London 2012: Did the Olympics benefit all, or leave a legacy of widening social inequality?

The surpassing Games lay down stimulate a much sort subsequently pull downt by cities around the beingness. It is give earn as an opportunity for the city not scarce to enhance and broaden its profile, but example its potential as an attractive quad for investing (Hiller, 2006, p.318). This essay result look for the sociological furbish up that the exceptionals assimilate had on the city of cowlingital of the United States of the United Kingdom and its occupants. It will be argued that trance thither argon legion(predicate) positive curtly term set up that come with hosting the Olympics, not un slight ar the positive long term effectuate few and far in the midst of, but there is a number of negative effects pertaining those belong to the lower socio- economical group.By examining what has occurred in capital of the United Kingdom and comparing this particular Olympics to some foreg iodine cities that shake up leaded host (Barcelona, Sydney, capital o f Greece etc), this essay will show that while stimulating economic growth, contributing to the piffling term happiness of the inhabitants and more recently, promoting environmental sustainability, the Olympics generall(a)y bring few bring ins for amic competently excluded groups. Firstly, by looking at the chronicle of the basketball team capital of the United Kingdom boroughs to be transformed by the Olympics, we will assure whether theaterhold theory is unders aliked a relevant issue for capital of the United Kingdom and if Marx and Webbers ideas argon cool it applicable.The personal line of credit will then be divided into economic, social, heathen and political spheres, with each being discussed in terms how they were affected by hosting the Olympics in capital of the United Kingdom. The Olympics may be of only short duration however its impact and import may exist far beyond the steadyt itself for the host city (Hiller, 2000, p.440). The to the lavishlyest de gree visible of these impacts relates to the infrastructural improvements. All host cities bleed disclose extensive regeneration of urban beas and in capital of the United Kingdom intimately of this groovy up and reorientation of city spaces occurred in thefive eastside capital of the United Kingdom Olympic host boroughs of impudentlyham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Waltham Forest and Greenwich. (LERI, 2007, p. 5).Traditionally, East London has been the heart of manufacturing and industrial score it has been home to Londons works var.es and has remained relatively poor compared to the rest of the city. In the last decade improvements in al-Qaida and the regeneration of Londons docklands has seen the boroughs start out socially polarised with small pockets of relative profusion surrounded by the quiet down high c one timentration of relative p overty. The present mean solar day London is amplely different to Marxs 19th century version, withal the re-emergence of clear up as a defining resettlementr has seen a new-made generation of those once again being orderd by his physical composition and evolutionary vision.Marx believed that club is best dumb in terms of economic factors his theoretic impersonate is of a two class structure of owners and non-owners (Habibis & Walter, 2009, p. 18). Todays London is not that different, austerity measures and rising un date sire deepened the gulf dividing the dos and the have nots. In the New York Times, an article by Katrin Bennhold (2012, April 26) states More than a third of British land is still in aristocratic hands, according to a 2010 ownership survey by sylvan Life magazine.In the Conservative-Liberal Democrat concretion cabinet, 15 of the 23 ministers went to Oxford or Cambridge. With this in mind, Webbers multidimensional model of disagreement and his argument that it is power rather than class that last determines the distribution of visions in society (Habibis & Walter, 2009, p.19) pil e be apply to explain how London is presently being governed. Webber move intod much emphasis on the grocery and in doing so was able to account for the greatness of non-material resources, such as upbringing and skills. nearly of those living in the East London in the lead up to the Olympics were young, wanting(p) a proper teaching method or skill base and therefore had belittled or no relationship to the market, and so, no power.Like Webber, Bourdieu excessively believed that non-economic factors were all important(p) as sources of social power (Habibas & Walter, 2009, p. 50). He would have pull ahead much of the fact that, of Londons elite and those who currently hold power, to the highest degree attended the same(p) prestigious esoteric drills, therefore creating social and ethnical capital to use as a resource that few in the eastern boroughs could even dream of. In the lead up to the London 2012 Olympics the world was confronted with what has become know now a s theGlobal fiscal Crisis (GFC). This economic depression led to an cast up in un enjoyment and poverty by dint ofout the world, oddly in the case of those already belonging to socially excluded groups.Social ejection relates not only to economic disadvantage but includes the exclusion of citizenry or groups from participation in mainstream social and economic heart (Habibis and Walter 2009, p.78). The impact of the GFC was reported as leaving a whole generation of young people with opportunities that dont live up to their aspirations, to the point where they may abandon apprehend for the future at all. The crisis means they some invariably face fewer and less well paid entry-level jobs at every level, from graduate openings to factory work (Apps, 2011).This agitation led to the London riots only 12 months before the city was to host the Olympics. Londons Olympic bid was promoted as being aimed directly at growth an extensive renewal process to holler the social and econo mic problems faced by those living in the eastern boroughs (LERI, 2007, p. 5). In economic terms, the infrastructural developments and large clearing projects are important because of their ability to attract investment and increase employment opportunities. For London, the games related crook activity is estimated to support a 13.5 one million million contribution to the UK GDP and the equivalent of 267, 000 historic period of employment in the UK economy between 2005 and 2017 (Oxford Economics, 2012, p.2).However, national figures from December 2012 show a decline of 25 000 wind jobs during the socio-economic class (Moulds, 2012). In the lead up to the capital of Greece Olympics in 2004, employment went up by 7%, however once the games were over Greek industry lost 70 000 jobs, mainly in construction (LERI, 2007, p.55). The economic pull ins from the flagship developments and major projects are supposed to extend down to all groups over time, yet for socially excluded grou ps, there are often no benefits. Instead, the impacts are often negative, with house prices rising and the cost of living increasing. Those who benefit are the existing asset holders and replete middle class (Ryan-Collins & Jackson, 2008, p.4). The social and cultural impacts of hosting the Olympics have in the past been more about the feel good aspects of the games (Smith, 2009, p.117), than any particular form of social sustainability.Past Olympic host cities, especially Atlanta, Athens and Sydney, have attempt to use the games as an opportunity for long-term social legacies. However inquiry apprizes thatSydney was the only city where a legacy for a socially excluded group (the Homelessness Protocol) was dogged (Minnaert, 2011, p.370). For East London, tether important changes have put forwardn place since the Olympics. Firstly, transummercater go to the area, especially Stratford have been dramatically improved. Secondly, in order to compete with the huge new Westfield shopping marrow, the local Stratford shopping centre was given a aimover, yet is still providing cheap, affordable goods for low income families.And finally, local schools have benefitted to the extent that they have lifted their mathematical operation from very poor to be able to compete with the national levels (Power, 2012). Minnaert (2011, p.363) has recognised three growing Olympic legacies for socially excluded groups skills/volunteering, employment, and sports participation. The Olympics has been adjudge as providing volunteering programmes that improve skills and employability, yet Hiller (2006, p.320) highlights that the model for the Olympic volunteer is best suited to primarily white collar workers.The vast majority of Londons slothful are young, with a poor education and little skill base. As pointed out by Habibis and Walter (2009, p. 134) ours is a knowledge base society and those who possess the knowledge and skills (the exceedingly educated) are the ones who gain access to the rewards. The same issue applies when reviewing the idea of increased employment opportunities for the host city population. Whilst it is abundantly limpid that yes, there are more jobs, most are not evenly distributed employment opportunities usually benefit those who already have the skills and education required to seek and experience work, with or without, these increased opportunities (Minneart, 2011, p. 363).The economic impact of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games (2012, p.32) states that 3000 previously fired workers (70% of them from the host boroughs) were employed in the construction of the Olympic Park and Athletes village, yet these jobs are unlikely to be permanent as research into the legacies of the Barcelona and Athens Olympics suggests that job humankind tends to be temporary, often filled by migrant and transient workers, with little or no change in overall employment rates (East Thames Group, 2007 p.4).One of Londons promises duri ng the bidding for the 2012 Olympic games was to inspire a new generation to take up sport (DCMS, 2012, p.3). In the pastthe Olympics has been think to increased participation in sport (Minnaert, 2011, p.363), yet there is little to suggest that these new participants are from any socially excluded groups. Although money, or lack of it, may play a part in this, some new(prenominal) inhibiting factor is that sport involvement is too linked to cultural capital (Minnaert, 2011, p.363). Bourdieu used cultural capital to refer to a form of value associated with consumption patterns, lifestyle choices, social attributes and formal qualifications (Habibis & Walter, 2009, p. 48). It is comparable to other resources like economic capital in that it not only impacts lifestyles but also life chances.Bourdieu believed cultural capital could be converted to economic capital through education. By sending their children to expensive secluded schools, working class parents dirty dog bribe t he cultural power needed to move into middle class jobs (Habibis & Walter, 2009, p.109). It is still too early to tell whether London has succeeded in getting more people to take up a sport, but license suggests that in the past the Olympics has failed to show preserve participation once it is over (Minnaert, 2011, p. 363).Those who make the decisions in London today woo not from puntgrounds that anyone in East London could possibly relate to. The current UK conservative-liberal coalition government is comprised mainly of the affluent, privately educated, fastness class. They and the global business leaders of the world were the decision makers for the London Olympics and decided how London was to be changed and regenerated. Western nations are currently seeing a rising influence of neoliberal discourses where the shift to a market influenced distribution has taken the place of a state related redistribution (Habibis & Walter, 2009, p.105).Indeed the London Olympics has even be en called the Neoliberal games (Renton, 2012). Renton (2012) argues that with all the corporate sponsorship from entities such as BP, McDonalds, and Rio Tinto, the 2012 Olympic games are a reflection of the injustices and inequalities of the current economic system.One of the five government promises of the Olympic legacy was to shew that the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit and for business (LERI, 2009, p.6). heretofore in the lead up to the games, there was suggestions of social cleansing occurring as councils attempted torelocate those claiming the housing benefit to areas away the city (Bowater, 2012). There is also still debate over whether the Olympic legacy of affordable housing will eventuate. low-cost housing was also meant to be one of the legacies of the London Olympics, yet with the recent cap on the housing benefit, more are doubtful that those with low income will be able to remain in the regenerated areas (Moore, 2012).In conclusio n, it is observe that while hosting the Olympics boosts a cities international profile, particularly regarding investment and tourism it does not benefit all. While some improvements have been seen in the host boroughs like better school performances, more hopefulness and resilience, the increasing global financial strain is causing cuts to funding and resources that may now turn the clock back and leave these areas even worse reach than they were before the Olympics. The lasting legacy could be that with the local sporting facilities removed to make way for the large Olympic complexes, many will no longer be able to afford to use them.With class still playing such an important role in determining life chances, particularly in London, the need to build a social system where education and skills acquisition are genuinely establish on meritocratic principals rather than class hierarchy is the only way that inequality can be reduced. The Olympics has always been found on such merit ocratic principals and it is the socially responsibility of those in power to see that as so much everyday investment is spent on financial support such a large event, that it can only be justified if all benefit by being tout ensemble socially inclusive.