Design and delivery of sport for all programmes: should it be market, non-profit, or state-run?

Hallmann, Kirstin; Feiler, Svenja; Breuer, Christoph

doi:10.1080/19406940.2015.1088051

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, an economic perspective justifies government intervention due to market failure, in which a strong role for the private sector will not generate an optimal service delivery. Private sector organizations successfully satisfy individual demands but government intervention is needed to fulfil social desirable demands, such as socially desirable levels of sport participation (Hallmann et al, 2015; Késenne, 2000).…”

Section: Context: Promoting Sports Among Disadvantaged Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

Why network structure and coordination matter: A social network analysis of sport for disadvantaged people

Dobbels

Voets

Marlier

et al. 2016

International Review for the Sociology of Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although local governments attempt to promote sports among all layers of society, people with a lower socioeconomic status are still under-represented in grassroots sports. Previous studies indicate that inter-sectoral networks and joint efforts can contribute to an increase in sport participation among these groups, but a systematic analysis of the structure, coordination and interactions in the networks is still missing. Insight into networks to promote sport for disadvantaged people may help in designing effective networks. Therefore, we conducted a social network analysis to explore the network structure and characteristics of networks that promote sport participation among disadvantaged people in three Flemish cities. Our results show that the networks needed to be coordinated by a sport administrator, in the initial stage. Once the network is up and running, coordination can be shared so that the sport administration can rely on the experiences of other sectors. More sport initiatives and a better network structure were found in the cities with a community sport development program, through which the sport-for-all policy is implemented and coordinated, compared to a city without such a program.

show abstract

Section: Context: Promoting Sports Among Disadvantaged Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

Why network structure and coordination matter: A social network analysis of sport for disadvantaged people

Dobbels

Voets

Marlier

et al. 2016

International Review for the Sociology of Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Measured using objective secondary data on facility ownership types for each local authority (cf. Hallmann et al, 2015;Wicker et al, 2009), collective organisational publicness is calculated as private/(public+nonprofit+private). The ratio is an adapted version of Miller and Moulton's (2014, p. 554) conceptualisation of collective organisational publicness "as the aggregate publicness of organizations within a policy environment".…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent sport management studies have investigated the implications of the three-sectoreconomy for sport provision (e.g. Hallmann et al, 2015). However, the mixed-sector delivery of state-owned facilities, or in other words local authorities' community sport provision portfolios, has received less attention (e.g., .…”

Section: Collective Organisational Publicness Versus Privateness In Community Sportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective organisational publicness versus privateness in community sport: a national panel study of local authorities

Hodgkinson

Hughes

Leone

2020

European Sport Management Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Question: The role and merit of publicness versus privateness in community sport provision is hotly contested in the sport management field, but is there a relationship between ownership types in local authorities' community sport provision and sports participation levels?Research Methods: The study combines secondary data on sports participation with objective data on ownership types in community sport provision among local authorities in England, between 2009-15. The panel model examines whether the mix of ownership types in community sport is associated with differences in reported sports participation levels. Results and Findings:The study reveals higher collective organisational publicness in community sport is associated with lower sports participation levels among local populations.The opposite is true of higher collective privateness in local authorities' provision, where higher levels of sports participation are observed among local populations.Implications: If local authorities are to influence sports participation levels among their populations, there is a need to better understand how community sport provision should be delivered. Informed by the findings, greater privateness in local authorities' community sport provision is associated with higher sports participation levels.

show abstract

“…However, there has been little literature that has formally tested if the supply side of provision affects the participation behaviour of individuals. In Germany, Hallmann et al (2015) show that the availability of private sector facilities in the environment around residents provides a substitutable opportunity for participants relative to state-run facilities, but the facility ownership does not affect the overall incidence of participation. The current study focusses directly on the amount of participation that is undertaken by users of different types of facilities, rather than treating participation as a binary variable, and for the first time tests if ownership type influences behaviour by examining the facility actually used by the individual.…”

Section: Contributions To Theorymentioning

confidence: 96%

Means as well as ends: some critical insights for UK sport policy on the impact of facility ownership and configuration on sports participation

Kumar

Downward

Hodgkinson

et al. 2018

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of sports facility provision in increasing participation is debated internationally. The impact will be mediated by the sport delivery system, the welfare system within which sports policy might operate and the culture of sport. Change in the political persuasion of recent UK governments has followed a broadly consistent neoliberal policy direction of moving from big government and public ownership, to outsourcing and governance through networks. The intended aim: to more effectively achieve policy objectives, such as subjective well-being (SWB), health and social capital. A case study of participation in sport and fitness activities in a County Sports Partnership (CSP) in England is presented to examine if different ownership types and configuration of facilities that have emerged as a result of the policy direction, has influenced participation and policy targets. Regression results reveal that the ownership and configuration of facilities has no effect on the duration of activity and consequently no impact on policy outcomes. The largest influence on participation occurs in using facilities with others that were previously met there. The results also suggest that participation in facilities combined with other sport and physical activity can have an impact on health and social capital, and indirectly SWB. These insights are strongly indicative of the co-creation and interconnectedness of participation and suggest that policy should focus on network development more than specific forms of ownership and provision in seeking to achieve policy objectives. The research casts new critical light on the role of neoliberalism in sports policy.

show abstract

Design and delivery of sport for all programmes: should it be market, non-profit, or state-run?

Cited by 15 publications

References 58 publications

Why network structure and coordination matter: A social network analysis of sport for disadvantaged people

Why network structure and coordination matter: A social network analysis of sport for disadvantaged people

Collective organisational publicness versus privateness in community sport: a national panel study of local authorities

Means as well as ends: some critical insights for UK sport policy on the impact of facility ownership and configuration on sports participation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About