IB Interesting Facts Essay Example for Free

IB Interesting Facts Essay 1968, IB, standing for the International Baccalaureate, has been founded as a non-profit educational organization at the International School of Geneva. It was created by teachers at the school, in addition to help from teachers from all over the world. Today, the International Baccalaureate has grown into a university preparatory program that has been divided, in most schools, into three programs for students as young as 3 years old to students 19 years old. †¢It was first created to accommodate English and French. †¢It is aimed at developing a global awareness for its students. In other words, students learn how to accept global cultures, perspectives. †¢IB first originated in private schools. Over the years, this changed so that nearly fifty-percent of all schools providing the International Baccalaureate would be government owned and thus free of tuition. †¢The fact that many governments all over the world have adopted the International Baccalaureate shows the confidence that they have that their future generations will truly be better off in this type of curriculum. †¢It was through the efforts of Alec Peterson (director of the Department of Educational Studies, Oxford University) that universities recognized the International Baccalaureate. †¢At first, in the beginning of the 1980s, the International Baccalaureate was viewed as a threat from some governments all over. Governments believed that the International Baccalaureate would draw their children away from their national educational systems. †¢However, this idea was later refuted and the International Baccalaureate was viewed as a enhancement to their educational systems and was later adopted at a very rapid rate. †¢Today, people who acquire the International Baccalaureate get accepted to the top universities all over the globe (in North America, Europe, UK, etc) †¢IBO, in 1994 founded the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program for students aged eleven to sixteen. †¢In 1997, IBO created the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program, which is aimed at creating well-rounded and cultured students whom are three to eleven years old. Works Cited IB Timeline. IBO. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2012. .

IB Interesting Facts Essay Example for Free

IB Interesting Facts Essay 1968, IB, standing for the International Baccalaureate, has been founded as a non-profit educational organization at the International School of Geneva. It was created by teachers at the school, in addition to help from teachers from all over the world. Today, the International Baccalaureate has grown into a university preparatory program that has been divided, in most schools, into three programs for students as young as 3 years old to students 19 years old. †¢It was first created to accommodate English and French. †¢It is aimed at developing a global awareness for its students. In other words, students learn how to accept global cultures, perspectives. †¢IB first originated in private schools. Over the years, this changed so that nearly fifty-percent of all schools providing the International Baccalaureate would be government owned and thus free of tuition. †¢The fact that many governments all over the world have adopted the International Baccalaureate shows the confidence that they have that their future generations will truly be better off in this type of curriculum. †¢It was through the efforts of Alec Peterson (director of the Department of Educational Studies, Oxford University) that universities recognized the International Baccalaureate. †¢At first, in the beginning of the 1980s, the International Baccalaureate was viewed as a threat from some governments all over. Governments believed that the International Baccalaureate would draw their children away from their national educational systems. †¢However, this idea was later refuted and the International Baccalaureate was viewed as a enhancement to their educational systems and was later adopted at a very rapid rate. †¢Today, people who acquire the International Baccalaureate get accepted to the top universities all over the globe (in North America, Europe, UK, etc) †¢IBO, in 1994 founded the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program for students aged eleven to sixteen. †¢In 1997, IBO created the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program, which is aimed at creating well-rounded and cultured students whom are three to eleven years old. Works Cited IB Timeline. IBO. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2012. .

Comparison of Attitudes Towards Marriage in A Hero of Our Time versus T

Marriage, often thought of as a sacred union of the utmost importance, is portrayed in both A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, and The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende, as a minor issue rather than a key part of the lives of the main characters. Marriage is unimportant to both main characters Pechorin and Clara. Lermontov uses Pechorin?s refusal of commitment, while being an object of desire and passion, to illustrate that men should keep their independence from women to protect their power. On the other hand, Allende uses Clara?s priorities of spirituality and children above her husband and marriage to suggest that women?s power does not depend on men. Clara becomes married, recognizing that she will keep the freedom she had before marriage, while Pechorin is immediate in rejecting commitment because of his fear that it will stifle his independence. After being married to Esteban Trueba, Clara is unmoved and remains distant, putting the diamond jewels her new husband gave her ?in a shoe box, and quickly [forgetting] where she put it?(Allende, 95). She knows that being married to Esteban is her destiny and is not excited by her role as a married woman. During their honeymoon, Esteban realizes that Clara does not in fact belong to him and she would not trade her ?world of apparitions? simply for him (Allende, 96). He tries many times to win her over with presents of jewelry and candy and expressing his affection but Clara?s manner towards her marriage does not change, while her otherworldly magic and knowledge increases and develops. Over the course of time Allende shows how Esteban grows dependent Clara, eventually ?hound[ing] her? for attention (Allende, 180). On the contrary, Lermontov demonstrates Pechorin?s mascul... ... should be more powerful than women because of men?s ability to control their emotions and the weak-mindedness of females. Although both authors gave their characters similar opinions of marriage, the reasons for their views are very different and achieve opposite results in the novels. Clara unknowingly builds up the distance between herself and her husband, which Allende uses to suggest that women can be more powerful when they are independent from men. Pechorin does not even attempt marriage but rather detaches himself from any woman who might want to marry him because of Lermontov?s views that women can be the downfall of any great man. While Allende comments on the importance of feminine independence, Lermontov explains that while lust and desire is natural to men, marriage is unneeded and confusing, pulling men away from their place of dominance over women. Comparison of Attitudes Towards Marriage in A Hero of Our Time versus T Marriage, often thought of as a sacred union of the utmost importance, is portrayed in both A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, and The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende, as a minor issue rather than a key part of the lives of the main characters. Marriage is unimportant to both main characters Pechorin and Clara. Lermontov uses Pechorin?s refusal of commitment, while being an object of desire and passion, to illustrate that men should keep their independence from women to protect their power. On the other hand, Allende uses Clara?s priorities of spirituality and children above her husband and marriage to suggest that women?s power does not depend on men. Clara becomes married, recognizing that she will keep the freedom she had before marriage, while Pechorin is immediate in rejecting commitment because of his fear that it will stifle his independence. After being married to Esteban Trueba, Clara is unmoved and remains distant, putting the diamond jewels her new husband gave her ?in a shoe box, and quickly [forgetting] where she put it?(Allende, 95). She knows that being married to Esteban is her destiny and is not excited by her role as a married woman. During their honeymoon, Esteban realizes that Clara does not in fact belong to him and she would not trade her ?world of apparitions? simply for him (Allende, 96). He tries many times to win her over with presents of jewelry and candy and expressing his affection but Clara?s manner towards her marriage does not change, while her otherworldly magic and knowledge increases and develops. Over the course of time Allende shows how Esteban grows dependent Clara, eventually ?hound[ing] her? for attention (Allende, 180). On the contrary, Lermontov demonstrates Pechorin?s mascul... ... should be more powerful than women because of men?s ability to control their emotions and the weak-mindedness of females. Although both authors gave their characters similar opinions of marriage, the reasons for their views are very different and achieve opposite results in the novels. Clara unknowingly builds up the distance between herself and her husband, which Allende uses to suggest that women can be more powerful when they are independent from men. Pechorin does not even attempt marriage but rather detaches himself from any woman who might want to marry him because of Lermontov?s views that women can be the downfall of any great man. While Allende comments on the importance of feminine independence, Lermontov explains that while lust and desire is natural to men, marriage is unneeded and confusing, pulling men away from their place of dominance over women.

Neolithic Vs Paleolithic

Life changed dramatically between the Paleolithic and Neolithic times. Paleolithic is the early phase of the Stone Age, lasting about 2. 5 million years, when primitive stone implements were used. The Paleolithic Period was also called the Old Stone Age. Neolithic is the later part of the Stone Age, when ground or polished stone weapons and implements prevailed. The Neolithic Period was also called the New Stone Age. The Neolithic Revolution was the world's first traditionally, provable revolution in agriculture.It involved the wide-scale change of many human cultures from a lifestyle of hunting and gathering to agriculture as well as settlement, which supported larger population. Important events significantly changed the way of life between Paleolithic and Neolithic times. Although life changed dramatically between these two times there are still some similarities and differences amongst them. Paleolithic and Neolithic times have a lot of things in common. Both of these times were dependent on natural resources. In Paleolithic times they moved with food supply.In Neolithic times they used need water and good soil for crops. Paleolithic and Neolithic both had a government. In Paleolithic times the males ruled the families. In Neolithic times there was a Chief with council. Both of Paleolithic and Neolithic times had a religion. They had religions, which meant they believe in life after death. Socially in both time period’s men hunted and farmed and women gathered. Neolithic and Paleolithic periods had technology. For Paleolithic they used stone tools, and in Neolithic they had farming, baking and firing pottery, specialized tools, and bronze tools and weapons.Both Paleolithic and Neolithic evolved. As found in Document 2 during Paleolithic times the Ice Age forced man to move and change. Mankind was forced to depend less on plants and animals. In Neolithic they farmed allowing them to settle in one place, which gave them time to develop settlements and new trades. Also both of these periods had accomplishments. In the Paleolithic Age they developed language, controlled fire and made and used tools. In the Neolithic Age they accomplished making the wheel, and farming.Although there are many similarities between Paleolithic and Neolithic times there are still several difference between them as well. One difference is that Paleolithic is the Old Stone Age and Neolithic the new Stone Age. Another difference that is found in Document 1, was that Paleolithic tools were used for hunting; they were heavy and basic whereas, Neolithic tools were used for clearing land and farming; they where sharper, lighter, more variety, and polished. The main difference between these â€Å"tool kits† is the purpose they were used for.Paleolithic man was a nomad, food gatherer, and a hunter. Neolithic men settled as found in Document 3. The people were agriculturist, who domesticate animals, and grew a variety of crops. The houses of Paleolithic ma n were skin tents or caves. The houses of Neolithic man were made of mud, wood and thatch. The Paleolithic and Neolithic Ages also have differences in the form of artwork. As found in the Document 4 the Paleolithic Age they had cave paintings showing the hunting of a larger animal and the danger of hunting. As found in Document 5 the Neolithic Age they domesticated plants and animals.In the Paleolithic Era, plants were used for medicines and food. Animals were used for hunting. However, in the Neolithic Era, plants were used for food in the New Stone Age, however, the difference was that plants were grown on farms. Animals were used for domestication as well as other purposes. Document 5 also displays another difference between the Paleolithic Era and Neolithic Era. Their artworks are very different from one another. In the Paleolithic Era they had paintings of cows, and they had small portable art. Their art is also represented by cave wall drawings.In the Neolithic Era they had me galiths and 3-D art. They were represented by structures and sculptures. These different artworks show change between Paleolithic and Neolithic times. The Neolithic Era was more advanced because based on their artwork it seemed they were harder to build, more complex and took more time. The diets of these two periods were also different. The Paleolithic man consisted of meat, fruits, berries and wild grain. Neolithic man had dairy products like milk, cheese, meat and grains like wheat, barley and rice.The clothing for Paleolithic man was made of animal skins and leaves, while Neolithic man made clothes of cotton wool. In the Paleolithic age there was no specialized occupation. As found in Document 3, in Neolithic age there was division of labor, and some specialization occupations so that that there was more variation of crafts like carpentry, weaving and pottery. In Document 6 it shows that the Neolithic architecture was different then Paleolithic architecture because the Neolithic architecture had settlements and villages while the Paleolithic architecture did not.Finally due to the invention of agriculture, farming and the wheel in the New Stone Age there where many revolutionary changes and progress that came upon man’s life, which was nonexistent in the Old Stone Age. In both Paleolithic and Neolithic times there were many events that helped change their way of life. If it weren’t for those events, today would not have been the same. For example the Paleolithic people invented fire. The fire helped the Paleolithic people move into colder regions, protected them animals, and helped them with their cook their food.The Neolithic people invented weaving, pottery, metalworking, and the wheel. They also discovered agriculture. Because of agriculture people can now farm instead of hunting and gathering. This permitted and allowed people to settle down and live in one place, which led to settlements. Because people settled they now lived closer to o ther, this allowed them to start using communication. This later developed into language. Also past experiences have led up to the structure of the Neolithic house. For example in Document 6, it says how discarded items, such as bits of pottery, were pilled around each house.This was to keep harsh North Sea winds from blowing through the stonewall through small gaps. This is an example of experience. Document 2 shows how the Ice Age changed the way of living, especially hunting. Because of the Ice Age it forced man to depend less on plants and more on animals. This event caused man to make adaptations to survive. All in all important events significantly changed the way of life between Paleolithic and Neolithic times. Even though these two time periods were very far apart and had a dramatic change in life these two times still have similarities and differences amongst them.There were similarities in government, religion, social, technology, and evolution. There were differences in a rchitecture, diets, artwork, tools, dwellings, clothes and lifestyle. The events in the Paleolithic Era led up to the Neolithic Revolution. The Neolithic Revolution was the transformation that reformed people from being hunter gathers into being farmers. Because of the Neolithic Revolution, our world is the way it is. Both Eras had different drives and commitments to strive, but at the end of the day they’re foremost objective and aim was to survive. Neolithic Vs Paleolithic Life changed dramatically between the Paleolithic and Neolithic times. Paleolithic is the early phase of the Stone Age, lasting about 2. 5 million years, when primitive stone implements were used. The Paleolithic Period was also called the Old Stone Age. Neolithic is the later part of the Stone Age, when ground or polished stone weapons and implements prevailed. The Neolithic Period was also called the New Stone Age. The Neolithic Revolution was the world's first traditionally, provable revolution in agriculture.It involved the wide-scale change of many human cultures from a lifestyle of hunting and gathering to agriculture as well as settlement, which supported larger population. Important events significantly changed the way of life between Paleolithic and Neolithic times. Although life changed dramatically between these two times there are still some similarities and differences amongst them. Paleolithic and Neolithic times have a lot of things in common. Both of these times were dependent on natural resources. In Paleolithic times they moved with food supply.In Neolithic times they used need water and good soil for crops. Paleolithic and Neolithic both had a government. In Paleolithic times the males ruled the families. In Neolithic times there was a Chief with council. Both of Paleolithic and Neolithic times had a religion. They had religions, which meant they believe in life after death. Socially in both time period’s men hunted and farmed and women gathered. Neolithic and Paleolithic periods had technology. For Paleolithic they used stone tools, and in Neolithic they had farming, baking and firing pottery, specialized tools, and bronze tools and weapons.Both Paleolithic and Neolithic evolved. As found in Document 2 during Paleolithic times the Ice Age forced man to move and change. Mankind was forced to depend less on plants and animals. In Neolithic they farmed allowing them to settle in one place, which gave them time to develop settlements and new trades. Also both of these periods had accomplishments. In the Paleolithic Age they developed language, controlled fire and made and used tools. In the Neolithic Age they accomplished making the wheel, and farming.Although there are many similarities between Paleolithic and Neolithic times there are still several difference between them as well. One difference is that Paleolithic is the Old Stone Age and Neolithic the new Stone Age. Another difference that is found in Document 1, was that Paleolithic tools were used for hunting; they were heavy and basic whereas, Neolithic tools were used for clearing land and farming; they where sharper, lighter, more variety, and polished. The main difference between these â€Å"tool kits† is the purpose they were used for.Paleolithic man was a nomad, food gatherer, and a hunter. Neolithic men settled as found in Document 3. The people were agriculturist, who domesticate animals, and grew a variety of crops. The houses of Paleolithic ma n were skin tents or caves. The houses of Neolithic man were made of mud, wood and thatch. The Paleolithic and Neolithic Ages also have differences in the form of artwork. As found in the Document 4 the Paleolithic Age they had cave paintings showing the hunting of a larger animal and the danger of hunting. As found in Document 5 the Neolithic Age they domesticated plants and animals.In the Paleolithic Era, plants were used for medicines and food. Animals were used for hunting. However, in the Neolithic Era, plants were used for food in the New Stone Age, however, the difference was that plants were grown on farms. Animals were used for domestication as well as other purposes. Document 5 also displays another difference between the Paleolithic Era and Neolithic Era. Their artworks are very different from one another. In the Paleolithic Era they had paintings of cows, and they had small portable art. Their art is also represented by cave wall drawings.In the Neolithic Era they had me galiths and 3-D art. They were represented by structures and sculptures. These different artworks show change between Paleolithic and Neolithic times. The Neolithic Era was more advanced because based on their artwork it seemed they were harder to build, more complex and took more time. The diets of these two periods were also different. The Paleolithic man consisted of meat, fruits, berries and wild grain. Neolithic man had dairy products like milk, cheese, meat and grains like wheat, barley and rice.The clothing for Paleolithic man was made of animal skins and leaves, while Neolithic man made clothes of cotton wool. In the Paleolithic age there was no specialized occupation. As found in Document 3, in Neolithic age there was division of labor, and some specialization occupations so that that there was more variation of crafts like carpentry, weaving and pottery. In Document 6 it shows that the Neolithic architecture was different then Paleolithic architecture because the Neolithic architecture had settlements and villages while the Paleolithic architecture did not.Finally due to the invention of agriculture, farming and the wheel in the New Stone Age there where many revolutionary changes and progress that came upon man’s life, which was nonexistent in the Old Stone Age. In both Paleolithic and Neolithic times there were many events that helped change their way of life. If it weren’t for those events, today would not have been the same. For example the Paleolithic people invented fire. The fire helped the Paleolithic people move into colder regions, protected them animals, and helped them with their cook their food.The Neolithic people invented weaving, pottery, metalworking, and the wheel. They also discovered agriculture. Because of agriculture people can now farm instead of hunting and gathering. This permitted and allowed people to settle down and live in one place, which led to settlements. Because people settled they now lived closer to o ther, this allowed them to start using communication. This later developed into language. Also past experiences have led up to the structure of the Neolithic house. For example in Document 6, it says how discarded items, such as bits of pottery, were pilled around each house.This was to keep harsh North Sea winds from blowing through the stonewall through small gaps. This is an example of experience. Document 2 shows how the Ice Age changed the way of living, especially hunting. Because of the Ice Age it forced man to depend less on plants and more on animals. This event caused man to make adaptations to survive. All in all important events significantly changed the way of life between Paleolithic and Neolithic times. Even though these two time periods were very far apart and had a dramatic change in life these two times still have similarities and differences amongst them.There were similarities in government, religion, social, technology, and evolution. There were differences in a rchitecture, diets, artwork, tools, dwellings, clothes and lifestyle. The events in the Paleolithic Era led up to the Neolithic Revolution. The Neolithic Revolution was the transformation that reformed people from being hunter gathers into being farmers. Because of the Neolithic Revolution, our world is the way it is. Both Eras had different drives and commitments to strive, but at the end of the day they’re foremost objective and aim was to survive.

Critically analyse the direct, indirect and induced economic impact of the Rugby World Cup 2015 for England - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2459 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Economics Essay Type Critical essay Did you like this example? Introduction Despite widespread publication of a positive economic impact resulting from the Rugby World Cup in 2015, issues such as overspending, forecasting accuracy, and the focus of the reporting itself, suggests there are also factors which may materially reduce the overall impact. Because of this, it is possible the widely publicised outlook for this event is overly optimistic. This report will critically analyse the direct, indirect and induced economic impact of the Rugby World Cup 2015 for England. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Critically analyse the direct, indirect and induced economic impact of the Rugby World Cup 2015 for England?" essay for you Create order Beginning with a summary of the economic impact, issues will then be examined with reference to the stated impacts, relevant literature, and comparable events around the world such as previous Rugby World Cups. The analysis concludes that the economic impact of the 2015 Rugby World Cup, while sizeable, may not be as significant as predicted. Summary of Economic Impacts A report by Ernst Young forecasts a number of economic benefits to the 2015 Rugby World Cup, including over $2 million in economic output, and a direct boost to GDP of $463 million (Arnold and Grice, 2015; summarised in Table 1). Media promoting these benefits is widespread, with the Ernst Young report often cited to describe and support the positive impacts of the 2015 Rugby World Cup. The many media examples include Bergson (2015), Menary (2015), and Wilson (2015). Due to the credibility of the financial services firm Ernst Young (Aubin, 2012), as well as the wide-spread publication of these results, the economic impact by Arnold and Grice (2015) will be used as the basis for this analysis, as summarised in Table 1. Contribution Type Impact Category Impact Source Amount (millions) Output Direct Visitor spend Ticket revenue (international) Infrastructure investment Fanzone spend Stadia spend $869 $68 $85 $5 $13 Indirect and induced $1,165 GDP Direct Visitor spend Ticket revenue (international) Infrastructure investment Fanzone spend Stadia contribution $391 $29 $35 $2 $6 Indirect and induced $518 Table 1. Summarised from Arnold and Grice (2015, pp18-20) For the purpose of this analysis, direct impact is considered to be initial spending stimulus arising from the event, including infrastructure expenditure and ticket revenue. Indirect economic impacts result from transactions that occur as a result of the initial spending, such as additional tourism expenditure in other areas. Induced impacts are the result of increased consumer spending due to higher income, such as greater support for sports and health overall. These definitions are outlined by Saayman and Saayman (2012, p223) and are consistent with the examples provided in the report by Arnold and Grice (2015). Support and improvements for the Forecasted Economic Impact Financial Stimulus The publicity of a major sporting event is said to improve the local brand overall, resulting in additional foreign investment, including business and tourism. While arguably temporary, this publicity can stimulate activity during a time of economic slowdown, which in turn creates indirect economic impacts such as increased demand for manufacturing, and induced effects such as higher overall employment, in particular in the hospitality industry (Arnold and Grice, 2015; Statistics New Zealand, 2012). While purely financial transactions are not included as part of GDP increases (McConnell et. al, 2010), some GDP growth may occur on the back of a strong financial market, driven by the Rugby World Cup. Increased publicity for the host country, coupled with high consumer excitement and mass sponsorship exposure may explain why share prices tend to improve during mass sporting events. For example, during the 2013 Wimbledon, the 10 largest listed companies in Scotland experienced a 7.5% increase in share price, while the FTSE100 increased by 5.1% (Thanapathy, 2015). In addition, the first trading week following the announcement of a significant sponsorship agreement saw sponsoring companies in the U.S.A. experience significant share price gains (Harrow and Swatek, 2011). While not mentioned in the report by Arnold and Grice (2015), an induced economic impact to the Rugby World Cup may be increasing investment in additional goods and services, as business confidence increases due to the strong financial market. The Multiplier Effect and Social Good An additional contributor to GDP and output is the result of the multiplier effect, that is, the increase in investment bringing about a disproportionate increase in GDP via spending and re-spending (Saayman and Saayman, 2012; McConnell et. al, 2010). The multiplier effect during an event such as the Rugby World Cup is likely to be significant, not only through increased consumer and business spending, but in areas such as an increased interest in sports, which in turn encourages a higher focus on public health overall. The social benefits of large sporting events are evident in the Comrades Marathon, where induced economic impacts included the benefits of increased income and spending reaching the poor. Saayman and Saayman (2012) note that their findings regarding the social benefits of the Comrades Marathon are consistent with broader literature, which also finds the economic impact of large scale sporting events reaches both rich and poor. Thus the direct impact of increased output and income generated by the Rugby World Cup is likely to increase GDP more than the initial investment, creating indirect and induced impacts via the multiplier effect. Including both Domestic and International spend When measuring economic impact, Arnold and Grice (2015) exclude domestic spend on sporting events because, it is argued, this money would remain in the economy regardless, being spent elsewhere if not on the Rugby World Cup. However, domestic spend may also be relevant as this recreational income could easily be spent in a different economy, were it not for this event (Saayman and Saayman, 2012). Given the proximity of England to European destinations, and the cultural relevance of Soccer in England and Europe (Gibbons, 2014), it is likely that English income would be spent in other countries if the Rugby World Cup was held elsewhere either to another destination for a holiday, or to the country hosting the World Cup. During the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand, the second most popular tourist origin was direct from the U.K.; a significant number of additional sports tourists from the U.K. arrived via Australia (Statistics New Zealand, 2011). Thus both domestic and internati onal expenditure on the Rugby World Cup 2015 is significant. Amending visitor and ticket revenue, and revenue derived from food and beverages, to include domestic consumers may be more accurate than focusing solely on additional international income. New Zealand, for example, note an increase in domestic household spending during the Rugby World Cup 2011, driven primarily by food and beverage, in addition to international spend (Statistics New Zealand, 2011). Similar to the Canadian analysis of Sports Tourism, domestic income may be included on a separate line for clarity and completeness (The Outspan Group Inc, 2009). While this may serve to increase forecasted output by increasing overall predicted spend, as discussed under Forecasting Ticket Sales, it is also possible that international spend reduces the economic impact of domestic expenditure in some areas, as the two may net each other out. Limitations and Challenges to the Forecasted Economic Impact The tendency to over-estimate Historically, the economic impacts of sporting events have been overestimated by host countries (Leeds and Von Allmen, 2008; Horrow and Swatek, 2011). For example, the economic impact of the 2002 World Cup fell significantly short of the estimated $31 billion (Leeds and Von Allmen, 2008). While GDP and consumption was affected during the 2011 Rugby World Cup, New Zealand reports that it did not contribute to the New Zealand economy, as measured in the BoP and national accounts (Statistics New Zealand, 2011). The Super Bowl XL publicised an economic impact of $300million on the back of sports tourism exceeding expectations, however figures later released by the Michigan Department of Treasury suggest the actual economic impact was negligible (Horrow and Swatek, 2011). It is thus highly possible that the economic impact for England has been similarly over-estimated. Economic Impact Intention As a general rule, economic impact reports measure total, as opposed to net, activity or income (Saayman and Saayman, 2012), and for this reason may appear overly positive compared to more balanced analyses, such as cost-benefit, where expenditure as well as income is considered. While economic impact is sometimes defined as net benefit (Crompton, 2006 in Saayman and Saayman, 2012), the more widely accepted definition is monetary payments as they move through a regional economy for the purpose of measuring the impact of an event as it relates to that economy (Tyrrrell and Johnston, 2006, p3). While omitting additional costs is technically correct, it can seem misleading in journal articles written for the general public, who may be unaware of these definitions. The article by Menary (2015), for example, presents an unrealistically optimistic view of the financial viability of the Rugby World Cup, as the public is only made aware of gains. Direct economic impacts, such as the $68 million in ticket revenue noted in the report by Arnold and Grice (2015) may return a far lower figure once additional costs such as administration have been taken into account. It is possible that GDP and output will increase by the stated amounts, however for a complete picture, more than the standard economic impact should be considered. Forecasting: Ticket Sales as Incremental Income It is possible that locals would attend the Rugby World Cup in place of tourists, were it not for the influx of football fans (Leeds and Von Allmen, 2008, p233) a possibility that nets out the impact of international spend on tickets to some degree, since the international income is replacing local income not adding to it. Further understanding local activity the propensity to travel and attend local events is therefore vital in understanding the true economic impact of international spending during the Rugby World Cup in 2015. As noted by Saayman and Saayman (2012, p232): in order to increase the economic benefit of the event, expanding both these markets might be worthwhile. Further, one way Arnold and Grice (2015, p8) forecast ticket revenue and consumer interest is by measuring the historic percentage of seats filled during World Cup Events. While these percentages have hovered around 95% for the past two events, it is not known how many of these tickets were paid for, g iven away, or scalped. In the 2000 Olympics, for example, questions were raised regarding the distribution of tickets to sponsors and hospitality companies, while in the 2012 Summer Olympics, London began distributing free tickets to fill stadiums during events (Freid et. al., 2013). Predicting public interest is not as simple as measuring seats filled, and it is possible that increased output as a result of tickets sales is overstated. Timeframe: Impact of one-off vs repetitive events A number of impact drivers for the 2015 Rugby World Cup are short-term, which may help explain why the estimated benefits, in particular the induced benefits and assumptions regarding the multiplier effect, may be overstated. While regular, local events use existing infrastructure, require lower levels of investment, and have ongoing effects (Higham in Ritchie and Adair, 2004, p135), it is possible that larger events experience more temporary economic impacts, as the related investment is for a unique, rather than an ongoing, event. In Japan, for example, Saitama currently spends nearly $4 million per year maintaining a stadium built to host the 2002 Rugby World Cup, despite the venue now only drawing around 20,000 spectators for local sporting events (Leeds and Von Allmen, 2008). In the U.S.A., an abundance of abandoned and crumbling sports places exist, many less than 20 years old (Horrow and Swatek, 2011, p3). As noted above under The Tendency to Overestimate, New Zealand exp erienced increased economic activity during the Rugby World Cup in 2011; however the long term impact was not as significant (Statistics New Zealand, 2011). When measuring the economic impact in England, Arnold and Grice (2015, p11) refer to an induced economic impact of further investment on the back of a lasting legacy for the sport. In addition, infrastructure investment is listed as the second most influential direct economic impact. However, given the results in New Zealand, the U.S.A., Japan and Korea, and the nature of large, relatively infrequent sporting events, it is possible these benefits have been overstated, particularly in the long term. Conclusion In conclusion, it is likely the economic impact of the 2015 Rugby World Cup, as outlined by Arnold and Grice (2015), is a good overview. Increased economic activity leads to direct impacts including increased output and GDP driven by higher foreign and corporate investment, such as sports tourism and corporate branding respectively. Indirect impacts include high intermediary activity, including increases in the hospitality industry and spend on food and beverages, while induced benefits are as far reaching as social support driven by higher consumer income and the multiplier effect. While these impacts are positive, it is believed the magnitude of the results have been exaggerated, due to limitations including the tendency of host countries to overestimate the impact of sporting events, and the temporary effects of short-term events even those as large as the Rugby World Cup. Further, due to the scope of an economic impact statement, many costs have gone unmentioned, creating a disproportionate impression of gains and optimism. References Aubin, D., 2012, Ernsts revenues rise 6.7 percent on advisory growth, Reuters, Available through https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/01/us-ernst-revenues-idUSBRE8901GS20121001 Bergson, Z. 2015, Sports and Money: Economic Impact of the Rugby World Cup, National Centre for Business Journalism, Sept 14 2015, Available through https://businessjournalism.org/2015/09/sports-and-money-economic-impact-of-the-rugby-world-cup Arnold, P. and Grice, M., 2015, The Economic Impact of the Rugby World Cup 2015, Ernst Young, Available through https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-rugby-world-cup-final-report/$FILE/EY-rugby-world-cup-final-report.pdf Freid, G., DeSchriver, T. and Mondello, M., 2013, Sports Finance, 3rd Ed., U.S.A.: Human Kinetics Harrow. R, and Swatek, K., 2011, Beyond the Scoreboard, U.S.A.: Human Kinetics Gibbons, T., 2014, English National Identity and Football Fan Culture, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Leeds, M. and Von Allmen, P., 2008, The Econo mics of Sports, 3rd ed., Boston: Pearson McConnell, C, Brue, S, Flynn, S. and Barbiero, T., 2010, Macroeconomics, 12th ed., Canada: McGraw Hill Ryerson Menary, S. 2015, Rugby to prove lucrative game as World Cup kicks off, The National: Business, Sept 17 2015, Available through https://www.thenational.ae/business/economy/rugby-to-prove-lucrative-game-as-world-cup-kicks-off Outspan Group Inc, The., 2009, The Economic Impacts of Cultural and Sport Tourism in Canada 2007, Amherst Island: The Outspan Group Inc. Ritchie, B. and Adair D. (eds)., 2004, Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, U.K.: Channel View Publications Saayman, M. and Saayman, A., 2012, The Economic Impact of the Comrades Marathon, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol3 (3), 05 Oct 2012, pp220-235 Statistics New Zealand, 2011, Impact of the Rugby World Cup in New Zealands macro-economic statistics, Statistics New Zealand, Available through https://www.stats.govt.nz /browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/NationalAccounts/impact-of-rugby-world-cup.aspx Thanapathy, S. 2015, Off the Pitch: The winners and losers of the Rugby World cup, Australian Times: Sport, 25 Sept 2015, Available through https://www.australiantimes.co.uk/off-the-pitch-the-winners-and-losers-of-the-rugby-world-cup Tyrrell, J. and Johnston, R., 2006, The Economic Impact of Tourism, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, Aug 1 2006, Available through Deep Dyve at https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/the-economic-impacts-of-tourism-a-special-issue-RCkCF7L8ja?articleList=%2F Wilson, B. 2015, Rugby World Cup a global game changer, says RFUs Ritchie, BBC News: Business, 24 Sept 2015, Available through https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34130763