Delivery networks and community sport in England

Abstract

This file was dowloaded from the institutional repository Brage NIH -brage.bibsys.no/nih Harris, S., Houlihan, B. (2014) -07-2013-0095 This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (http://brage.bibsys.no/nih). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited. International Journal of Public Sector Management Delivery networks and community sport in EnglandSpencer Harris 1 and Barrie Houlihan 2 Abstract Purpose The paper aims to utilise Adam and Kriesi's Network Approach to policy analysis to examine the range of exogenous factors that affect interactions in the community sport policy process from a local authority perspective. MethodologyThe research is based upon two case studies. Each case study involved semistructured interviews with three local authority middle/senior managers, three senior CSP representatives, and eight regional/county NGB representatives. FindingsWhile the two cases exhibit distinctive socio-economic and structural profiles they provide valuable evidence regarding the operation of the network of partners involved in community sport and also illustrate the utility of Adam and Kriesi's analytical framework. In relation to Adam and Kriesi's power/interaction model both cases illustrate the fragmentation of power at the community level although interaction in one case exhibits a pattern best characterised as 'competition' whereas interaction in the other is more closely associated with 'horizontal cooperation'. Research ImplicationsThe paper highlights the need for improved theorisation of partnership arrangements in community sport, in particular: examining the relationship between issues such as resources, organisational capacity, and traditional involvement in sport development and attitudes toward the community sport policy process; linked to this, mapping the causal relationships in partnerships, i.e. what factors lead to what actions or behaviours; and investigating the utility of various strategies in developing a more cohesive and effective sub-regional policy system. Originality/value Local authority perspectives of community sport policy is an under-researched topic. It is timely to study these perspectives due to the refreshed community sport policy for 2013-17, the traditional status of local government as the major funder of community sport, and the public sector budget reductions and reported implications for non-statutory services, such as community sport.

How sport governance impacted on Olympic legacy: a study of unintended consequences and the ‘Sport Makers’ volunteering programme†

“…On the surface, the UK 'sportscape' indeed seems to reflect a shift away from central government power and towards a wide range of bodies delivering all levels of sport. Within this view the 49 County Sport Partnerships (CSPs) allow for local responses to locally defined problems by bringing together key actors in sport policy delivery, including local authorities, universities, members of the business community, national governing bodies and local sports clubs (Harris & Houlihan, 2014).…”

The demise of the members’ association ownership model in German professional football

“…Regardless of the ownership structure adopted, the pressure to pursue success on the field of play builds in a propensity to gamble on player expenditure at any football club (Wilson, et al, 2013). However, what underpins a members' association is the belief that football supporters have a primary concern to preserve their club and to ensure the club is beneficial for the community (Harris & Houlihan, 2014). Therefore, academics and commentators in favour of mutually owned football clubs believe that they are more likely to be more diligent guardians of their club's future than benevolent private owners are (Hamil, et al, 2010).…”

“…What has become apparent from these continued tensions at HSV and the governance literature relating to mutuality is the constant balance between financial sustainability and on-pitch performance (Dietl & Franck, 2008). There was, however, clear evidence to support the literature in terms of achieving inclusivity and increasing stakeholder involvement, whilst operating as a members' association (Brown, 2002;Harris & Houlihan, 2014). Seemingly, the '50+1' rule has balanced the differing stakeholder interests through a compromised hybrid business model, by meeting the members needs whilst attracting private investment to boost the playing budget and maintain competitive advantage (Cornforth, 2003).…”

Interpreting university sport policy in England: seeking a purpose in turbulent times?

“…6 | Page *Corresponding author: Email: jabrunton12@gmail.com Much has been written about sport policy in England around key delivery partners such as County Sport Partnerships (Mackintosh 2011, Philpotts et al 2011 schools (Mackintosh 2014, Mackintosh and Liddle 2015, Griggs and Ward 2013), local authority sport units (Bloyce et al 2008)) and voluntary community sport clubs (Harris et al 2009, Harris andHoulihan 2014). Reference to sport policy and practice delivery partnerships with higher education in this body of academic literature is minimal.…”