Article contents
Governing Mega-Events: Tools of Security Risk Management for the FIFA 2006 World Cup in Germany and London 2012 Olympic Games
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2013
Abstract
Mega-events present a special venue for the practice of risk management. This article analyses the management of security risks in the case of two sporting mega-events, the London 2012 Olympic Games and the FIFA 2006 World Cup in Germany. To what extent do strategies and practices of risk management resemble each other across events? And what explains similarities or differences in the tools of risk management observed in each of these cases? First, this article explores three theoretical explanations for the choice of particular policy tools or instruments. Second, it introduces the tools of government approach as a means of conducting a direct comparative analysis of risk management across political and organizational settings and over time. The tools used for security risk management at the two mega-events are then compared and the different logics of tool choice are evaluated. This analytical approach offers a basis for future comparative inquiry into tools of risk management used in public and private organizations. The empirical findings highlight the particular importance of national political systems in influencing tool choice.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2011.
References
2 E.g. Hood, C., Baldwin, R. and Rothstein, H., The Government of Risk, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Power, M., Organized Uncertainty: Organizing a World of Risk Management, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007 Google Scholar; Rosenthal, U., Charles, M. T. and Hart, P. ’t (eds), Coping with Crises: The Management of Disasters, Riots and Terrorism, Springfield, IL, Charles C. Thomas, 1989 Google Scholar; Boin, A., McConnell, A., and Hart, P. ’t, Governing After Crisis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boin, A., Hart, P. ’t, Stern, E. and Sundelius, B., The Politics of Crisis Management, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Roche, M., ‘Mega-Events and Urban Policy’, Annals of Tourism Research, 21: 1 (1994), pp. 1–19, at p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Linder, S. and Peters, B. G., ‘Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts’, Journal of Public Policy, 9: 1 (1989), pp. 35–58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 L. Salomon, The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002; Lascoumes, P. and Le Gales, P., ‘Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through its Instruments: From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation’, Governance, 20: 1 (2007), pp. 1–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W. and Zito, A. R., ‘The Rise of “New” Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?’, Political Studies, 53: 3 (2005), pp. 477–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Hall, C., ‘The Definition and Analysis of Hallmark Tourist Events’, GeoJournal, 19: 3 (1989), pp. 263–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. Altshuler and D. Luberoff, Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 2003; B. Flyvbjerg, N. Bruzelius and W. Rothengatter, Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. Skamris and Buhl, S., ‘Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 68: 3 (2002), pp. 279–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 See P. DiMaggio and W. Powell, ‘The Iron Cage Revisited’, in P. DiMaggio and W. Powell (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1991, p. 66; Jensen, L., ‘Policy Diffusion through Institutional Legitimation’, Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research, 13 (2003), pp. 521–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D'Aunno, T., Sutton, R. and Price, R., ‘Isomorphism and External Support in Conflicting Institutional Environments’, Academy of Management Journal, 34 (1991), pp. 636–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frumkin, P. and Galaskiewicz, J., ‘Institutional Isomorphism and Public Sector Organisation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14 (2004), pp. 283–307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Lodge, On Different Tracks, Westport, CT, Praeger, 2002; Lodge, M. and Wegrich, K., ‘Control Over Government’, Policy Studies Journal, 33: 2 (2005), pp. 213–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 DiMaggio and Powell, ‘The Iron Cage Revisited’, p. 66.
9 D’Aunno, Sutton and Price, ‘Isomorphism and External Support’.
10 DiMaggio and Powell, ‘The Iron Cage Revisited’, pp. 67–74; Guler, I., Guillen, M. and Macpherson, M. Muir, ‘Global Competition, Institutions and the Diffusion of Organizational Practices’, Administrative Studies Quarterly, 47 (2002), pp. 207–32, esp. pp. 211–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Roche, ‘Mega-Events and Urban Policy’, p. 1.
12 M. Moran, ‘Not Steering but Drowning: Policy Catastrophes and the Regulatory State’, Political Quarterly, 72 (October 2001), pp. 414–27.
13 Pound, R. W., Inside the Olympics, Toronto, John Wiley, 2004, chapter 8Google Scholar.
14 W. Jennings and M. Lodge, ‘Critical Infrastructures, Resilience and Organisation of Mega-Projects: The Olympic Games’, in B. M. Hutter (ed.), Anticipating Risks and Organising Risk Regulation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 161–84.
15 This is subject to cognitive and institutional biases (‘friction’) of attention identified in the model of disproportionate information processing, see B. Jones and F. Baumgartner, The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2005.
16 Power, M., Organized Uncertainty, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007 Google Scholar.
17 March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P., Rediscovering Institutions, New York, Free Press, 1989 Google Scholar.
18 Council of the European Union, Recommendation Concerning a Handbook for the Co-Operation between Member States to Avoid Terrorist Acts at Olympic Games and Other Comparable Sporting Events, Brussels, 13 February 2004; 5744/1/04.
19 Council of Europe, ‘European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in Particular at Football Matches’, 1985, available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/120.htm.
20 This article's research is based on extensive documentary analysis as well as interviews with key actors involved in security risk management at the FIFA 2006 World Cup in Germany and the London 2012 Olympic Games.
21 Mayor of London, London Assembly Questions on London Bid for 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games – 13.10.04. Answers to Non-Oral Questions, Prepared by London 2012, GLA, LDA, TfL 18.10.04, Q. 357/2004, at http://www.london2012.com/publications/theme-3-legal.php (last accessed 2 December 2010).
22 London 2012 bid (2004). Candidate File, Volume 3, p. 39, at http://www.london2012.com/publications/theme-3-legal.php (last accessed 2 December 2010).
23 Of course, football World Cups are also potential targets for threats associated here with the Olympics. We are making a point regarding emphasis.
24 Linder and Peters, ‘Instruments of Government’, pp. 49–50; Howlett, M., ‘Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy Implementations: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice’, Policy Studies Journal, 19 (1991), pp. 1–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Schneider, A. and Ingram, H., ‘Behavioural Assumptions of Policy Tools’, Journal of Politics, 52: 2 (1990), pp. 510–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 R. K. Weaver and B. Rockman, Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 1993; Levy, B. and Spiller, P., ‘The Institutional Foundations of Regulatory Commitment’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 10 (1994), pp. 201–46Google Scholar.
26 J. Richardson (ed.), Policy Styles in Europe, London, Allen Unwin, 1982; P. Hall, Governing the Economy, Oxford, Blackwell, 1986.
27 M. Lodge, On Different Tracks, pp. 22–8.
28 Lijphardt, A., Patterns of Democracies, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1999 Google Scholar.
29 P. Hall and D. Soskice, ‘Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism’, in P. Hall and D. Soskice (eds), Varieties of Capitalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 1–68.
30 Hood, C., The Tools of Government, London, Macmillan, 1983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hood, C. and Margetts, H., The Tools of Government in the Digital Age, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For reasons of parsimony and space, we do not expand this analysis by separating detectors and effectors, as considered by Hood and Hood and Margetts.
31 E.g. Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M., ‘Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice: Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience’, Review of Policy Research, 12: 3 (1993), pp. 3–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Howlett, M., ‘Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy Implementations: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice’, Policy Studies Journal, 19 (1991), pp. 1–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 Peters, B. G., ‘Policy Instruments and Public Management’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10: 1 (2000), pp. 35–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Howlett, M., ‘Managing the “Hollow State” ’, Canadian Public Administration, 43: 4 (2008), pp. 412–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Interview, official, Integrated Security Unit, Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics.
35 Interview, official, Metropolitan Police.
36 The use of legal authority to suspend work permits, working hours or customs clearance regulations are not considered here.
37 Apart from the federal complication, there was a further inherent tension in terms of the ownership of the World Cup, with the international football association's (FIFA) legal contracts taking priority over those signed by the German association. However, this mainly concerned issues of sponsorship rather than security risk management measures.
38 UK London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 c.12, available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060012_en.pdf
39 See London 2012 bid, Candidate File, available at http://www.london2012.com/publications/introduction.php and http://www.london2012.com/publications/theme-12-security.php (last accessed 2 December 2010).
40 The World Cup generated a substantial surplus for the association (€135m, the DFB's net benefit was €56.6m). The bid to host the tournament likewise was funded through private finance. In contrast, the unsuccessful Berlin bid for the 2000 Olympic Games was estimated to have cost approximately €31m in public funds.
41 ARUP, London Olympics 2012: Costs and Benefits, Executive Summary, London, ARUP and Insignia Richard Ellis, 21 May 2002, pp. 3–4.
42 ARUP, London Olympics 2012: Costs and Benefits [Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Freedom of Information Request]. (2002), London, ARUP/Insignia Richard Ellis, p. 98.
43 Ibid., p. 95.
44 House of Commons, Public Accounts Committee, The Budget for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Fourteenth Report of Session 2007–08, London, The Stationery Office, 2008, p. 9.
45 D. Roberts, ‘Olympics Security Is No Game’, BusinessWeek, 7 August 2008.
46 G. Buck, ‘Vaulting Olympic Risk’, Risk & Insurance, August 2004.
47 D. Lenckus, ‘Beijing 2008 Olympics Cancellation Cover Led in Europe’, Business Insurance, 28 July 2008.
48 Bundesregierung, ‘Fußball-WM2006: Abschlussbericht der Bundesregierung’, available at http://www.bmi.bund.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/139756/publicationFile/15274/WM2006_Abschlussbericht_der_Bundesregierung.pdf.
49 See the website at www.londonprepared.gov.uk
50 London Resilience, ‘London Mass Fatality Plan’, available at http://www.londonprepared.gov.uk/downloads/LMFPMainBodyV2.pdf
51 London 2012 bid, Candidate File, Chapter 12, p. 39.
52 Interview, German football association.
53 Indeed, the closed nature of the intelligence world makes research into such networks of diffusion difficult, and might therefore lead to an underreporting of isomorphic outcomes.
54 Hood, C., ‘The Risk Game and the Blame Game’, Government and Opposition, 32: 1 (2002), pp. 15–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
- 17
- Cited by