Mick Green

Elite sport development systems and playing to win: uniformity and diversity in international approaches

This paper explores the former Eastern Blocs (primarily the GDR and the Soviet Union) supremacy in developing elite sporting excellence and traces the ‘flow’ of elements of such systems to selected Western nation-states. The national elite sport development systems discussed in the West are: Europe (UK, France and Spain), North America (Canada, United States) and Australia. A tentative conceptualization of ‘centre’ (West) and ‘semi-periphery’ (Eastern Bloc) states is outlined in relation to these global sporting flows. Discussion focuses on whether we are currently witnessing a trend towards uniformity in (global) elite sport development systems, or whether room remains for diversity in the development of these systems in different countries. The methods employed for the generation of data include study visits and interviews with key personnel responsible for French, Spanish and UK elite sports institutes. In addition, a comprehensive review of secondary sources is employed to discuss the notion of a uniform, elite sport development model and the efficiency of different systems. Insights from the globalization and figurational/process sociology literature underpin our discussion of elite sport development systems in selected Western nation-states. Analysis of the data reveals that, in the development of elite sport systems in the West, many antecedents of the former Eastern Blocs ‘managed approach’ to elite sport are increasingly apparent. A number of these antecedents are outlined that point to increasing similarities between countries in the West and to the putative emergence of a uniform (global) model of elite sport development. These similarities are analysed and provide evidence for best practice and ‘efficiency gains’ in Western elite sport systems. However, it has also been found that there remains a certain diversity to each countrys elite sport development system: the United States – minimal government intervention; and France – sport as public service; are key examples of this phenomenon.

From ‘Sport for All’ to Not About ‘Sport’ at All?: Interrogating Sport Policy Interventions in the United Kingdom

Abstract This article provides a critical account of the ways in which the funding for, and political justifications underlying, sport policy in the United Kingdom have shifted from concerns to provide ‘Sport for All’ opportunities for the generality of the population, and at various times for targeted groups in particular, to a peculiarly sharp twofold focus. Namely: (i) the promotion of the ‘active citizen’ through social investment strategies that have children and young people as their principal target; and (ii) a ‘no compromise’ approach to winning (Olympic) medals and trophies on the international stage. In utilizing the theoretical perspectives of ‘policy as discourse’ and ‘storylines’, the analysis thus interrogates, and goes some way towards answering, questions raised in the literature regarding the ‘demise’ of Sport for All related programmes and activities. The conclusions consider some of the potential ramifications of this sharpened twofold policy focus for sport policymakers, management professionals and practitioners alike.

Changing policy priorities for sport in England: the emergence of elite sport development as a key policy concern

This paper reviews the emergence of ‘sport’ as a sector of public policy interest from the 1960s to 2002. Central to the paper is the manifestation of ‘elite sport development’ as a key policy concern from the mid‐1990s onwards. While the emergence of elite sport policy objectives is the focus, the increased activity around sport at regional and sub‐regional levels in England also requires attention. The papers theoretical argument is that, in large part, the effect of policy is primarily discursive; it changes the possibilities we have for thinking ‘otherwise’. In this respect, the discursive construction of sport policy is problematized. Here, the literature addressing ‘policy as discourse’ and, more specifically, that which analyses the ‘discursive strategies’ shaping school sport and physical education policy is helpful in sensitizing us to the inherent power relations hidden within the contours of sport policy debates. This analysis leads to questions surrounding opportunities for ‘alternative voices’ within a context of discursive activity that privileges elite performance. In this regard, the study concludes by offering avenues of future research for the analysis of sport policy processes.

The changing status of school sport and physical education: explaining policy change

This paper examines the changing political salience of school sport and physical education (PE) over the last 15 years. A brief survey of the recent history of school sport and PE based on an analysis of a range of policy documents published by professional bodies and government departments and agencies is followed by a discussion of two theoretical frameworks for explaining policy change, namely the advocacy coalition framework and multiple streams. The empirical section of the paper uses a series of interviews conducted during the summer of 2004 with a range of senior policy actors and analysts to explore the significance of four possible sources of policy change: changing values, beliefs and ideas; interest group lobbying; changes in organizational infrastructure and patterns of resource dependency; the impact of key individuals. It is argued that while individuals are an important explanatory factor their influence needs to be seen in the context of the institutional weakness of interest groups and the generalized, but largely unfocused, sympathy among politicians towards school sport and PE. It is further suggested that multiple streams is a more illuminating analytical framework than the advocacy coalition framework for understanding policy change in school sport and PE.

Olympic glory or grassroots development?: Sport policy priorities in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, 1960 – 2006

This article traces and evaluates the wider historical and sociopolitical context for sport policy priorities, in general, from 1960 to 2006 in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) but with a specific focus on identifying and analysing policy developments at the elite (Olympic) levels of sport. Drawing on the advocacy coalition frameworks assumptions regarding policy change it is apparent that, in Australia and Canada (in contrast to the UK), the prioritization of elite sport achievement has been at the forefront of federal government policies over the past 25 to 30 years. However, over the past four to five years, there are indications that both Australian and Canadian federal governments have begun to reassess their respective policy priorities for sport. In the UK, it is only over the past decade that central government has promoted a far more positive policy discourse around, and allocated increasingly large amounts of public money for, elite sport development. Of concern in all three countries is that the inexorable pursuit of sporting excellence on the international stage is one in which broader social goals associated with sport become routinely subordinated to the production of performance.

ADVOCACY COALITIONS AND ELITE SPORT POLICY CHANGE IN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

This paper explores the process of elite sport policy change in two sports (swimming and track and field athletics1) and their respective national sport organizations (NSOs) in Canada and national governing bodies of sport (NGBs) in the United Kingdom (UK). The nature of policy change is a complex and multifaceted process and a primary aim is to identify and analyse key sources ofpolicy change through insights provided by the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). In Canada, it is evident that the preoccupation with high performance sport over the past 30 years, at federal government level, has perceptibly altered over the past two to three years. In contrast, in the UK, from the mid-1990s onwards, there has been a noticeable shift towards supporting elite sport objectives from both Conservative and Labour administrations. Most notably, the ACF throws into sharp relief the part played by the state in using its resource control to shape the context within which debates on beliefs and values within NSOs/NGBs takes place. While the ACF has proved useful in drawing attention to the notion of changing values and belief systems as a key source of policy change, as well as highlighting the need to take into account factors external to the policy subsystem under investigation, potential additions to the framework’s logic are suggested for future applications.

Podium or participation? Analysing policy priorities under changing modes of sport governance in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom (UK), since 1997 the New Labour government has built on the principles of ‘new public management’ (NPM) introduced under previous Conservative administrations as a framework for the ways in which it ‘governs’ the complex array of organisations and agencies involved in the delivery of public services. The governance of sport policy development has not been immune to the various influences of NPM and the related requirement for a far greater emphasis on evidence-based policy-making. In this respect, the literature on NPM and governance provides the conceptual frame for analysis of the articles two main interrelated aims. The first is to identify and analyse the realignment of the ways in which government and its national sporting agencies ‘interact’ with key ‘delivery partners’ charged with implementing national sport policy. We use the term ‘changing modes of sport governance’ to capture this phenomenon. The second aim is to evaluate the ways in which these changing modes of governance have impacted upon the governments drive to realise two of its contemporary sport policy priorities: i) support for developing elite athletes; and ii) raising sport and physical activity participation rates across the public at large. Our conclusions suggest that, under current and emerging governance arrangements in the UK, an illusory screen of plural, autonomous and empowered delivery networks for sport obscures the very close ties to, and regulation from, the centre.

Integrating Macro- and Meso-Level Approaches: A Comparative Analysis of Elite Sport Development in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom

Abstract Drawing on a research study that analysed elite sport policy change in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom (U.K.), this article underscores the utility of integrating macro- and meso-levels of analysis. We illustrate how macro-level analysis can help explain both the membership of meso-level advocacy coalitions and the policy outcomes from them. The macro-level analysis takes two forms: (i) an exploration of State theory (neo-pluralism); and (ii) an investigation of two macro-political features of the State—the parliamentary support enjoyed by sporting interest groups and the organisational structure of the State. We conclude that despite all three countries being characterised as “least centralised States” where we would expect to find considerable checks and balances to a dominant “State presence” in a particular policy sector, federal/central governments (and their primary sporting agencies) in Australia, Canada and the U.K. have exerted considerable influence in promoting and shaping the values, organisation and activities of elite sport advocacy coalitions.

Policy transfer and learning from the west: Elite basketball development in the People's Republic of China

The article examines the engagement of the People’s Republic of China with global sport using basketball as an example. Following a discussion of the priority given to national elite team sport success in contemporary China, the article explores the range of mechanisms that facilitate sport globalization and focuses particularly on evaluating the utility of the concepts of policy transfer and lesson drawing. The examination of the concepts is achieved through the exploration of a series of questions relating to recent developments in basketball in China, including how the need for reform of the domestic system was recognized and articulated, who was instrumental in transferring policy, which countries were identified as suitable exemplars, and which policies were transferred. The article draws on data collected from a number of sources, including official government documents, news media, and a series of interviews with Chinese officials from key governmental organizations. The article concludes that the concepts of policy transfer and lesson drawing provide significant insight into the process of China’s engagement in basketball, and identifies a series of tensions arising from the process that affect contemporary sport policy.