Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Rochester's David Primo on how the wealth tax proposal will (or won't) work

“The ‘wealth tax’ that’s being proposed in the current budget is really a tax on unrealized capital gains, so the stock that you have not sold yet but which has seen gains would be taxed before it is sold,” says David Primo, the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor and an associate professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester. “It applies only to the ‘richest of the rich’ and many questions remain as to how the operational and Constitutional concerns of it will be addressed. This proposal is much different from traditional wealth taxes where the idea has been to assess the wealth of tax payers every year and have the wealthiest individuals pay a tax on their net worth.” Primo is available for interviews and can discuss the precedent that this current wealth tax would establish with regard to taxing stock investments; if this is the best approach to taxing the wealthiest Americans; if it would even generate enough tax dollars to make a difference with the federal government’s current spending obligations; and more.

What can America expect as supply chain issues leave the auto industry stuck in park?

America’s auto industry is slowing down – and this time the main source is not a matter of labor issues or a lack of customers. This time this crisis, like those plaguing so many other industries lies in the tangled web of supply chain issues that is challenging manufacturing, industries and economies across America and the continent. In the United States, the auto industry has been hit particularly hard. The nation’s largest automaker and the rest of the global auto industry have been sporadically shutting down plants since late last year due to the semiconductor shortage, which has cut supplies on dealer lots and driven new vehicle prices to record levels. To be sure, production still isn’t back to normal because some of the factories will only run on one shift per day. Phil Amsrud, senior principal analyst for IHS Markit who studies the chip market, said GM’s move is a good sign, but doesn’t signal the end of the chip shortage. “It’s just not a sign that the patient is through all the rough spots and it’s a matter of weeks before they’re released from the hospital,” he said. October 22 - Associated Press There has been a lot of coverage, and a lot of questions asked as to how this happened and what it will take to untangle the mess. And that’s where experts from Augusta can help with coverage. "There are several factors but the main themes are suppliers inability to react to the increased demand, and governmental policies and responses,” explains Dr. Mark Thompson an economist and expert regarding the industrial issues facing America. “When COVID initially hit, demand dropped considerably. As it relates to the shortage of computer chips, what do you think consumers were demanding during the early phase of COVID...computers, laptops, handheld devices, etc. Technology companies responded and chip manufacturers switch to produce these items. Now, as consumers demand for new cars pick up, there is a shortage of the chips necessary for new cars. As it relates to government intervention, the stimulus has also increased demand for various goods and services furthering the shortage." As for how long will it take for America to see the supply chain replenished? "Good guess,” says Thompson. "I would say that we should expect to continue to see these shortages through the rest of 2021 and part of the way in 2022." If you’re a journalist covering the ongoing supply-chain issues – then let our experts help with your stories. Dr. Mark Thompson is an economist with highly accomplished work in business conditions, risk analysis, energy and the healthcare industry. Dr. Thompson is available to speak with media regarding the economic and industrial issues facing America during this supply chain crisis - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Companies Big and Small Can Benefit From a Clear Remote Work Strategy

As remote work evolves into a regular work mode that satisfies employment needs for both employer and employee, it is important for businesses to have a well-thought-out remote work strategy, says Timothy Golden, professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Golden, who teaches in the Lally School of Management, believes that creating the right norms and expectations from the start provides an important boost for achieving success in remote work. “If these norms — informal and often unspoken expectations for how people should act and behave — are not set correctly right from the start, then remote work can be much more challenging than it needs to be,” Golden said. In many companies, creating a position of a Chief Remote Officer (CRO) — a position similar to a CFO or COO but with a focus on leading remote work programs — can be a step toward future stability. According to Golden, other aspects to consider range from methods of employee communication and performance assessments, to the compatibility of a combination of hybrid, in-person, and remote work modes in the framework of an organizational business model. Remote work and telecommuting have been the focus of Golden’s body of research for more than 20 years. He is available to discuss remote work strategies and other aspects of working from home from the business perspective as well as the viewpoint of the remote workers.

Supply Chain Disruption Continues Due to the Pandemic

During the pandemic, the global supply chain began experiencing major disruptions. Kathleen Iacocca, PhD, an associate professor of management and operations in the Villanova School of Business, says that this issue is currently more severe than at the beginning of COVID's spread. Per the professor, the supply chain relies on effective forecasting, inventory control and logistics of supply and demand. At the start of the pandemic, the supply and demand scale became off-balance due to panic purchasing. Today, one reason it's much worse is that the supply went down. "You can try and push supply back up, which is what President Biden is doing with having ports operating 24/7. [But] Costco or Target can make as many phone calls as they want to Hasbro asking for Barbies, and if they don't have them, they can't just wave a wand and get them," says Dr. Iacocca. One option, if there's an imbalance, is to push demand down. "As a retailer, you can raise prices. That will help bring the supply and demand into a balance until the logistics part can catch up," says Dr. Iacocca. "But that can lead to dangerous issues. The people that can afford things are going to continue buying product, and it will exaggerate the differences in socioeconomic status." Dr. Iacocca predicts, with the upcoming holiday season, supply will simply not be able to meet demand. "In a normal world, retailers can forecast and build up inventory. In the future, demand will continue to go up while the supply doesn't get any larger and will just increase the gap between the two." In the meantime, small businesses can expect challenges. "If there's a short supply of lumber, Home Depot can afford it more than Mom and Pop's Lumberyard. Raising prices are a risk for those that can't necessarily afford things, but also the small businesses," says Dr. Iacocca. Ultimately, Dr. Iacocca predicts that supply could catch up with demand by March (at the earliest), depending on two things: "First, that the labor force doesn't remain as is. If you're playing the game of catchup, you’re working overtime. Second, you’re counting on factories not shutting down again because of COVID. March is the assumption that you have the means—and you just need the time and a period where demand does not continue to go up."

Friends or enemies? Is there any solving the ancient secret that is Chinese diplomacy?

When it comes to trade, investment and trillions of dollars of opportunity for American companies – it would appear that China and the United States should be close-knit allies. However when it comes to military escalation, an emerging global bull and national security – China is also a country that the U.S. government is very concerned about. NPR recently got in touch with UMW Professor of Political Science and International Affairs Elizabeth Larus to lend her expertise when it comes to the politics of China. Elizabeth Larus, who teaches Chinese studies at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia, says any economic "de-coupling" between the U.S. and China will be very difficult. "You can't just say you're going to pick up your factory and move all your resources and have a consistent, reliable energy source and the shipping port to get your stuff out at a decent price, and the logistics. China has nailed that down," said Larus, the author of Politics and Society in Contemporary China. China's President Xi Jinping uses this as leverage, she noted. "One of the goals of this Xi Jinping regime is to make the world really reliant on China for its supply chain, but not to have China reliant on the rest of the world," she added. "So that makes it difficult for the businesses." Is there a way out of this downward spiral? "I do not see a de-escalation anytime soon," she said. October 08 - NPR There will be no easy or immediate solution to the hot-and-cold relationship between the United States and China. But if you are covering this ongoing story – then let our experts help with your questions and coverage. Dr. Elizabeth Larus is an expert in the politics of China. She is available to speak to media, simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.

‘Boilerplate language’ is preventing non-professional investors from making sound decisions, new research finds

Aston University’s Dr Ozlem Arikan looked at the impact of the style of corporate information on investor decisions Companies arguably avoid being specific by using ‘boilerplate language’ to avoid negative reactions of the investors Dr Arikan’s research suggests that boilerplate information is not useful for investment decisions and investors lose trust in managers who use boilerplate language New research from Aston University has found boilerplate language used by managers is preventing their non-professional investors from making sound decisions. Dr Ozlem Arikan examined the impact of the style of corporate information on non-professional investor decisions. The term ‘boilerplate’ refers to standardised text, copy, documents, methods or procedures that may be used over again without making major changes to the original. In the context of risk disclosures as studied by Dr Arikan, boilerplate description of risks entails a generic list of risks that are common to all industry, rather than including details relating to risks specific to that entity. Regulators are concerned about generic disclosures which they label as boilerplate; they warn that disclosures which do not have enough details do not help investors to make sound decisions. An example of a boilerplate can be found in Google’s risk disclosure which cites social media companies as its main competitors without specifying Facebook, an obvious competitor to Google in terms of generating online advertising revenues. Dr Arikan found that although some investors are less likely to invest in a company when its disclosure is specific, this only happens when they had some knowledge about the issue disclosed. However, when the disclosed risk materialises, investors rate boilerplate managers as less credible than specific managers and are less likely to invest in these companies. Dr Ozlem Arikan, senior lecturer in accounting at Aston Business School, said: “My research suggests the Financial Reporting Council has been right all along about ‘boilerplate language’ preventing non-professional investors from making sound decisions, and it is not good for companies either. “When companies are evasive about their risks, they neither help themselves nor their investors. “Companies arguably avoid being specific to avoid negative reactions of the investors. For example, Google presumably avoids mentioning Facebook as it does not want to make Facebook’s threat to its business too explicit. However, my research suggests that companies do not necessarily avoid negative reactions by being boilerplate. “Regulators may wish to guide companies in how to make more specific disclosures, which are more useful to investors in their decision-making than their boilerplate counterparts. “Importantly boilerplate language does not give enough warnings to investors as those who read a boilerplate risk warning are more surprised when the risk materialises and they correct their previous decisions to a greater extent than investors who read the specific information” You can read the full paper, The effect of boilerplate language on nonprofessional investors’ judgments, HERE. You can find out more about Dr Arikan’s previous research HERE.

Corporate Social Responsibility Builds Investor Trust

There’s little doubt that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a good thing for businesses. Whether it’s taking positive action on society, communities, the climate, or the planet, strong corporate citizenship tends to play well with the public, the media, and consumers alike. And that can translate into wins in terms of brand equity and reputation. What is perhaps less clear are the concrete business returns that ethical business practices may or may not generate. Or, whether doing the right thing can create value for firms beyond image, brand, and customer or employee engagement. To shed light on this, Goizueta Assistant Professor of Accounting Suhas A. Sridharan, has taken a rather novel approach. Together with colleagues from the universities of LUISS Guido Carli, Nazarbayev University, and IDC Herzliya, Sridharan has published a new study using measures of disclosure credibility to understand whether CSR builds investor trust and drives tangible benefits for corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility Does Reap Rewards “Disclosure credulity refers to how much your investors trust the information your organization provides – how much faith they have in your company’s ability to accurately convey opportunities for growth, and perhaps more critically, to navigate risk and uncertainty,” says Sridharan. “Because CSR and responsible business practices have a role in addressing a range of risks–from climate change and environmental factors to socio-economic or political uncertainty and the impact on supply chains, talent and so on–we reasoned CSR can impact investor trust and disclosure credibility. And disclosure credibility, in turn, can impact investor decision-making and business outcomes.” To study disclosure credibility, and capture shifts in investor sentiment towards firms, Sridharan and her colleagues decided to use the link between share prices and company earnings announcements–the public statements on profitability that firms are obliged to make over different periods. “Earnings announcements are among the most salient and recurring areas of corporate disclosure, and managers and investors pay very close attention to them,” Sridharan says. “Because of the nature of the information they contain, they have a direct link to security price discovery – the price that firms and investors will agree to buy and sell shares in the company. Simply put, earnings announcements can be used to examine how much investors value a firm.” As reports, earnings announcements are also highly complex and typically time-consuming to process. Because of this, Sridharan and her colleagues opted to look at just how quickly or slowly investors were reading announcements and responding to them – and how quickly or slowly stock prices were adjusting to reflect earnings news within a five-day window after earnings announcements, as well as a longer period to allow for potential overreaction or error. More Disclosure Credibility Equals Faster Results Sridharan explains, “The intuition we brought to the study was that the more investors trust a firm’s disclosures, the more efficient or faster they will be to process its earnings report; in other words, the more they will be likely to take the report on face value and less inclined to dig into the finer minutiae or question its findings.” Adopting this approach, she and her colleagues then compared and contrasted investor response to earnings reports from different firms, with greater or less involvement in CSR activities. In total, they looked at a large-scale sample of more than 19,000 annual earnings announcements from just under 3,000 U.S. firms over a 25-year period, between 1992 and 2017. Using Morgan Stanley Capital International environmental, social, and governance ratings, they were also able to determine the degree of firm-level CSR across their dataset during this period. Crunching the numbers, Sridharan and fellow researchers were able to arrive at a concrete conclusion: CSR measurably increases investor trust and disclosure credibility. “When we estimated our regression models, we found clear evidence that corporate social responsibility does indeed contribute to the average speed of price discovery around earnings announcements; and it does so positively. Our results reveal that CSR increases the speed with which stock prices incorporate earnings news. Breaking it right down, we see that a one unit increase in CSR activities corresponds to 1.96 percent increase in the average timeliness or efficiency of reported earnings.” In other words, investors are reacting more quickly and favorably to performance reports made by organizations with more demonstrated social responsibility. “We know that these types of announcements are lengthy and dense; they take time to process,” Sridharan says. “So, the intuition here is that when your firm plants a flag on responsibility and accountability, investors are more likely to take your disclosures at face value – they’re more likely to trust what you’re saying.” Organizations would do well to take this finding on board, says Sridharan; especially in today’s climate of high volatility and uncertainty. Having investors on board is critical in weathering the bad times along with the good, she adds, and CSR can be a game-changing tool in building that necessary trust. The Wild West of the Regulatory Landscape Sridharan’s paper also informs the regulatory landscape around corporate responsibility which is still in its infancy and which she likens to something of a “Wild West.” “The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulators are increasingly focused on improving the functioning of capital markets and understanding the role of CSR,” she says. “The SEC has included an examination of climate and ESG-related risks among its 2021 examination priorities which also underscores a growing investor interest in these issues. At the same time, research is showing that CSR can be misused or simply deployed to benefit managers looking to score reputational points with stakeholders–at the expense of shareholders. By demonstrating that investor perceptions of firms are materially shaped by firms’ CSR activities, our study highlights the importance of–and helps build the case for–monitoring and regulating firms’ CSR activities.” Suhas A. Sridharan is an Assistant Professor of Accounting at Emory University's Goizueta Business School. Sridharan studies investors' use of information to assess risk and resolve uncertainty, particularly around issues of political economy. She is available to speak with media about the importantance of CSR - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

Emory Experts - Ad-blockers Shave $14.2 Billion Off Consumer Spending, Says New Research

Digital advertising is big business. So big, in fact, that it is well on track to become the most dominant form of advertising. Estimates suggest that spending on digital ads in the U.S. alone will reach a staggering $201 billion by 2023 – more than two-thirds of total spend. And it makes sense. With consumers increasingly shopping online, advertisers continue to ramp up their use of data and technologies to find innovative new ways to reach target audiences. The Flip Side to Digital Advertising Success The sheer ubiquity of online advertisements is driving a corollary upswing in the use of another digital technology. Ad blockers are easy-to-install and free-to-use software that consumers can deploy to hide unwanted ads on their screens, and they are gaining huge popularity worldwide. The numbers are hard to determine, but some evidence points to anywhere from 600 million to two billion Internet users having downloaded some form of ad-blocking in the last three years or so – well over 11% of the global internet population. Also hard to gauge is the impact on advertising revenue that ad-blockers are having – that is, until now. A new paper by Vilma Todri, assistant professor of information systems and operations management at Goizueta, sheds stunning light on the effect of ad-blocking on online search and purchasing behaviors among internet users. And what she has found should give advertisers serious pause for thought. According to her analysis, ad-blockers decrease consumer online spending by an average of 1.45%. Now, assuming that around 615 million internet users have downloaded some kind of ad-blocking software in recent years, the actual impact puts the loss in revenue from digital advertising around the $14.2 billion mark, year over year. And that’s not all. Todri also finds that ad-blocking seems to have the effect of limiting consumer spending disproportionally on certain brands over others. Users who opt out of seeing digital ads tend to continue to purchase mostly those products or services they are already familiar with, and not engage with new brands; they are less likely to use different search channels or visit new e-commerce websites as a result of ad-blocking. Analyzing Customer Engagement from 300 Million Internet Visits To get at these insights, Todri analyzed data from a U.S. web behavior dataset spanning a three-year period, from January 2015 to December 2018. She looked at web-wide visits, transaction behaviors and demographic identifiers across a total of 92,000+ users and more than 300 million internet visits. To measure the effect of ad-blocking, Todri matched all of this data with an ad-blocker dataset from the same source – a well-known U.S. measurement and analytics company – which shows that around 10% of users had installed an ad-blocker at some point during this three-year window. Crunching the numbers, Todri finds that the effect of using ad-blocking software on these users is to reduce their online search engine sessions by 5.6%. They also spend 5.5% less time visiting e-commerce websites. In other words, consumers who opt out of seeing ads end up browsing and shopping significantly less than others. And in terms of what these users are buying, the data shows that they are much less likely to spend on brands they don’t know or have not experienced before (and conversely, more likely to stick to familiar brands.) Digging even deeper, Todri also finds that this negative effect penalizes the brands that invest most heavily in advertising online more that those that don’t. In other words, ad-blockers are hurting those who advertise online most. Todri’s paper is the first to expose the quantitative, negative impact of ad-blocking on consumer spending. And her findings should be on the radar of any company looking to market its products and services online, she says. “The data clearly shows that ad-blockers reduce online spending by 1.45%, which amounts to something in the order of $14.2 billion in lost revenue given that about 600 million people around the world have installed this kind of software,” she says. “And the figures suggest that it’s the brands that heavily invest on online advertising who are bearing the brunt of this drop-off in consumer spending.” Search Behaviors, Interrupted “Advertisers also need to look at the fact that ad-blockers inhibit search behaviors,” adds Todri. “The figures point to a drop of around 5% when users have installed ad-blockers, which in turn means that they are not discovering and spending on new brands. They’re sticking with what they already know.” There’s an imperative here for companies to interpret these findings and reflect on what they say about ad-blocking, and also about what constitutes “acceptable advertising practices,” she says. “It’s reasonable to assume that people who use ad-blockers simply don’t like ads and aren’t influenced by them. Yet the data points to a different conclusion: if consumer purchasing falls after installing ad-blockers, it would suggest that advertising does work – seeing advertisements does drive searching and purchasing behaviors. So taken together, there’s a likely imperative here for advertisers to find new formats in terms of reaching their targets, and to strengthen their organic channels and social presence online.” Digital advertising clearly does impact search and purchasing behaviors, says Todri, so firms need to get creative while being cognizant of the fact that some consumers find current advertising practices annoying. Vilma Todri is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Previously, she worked for Google where she was developing integrated cross-platform advertising strategies for large business clients that partnered with tech giant. Vilma is available to speak with media about this subject – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

Japan House: Fifty Years Ago Today

Joshua W. Walker, Ph.D., President and CEO, Japan Society This September we're celebrating the 50th anniversary of Japan House, Japan Society's landmarked headquarters building. Let's jump in our time machine and go back to 1971, when Japan Society was only 64 years old. At that time, U.S.-Japan relations were deeply embroiled in trade frictions while the ending of the U.S. embargo of China had just begun to impact East Asia. 1971 snapshots In the United States: Richard M. Nixon is President; Apollo 14 lands on the moon; massive protests are held throughout America against the Vietnam War; Walt Disney World opens in Orlando, Florida; Joe Frazier defeats Muhammad Ali in 15 rounds at Madison Square Garden; the first Starbucks opens in Pike Place Market, Seattle. In Japan: Eisaku Sato is Prime Minister; the U.S. and Japan sign an accord to return Okinawa to Japan; NHK TV implements colorization of all programs; Kamen Rider TV series begins broadcasting; the 48th reigning Sumo champion Yokozuna Taihō announces his retirement; McDonald's opens its first store in Ginza, Tokyo; Nissin creates the first "cup noodle." Japan House Meanwhile in New York City, Japan Society had occupied eight different locations since its founding in 1907, and by the mid-1960s, a dedicated building had become necessary to house the Society's rapidly expanding initiatives. Japan Society President John D. Rockefeller 3rd made a very generous pledge by donating the land for the building site and Japanese modernist architect Junzo Yoshimura was confirmed to design the building. On September 16, 1969, John D. Rockefeller 3rd and Japanese Foreign Minister Kiichi Aichi broke ground at a formal ceremony. Construction proceeded on schedule and staff moved in during the spring of 1971, with Executive Director Douglas Overton noting, "Each day we have found some new and delightful feature which has come off the drawing board as an unexpectedly brilliant success. Japan House will be a national important building worthy of its high purposes." Opening Week—five star-studded days of celebratory events—began on September 13, 1971 with Their Imperial Highnesses Prince and Princess Hitachi at the ceremonies. The Prince brought Japan's best wishes to the Society "for a new chapter, both rich in content and wide in scope." The Gallery opened its first exhibition, Rimpa: Masterworks of the Japanese Decorative School and the Tokyo String Quartet performed in the new auditorium. Junzo Yoshimura wrote about Japan House, "People the world over used to build their houses with local and traditional materials. Today, however, contemporary buildings all over the world use the same basic materials—concrete, steel and glass—yet different characters and nationalities can still be perceived among them. In designing Japan House I have tried to express in contemporary architecture the spirit of Japan." With the formal opening of the Society's headquarters a new era had begun. Their Imperial Highnesses Prince and Princess Hitachi and Japan Society chairman John D. Rockefeller 3rd view the first Japan Society Gallery exhibition Rimpa: Masterworks of the Japanese Decorative School. Photo © Thomas Haar. The next 50 years Fifty years later, we are at another inflection point. The novel coronavirus pandemic has taught us just how interconnected we are as a global community while placing new importance on our homes and transforming the nature of work. This unprecedented global crisis has also illuminated the strengths and weaknesses of our organization, providing new opportunities for envisioning the future. Just as the opening of Japan House shaped the Society's last 50 years, today we are reimagining how we use our space, from the physical to the digital, forging broader connections or kizuna for U.S.-Japan and for the world. We embrace our mission for the years to come, reaching out far beyond our building, to our city, country, and world as we seek to connect American and Japanese people, cultures, and societies through a global lens. Like a hike up Mt. Fuji, Japan Society’s nearly 115-year-long journey itself defines us far more than our current destination. Beginning in 1907, the first iteration of Japan Society focused on business relations between the U.S. and Japan. For its 1952 post-Occupation reconstitution under the leadership of John D. Rockefeller 3rd, the Society dedicated itself to arts, culture, and education, with an emphasis on supporting Japanese students in New York as well as spreading the word about Japan through significant cultural milestones such as partnerships with The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Lincoln Center, with traveling exhibitions and outreach on both sides of the Pacific. With the opening of Japan House in 1971, politics was reintroduced into the mix, the business and policy communities energized, and Japanese popular culture landed large—nearly 50,000 people came to the Grand Sumo Tournament at Madison Square Garden co-sponsored by Japan Society and the Asia Society in 1985! Today at Japan House we present Japan and U.S.-Japan as a way to engage with history and tradition, on the one hand, and innovation and the future on the other. As in 1971, the time to act is now and our opportunities are as great as the challenges of 2021. It's up to us to work together on new, critical connections to take us through the next 50 years. I'll be there with you. Joshua Walker (@drjwalk) is president and CEO of Japan Society. Follow Japan Society on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Economic benefits of hosting a sporting mega event are overestimated, new research finds

Experts from Aston University and New York University (NYU) studied how industrial firms in Beijing fared in the run-up to the 2008 Olympics Dr Johan Rewilak and Ted Hayduk (NYU) looked at whether industrial firms in Beijing disproportionately increased their investment ahead of the Games compared to similar Chinese firms The results are interesting for academics, policy makers, businesses and entrepreneurs. Economic experts from Aston University and New York University (NYU) have found that host cities do not receive any disproportionate economic benefits from hosting a sporting mega event. Dr Johan Rewilak from Aston Business School and Ted Hayduk (NYU) studied how industrial firms in Beijing fared in the run-up to the 2008 Summer Olympics. Most studies of this kind focus on the service sector, but this is one of the first examining industrial firms. They looked at whether industrial firms in Beijing disproportionately increased their investment ahead of the Games compared to similar Chinese firms, and explored how those firms compared when it came to profitability. The study found that hosting the 2008 Olympic Games did not provide disproportionate benefits in terms of capital investment or earnings relative to other comparable cities in China. Dr Johan Rewilak, lecturer in economics at Aston Business School, said: “One criticism of having cities host the Olympics is that it funnels public funds into a specific region or area of a country. However, our findings do not support that hypothesis. “Specifically, manufacturing firms in the host city did not receive greater economic benefits compared with firms in similar cities across China, and we found evidence that complements previous arguments that SMEs typically have limited to no disproportional positive impact on the local economy. Ted Hayduk, clinical assistant professor at New York University, said: “In terms of capital investment, we found that the host region had no differential effect for both the Summer and the Winter Games. Given that we found no significant result in 2008, it is somewhat unsurprising to find an insignificant result for the 2022 Winter Games. “This is because the budget for Beijing 2022 is only 10% of what was spent in 2008, and/or alternatively, as the necessary infrastructure has already been built, it has yet to depreciate sufficiently to warrant investment in its replacement.” You can find out more about the study HERE. You can also listen to Dr Rewilak on Aston University’s podcast series, EURO 2020: The Business and Science of Football. He joined journalist Steve Dyson, Dr Danny Fitzpatrick and Dr Robert Thomas to discuss the benefits of holding EURO 2020 across the continent, and whether it was likely to bring an economic spike in a world still living through Coronavirus.