There is a disconnect between the top-down, elite, nature of sports mega-events and the ostensible redistributive and participatory sustainable development agendas staked out by BINGOs (Business-based International Non-Governmental Organizations) such as the contemporary International Olympic Committee (IOC). Focusing specifically on the London 2012 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, we argue that, for all the environmental technology advances offered by sports mega-events, their dominant model remains one of a hollowed out form of sustainable development. Despite significant technical and methodological innovations in environmental stewardship, the development model of the London Olympics remains predicated on the satisfaction of transnational investment flows. We discuss what this means for claims about the staging of a 'Green' Olympic Games. KEYWORDS civil society, mega-events, Olympic Games, sustainable development 2 Sustainable Development, Shock and Awe? London 2012 and Civil SocietyMega-events planning is, according to Hiller, 'top-down planning', conceived by elites, running to fixed completion dates, in which the 'idea of citizen participation is […] primarily merely responding to a plan conceived by others', relegated to the role of after-the-fact consultation (Hiller 2000, p.193). More widely, in their discussion of mega-projects, Flyvbjerg et al (2003, p.5) argue that civil society 'does not have the same say in this arena of public life as it does in others; citizens are typically kept at a substantial distance from megaproject decision making'. In the case of the forthcoming London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games (henceforth: the London Games), this appears to present something of a paradox, because though the vast physical infrastructure development of the Games is integrated within the long-term Thames Gateway urban regeneration 'mega-project' designed to address east London's chronic housing needs, London's winning pitch to host the Games was specifically based on the promotion of social diversity and community involvement; and because, in line with developing trends in both IOC and (latterly) FIFA sporting mega-events, London seeks to host the first 'sustainable' Games. In the words of David Higgins, CEO of the Olympic Development Authority, London 2012 will be 'remembered not only as two weeks of fantastic sporting action, but also as the "Greenest Games" in modern times' (London 2012(London , 2007 (Mol & Zhang, 2011). Sports mega-events thus provide a platform for economic growth oriented approaches to environmental protection and amelioration, in a process cognisant with 'ecological modernisation' (Hajer 1996, Mol 2000. In this scenario, the IOC (and also FIFA) function as regulatory authorities for the development and dissemination of environmental best practice and sustainable technologies, facilitating the creation and growth of new markets. One sense in which we should see megaevents therefore is through their capacity to act as powerful agents of technology transfer and t...

No abstract

No abstract

This is an electronic pre-publication version of an article later published in the European Journal of Political Research (2012) vol 51 (4) 540-562. The published version can be accessed here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j. 1475-6765.2011.02048.x/abstract Abstract This article compares the tactic of trashing genetically modified crops in activist campaigns in Britain and France. In Britain most crop trashing was carried out covertly, while in France most activists undertook open, public actions. In seeking an explanation for this, we show that the analysis of political opportunities, dominant in comparative studies of social movements, can only take us so far. While it helps explain the occurrence of direct action, it is much less useful in explaining the tactical differences between each country. We argue that a fuller explanation requires an understanding of how action was shaped by different activist traditions. In France, action was staged as a demonstration of serious, responsible, collective Republican citizenship; in the UK, activists combined a sceptical view of legality developing from anarchist individualism with an explicitly non--threatening, playful, ethos. We conclude by arguing that a focus on activist traditions can provide an effective bridge between structural and cultural approaches to understanding the determinants of social movement action. Keywords: Tradition, GMOs, sabotage, political opportunities, social movements.One of the key challenges associated with the study of social movements concerns the balance between external contextual factors and subjective decision making -between structure and agency -in explaining the collective choices made by movement actors. By looking at the empirical conundrum provided by the differences in the design of the direct action campaigns waged by opponents of the cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (henceforth: GMOs) in two countries, Britain and France, we aim to show the value of the concept of activist traditions in establishing a balance between structure and agency in understanding social movements.Our focus is on the tactic of 'crop trashing'. In both countries, activists have sought to put pressure on transnational biotechnology corporations and national governments by destroying GM crop trials and -in France -commercial plantations of Monsanto's MON810 GM maize. From a macro--

No abstract