State Dirigisme in Megaprojects: Governing the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi

Abstract

This paper examines the preparation for the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia, and links it to debates on state rescaling and urban entrepreneurialism in mega-projects. It argues that the Olympic mega-project in Sochi follows a model of state dirigisme which accords a salient role to the national state. Although private sector companies act as investors, the national state steers the planning process and directs the investment. This arrangement is reflected in a business-state relationship where the boundaries between the public and the private sector become blurred, as the state establishes directive control over companies. The model of state dirigisme is underpinned by a nationalist narrative which frames the Olympic Games not primarily as a stimulus for economic development and global competitiveness but as a contribution to Russian greatness. This mode of governing the Olympic Games deviates from the model of entrepreneurial governance and the concomitant state rescaling, dominant in mega-projects in North America and Western Europe, in according a prominent role to the national state rather than to market-led development pushed by cities as lead actors. Governing megaprojectsThe dominant mode of governing megaprojects has undergone a marked shift from government to governance in the decades since World War II. If government is the hierarchical management by the national state, then governance can be understood as a decentralised, horizontal form of coordination between state and nonstate actors. In what Altshuler and Luberoff (2003, page 8) call the``great mega-project era'' in the 1950s and 1960s, modernisation was the rallying cry of megaprojects. Aiming at the democratisation of public goods such as water, electricity or transport, Fordist national governments disbursed unprecedented funds for megaprojects in a big push to modernise cities (Lehrer and Laidley, 2008). Initiated and funded by the state, the government of megaprojects reflected the dominant form of urban politics at that time, which relied on the nationalised formation of capital accumulation and state regulation (Brenner, 2009;Harvey, 1989).During the 1970s, however, two significant changes began to emerge in urban politics that moved megaprojects more towards a model of governance. First, there was a rescaling of statehood in which capital flows and urban competition are upscaled to the global level, whereas the pursuit of growth agendas is downscaled to the local level of urban politics (Brenner, 2009;Swyngedouw et al, 2002). In this process, the national state increasingly devolves institutional capacities to the local level, concentrating on providing the necessary economic, legal, and institutional framework for facilitating market-led urban development and attracting private capital (Brenner, 2004;Harvey, 1989). Second, there was a turn towards urban entrepreneurialism. This entrepreneurialism prioritises economic growth as a political goal, bolstering local risk taking, inventiveness, place promotion, and profit...

Megaprojects redefined – complexity vs cost and social imperatives

“…A number of urban developmental modes have been attributed to the building and development for Olympics. The large scale 'spectacle' of opening ceremonies (Broudehoux, 2010;Tien, Lo, & Ze, 2011;Müller, 2011) are often seen as complex megaprojects, with the Berlin 1936 Olympics often being cited as the first case of upscaling the Olympics to a mega-event, which generated a desire to present these events in a new grand schema.…”

Global games, local rules: Mega-events in the post-socialist world

“…Here, the national state maintained control over the organisation of mega-events and the distribution of funds, contracts and other resources (Müller, 2011(Müller, , 2015Trubina, 2015). With its centralised fiscal structure, hosting events has emerged as a state strategy for influencing urban development and as a strategy for cities to tap into infrastructural development funds from the central state.…”

Olympic Diplomacy and the Emerging States: Striving for Influence in the Multipolar World

“…These narratives served to Müller (2011Müller ( : 2095, the Sochi Games have been characterised as Putin's "pet idea" with the Games having a twofold purpose: using Olympic diplomacy "to send a signal of strength and pride" to Russia's international audience, legitimising Putin's rule, and showing Russia as a strong global player (Haus 2014). Russia decided to focus the opening ceremony on its contribution to universal values, literature and music, while simultaneously highlighting its power.…”