Mega Sport for All? Assessing the Development Promises of Rio 2016
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction On October 2, 2009, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) named Rio de Janeiro, Brazil the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. The announcement saw Rio chosen from a group of world-class cities contending for the Games that also included Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid, and become the first city on the South American continent awarded the rights to host the Games. Media reaction to the news was swift, focusing on the historic nature of the decision and the choice of Rio over northern cities in traditionally superior political and economic positions, particularly Chicago, which enjoyed the endorsement of United States President Barack Obama. At the same time, included in the early media narratives of the decision was the prospect for improvement, both economic and social, that the Games offered Rio, particularly amidst Brazil's emergence as a world power. For example, Canadian media reported that Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva told the IOC members that his was a nation that was working hard to move out of poverty. He evoked images of a country where 30 million people had moved into the middle class and that owned the newest and richest offshore oil finds in the world. (1) Such early narratives were not entirely surprising given two recent trends in the political economy of international sport: one, the invocation of sports mega-events like the Olympic Games (as well as the FIFA World Cup and Commonwealth Games) as part of, and even catalysts for, sustainable social and economic development models for host cities/nations in the Global South; (2) and two, the broader institutionalization and mobilization of 'Sport for Development and Peace' which advocates for sport programs, policies, and infrastructure as a means of meeting international development goals (3), a movement of which the International Olympic Committee itself is a stakeholder. This paper offers an overview, and critical reading, of the early development narratives and promises of Rio 2016 as espoused by the International Olympic Committee, the organizers of Rio 2016, and the dominant political and commercial interests as read through media and marketing texts. While much time and socio-political maneuvering remains before the delivery of the development prospects of Rio 201 6 can be assessed, it is an important preliminary step to track, and consider critically, the expectations of Rio 2016 in and through development terms, particularly given ongoing critical analyses regarding the ability and likelihood of sport mega-events to deliver sustainable, tangible, and egalitarian development in the Global South, (4) as well as the propensity for sport-focused development initiatives to align with modernization and/or neo-liberal approaches and philosophy (5) that may fall short of challenging or redressing structural inequalities. The paper is concerned then with two main questions: One, is there a broader development agenda attached to Rio 2016 and what are its main components? Two, how were the development promises of Rio 2016 interpreted and constructed within the dominant commercial media and the international business community immediately following the announcement given that they continue to be important development power brokers? Taken together, these questions allowed for an analysis of the notions of development as espoused by the IOC and the Rio 2016 organizers, as well as a comparative analysis of these prospects for development as understood within the political economy. History and Theory The development challenges of Rio de Janeiro and Brazil are complex and firmly rooted in the country's history and politics. While a thorough overview of Brazilian political history is beyond the scope of this paper, some context is called for. An economic success in the 1960's and 70's with highly protected domestic markets, Brazil experienced significant social and political unrest and shocking inflation after the transfer from military to civilian government in 1985. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».