A contract reconsidered? Changes in the Swedish state's relation to the sports movement

Resisting self-regulation: an analysis of sport policy programme making and implementation in Sweden

“…We suggest that this deviance (see Goodwin and Grix 2011, discussion on the deviant sport and education policy sectors in the UK) is associated with the Scandinavian and Swedish pattern of institutional arrangements, organisational and cultural, hallmarked by large national voluntary sports organisations with almost a monopoly on competitive sports. In contrast to Norberg's (2011) suggestion that the implicit contract is on its way to being renegotiated to the benefit of more government control, we argue that the component of voluntariness inherent in RF's part of the contract trumps the government's stake in providing resources. As long as the government depends on voluntary efforts for reaching more instrumental goals, power will remain with sport.…”

“…Especially in relation to a more neo-liberal international environment since Swedish sport is often described as being part of the Scandinavian sports model, with its particular patterns of institutional arrangements, hallmarked by large national voluntary sports organisations with almost a monopoly on competitive sports (Bairner 2010, Bergsgard and Norberg 2010, Bergsgard et al 2007, Fahlén and Karp, 2010, Norberg, 2011, Seippel, 2010. These specific characteristics and recent developments form the background of our aim to increase understanding of how government interest in sport impacts on the delivery of sport policy by exploring processes of responsibilisation and self-regulation at play in the relationship between the government and sport as well as between sport organisations on different levels.…”

“…For sport, the Scandinavian welfare policy model has been paramount to its growth and development since the Scandinavian idea of welfare has not been limited to health care and schools, but has also included citizens' access to recreation and leisure activities in which sport has been given a leading role (Bergsgard and Norberg 2010). This role, together with the government mandate to "act on behalf of the government," has assigned RF a double function in the Swedish society-the highest authority in voluntary organised sport and a public authority in sport policy (Norberg 2011). The role of government has traditionally been limited to decisions on the extent of the funding and its over-arching goals, while RF has had the mandate to decide on the means for reaching goals.…”

“…Norberg (2011) even asks if the implicit contract is on its way to being terminated or at least renegotiated to the benefit of more government control. Norberg (2011) points to recent societal reformations as explanations for this renegotiation, such as EU membership, economic recession, non-social democratic governments, and increasing liberalisation in the state administration focusing on target-setting, audits, and evaluations in both its own administrative units and external organisations.…”

“…Norberg (2011) even asks if the implicit contract is on its way to being terminated or at least renegotiated to the benefit of more government control. Norberg (2011) points to recent societal reformations as explanations for this renegotiation, such as EU membership, economic recession, non-social democratic governments, and increasing liberalisation in the state administration focusing on target-setting, audits, and evaluations in both its own administrative units and external organisations. For sport, the increase in government control has taken forms of reformulated policy goals focusing on inclusion and integration during the late 1980s, a national sports commission suggested closer control of the funding to sport in the 1990s, and another sports commission in the 2000s suggested an annual external audit of the government support for sport (Österlind and Wright 2012).…”