Letter: Why countries are good and bad at Olympic games
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I FOUND Hugh Jones's piece ('Winners and Losers in Barcelona', 9 August) fascinating. Measuring national performance by relating medal score to population size is obviously sensible. Who would have guessed that in these terms, the most successful nation would turn be Hungary?
The more interesting question raised by the article is: what accounts for the huge variation in performance across nations? Many would point to tradition, general health, training facilities, competitive structure, and so on.
I carried out a simple exercise attempting to relate medal score per head of population to three explanatory factors - population (it is harder to spot talent in large countries), life expectancy (a reasonable measure of health) and per capita income (richer countries can afford better facilities). About half the cross-country variation in medal performance could be accounted for by these factors. Britain's performance was wholly accounted for by the relationship between medal score per head and the collective strength of population size, life expectancy and per capita income. The surprises were Hungary, Cuba, Namibia, Bulgaria, South Korea, Kenya and the Unified Team. All did much better than could be forecast on this basis.
As for Britain, one cannot expect any changes in life expectancy or population by 1996. But if the recession continues, then watch for a slightly worse performance in Atlanta.
Monojit Chatterji,
University of Dundee
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments