Want more medals? Raise GDP

Jacques Rogge,International Olympic Committee President,was interviewed. Subject to Commonwealth Games (and not just opening ceremony) being satisfactorily held,the interview was headlined as India now being in a position to mount an Olympic bid. However,that’s not all Rogge said. He also said,“I think it would be fantastic if India could improve its sporting performance. You have great athletes and you have one overriding sport,which is cricket. But we need more gold medals from the second most populous country in the world.” At Melbourne in 2006,India was fourth,after Australia,England and Canada,with rankings determined by total number of medals. With tennis included,a host country advantage and a large contingent,the Indian aspiration is one of being second in the Delhi tally. Despite national pride,that seems a trifle unlikely. The fourth spot has been up for grabs since New Zealand was ousted. But there is a large gulf between England and Canada,and India. Even if one were to inch out Canada,it would be quite an achievement. Let’s not forget. India won more medals in Manchester in 2002 than Melbourne in 2006. However,it is also true India’s performance has improved since 2002.

There has been some research on economic performance and medal tallies,including,say,football World Cup,though most of this is pre-Beijing. With limited geographical coverage,Commonwealth Games are not the best indicator of global sporting clout. However,whichever sporting event one considers,one can’t deny India punches below its weight. This is especially true if one correlates medal tallies with population. There is a moot point about whether one counts all medals equally,or whether one gives,say,3 points to a gold,2 to a silver and 1 to a bronze. However,India being an outlier (in a negative sense) is irrespective of this weighting problem. And so are Indonesia and Bangladesh. If population is the variable,China is also a negative outlier,despite its apparent sporting success,but much less so than India. Positive outliers (those that punch above their weight) are the US,Russia,several European countries and even smaller countries in Africa and Caribbean. A more plausible correlation is with GDP rather than population,the argument being that richer countries have better governance and general infrastructure,in addition to being in a position to spend more on sports. There are,of course,questions about whether one uses official exchange rate GDP numbers or PPP (purchasing power parity) figures.

Most studies use official exchange rate GDP and understandably,India becomes less of an outlier. This effect is reinforced if GDP is replaced by per capita GDP. On an average,if one includes population,per capita GDP and host country advantage,one gets a pretty good handle on medal tallies,though India still remains an outlier. However,there are two additional points that need flagging. First,there is a difference between absolute levels of these variables and their increments. For instance,an increment in GDP can boost incremental medal tallies significantly. This has happened for China and with some wishful thinking,may now be happening for India.

Story continues below this ad

One can validate such a hypothesis with India’s performance in Asian Games (not South Asian Games),though 15th version in Guangzhou in November will be a test. Beijing in 2008 might also be a partial validation. Second,and this is an important caveat,distributions of medals across sporting events are not quite rationally determined and often tend to be arbitrary. This is something one fails to adequately address when one considers overall medal tallies. For example,in summer Olympic games,there are many more medals in track & field and swimming.

Hence,beyond questions of spending more on sports and sports infrastructure and increasing efficiency of expenditure,there is a tactical issue about targeting this expenditure better. If increasing number of medals is the objective,resources are better spent on track & field and swimming than on team sports like hockey,where a single medal can be the end result. This takes one to legacy effects of CWG. While Delhi’s infrastructure will be left in better shape,it is doubtful that sports will be given a boost. On that,there is indeed an opportunity cost argument in the Mani Shankar Aiyar proposition. And there is also an inefficient public expenditure argument. It is not quite the case that in market-based economies,there is no public expenditure on sport. But whether it is these countries,or the Soviet bloc model (still followed by China),public expenditure is far more efficient than in India. Indeed,several of India’s recent successes (chess,tennis,shooting,golf,badminton) are instances where private resources (even sponsorships) have been forthcoming.

There is not much the ministry of youth affairs and sports can claim credit for. Since government won’t become more efficient,all we can do is to increase per capita GDP and medals will follow.

The author is a noted economist