There is something pyrrhic about
witnessing an opening to the Sochi Winter Olympics – and the related cost of a
jaw-dropping $50bn – set against the prevailing economic headwinds facing the Ruuski
economy…itself set against the cyclical turbulence afflicting the emerging
economies more generally.
The front cover of this week’s The Economist with Mr Putin’s
face pasted onto the ice-skater with his arms aloft whilst his partner (Russia)
is on her backside was apt.
The Sochi Olympics is a showcase for a re-emerging Russia
and the wonderful opening ceremony showcased the country’s history, pride and
ability for grand engineering.
And yet it remains a project, a grand expensive project at
that. Like the London 2012 Olympics it will no doubt inject a degree of
feel-good factor in the host country. But the real feel-good driver for Russia
in the medium term will remain the price for hydrocarbons that continues to fuel
the Putin’s economic model.
And here we return to the fate of Mother Russia or more
humbly the Russian economy. What does the Olympics signify for Russia’s
ambition to be a major global player in international economics and politics?
A lot has been written about the costs and related
corruption on a grand scale. Is any major tournament really that different –
particularly in emerging economies? And are decisions to award say the FIFA
World Cup to Qatar (without a football league and summer temperatures in excess
of 40 degrees centigrade) based on a truly unbiased fair selection? The
Russians will do a fab job, and with 1 squaddie for every local denizen in
Sochi, it will be well-protected also.
The decision to go for a big international project is akin
to a coming of age for a country and signifies confidence in itself, ability to
finance the games and to organize it. Witness the World Cup in South Africa,
the putative Games and next FIFA Cup in Brazil and even the slightly wonky
Asian Games in India.
Mind you it will be interesting to see how many of these EM
countries put their hat for such show-case events in the ring now that the
US-tapering has commenced and capital has started to leave these states.
So why pyrrhic?
The success in holding an international Sports Day (or days)
does not change the overall context of the challenges facing Russia and its
economy. And there are more parallels with the Soviet Union’s 1980 Games
when Russia’s predecessor USSR was in a downward economic spiral than with many
of the other EMs that have seen greater structural changes and a more balanced
share of wealth.
Unlike the other above-mentioned EMs (and ignoring basket
cases such as Argentina and Venezuela) Putin’s Russia is more centralized, less
democratic and more reliant for employment on the state when compared with the
early 90s…and where the state itself is even more reliant on oil and gas
revenue that account for ¾s of all exports.
Whereas the Beijing Games were genuinely regarded as
confirmation of China’s return to global influence politically and
economically, one hopes the Sochi Games don’t instead presage the parallels
with the economic malaise that subsequently afflicted the Soviet Union.
No comments:
Post a Comment