Log In  |  Register Now  
 Home | Syndication Services | Media Features | Research Center | Archive | Contributors | About Us

To receive emails containing headlines and highlights from The Globalist,
sign up here.



Topic

Companies

Culture

Development

Diplomacy

Economy

Environment

Finance

Health

History

Markets

Media

Music

Politics

Religion

Security

Sports

Technology

Women

Youth


Region

Africa

Asia-Pacific

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

North America


Globalist Bookshelf

Best Books of 2012

Best Books of 2011


Editorial Staff

Contributors

Jobs & Internships


Subscribers to The Globalist's premium services can log in here:

Username:

Password:

Forgot your password?



 


Globalist Analysis > Global Society
Little Giants
 

By Bernard Wasow | Tuesday, September 02, 2008
 

Now that the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games have come to a close, it seems to be time to foresake global unity and choose a winning country. However, there are many different ways to do so. The Globalist Research Center's Bernard Wasow takes a closer look at the real winner of these games.


very four years the international spin doctors gear up to tout the brilliant achievement of their champions in the Olympics.

This year, China obviously made great strides, running away with the gold medal total. But wait, say fans of the United States — the largest number of total medals went once again to the US of A.

Supporters of state-sponsored sports machines might counter by looking at how the states of the former Soviet Union did collectively.

Fourteen countries together (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Moldova and the Baltic republics) garnered 43 gold medals (behind China’s 51 but in front of the U.S.A.’s 36) and 171 total medals, far ahead of the U.S.A.’s 110.

The original six European Common Market countries plus Great Britain did better than all of these, when their medals are totaled. Germany, France, Italy, Benelux, and Great Britain together won 58 gold medals and 174 total medals.

Mastery is in the eyes, and more importantly, in the spin of the beholder.

But if we standardize performance, taking account of the fact that some countries are much more populous than others and some are much richer than others, which countries stand out?

Two countries stand out in the rankings of medals per capita and medals per million dollars of GDP. Few who watched the Olympics will be surprised to learn that tiny Jamaica topped the list of medal winners on a per capita basis.

Whether we look only at the gold medal count or we calculate a total from all the medals — counting each gold as three points, each silver as two points, and each bronze as one point — Jamaica has the highest medal score per capita. (We will refer to this total, counting gold as three points, silver as two points and bronze as one point, as the "weighted total" of medals. All countries are considered that produced at least two different athletes who won medals.)

Also excelling in weighted total medals per capita are some countries that received little if any attention for their excellent performances. Among rich countries, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand might easily be overlooked. Among poorer countries, would anyone have guessed that Slovenia, Mongolia, and Estonia would be standouts?

1Jamaica
2Bahamas
3Norway
4Slovenia
5Australia
6Mongolia
7New Zealand
8Estonia
9Cuba
10Belarus

Two of these countries stand out on another scale. If we look at how many weighted medals a country produces per billion dollars of GDP, several of the poorer countries of former the USSR stand out. But so too do two of the countries in the list above: Jamaica and Mongolia.

1Mongolia
2Jamaica
3Georgia
4Kenya
5Ethiopia
6Tajikistan
7Kyrgyz Republic
8Armenia
9Belarus
10Uzbekistan

Perhaps instead of celebrating the prowess of the huge rich giants that dominate the Olympics, we should be looking for the countries that made the most of their endowments. Hooray for the two little tigers: Jamaica and Mongolia.




Join the discussion of this article on our Facebook page.

Follow The Globalist on Twitter.

raúl van Praag , Caracas , Venezuela
(Saturday, September 06, 2008, 11:10:09 PM ):

It would be interesting to know the ranking according to number of athletes attending the games and to the number of inhabitants of the countries. To make it more interesting the gold should be given 10 points, silver 9, bronze 8 and so down to the tenth position.

Let us know what you think ...
 

 

 

 

You must be a registered user of our site to send us your comments. If you have already registered, please log in. If you a new user of our site, please register now. Registration is quick, easy and completely free.

   

Complete the below to send a letter to the editor about this article.

   
Name  
 
Email Address  
 
City and State  
 
Country  
 
Comments  
 

 
Please note: If we publish your comment on The Globalist, we will identify only your name, city and country. We do not publish anonymous comments. Your email address will not be published.

We regret that we cannot publish every comment we receive. Furthermore, because we review each comment before it is published, there may be a delay between the time you send your comment and its appearance on our site. The Globalist reserves the right to edit comments for style and length.

-->




Copyright © 2000-2013 by The Globalist. Reproduction of content on this site without The Globalist's written permission is strictly prohibited. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

The Globalist claims full trademark rights to The Globalist name and logos.

1100 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036