他她話題:奧運會的"主辦國效應"

How does Great Britain's haul of 64 medals, including 29 golds, compare to other recent host nations' performance?

英國在本屆奧運會上獲得64枚獎牌，包括29枚金牌，這樣的表現與前幾屆奧運會的主辦國如何對比？

There can be little doubt that greater recent investment in elite sports is the main cause of Great Britain's impressive performance at these Olympics an uptick in performance compared with Beijing 2008 would have been expected regardless, because of a well-documented "host-nation effect" that sees the home team performed significantly better than it usually does.

無疑，近年對精英運動項目加大投資，是英國在本屆奧運會上取得驕人戰績的主要原因。但是，英國軍團的表現會比2008年北京奧運會時好一些，本來就在意料之中，這是由於已有大量研究文獻支持的"主辦國效應"，即奧運主辦國代表隊的表現會顯著好於其正常水平。

One of the economists who have studied the factors that effect nations' Olympic performance, Daniel Johnson of Colorado College, found that the benefits of hosting are not one-offs. His work describes both a "pre-hosting effect" that benefits the host nation of the next Olympics, and a "legacy" or "post-hosting effect" that sees the hosts of the last two Olympics continue to outperform expectations.

對於影響一國奧運表現的各種因素，科羅拉多學院(Colorado College)的丹尼爾•約翰遜(Daniel Johnson)是進行了相關研究的經濟學家之一。他發現，主辦奧運會的效益並不是一次性的。他在研究後總結出兩種效應：一是造福於下一屆奧運會主辦國的"主辦前效應"，二是有利於上兩屆奧運會主辦國繼續超常發揮的一種"遺贈"或曰"主辦後效應"。

Johnson's obervation can be seen clearly in the chart above: Host nations' performance begins to improve before their home Olympics, and only gradually reverts afterwards.

約翰遜的觀察從以上圖表可明顯看出：主辦國的表現在其主辦奧運會之前就開始提高，而在主辦之後卻不是一下子就回歸常態。

In 2000, economists Andrew Bernard and Meghan Busse analysed the historical medal tables and found that host nations won 1.8 per cent More medals than could be predicted from GDP alone. Their work was updated for the current games by London Business School PhD student Emily Williams, who predicted that Team GB would win 62 medals including 25 golds.

2000年，經濟學家安德魯•伯納德(Andrew Bernard)和梅根•布斯(Meghan Busse)分析了歷屆奧運會的獎牌榜。他們發現，與僅僅依據國內生產總值(GDP)作出的預測相比，主辦國能夠多贏得1.8%的獎牌。倫敦商學院(LBS)的博士生艾米莉•威廉姆斯(Emily Williams)聯繫本屆奧運會的實際，對他們的研究進行了修正，她預測英國軍團會獲得62枚獎牌，包括25枚金牌。

A similar analysis published in a Goldman Sachs report earlier this summer found that host nations usually enjoy a 54% increase in medals, and showed that certain sports are more sensitive to the host-nation effect than others. The bank was more bullish on Great Britain's chances, offering a near-perfect prediction of 64 medals and 30 golds.

今年夏初時分，高盛(Goldman Sachs)的一份報告發表了一項類似的分析。該項研究發現，主辦國通常能夠多獲得54%的獎牌，而且某些比賽項目對主辦國效應更爲敏感。該行當時對英國軍團的前景更爲樂觀，作出了近乎完美的預測：64枚獎牌，包括30枚金牌。

Our chart excludes the boycott games of Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 which had exaggerated host-nation effects, along with the 1972 and 1976 games, whose hosts West Germany and Canada would go on to be major beneficiaries of the Soviet-bloc boycott of the Los Angeles games in 1984. It also excludes the Atlanta games of 1996, because the United States data for this line would include the problematic 1984 games.

我們的圖表剔除了1980年莫斯科奧運會和1984年洛杉磯奧運會（因爲這兩屆奧運會都遭到抵制，誇大了主辦國效應），也剔除了1972年慕尼黑奧運會和1976年蒙特利爾奧運會（因爲主辦國西德和加拿大後來在1984年洛杉磯奧運會上都明顯獲益於蘇聯集團國家的抵制）。圖表還剔除了1996年亞特蘭大奧運會（因爲這條線上的美國數據將包括有問題的1984年奧運會）。