Within organizations, ‘institutional theory’ refers to processes by which rules and norms become guidelines or controllers of behaviour. For example, ask how has an event’s approach to stakeholder relationship management became ‘institutionalized’
over many years? This ties in with organizational culture and social network theory, with direct relevance to planning, decision-making, coordination and control systems.
However, we are more interested here in what an ‘institution’ is, and how an event can become one.
Regarding the organization as an ‘institution’, Scott (2001) suggested it is a social struc- ture with a great deal of resilience, it provides meaning to social life, connotes stability and is taken for granted. Others believe an institution has to exist for a specific purpose, which is to achieve important societal goals or solve crucial societal problems.
The following criteria appear to be important factors determining event institutional- ization, and should be tested through a variety of comparative research studies on different types of events:
● An event that is an ‘institution’ solves important social problems or meets important community goals.
● Society or the community cannot be without it – failure is unthinkable.
● Permanence is taken for granted.
● Support is assured – sponsors and agencies will always give it money.
● They are highly visible – everyone knows about it – the event has a strong, positive brand.
● It is expert in managing its stakeholder relationships.
● Key stakeholders have been internalized.
Fuller understanding of institutionalization also requires linkage with population ecol- ogy, resource theories of the firm and stakeholder theory. In Chapter 10 we return to this concept and examine if it is really desirable to strive to become an institution.
Political Science
Political science is the theory and practice of politics, political systems and political behaviour. Political scientists study government and its processes, public institu- tions, power and policy-making, politics, intergovernmental and international rela- tions. ‘Political philosophy’, on the other hand, is more concerned with values and political ideas, such as the differences between Marxism and Capitalism, or the mean- ings of rights and justice (from Encyclopaedia Britannica online) (Figure 4.5).
There are many political reasons for staging events, and politics often influences their management and marketing. Ideological reasons lie behind many mega-events, wherein the dominant power in society seeks to demonstrate and reinforce its values, or to win support (Hall, 1997).
In many countries there are substantial, party-based differences in approaches to policy that impinge on the events sector. These are generally rooted in philosophy and trad- itional voting bases, such as Labour versus Conservative, but they also express the more mundane necessity of opposing the party in power. It is always worth asking if a ‘party- political platform’ reflects fundamental philosophical differences between parties, or if the opposition is simply trying to appear to be different. One might expect, for example, that a left-leaning party would stress equity issues and government interventions, such
as making the arts accessible to everyone, while right-leaning parties would stress free- market economics and privatization.
Government intervention in the events industry is often justified, for reasons discussed previously (i.e., public goods and failure of the marketplace). But these arguments can disguise underlying political motivations, such as getting re-elected, spreading party- specific values (this is correctly termed ‘propaganda’) or catering to interest groups that support the party in question.
‘Interest groups’ and ‘elites’: Who supports public involvement with events, and why, is a question too infrequently asked. Often the answer is disturbing, because getting the government to produce, subsidize or bid on events obviously benefits some more than others. The tourism industry benefits directly when major events are produced, but the arguments put forward in support of mega-event bids typically emphasize the public goods such as more jobs, economic development, new infrastructure and enhanced civic pride.
‘Political attitudes’ and ‘voting patterns’: Political scientists often study elections and under- lying voter attitudes and behaviour, including how political campaigns and specific messages affect the voter. When it comes to events, the most closely related approach has typically involved measures of resident or tourist perceptions of event impacts, and attitudes towards them. But that research has more of a sociological orientation than political science. More research is needed on how perceptions and attitudes translate into political action or voting patterns, and how interest groups lobby for and achieve their event-related goals. This is similar to stakeholder theory.
Political Nature and Antecedents Planning and Outcomes and Processes and science meanings: to attending producing the impacted patterns
the event events events experience
• The study of • Events may • Political • Creating •Effects on •How politics governments, take on motives to events as a politics, and policies public policies political attend or political government, influence and political significance stay away statement political event behaviour • Attendance (e.g., protest, parties and development
can be a party loyalty, law and
political nationalism) attendance
statement • Government
policy and programmes re events
Figure 4.5 Political science.
‘International relations’: Events often involve international relations, both as a reflection of trade, power and cultural exchange. Consider the importance of hosting a mega-event for national pride and the legitimacy of governments, the importance assigned to using events to foster trade and economic development, and the value of showcasing one’s cultural and economic accomplishments in a global forum.
‘Policy formulation’: The ways in which event-related policies are formulated and imple- mented have not received much attention from researchers. Certainly we are all aware of how many tragedies at events gave rise to health and safety regulations. But what went into the decision of the Canadian government (and other nations) to ban tobacco sponsorship at events? Will the same happen to alcohol sponsorship? How did events lobby and why were they successful, or not? As the event management profession and industry become better established and more professional, it can be expected their lobby- ing efforts will increase and become more effective. But who sets and steers that agenda?
An interesting, events-related theme in policy-making is that of irrational decision- making. Elites, holding influence and power in society, tend to get what they want. It’s a mutually reinforcing process! So when a mega-event is desired, or perhaps a subsidy for certain types of event, rational decision-making can get in the way. Accordingly, various spurious arguments about tourism impacts or infrastructure gains are used to make it seem like a rational decision. Those who use rational arguments to oppose such decisions are then branded as being unpatriotic, irresponsible or stupid. This is how power gets abused.
A kinder explanation is that emotions get the better of people. Consider how emotional a country can get when it is bidding for the Olympics against a rival country (does London versus Paris 2012 come to mind?). In a highly charged, emotional context, irrational decisions are more likely to be made. How can that be prevented or amelio- rated? Should it be?
‘Power’ and ‘resources’: Much of politics can be construed as a struggle for power, and power means control of resources. When elections are held, the balance of power shifts:
lobbyists have more or less influence, funds are re-allocated and new policies become possible. Political science deals with how power and the economy are interdependent, and in the events context this requires studying how various parties (political or other- wise) exert influence to get what they want.
In his examination of tourism and politics, Hall (1994) pointed out the negative side of using events to achieve political goals. Events can not only be used as an excuse for over-riding normal planning and consultation processes, but can also displace power- less groups – especially in the inner city – in the name of urban renewal and economic
development. He rightly argued that mega-events are almost always sought after by the community’s elite who stand to benefit the most, whereas ordinary residents are seldom consulted. Hall noted that proponents of the successful Sydney, Australia bid for the 2000 Summer Olympic Games regarded opponents as ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘unAustralian’
and that the public was consulted only by means of polls.
Sometimes we confuse power with dominant value systems, when in fact it is the dom- inance of a value or belief (say in the free market versus socialism) that gives power to certain groups and political parties. Is there any use in opposing a government’s pol- icy on events, such as whether or not to provide grants or tax relief, if in fact that policy reflects the country’s dominant value system?