On Saturday morning, I got up early to run the first and last leg of the Olympic Marathon, a few hours before the race itself. The route connects the most memorable parts of Paris to Versailles and is in keeping with the spirit of the two-week Games by showcasing the city’s accessibility and its magnificence.

I have spent much of the last two weeks at the Games, mainly watching rowing, athletics and other endurance events such as triathlon and cycling (my favourite performances were those of Cork’s Paul O’Donovan and Fintan McCarthy in the men’s lightweight double sculls, Cassandre Beaugrand in the women’s triathlon and the USA’s Grant Fisher in the 10,000m).

Once the security tension of the opening ceremonies was over, Paris relaxed and flourished, and I think it’s fair to say that the Games were a great success for Paris, for France, and for the morale of the French people (morale always needs to be boosted, but self-esteem does not).

The success of the Games is in sharp contrast to the mood of a month ago, when the country was faced with the possibility of Jordan Bardella being prime minister during the Games. But Bardella has now virtually disappeared from public view. The question now is whether the success of the Games will influence the process of forming a new government.

My guess is that this makes a government led by the far left or the far right less likely and suggests a preference for a centrist government – which I believe is based on a split in the left-wing NFP coalition (which will happen once everyone is back from vacation). I don’t think Emmanuel Macron’s reputation will be hugely improved by the Games, but they could be decisive in the race for mayor of Paris (Anne Hildago could decide to run again, against the likes of Rachida Dati and Clement Beaune).

One reason the atmosphere in Paris seemed so relaxed is that most Parisians were leaving the city.

In my experience, one reason for this is that, unlike England, France does not have a “sports culture” (at least not among the upper and middle classes). Sporting success is something for people in the regions or the suburbs. Despite this, France does remarkably well in many sports, such as rugby, which is played in some regional centres (and professionally in Paris).

In this respect, France’s strong performance at the Games, coupled with Australia’s even more impressive medal haul and the lackluster performance of larger countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa (which between them won four gold medals compared to the six won by tiny New Zealand), raises questions about what makes a successful Olympic nation and whether these qualities are related to economic success or even innovation.

There are perhaps three different models here.

The first, which includes the English-speaking nations (GB -5^th Place in the medal table, USA – currently 1st, Australia – 3^rdCanada – 11^thNew Zealand – 12^th and Ireland – 16^th) and some of the Nordic countries are based on what I call the ‘school model’, where sport is taught and played competitively in the school system and where this is culturally valued. In many cases, successful school athletes (particularly in Olympic sports) can continue the sport at a very high level at university or in clubs. Here the US university system stands out for the support it offers to athletes (from many countries; note that France’s hero Leon Marchand is a student at Arizona State University) and the enormous resources that individual universities have at their disposal.

From an Olympic perspective, it is interesting that the national sports of the English-speaking countries – American football and baseball, hurling and Gaelic football, cricket, Australian rules – are not Olympic sports and tend to draw talented athletes away from Olympic sports (and the Nordic countries have winter sports). Nevertheless, it is an argument that a “sports culture” pays off.

The second approach is what I call “institutional excellence,” as practiced in France (and of course Australia, with its world-leading Institute of Sport), where promising athletes are guided through high-level performance institutes and elite clubs and receive support in conditioning, psychology and nutrition. In the case of France, other institutions such as the army also play a supporting role (19 of the 52 French medalists are soldiers). Japan and South Korea could also fall into this category, although the role of Japanese companies in supporting sports such as running is worth noting.

The third model is the “communist” model. While communism has fallen out of fashion, the training of athletes under the communist system has not. This is the case in China, Romania and of course Russia. In these countries, promising physiological “specimens” are channeled into certain sports (rowing is one of them) and pushed to compete. While athletes from many countries have participated in drug-enhancing, the countries of the “communist” model have been the worst offenders of late (Russia’s efforts have been described here as “state-sponsored and systematic”).

These are very rough sketches and many elements such as the quality of individual coaching are not taken into account. One element they have in common is ‘age’ in the sense that most of the successful Olympic countries have been competing for a long time (the 1924 medal table was dominated by the USA, France, Finland, Great Britain and Sweden) and I suspect that in many sports there is institutionalised expertise as well as a sense of ‘how to win’.

My Parisian colleague Simon Kuper of the FT writes that there is a link between the level of economic development and Olympic success, but I think the matter is more complicated. There does indeed seem to be a link between sporting success and a country’s origin (longevity of the system) and gender equality, but there seems to be no link between the pace of development and Olympic success (China is the exception).

More interesting is the idea that the three “Olympic” models mentioned above are related to different approaches to innovation. As we noted in our briefing last week, China has a state-led, “cost and competition” approach to innovation, the European one is also state-led and resource-poor, while the resource-rich US university model (I would also include Imperial and Oxbridge in the UK here) aligns well with the centers of innovative excellence in the US.

If there is a lesson to be learned by countries like India, which may be looking to be more successful (India has sent a large delegation of business, celebrities and media to the Games), it is to focus on schools and colleges, develop a competitive sports program within their vast army and take a cue from Australia’s Institute for Sport.

Let’s see who does well in LA.