The Olympic reference I researched was about the 2008 Olympics hosted in Beijing. The article was about Beijing’s action plan for preparation for the 2008 Olympic Games. In the article there are numerous example of how the country plans on cautiously spending its money on the Olympics. “The Olympic Games will use thirty-seven venues, thirty-two of which will be in the Beijing area and five in areas outside of Beijing. Of the thirty-two venues in Beijing, nineteen (including six temporary competition venues) will be newly built and thirteen will be refurbished or expanded venues. In addition, fifty-nine training venues must be refurbished, and supplementary construction must be conducted on special Paralympic Game facilities” (16). After reading the following article one can see that there is a lot of construction happening in a city when a hosting the Olympic Games. Most host Olympic cities, if not all, take years to prepare for the Olympic Games because of all the refurbishing and rebuilding of facilities. With all of the construction that goes into the Olympic Games, the question being purposed is Beijing and other host cities benefiting from hosting the Olympic Games? believe that Beijing did benefit from hosting the 2008 summer Olympics but maybe not so much in numbers as opposed to the Legacy is has left for the country. Since my article talked specifically about the different aspects of what is going to need to be built and not the impact of the new building, I needed to find more research to help explain my answer which will be seen in the following text.
Beijing profiting less in numbers can be supported by economist Jeffery Owen in his article Estimating the Cost and Benefit of Hosting Olympic Games: What Can Beijing Expect from Its 2008 Games. Jeffery explains that, “Mega-events” such as the Olympic Games require large sums of public money to be spent on venues and infrastructure improvements. In order to justify the use of public funds, economic impact studies are often commissioned which invariably project large inflows of money that will have a long-term positive effect on the economy by such means as job creation and visitor spending. Events of the scale of the Olympic Games, which attract large amounts of money from outside a local economy, are forecasted to have economic impacts in the billions of dollars. Ex-post studies, however, have consistently found no evidence of positive economic impacts from mega-sporting events even remotely approaching the estimates in economic impact studies.”(Owen) The macro economic effects of the Olympic will result in higher economic growth and increase in spending related to the Olympics will help to boost Aggregate Demand. However, the increased spending will only represent a relatively small % of GDP. Some estimates suggest around 0.5% of GDP. Also the Chinese economy is already growing very quickly so it is debatable whether a further boost will help. From a macroeconomic point of view, it is not clear how important the Olympics will be. There is a definite increase in AD, but, it remains a relatively small % of total GDP. (Owen) 
In addition to the standard projections of economic impact, Olympic studies also include longer term benefits sometimes referred to as the “Olympic Legacy”. “These legacy effects, derived from positive publicity from the Games, include increased tourism after the Games, attraction of business, and infrastructure investments that improve the urban environment” (Owen). Legacy impacts are generally not incorporated into the economic impact numbers, but rather offered as an additional, unquantifiable benefit. “The lack of any ex post study that finds improvements in economic growth or living standards due to mega events should cast some suspicion on the legacy effects of Olympics, or at least the ability of such effects to be transformed into real economic benefits to the local economy. Baade and Matheson found the evidence suggests that the economic impact of the Olympics is transitory, onetime changes rather than a ‘steady-state’ change” (Owen).
It has also been argued that the Olympic Games can advance a city in the hierarchy of “world cities.” According to Jeffery Owen, “some of the most important global spectacles are sports mega events such as the Olympics which reach a worldwide television audience and offer perhaps the best stage upon which a city can make the claim to global status.” The world cities concept is closely related to the Olympic legacy, especially regarding tourism, which is seen as a modern arena of economic competition among cities. “During this latest phase of globalization, when tourist attractions are highly prized, many cities are repackaging the old with new accommodations or accessibilities to re-present themselves as living history and to take advantage of the global tourism economy” (Owen). It is easy to see how a city such as Beijing would find the Olympics appealing in this context.
In comparison to Beijing, Greece also felt the economic and Legacy effect of the Olympic Games. According to Simon Nixon writer for MoneyWeek,”the impact of the Olympics on the Greek economy has been mostly beneficial. Over the last few years, the combination of Olympic spending and generous EU handouts have helped to transform the country from an economic basket case into one of the fastest-growing economies in the EU, with growth of 4%. But the legacy of the Games is public-sector debt likely to hit 100% of GDP this year and a budget deficit forecast to reach 4%, well beyond the euro zone 3% limit. As a result, Greece has been told to cut its debt –this at a time when the supply of EU funds is about to dry up following EU enlargement.”Overall there have only been a few cities that have profited from the Olympics Games such as Los Angeles, Atlanta, South Korea, Sydney, and Barcelona which marked the start of an economic and cultural renaissance for the Catalan capital. Although not many have made profits from the Olympics, many cities have reaped a Legacy effect that will carry out through many years in their countries.
