The Asahi Shimbun recently reported that one of the reasons the Japanese government has been slow to tackle the water leak crisis at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is that it doesn’t want to draw attention to the problem while Tokyo remains a candidate for the 2020 Olympic Games. Despite the fact that the Olympics are supposed to be hosted by cities not countries, Japan’s central government is counting on the games to boost its overall economy, and Asahi also reports that the decision, which will be determined on Sept. 7, will have a very strong bearing on whether or not the consumption tax increase will take place in April. If Tokyo is the winner, the tax will go ahead as planned.
The Japan Olympic Committee is predicting a long-term economic boost of ¥3 trillion if Tokyo gets the games. That’s a lot of money, but while it may offset the negative effects of the consumption tax increase temporarily it’s hardly enough to kick start the entire Japanese economy. In any case, how exactly would the Olympics bring about this financial miracle? After the games last year, the city of London and the U.K. government jointly announced that the event benefited the British economy by almost £10 billion (¥1.5 trillion). However, the BBC questioned just how much of this “impact” could be directly attributed to the Olympics. In addition, the Financial Times wondered about the government’s calculation that the Olympics would have a secondary effect on the British economy that would amount to between £28 billion and £41 billion (¥4.2 trillion-¥6.0 trillion) until the year 2020. A financial expert interviewed by the FT said he had no idea how the government arrived at this figure.
To get some idea of how this “economic effectiveness” (keizai koka) is calculated, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun evaluated the figures submitted by the Tokyo Bid Committee for the 2016 Olympic Games, which Tokyo lost to Rio (page 5). Included in the ¥2.94 trillion that was to be added to the Japanese economy by the games was ¥332 billion in the form of construction outlays, ¥175 billion to be spent by “guests,” ¥356 billion in sales of official merchandise and “related purchases” (like TV sets that people bought to watch the games), and ¥86 billion from tourists who would visit Tokyo before the games, presumably drawn to the city because of the Olympics though they would not actually attend them.
Moreover, the JOC predicted a “ripple effect” of ¥990 billion in related “demand” after the Olympics ended, and then a secondary effect of ¥650 billion from the higher salaries and added jobs that this ripple effect would engender. Except for the construction costs and revenues for restaurants and hotels during the actual two-week Olympic period, all these figures are speculative and based on phenonema that are difficult to measure. For instance, isn’t there a lot of overlap between the spending of tourists and the purchase of merchandise related to the Olympics?
The point is, when the media says that the 2020 Olympics will boost the Japanese economy by ¥3 billion people think that means ¥3 billion will be added to the economy, but actually most of that money is simply being redistributed. Tokyo, for instance, says it will spend ¥1 trillion on the 2020 Olympics, and according to the JOC the city has ¥400 billion “saved” in what it calls junbikin (preparation money), which is cash that the prefectural government has accumulated at a rate of ¥100 billion a year. However, it is all from taxes, which means that the money that goes to construction came from residents.
Moreover, the central government has pledged to cover any shortfall in operating expenses for the Olympics, so presumably that means it will provide the remaining ¥600 billion (or more), which also comes from tax money. Since most of the work that is created directly for the Olympic Games is done by volunteers, this money is not necessarily going to people in the form of employment and wages. The assumption, or at least the hope, is that Olympic money that goes to big corporations will eventually trickle down to people in the form of the aforementioned ripple and secondary effects, but, as the FT expert implied, there’s no way you can confirm this until it actually happens.