From the inbox:
Your article Estimating the Value of Medal Success in the Olympic Games has now been published in Journal of Sports Economics Volume 19 Issue 3, April 2018 and can be viewed at doi.org/10.1177/
1527002515626221
Here is the abstract:
We estimate Canadians’ willingness to pay (WTP) for medals won by Team Canada in the 2010 Winter Olympic Games using data from contingent valuation method (CVM) surveys of nationally representative samples conducted before and after the Games. The results permit an assessment of Own the Podium, a government program designed to increase Canada’s medal count. International prestige and national pride are important determinants of WTP. The results are sensitive to cost and scope, respondents’ beliefs about the effectiveness of the program, as measured by expected medal count. WTP estimates suggest that Own the Podium generated benefits above its cost to a degree unique in the growing literature of sport CVM studies.
Notes:
- This paper uses data from what could be the last phone survey ever.
- Errata: Ugh, the sample size indicator (n) is lower case in Table 6 and upper case (N) in Table 7.
- Yes, we tested for endogeneity of the medals variable (Table 7). It's not a clean comparison since we sum the gold and other medals variables for the test, but still. Using the attitudinal (Table 2) variables as instruments correction for endogeneity does not affect the value of medals in the pre-Olympic data (but the predicted (i.e., endogeneity corrected) medals coefficient is statistically significant at less (more than?) than p=.10 [t=1.51]). In the post-Olympic data the endogeneity corrected model leads to a WTP for an additional medal of $58 versus $24 in the biased model. The confidence intervals overlap so I don't feel bad about presenting the more conservative, and more realistic, estimates.
