1989; Ritchie 1984; Roche 1992; Syme, Shaw, Fenton
and Mueller 1989). However these developments, interesting as they
are, do little to alter the basic social scientific limitation of this research
field as regards its lack of attention to causation/production and thus
to explanation or explanatory understanding.
In recent years, some research attention has begun to be given to
the causation or production of events. Two main approaches (“plan-
ning” and “political,”
as rough categorizations) can be identified in the
work so far and this paper is intended to contribute to the emerging
research interest in the explanatory understanding of mega-event by
exploring the two main approaches in general terms, considering their
strengths and weaknesses. These issues will be illustrated by material
from two sets of empirical data about event planning and production,
namely comparative research on urban prestige projects and recent
studies of Sheffteld’s World Student Games 1991.
UNDERSTANDING MEGA-EVENT PRODUCTION
The Planning Approach
Public policymaking and urban planning, such as that involved in
tourism and mega-event planning, can be conceived of in various posi-
tive and critical ways. In a positive sense, planning can be conceived
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
3/19
MAURICE ROCHE
3
of as a mainly technically or conventionally rational decision-making
process.
Hence the process is knowledge-based, involving, for in-
stance, the systematic gathering of optimal data relevant to the plan’s
implementation and impact; the analysis of such data (e.g., in cost
benefit, risk-analysis, or other relevant terms), and their use in evalu-
ating planning; and the application of such analysis and evaluation in
decision-making (Lichfield 1975). Then again, planning may be con-
ceived of as a mainly democratic decision-making process, requiring
consultation with the community in order to optimize its input of infor-
mation, views, resource, and legitimacy (Arnstein 1969). Or else plan-
ning may be conceived to be a mixed process requiring both technical
rationality and democracy (e.g., tourism and event planning below).
As against these versions, planning may be addressed from a critical
perspective. Neo-Marxism, for instance, conceives of urban planning
as an essentially ideological activity. In this view, planning serves the
interests of local capital and dominant class fractions by promoting
myths of local governmental rationality and civic harmony to disguise
and legitimate the deeply nonrational and socially divisive character of
the capitalist system (Castells 1978; Harvey 1985; Logan and Molotch
1986).
For the purpose of this paper, planning approaches in general may
be roughly summarized as having various relevant strengths and weak-
nesses. Thus, in principle, they can identify and coordinate the numer-
ous real factors involved in complex decision-making processes and
systems; they can contain and utilize explanatory models and informa-
tion; and they can identify and evaluate the reasons and conditions for
project failure as well as project success. In these and other ways,
planning approaches are undoubtedly useful for exploring the produc-
tion of urban tourism and mega-events. However, their ultimately
normative, practical, and “applied” orientation, aimed at diagnosing
and improving planning/management practice in terms of principles
and ideal models and examples of “best practice,” necessarily limits
their usefulness as tools for the pursuit of the explanatory understand-
ing of real-world event/action production, as compared with main-
stream social sciences.
Although mega-events are multi-dimensional and multi-purpose
phenomena with diverse impacts, it is nonetheless conventional to see
them particularly in relation to tourism. The development of planning
approaches in the general field of tourism studies (Duffield 1977; Getz
1983b; Gunn 1979; Jafari 1990) has been of a rather more long-
standing and substantial nature than anything in the more specialized
field of mega-event studies. Understandably, the planning literature
concerning mega-events that has been initiated relatively recently
(Dungan 1984; Getz 1991; Hall 1992; Sparrow 1989; Syme 1989)
tends to conceptualize such events in tourism industry/economic sector
planning terms. Contemporary writers on tourism and mega-event
planning tend to argue for the need to mix technical rationality and
democracy in planning (Getz 1991, 1983a; Hall 1992; Haywood 1988;
Jafari 1990; Murphy 1985; Runyan and Wu 1979).
The interest in recent work in community-based tourism and event
planning mainly responds to the notion that the product or service
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
4/19
4 MEGA-EVENTS
consumed by tourists is, to a significant extent, the community as a
whole (its heritage and customs, its hospitality and goodwill, its milieu
and ambience). In a fully rational planning approach to tourism and
events, the community’s self-production as a relevant environment for
particular tourism attractions would seem, therefore, to require a mix-
ture of the democratic and technically rational planning approaches
indicated earlier.
The descriptive and explanatory limitations of the “planning ap-
proach” in general to touristic mega-event analysis can be empirically
illustrated in two stages. The first concerns the technical or conven-
tional rationality of real-world events and will be considered first. The
second concerns the potentially democratic character of such events
and will be considered next in connection with the “political approach.”
In Table 1, a technically rational model for the mega-event planning
process derived from Sparrow’s recent proposal (Model One) is com-
pared with a real life model (Model Two). Model One obviously pres-
ents a simplified scheme for the purposes of discussion; more complex-
ity, input sources, evaluation stages, etc., could have been included
(Getz 1991; Hall 1992). This model process may be usefully compared
and contrasted with two alternative empirically based schemata of
event planning processes. On the one hand (Model Two) there is the
typical planning process observed in an original and authoritative,
but little known, comparative study of 30 urban prestige projects and
mega-events (Armstrong 1984, 1986). Armstrong’s study revealed that,
In no cases were alternative strategies of achieving desired goals ex-
amined . . .
Data relevant to planned projects was used in such a
way as to support the project rather than objectively applied. The
projects examined were not planned in any traditional sense of plan-
Table 1. Models of Event Planning Processes
Model One Model Two
A “rational” event planning
Actual event/project planning
process: typical stages” process: typical stagesb
Pre-Bid 1. Conceptualization
1. Preliminary, vague subjec-
Phase 2. Pre-bid feasibility study
tive identification of a need
3. Political commitment
for a specific project
process
2. Development of cursory
4. Bid group organization
report
3. Decision taking
Post-Bid
5. Re-evaluation
4. Development of a plan to
Phase 6. Post-bid feasibility study
justify the project
7. Organizational planning 5. Building program
8. Implementation
6. Implementation
Post-Event 9. Monitoring/feedback
7. Little attention given to re-
Phase 10. Evaluation
view of planned develop-
11. New concept/new commit-
ments through time
ment?
“After Sparrow 1987); for more complicated models see Getz 1991); Hall 1992).
bFrom Armstrong 1984: 273, 272, Stage II).
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
5/19
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
6/19
6 MEGA-EVENTS
cal judgment simply “get However, the of this
is that limitations of “planning approach” it to
supplemented by concern with study of politics and
context, particularly the urban if progress the social
goal of understanding is be made the mega-
research field.
The Pol i t i cal Approach
The political and wider societal conditions of mega-events, and their
significance in terms of urban tourism and development policy, is
well-understood in the historical studies, as noted earlier. These issues
are also addressed in occasional studies of the politics surrounding
globally preeminent events (and the symbolic, financial and franchis-
ing power of their associated organizations and “movements”) such as
the Olympic Games (Auf der Maur 1976; Booker 1981; Espy 1979;
Hart-Davis 1986; Shaiklin 1988; Simson and Jennings 1992; Tomlin-
son and Whannel 1984). However, the explanatory interest indicated
or pursued by these studies has not tended to figure very noticeably in
mainstream event research and related tourism analysis.
In recent years, this situation has begun to change and indeed it has
now become common in tourism and event research to acknowledge
the fact that events and tourism are “political” phenomena (Armstrong
1984; Butler and Grigg 1989; Getz 1981; Hall 1987, 1989a, 1989b,
1989c, 1992; Hiller 1989; J k
c
son 1988; Ley and Olds 1988; Ritchie
1984). The word “political” here does not reflect the planning ideal
(noted earlier) of democratic or community-based planning processes,
but rather the reverse. As Hall, one of the main proponents of a
“political approach” has argued:
Hallmark events are not the result of a rational decision-making
process. Decisions affecting the hosting and the nature of hallmark
events grow out of a political process. The process involves the values
of actors (individuals, interest groups, and organizations) in a strug-
gle for power (1989c:219).
Comparative event research illustrates the relevance of this approach.
For instance, Armstrong’s findings on the politics of the events and
projects he studied were as follows:
Eighteen of the 23 publicly funded projects came about through the
efforts and influence of individuals who were powerful politicians
. . . prestige projects are usually the product of an influential elite or
a particularly powerful individual.
. . .
Contemporary prestige proj-
ects, even private ones are highly political (1984: 13).
This analysis reveals an essentially “autocratic” pattern of decision-
making on major urban events and projects. There is typically little
democratic community input, and decisions are largely determined by
the will and power of urban political leaderships and/or other relevant
and powerful urban elite groups (such as business and cultural elites).
This essentially leadership-driven “autocratic” pattern, associated also
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
7/19
MAURICE ROCHE 7
with civic “boosterism,” has been identified in other studies of prestige
projects and mega events (Auf der Maur 1976; Butler and Grigg 1987;
Shaikin 1988; Simson and Jennings 1992; Thorne and Munro-Clark
1987). In terms of Amstein’s (1969) well-known criteria for citizen
participation in planning, the typical event production process is “ma-
nipulative” or minimally participatory.
Recent studies of social and economic development policies in West-
ern cities point up the need to research and analyze the often-crucial
role played by different forms of leadership in the success or failure
of such policies, policies which often include a tourism and events
component (Cummings 1988; Gottdiener and Pickvance 1991; Judd
and Parkinson 1990; Stone 1991). Unlike the comparative research
cited above, these recent studies begin to describe an explanatory rela-
tionship between societal context (socioeconomic change, etc.) and
urban leadership, and also to evaluate the rationality and democratic
legitimacy of particular urban leaderships in terms of the nature and
adequacy of their general social and economic strategies and policies.
To understand urban tourism and event planning from the political,
sociological, and urban studies perspectives taken in recent research
two general issues need to be addressed: first, the mediation between
contextual forces (societal changes and trends) and urban policy; sec-
ond, the pot ent i al reasonableness or “situational rationality” of policy deci-
sions and actions. These can often be undertaken for general strategic
purposes in response to urgent problems and without much evaluation
of alternatives, cost-benefit projections, or community consultation
(that is, without much in the way of planning or rationality as it is
conventionally understood).
SHEFFIELD’S WORLD STUDENT GAMES 1991
Contextual Explanati on and Si t uati onal Rati onali @
The importance of contextual forces, pressures, and changes in un-
derstanding contemporary urban tourism and mega-event planning is
clear in the Sheffield case. Prior to the mid-1980s, the chances of a
touristically-oriented mega-event occurring in Sheffield were minimal,
to say the least. The city’s longstanding and politically impregnable
Labor leadership would not have entertained such an idea, and the
combination of economic decline and the political weakness and mar-
ginality of the city’s private sector ruled out any other source of support
for a prospective event promoter. However, in the mid-1980s, the
city’s Labor leadership changed direction and began to seek to build a
“partnership” with local private sector leadership to encourage land
and property development, company relocation and inward invest-
ment (Lawless 1990; Seyd 1990).
The causes and reasons for this change were structural, political,
and sectoral. Structurally, the fast-moving and long-term technological
and global market changes in steel production in the late 1970s and
early 1980s led to a sudden severe and irreversible loss of employment
in Sheffield’s industrial base (Lawless and Ramsden 1989; Watts,
Smithson and White 1989; Westergaard, Noble and Walter 1989).
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
8/19
Sheffield’s version of a socialist “alternative economic policy” approach
to stemming economic decline and turning it into growth, which was
pursued in the early 198Os, had demonstrably failed by the mid 1980s
(Lawless 1990).
Politically, the obdurate “New Right” Thatcherite political climate
and the government approach to urban policy throughout the 1980s
emphasized public spending cutbacks and the privatization of public
services at national and local levels. Centrally imposed, private-sector
dominated Development corporations (to plan land reclamation, land-
use, infrastructure development, and investment in key areas of de-
cline and dereliction in major cities), were a key element in this strat-
egy. These and a variety of other similar agencies and initiatives were
empowered to encourage, and, where necessary, coerce local govern-
ments to develop economic growth and regeneration strategies in close
collaboration or “partnership” with the private sector (Robinson 1988;
Stewart 1990; Stewart and Stoker 1989; Stoker 1989). A Sheffield
Development Corporation (SDC) was imposed on the city in a key
development area in 1987.
In sectoral terms, government policy involved vigorous promotion
of the tourism sector nationally (drawing on US urban regeneration
models) and of urban development in particular. A politically and
structurally motivated wave of large hallmark events was instigated in
British cities in the mid and late 1980s (Roberts 1988; Robson 1988).
These and other apparently %uccessful” large events, such as the Los
Angeles Olympics in 1984 (Shaikin 1988), created a “demonstration-
effect” factor which influenced elements of Sheffield’s leadership to feel
more positive than they otherwise might have done about the prospect
of Sheffield bidding for, successfully staging, and even conceivably
making a “profit” from a mega-event.
These forces led to the formation of the Sheffield Economic Regener-
ation Committee (SERC)
in 1987, a partnership between the Labor
Council leadership and the private sector (SDC, Chamber of Com-
merce leaders, and others), with the limited involvement of other stake-
holders, such as the higher education institutions. The emergence of
SERC fortuitously coincided with council approval for two major visi-
tor-attracting developments, Meadowhall (one of Europe’s largest lei-
sure shopping malls) and the World Student Games. SERC speedily
developed a regeneration “strategy,” building on existing council devel-
opment plans, which expressed hopes and “visions” for development in
various sectors of the local economy, notably the leisure sector. In
terms of the latter, SERC promoted the hitherto unlikely concept of
Sheffield as a national sport center and tourism attraction (DEED
1990; Lawless 1990; Seyd 1990).
The structural, political, and sector-al context briefly indicated here
could be said both to have motivated Sheffield’s development of a
tourism policy and its mega-event bid, and also to have rendered these
intelligible and explicable within a strategic policy context. On the
assumption that the new strategy was sound, the event could thus be
said to be potentially situationally rational, in spite of the fact that its
particular production process largely by-passed conventional planning
processes, moving directly to the decision and implementation stages
(Table 2).
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
9/19
MAURICE ROCHE
9
Sit uat i onal Rati onal i ty
As noted above, national government urban policy in the late 1980s
inspired large events, in a number of de-industrializing British cities.
In addition to the wave of Garden Festivals (Liverpool 1984; Stoke
1986; Glasgow 1988; Gateshead 1990; Ebbw Vale 1992), the three
largest British cities outside of London developed active urban tourism
strategies that included the pursuit of mega-events. Thus, Glasgow
became European City of Culture in 1990, Birmingham made bids for
the 1992 and 1996 Olympics, and Manchester made bids for the 1996
and 2000 Olympics.
These innovative projects among Sheffield’s “peer group” were gen-
erally deemed to have been relatively successful in terms of “boosting”
these cities. They restored the self-confidence and dynamism of their
leadership and also some civic pride. In addition, they were successful
in terms of raising land values and re-imaging the cities for outsiders,
particularly potential tourists. However, these successes were offset by
the costs: the Garden Festivals were essentially “break-even” operations
needing considerable public subsidy for their capital costs (Gateshead
Council 1992; LEDIS 1985; Robson 1988: 111) and most of the Olym-
pics bids were ultimately unsuccessful.
In the context of the structural, political, and sectoral factors, it
would appear that many British urban leaderships came to the view
that investment in urban tourism development plans, including mega-
events, was a reasonable course of action (almost irrespective of the
huge financial and other risks involved). Indeed, given the absence of
a national industrial policy and the lack of realistic alternatives, such
policies came to be seen as both reasonable and compelling, that is, as
a necessary part of any strategy to tackle the traditional industrial city’s
many long-term problems and needs in the late 20th century.
Although it resulted in technically excellent facilities and events in
1991, Sheffield’s experience of event production from 1988 to 1990 was
crisis-ridden, politically divisive, and financially highly questionable. It
could be argued that, as an exercise in urban planning, it was lacking not
only in conventional rationality, but also in situational rationality.
Convent i onal Nonrat i onal i ty
To a considerable extent, Sheffield’s leadership bypassed the conven-
tional rational policy process in producing the World Student Games
event (Table 2). Although an urban tourism policy was sketched in
1987 (Sheffield City Council 1987), the leadership had no effective
( i.e., resourced) tourism strategy, nor any organizational means to
implement such a strategy, and yet they moved directly and speedily
from initial conception to the decision to bid for the event. Research-
based impact, cost-benefit and market forecasts, and feasibility studies
were either nonexistent, ignored, or produced too late to influence the
decision-making process. The community was not asked to indicate
whether it wanted the event and/or what it was prepared to pay for it
(whether financially or in terms of opportunity costs). These basic
nonrational and nondemocratic characteristics and weaknesses re-
sulted in unanticipated organizational, financial, and political prob-
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
10/19
1
MEGA EVENTS
lems, particularly during the period of event and facility implementa-
tion (1988-1991) in particular (Roche 1991).
One of the organizing companies collapsed in a blaze of national
and local media attention and the event was very nearly canceled. An
early consultants’ report predicting a substantial operational deficit
(g3-14 million), which the Labor leadership had suppressed in 1987,
was discovered by investigative journalists and aired on national TV
in 1990. The validity of the report’s prediction was confirmed by the
actual deficit in 1992 of fl0 million (District Audit Service 1992).
The event operation was ultimately very badly managed financially
and became the subject of a number of damningly critical reports by
the District Auditor, the council’s Chief Executive, and the council’s
Internal Audit Service. For instance, event organizers in 1991 were
only able to achieve a small proportion of the income targets they had
predicted as recently as 1990 for the key areas of sponsorship, ticket
sales, and merchandizing (15 % , 45 % , and 18 % respectively) (Shef-
field City Council 1992:2).
Facility capital costs escalated in an apparently uncontrolled way
(f30 million in 1986- 1987, E80 million in 1987, fl50 million in 1990).
Including debt-interest charges and excluding operating deficits, they
were to continue to balloon to f400 million by 1991- 1992. The city’s
Labor leadership, rather than its SERC “shadow leadership,” took the
brunt of the criticism. It found itself isolated and assailed by Labor
party critics from within the council and from Sheffield’s District Labor
Party. Sheffield citizens were already antagonized by centrally imposed
public service cuts and the imposition of the controversial new local
tax (the “poll tax,” which was to cost Prime Minister Thatcher her
position). The news of the incompetence and politicking associated
with the Games project in the 1988-1990 period caused further demor-
alization.
This had various negative consequences from the point of view of
the city’s leadership and its hopes for positive city image and efficient
event organization. A small but vocal anti-Games group (“Stuff the
Games”) was formed and received local publicity for its various meet-
ings and activities; the support for the Games volunteer program and
also for local ticket sales was slower and lower than projected. Signifi-
cantly, since the citizens had been denied a referendum on the Games,
they expressed their disenchantment with the leadership’s “strategic
visions” in the annual Local Council Elections. Labor’s traditional
dominance in the capital city of the “socialist republic of South York-
shire” began to collapse from 1990-1992 (from 63% share of the vote
in 1990, to 50 % in 1991, to 43 % in 1992, although they still retained
a large majority of the council, even in 1992). This collapse can be
reasonably interpreted as being mostly due to the problems associated
with the Games project, although obviously other national and local
factors should be taken into account.
Sit uat i onal Nonrat i onal i ty
In principle, as suggested earlier, event-planning that is evaluated
in orthodox terms as nonrational may, nonetheless, be capable of being
assessed as situationally or strategically rational. However, this is not
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
11/19
MAURICE ROCHE
11
a carte-blanche device capable of salvaging the rationality credentials
of all possible examples of event production. Event production can be
both conventionally and situationally nonrational, and this seems to
have been the case with Sheffield’s event policy and production process.
Sheffield’s new “partnership” urban leadership evidently acted in haste
(Darke 1991) d
n in classic “civic booster” style in 1986-1987 both on
its regeneration strategy and on its first major project, the Games
event (Roche 1991). However, the “partnership” leadership at this time
was lacking in strategic experience, organizational ability, and demo-
cratic legitimacy. Further, since mega-events demand a high order of
specialist organizational resources, which it would be unusual to find
in any city, the leadership was inevitably lacking on this front, too.
The quality of the Sheffield leadership’s overall “strategy” has been
questioned and criticized by various analysts (Crompton 1992; Darke
1991; Friel 1991; Lawless 1990, Seyd 1990). Glasgow’s tourism direc-
tor and organizer of its successful re-imaging, who produced a report
on Sheffield’s regeneration in 1991, observed that the various sections
of the urban leadership presented confusingly disparate and discordant
versions of the re-imaging and tourism strategy to the public, and
that they had not cultivated a sense of popular participation in and
“ownership” of the strategy by the public (Friel 1991; McCall 1992).
Also the leadership was unrealistic about the role and potential benefit
of the Games event within the overall strategy. “The short-term event
seemed to have hijacked the long-term strategy” (Friel 1991). Shef-
field’s attempted mega-event could be judged to have been potentially
situationally rational, given the societal political and economic chal-
lenges it faced. Nonetheless, its actual genesis and production can be
evaluated as lacking in situational or strategic rationality. The Labor
City Council was unrealistic, on the one hand, about the degree to
which the Thatcher government might ultimately be persuaded to re-
lax local public expenditure controls and to support the city’s event
costs and, on the other, about the possibility of a Labor Party govern-
ment (in 1987 or 1992) coming to power to bail the city out. In general,
it was the lack of realism in the “booster culture” of Sheffield’s new
“partnership” leadership in the mid 1980s combined, ironically, with
its lack of real power (e.g., financial resource) and authority (e.g.,
popular understanding and legitimacy) which were the main causes of
the Games event’s organizational and financial crises. These crises, in
turn, contributed to the ambiguous and mostly negative economic and
political impacts on Sheffield’s citizens of the city’s first major venture
into the international tourism and events market.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has given an account of the main issues involved in the
analysis of one important form of contemporary tourism, namely large
event planning and production. It has illustrated these issues with
reference to a case study of Sheffield’s World Student Games in 1991.
The concepts of “contextual explanation” and “situational rationality”
were introduced and illustrated through empirical studies. They were
proposed as potentially useful concepts for the future development of
explanation-oriented mega-event research.
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
12/19
12
MEGA EVENTS
The discussion has suggested that the long-established bias in that
part of the tourism literature concerned with events toward studies of
their impacts, rather than their causes and production, is a weakness
in terms of social sciences’ concern for explanatory understanding. The
two main contemporary approaches to understanding event produc-
tion, referred to here as the “planning” and the “political” approaches,
were each considered. While they have some contribution to make to
a new research agenda for mega-events, each has some important
limitations. The “planning approach” of necessity focuses much more
on developing the application-potential of explanatory knowledge for
presumptively rational actors and agencies, rather than on the genesis
and construction of such knowledge per se. The “political approach”
appears to address more directly the problem of describing and ex-
plaining real-world hallmark and mega-events than the planning ap-
proach.
The political approach, for instance, can reveal the role of urban
power-holders (e.g., urban leaderships, event planners, and organiz-
ers) in tourism and event production. This may involve a critique of
particular planning ideals in any given instance, and in general in-
volves the depiction of competing political and situational interests,
rationales, and rationality criteria in event-production. In some ver-
sions, the approach can be taken further towards a scepticism about
the role of urban planners as such (Castells 1978; Harvey 1985). None-
theless, in principle the political approach promises to complement the
planning approach (Hall 1992),
not least by the contribution it offers
to the latter’s knowledge base about the factors affecting the perfor-
mance of planning systems in real-world conditions. However, the
paper suggests that, from an explanatory point of view, the political
approach, in turn, requires contextualization in terms of the structural
forces conditioning and transforming Western nations and Western
cities in the late 20th century.
Such explanation-oriented research is relevant to the practical/nor-
mative evaluation of event-planning. Any urban leadership generating
or motivating tourism policy development and mega-event production
is likely to locate such a project, whether rhetorically or substantially,
within a wider urban development strategy. In this context, urban
leaderships’ approaches to event production need to be realistic and
well-founded. They need to be realistic about both the problems any
mega-event is intended to help resolve and the chosen event’s capacity
to have relevant effects on these problems. Their approach needs to be
well-founded in terms of the various sorts of vital resources necessary
to support effective policy implementation, particularly power and au-
thority (e.g., leadership and administrative competence, financial re-
sources, etc.) and democratic legitimacy (e.g., public support, under-
standing and involvement). Event-production may be judged to be
situationally or strategically rational (even where orthodox rational
planning procedures are by-passed because of the demands of bid com-
petitions and deadlines, etc.), to the extent that the strategies they
are part of are realistic and well-resourced in terms of power and
legitimacy.
The major structural changes occurring in late 2Oth-century West-
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
13/19
MAURICE ROCHE
13
ern societies, connected with post-industrialism and globalization, are
focal concerns for much contemporary social science and social theory.
These changes are most visible in their effects on contemporary cities,
particularly old industrial cities. Urban tourism policies, including
heritage, new attraction, and mega-event policies, are being produced
by cities in the throes of transformation and in various sorts of crisis.
Various recent theoretical analyses of these changes are of relevance
for developing the explanatory understanding of urban tourism and
urban events in terms of urban post-industrialism and of post-modern
and consumer cultural developments (Cooke 1990; Featherstone 1991;
Urry 1990a, 1990b). Such approaches have begun to be usefully ap-
plied in empirical and comparative studies of contemporary urban
leisure policy (Henry, Bramham, Mommas and van der Poe1 1989;
Henry, Bramham and Spink 1990, Henry 1990). In this period, with
rapid structural/contextual and political change impacting on the con-
temporary city, the important role that mega-events can play in assist-
ing cities to regenerate (that is, to renew their image, to restructure
and reposition themselves as centers of capital and labor, production,
and exchange in the national and global economy, and generally to
“modernize,” Roche 1992), needs to be better understood.
From a neo-Marxist “logic of capital” perspective on contemporary
social change, Harvey (1989b, 1989a) observes about the West’s old
industrial cities that, given their grim recent history of de-indus-
trialization, they seem to have “few options except to compete with
each other mainly as financial, consumption, and entertainment cen-
tres” (1989b:92). Further,
Imaging
a city through the organization of spectacular urban spaces
[has become] a means to attract capital and people of the right sort)
in a period since 1973) of intensified inter-urban competition and
urban entrepreneurialism Harvey 1989b:92; see also Logan and
Molotch 1986).
From
a more pragmatic and empirical “urban studies” perspective,
Judd and Parkinson concur that city image and contemporary re-
imaging is a vitally important phenomenon to grasp if urban policy is
to be adequately understood:
If we speak of the capacity of cities to respond to external threats or
opportunities, we are actually referring to the success of local elites,
in projecting a coherent interpretation of a city’s “intentions” and of
its economic and political environment-in other words, its “image”
1990a:22; see also Bianchini and Schwengel 1991; Watson 1991).
The search for explanatory understanding in theoretical and empirical
urban tourism and mega-event research needs to take account of the
debate and relationship Fainstein 1990) among these types of perspec-
tive on the global, national, and local dynamics at work in contempo-
rary urban re-imaging and restructuring.
Therefore, what this paper suggests is that further research is needed
into the influence on urban tourism and mega-event production of two
main factors. First, there is the influence of the particular local forms
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
14/19
14 MEGA EVENTS
of the general structural problems afflicting all major Western cities in
the late 20th century. Among the main problems, particularly for old
industrial cities, are de-industrialization (and thus unemployment and
poverty reproduction), service sector development, and image re-
newal/creation. Second, there is the influence of the types of urban
leadership that generate events in response to their perception of the
needs and problems and the possibilities and politics of their cities. In
contemporary Western societies, the major global and national prob-
lems and structural changes impact differently in different cities largely
because of differing characteristics of their politics and leaderships. At
the very least, then, a systematic comparative analysis is needed of
cities and large events in a range of post-industrializing Western socie-
ties going beyond the sort of analysis provided by Armstrong (1984,
1986) which has been considered in this paper.
A comparative analysis responds to the facts that touristic mega-
events have local/urban national, and international significance. On
the one hand, event-franchising organizations, such as the Interna-
tional Olympic Committee, together with the media and other corpo-
rations whose expenditures and used to finance events, and the media
publics and event consumers they supply, are all global phenomena.
On the other hand, large events typically (although not in the Sheffield
case considered here) carry national governmental prestige and fman-
cial support with them,
and this takes various forms and serves a
variety of functions in different nation states (Getz 1991). Although
they present somewhat different theoretical and practical problems,
such an analysis could also be adapted and extended to include a range
of the Third World and newly industrializing societies.
The aim of the comparative analysis proposed here would be to
develop the theoretical and explanatory understanding of the relation
between various types of large touristic events (Hall 1989a, 1992) and
their production processes, and a set of urban social and political fac-
tors. The typology of political and contextual factors needs to include
the following: one, types of city (Feagin and Smith 1989; Logan and
Molotch 1976), together with the main types of associated societal and
local socioeconomic problems; two, types of c&en part icipat ion in urban
planning in general (Arnstein 1969; Gyford 1990) and in tourism in
particular (Hayward 1988), together with main local political tradi-
tions, cultures, and divisions; three, types of urban leadership (Cum-
mings 1988; Judd and Parkinson 1990; Molotch 1988; Squires 1991;
Stone, Orr and Imbroscio 1991) in particular factors such as the bal-
ante between private and public sector power, Right-Center-Left polit-
ical orientation, and local government resource and competence; and,
four, types of urban regenerat i on and re imagi ng str at egies (Biachini and
Schwengel 1991; Cameron 1989; Henry 1990, Henry, Bramham and
Spink 1990; Judd and Parkinson 1990~).
This sort of event and urban tourism research agenda, which
responds to contemporary developments in this field, presupposes a
capacity for dialogue on the part of researchers and disciplines. It
requires dialogue between theory (i.e.,
varieties of contemporary social
and political economic theory) and empirical (sociopolitical) research
at both societal and urban levels. It also requires dialogue between
planning/managerial approaches and explanation-oriented empirical/
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
15/19
MAURICE ROCHE
15
theoretical sociopolitical approaches. This paper has attempted to out-
line a case for such a new event and urban tourism research agenda,
and also to identify theoretically and illustrate empirically some of the
main issues and problems facing it. 0 0
Acknowledgments The material on Sheffield discussed in this paper derives from a
variety of documentary, observational,
and interview sources. Thanks are due to
Sheffield City Council for, among other things, allowing full access to the World
Student Games Bid Group and to the Tourism Joint Officers Group throughout 1987.
REFERENCES
Ahn, J-Y.
1987 The Role and Impact of Mega-Events and Attractions in Asia. In The Role
of Impact of Mega-Events and Attractions on Regional and National Tourism
Development, pp. 133-186. St. Gall, Switzerland: Association Internationale
d’Experts Scientiliques du Tourisme.
AIEST (Association Internationale d’Experts Scitntilique du Tourisme).
1987 The Role and Impact of Mega-Events and Attractions on Regional and Na-
tional Tourism Development. St. Gall, Switzerland: Association Intemationale
d’Experts Scientifiques du Tourisme.
Allwood, J.
1978 The Great Exhibitions. London: Cassell and Collier.
Armstrong, J. L.
1984 Contemporary Prestige Centres for Art and Culture, Exhibitions, Sports and
Conferences: An International Survey. Unpublished PhD, University of Bir-
mingham, UK.
1986 International Events and Popular Myths. In Travel and Tourism Research
Association (Canada Chapter) International Events: The Real Tourism Impact.
Proceedings of the 1985 Canada Chapter Conference. Edmonton: Travel and
Tourism Research Association.
Arnstein, S. R.
1969 A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Plan-
ners 35:216-224.
Auf der Maur, N.
1976 The Billion-Dollar Game: Jean Drapeau and the 1976 Olympics. Toronto:
James Lorimer.
Bianchini, F., and M. Schwengel
1991 Re-imagining the City. In Enterprise and Heritage, J. Corner and S. Harvey,
eds., pp. 212-234. London: Routledge.
Booker, C.
1981 The Games War: A Moscow Journal. London: Faber & Faber.
Bums, J., J. Hatch, and T. Mules, eds.
1986 The Adelaide Grand Prix: The Impact of a Special Event. Adelaide: Centre
for South Australian Economic Studies.
Bums, J., and T. Mules
1986 A Framework for the Analysis of Major Special Events. In The Adelaide
Grand Prix: The Impact of a Special Event, J. Bums, J. Hatch and T. Mules,
eds., 5-38. Adelaide: Centre for South Australian Economic Studies.
Butler, R., and J. Grigg
1989 The Hallmark Event that Got Away: The Case of the Pan American Games
and London, Ontario. In The Planning and Evaluation of Hallmark Events, G.
Syme, B. Shaw, M. Fenton and W. Mueller, eds., 142-153. Aldershot: Avebury.
Cameron, C.
1989 Cultural Tourism and Urban Revitalization. Tourism and Recreation Re-
search 14 (1):23-32.
Castells, M.
1978 City, Class and Power. London: Macmillan.
Cooke, P.
1990 Back to the Future: Modernity, Postmodernity and Locality. London: Unwin
Hyman.
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
16/19
16 MEGA-EVENTS
Crampton, R.
1992 From Steel City to Brass Farthings. The Times (June 23; Life and Times
Section): 1.
Cummings, ‘S.
1988a Private Enterprise and Public Policy. In Business Elites and Urban Develop-
ment, S. Cummings, ed., 3-24. Albany: SUNY Press.
Cummings, S., ed.
1988b Business Elites and Urban Development. Albany: SUNY Press.
Darke, R.
1991 Gambling on Sport: Sheffield’s Regeneration Strategy for the 90s. Unpub-
lished paper, available from Department of Town and Regional Planning, Shef-
field University, UK.
DEED
1990 World Student Games Economic Impact Study, Part I. Sheffield: Sheffield
City Council, Department of Employment and Economic Development.
District Audit Service
1992 The World Student Games: Report of the District Auditor. Sheffield: Audit
Commission.
Duffield, B.
1977 Tourism: A Tool for Regional Development. Edinburgh: Tourism and Recre-
ation Research Unit.
Dungan, T. P.
1984 How Cities Plan Special Events. The Cornell Quarterly 24(2): 83-89.
ESPY, R.
1979 The Politics of the Olvmoic Games. Berkelev: Universitv of California Press.
Fainstein, D.
I 1
I
1990 The Changing World Economy and Urban Restructuring. In Leadership and
Urban Regeneration. D. ludd and M. Parkinson. eds.. DD 31-50. London: Sage.
Feagin,
J .
,
and”M. Smith’ ”
I. .
1989 Cities and the New International Division of Labour. In The Capitalist City,
M. Smith and J. Feagin, eds., pp. 3-36. Cambridge MA: Blackwells.
Featherstone, M.
1990 Consumer Culture and Post-Modernism. London: Sage.
Foley, P.
1991 The Impact of Major Events. A Case Study of the World Student Games and
Sheffield. Environment and Planning C, Government and Policy 9:65-79.
Friel, E.
1991 Keeping the Spirit Alive: Sheffield after the Games. Leeds: BBC2 “Close Up
North” Unit.
Gateshead Council
1992 National Garden Festivals: Gateshead 1990. The Duke of Edinburgh’s Study
Conference. Gateshead: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council.
Getz, D.
1983a Capacity to Absorb Tourism: Concepts and Implications for Strategic Plan-
ning. Annals of Tourism Research 10:239-263.
1983b Tourism, Community Organization and the Social Multiplier. In Leisure,
Tourism and Social Change, J. Long and R. Hecock, eds., pp. 85-100. Dunfer-
mline: Centre for Leisure Research, Dunfermline College.
1986 Models in Tourism Planning: Towards Integration of Theory and Practice.
Tourism Management 7:21-30.
1991 Festivals, Special Events and Tourism. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Giddens, A.
1984 The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gottdiener, M., and C. Pickvance, eds.
1991 Urban Life in Transition. London: Sage.
Gunn, C.
1979 Tourism Planning. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Gyford, J.
1990 Citizens, Consumers and Councils: Local Government and the Public. Lon-
don: Macmillan.
Hall, C. M.
1987 The Effects of Hallmark Events on Cities. Journal of Travel Research. 26(2):
44-45.
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
17/19
MAURICE ROCHE
17
1989a Hallmark Tourist Events: Analysis, Definitions, Methodology and Review.
In The Planning and Evaluation of Hallmark Events, G. Syme, B. Shaw, M.
Fenton and W. Mueller, eds., pp. 3-19. Aldershot: Avebury.
1989b Hallmark Events and the Planning Process. In The Planning and Evaluation
of Hallmark Events, G. Syme, B. Shaw, M. Fenton and W. Mueller, eds., pp.
20-42. Aldershot: Avebury.
1989c The Politics of Hallmark Events. In The Planning and Evaluation of Hall-
mark Events, G. Syme, B. Shaw, M. Fenton and W. Mueller, eds., pp. 219-241.
Aldershot: Avebury.
1989d The Definition and Analysis of Hallmark Tourist. Events. Geojournal 19:
263-268.
1992 Hallmark Tourist Events: Impacts, Management and Planning. London:
Bellhaven.
Hambleton, R.
1988 Urban Government under Thatcher and Reagan. Bristol: Bristol School of
Advanced Urban Studies, Bristol University.
Hart-Davis, D.
1986 Hitler’s Games: The 1936 Olympics. London: Century.
Harvey, D.
1985 On Planning the Ideology of Planning. In The Urbanization of Capital, D.
Harvey, ed., pp. 165-184. Oxford: Blackwell.
1989a Flexible Accumulation through Urbanisation. In The Urban Experience, D.
Harvey, ed., pp. 256-285. Oxford, Blackwell.
1989b The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haywood, K. M.
1988 Responsible and Responsive Tourism Planning in the Community. Tourism
Management 9:105-118.
Henry, I.
1990 Leisure, Culture and the Political Economy of European Cities: Case Studies
of Leeds, Bilbao and Kalamata. Madrid: International Sociological Association.
Henry, I., P. Bramham, and J. Spink
1990 Leisure, Culture and the Political Economy of the City: A Case Study of
Leeds. Madrid: International Sociological Association.
Henry, I., P. Bramham, H. Mommas, and H. van der Poel, eds.
1989 Leisure and Urban Processes. London: Routledge.
Hiller, H.
1989 Impact and Image: The Convergence of Urban Factors in preparing for the
1988 Calgary Winter Olympics. In The Planning and Evaluation of Hallmark
Events, G. Syme, B. Shaw, M. Fenton and W. Mueller, eds., pp. 119-131.
Aldershot: Avebmy.
HMSO
1990 Tourism and the Inner City. London: Department of the Environment,
HMG.
Jafari, J.
1990 Research and Scholarship: The Basis of Tourism Education. The Journal of
Tourism Studies 1:33-41.
Jackson, P.
1988 Street Life: The Politics of Carnival. Environment and Planning D: Society
and ace 6:213-227.
Judd, D.,
and M. Parkinson
1990a Urban Leadershin and Regeneration. In Leadershin and Urban Reeenera-
tion, D. Judd and M.‘ParkinsoG, eds., pp. 13-30. Londin: Sage.
”
1990b Patterns of Leadership. In Leadership and Urban Regeneration, D. Judd
and M. Parkinson, eds., pp, 295-307. London: Sage.
Judd, D., and M. Parkinson, eds.
1990~ Leadership and Urban Regeneration. London: Sage.
Lavenda, R.
1980 The Festival of Progress: The Globalising World-system and the Transforma-
tion of the Caracas Carnival. Journal of Popular Culture 14:465-475.
Lawless, P.
1990 Regeneration in Sheffield: From Radical Intervention to Partnership. In Lead-
ership and Urban Regeneration, D. Judd and M. Parkinson, eds., pp. 133-150.
London: Sage.
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
18/19
18
MEGA-EVENTS
Lawless, P., and P. Ramsden
1989 Sheffield into the 1990s: Urban Regeneration, the Economic Context. Shef-
field: Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Polytechnic.
LEDIS
1985 Liverpool International Garden Festival. Glasgow: Local Economic Develop-
ment Information Service.
Ley, D., and K. Olds
1988 Landscape as Spectacle: World’s Fairs and the Culture of Heroic Consump-
tion. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 6:191-212.
Lichlield, N.
1975 Evaluation in the Planning Process. Toronto: Pergamon Press.
Logan, J., and H. Molotch
1986 Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
McArthur, C.
1986 The Glasgow Empire Exhibition of 1938: The Dialectics of National Identity.
In Popular Culture and Social Relations. T. Bennet, ed., pp. 117-134. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Marris, T.
1987 The Role and Impact of Mega-Events and Attractions on Regional and Na-
tional Tourism Development: Revue de Tourisme 42(4):3-5.
Molotch, H.
1988 Strategies and Constraints of Growth Elites. In Business Elites and Urban
Development, S. Cummings, ed., pp. 25-48. Albany: SUNY Press.
Mueller, W., and M. Fenton
1989 Psychological and Community Issues (regarding Hallmark Events). In The
Planning and Evaluation of Hallmark Events, G. Syme, B. Shaw, M. Fenton
and W. Mueller, eds., pp. 274-285. Aldershot: Avebury.
Murphy, P.
1985 Tourism: A Community Approach. London: Methuen.
Ritchie, B.
19g&%I ssessing the Impact of Hallmark Events. Journal of Travel Research 23(2):
Ritchie, B., and J. Yangzhou
1987 The Role and Impact of Mega-Events and Attractions on National and Re-
gional Tourism: A Conceptual and Methodological Overview. In AIEST Confer-
ence Proceedings, pp. 17-58. St. Gall, Switzerland: Association International
d’Experts Scientifiques du Tourisme.
Roberts, J.
1988 Green Mantle: A Critique of Garden Festivals. Guardian (June 17):20-21.
Robson, B.
1988 Those Inner Cities: Reconciling the Social and Economic Aims of Urban
Policv. Oxford: Clarendon.
Roche,
ti.
1989 Meea-events.
Multioliers Tourism:
A
Review and Critiaue of Economic
ImpacrAnalysis: Sheffield: Policy Studies Centre, Sheffield University, UK.
1991 Mega-Events and City Policy: A Study of Sheffield’s World Student Games
1991. Sheffield: Policy Studies Centre, Sheffield University, UK.
1992 Mega-events and Micro-modernization: On the Sociol&y of the New Urban
Tourism. British Journal of Sociology 43:563-600.
Runyan, D., and C-T. Wu
1979 Assessing Tourism’s more complex consequences. Annals of Tourism Re-
search 6:44&463.
Rydell, J.
1984 All the World’s a Fair: Visions of Empire at American International Exposi-
tions 1876-1916. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seyd, P.
1990 Radical Sheffield: From Socialism to Entrepreneurialism. Political Studies 38:
335-344.
Schaffer, W., and L. Davidson
1980 A Discussion of Methods Employed in Analyzing the Impact of Short-term
Entertainment Events. Journal of Travel Research 19(1):12-16.
-
8/18/2019 1994 - Roche - Mega-Events and Urban Policy
19/19
MAURICE ROCHE 19
Shaikin, B.
1988 Sport and Politics: the Olympics and the Los Angeles Games. New York:
Praeger.
Sheffield Citv Council
1987 Going Places: Sheffield’s Strategy for Tourism: A Consultative Document.
Sheffield: Sheffield Citv Council.
1991 XVI Universiade: ‘Financial Out-Turn Enquiries. Sheffield: Sheffield City
Council.
Simson, V., and A. Jennings
1992 The Lords of the Rings: Power, Money and Drugs in the Modem Olympics.
London: Simon and Schuster.
Sparrow, M.
1989 A Tourism Planning Model of Hallmark Events. n The Planning and Evalua-
tion of Hallmark Events, G. Syme, B. Shaw, M. Fenton and Mueller, eds., pp.
250-262. Aldershot: Avebury.
Squires, G.
1991 Partnership and the Pursuit of the Private City. ch. 9. In Urban Life and
Transition, M. Gottdiener and C. Pickvance, eds., pp. 196-221. London: Sage.
Stewart, J., and G. Stoker, eds.
1989 The Future of Local Government. London: Macmillan.
Stewart, M.
1990 Urban Policy in Thatcher’s England. Bristol: School for Advanced Urban
Studies. Bristol Universitv.
Stoker, G.
I
1989 Creating a Local Government for a Post-Fordist Society: The Thatcherite
Proiect. In The Future of Local Governments. 1. Stewart and G. Stoker. eds..
pp.a141-170. London: Macmillan.
I”
, ,
Stone, C., M. Orr, and D. Imbroscio
1991 The Reshaping of Urban Leadership in US Cities: A Regime Analysis. In
Urban Life and Transition, M. Gottdiener and C. Pickvance, eds., pp. 222-234.
London: Sage.
Syme, G., B. Shaw, M. Fenton, and W. Mueller, eds.
1989 The Planning and Evaluation of Hallmark Events. Aldershot: Avebury.
Thome, R., and M. Munro-Clark
1987 Hallmark Events as an Excuse for Autocracy in Urban Planning: A Case
History. In The Planning and Evaluation of Hallmark Events, G. Syme, B.
Shaw, M. Fenton and W. Mueller, eds., pp. 154-171. Aldershot: Avebury.
Tomlinson, A., and G. Whannel, eds.
1984 Five Ring Circus: Money, Power and Politics at the Olympic Games. London,
Pluto Press.
Travis, A. S., and J. C. CroizC
1987 The Role and Impact of Mega-Events and Attractions on Tourism Develop-
ment in Europe: A Micro-Perspective. In AIEST Conference Proceedings, pp.
59-78. St. Gall, Switzerland: Association International d’Experts Scientifiques
du Tourisme.
Urry, J.
1990a The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage.
1990b Globalisation, Localisation and the Nation-State. Lancaster: Lancaster Re-
gionalism Group, Working Paper 40, Lancaster University.
Westergaard, J., I. Noble, and A. Walter
1989 After Redundancy: The Experience of Insecurity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Watts, D., P. Smithson, and P. White
1989 Sheffield Today. Sheffield: Department of Geography, Sheffield University.
Submitted 11 September 1991
Resubmitted 3 February 1992
Resubmitted 27 November 1992
Accepted 18 December 1992
Final version submitted 1 May 1993
Refereed anonymously
Coordinating Editor: Donald Getz