Events and Social Capital

1. Events and Social Capital MLLSM01 Events Policy Lecture 5

2. An Outline • This lecture goes beyond the narrow economic model of analysis to consider the wider social impact of events on a variety of stakeholders • It draws on Whitson & Horne’s (2006) call to focus on direct and indirect ‘beneficiaries’ so that we can evaluate the real winners and losers in an event-led strategy employed by city governments • It considers the proposed social benefits from the hosting of events (large and small) and subjects these to critical scrutiny • It also pays attention to the opportunity costs associated with the allocation of public resources to subsidise/support the involvement of private sector actors in attracting and hosting events • Finally, it focuses on the heterogeneity of the events field, arguing that certain types of event and their specific governance arrangements are more likely to secure the proposed social ‘benefits’ than others

3. Social impacts • The economic imperative has tended to ensure that social and cultural benefits of events have been downplayed • ‘Bread not circuses’ motto for events often banded around in areas of poverty: • Transformation of the economic, built environment, employment prospects - Toronto’s social activists lobbying for welfare improvements • Until recently there has been little evidence generated to measure the social dimension of major events (Waterman, 1998; Derrett, 2003) – ‘hypothetical chains’ • The questioning of an economic hegemony has led to a growing body of literature now given over to verifying the social impact of events on host communities – or at least offering a critique of the actual beneficiaries of investment in events (Whitson & Horne, 2006)

4. Social capital • As a concept, social capital has attracted a significant amount of attention in recent years as fears over the fragmentation of communities and a generalised decline in civic engagement has increased • Described by Bourdieu (1985:248) as: • “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition • Associated with the work of Jacobs (1961), Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988) Hall (1999) and Putnam (1993; 2000) it refers to the following terms: • Networks – bonding or bridging/connectedness/Feelings of trust and safety/Sense of belonging/Reciprocity/Participation/Citizen power & proactivity/Values, norms and outlook on life/Diversity • The potential contribution of events and festivals in strengthening social capital is increasingly prevalent in the ‘case’ for hosting a variety of large and small scale events: • 2012 Olympics – community benefits for East London

5. Social capital and events • It is suggested that events and festivals can work as the ‘social glue’ of communities by aiding capacity building and through cementing a sense of place identity (whether a nation, a city or a neighbourhood): • The development of social capital is thus inextricably linked to the process of community development and engagement • Supporters argue that events and festivals can assuage feelings of alienation and social isolation experienced in some of the most challenging community circumstances. • Festivals can, ‘reconnect leisure with the quality of community life, social engagement, and the achievement of the common good’ (Arai & Pedlar, 2003: 199) • Other ‘social benefits’ are linked to the feeling of pride in the host city engendered by the hosting of a large scale event – but again, the evidence suggests that higher property prices, displacement, inconvenience and the financial legacy of revenue funding can be punitive for lower income groups in particular

6. Positive social impacts • Aligning with the renewed focus on social capital, McDonnell et al (1999) define a series of positive social impacts emanating from the hosting of events • Shared experience: replacing other forms of collective solidarity (e.g. trade unions, political parties) (Zukin, 1995): • But critique of sustainability of this ‘solidarity’ – rather, a fleeting and transitory coming together of people in proto-communities (Maffesoli, 1991) • Whose version of ‘experience’ is being shared(Waitts, 2004) • The development of the social economy can be directly linked to successful events planning as Gould (2001:71) suggests • “as individuals gain new skills and capacities in management, decision making, teamwork, fundraising, negotiation, etc, so the community is gaining new skills and competences” • Development of community pride: subjective feelings of hope and renewed achievement orientation – reduce social unrest

7. Positive social impacts • Community participation, engagement and ownership: • In her studies of Barcelona, Glasgow and Sydney, Garcia (2004) unconvinced of linkages between spectacles and the participation and representation of local populations • Extending cultural horizons/experiences: • Waitts (2004) suggests that this could also be seen as a means to exert social control to address the loss of identity associated with class, age, ethnicity and of place which brought about by the change in economic structure towards post-industrialism • The encouragement of ‘feeling’ and ‘affect’ (Ley and Old, 1988) through the promotion of city, national and community pride using the vehicle of entertainment/spectacle, or the ‘showcase event’

8. ‘Anti-social’ capital • McDonnell et al (1999) define negative social impacts as: • Community alienation: feelings of being ignored in respect of decisions about bidding and delivery: • Legislative fast-tracking to circumvent normal democratic process • Negative community image: • Substance abuse: • Social ills which affect communities when large scale event are hosted • Loss of amenities: • Opportunity cost of expenditure on facilities and infrastructure to support large scale event • Reflects the politics of resource allocation to secure social policy outcomes

9. ‘Anti-social’ capital • Robinson et al (2004) urges caution, insisting that those involved in the conception, planning and delivery of events and festivals must take full cognisance of their social meaning to local residents • The notion of authenticity in respect of representations of an areas ‘cultural identity’ is important (St Patrick’s Day Parade for example)

10. Measuring Social impacts • Thomas and Wood have developed the Social Impact Body of Knowledge (SIBOK) process to assist events organisers to evaluate the ‘intangible’ or the ‘irrational’: • Community pride, community regeneration etc • Flinn and McPherson (2007) in their discussion of the role of arts and culture in developing social capital point out that there is currently a plethora of definitions of social capital, but as Portes (1998) points out, • there is a growing consensus that social capital refers to the ability of individuals to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks and other structures. It is this concept of social networks that is central to the notion of social capital. • It is this measurement that Events Planners and Policy makers often fail to address. The grassroots networks that will sustain the community groups long after the event has left town.

11. References • Arai, S & Pedlar, A (2003) ‘Moving beyond individualism in leisure theory: a critical analysis of concepts of community and social engagement’, Leisure Studies, 22: 185-202 • Bourdieu, P (1986) ‘The forms of capital’, In Baron, S., Field, J., Schuller, T (eds) Social Capital – Critical Perspectives, Oxford University Press. • Coleman, J (1988) Social Capital in the creation of Human Capital, American Journal of Sociology 94 Supplement S95-S120. University of Chicago • Derrett, R (2003) ‘Making sense of how a festivals demonstrate a community sense of place’, Events Management, 8: 49-58 • Garcia, Beatriz (2004): “Urban Regeneration, Arts Programming and Major Events”, International Journal of Cultural Policy 10(1) pp. 103-18. • Hall, P.A. (1999) Social Capital in Britain, British Journal of Political Science, 29: 417-461 • Healy, T (2001) Health Promotion and Social Control, Conference Paper, International Evidence for the Impact of Social Capital on Well-being, National University of Ireland, Galway

12. References • Jacobs, J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. • McDonnell, I et al (1999) Festival and Special Event Management, Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons. • Putnam, R (1993) ‘The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life’, The American Prospect, 13 • Putnam, R (2000) Bowling Alone – The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, Schuster & Schuster • Robinson, M., Picard, D & Long, P (2004) ‘Introducing Festival Tourism: Producing, Translating and Consuming Expressions of Culture(s)’, Event Management, 8: 187-189 • Waterman, S (1998) ‘Carnivals for Elites: The Cultural Politics of Arts Festivals’, Progress in Human Geography, 22 (1): 54-74 • Whitson, D & Horne, J (2006) ‘Underestimated costs and overestimated benefits? Comparing the outcomes of sports mega-events in Canada and Japan, Sociological Review