Sociological aspects of Tokyo Olympics

The Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo in July-September 2021 took place in a challenging social environment that seriously affected the public perception of events. When preparing for the Olympics in 2013-2019, the Japanese people actively supported the Games, which was confirmed by the results of numerous sociological studies. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic began, followed by several waves of infection. The competition was postponed for a year. Vaccination in Japan was delayed compared to most G7 countries. Against this background, in the summer of 2021, the most dangerous Delta strain of coronavirus began to spread in the country, bringing the rise in mortality rates, and the overflowing of hospitals in large cities. In such a difficult epidemiological and social situation, surveys recorded a negative attitude towards the Olympics. However, during the competition, the majority opinion once again turned positive, mainly due to the athletic successes of the Japanese team and effective anti-virus control measures. The absence of spectators in the venues, most probably, did not affect the sporting achievements significantly. At least, Japanese Olympic team won a record number of medals. Infection prevention measures proved effective in limiting the transmission of the virus among the athletes and the Japanese service personnel. The economic and symbolic achievements of the Games did not meet expectations, as, during the Olympics, it was not possible to properly address its significance as the end point of the low-growth "lost decades", evidence of economic recovery after the triple disaster of 2011, and as a tool to increase Japan's tourist attractiveness. Therefore, during a pandemic, major sports events should be held primarily to train top-class athletes and to increase populace satisfaction with the success of the national team rather than to obtain direct economic benefits or improve the host country's image.

Role of Partial Credit Guarantee Scheme in Enabling Growth of SME

Despite their importance Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Azerbaijan and in other developed and developing countries suffer from limited access to financing due to high costs of small-scale lending, information asymmetry, high risks attributed to SMEs and collateral requirements. Thus, the lack of SME access to finance is to the large extent the consequence of weaknesses in enabling environment for finance. Shortfall in enabling environment becomes major constraint for economic growth and diversification and/or causes regionally-unbalanced growth. These deficiencies motivate government to make policy interventions toward SME financing expansion. Largely interventions come in form of credit guarantee schemes (CGS), direct lending facilities and lending by state-owned financial institutions. In turn, partial credit guarantee schemes are considered as most market friendly intervention type. There are also notable examples when countries like South Korea employed PCG as countercyclical policy tool to face difficulties came from economic downturn. The diverse and resilient SME sector is the center piece of the Azerbaijan government's strategic agenda to diversify the economy away from oil. Credit Guarantee Schemes were introduced in Azerbaijan as a measure of Government to make financing accessible for SMEs and to reduce effect of negative impact of two recent major events: the drop in worldwide oil prices and COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this paper is to review characteristics of Credit Guarantee Schemes and assess preliminary outcomes of Partial Credit Guarantee mechanism implementation in Azerbaijan. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

"Quiet" Olympics in Tokyo and its preliminary results

The 32nd Olympic and Paralympic Games, held in Tokyo in July-September 2021, had several important features, one being the events taking place amid the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. It is not surprising that the Games were postponed for a year, the main events held without spectators, and the number of foreign visitors, officials, and support staff severely limited. Nevertheless, the results of the sporting events were highly commendable. One should take note of the long list of participants from many countries, the variety of competitive events, and the number of world and Olympic records made. In addition, Japan recorded its best Olympic performance so far in terms of medals won. Measures to control the spread of infection also proved to be highly effective. Only a handful of cases were reported in the Olympic Village, and lack of transmission of the virus from the athletes to the volunteers and service personnel is proof of the effectiveness of the measures taken. It is not surprising that the Games' public perception in Japan gradually transitioned from negative to positive. The Games' economic benefits, however, need further assessment, as additional outlays for the implementation of anti-infection measures, ticket revenue loss, and some extra costs will likely mean lower economic benefits. Perhaps the most difficult task though is assessing what the Games symbolized. Tokyo's bid to host these Games was viewed as an effort to move on from the prolonged "lost decades," a sign of recovery after the triple disaster of March 11, 2011, a way to showcase Japan's technological prowess, and a tool to improve the country's tourist destination image, among other things. Unfortunately, these aspects were poorly addressed during the Games, that is, the results of efforts made fell short of expectations. Nonetheless, in spite of some initial skepticism, the final international assessments as well as public opinion in Japan turned out to be overwhelmingly positive. This indicates that the decision to hold the Games was correct, and the sporting extravaganza made a significant contribution to the Olympic movement.

Economic policy of Japan in the time of pandemic

In the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic (February-September 2020), Japan succeeded in minimizing the mortality rate and reducing the damage to the economy. The Japanese experience has both positive and negative aspects. Among the G7 countries, Japan recorded the best use among the states of East Asia the worst indicators of overall and excessive mortality. From an economic perspective, the pandemic strongly affected inbound and outbound tourism, which will take years to recover. Employment opportunities in the tourism and other contact-intensive industries will be reduced by approximately one million jobs, primarily affecting part time and temporary workers. At the same time, the overall unemployment rate will hardly exceed one-third of the OECD average generally because of the ample financial support, long-term commitments among core employees in Japan, and job retention practices of domestic companies. In the macroeconomic realm, the Japanese government embarked on an extension of quantitatively easing measures of monetary expansionary steps in fiscal sphere and universal stimulus in growth-enhancing structural policies. This approach actually follows the logic of a long-standing reflationary Abenomics, which is expected to continue despite the abrupt resignation of S. Abe. At least, Japan’s newly elected Prime Minister Yo. Suga has indicated his support for current monetary and fiscal policies. He also hinted at a need to reduce the administrative red tape and to accelerate the digitalization in the economy. The package of anti-crisis measures in Japan turned out to be one of the largest in the world, and its implementation could increase the budget deficit and public debt, that is, cause the emergence of problems relevant to most other countries. © 2021, Russian Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.