There is considerable debate among economists, policymakers and business leaders about just how big an impact the Olympic games have on the host city (and country). Our own report on the Olympic legacy, to be published here on September 12th, will likely add fuel to the fire by highlighting the views of several experts who doubt that London, for example, will reap tangible long-term rewards in terms of new jobs, revitalised infrastructure or a boost to GDP. (Some do hold out hope, however, for some degree of revival of East End neighbourhoods.)
But economics and infrastructure aren't everything. Xu Guoqui, professor of history at Hong Kong University, argues persuasively that for Beijing, the most sought-after benefit of the 2008 games was the successful projection of "soft power", and that in this respect the games were a success. And Eduardo Paes, mayor of Rio Janeiro, asserts that "non-tangible" legacy will be just as important for the 2016 host city as economic benefits.
For host cities and countries looking to announce themselves on the world stage with a giant "coming out" party, the Olympic legacy may indeed prove of long-lasting value. Which host city will benefit most?
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.