August 17, 2008
Does Poverty and Lack of Social Mobility Account for India's Poor Olympic Performance?
Given India's population, it is a puzzle why it has not won more Olympic medals. Anirudh Krishna and Eric Haglund provide one plausible answer in Economic and Political Weekly (via this piece in the Guardian):
Compared to its share in the world’s population, India’s share of Olympic medals is abysmally low. In the 2004 Olympic Games, for example, India won only one medal. Turkey, which has less than one-tenth of India’s population, won 10 times as many medals, and Thailand, which has roughly 6 per cent of India’s population, won eight times as many medals. India’s one-sixth share in the world’s population translated into a 1/929 share in 2004 Olympic medals. While Australia won 2.46 medals per one-million population and Cuba won 2.39 medals per one-million population, India brought up the bottom of this international chart, winning a mere 0.0009 medals per one-million population. Nigeria, next lowest, had 18 times this number, winning 0.015 medals per one-million population.1 Why does the average Indian count for so little?
What prevents the translation of India’s huge number of people into a proportionate – or even near-proportionate – number of Olympic medals? The gross domestic product certainly matters, as previous analyses have indicated [Bernard and Busse 2004], but something else also seems to be making a difference, given that Cuba, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kenya and Uzbekistan – countries not known for having high average incomes – have won many more medals than India, despite having a far smaller national population. Why do 10 million Indians win less than one-hundredth of one Olympic medal, while 10 million Uzbeks won 4.7 Olympic medals?
In this article, we explore the concept of effectively participating population, arguing that not everyone in a country has equal access to competitive sports – or for that matter, to other arenas, including the political and economic ones. Many are not effective participants on account of ignorance or disinterest, disability or deterrence.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:52 PM | Permalink









Comments
One thought: in boxing, they sent more boxers to the quarterfinals than the US did.
:-)
Ok, so the US only sent 2, but India sent 3.
Posted by: ollie | Aug 17, 2008 7:19:50 PM
Also, Indians tend to like sports like cricket and squash, neither of which are (alas) at the Olympics.
Posted by: Harlan | Aug 17, 2008 8:04:23 PM
It's really quite simple. Negligible to non-existent coaching infrastructure equals almost zero medals at the Olympics. Just the other day on NDTV I saw a piece on a very talented female discus thrower from Punjab who was leaving for Australia because there was nobody to even give her the most basic training, there is no funding at all. When India can barely maintain its basic material infrastructure who is going to make the case to spend on intangibles like sport? What happens if a kid with a talent for long or middle distance wants to take it further? There's nowhere for him or her to go in India, nowhere at all. Also, cricket is such a money sucking hegemonic behemoth that all else withers and dies.
Posted by: Jay | Aug 17, 2008 8:11:00 PM
It's purely a question of priorities. India doesn't consider Olympic sports to be worthy of investment, so they do poorly. It's as simple as that.
This is a typical article by economists. They try to draw broad outlines of a country based on a largely trivial aspect of the country.
Cuba, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kenya and Uzbekistan are all authoritarian or semi-authoritarian countries that use sports as a prestige enhancer for the country (and ruling clique) or have extremely specialized conditions (Kenyan runners from a specific tribe).
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Aug 18, 2008 9:37:07 AM
So Hektor;
A stifling caste system, widespread poverty and malnutrition really play no part in this then? Silly economists, they really had me going...damn near bought into their little just-so-story too. Thanks for the reality check.
Posted by: Pete Chapman | Aug 18, 2008 1:27:03 PM
Pete:
They do - for those who are shut out by those social forces and that is a large mass of potential athletic talent.
The more interesting question may be why the affluent middle class Indians (and that too is a large mass), don't do well in international sporting events. Jay and Hektor's explanations apply more to the latter.
Posted by: Ruchira | Aug 18, 2008 2:06:33 PM
So, having a state-sponsored, centrally planned system for developing sports potential, like they have in Cuba, means that a society is more economically robust? What are these guys, Keynesians?
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Aug 18, 2008 2:58:41 PM
Pete,
Yes, indeed, that does cut out large numbers of Indians from any chance of sports excellence. Though it should be noted that in many countries, low-caste people excel in certain sports if adequate training facilities are present. Boxing is an excellent example, as is football in the US.
Ruchira has posted the obvious riposte - within India there is a population about the size of Germany or so that is plenty rich enough and high-caste enough to get into sports but chooses not to.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Aug 18, 2008 3:29:46 PM
One other comment. Of the South Asian nations (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives) India is the only one with a medal so far.
It's clear that cultural/economic priorities do play a part here - these countries have chosen not to invest in sport.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Aug 18, 2008 3:33:07 PM
It is not an explain-all paper. They only say that if they include 'surrogates for connectedness', the predictions are better. Table 3 still predicted 14 medals for India. I find the paper very interesting and can possibly help understand other areas in development.
Posted by: gaddeswarup | Aug 18, 2008 7:08:00 PM
The reality is that over the centuries the climate of India(extremely hot spring/summer,a prolonged rainy season),caste prejudices and the ideals of asceticism, vegetarianism, pacifism and contemplation of the mysteries of the infinite have all contributed to disdain of mere physical exertion for a handful of baubles!So there.
Posted by: sumant | Aug 22, 2008 4:09:19 PM
Thanks for an interesting angle on this.
I came across the little interactive chart widget that shows some of what you are pointing to: http://www.youcalc.com/apps/1219242654520
Seems countries like North Corea and Zimbabwe are among the real winners in 2008:-)
Roger
Posted by: roger | Aug 23, 2008 11:20:28 AM
Post a comment