Going for the gold: Status-seeking behavior and Olympic performance

Abstract

State competition for international status takes a variety of forms, but most are linked to states’ related pursuits of economic and/or military power. The Olympics offer a unique venue for states to compete with one another in a forum whose consequences do not directly spill over into either realm. Instead, states compete against one another for Olympic medals—a currency with no other international political value beyond the prestige that can be obtained with them. Leveraging a theoretical framework nested in Social Identity Theory, we develop a set of hypotheses to explain how states can be attributed international status as a result of their performance in the Olympic Games and via playing host to them. Using a linear hierarchical method of analysis, we evaluate the impact of participation in the Summer Olympics on the status attributed to members of the international system from 1960 to 2012. Our findings indicate that states whose performance exceeds expectations and smaller-sized countries that play host to the Olympic Games disproportionately gain status from their participation in the sporting regime.

Going for the Gold versus Distributing the Green: Foreign Policy Substitutability and Complementarity in Status Enhancement Strategies

“…The policy approach of seeking more status through Olympic competition—a strategy of social creativity—is relatively inexpensive for states compared to the risks involved with social competition (Rhamey and Early ). At least since Hitler's infamous Berlin Olympics of 1936, and through the Cold War years, competition for Olympic medals has functioned for numerous states as a means of establishing and enhancing their status among the community of nations.…”

“…One of the latest contributions to this literature is an analysis of successful competition in the summer Olympics as a state status‐seeking strategy (Rhamey and Early ). The authors find that winning Olympic medals and hosting the Olympics have significant impacts on states' status rankings.…”

Norms, Behavioral Compliance, and Status Attribution in International Politics

“…Yet, some have argued persuasively that status-seeking need not have such conflict-producing consequences (for example, Rhamey and Early 2013). Larson and Shevchenko (2010) suggest three types of strategies, including social conflict (akin to realist strategies), social mobility (global norm acceptance), and social creativity (for example, successful Olympic competition).…”

“…Three state attributes in particular have been strong predictors of relative status(Bezerra et al 2014;East 1972;Rhamey and Early 2013; …”

“…For two exceptions, seeEarly (2013), and Bezerra et al (2014).8 However, as we note below, universal recognition of a norm simply means that it has reached past some threshold of acceptance; it does not mean that it is no longer contested, or that there will not be substantial variation in behavioral consistency with the norm.9 The "norm cascade" approach identifies key stages in the norm life cycle(Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). A second theory suggests that a norm is not formed until a shock to the system causes enough actors to create new practices that challenge the status quo(Goertz 2003).…”