Historical Perspective Contemporary Analysis

The Sport, Development and Peace (SDP) policy framework could be identified, according to Coakley (2016), to have exhibited substantial growth at UK and at the global scenario as well. This SDP is a conceptual reflection of the global civil society in the national terms of the United Kingdom. The utilisation of sport development to perform social policy implementation is primarily an intensely contested field of policy with diverse political and social implications. Coalter (2015) has observed that one method of analysis of social context of sport policy development of the UK is to examine the role of the State from a broader perspective. According to Collins and Haudenhuyse (2015), it has been traditional to distinguish between the civil society and the State in spite of the fact that the social context of sports development has been interdependent on the structures of social governance. The civil society at the United Kingdom is primarily consisted of an intersection of non-market based relationship and informal acquaintances involving communities and households and this leads to the formulation of the public, commercial, the voluntary and the informal sectors. Darnell et al (2018) have stated that sport policy implementation at the UK has been reactive historically and not a strategic and systematic process. This context had been historically influenced by the National Governing Body of Sport (NGB) till the 1950s. The late 19th and the early 20th century witnessed the development of multiple NGBs such as the Football Association, the Rugby Football Union, the British Mountaineering Council and the Amateur Swimming Association. Dashper (2017) asserts that direct government involvement in the sports domain could be discerned through three broad approaches involving government paternalism involving the deprived social classes in which the philanthropic approach to the problems of shaping of education and housing policies, the defence of the privileged landowners concerning the increasing drive for accessing the land on the countryside by the urban sports enthusiasts and to limit the leisure of the poverty stricken social segments so as to ensure that social stability could be maintained through the supposition of rational recreation. Dudley et al (2017) have outlined another social context in sports development concerning the public health issues and a direct correlation could be determined with the implementation of the government approaches to address the general concern of hygiene emanating from the increasing overcrowding of urban habitations. The concepts of paternalism and rational recreation encouragement were integrally related with the social context issue addressing efforts and such historical perspectives are directly reflective of the exemplification of the utilitarian and functional implications of sport as having a consistent effect regarding the greater social and economic benefits. This generally characterises the policy of sports within the social context of the UK. According to Filo, Lock and Karg (2015), one specific development has to be mentioned in this context. This had been the establishment of the Central Council of Recreative and Physical Training which had been renamed as later as the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR). This organisation had been primarily concerned with the provisioning of the recreation to the general populations and to different communities and, later, it was transformed into an umbrella organisation for the representation of the entire range of the sports entities including the NGBs. The responsibility of shaping of the sport policy, involving the recreation and youth sport disciplines, was performed through the CCPR. According to Green and Houlihan (2005) presumed benefits related to health through the implementation of sports policies could be identified as the governmental strategy to involve greater number of people in different courses of physical activities so that the associated health benefits could be delivered to the individuals and the communities in tandem with the savings of overall costs. Holt (2016) has asserted that one historical instance of this could be identified as the construction of parks and swimming pools at UK during the 19th century which had been one of the first examples of national government policies related to sport. During February 2009, the Department of Health of the erstwhile UK Government had published the strategy of ‘Be Active, Be Healthy’ through which the government support to the Physical Activity Alliance (PAA) had been outlined. The PAA could be identified to have been a sector based umbrella organisation which represented a diversified range of different organisations performing the promotion of physical activity involving both the private and the voluntary sectors.

Furthermore, the beneficial aspects of sport development within UK could be ascertained through the examination of the enlargement of perspectives concerning the influence of sport on leisure and civil society dynamics. Holt et al (2017) have highlighted that the impact of sport policy development of the community based contribution to the leisure and recreation and health benefits which could be made available to the general populace in terms of the tackling of mental disorders, obesity, shortcomings in education attainments and also regarding the youth crime controlling efforts. In this context, Houlihan and Green (2007) have observed that the presumed benefits of sport could range from the economic to the social sectors involving the contribution of sport policies in the development of a stronger structure of the civil society, addressing of the hitherto intractable problems such as social exclusion, encouragement of active citizenship and participation in the wider activities of the society be particular communities and, ultimately the development of the social capital at UK. Apart from these, the research of Houlihan and Malcolm (2015) have highlighted the report of the Policy Action Group 10, constituted under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in 1999 that socially integrative sport development policies could contribute further to the improvement of the communities through the methods of renewal of neighbourhoods. The specific indicators of in this context, could be identified to be the extents of health, crime, education and employment scenarios. Such findings had provided the procedural underpinnings of the entire thinking on the highest echelons of the UK government concerning the formulation and implementation of sport policy.

From an academic perspective, the social influence of sport has been also indicative of the impact of the policies of CCPR, in the 20th century, on the key prospects of the intrinsic values sport in fostering material and instrumental benefits on the social masses. Such prospects, as has been highlighted by the research of Hylton et al (2013) have been the addressing of the tension between elitism and mass participation in the discourses of sport as well as the notion of sport as recreation based welfare processes.

Misener and Schulenkorf (2016) have outlined the necessity to involve detailed theoretical constructs and framework which have been developed through the sport policy development processes of the UK government. Such theoretical concepts are necessary to be of meso-level and not of the macro or societal sectors. Schulenkorf, Sherry and Rowe (2016) have signified the evaluation of the Institutional Analysis, the Multiple Streams Assessment, the Stages Model and the Advocacy Coalition Framework in the context of policy implementation implications on sport related outcomes. According to Sherry, Schulenkorf and Chalip (2015), the Stages Model utilises a discrete yet multi-stage process to formulate the processes of policy development. These stages range from setting of agenda to maintenance of policy, from succession measurement to the termination of the policy as well. In general, the Stages Model explains the changes in sport policy overtime through the assumptions of rationality and linearity and through evaluation of the sequential relationships in between the multiplicity of stages.

Smith and Sparkes (2016) have stated that Institutional Analysis refers to the roles of specific institutions such as agencies and departments, of the UK government and the general shared concepts and values concerning the implications of sport development policies. This highlights the importance of engagement by multiplicity of organisations and institutions concerning the shaping of policy prerogatives at the UK. Furthermore, the Multiple Streams Assessment Framework, according to Weed (2017), is mostly associated with the setting of agenda and addressing the disputes which could emerge in terms of the sequential and rationalistic assumptions while the policy formulation process could be taking into consideration the previous experiences gained. Then theoretical concept utilises the combination of problem analysis and policy constituents to highlight the process of contradictions in sport administration implementation while the policy agenda could be under evaluation.

Finally, the Advocacy Coalition Framework could be understood to focus on the sub-categorical systems related with the policy framework analysis through evaluation of the multiplicity of coalitions of such sub-systems. Filo, Lock and Karg (2015) have averred that incorporation of the concept of policy brokerage is key in this process. The ‘policy broker’ has the responsibility of mediation in between the coalitions. This is significant to sufficiently take into account the prospect of power becoming the influent in the policy development. This theoretical construct is also sensitive to the values and beliefs of the involved social and administrative stakeholders and could also recognise the number of different levels which are associated with such a process. Collins and Haudenhuyse (2015), have determined that such levels are mostly partially autonomous and are also embedded within the depth of the overall policy framework.

Take a deeper dive into High Market The Chosen Industry with our additional resources.

Reference List

• Coakley, J., 2016. Positive youth development through sport: Myths, beliefs, and realities. In Positive youth development through sport (pp. 41-53). Routledge.
• Coalter, F., 2015. Sport-for-change: Some thoughts from a sceptic. Social Inclusion, 3(3), pp.19-23.
• Collins, M. and Haudenhuyse, R., 2015. Social exclusion and austerity policies in England: The role of sports in a new area of social polarisation and inequality?. Social inclusion, 3(3), pp.5-18.
• Darnell, S.C., Chawansky, M., Marchesseault, D., Holmes, M. and Hayhurst, L., 2018. The state of play: Critical sociological insights into recent ‘Sport for Development and Peace’research. International review for the sociology of sport, 53(2), pp.133-151.
• Dashper, K., 2017. Listening to horses: Developing attentive interspecies relationships through sport and leisure. Society & Animals, 25(3), pp.207-224.
• Dudley, D., Cairney, J., Wainwright, N., Kriellaars, D. and Mitchell, D., 2017. Critical considerations for physical literacy policy in public health, recreation, sport, and education agencies. Quest, 69(4), pp.436-452.
• Filo, K., Lock, D. and Karg, A., 2015. Sport and social media research: A review. Sport management review, 18(2), pp.166-181.
• Green, M. and Houlihan, B., 2005. Elite sport development: Policy learning and political priorities. Routledge.
• Harris, K. and Adams, A., 2016. Power and discourse in the politics of evidence in sport for development. Sport management review, 19(2), pp.97-106.
• Holt, N.L. ed., 2016. Positive youth development through sport. Routledge.
• Holt, N.L., Neely, K.C., Slater, L.G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L. and Tamminen, K.A., 2017. A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. International review of sport and exercise psychology, 10(1), pp.1-49.
• Houlihan, B. and Green, M. eds., 2007. Comparative elite sport development. Routledge.
• Houlihan, B. and Malcolm, D. eds., 2015. Sport and society: a student introduction. Sage.
• Hylton, K., Bramham, P., Jackson, D. and Nesti, M., 2013. Sports development. London: Routledge.
• Jones, G.J., Edwards, M., Bocarro, J.N., Bunds, K.S. and Smith, J.W., 2017. Collaborative advantages: The role of interorganizational partnerships for youth sport nonprofit organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 31(2), pp.148-160.
• Misener, L. and Schulenkorf, N., 2016. Rethinking the social value of sport events through an asset-based community development (ABCD) perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 30(3), pp.329-340.
• Schulenkorf, N., Sherry, E. and Rowe, K., 2016. Sport for development: An integrated literature review. Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), pp.22-39.
• Sherry, E., Schulenkorf, N. and Chalip, L., 2015. Managing sport for social change: The state of play.
• Smith, B. and Sparkes, A.C. eds., 2016. Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise. Taylor & Francis.
• Weed, M., 2017. Should we privilege sport for health? The comparative effectiveness of UK Government investment in sport as a public health intervention. In Sport, Physical Activity and Public Health (pp. 27-44). Routledge.