The Sport, Development and Peace Sector: A Model of Four Social Policy Domains

Giulianotti, Richard

doi:10.1017/s0047279410000930

Cited by 124 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The model organizes these stakeholders into four broad categories each associated with specific types of policy and practice within the sector (Giulianotti 2011). To summarize, we have:…”

Section: The Sdp Sector: a Contested Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sport for Development and Peace: Power, Politics, and Patronage

Giulianotti

Hognestad

Spaaij

2016

Journal of Global Sport Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) is a rapidly growing field of activity in which sport is used as an intervention tool in order to pursue wider, non-sporting social goals. Organized into three main parts, this paper examines issues of power, politics, and patronage with respect to the SDP sector's organization and the implementation of programmes particularly in the global South. First, drawing on a sociological approach broadly derived from Pierre Bourdieu, we examine how the SDP sector is structured, featuring a variety of stakeholders with different interests and aspirations; we explore in particular the potential influence of relatively marginal campaign groups and new social movements. Second, we identify the complex issues and challenges of patronage and mutuality that arise in international SDP work involving the global North (donor) and global South (recipient) in the post-colonial context. Third, we consider how these issues impact upon the design, implementation and effects of SDP programmes with particular reference to relations of power between the global North and South. We conclude by advancing the case for a 'bottom-up', and more culturally and politically sensitive approach to be adopted by SDP stakeholders, particularly those based in the global North.

show abstract

“…The model organizes these stakeholders into four broad categories each associated with specific types of policy and practice within the sector (Giulianotti 2011). To summarize, we have:…”

Section: The Sdp Sector: a Contested Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sport for Development and Peace: Power, Politics, and Patronage

Giulianotti

Hognestad

Spaaij

2016

Journal of Global Sport Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These examples have, therefore, been purposively selected to enable examination of the significance of the SDGs and issues of policy coherence, not only within the identifiable SDP 'movement' (Giulianotti, 2011), but also across other aspects and stakeholders encompassed in the sport industry more broadly. This is not to suggest that these examples are exhaustive, either in the exposition accorded to each or in terms of encompassing the scope of all intersections between sport and the SDGs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sport and the Sustainable Development Goals: Where is the policy coherence?

Lindsey

Darby

2018

International Review for the Sociology of Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. This article addresses the urgent need for critical analysis of the relationships between sport and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) enshrined in the United Nations' global development framework, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Importantly, there has yet to be any substantial academic exploration of the implications of the position accorded to sport as 'an important enabler' of the aims of 2030 Agenda and its broad set of SDGs. In beginning to address this gap, we draw on the concept of policy coherence for two reasons. Firstly, the designation of a specific SDG Target for policy coherence is recognition of its centrality in working towards SDGs that are considered as 'integrated and indivisible'. Secondly, the concept of policy coherence is centred on a dualism that enables holistic examination of both synergies through which the contribution of sport to the SDGs can be enhanced as well as incoherencies by which sport may detract from such outcomes. Our analysis progresses through three examples that focus on the common orientation of the Sport for Development and Peace 'movement' towards education-orientated objectives aligned with SDG 4; potential synergies between sport participation policies and the SDG 3 Target for reducing non-communicable diseases; and practices within professional football in relation to several migration-related SDG Targets. These examples show the relevance of the SDGs across diverse sectors of the sport industry and illustrate complexities within and across countries that make pursuit of comprehensive policy coherence infeasible. Nevertheless, our analyses lead us to encourage both policy makers and researchers to continue to utilise the concept of policy coherence as a valuable lens to identify and consider factors that may enable and constrain various potential contributions of sport to a range of SDGs.

show abstract

“…Critique has particularly been raised in situations where SFD interventions are orchestrated by individuals or organizations from high-income countries (HICs), yet implemented in communities within low-and middleincome countries (LMICs). Here, concerns about power imbalances and the prioritization of ideologies stemming from HICs over subjugated LMIC communities surround (a) the potential for misunderstanding need (Beacom, 2007;Darnell, 2011); (b) the imposition of external cultural and social values (Giulianotti, 2011); (c) failure to adequately prioritize local knowledge, skill, and contribution (Lindsey & Grattan, 2012); and (d) the maintenance of Western hegemony (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2012;Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011).…”

Section: Sport-for-development In the South Pacificmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sport-for-Development in the South Pacific Region: Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Perspectives

Sherry

Schulenkorf

Seal

et al. 2017

Sociology of Sport Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the field of sport-for-development (SFD) has developed, there has been increasing debate over the ability of SFD programs to effect lasting structural change on target communities.Highlighting the barriers to SFD program delivery in five Pacific Island nations, in this paper we argue that numerous challenges emerging at macro-, meso-, and micro-levels must be explored, understood, and accounted for to enact structural change. Building on thematic findings from our empirical cross-nation research project, we discuss the importance of addressing SFD challenges at all levels of society to ensure that interventions are appropriately tailored for the specific and often divergent sociocultural contexts in the Pacific Islands region. We argue for a more holistic approach to planning, management, and evaluation when attempting to deliver structural change through sport.

show abstract

The Sport, Development and Peace Sector: A Model of Four Social Policy Domains

Cited by 124 publications

References 32 publications

Sport for Development and Peace: Power, Politics, and Patronage

Sport for Development and Peace: Power, Politics, and Patronage

Sport and the Sustainable Development Goals: Where is the policy coherence?

Sport-for-Development in the South Pacific Region: Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About