1. Caroline Buts, Cind Du Bois, Bruno Heyndels Government structure & sports performance

2. Sports success differs among countries. Large empirical literature on determinants of success at (mainly) Olympic Games, … shows that CONTEXT MATTERS … Olympic medal table Bejing Total number of medals 957 USA110 China100 Russia 72 Great Britain 47... Economic conditions Sociological conditions Climatic conditions Political conditions Political conditions

3. Ideology Government structure Communist countries tend to outperform others Decentralised countries tend to outperform others

4. Outline 1.Theory:implications of federalism 3.Conclusions 2. Empirical analyses 2.aGovernment decentralisation and Olympic performance 1996 - 2008 2.bCase study: Dissolution of former communist countries and athletic performance 1980-2006

5. 1.Theory:implications of federalism Public choice literature demonstrates: INSTITUTIONS MATTER Decentralisation affects Government behaviour Private behaviour Smaller government More efficient government More innovative government Tiebout foot-voting Yardstick voting Better cultural & artistic performance

6. Government competition and sports performances Decentralization causes competition among governments, each one wanting to have the best athletes positively affects athletic performance increases investment in elite sports Controlling for: (Dis-)economies of scale from decentralisation: ‘Minimum Efficient Scale’ Inter- and intracountry competition Empirical issue: decentralisation of sports federations vs decentralisation of countries

7. 2. Empirical analyses 2.aGovernment decentralisation and Olympic performance 1996 - 2008

8. - Olympic medals - 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 -“all” countries Country’s medal points Dependent variable 2 3 1

9. - Number of tiers of government - Federal or not? - Non-central government employment Government decentralisation Main independent variable Other independent variables PopulationHOST GDP/capitaTEMP AREAALT SOCIALISTASIA/AFR - Subnational government expenditure 156 obs. 164 obs. 86 obs. 66 obs.

10. Estimation method dependent variable is bounded OLS biased Solution: Tobit (panel) Regressions for Individual sports Team sports All sports

11. Population 6.05 e -08***5.55 e -08*** GDP / Cap 0.001*** Area 7.80 e -06***7.99 e -06*** Socialist 23.81***24.89*** Host 40.70***49.07*** Temp -2.38*-2.59 Altitude -0.0003-0.0001 Tiers 0.55 Subnational expenditures -0.129 *: 10%; **: 5%; ***: 1% Estimation results (preliminary)Team & individual sports

12. Population 1.03 e -07 *5.82 e -08*** GDP / Cap 2.48 e-04 ***9.52 e -05 Area 8.71 e-07 **2.95 e -07 Socialist 2.59-0.21 Host 2.400.39 Temp - 0.40-0.09 Altitude - 6.69 e-04-5.98 e -04 Federal 5.02 **- Subnational expenditures -0.19** *: 10%; **: 5%; ***: 1%N = 648N= 268 Team sports

13. Preliminary conclusions Indication that federalism matters for team sports success Still... this effect is clear for team sports only, not for individual sports Decentralised countries tend to outperform others Further research needed, on sport-by-sport basis & extending data on federalist structure of countries

14. 2. Empirical analyses 2.bCase study: Dissolution of former communist countries and athletic performance 1980-2006

15. Ideology Government structure Communist countries tend to outperform others Decentralised countries tend to outperform others Hypotheses Decentralized former communist countries Centralized former communist countries communist countries without such a change perform better thanperform worse than Fall of Berlin wall leads to less athletic success

16. Three groups : - No changes: Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania - Decentralization: Yugoslavia, Soviet Union; Czechoslovakia, - Centralization: Germany Countries involved Data 1991: 15 countries 1991..: 6 countries 1992..: 2 countries 1990: 1 country time

17. - Athletics top 100 year lists - Advantage over Olympic medals: no bias because of quota’s - 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2006 - Only Olympic events - 32 000 observations Country’s market share in IAAF top 100 Dependent variable

18. Market share Eastern European countries (non-DDR) H1: Fall of Berlin wall leads to less athletic success

19. Market share Eastern European countries (non-DDR)

20. Evolution of market shares of “no change-countries” (1980=100)

21. Evolution of market shares of decentralized countries

22. Evolution of market shares of centralized countries

23. Conclusions While there is some indication that government decentralisation positively affects Olympic performance, further research is needed to reach final conclusions Evidence from fall of communism is unambiguous: the break up of countries has consolidated athletic success, the merging of countries has had detrimental effects on athletic success.