Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk

Clark, J., and Kearns, A. (2016) Going for gold: A prospective assessment of the economic impacts of the Commonwealth Games 2014 upon the East End of Glasgow. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(8), pp. 1474-1500. Copyright © 2016 The Authors This is the accepted version. Publisher version is available: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263774X15624923 http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/113560/ Deposited on: 9 January 2017

1

Going for Gold? A Prospective Assessment of the Economic Impacts of theCommonwealthGames2014upontheEastEndofGlasgow

Abstract

Hostcitieshaveincreasinglysoughttocombinethestagingofamulti-sportseventwiththeregeneration of run-down areas. Like London 2012, Glasgow has sought to use theCommonwealth Games (CWG) 2014 as a catalyst for the physical, social and economicrenewalofitsEastEnd.Thispaperusesatheory-basedevaluationframeworktoassessthelikelyeconomicimpactsoftheCWGuponGlasgow’sEastEnd.Afterconsideringthescopefor economic change, the feasibility of legacy developments and programmes beingdeliveredasintended,andtheplausibilitythateconomicimpactsmightbeachievedbasedonevidencefrompastevents,itisconcludedthateconomicimpactsarelikelyintheshort-term and possible in the medium-to-long-term. Key weaknesses in Glasgow’s approachwhichmaylimittheseimpactsareidentifiedsothatfuturehostcitieswithsimilarobjectivesmaylearnfromthem.

KeyWords:Regeneration,Multi-sportsevents,Legacy,Evaluation,Glasgow

2

Introduction:Multi-sportsEventsandLegacy

As multi-sports events have got bigger and more costly, so their legacy ambitions havegrown and changed in nature over time. The notion of legacy has become bothinstitutionalisedfromtheinternationalawardingbody’spointofview,andsoughtafterandexpectedbythehostcity.FororganisationsliketheInternationalOlympicCommittee(IOC),concernsabout‘gigantism’,veryhighcostsandthepossibilityofcriticismforleaving‘whiteelephants’ in cities (Gold and Gold 2009; Mangan 2008), has led to the revision of theOlympic Charter to state that leaving a positive and sustainable legacy to host cities is a‘fundamental commitment’ (IOC 2012). Alongside this, host cities are now required toreportonasuiteofover100outcomeindicatorsovera12yearperiodinorderthattherebe accountability for delivering on legacy promises. From the IOC’s point of view,institutionalising legacy aims helps the Olympic Movement to justify seeking such largepublic expenditures for a sporting event, whilst also encouraging cities to bid for futureeventsiftherearelegacyexpectations.ThisinstitutionalisationoflegacyhasspreadbeyondtheIOCtootherawardingbodiessuchastheCommonwealthGamesFederationandFIFA.Itwasnoted that in thebiddingdocuments forVancouver (2010)andLondon (2012), thenotionoflegacywas‘writlarge’(LeopkeyandParent2012)andthatlegacyhasbecomethe‘keyjustificationfortheevent itself,fortheinvestmentandtheeffortmade’(OECD2010,p.16).

Legacy ambitions have also changed in nature over the decades, characterised such that‘theconceptofsportasameansofspiritualrenewalhasgivenwaytosportasameansofurban renewal’ (Chawkley and Essex 1999, p.202). Early events in the first half of thetwentieth century were focused solely or mainly on sport, until the delivery of variousinfrastructure improvements were added in the 1960s for the Olympic Games in Rome(1960)andTokyo(1964), includingtransport,watersupplyandstreet lighting. Duringtheeraofemergingglobalisation in the1980sand90s,attractingmulti-sportseventsbecamepartofurbanentrepreneurialism,bothasamarkerofurbanperformanceandasameanstorebrandandselltheimageofacity(Hall2006).Thiswasalsotheperiodwhenmulti-sportsevents were first used to bring about the transformation of run-down parts of cities,includingtheoldportareaofBarcelona(1992)andapollutedbayareainthecaseofSydney(2000). The Sydney Olympics shifted attention to sustainability issues, and theCommonwealthGamesinManchesterin2002issaidtobethefirsttimealong-termsociallegacywasplannedalongsideamulti-sportsevent(SmithandFox2007).

Atthesametime,thefinancialcoststohostnationsandcitieshavebecomesogreatthatstagingamultisporteventcanonlybejustifiedtolocaltaxpayersifthepublicexpenditureisintended to leave a lasting legacy thereafter, and only if the economic impacts can be

3

identifiedandweighedagainsttheinvestmentsinacost-benefitanalysis(Preuss2004).Thefinancial lossessufferedbyMontreal (1976)whencontrastedwiththeprofitsmadea fewyears later in Los Angeles (1984) has led to increasing commercial involvement in thedelivery of multi-sports events, with escalating costs to be offset by revenues fromsponsorshipdealsandbroadcasting rights;multi-sportseventshavebecomebigbusiness.Despitethe identificationoffiveorsixkey legacydomainsandtheadoptionofsomethingsimilarbytheIOC(Cashman2002;Chappelet2006;IOC2012),itisstillsaid,untilrecentlyatleast,thateconomicissuesdominatelegacyambitionsandreceivemostattentioninstudiesofmulti-sportsevents(Kornblatt2006;Smith2009;McCartneyetal2010).

Socialissueshavetendedtobediscussedindebatesaboutthespatialdistributionofmulti-sporteventlegacies,andtheirimpactsuponhostcommunities.Despitesucheventshavingbeenrecentlyheldinpreviouslyrun-downorunderusedpartsofcities,ithasbeenarguedthatcitycentre locationsbenefit themost, forexample from imageenhancement (Preuss2007),andthatanyemploymentgainswouldbeenjoyedmoreoutsidethanwithinthehostcommunities(Kornblatt2006).Thenotionthateconomicbenefitsfrommulti-sporteventswould‘trickledown’tothelocalcommunityiscontested(Raco2004).TheseareimportantissuesgiventhattheIOC’slegacyaimsincludea‘socialinclusion’objectivecoveringbenefitsfor‘under-servedpopulations’(IOC2012).

Criticsofmulti-sportseventspointout thatpositiveeconomicbenefitsdonotnecessarilyflow tohost communities, andhighlightpotentiallynegative social andeconomic impactsincluding:displacementanddispossessionoflocalresidentstomakewayforevent-relateddevelopments (Majunda and Mehta 2010); loss of place attachment due to a lack ofconnection between new developments and existing communities (Raco 2004); loss ofidentity and connectedness due to local transformation (Smith 2009); loss of affordableresidentiallandandhousing(DavisandThornley2010);andthediversionofresourcesawayfromlocalamenitiesandservicestohelppayfornewgames-relatedvenuesbothduringandafter theevent (Coalter2004;MurphyandBauman2007;Mangan2008). Where sociallegacyaimshavebeenstudiedovertime,asinthecaseofVancouver(2010),itwasfoundthatsocialcommitmentsmadeduringthebiddingperiodweregraduallyside-lined,watereddown,orforgottensubsequently(Vanwynsbergheetal2012),thusreinforcingtheprimacyofeconomicgoals.

Keymessageshaveemergedfromtheliteratureregardinghowtoincreasethelikelihoodofachievingpositivelegacyimpacts.Legacyisnotonlyapost-eventphenomenon(Weedetal2009),buthastobeplannedforandworkedtowards inallstagesofamulti-sportsevent

4

including the bidding, preparation, staging and post-Games periods. Legacy should beviewedasa‘prospectiveconcept’(Girginov2012),requiringpriorplanning,resourcingandpoliticalcommitment(Smith2009).Equally,thepost-eventperiodisseenasacrucialtimetosecurelegacybenefitsbycapitalisingonthegoodwill,buoyantatmosphere,enthusiasmand interest generated by the event, rather than suffering a post-event depression(Cashman2006),lossofstaffandpolicyfocusandunder-utilisedfacilities.It isalsoarguedboth that legacy success is more likely where legacy aims are embedded within existingpolicies and programmes, and that supplementary, event-themed projects are required,particularly to secure social impacts (Smith and Fox 2007). Such ‘project effects’ fromspecial initiatives,whilstnotessentialtotheevent,arenonethelessanintegralpartoftheoveralleventprogrammeinalegacyera(Weedetal2009).Thisemphasisontheplanningandembeddingof legacyaimshas ledtoan interest inwhetherornotmulti-sportseventmight also leave a partnership legacy among local actors. At the same time, it has beenpointedoutthatfortheorganisingcommittee/deliveryorganisationofamulti-sportevent,thekeyfocusissuccessfuldeliveryoftheeventitself,andthatitwillbeconstrainedbyitsremitandfinancesandhavelittleactiveinterestinlegacyaims(Aghaetal2012).

TheEvaluationChallenge

The expansion of legacy ambitions and activities, the addition of event-themed projectsaroundtheGamesitself,andthemergingoftheeventwithregenerationstrategies,alladdto the complexity of the situation and to the evaluation challenge. Regeneration itself,nevermindalliedtoamulti-sportsevent, isconsideredacomplexinterventioncomprising‘multiple,interrelatedactivities…deliveredindifferentwaystodifferentpeopleindifferentplacesatdifferenttimeperiods’(Bondetal2013,p.942).Inthesecircumstances,itisnotedthatmore usual research designs for studying the effectiveness of interventions, such asquasi-experimental designs (included in our study – see below), ‘fail to provide validinformationwhenappliedtocomplexanddynamicsystems’becausethey‘donotidentifyinwhich conditions and through which configuration of factors the outcome is achieved’(Marchaletal2012,p.193;SturmburgandMartin2009).

Theory-based evaluation has been recognised as an alternative approach to addresscomplex situations, complex interventions, and complex causal pathways, and overcomethelimitationsofbefore-and-afterandinput-outputstudies(ChenandRossi1983),andhasbeenproposedassuitablewherepartnershipstructuresdelivermulti-sectoralprogrammesto tackle intractableproblems (BlameyandMackenzie2007;Barneset al 2003), as is thecase with modern, multi-sports events. The main areas of attention in theory-basedevaluationapproaches-thetwomainonesbeingTheoryofChangeandRealistEvaluation-

5

aretheeffectsofcontext,theoperativemechanismsatworkaroundtheinterventions,andtheeffectivenessofimplementation.

With regard to context, realist evaluation seeks to develop context-mechanism-outcomeconfigurationsinordertoanswerthequestion‘Whatworks,how,inwhichconditions,andforwhom?’(PawsonandTilly1997). But incomplex,opensystems,context isnotmerelyanexternalfactor;contextisbothshapedbyactorsandconstrainstheiractivities(Barnesetal 2003). Blame andMackenzie argue that ‘context…must be considered as part of theevaluationandcanbekeytouncoveringthecircumstancesinwhich,andthereasonswhy,aparticularinterventionworks’(2007,p.441).ForMarchaletal(2012)thekeychallengeistoidentify the ‘those context elements that really matter’ – including norms, regulations,procedures, barriers and facilitators – and to track how they affect the intervention andoutcome.Ifweconsidercommunitiesascomplex,dynamicsystemswiththeirownroutinesandnorms,andtheirownstabilitiesandinstabilities,thenwecansubstitutethecommunityfortheorganisationandapplyinsightsfrom‘theorisinginterventionsaseventsinsystems’to examine to what extent interventions become integrated into routine practice, or‘intrude’ into local sites, settings and events. As Hawe et al (2009) put it, ‘…theway aninterventioncomestoseepintoorsaturateitscontextbecomesawaytoviewtheextentofitsimplementation’(p.270).

Mechanismsaretheunderlyingentities,processesandstructureswhichproduceoutcomes,andare thusnotequivalent toprogrammeor interventionactivities (Weiss1997;Astburyand Leeuw 2010). Some of these mechanisms are ‘situational’ because certain socialsituationsandeventsinparticularplacesalterpeople’sbeliefs,desiresandtheopportunitystructures for certain behaviours to occur, including ‘transformational’ mechanismswherebygroupbehaviours influence individuals (HedstromandSwedberg1998). Contextalsohasrelevanceherebecause‘causalmechanismsresideinsocialrelationsandcontextasmuchasinindividuals’(Marchaletal2012,p.195).AsAstburyandLeeuw(2010)putit:‘arealist understanding of mechanisms is that mechanisms are sensitive to variations incontext, aswell as to theoperationofothermechanisms in aparticular context’ (p.360);mechanismsarenotcontextbound,butcontextmatterstohowtheyfunction.

For realist evaluators, ‘change occurs when interventions, combined with the rightcontextualfactors,releasethegenerative[causal]mechanisms’(Marchaletal2012,p.202).Intheoryofchange-theotherpopulartheory-basedevaluationapproach-therearetwotypes of theory to be explicated: implementation theory and programme theory (Blameyand Mackenzie 2007). Implementation theory concerns ‘what is required to translate

6

objectives intoongoing servicedeliveryandprogrammeoperation’ (Weiss1995,p.58),orthelinksbetweeninterventionactivitiesandoutcomes.Thereisacross-overherebetweentheory-based evaluation and contribution analysis (Mayne 2011); in order assess thecontribution that a programme made to an outcome, one needs to know that theintervention activities were implemented as per the theory of change. Further,strengthening ‘the plausibility of the contribution analysis narrative’ depends uponassessingwhat Leeuw (2012) terms ‘implementation fidelity’ –were similar interventionswith similar causal mechanisms implemented successfully or not in other situations?Programme theory, on the other hand, ‘refers to the hypothesised causal links betweenmechanisms released by an intervention and their anticipated outcomes’ (Blamey andMackenzie 2007, p.445), or the assumptions held by programme designers andimplementers (Chen 2005). Despite their centrality to theory-based evaluation, a recentsystematicreviewofpublishedtheory-drivenevaluationsfoundthattheseassumptionsor‘inductivetheories’werenotcommonlystatedorpresented(Corynetal2011).

We adopt many of the above perspectives from theory-based evaluation to take aprospectivelookatthepotentialeconomiclegacyfromtheCommonwealthGames2014,amulti-sportseventtakingplaceinGlasgowin2014,forthehostcommunitiesoftheEastEndofGlasgow.AsarguedbyMarchaletal(2012),atheory-basedapproach,inourcasealliedtoaprospectiveassessment, canhelpwith threeof thedifficulties facedby conventionalevaluations, namely by improving attribution claims (Weiss 1997), enhancing thetransferability of findings to other settings (Kernick andMannion 2005), andmaking thefindingsmorerelevant forpolicy-makersbyhighlightinghowtheyaresensitivetocontext(Stame2004;Kernick2006).

TheGlasgowCommonwealthGames(CWG)2014

The CWGwere awarded toGlasgow inNovember 2007 and took place in July-Aug 2014,aftersevenyearsofpreparation. IncompetitiontermstheCWGcanbeconsideredtobearound60per centof the sizeof theOlympicswith6,500athletes takingpart as against10,500 at the LondonOlympics 2012. But in economic terms the CWG ismuch smaller,around one-eighteenth the size of the Olympics: the London Olympics cost £9.3 billion,whereasthebudget for theCWG2014 is£5634million (AuditScotland2013),withpublicsectorcostssplit80:20betweentheScottishGovernmentandGlasgowCityCouncil.EachofthetwomainfundershasstatedlegacyambitionsfortheCWG,witheconomicobjectivestotheforeineachcase,asshowninTable1. Theeconomicgoalscoverbusinessgrowth,employability,marketingforbothinwardinvestmentandtourism,andregeneration.

7

Glasgowhasbeenpraisedforitsapproachtolegacy,andforlearningfrompastexperience,particularly with regard to legacy planning andmanagement, and the embedding of theeventintobroaderregenerationstrategies,thoughatthesametimeitwassaidthatsuccesswilldependuponeconomicimpactsonthelocalcommunity(Matheson2010).TheEastEndofGlasgow iswhereseveralof thenewandrefurbishedGamesvenuesare locatedand isthe location for the newly built Athletes Village. As such, it can be considered themainlocation, or ‘host community’ for the Games. Economic and environmental/sustainablelegacyobjectivesareparticularly relevanthere. Glasgow’s candidate city file to theCWGFederationemphasisedtheEastEndinitsstatedlocallegacyobjective:

“For the city – a successfulGames and significant regenerationof the East EndofGlasgow,makingeffectiveuseofotherwisederelict landandcreatingemploymentopportunitiesforlocalpeople.”(GCC2007,p.8).

During the preparation period for the CWG, the plans for the East End of Glasgowwerecriticised both in principle and in terms of the local economic benefits. For Gray andMooney (2011) therehasbeenaprocessof ‘territorial stigmatisation’ toportray theEastEndasan‘uncivil’placethatactsasabrakeonthecityeconomy.Forthem,‘thediscourseofregeneration[and]…theengineeringofcollectivehyperbolearoundtheCommonwealthGames…operate…asalibisforproperty-ledregenerationactivityandpunitivelabourmarketpolicy’(p.19).Theyarguethatthereisanongoingprocessinvolving‘asteadyloweringoftheexpectationsandhorizonsofthelocalpopulationintermsofworkandincome’(p.18).Thisallegedmodificationofpeople’sambitionsandaspirationsisinordertobringthemintolinewiththe‘insecurelabourmarket’inthecity.ForGrayandMooney,themostthatcanbeofferedto localpeoplewillbe ‘lowwage,flexibleandcasualisedformsofemploymentforsome’(p.18),sothatpovertycannotbereduced.Furthermore,theyarescepticalaboutthepromisednumberofjobstobecreatedthroughregenerationintheEastEnd.

Onthepropertydevelopmentside,GrayandMooneytalkof‘thetransferofpublicwealthto the private sector via the built environment’ (p.22), and the fact that a ‘promise ofhouses’,might still lead to people in the East End being ‘driven out’. Paton et al (2012)similarlydescribetheCGas‘aformofurbanrestructuringborneoutofneoliberalism’(p.3).They depict developments in the East End as an example of state-led gentrificationwithspeculativepropertyrewardsfortheprivatesectoralongsideatenuremixstrategythatmayresult in new residential developments that are ‘likely tobeunaffordable for low-incomeEast Enders’ (p.14), whilst local families are displaced. They are pessimistic about theeffects of such efforts, saying that ‘such localised, market-led regeneration projects areunlikely to offer the solution’ and that the CG ‘is simply the latest in a long-line of area-

8

based,market-ledurbanrenewalprojectsdesignedtorevitalise,moderniseandrenewtheEast End of Glasgow’ (p.9). Several years after these published critiques, we use asystematic approach tomakeaprospectiveassessmentof the likely economic impactsoftheCWGuponthehostcommunitiesoftheEastEndofGlasgow.

StudyMethods

StudyArea

Our study area is shown in Figure 1. The boundary was selected as being almost co-terminuswithGlasgowCityCouncil’sEastEndLocalDevelopmentStrategyArea,declaredin2008(GCC2008),theyearaftertheawardoftheCWG.GiventheclosealignmentofCWGdevelopmentswithregenerationaimsinGlasgow,forallintentsandpurposestheselectedstudyareaconstitutesaninterventionareainevaluationterms.ItshouldbenotedhoweverthatsomedefinitionsoftheEastEndofGlasgowwouldcompriseanareastretchingfurthereastandnorthtoencompassanareathreetimesthesizeofourstudyarea.Thestudyareacomprises 623 hectares and contained approximately 11,000 dwellings with a residentpopulationof nearly 19,000people in 2012. It contains the twomainnewly constructedGamesvenues,theEmiratesIndoorAreaandSirChrisHoyVeoldrome,andhastwootherGamesvenuesadjacenttoitsborders,theInternationalHockeyCentretothewestandtheTollcrossInternationalSwimmingCentretotheeast.Thestudyareaisverydeprived:ofthe27 datazones comprising the area, 21 are in the group of 15%mostmultiply deprived inScotland considered the primary target for many public policy programmes (ScottishGovernment 2012). Althoughwe call the area the East End, it comprises six constituentcommunities:Bridgeton,Calton,Camlachie,Dalmarnock,GallowgateandParkhead(part).

ResearchMethods

Our methods comprise the collection of primary and secondary data through bothquantitativeandqualitativemeans.Ahouseholdsurveywasconductedinthestudyareainsummer 2012 in which a cohort of 1,015 adult householders was recruited via doorknocking at randomly selected addresses; the respondentswill be re-interviewed in 2014and 2016. The survey collected information from respondents relevant to all legacydomains.SecondarydataonthestudyareawasobtainedfrombothGlasgowCityCouncilandScottishGovernment.Further informationonchanges inthestudyareawasgatheredvia feedback sessions held about the survey findings with local organisations andcommunitygroups.Detailsofthelegacyprogrammesandregenerationdevelopmentshavebeenobtainedonaregularbasisfromthemainagenciesresponsible:GlasgowCityCouncil;ClydeGateway,theUrbanRegenerationCompanyoperativeinthearea;andGlasgowLife,the city’s arms-length company responsible for the delivery and management of sport,

9

leisureandcultureservices. Discussionsabouttheprogrammeshavealsobeenheldwiththese organisations, and aworkshopwas heldwith all legacy stakeholders in September2013. Further information has been obtained through attendance at, and access to thepapers from, themain legacy forumswhichbring the responsibleofficers togetherwithinthecity:theGlasgowLegacyEvaluationBoardandtheme-basedlegacyworkinggroups.

ProspectiveAssessmentFramework

Ourapproach isanadaptationof thetheoryofchangemethodologyproposedbyConnellandKubish (1998) toaskwhetheran interventionand its theoryof changeare ‘plausible,do-ableandtestable’,andasMackenzieandBlamey(2005)suggest,combiningthetheoryofchangewithprimaryandsecondarydata.Inessenceweaddressthecontext-mechanism-outcomematrixbyconsideringasetofquestionsrelatingtothreeareas:peopleandplace;programmes;andplausibility.Our‘3P’frameworkisshowninTable2.

First,weconsiderthecontextoftheEastEndbyaskingquestionsaboutthepeopleandtheplace.ThisisinordertofindouthowmuchroomforimprovementthereisintheEastEnd,and to establishwhether there is local interest in the outcomes being sought, aswell aswhetherthereare identifiablebarrierstochangeor impact. Ourownprimaryresearch inthestudyareaisakeysourceofinformationforthisstageoftheassessment.

Second,welookatthelegacyprogrammesthemselves.BoththeScottishGovernmentandGlasgowCityCouncilhaveestablishedoridentifiedlegacyprogrammesoperativeinthepre-Games period, and intended (at this stage) to continue after the event. There are 50nationallegacyprogrammesand88localones,thusindicatingthemagnitudeofthelegacyeffortandoftheresearchtask.Althoughlegacyprogrammesareorganisedwithinthemainlegacythemes,manyprogrammesarerelevanttomorethanonethemeandthuswehaveidentifiedallthoseprogrammeswhichweconsidertohaverelevancetoeconomicimpacts.We then categorise them by type (e.g. capital investment projects; labour marketprogrammes), and consider a set of five questions about them as shown in Table 2,including whether they can be said to be attributable to the CWG, irrespective of beingidentifiedassuchbythepartners.

Third,weaddresstheissueofplausibilitythroughareviewoftheexistingresearchevidenceabout the impacts of multi-sports events as a whole, including emerging evidence fromLondon2012, sincemanyofGlasgow’s legacyprogrammeswere informedby the Londonexperience.Weconsiderimpactsuponkeyeconomicsectorsandthebusinessenvironment

10

and relate this evidence to what we know about Glasgow and the East End. Havingconsidered all three areas, we come to a view as to the likelihood of economic impactsbeing achieved for the East End in the short,medium and long term, and the conditionsnecessaryforsuccess.

PeopleandPlace:EconomicCircumstancesintheEastEnd

Here, we consider economic circumstances in the East End, the scope and appetite forchange,andthebarrierstoadvancement.

Theeconomy in theEastEndhasbeen relativelyweak.Secondarydata indicates that thenumberofbusiness locations (employment sites) in the studyareahasbeen falling, from1,070 in 2008 to 1,010 in 2013, a drop of 6 percenti. Our 2012 survey found that theemployment rate in the study area, at 48%, was much lower than in Glasgow (61%) orScotland (71%)ii. Ifwe lookat theemploymentstatusofalladultmembersofoursurveyhouseholds, we find that the rate of workless households in the East End is double thenational average – see Figure 2. Adults inworkless households often face difficulties inseeking to gain employment due to poor employment connections, lack of knowledge orexperience about how to seek a job, and low expectations within the household aboutgettingajob.

Withregardtotheappetiteandscopeforchangeinemploymentcircumstances,wefoundhighratesofdissatisfactionwithcurrentcircumstancesamongunemployedandlong-termsick householders, with half and two-in-five being ‘very dissatisfied’ with their currentposition,respectively–Figure3.Wealsofoundthattwo-in-five(41%)householdersaged16-64whowere not in full-time employment had actively searched forwork in the pastyear,andathird(33%)hadappliedforajob.Again,thisindicatesthattherealargenumberofadultsintheEastEndwouldbereceptivetoinitiativestoboostemploymentinthearea.

Thereare,however,barrierstoincreasingemploymentintheEastEnd.Althoughgenerallythelevelofeducationalqualificationsinthestudyareaiscomparabletothatforthecityasawhole,therearepartsofthestudyareawhereeducationlevelsarelow:inCamlachieandParkhead,thenorth-eastquadrantofthestudyarea,therateofdegreelevelqualificationsat23%lagsfarbehindthecityaverageof40%.However,healthisamorelimitinghumancapitalfactorthaneducation.Ofthoseadultsaged16-64whoarenotinemployment,full-time education or retired, three-in-five (63%) reported that they had a long-term illness,disability or infirmity. Alternatively, of the two-in-five (39%) adults of working-age who

11

reportedthattheyhadalong-termillness,disabilityorinfirmity,onlyaquarter(26%)wereinwork.Affordablechildcaremaybeanissueforsomehouseholds;justoverafifth(22%)or workless households contain dependent children. But the largest group of worklesshouseholdsaresingleadults,comprising52%ofallworklesshouseholds,higherthanacrossthe UK at 41%. We suspect that many of this group of workless adults living alone indeprived areas may have other mental health or health behaviour problems preventingthemseekingorgainingemployment.

ProjectsandProgrammesforEconomicLegacy

We identified 62 legacy projects and programmes relevant to economic impacts, assummarised in Table 3. We also identified five groupings of programmes as follows: theCWGandassociatedcultural festivals;businessprocurementnetworks;capital investmentprojects;business&employersupportandemployabilityprogrammes;andmarketingandinwardinvestmentprogrammes.Afteridentifyingalltheprogrammeswithineachgrouping,wethenconsideredeachprogrammeinturninrelationtothefollowingissues:thenatureof the activity; its scale in terms of resources allocated and/or outputs intended; thegeographicfocus,beitScotland,Glasgow,ortheEastEndspecifically;itsattributiontotheCWG, categorised as: wholly attributable; partially attributable, including enhanced,safeguardedandacceleratedprogrammes;and,notattributable,i.e.wouldhavehappenedanyway;andwhethertherewasanyevidencethattheprogrammehad,orwas,deliveringbenefitstotheEastEndareaorpopulationAscanbeseenfromTable3,two-thirds(43)oftheeconomic-relatedlegacyprogrammescanbeidentifiedaswhollyorpartlyattributabletotheCWG,i.e.theywouldnothavehappenedweretheGamesnotawardedtoGlasgow,andjustoverhalf(36)havedelivered,oraredelivering,benefitstotheEastEnd.

GamesandAssociatedFestivals

The CWG itself took place over three weeks, but allied to the Games were two culturalprogrammescomprisingmusicandartsevents:Festival2014occurredatthesametimeasthe Games, and Culture 2014 took place throughout the year. The latter comprised 200projectsand800events,someofwhichhappenedintheEastEndunderthetitleEastEndSocial,including at venues in our study area. The three combined programmes wereintendedtoattractvisitorstothecountryandcity,witheconomicbenefitsflowingfromthebusiness activity associated with putting on cultural events, as well as from touristexpenditures. Although evidence from London showed that visitors attending a Gameseventspenttwiceasmuchduringtheirstayasothervisitorstothecity,wecanexpecttheeconomic benefits in Glasgow’s case to be less, since fewer of the visitors were fromoverseas: over 95% of the first, main release of tickets for CWG 2014 were sold to UK

12

addressesiii. Nevertheless,oneof thebenefitsof theCWG identifiedby local residents inoursurveywastheextracustomgeneratedforlocalshopsandbusinessesbythevisitors.

ProcurementNetworks

Both theScottishGovernmentandGlasgowCityCouncil setupprocurementnetworksassupport networks, forums for inter-firm collaboration, and as electronic portals for localfirms to register and compete forGames-relatedworks contracts. Business Club Scotlandhas 3,000 members and The Glasgow Business Portal has 20,000 members. There isevidencethatthesemechanismsareworkingtothebenefitoflocalfirms.Overall,viathelocal portal, 66%of all construction andbusiness supply contracts (£183m in value) havebeenawardedtoGlasgow-basedfirms.AlthoughthereisnomeansofencouragingEastEndfirmsinparticulartogetinvolved,fiveEastEndbusinesseshavebeenidentifiedassecuringcontractsrelatingtotheneworerefurbishedvenues.

CapitalInvestmentProjects

Thereare21capitalinvestmentprojectsalliedtotheCWGandregenerationintheEastEnd,butonlyhalfoftheseareconsideredattributabletotheGames. Manyprojectsarebeingdelivered by the URC as part of its regeneration strategy and were planned to happenirrespectiveofwhethertheCWGoccurred.Capitalprojectsinclude:newbusinesspremises,both offices and manufacturing units; new and refurbished sports facilities; transportinfrastructure works including a new road and refurbished railway station; public realmimprovementworksincludingtostreets,historicalbuildingsandparks;andconstructionandrefurbishmentofculturalvenues.Amajorityofthesecapitalprojects(17)areoccurringin,andwilldirectlybenefit,theEastEnd.

There are a number of ways in which capital investment projects might have positiveeconomic impacts. First, jobsmaybeprovidedduring the constructionphaseof projects,andbothGCCandtheURCutilisecommunitybenefitclausesrequiring10%ofjobsinCWG-relatedcontractsaboveaminimumsizetogotolocalpeopleandkeytargetgroupssuchasthelong-termunemployed.Thereisevidencethatthisishavingmodestbenefitsforpeoplein theEastEnd: inour2012 surveywe found2.2%ofhouseholders reportedhavingpaidemploymentrelatedtoinfrastructureandsport-facilityconstructionprojectsintheprevioustwoyears.

13

Theremayalsobe jobs for localpeople innewbusinesspremises in thearea,eitherbuiltdirectlybytheURCorbuiltprivatelyonsitespreparedbytheURC.Asfirmsrelocate,somejobopportunitiesmayariseimmediately,butaremorelikelytooccurinduecoursethroughstaff turnover.Again,we found someevidenceof this: 5.3%ofour respondents reportedemploymentinthepasttwoyearsworkinginthenewfacilitiesinthearea.ClydeGatewayhaveanaspirational target that10%ofnewbusiness jobsbeoffered to localpeopleandthey are, overall, exceeding this. There is further evidence that local people are gainingemployment innewfacilitiesthroughstaff turnover: forexample,data indicatethatthirtythreemorejobshavegoneto localpeopleatoneoftheURC’sdevelopments inthestudyarea-theEastgateCentre-sinceitopenedtwoandahalfyearsago.

Butweshouldnotunderestimatethescaleofthetask.Itlookslikelythatby2015,after8yearsoperation,theURCwillhavehelpeddeliver1,800jobsintotheareainnewpremises,a significant achievement during a period of economic downturn. Yet, this representsaround40%ofthetargetundertheirregenerationstrategy(ClydeGateway2013),sothereis a longway to go. Allied to the provision ofmore jobs in local premises, there is anexpectation thatemployeeswill spendmoney in the localeconomy,but for this tooccur,improvementstothelocalshoppingandservicesenvironmentareneeded.Thevulnerabilityofsmallbusinessesinsituationsofregeneration(RacoandTunney2010)hasprovedtrueinthiscase,withlossofshopsinsomeareas,sothatintwoofthesixcommunities,40-80%ofourrespondentsratedtheshopsaspoor.

Finally,thereisanaimtoattractmorefirmstotheareainthefutureasaresultofimprovedtransport infrastructureandanenhancedpublic realmtomaketheEastEndanattractivebusiness location. AsFigure4shows,regenerationhashadmoresuccesswiththeformerthan the latter: four out of five respondents in our survey considered public transportservices tobegood,butonlyhalf thought thesameabout the localenvironment. At thestartoftheregenerationprocessandpreparationsfortheCommonwealthGamesin2007,16%ofstudyareacomprisedvacantandderelictland,andby2013thishadbeenreducedbyaroundaquarter:atthisrate,itwilltake30yearstoremovethebrownfieldsitesinthearea,manyofwhicharecontaminated.

EmployerSupportandEmployabilityProgrammes

Therearetwodozenemployersupportandemployabilityprogrammes inoperation,mostof which are attributable to the CWG. Many of these seek to offer opportunities forvolunteering, training, apprenticeshipsor subsidised jobs tovarious targetgroups suchasthose aged 16-26, recent graduates, care leavers and the long-term unemployed. The

14

programmes face issues of inadequate scale, targeting and effectiveness. The suite ofprogrammescalledTheGlasgowGuaranteehadprovidedhalfitstarget8,000placesbylate2013,butthisincludedonly130peopleinourEastEndstudyarea.Asforeffectiveness,ofthe17%ofourstudycohortofworkingagewhohadundertakentraining,anapprenticeshiporworkexperienceinthepastyear,only15%wereinemploymentwheninterviewed.

Weaktargetingtothosewhocouldbenefitthemostappliesparticularlytovolunteeringforthe Games; this is probably because delivery is more important than legacy for theorganisations responsible for the event. Initial findings froma studyof CWGvolunteersshowsthatonly13%of thosewhoregisteredforvolunteeringwere fromGlasgow,withaquarter being people who had volunteered at the London Olympics (GCPH 2014). Oursurveyreinforcestheneedfortargetingandsupportifvolunteeringprogrammesaretobestserveasemployabilityprogrammes.Figure5showsthatvolunteeringisfarmorelikelytobeundertakenbythoseinfurtherandhighereducation,orinemployment,thanbythoseoutofwork.

On the other hand, there is positive evidence emerging about the effectiveness of jobbrokerageworkaround theURC’sactivities. A recent independent reviewof theGameslead-inperiod,2007to2013,hasreportedthatJobSeekerAllowance(JSA)claimantsintheURC’sareofoperation(thevastmajorityoftheclaimantsbeingintheGlasgowpartoftheoperationalarea, includingourstudyareaandsurroundings)hadincreasedbylessthanincomparator areas over the same period of general economic downturn, and had in factfallen in the last twoyearsof theperiodbymore thanelsewhere (McTier andMcGregor2014). Having considered a number of explanations for these trends, the authors’conclusionwasthatthemostlikelycauseoftherelativelypositivetrendsintheURC’sareaweretheconstructiverelationshipsdevelopedbetweentheURC,dedicated jobbrokeragestaffworkingwiththeURCandlocatedinlocalJobCentrePlusoffices,andemployers.

MarketingandInwardInvestmentProgrammes

A dozen programmes exist to attract businesses, events and tourists to Scotland andGlasgowonthebackoftheCWG,andindeedGlasgowcity’smarketingbureauhasagoodtrack record and has won several international marketing awards for attracting events.Muchofthefocusisinternational,andlittleofitspecificallyseekstomarkettheEastEnd,butwithseveralinternational-qualitysportsfacilitiesnowlocatedintheEastEnd,theareaisexpectedtobenefitfromfutureevents.

15

Glasgowislikelytoavoidthe‘whiteelephant’syndromeofemptypost-Gamesvenues,andinfact25nationalandinternationalsportseventswereheldintheCWGvenuesinthepre-Gamesperiod2010-14.BySeptember2014,onemonthaftertheGames,afurthertensuchevents had been secured for the venues, and bids for a further eleven events were inprogress (Scottish Government 2014). Thus, claims of sustainable use of venues in thefutureseemcredible.ButtheextenttowhichsucheventsprovideadirecteconomicboosttotheEastEnddependsonwhethertheparticipantsstayintheEastEndandusethelocalareaoutsidethevenues.Asalreadynoted,thisrequiresfurtherimprovementstothelocalenvironment,andtothelocalretailandconsumptionamenities,otherwiseitsproximitywillmeantheEastEnditislikelytoloseouttothecitycentreineconomicterms.

Plausibility:ApplyingtheEvidenceforEconomicImpacts

The most commonly reported positive impacts of past events have been economic,including upon: employment, including in the case of the CWG in Manchester in 2002(Newby2003);economicgrowth;investmentandstockmarketvalues;anddevelopmentofbusiness networks, particularly in the case of the Sydney Olympics 2000 (Giesecke andMadden2007;Bermanetal.,2000;O’Brien2005)andtheCWGinMelbourne2006(KMPG2006).Economicimpactsareoftensaidtobeeithertemporary(Spilling1996)orgreatestin the 3-5 year period around the event itself (Oxford Economics 2012). On the otherhand,economicgrowthstimulatedbypublic sector investment in infrastructure is said tohaveapotentialopportunitycostinotherareasofpublicandwelfarespending(McCartneyetal2010),asfoundinthecaseoftheSydneyOlympics(Searle2002).Further,organisersof multi-sports events have a ‘tendency to overstate the potential economic…benefits’(Horne2007,p.86).Thesetwoissues,scaleandopportunitycost,arerelated.HavingnotedthattheGlasgowCWGprovidesarelativelysmallinterventionfromwhichtoexpecthealthand other impacts compared with other multisport events, McCartney et al (2013) alsoremark inmore positive vein that the possibility of opportunity costs being felt in otherspending areas was less, due to the fact that the amount of investment required ininfrastructurefortheGamesislessthanforothersimilarevents,sincemanyexistingvenuesaretobeused.

Themeta-evaluationoftheLondonOlympicGameshasreporteda‘substantialboost’totheUKeconomyof theorderof£8bnGrossValueAdded (GVA) in theGamesyearandup to£3bnayearoverthenextdecade,translatinginto600-900,000yearsofemploymentupto2020(GrantThorntonetat2013),butwiththepeakin2012,andasharpdropinthenextthreeyears.TheLondonOlympicsarereportedtohavecreatedaround30,000jobsinthepre-GamesandGamesperiods,withovertwicethisnumberofworklesspeopleinLondonbeing assisted through training, employment an skills development (DCMS 2013; SQW

16

2013).Themainroutestothiseconomicbenefitcamefromfoursources:theconstructionoftheOlympicPark;thedevelopmentoftheWestfieldshoppingcentrebesidethePark(adevelopment thatwasacceleratedby5-7years); theboost to inward investmentand theopeningupofoverseasmarketsasaresultofGames-relatedpromotionalactivity,supporttobusinesses, and the contactsmade throughGames-related contracts; and theboost totourism.Whatismore,thebusinessexpansionandtourismboostareconsideredlikelytocontinueintothemedium-term.

Economic impacts frommulti-sportseventsare identifiedascoming throughanumberofroutes: through key sectors such as construction, events and tourism, as in the case ofLondon(DCMS2013),andthroughimprovementstothebusinessenvironmentinthecaseofpost-industrialcitiessuchasBarcelona,ManchesterandTurin(OECD2100).AllofthesesuccessfactorsapplytosomedegreetoGlasgow,thoughsometimestoalimitedextenttotheEastEnd.

In terms of sectors, construction in the period leading up to the event is an importanteconomiccontributor, includingnon-Gamesconstruction. InGlasgow,mostoftheGamesvenuesalreadyexisted, andmajor retail development, thoughplanned,didnot transpire,thus lessening the construction impact. But business premises construction has beenunderway and may extend the construction impact into the post-Games period. Thedevelopmentofanevents industry,particularlyaroundsportsevents, issaidtocontributetoa longer-lastingeconomic impact, as in the caseofMelbourne (WesterbeekandLinley2011).Glasgowalreadyfitsthemodelofasuccessfuleventslocation,withseveralneworrefurbishedvenuestohelpattractfurthersportsevents.Butasnotedabove,withoutanon-sitehotelorotheramenities,theEastEndwillnotbenefitasmuchasexpectedfromsuchevents.Twoofthefactorssaidtosupportatourismgainfollowingamulti-sportsevents,asprojected for London (Oxford Economics 2012), apply toGlasgow: provision of additionaltourism capacity (Smith 2012) and supportive campaigns allied to the event (UKTI 2013),suchasScotland’s ‘Homecoming’campaign. Butagain,the impactsonourstudyareaarelimitedbythefactthatnoneofthecity’svenuesortouristexperiencesmarketedtovisitorsarelocatedintheEastEndofthecity.

Positiveimpactsuponplaceandthebusinessenvironmentalsoderivefromseveralsources.A successful event can enhance the reputation of local organisations and businesses,whereas there isa riskof reputationaldamage ifnegativeaspectsofaplaceareexposed(Smith 2012). Glasgow has sought to learn from the organisers of London 2012 andtogetherwithitsownpastexperienceasaneventlocation,thisgivesitabetterchanceof

17

reputational gain from the CWG. Allied to reputation, and as recommended in theliterature,GlasgowhasusedtheCWGasachancetore-branditselfinaccordwiththecity’smainqualities (Anholt2007;HersteinandBerger2013), changing ismainbrand fromonefocusedonstyletoonefocusedonitscitizens’friendliness,asin‘PeopleMakeGlasgow’.

FirmsalsogainfrombusinessnetworksdevelopedaroundtheGames(O’BrienandGardner2006). As in London, where small and medium sized enterprises gained a significantproportion of theOlympics contractwork (Michael 2013), Glasgow has used its businessportal to benefit local firms. The question now is whether inter-firm communications,learningandcollaborationcanbegeneratedwithinthisnetwork.Glasgowhasalsofocusedalotofitscapitalinvestmentontransportinfrastructure,andsuchinvestmentshavebeenidentifiedascontributingtoproductivitygainsafterothermulti-sportsevents(Smith2010),notably Barcelona’s infrastructure works. But improvements to infrastructure andaccessibility are only one component of the improved quality of the urban environmentnecessary to attract future firmswith high quality jobs to a city (Begg 2002;Mega 2010;OECD2004).ThisroutetoimprovedurbancompetitivenessrequiresfurtherimprovementstotheenvironmentandamenitiesintheEastEndtositalongsidethecity’saccessibilityandculturalassets.

Twootheringredientsforpost-Gameseconomicsuccesshavebeenidentifiedasafocusedeconomic development strategy and partnership development. It is argued that multi-sports events allied to economic regeneration aremore likely to be successful if specificsectorsoftheeconomyareidentifiedfordevelopment(Smith2012;Anderssonetal2008).InLondon, strong themesaroundmedia industriesandsporthavebeen identified for theOlympicPark,withrelevanthighereducationinstitutionsinvolved.InGlasgow,whilsttherehas been notable success in attracting firms to the East End in a time of recession, theeconomicdevelopmentstrategyremainspragmaticratherthansector-led,althoughthereisa possible emerging theme around security industries, so far based solely on the publicsector,thoughthiscouldchangeinduecoursetoincludetheprivatesector.

Studies also suggest that new and improved partnerships (a partnership legacy) can bedevelopedaroundamulti-sportseventtobethebenefitofpublicpolicyandtheeconomyinthe future. Evidence for partnership development has been reported for regionalpartnerships inManchester (SmithandFox2007), forphysicalactivitypartnerships in thecase of London (Centre for Sport Physical Education andActivity Research 2013), and forbusinesstrainingpartnerships inthecaseofSydney(O’BrienandGardiner2006). Inourown research, stakeholders in Glasgow reported improved partnership working between

18

publicsectororganisationsleadinguptotheCWG.Butbetterpartnershipworkingmaybemore the case in relation to legacy programmes and themanagement of legacy, than inrelationtotheregenerationandsustainedeconomicdevelopmentofGlasgow’sEastEnd.

ThemainregenerationeffortisbeingdeliveredbytheURCwithastrongfocusontheEastEnd for infrastructure works, the development of business premises, and public realmimprovements. But the need for regeneration efforts in particular locations to span theoperations of a wide range of agencies, not just those agencies responsible for physicalregeneration, isonethathasbeencommentedoninrelationtothesocialregenerationofother parts of the city (GoWell 2010). Amore focused regeneration strategy, onewhichconsidered whether key sectors could be developed in the area, would require closerworking between the URC and agencies responsible for other key elements such asworkforce training and skills development, inward investment and business supportservices, and the improvement of the retail and consumption environments. ThetransformationoftheEastEndismorelikely,wewouldargue,iftheareabecomesamainfocusofeffort,indeedapriority,forotheragenciesinsupportoftheURC’sefforts.

Conclusion

Wehaveuseda theory-basedevaluationapproach,akin to thatproposedbyConnell andKubish(1998)andMackenzieandBlamey(2005),tomakeaprospectiveassessmentofthelikelyeconomicimpactsoftheCWG2014upontheEastEndofGlasgow,encompassingbothtangibleandintangibleimpactsonhardandsofteconomicstructures(Preuss2007;Dicksonetal2011). Todo thiswedevelopeda3-P framework for theassessment in threeparts:peopleandplaceoftheEastEnd;programmesofintervention;andplausibilityofeconomicimpact. By taking a look at the prospects for economic impact, and looking towards thepost-Games period, we hope our work can eventually help with issues of attribution ofeffects (Weiss 1997), transferability of conclusions to other Games sites (Kernick andMannion 2005) , and policy-relevance of findings from evaluations of multi-sport events(Stame2004;Kernick2006).

Ouroverall assessment is that theCWGand regeneration are likely tohave a short termeconomic impactupontheEastEndofGlasgow,andthatmediumto long-termsustainedeconomic impacts are also possible. The latter aremore likely to come via regenerationthanasaresultoftheCWG,withmanyrelevantcapitalinvestmentprojectsun-attributableto the CWG. The short-term potential economic benefits from the CWG are likely to belessened in the East End due to a number of factors including: weak targeting of theemployability programmes to residents of deprived areas or of the East End specifically;

19

healthbarrierstotakinguporretainingemploymentforalargeproportionoftheworklessgroup; and lownumbers of overseas tourists,who tend to spendmore thandomestic orlocalvisitors.

Glasgowhassomeofthekeycomponentsrequiredforderivinganeconomicbenefitafteramulti-sports event, such as a track record of successful event management, and a citymarketing bureauwell able to attract future events to the venues. But there are also anumberofweaknessesinthecity’sapproachtotheregenerationoftheEastEnd,forwhichtheCWGhasbeenacatalystoraccelerator.Identifyingtheseweaknessesmayhelpfuturehostcitieswhosimilarlyseektoallyamulti-sporteventtoregenerationobjectivestoavoidsomeobviouspitfalls.First,theapproachtotheeconomicdevelopmentoftheEastEndispragmaticratherthanstrategic,withkeysectorsofdevelopmentyettobeidentified.Thismay be understandable and defensible given that the pre-Games period at least hascoincidedwiththeglobalfinancialcrisisandsubsequenteconomicdownturn,butitisstillaweaknesscomparedwithotherGamescitiesandhinderstheprovisionofsuitabletrainingandskillsdevelopmentamongthelocalworkforceinadvanceofjobopportunities.

This relates to the second key weakness: an absence of strategic partnership workingbetweenthemainregenerationagencyintheEastEnd,theURC,andotherkeypublicsectoragencies who could work in support of a local regeneration and economic developmentstrategy in the fieldsofpublichealth, educationand skills, businessdevelopment, inwardinvestment,marketing, culture and leisure. In Glasgow’s case at least, and in a note ofcaution of future host cities, there is a disconnection between two of the more recentobjectives for multi-sports events, namely to achieve area regeneration in a specificlocation, and to leave a partnership legacy after the event. Whilst partnership workingpractices have improved around the planning and management of legacy programmes,these are not generally site-specific or targeted on the regeneration of the East End, forwhich thegovernancearrangements run inparallel rather thanbeing integratedwith themainlegacyprogrammes.Leavingtheregenerationlegacyinthehandsofasingleagency,performingwellas itmaybe,couldultimatelybeaweakness inourview,especiallygiventhescaleofthetaskinthiscase.

Athirdpotentialweaknessistime.TheregenerationtaskfortheEastEndofGlasgowisonlya little over a third complete (in some terms even less than this) after seven years ofoperation in the pre-Games period, so the most important challenge is to maintain thepoliticalcommitment,publicfundingandorganisationalfocusforanother15yearsatleast.Achieving sustainable economic regeneration is possible if those organisations with

20

responsibility for firms, people and place at national and local level are required,encouragedandsupportedtoshareacommonpolicyfocusandpriority(oratleastadegreeofpriority)on theEastEnd, longafter theGames leave town. Certainly, for regionalandpost-industrialhostcitiessuchasGlasgow,thetheorythatlegacymustextendfromthepre-Games to thepost-Gamesperiod, has to bemade a reality by the governance structuresresponsibleformulti-sportseventsandtheirlocallegacy.‘Policyandinstitutionaldrift’haspreviouslybeenreportedaftertheevent(SmithandFox2007),andinthisregard,theIOC’srequirementforcitiesfromLondononwardstoreportonlegacyindicatorsforuptothreeyearsaftertheevent(ICO2012)seemsveryinadequate.

21

References

AghaNS,Fairley,GibsonH,2012,"Consideringlegacyasamulti-dimensionalconstruct:thelegacyoftheOlympicGames."SportManagementReview15125-139.

AnderssonT,Armbrecht JD, Lundberg E, 2008, “ImpactofMega-eventson theEconomy”AsianBusinessandManagement7(2)163-179.

AnholtS,2007,“CompetitiveIdentity:Anewmodelforthebrandmanagementofnations,citiesandregions”Policy&Practice:ADevelopmentEducationReview4(Spring)3-13.

Astbury B, Leeuw F, 2010, “Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building inevaluation”,AmericanJournalofEvaluation31:363–81.

Audit Scotland (2013) Commonwealth Games 2014 Progress Report 2: Planning for thedeliveryoftheXXthGames.Impactreportandupdateonprogress.(AS,Edinburgh).

Barnes M, Matka E and Sullivan H, 2003, “Evidence, understanding and complexity:evaluationinnon-linearsystems”Evaluation9,265–84.

BeggIEd.,2002,UrbanCompetitiveness:PoliciesforDynamicCities(PolicyPress,Bristol).

BermanG,BrooksR,Davidson S, 2000, “The SydneyOlympicGamesannouncement andAustraliastockmarketreaction”AppliedEconomicLetters7781–84.

BlameyAandMackenzieM,2007, “Theoriesof changeand realisticevaluation:peas inapodorapplesandoranges?”Evaluation13(4)439–55.

Bond L, Egan M, Kearns A, Tannahill C (2013) “GoWell: the challenges of evaluatingregenerationasapopulationhealthintervention’,PreventiveMedicine57941-947.

CashmanR,2006,TheBitter-SweetAwakening(WallaWallaPress,PetershamNSW).

CashmanR,2002,“Whatis‘OlympicLegacy’?”,inTheLegacyoftheOlympicGames1984–2000EdsCKennett,NPuig(IOC,Lausanne)pp31–42.

Centre for Sport Physical Education and Activity Research, 2013, London legacy supra-evaluation:finalreport(GreaterLondonAuthority(GLA),London).

Chalkley B, Essex S, 1999, “Urban development through hosting international events: ahistoryoftheOlympicGames”PlanningPerspectives14(4)369-394.

ChenH-T,RossiP,1983, “Evaluatingwith sense– the theory-drivenapproach”EvaluationReview7(3)283-302.

ChenH-T,2005,PracticalProgramEvaluation(SAGE,ThousandOaksCA).

22

ClydeGatewayURC,2013,EconomicBenefitsReview:InterimReport(ClydeGatewayURC,Glasgow).

CoalterF,2004,“Stuckintheblocks?”inEdsAVigor,MMean,CTimsAftertheGoldRush:AsustainableOlympicsforLondon(IPPR/DEMOS,London).

Connell JP,KubischAC,1998,“Applyinga theoryofchangeapproach to theevaluationofcomprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects and problems”, in A Fulbright-Anderson, AC Kubisch, JP Connell (Eds) New Approaches to Evaluating CommunityInitiatives:Theory,MeasurementandAnalysis,15-44(AspenInstitute,Washington,DC).

Coryn C, Noakes L, Westine C, Schröter D, 2011, “A systematic review of theory-drivenevaluationpracticefrom1990to2009”AmericanJournalofEvaluation32199–226.

DavisJ,ThornleyA,2010,"Urbanregenerationforthelondon2012olympics:issuesoflandacquisitionandlegacy"City,CultureandSociety189-98.

Department for CultureMedia and Sport, 2013, 2012 GamesMeta Evaluation: Report 5Post-GamesEvaluationSummaryReport(DCMS,London).

Dickson TJ, Benson AM, Blackman DA, 2011, “Developing a framework for evaluatingOlympicandParalympiclegacies”JournalofSport&Tourism16(4)285-302.

GieseckeJ,MaddenJ,2007,TheSydneyOlympicsSevenYearsOn:AnEx-PostDynamicCGEAssessment – General Paper G168. (Monash University, Centre of Policies Studies,Melbourne).

Girginov V, 2012, "Governance of the London 2012Olympic Games legacy" InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport47(5)543-558.

Glasgow Centre for Population Health, 2104, “Headline Findings: Volunteering for theGlasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games” Note to Glasgow Evaluation Group, June 2014(GlasgowCityCouncil,Glasgow).

GlasgowCityCouncil,2007, ChangingPlaces,ChangingLives:EastEndLocalDevelopmentStrategy(GlasgowCityCouncil,Glasgow).

GlasgowCityCouncil,2007,People,Place,Passion:Glasgow2014CommonwealthGamesCandidateCityFile(GlasgowCityCouncil,Glasgow).

GoldJR,GoldM,2009,“Future indefinite?London2012,thespectreofretrenchmentandthechallengeofOlympicsportslegacy”TheLondonJournal34(2)179-196.

GoWell, 2010, Progress for People and Places: Monitoring Change in Glasgow’sCommunitiesGlasgow:GlasgowCentreforPopulationHealth,Glasgow.

23

Grant Thornton, Ecorys, Loughborough University, Oxford Economics, Future Inclusion,2013,Meta-EvaluationoftheImpactsandLegacyoftheLondon2012OlympicGamesandParalympic Games. Report 5: Post-Games Evaluation –Economic Evidence Base (DCMS,London).

Gray N, Mooney G, 2011, “Glasgow’s new urban frontier: ‘Civilising’ the population of‘GlasgowEast’”City15(1)4-24.

Hall CM, 2006, “UrbanEntrepreneurship, corporate interests and sportsmega-events”, inSports Mega-Events: Social Scientific Analyses of a Global Phenomenon Eds J Horne, WManzenreiter(BlackwellPublishingLtd,Oxford).

HaweP, Shiell A, Riley T, 2009, “Theorising interventions as events in systems”AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology43267-276.

HedströmP, SwedbergREds., 1998,SocialMechanisms:AnAnalyticalApproach toSocialTheory(CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge).

Herstein R, Beger R, 2013, “Hosting the Olympics: a City's Make or Break Impression”JournalofBusinessStrategy34(5)54-59.

HorneJ,2007,“TheFour'Knowns'ofSportsMega-Events”LeisureStudies26(1)81-96.

IOC,2012,OlympicLegacy(InternationalOlympicCommittee,Lausanne,Switzerland).

Kernick D, 2006, “Wanted–newmethodologies for health service research. is complexitytheorytheanswer?”FamilyPractice23385–90.

KernickD,MannionR,2005,“DevelopinganevidencebaseforintermediatecaredeliveredbyGPswithaspecialinterest”BritishJournalofMedicalPractice55(521)908–10.

KornblattT,2006,“Settingthebar:preparingforLondon'sOlympiclegacy”DiscussionPaperNo.8,centreforcities:1-16.

KPMG,2006,Economic ImpactStudyof theMelbourne2006CommonwealthGamesPost-eventanalysis(OfficeoftheCommonwealthGamesCo-ordination,Melbourne).

LeopkeyB,ParentMM,2012, “The (neo) institutionalizationof legacyand its sustainablegovernancewithin theOlympicMovement”European SportManagementQuarterly12(5)437-455.

MackenzieM,BlameyA,2005,“ThePracticeandtheTheory:LessonsfromtheApplicationofaTheoriesofChangeApproach”Evaluation11(2)151–68.

Majunder B,MehtaN, 2010,The Sellotape Legacy: Delhi and The CommonwealthGamesLondon,HarperCollins.

24

Mangan JA, 2008, “Prologue: guarantees of global goodwill: post-Olympic legacies - toomany limping white elephants?” The International Journal of the History of Sport 25(14)1669-1883.

MarchalB,vanBelleS,vanOlmenJ,HoereeT,KegelsG,2012,Isrealistevaluationkeepingits promise? A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systems”Evaluation18(2)192-212.

Matheson C, 2010, “Legacy planning, Regeneration and events: The Glasgow 2014CommonwealthGames”LocalEconomy25(10)10-23.

MayneJ(2011)“Contributionanalysis:addressingcauseandeffect” inEds.ForssK,MarraM,SchwartzREvaluating theComplex:Attribution,Contribution,andBeyond (TransactionPublishers)pp.53-72.

McCartneyGP,HanlonP,BondL,2013,“Howwillthe2014CommonwealthGamesimpactonGlasgow'shealth,andhowwillweknow?”Evaluation19(1)24-39.

McCartney GS, Thomas H. Thomson J, Scott V, Hamilton P, Hanlon D.Morrison, Bond L,2010, "The health and socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport events: systematicreview(1978-2008)"BritishMedicalJournal340 c2369.

McTier,A. and McGregor,A. (2014) Review of Clyde Gateway Approach to Linking Opportunity and Need. Glasgow: TERU, University of Glasgow.

MegaVP,2010,SustainableCitiesfortheThirdMillennium:TheOdysseyofUrbanExcellence(Springer,London).

Michael A, 2013, “The London Olympics one year on: what difference has it made to business?” London Business Matters 97 20-21.

MurphyN,BaumanA,2007,"Masssporting andphysicalactivityevents-arethey 'breadand circuses' or public health interventions to increase population levels of physicalactivity?"JournalofPhysicalActivityandHealth4193-202.

Newby L, 2003, “Towhat extent has the commonwealth games accelerated the physical,social,andeconomicregenerationofeastManchester?”Dissertation(LEDQ).

O' Brien DJ, 2005, Strategic business leveraging of amega sport event: the Sydney 2000OlympicGamesexperience(CRCforSustainableTourism,GoldCoast,Quensland).

O'Brien D, Gardiner S, 2006, “Creating sustainable mega event impacts: networking andrelationshipdevelopmentthroughpre-eventtraining”SportManagementReview925-47.

OECD, 2010, Local development benefits from staging global events: achieving the localdevelopmentlegacyfrom2012-apeerreviewoftheOlympicandParalympiclegacyforEastLondonproposedby theDepartmentofCommunitiesandLocalGovernment (OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment,Paris).

25

OECD, 2004, Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Part One: Cohesion,Competitiveness, Employment and Growth (Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment,Paris).

OxfordEconomics,2012,TheEconomic Impactof the London2012Olympic&ParalympicGames(OxfordEconomics,Oxford).

Paton KG, Mooney G, McKee K (2012) “Class, citizenship and regeneration: glasgow and the commonwealth games 2014” Antipode 44(4) 1470-1489.

PawsonRandTilleyN,1997,RealisticEvaluation.London:SAGE.

PreussH, 2007, "The conceptualisation andmeasurement ofmega sport event legacies"JournalofSport&Tourism12(3-4)207-228.

PreussH,2004,TheEconomicsofStagingtheOlympics:AComparisonoftheGames1972-2008(EdwardElgar,Cheltenham).

RacoM,2004,“Whosegoldrush?ThesociallegacyofaLondonOlympics’,inAftertheGoldRush:AsustainableOlympicsforLondonEdsVigoretal.(IPPR/Demos,London)pp.31-49.

RacoM,TunneyE,2010,“Visibilitiesandinvisibilitiesinurbandevelopment:smallbusinesscommunitiesandthelondonolympics2012”UrbanStudies47:102069-2091.

ScottishGovernment,2014,‘Legacyprogrammesactivityreturn:Scotlandasamajoreventsdestination’,mimeo.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.

ScottishGovernment,2012,ScottishIndexofMultipleDeprivation.LocalAuthoritySummarySIMD2012:GlasgowCity(ScottishGovernment,Edinburgh).

SearleG,2002,“Uncertain legacy:Sydney'sOlympicstadiums”EuropeanPlanningStudies,10845-60.

SmithA,2012,Eventsandurbanregeneration:thestrategicuseofeventstorevitalisecities(Routledge,London).

SmithA,2010,“Thedevelopmentof'sports-city'zonesandtheirpotentialvalueastourismresourcesforurbanareas”EuropeanPlanningStudies18(3)385-410.

Smith A, 2009, "Theorising the Relationship between Major Sport Events and SocialSustainability"JournalofSport&Tourism14(2-3)109-120.

Smith A, Fox T, 2007, “From 'event-led' to 'event-themed' regeneration: the 2002CommonwealthGameslegacyprogramme”UrbanStudies44(5/6)1125-1143.

SpillingOR, 1996, “Mega-Event as a Strategy forRegionalDevelopment: TheCaseof the1994LillehammerWinterOlympics”Entrepreneurship&RegionalDevelopment8321-343.

26

SQW,2013,Olympicjobsevaluation(GreaterLondonAuthority(GLA),London).

StameN., 2004, “Theory-Based Evaluation and Varieties of Complexity”, Evaluation10(1)58–76.

Sturmburg J,MartinC,2009, “Complexityandhealth–yesterday’s traditions, tomorrow’sfuture”JournalofEvaluationinClinicalPractice15543-548.

UKTI,2013,London2012:delivering theeconomic legacy -progress report fromUKTradeandInvestment(UKTradeandInvestment,London).

Vanwynsberghe RB, Surborg B, Wyly E, 2012, "When the games come to town:neoliberalism,mega-events and social inclusion in the VancouverwinterOlympic games"InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch37(6)1468-2427.

WeedME,CorenE,FioreJ,2009,Asystematicreviewoftheevidencebasefordevelopingaphysical activity andhealth legacy from the London2012Olympic andParalympicGames(SPEAR,CanterburyChristChurchUniversity).

Weiss C, 1997, “Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future” New Directions forProgramEvaluation7641–55.

Weiss,CH,1995,“NothingasPracticalasGoodTheory:ExploringTheory-BasedEvaluationfor Comprehensive Community-Based Initiatives for Children and Families”, in Eds. JPConnell, AC Kubisch, LB Schorr, CH Weiss New Approaches to Evaluating CommunityInitiativesvol.1:Concepts,MethodsandContexts.(AspenInstitute,WashingtonDC).

Westerbeek H, Lindey M, 2012, “Building Brands Through Sport Events: Theoretical andEmpiricalPerspectives”JournalofBrandStrategy1(2)193-205.

iSource:Inter-departmentalbusinessregister,ONS.iiTheemploymentrateisthepercentageofadultsaged16-64whoareinpaidemployment.ComparativefiguresforGlasgowandScotlandcomefromNOMIS.iiiSource:CWG2014OrganisingCommittee.