Sociology of Sport Unit VI Compare & Contrast Assignment

Sport Management Review, 2008,11, 225-251 © 2008 SMAANZ

Policy, Politics and Path Dependency: Sport Development in Australia and Finland

Mick Green and Shane Collins Loughborough University

KEYWORDS : sport development, elite sport development, Sport for All, path dependency

Sport development as a public policy priority has historically been on the periphery of governments' political agendas. This is not the case in the early twenty-first century however. Over the past decade, in nations as diverse as Canada, China, Germany, Norway, Poland, Singapore and the United Kingdom, public policies for sport development-related activity have increased in salience. This article reviews and analyses national sport development policy (across the mass-elite sport spectrum) in Australia and Finland; two countries with quite distinct political, cultural and sporting backgrounds. The analysis explores whether a path dependency approach can help towards a better understanding of sport development activity in each country. Our conclusions suggest that Australia (elite sport) and Finland (Sport for All) have remained on quite specific sport development pathways with little deviation, despite a few programs created in Australia to increase the levels of sport participation for targeted groups such as school children, women and indigenous Australians.

Historically, government interest in sport as an area of public policy could be characterised as little more than a passing interest with intermittent and variable levels of intervention. However, over the past decade at least, m nations as diverse as Canada, China, Germany, Norway, Poland, Singapore and the United Kingdom (UK), public policies for sport development-related activity have increased in salience (see Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset, N0dland, & Rommetvedt, 2007; De Bosscher, Bingham, Shibli, van Bottenburg, & De Knop, 2008; Green & Houlihan, 2005; Houlihan & Green, 2008). While the expansion of government interest in sport has followed somewhat different paths, in many countries sport and government have been inextricably linked across a diverse range of policy issues including health.

The authors are with the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, UK, LE113TU. E-mail for Mick Green: [email protected]

226 Green and Collins

social inclusion, community development, education and the achievement of elite sporting success (Houlihan, 1997). The nature of government intervention in sport has also been broad and wide-ranging with growing state regulatory activity (such as the licensing of coaches, control of doping, control of the sale of broadcasting rights for sports events and licensing of sport clubs), increasing levels of funding, rising numbers of cities bidding to host the summer Olympic Games and growing intemational support for the World Anti-Doping Code (Houlihan, 2005).

Against this backdrop of the expanding political salience of sport development activity, this article has three main aims. The first aim is to provide some detail on the policy trajectories for sport development in Australia and Finland, two countries with quite distinct political, cultural and sporting backgrounds. (Our focus is on national level policy developments and in particular on the relationships between government/government agencies and national sporting organisations.)' The second aim is to provide a theoretically informed analysis of these sport policy trajectories. Finally, we must not forget that national policies for sport development have "local" consequences. Therefore, a third aim is to provide some (tentative at this stage) comments on the potential ramifications, for practitioners and management professionals, of the particular "policy paths" adopted in each country. Specifically, we interrogate the relative emphasis given to the argument that, on the one hand, "policies determine politics" or, on the other hand, whether "politics determines policy" (Heinelt, 2005; Lowi, 1972). The latter asserts that "distinctive and durable national policymaking styles are causally linked to the policies of states" (Freeman, 1985, p. 469). The former, on the other hand, suggests that:

Policy change is tiot only the result of windows of opportunity suddenly opening as the result of some upheaval in the econotnic or political chmate. Policy change itself may open such windows by demonstrating that the previously unthitikable has become doable. (Klein & Marmor, 2006, p.9O4)

In other words, is it the case that a country's distinctive domestic national political and cultural system shapes, to a large degree, the formulation of poUcy development in different sectors? Or on the other hand, is it the case that policy decisions—in sectors such as sport, and sub-sectors such as sport development— are taken despite, and not because of, the broader political and cultural context of the nation? In the case of ehte sport development, for example, there is increasing evidence that, although there are subtle domestic (national) variations in the ways in which talented athletes are identified, supported and developed, many countries display a large degree of poHcy homogeneity in this respect (Green & Oakley, 2001; De Bosscher et al., 2008; Houlihan & Green, 2008).

A related theoretical concem is to explore the possibilities of "path dependency" (see, for example, Pierson, 2000) as a potentially helpful mechanism

1 National sporting organisation (NSO) is the terminology used in Australia for a national governing body of sport; for clarity, we also use this term in the Finnish case.

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 227

for better understanding the sport development policy process. For Evans (2005), the essence of path dependence is that later (policy) possibilities are constrained by earlier choices or events, foreclosing otherwise superior policy options. Whether greater emphasis is placed on the broader explanation for policy developments, that is, on the distinctive political, cultural and sporting history of a country, or whether it is the policy sector that reveals greater explanatory power in this respect, the "organising concept" (Kay, 2005, p. 554) of path dependency provides a (potentially) useful mechanism with which we might analyse temporal processes in sport development in Australia and Finland. To date, empirical and theoretical analyses from this perspective have interrogated sectors as varied as health (Evans, 2005; Greener, 2002; Ross, 2007), agriculture (Kay, 2003), market reform (Liew, 2005), finance (Deeg, 2001), and the peace process in Northern Ireland (Ruane & Todd, 2007). The sport policy sector has yet to come under such analytical scrutiny however. This article is therefore a contribution towards filling tlüs intellectual lacuna.

Research Design The selection of Australia and Finland as the case studies for analysis rests on the following rationale: i) as LaveUe (2005, p. 753) notes, "Neo-hberahsm has dominated pubHc-policy making [in Australia] since at least the 1980s". By contrast, Finland's political system is firmly rooted in the social democratic tradition (Collins, 2008). Elite sport development has been a key policy priority for Australian federal governments for at least the past 25 to 30 years (Green & Houlihan, 2005) whereas the emphasis in Finland has been clearly on sport development priorities at the mass participation level (Vuori, Lankenau, & Pratt, 2004). The relative salience of each country's political, social and cultural background for poHcy decisions taken in relation to sport development across tbe elite—mass sporting spectrum is a primary concern of this article.

We explore developments in Australia and Finland through a research design that draws on empirical research conducted in both countries over the past four to five years (Collins, 2008; Green & Houlihan, 2005). This includes a review of government documents on sport development activity as well as a series of interviews with senior officials in NSOs, government agencies and departments and with academics and analysts vmting on sport development issues. The themes around which questions were asked of our interviewees included: the relative emphasis placed upon elite sport activity by NSOs in relation to mass sport programs; the degree to which and the ways in which government/government agencies play a role in these activities; the relative stability of sport development policy priorities; and an identification of potential drivers for change in the sport policy sector. The remainder of the article is organised as follows. First, we provide an overview of the key insights regarding our theoretical assumptions highlighted above. Second, the

228 Grœn and Collins

policy trajectories of sport development in Australia and Finland are outlined. In the third section we discuss the ways in which "sport development" has been framed in both countries in the light of "contingent occurrences" (Mahoney, 2000, p. 501) in the past, and provide conclusions regarding the salience of our theoretical insights for sport development policy in comparative context.

Policy, Politics and Path Dependency Underlying much of the discussion about policy processes and policy change is the assumption that policy will change as a result of past experience or new information. As Greener (2002) notes, policy learning "considers policy legacies to be one of the most significant elements in determining present and future policy" (p. 162). As such, policy learning has much in common with the concept of path dependency which suggests that initial policy decisions can determine (or at least shape substantially) future pohcy choices: that "the trajectory of change up to a certain point constrains the trajectory after that point" (Kay, 2005, p. 553). Path dependency literature argues that a specific policy trajectory, such as elite sport development or Sport for All, is promoted via positive feedback mechanisms or the realisation of increasing returns once on a particular path (Pierson, 2000). It is through a variety of feedback mechanisms (see Deeg, 2001; Pierson, 2000) that action along a particular path is therefore reinforced, whue other potential policy options are excluded. The notion of increasing returns captures two key elements central to path dependency. First, increasing returns identify how the costs of switching from one option to another will, in certain contexts, increase over time and second, attention is drawn to issues of "timing and sequence, distinguishing formative moments or conjectures from the periods that reinforce divergent paths" (Pierson, 2000, p. 251). Path dependency is also connected to the broader policy analysis literature on the importance of institutions which, for Thelen and Steinmo (1992), are seen as significant constraints and mediating factors in politics, which "leave their own imprint" (p. 8). Whether the emphasis is on institutions as organisations or as sets of values and beliefs (culture) there is a strong historical dimension which emphasises the "relative autonomy of political institutions from the society in which they exist; ... and the unique patterns of historical development and the constraints they impose on future choices" (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995, p. 27).

The relevance of institutionalism within sport policy analysis is well documented. A number of authors have identified the organisational infrastructure of UK Sport as a significant variable in shaping policy (see, for example. Green, 2003; Henry, 2001; Houlihan & White, 2002; Pickup, 1996; Roche, 1993), while Krauss (1990) and Wilson (1994) draw similar conclusions with regard to the United States as do Macintosh (1991) and Macintosh and Whitson (1990) in relation to Canada. Allocation of functional responsibility for sport, federalism, the use of "arm's length" agencies, and the presence of a minister for sport are all seen as having a discernible impact on sport policy and its implementation.

Sport Developtnent in Australia and Finland 229

Perhaps more significant is the work of Esping-Andersen and his analysis of welfare states which is based on the hypothesis that the socio-economic and cultural foundatiotis of a country will shape policy. Esping-Andersen (1990) identified three types of welfare regime: liberal, conservative and social democratic, using the private-public mix in welfare provision, the degree of de-commodification and modes of stratification or solidarities as dependent variables. Liberal welfare regimes, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and the UK "reflect a political commitment to minimise the state, to individualise risks, and to promote market solutions" and adopt a "narrow conception of what risks should be cotisidered 'social'" (Esping-Andersen, 1999, p. 74ff). By contrast the social democratic welfare regime is "virtually synonymous with the Nordic countries" and is "committed to comprehensive risk coverage, generous benefit levels, egalitadanism", the de-commodification of welfare and the "fusion of tmiversalism with generosity" (Esping-Andersen, 1999, p. 78ff). Conservative welfare regimes, such as Germany and Austria, are characterised by their blend of "status segmentation and famiHaUsm". Social security systems are based on occupational schemes and corporaüst status divisions. The "accent on compulsory social insurance" means that "ptirely private market provision of welfare remains marginal" with the family and non-profit, "voluntary" associations frequently affiliated with the Church playing an important role (Esping-Andersen, 1999, p. 81ff).

Although the tripartite categorisation of welfare regimes has been criticised on a number of grounds (Castles & Mitchell, 1990; Leibfried, 1990; Siaroff, 1994), debate has tended to be around methodology and categorisation rather than challenges to the tmderlying asstimption that socio-economic and cultural historical factors constrain contemporary policy development. If it is accepted that socio-economic and cultural history creates policy predispositions then it is likely that these wiU be reinforced and compounded by the accretion of policy decisions. Past decisions consequently need to be seen as institutions in relation to current policy choices with path dependency capturing the insight that "policy decisions accumulate over time; a process of accretion can occtir in a policy area that restricts options for futtire poHcy-makers" (Kay, 2005, p. 558).

In a hard application of the concept of path dependency one would argue that early decisions in a policy area result in a policy trajectory that is locked onto a set cotirse albeit one that might, in Esping-Andersen's terms, be particular to a certain type of policy regime. A hard application of the concept in relation to elite sport development would lead one to suggest that a prior commitment to a social democratic model of welfare and/or a commitment to mass participation in sport would make the adoption of an elite athlete development policy difficult, as it would require a break with established values of tmiversalism and non-commodification. A softer application of the concept would suggest that early decisions do not lock a policy on a specific trajectory, but do significantly constrain subsequent policy options (Kay, 2005; Pierson, 2000). As regards elite sport development, it might be argued that while it may be possible to adopt an elite-focused policy the range

230 Green and Collins

of policy instruments that could be adopted to achieve its implementation might be path dependent. For example, it might be acceptable to support elite athletes as long as elite development is seen as a by-product of a strong commitment to mass participation. By contrast, an elite development policy that was disconnected from mass participation, relying for example on early selection of potential high- performance athletes, would be less acceptable.

In path dependency approaches, although the apphcation of "increasing returns" has received most attention ia the field of economics (where "hard data" predominates), Pierson (2000, p. 252) contends that "increasing returns arguments are at least as relevant to an understanding of politics as they are to other areas of the social sciences". Indeed, it is argued that four features of politics make it particularly prone to the notion of increasing returns: i) the central role of collective action; ii) the high density of institutions; iii) the possibilities for using political authority to enhance asymmetries of power; and iv) its intrinsic complexity and opacity (pp. 257-262). Despite this, there have been a number of criticisms in the application of path dependency to public policy analysis (e.g., Kay, 2005; Pierson, 2000; Ross, 2007). Notable is the difficulty of borrowing a theory that has been so extensively used in another field.

Despite the challenge of adapting such explanatory mechanisms it is argued that the application of path dependency stretches the temporal horizon of sport policy analysis and thereby provides a valuable lens through which to analyse developments in different countries. Indeed, Pierson (2000, p. 252) claims that arguments regarding increasing returns can redirect the questions that political scientists ask, thereby "contributing to a richer appreciation of historical processes in generating variation in political analysis". In addition, there is also the potential for path dependency to explain "not only why policies may be difficult to reform but also why they become more complex overtime" (Kay, 2005, pp. 554-555). Finally, by exploring the concept of increasing returns, attention is drawn to particular variables which may in turn highlight sources of both political change and stability in certain common political settings. In relation to this, a case in point is the contention that it is the particular sequencing of events, or processes, that may provide a key part of the explanation for divergent outcomes (Pierson, 2000).

Sport Development in Australia and Finland What follows is an overview of the context within which sport development has emerged, developed and changed in Australia and Finland, A chief concern is to map the ways in which, and the degree to which, governments in both countries have intervened in sport development activity and also to interrogate the relative salience of the broader social and political environment for the sport development policy process.

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 231

Australia Green and Houlihan (2005) argue that the first significant intervention in the sport policy sector by the Australian federal government did not occur until the early 1970s, with the election of a Labor Government following 23 years of Liberal Party and National/Country Party coalition government. A federal Ministry of Tourism and Recreation was established by the new Labor Government whose programs reflected the administration's main commitment to fostering mass participation; at this time, elite sport development was a peripheral concem. Support for mass participation over elite sport development is clear in a statement from the Minister for Tourism and Recreation in 1972: "Our task lies ... in meeting more basic needs, in catering for masses, not just a small elite" (quoted in Semotiuk, 1986, p. 162).

As Green and Houlihan (2005) note, one of the defining moments for sport development in Australia was the establishment, in 1981, of the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS): a "critical juncture" for the emergence of a policy framework for developing medal-winning eûtes in the country. The establishment of the AIS is important for at least two reasons. First, on a political/philosophical level, the delay in implementing findings from two reports in the 1970s (Bloomfield, 1973; Coles, 1975), which recommended the creation of an elite sports institute, reflected the Liberal and National/Country Party's aversion to intervention in the sport policy sector. Yet, as Green and Houlihan (2005) also observe, the cross-party support for the AIS (and therefore elite sport) was a clear indication of increasing policy convergence between the two major political administrations during the 1980s. Second, on a more symbolic level, the public outcry over the poor performances of Australian athletes at the 1976 and 1980 Olympic Games signalled the positive political capital to be gained from supporting the development of an elite sports institute (Paddick, 1997).

Under the Liberal and National/Country Party Government, in the period between 1975-1983, the Department of Tourism and Recreation was abohshed only for the incoming Labor Government to re-estabUsh a department that included a Sport portfolio in its remit - the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The Labor Party also oversaw the creation of the Austrahan Sports Commission (ASC) in 1985. The ASC distributes federal government funding for sport and, although the ASC's two main objectives cross-cut the mass participation/elite development spectrum, the commitment to balance these twin objectives has been called into question. This point is bome out by an influential government-sponsored report which argued that "There is a view among some stakeholders that participation has been starved of resources while Commonwealth Government programs have focused on elite sport and that this situation needs to be addressed" (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999, p. 73). Indeed, Magdalinski (2000) maintains that the establishment of the AIS and the ASC during the 1980s signalled federal government (financial) support "that would ensure Ausfralia's 'retum to glory'" (p. 317).

232 Green and Collins

The decision in 1993 by the Intemational Olympic Committee to award the 2000 Olympic Games to Sydney had a profound effect on the pace and direction of federal sport policy organisation, administration and funding allocations throughout the 1990s; a decision, moreover, which further strengthened the elite sport lobby in Australia (Green & Houlihan, 2005). Green and Houlihan also suggest that four points are worthy of note in this respect. First, policy direction for sport, in general, in the 1990s was shaped by an increasingly centralised and federally- funded organisational and administrative structure. Second, and clearly related to the first point, at the heart of this organisational and administrative structure is the overarching role of the ASC and AIS. The third point concerns the establishment in 1993 of the National Elite Sports Council (NESC), the primary purpose of which was to facilitate greater co-ordination across all bodies involved in the development of elite-focused programs (e.g., Pyke & Norris, 2001). The fourth and final point relates to funding allocations for sport. The impact of the Sydney Olympic Games for funding allocations, particularly in relation to NSOs, was signalled by a senior ASC official:

If you look at the Commission statements about its purpose and where its funds go, over the last three Olympics there was clearly a trend [towards elite sport investment] over that period. With the awarding of the Oljniipics to Sydney the buUc of the funding was quite clearly orientated toward getting results in Sydney to a point that we disallowed the use of ASC fimds in high performance for underpinning programs as we got closer to the Games. (Interview: 26 September 2006)

What is patently clear from the above discussion is that, since the establishment of the AIS in 1981 and the ASC in 1985, the sport development policies of Australia's federal adminisfrations have led to the emergence of a systematic, planned and increasingly scientific approach to developing the country's elite athletes. In relation to this, a recurrent and significant theme in the development of Australian sport policy is the discourse surrounding relative funding allocations for mass participation initiatives and those for elite level programs. In other words, the political rhetoric of support for mass participation programs has not been matched with comparable funding allocations provided for elite sport development. As Hogan and Norton (2000) argue, funding has been targeted towards "the skill development of talented athletes in the continuum of elite athlete 'production'" (pp. 215-216). Comments from a senior ASC official provide support for the arguments regarding the continued disparity in funding:

70% of our money goes to high performance, 30% goes to participation, participation as we see it feeds into high performance; without it you wouldn't get it It is effectively a base for the high performance. (Interview: 25 September, 2006)

If increasing medal counts at the Olympic Games is the outcome sought from policies framed around elite sport then, from the creation of the AIS, Australian sport development priorities have yielded impressive returns. From Montreal in 1976 (5 medals)—pre-AIS—to Sydney in 2000 (58 medals) and Athens in 2004 (49

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 233

medals) the Australian federal government has witnessed ever-increasing returns (i.e. medals) on its investment in, and support for, elite sport development. Yet, some observers suggest that Australian sport is facing a critical moment as it moves away from the euphoria of Sydney 2000 (Stewart-Weeks, 1997; Stewart, Nicholson, Smith, & Westerbeek, 2004). While there is little argtmient that sport is an integral part of the federal government policy mix, "At the moment the Commonwealth Government is still searching for the right balance of excellence and participation" (Stewart et al, 2004, p. 192).

The disparity of commitment to both ends of the sport development spectrum by the federal government can be explored by analysing funding allocations for non-elite sport development; in the 1999-2000 budget, for example, 78% of funding was allocated to excellence in sport performance while 10% was directed towards improved participation (Hogan & Norton, 2000). By 2006-2007 the AIS allocation of funding across 26 sports was $20,386,283 with a ñirther $48,303,000 allocated to high performance programs in 49 NSOs. More recently the federal government announced that it would allocate in excess of $125 million for excellence in sport, with an additional $12.1 million to be allocated for the redevelopment of the AIS and the estabhshment of an elite training base in Italy. In the corresponding period, a total of $67 million is to be allocated for improving participation levels in sport (Kemp, 2006). In short, the federal government commitment to the AIS and elite sport does not show any signs of waning.

Disparity in funding is also evident with regard to funding grants allocated to NSOs that have been identified as primary deliverers in relation to achieving elite sport objectives ant/increased levels of participation. Funding allocated to NSOs by the federal government to increase participation generally and for targeted groups, in particular (e.g., women, indigenous people and people with disabilities), made up a very small part of recent overall budget allocations. Ftorthermore, overall funding to NSOs for these groups liecreaíeí/between 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 (see Table 1). In 2005-2006, the overall funding allocated to NSOs to increase participation was approximately 3% of the overall NSO allocation and, in 2007-2008, this decreased to 1.6%. In the corresponding period, funding allocated for elite sport was approximately 95% and 93% respectively of the total NSO grant allocation.

Given the disparity in funding, it is therefore not surprising that over the past 25 to 30 years or so there has been little evidence of a dramatic increase in the levels of sport participation (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999; Stewart et al, 2004). This is also despite significant funding of grassroots sport at sub-national government levels, where the primary responsibility for addressing mass sport lies. Indeed, the Sport 2000 Task Force concluded that there has been a "decline of numbers participating in organised sport during the last 25 years ... [and] participation has been starved of resources while Commonwealth Government programs have focused on elite sport" (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999, p. 73). This finding correlates sfrongly with Stewart et al. (2004), who maintain that "the last 20 years of sport development has been accompanied by more than $1 bilhon

234 Green and Collins

of Commonwealth Government funding, with most of it directed at elite sport"

(p. 189). In 2000-2001 the states and territories contributed a total of $875.2 million to

sport and recreation activities while local government contributed $1,050.1 miUion.

This is compared with Commonwealth Government contributions of $198.9 million

(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). Moreover, Bloomfield (2003) estimated that

the contribution of local government to sport and recreation was even greater, with

$1.13 billion allocated per year by local government, or ahnost 19% of the entire

Australian sport budget.

Table 1 : NSO Grants and AIS allocations ($A)'

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

Targeted Sports Participation Growth program''

Indigenous Sport

CONNECT

Women and Sport Better Management Framework'

Sport Leadership Grants for Women

Total - sport participation

AIS Allocation

High Performance'

Nationai Talent identification

Total - elite sport funding

Total ASC funding to AIS and NSOs

1,165,000

700,000

360,000

100,000

2,325,000

17,808,000

48,303,000

Net avaiiable

66,111,000

69,468,500

355,000

700,000

85,000

100,000

34,925

1,274,925

20,386,283

45,122,200

2,850,000

68,358,483

79,932,660

205,000

700,000

240,000

100,000

55,330

1,300,330

21,216,250

52,361,100

3,095,000

76,672,350

81,952,680

Adapted from ASC (2005,2006b, 2007)'

Notes ' Note that this table does not include all funding categories for NSOs. ^ In the 2005-2006 fiinding allocations to NSOs, there was only one funding stream which was allocated

to Women and Sport - it is unclear whether this included hoth the Women and Sport Better Management Framework and Sport Leadership Grants for Women.

^ In 2005-2006 funding for high performance was included under "Total Sports Grant" to NSOs. It is therefore unclear what percentage of this sum was directly allocated to high performance.

" The Targeted Sports Participation Growth program was established hy the Australian Sports Commission in 2002, initially for 21 estabhshed sports. A key aim was to achieve increased and sustained levels of sport participation.

' As the Sport 2000 Task Force acknowledges, it is extremely difficult to ohtain government-related sport ñinding "information broken down into expenditure areas" (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999, p. 67) and particularly over longer periods of time. However, while recognising this point, it is possible to provide a "snapshot" view of relative funding allocations by the Commonwealth Government that points to disproportionate distrihutions. Over 15 years ago, the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories (1992, p. 14) puhlished information on sport and recreation funding data from 1979-

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 235

1980 to 1989-1990. This information reveals, amongst other things, that the AIS (elite sport programs) received fimding per annum that increased from just over $A1 million in 1980-1981 to almost $A13.5 million in 1987-1988. For the same years, allocations for what was termed "recreation and fitness" (mass participation programs) were just $A700,000 and $A671,000 respectively.

However, there have been a number of national programs, including Aussport, established in 2002, and its predecessor Active Australia, which were created with the purpose of increasing levels of physical activity. More recently the level of commitment by the Commonwealth Government to increasing participation levels appears to be growing with the announcement in 2004 of the Active After-schools Community Program (AASC), a four-year $90 million participation program (ASC, 2005). In 2007, an additional $124.4 million was committed by the Commonwealth Government to extend the program for a further three years (Brandis, 2007). Aimed at increasing participation amongst primary school-aged children, the AAsC program may be a precursor to moves away from the entrenched use of grassroots sport as a platform for producing elite athletes:

We [ASC] have been able to generate more funding for grassroots [sport] but largely on the back of issues such as obesity and physical activity not on the basis that it will support pathways for a better high performance. (Interview: senior ASC ofBcial, 26 September 2006)

Recent policy dociunents highlight the importance of sport in addressing rising levels of obesity and declining levels of physical activity amongst youth, with a particular concern being the "relatively low levels of physical activity among children and the resultant health and physical development issues such as increasing childhood obesity and declining motor skiU development" (ASC, 2006a: 3; see also Liberal Party & The Nationals, 2004). What remains unclear at this stage is whether, on the one hand, the significant investment in the AASC program reflects a genuine long-term shift in the prioritisation of grassroots sport as an area of sport policy development or, on the other hand, whether this remains a fixed-term program with limited impact on overall participation levels in the future. However, the lack of any concerted resistance to the direction of the Commonwealth Government sport poUcy over the last 30 years suggests that it is unlikely to change dramatically in the immediate ftiture (Stewart et al., 2004).

While the increase in fimding during the build-up to the 2000 Olympics Games was expected and indeed demanded from the Austrahan government, it is perhaps surprising that this trend has continued given the increasing awareness surrounding the health costs associated with growing levels of obesity and decreasing levels of physical activity. Nevertheless, elite sport development remains a paramount political and policy priority in Australia in tbe first decade of the twenty-first century. As Stewart at al. (2004) argue, "any political party [in Australia] that includes a severe sport budget cutback in their policy platform wiU do so at their electoral peril" (p. 192).

236 Green and Collins

Finland Finland stands in stark contrast to Austraha (and more recently in nations where neo-Hberal, free-market thinking has predominated, e.g. Canada, New Zealand, the UK and even in Singapore), where government investment in sport has focused on developing elite sporting success (Houlihan & Green, 2008). Finnish sport policy promotes sport programs which aim to increase levels of (mass) participation in sport and physical activity. Finland's success with regard to achieving high levels of participation was acknowledged by the UK which considered Finland's achievement as an exemplar for British sport to strive towards (DCMS/Strategy Unit, 2002). High levels of participation in sport and physical activity amongst Finnish adults was also confirmed in the 1999 COMPAS S survey, which indicated that Finland had been able to attain levels of sport participation across various age groups and between gender groups that few other countries had been able to achieve (COMPASS, 1999).

Since the late 1960s, Finnish sport policy has remained on a consistent path where access to sport for the masses has been prioritised above that of elite sport development. Over the past 35 years little deviation from this focus has been evident, supporting what a niunber of authors have described as path dependency (e.g., Deeg, 2001; Heinelt, 2005; Pierson, 2000). It is here that the work of Esping- Anderson and his socio-economic and cultural foundations of state shaping policy hypothesis appears particularly relevant to the trajectories in Finnish sport development poHcy.

In contrast to the "neo-liberal policy frames" (Marsh, 2005, p. 23) that have been at the forefront of Australian politics for at least the past two decades (e.g.. Dean & Hindess, 1998; Lavelle, 2005; Wanna & Weiler, 2003), Finland has been characterised as a country that has adopted policies aligned with social democratic principles (Huber & Stephens, 1998). By the late 1960s, an incomes policy system had emerged sustained by a series of centre-left coalition governments. What followed over two decades was a series of social reforms which saw relatively high levels of welfare spending, the development of an extensive social and health service sector and the development of a large public sector (Huber & Stephens, 1998; Nygârd, 2006).

It was during the 1960s and 1970s that many aspects of social life became part of the political sphere which resulted in the adoption of sport as a tool for social policy purposes, particularly in relation to achieving goals with regard to health (Woodward, 1986). Increasingly, political parties became involved in sport and, with the modernisation of Finnish society, new connections between the state and voluntary organisations, including sport, began to develop (Heikkala, Honkanen, Laine, Pullinen, & Ruuskanen-Himma, 2003).

The emergence of the welfare state provided a favourable environment for Sport for All (SfA) to develop with "sport and physical activity seen as part of building a welfare society where sport and physical culture were part of our social policy" (Interview: senior government official, 2 June 2005). Up until the 1960s,

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 237

however, the focus of Finnish sport policy had been firmly focused on supporting traditional competitive sport. The development of Finnish sport and the Finnish political system were closely related, both in respect of timing and substance, with the political system having a major influence on the support and, at times, existence of sporting organisations (Kiviaho, 1981). Therefore, the political shin to a social democratic welfare state can be considered a "critical juncture" for the redirection of Fmnish sport policy towards SfA. As a senior Finnish academic observed:

Sport was considered part of social policy, which was the first time this happened in sport history. Sport [became] part of the social, political, the welfare of the nation, all the preventative things you could do with the help of sport were recognised during those days. (Interview: 1 June 2005)

The shin towards supporting SfA principles was signalled by an extensive period of facility development: between 1964 and 2002 the number of sporting facilities in Finland increased from 14,148 to 29,280. Investment in sports facilities continued wdth local government investing 16.7 billion Finnish marks between 1975 and 1990 (Stahl, Rutten, Nutbeam, & Kannas, 2002). It was not until 1979, however, that this period of rapid facility development was formaused with the publication of the first National Sport Facility plan (Stahl et al, 2002). The belief that the provision of sporting facilities would facilitate increased levels of sport participation is one that is central to the sport policy system. Indeed, a senior government official explained that:

In our system we are trying to let all flowers grow, a broad spectrum, because we believe genuinely that the more possibilities you have [through provision of facilities] the more likely it is people will do something. (Interview: 2 June 2005)

Increased resources and an increasingly strong discourse regarding the benefits of sport emerged during the 1970s. State documents began to reflect growing support for SfA with a report by the planning section of the State Sports Council in 1970 including recommendations to improve opportunities for fitness sports (Vuori et al, 2004), while in 1974 a government legislative committee was established which presented arguments in favour of SfA (Stahl et al., 2002). During the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s a number of government policies and strategy documents reinforced the principles of SfA. A key document in the development of sport policy in Finland was the report of the Sports Act Committee in 1976, which provided the foundation for the passing of the Sports Act in 1980. The 1980 Sports Act not only formalised the extant informal structures and processes regarding the provision of sporting facilities and programs in Finland, but also officially recognised the social significance of the sports movement (Heinilae, 1988).

As a result of the Sports Act, central government was able to influence municipalities (and as a consequence NSOs) to shin their traditional focus on providing for competitive sport towards providing sporting facilities and opportunities for the masses. Subsidies were allocated to municipalities for the express purpose

238 Green and Collins

of providing "sports secretaries" (local organisers) along with funds allocated to local sports associations, and NSOs (Vuori et al., 2004). Intervention by the state in directing the way in which municipalities both allocated capital and organised their sport divisions raised an interesting contrast to the hands-off approach taken towards NSOs. In part this reflected the values and beliefs of the Finnish political system where autonomy of voluntary organisations is considered an important part of society. In relation to this, a senior government official explained that:

The whole idea in our civil society is the idea of autonomy, even though it is a little bit of a paradox that the state is subsidising voltmteer activity, we are trying to maintain a partnership but still let them have their own autonomy in these issues. (Interview: 2 June 2005)

Despite the increased level of government commitment to SfA, clubs and NSOs continued to emphasise competitive or elite sport (Koski, 1999). However, a significant change occurred in 1993 with the structural reform of sporting organisations. In 1991, driven by a desire to reduce the divisiveness of the political ideology upon which the major NSOs were based, a lack of cohesiveness among sporting organisations, and inefficiency due to duplication of programs and structures, the government, together with the NSOs, entered an extensive period of consultation with the aim of structural reform. The structural changes that occurred in 1993 dramatically altered the face of Finnish sport, transforming it from a sector divided by political affiliations towards a more coordinated and cohesive structure. This was to be a "critical juncture" for the meshing of SfA principles into structural change.

As part of the change an umbrella organisation, the Finnish Sports Federation, and three Domain Organisations were formed. The Domain Organisations were identified as having responsibility for three areas, youth sport, (Young Finland), Sport for All (Sport for All Association) and elite sport (Finnish National Olympic Committee). Although Young Finland and the Sport for All Association were established in 1988 and 1961 respectively, it was not until the structural change in 1993 that recognition of their role as Domain Organisations strengthened. It was due to the overlap and duplication of work carried out by NSOs in relation to youth sport, SfA and elite sport that the Domain Organisations were given responsibility for overseeing activity and promoting and coordinating national strategies in relation to their particular areas of responsibihty. More significantly. Domain Organisations assist in the preparation of data relating to the performance of NSOs (through Management by Results, see below) and provide feedback to the Ministry of Education (within which the Sports Division is located) regarding the performance of different sports.

The structural change was quickly followed by the introduction of Management by Results (MBR), a new managerial process which provided a framework for the allocation of resources to NSOs. The allocation of state funds through the MBR process was based on the performance of NSOs in three areas:

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 239

youth sport, SfA and elite sport; with 50% of an NSO's funding allocated according to its performance with regard to youth sport, 25% allocated according to SfA results, and 25% according to results in elite or top-level sport (Heikkala & Koski, 1999). It is here that a paradox emerges however.

Despite the introduction of policies aimed at encouraging NSOs to focus on youth and SfA, NSOs are not required to allocate resources accordingly. Although a clear aim of the introduction of MBR was to professionalise NSOs, there remained a reluctance by the state to interfere or directly impose its will on sporting organisations. Therefore, "even if the money comes 50% for Sport for All ... the federations [NSOs] can decide how they want to use the money" (Interview: senior NSO official, 7 March 2006). Nevertheless, the introduction of MBR impacted upon the direction and activities of NSOs, with a two-fold effect. First, to influence the focus of the NSOs in their activities and second to increase the efficiency and professionaUsaüon of Finnish sport (Heikkala & Koski, 1999). Indeed, a senior NSO official argued that:

MBR ... has meant that the national sport govertiing bodies' Sport for All [programs] are more professional in terms of their organisation. Nearly all national sport governing bodies now have their own SfA. program. It is better organised and professional. (Interview: 9 March 2006)

Throughout the 1990s, Finnish sport policies continued to reflect the government's emphasis on providing sporting opportunities for all, together with an increasing emphasis placed on the positive health benefits of sport and physical activity (Vuori, Paronen, & Oja, 1998). Government priorities at this time were outlined in the Report of the Sports Committee: The Direction of Finnish Sports Policy for the 1990s with a key priority identified as "Well-being through exercise and sports - Sports for All" (Vuori et al., 2004, p. 332). Continuing the focus on providing for all groups in society, policies were also directed towards disadvantaged groups through the Committee on Sports for People with Disabilities. Further changes to state ftmding criteria in 1995 for NSOs meant that non-competitive sports and physical activity for youth and adults was again reitiforced (Vuori et al, 2004).

Together with the legislative fi-amework, national projects were established which reinforced the government's commitment to SfA and health-enhancing physical activity. The two national programs, "Finland on the Move", in 1991, and its successor, "Fit for Life" were implemented with the aim of providing opportunities for, and motivating, ordinary citizens over 40 years of age to participate in regular physical activity. Yet, the introduction of the national SfA programs was also recognition by the Finnish government that sports clubs were unable (or unwilling) to deliver this type of service to its members and therefore government intervention was required (Wuolio, 2003). However, the previous focus by NSOs on competitive sport appears to be shining. Although NSOs remain the primary organisations responsible for developing elite sport within their respective fields, acknowledgment that NSOs have a social responsibility to encourage participation is also evident.

240 Green and Collins

This point was reinforced by the CEO of a NSO who argued that, "for the health of the nation and the people of Finland, we should get those people who are not practising any sport to get practising sport" (Interview: 7 March, 2006).

The second Sports Act (1998) illusfrated a continued focus on SfA principles with a growing emphasis on health and well-being and the support of young people's growth and development, both of which required continued participation in sport and/or physical activity to achieve these goals. While elite level sport was recognised within the Sports Act as an activity which would be promoted, the criteria for resource allocation continued to support the goals of SfA. State funding to sport organisations was to be influenced by the "social significance" and the "quality and extent" of the activities, while subsidies for sports facilities which met "the needs of broad user groups" were to be promoted (Liikuntalaki, 1998).

Furthermore, funding allocated by the state to sport has continued to reinforce the importance of SfA. Between 1995 and 2003 funding allocated to NSOs, municipalities and the building and development of sport facilities has consistently made up about 60% of the total state budget (see Table 2). It is not unreasonable to argue that, given the emphasis placed upon the development of facilities which cater for a broad range of users (rather than elite users only), the increasing emphasis placed on SfA activities by municipalities and the introduction of MBR for NSOs, state funding is primarily directed towards areas that support SfA. In contrast, fimding allocated to elite sport has consistently remained at much lower levels. In 1995 funding allocated by the state to elite sport was about 6% of the total budget. Despite increasing to about 8% of the total budget in 1996, between 1997 and 2003, support for elite sport has continued to fluctuate between 6.9% and 7.7% (Ministry of Education, 2003). It is important to note, however, that these elite sport figures do not include funding that NSOs may use for elite sport programs and they therefore may under-represent the total funding allocated to elite sport. Nevertheless, what has been consistent between 1995 and 2003 is the relatively low level of funding targeted directly at elite sport development in comparison with areas that support SfA.

As a strong culture of sport participation developed, government concerns regarding the potentially negative aspects of elite sport were confirmed in 2001. The positive testing of six Finnish athletes at the 2001 Lahti Nordic World Skiing Championships, while a significant event for elite sport, also provided positive feedback for the chosen policy path of SfA. Following a national inquiry there were significant fimding cuts to NSOs from both government and private sponsors. It was estimated that Finnish sport lost between €10 to 15 million from sponsors and state funding as a direct consequence of the incident (Interview: senior NOC official, 7 March 2006). As well as the financial implications, the doping incident confirmed the negative aspects of elite sport and reinforced the argument that state investment is better directed towards supporting SfA rather than elite sport.

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 24 ?

Table 2: Distribution of State Funding 1995-2003^ (€1000)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Sports Organisations 20,351 19,392 19,787 19,964 20,317 20,401 21,354 22,301 22,434

2,422 2,691 2,472 2,523 2,523 2,691 2,758 2758 2,758

Building and/or development of 10,596 10,932 13,741 14,649 14,105 14,072 14,044 14,638 14,386 sports facilities

Physical education 15,171 14,869 17,808 20,055 13,016 13,470 13,558 13,747 13,832

Municipality sports 17,878 16,778 15,347 14,891 15,410 15,637 15,708 15,547 15,363 activities

Sports Science 4,037 3,861 4,408 4,691 4,457 4,559 4,779 5,344 5,665

Others 2,826 3,378 5,093 6,734 8,450 9,064 9,421 10,039 11,307

Total 73,279 71,902 78,657 83,507 78,278 79,894 81,622 84,374 85,745

Adapted from Ministry of Education (2003)-

Notes ' Monetary values have been scaled to 2003 value. ^ Elite sport allocation includes funding to the Finnish Olympic Committee (FOC), Finnish Paralympic

Committee, grants for athletes and coaches, Finnish Anti-doping Committee, Centre for Competitive and Elite Sport and funding for signiñcant events such as world championships. These figures have not been specifically referred to in Table 2 as they were not available in disaggregated form. However, funding to the FOC (included in Table 2 above) relates specifically to funding for ehte sport. All figures in Table 2 were the most recently available and have been translated from Finnish into English.

The 2001 doping scandal was an event which further reinforced the path of providing sporting opportunities for the masses and reinforced some of the negative consequences of ehte sport. On this issue, a senior Finnish Sports Federation official commented that "No one really dares to talk about more investment [in ehte sport] ... it's not really .... a good thing today to talk about elite sport because there are too many problems with doping and cheating and whatever [else] there might be" (Interview: 9 March 2006). This draws attention to the complex aspect of learning within politics and the social interpretations of complex environments. In this respect, Pierson (2000, p. 260) argues that the use of supporting information for a particular path of action means that "confirming information tends to be incorporated and disconfirming information is filtered out". The Minister of Culture, who is responsible for government sport policy, reinforced this view in explaining that winning in sport received too much emphasis and, as a result, this "drives the athlete into hopeless, unthinking acts, there is no shame in losing honestly. The shame hes in winning by questionable means" (Pyykkönen, 2003, p. 23).

242 Green and Collins

Discussion and Conciusions The argument that "The heavy hand of history may hang over the most transformative of policy breakthroughs" (Hacker, 1998, p. 130) is persuasively attractive yet, as Evans (2005, p. 279) notes, "it is a history and institutional structure peculiar to each country". This is a useful point to bear in mind as we analyse the policy trajectories of sport development in Australia and Finland.

In the case of Australia, for the best part of three decades the federal government has conceptualised "sport development" to a very large degree as the means by which elite athletes might flourish. While intemational sporting success matters for Australians, it appears to matter less, with regard to sport development priorities, whether the country is govemed either by a Labor or a Liberal-Country administration. The disappointing performance of Australian athletes at the 1976 and 1980 Olympic Games resulted in cross-party political support for the development of (elite) sport policy, primarily as a tool to promote national identity and to restore Australia to its "rightful place" on the intemational sporting stage. Set against values associated with Esping-Anderson's liberal welfare regime, the explanation that politics determines policy finds particular favour with regard to Australia. Along with this is a compelling argument for, and example of, path dependent relationships. Importantly, also apparent in the case of Australian sport development is evidence of what Mahoney (2000, p. 507) terms as the importance of "contingent events [which] set into motion institutional pattems or event chains that have deterministic properties".

So embedded are the institutional and administrative arrangements for elite sport development in Australia, that the federal government has been unable or unwilling to retrench from a position where it is highly supportive of elite sport policy. This is despite calls for at least the past three decades for a re-thiaking of the government's overt emphasis on elite development due to a perception that it is detrimental to mass participation programs (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999; Stewart et al., 2004). Notwithstanding recent federal government rhetoric around extra funding for mass participation programs (Department of Industry, Science & Resources, 2001), against a background of generalised concems about rising obesity levels in the population, and in children and young people in particular, the political cost of retrenchment from support for elite development was just too great for this to be a viable path to take (Stewart et al., 2004). In short, as Klein and Marmor (2006, p. 903) explain, "history matters".

Moreover, as Kay (2005) argues, "Path dependency encapsulates the insight that policy decisions accumulate over time ... [which] restricts options for future policymakers" (p. 558). Several crucial decisions (contingent events) taken over the past 25 to 30 years point to a strong argument for path dependency in the case of Australia. First, the decision to prioritise elite (Olympic) athlete development in the early 1980s - prominent here was the establishment of the AIS in 1981 - was crucial as it signalled a significant break with previous government thinking

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 243

about sport priorities following poor performances by Australian athletes at the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games (Stewart et al, 2004). This event can be viewed not only as a significant exogenous shock but also as a "critical juncture" or triggering event, "which set development along a particular path" (Pierson, 2000, p. 263).

Second, the establishment of the Australian Sports Commission in 1985 as the countiy's leading governmental sporting agency reinforced the institutionalisation of poHtical commitment to elite development - despite continuing official federal rhetoric around support for mass participation (Armstrong, 1997; Booth, 1995; Commonwealth of Australia, 1999). Third, the decision to bid for the right to host the 2000 Olympic Games and the subsequent award in 1993 of the Games to Sydney meant that the government was not about to divert from this path - or at least not consider divergence until after the Games. Fourth, the decision taken after the Sydney Games—^when political support for elite sport might have been expected to be on the wane—to maintain relatively lower levels of funding for mass participation programs than for elite development suggests that change is highly unlikely in the near future at least.

Undeniably, Australia's elite athletes have enjoyed considerable medal- winning success at recent Olympic Games, in 2000 and 2004 in particular. Therefore, with httle evidence of a strong voice for the mass participant in Australia, and with such strong public and media support for elite success, it is hard to conceive of conditions in which the federal government would tum from the path chosen some 25 years ago. In this case, the political "costs" of switching from the path of elite athlete development are deemed to be too high and it appears that, in Austraha, the quest for sustained excellence at the intemational level has been difficult to forgo once established (Green, 2007). As Pierson (2000) argues in a different but related context, as social and political actors "make commitments based on existing institutions and policies, their cost of exit from established arrangements generally rises dramaticaUy" (p. 259). The dynamics of increasing retums and positive feedback is evident here as steps taken in a particular direction by the Australian federal government towards greater support for ehte development triggered "a self-reinforcing dynamic" (Pierson, 2000, p. 260). In other words, the generation of increased numbers of Olympic medals and the concomitant positive (political) symbolism that attaches itself to a successful Olympic nation means that, for Australia at least, retrenchment from this position has become politically unthinkable (Stewart et al., 2004).

The "street-level" consequences of such path dependent embeddedness for sport development practitioners and management professionals in Australia may be quite profound. The insight that configurations of complementary institutions within which the procedures and interests of each is affected by the existence of others (Deeg, 2001) is judicious in this case. The configtiration of federal government (cross-party) consensus, support and legitimation for elite sport development, and the predominant power (largely but not confined to funding) exerted by the AIS and the ASC for over two decades has resulted in a relatively bleak scenario for grassroots

244 Green and Collins

level sport development. Indeed, Stewart et al.'s (2004, p. 74) review of Australian national sport policy concluded that "While community sport development had been frequently marginalised, the Commonwealth Government policy on elite sport development expanded rapidly and gained widespread electoral support". This is clear fi-om the comment by a senior official at the Australian Sports Commission that "we are tmashamed about high performance because in terms of supporting a lot of our national teams there is no-one else who can provide that support with the quality of the service or the level of the funding" (Interview: 25 September 2006). And the CEO of an Olympic NSO offered this observation on the impact of complying with the government's elite objectives: "we are so focused on doing the things we have to do [elite sport], so doing the things we would like to do [grassroots development] becomes very, very difficult" (Interview: 27 September 2006).

Nevertheless, the establishment of the Active After-schools Commtinity program may signal a shift in the emphasis and ultimately the direction of Australian sport policy. What is difficult to establish at this stage is whether the increased resotirces for, and emphasis on, raising participation levels signals itmovation within an existing path (elite sport development) or a switch to a new path? It is the existence of exogenous shocks, which Pierson (2000) argues can lead to paths being dismpted, and it may therefore be argued that mounting evidence regarding obesity levels and the associated health concems (and costs) have acted as an extemal shock to the sport policy subsystem. The importance of timing and sequencing of events may prove useful in considering the impact of this event for, as Pierson (2000, p. 264) argues, "the same event (e.g., an exogenous shock such as depression or war) may have a different effect depending on the sequence of events in which it occurs". Therefore, placing the establishment of the AASC program amongst growing calls for increased investment in grassroots and community sport and the past (rather than futtire) hosting of an Olympic Games (Sydney 2000), raises questions as to whether the Australian sport development environment is now ready for change. However, given the historical nattire of path dependency and the need for temporal analysis, these questions must remain open to future empirical investigation.

In stun, while success on the intemational sporting stage has been lauded for the best part of a quarter of a century, is it now possible for Australia to retrench from the path of considerable investment and commitment to elite sport, or must it continue to try and stay in the game? Given the sustained agreement between the main political parties in Australia on the importance of elite sport success, it appears highly unlikely that any political party, in the near futtire at least, would wish to announce a retraction of support for intemational sporting glory. In this sense, we would concur with Evans" (2005) stimmary of European health care systems and path dependency. To paraphrase Evans, in the case of Australia "national social values" (i.e. elite success) and "power structures" (p. 291) (see institutional configuration above) have served to suppress (the few) voices that have argued for a more equitable distribution of federal resources for sport development.

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 245

In contrast to Austraha, Finland has conceptualised "sport development" as a means of ensuring that all citizens have equal access to, and are encouraged to participate in, sporting activities. Despite the contrasting concerns for sport development found in Finland and Australia, it is also the "politics determines policy" line of reasoning which holds particular resonance in the Finnish context. The social democratic values and beliefs which emerged during the 1960s created an environment which was predisposed to the goals of SfA., and from which the current path of sport development in Finland emerged. As March and Olsen (1989) argue, where there is a strong attachment to values some policy options can be viewed more favourably and there can be a "logic of approprtateness" for particular policy options. In line with the earlier theoretical discussion, there is also strong evidence which supports the existence of path dependent relationships, a concept grounded in the dynamic of increasing returns, which can be considered "as self-reinforcing or positive feedback processes" (Pierson, 2000, p. 251).

The considerable investment made in developing an extensive network of sporting facilities and the development of expertise with regard to implementing and developing SfA programs andpohcies, highlight what Ross (2007, p. 593) maintains are the "start-up, learning and coordination costs" which encourage investment in the status quo. The continued commitment to ensuring all Finns had access to sporting facilities was considered key to facilitating increased levels of participation and further promoted values commonly associated with social democratic tenets of universaUsm and egalitarianism. Further costs associated with the establishment of Domain Organisations, the growing expertise and learning costs (which enhance efficiency) are now embedded within the sport development system. As Ross (2007) explains, the costs of retrenching from such considerable set-up expenses provide an incentive to try and recover costs, and with a combination of past investment and continued net pay-offs, renders the existing path more appealing than potentially more efficient alternatives.

A further event which provided positive feedback and which reinforced continued investment and support for SfA was the doping incident at the 2001 Nordic World Skiing Championships. The incident confirmed for politicians, and provided positive (political) reinforcement, that SfA is the correct path for sport development in Finland. In the absence of any strong lobby group for elite sport development, combined with the public outcry with regard to the "shame" associated with the positive tests, little political incentive was provided for alternative paths of sport development to be considered.

While it was argued that the establishment of the two Sports Acts (1980, 1998) formalised funding practices that were akeady in operation, Pierson (2000, p. 259) maintains that it is policies grounded in law and backed by the coercive power of the state which signal what can, and what cannot be done, while also establishing many of the "rewards and penalties associated with particular activities". The establishment of funding criteria that prioritised facilities and programs for the masses, and the mandating of responsibility for the provision of facilities to the state

246 Green and Collins

and municipalities, clearly reinforced the types of sport development activities to be supported. Furthermore, the exercise of political power through legislation not only favoured a particular path, but made it increasingly difficult to change or deviate from the particular path due to the practical difficulties associated with conducting legislative change. Not only did the introduction of legislation lock values and systems in place which supported SfA, they also constrained behaviour with regard to what was acceptable and possible (Deeg, 2001).

Changes to the structural landscape for NSOs in Finland, including the establishment of the Domain Organisations and alterations to administrative arrangements, provide fiuther evidence of path dependency. Indeed Pierson (2000, p. 259) argues that it is the existence of institutions that cements self-reinforcement and "make[s] reversals of course increasingly unattractive over time". As in Australia, there is also the issue regarding what Deeg (2001, p. 10) refers to as the "complementarity of a set of institutions" where the performance of an institution is affected by the existence of other institutions around it. The close network of inter-dependent relationships created between the Domain Organisations and NSOs has created a situation where the effectiveness of each organisation is increasüigly affected by the existence and fimctioning of the other. While Domain Organisations are involved in the performance assessment of NSOs, they are also rehant on NSOs to assist them in achieving their organisational goals relating to the areas of youth, SfA and elite sport. As Deeg (2007, p. 612) argues, if complementarities increase returns to organisations, we "can readily assume that the institutions that create complementarities will be all the more resistant to change".

Finally, it is necessary to consider the utility of the theoretical concepts of "politics determines policies", "policies determine politics" and path dependency in analysing sport development in Australia and Finland, as well as considering the potential implications of our analysis for sport development practitioners and management professionals. The importance of each country's historical and political context, heritage of institutions and collective social values has signalled that greater explanatory weight be given to "politics determining policy" as a potentially useful guide for informing the analysis of sport development in Australia and Finland. The developmental view of path dependency has emerged as a useful analytic tool for reviewing and analysing sport development policy in both countries and provides a persuasive argument for the steady and consistent path of elite sport development in Austraha and SfA in Finland. Despite considerable variance in sport development concems between the two countries, the way in which sport policy has developed supports Pierson's (2000) claim that path dependent processes are prevalent in the political sphere. Both Austraha and Finland have remained on quite specific sport development pathways with little deviation, despite intermittent calls in Australia for increased consideration to be given to altemative (e.g., grassroots sport development) policy options.

The institutional complementarity evident in both sport development systems, and the path dependent relationships, signal to practitioners the difficulty

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 247

of diversion from current sport development pathways in Australia and Finland. This also suggests that change is likely to be achieved only in response to a major incident or crisis. It is this very point of how change occurs, which has been the focus of much debate with regard to the deterministic nature of path dependency (Deeg, 2001; Pierson, 2000; Ross, 2007). As such, an understanding of the potential variables involved in stability and change, as discussed throughout, provides practitioners and management professionals with perceptive insights regarding the difficulties, challenges and potential altematives of effecting change in their respective fields.

References Armstrong, T. (1997). Government policy. In W. Vamplew, K. Moore, J. O'Hara, R.

Cashman, & I. F. Jobling (Eds.), The Oxford companion to Australian sport (Rev. ed.), (pp. 189-190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002). Sport and recreation funding by government, Australia, 2000-01. Available online: Retrieved on 17 August, 2007 from http://www. abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@ns&0/ClE4C4D3478C2D2DCA256C7500765137?open

Australian Sports Commission. (2005). Annual report 2004-2005. Canberra. Author. Australian Sports Commission (2006a). Annual report 2005-2006. Canberra. Author. Australian Sports Commission. (2006b). 7V5'O200(5-07gra«teani/y4/5'a//ocarion. Available

online: Retrieved on 20 June, 2007 from http://www.ausport.gov.au/fimding/NSO_ ñmding%20_2006-2007 .pdf

Australian Sports Commission. (2007). NSO 2007/08 grants and AIS allocation. Available online: Retrieved on 12 December, 2007 from http://www.ausport.gov.au/ data/ assets/pdf_file/0007/143692/NSO_grants_2007-08_for_web-Dec_07.pdf

Bergsgard, N. A., Houhhan, B., Mangset, R, N0dland, S. I., & Rommetvedt, H. (2007). Sport policy: A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Bloomfield, J. (1973). Review of activities: The role, scope and development of recreation in Australia. Canberra: Department of Tourism and Recreation.

Bloomfield, J. (2003). Australia's sporting success: The inside story. Sydney: Utiiversity ofNew South Wales.

Booth, D. (1995). Sports policy in Australia: Right, just wiamúonúl Australian Quarterly, 67{\), 1-10.

Brandis, G. (2007). More after school sporting support for Australian families, (media release). Available online: Retrieved on 5 march, 2008 from http://www.minister. dcita.gov.ati/brandis/media/media_releases/2007/more_after school_sporting_ support_for austraHan_families/

Castles, F. G., & Mitchell, D. (1990). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or four? Canberra: Australian National University.

Coles, A. (1975). Report of the Australian Sports Institute study group. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Department of Tourism and Recreation.

248 Green and Collins

Collins, S. (2008). An analysis of public policy toward adult lifelong participation in sport in Australia, New Zealand and Finland. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Loughborough University, UK.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1999). Shaping up: A review of Commonwealth involvement in sport and recreation in Australia. (Sport 2000 Task Force), Canberra: Author.

COMPASS (1999). A project seeking the co-ordinated monitoring of participation in sports in Europe. London: UK Sport.

DCMS/Strategy Unit. (2002). Game plan: A strategy for delivering government's sport and physical activity objectives. London: Strategy Unit.

Dean, M., & Hindess, B. (1998). Governing Australia: Studies in contemporary rationalities of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Bosscher, V., Bingham, J., Shibli, S., van Bottenberg, M., & De Knop, P (2008). The global sporting arms race: An intemational comparative study on sports policy factors leading to intemational sporting success. Oxford: Meyer and Meyer Sport.

Deeg, R. (2001). Institutional change and the limits of path dependency: The case of German finance (Discussion Paper). Cologne: Max-Planck-Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung.

Deeg, R. (2007). Complementarity and institutional change in capitalist systems. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 611-630.

Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories. (1992). Government expenditure on sport and recreation (Technical paper No. 4). Canberra: Author.

Department of Industry Science and Resources. (2001). Backing Australia's sporting ability: A more active Australia. Canberra: Author.

Esping-Anderson, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Pohty Press.

Esping-Anderson, G. (1999). Social foundation of post-industrial economics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Evans, R. G. (2005). Fellow travellers on a contested path: Power, purpose and the evolution of European health care systems. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 30, 277-294.

Freeman, G. P. (1985). National styles and pohcy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Joumal of Public Policy, 5, 467-496.

Green, M. (2003). An analysis of elite sport policy change in three sports in Canada and the United Kingdom. Unpubhshed doctoral dissertation. Loughborough University, UK.

Green, M. (2007). Olympic glory or grassroots development? Sport pohcy priorities in Austraha, Canada and the United Kingdom, 1960-2006. Intemational Joumal of the History of Sport, 24, 921-953.

Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite sport development: Policy learning and political priorities. London: Routledge.

Green, M., & Oakley, B. (2001). Elite sport development systems and playing to win: Uniformity and diversity in intemational approaches. Leisure Studies, 20, 247-267.

Greener, 1. (2002). Understanding NHS reform: The policy-transfer, social learning, and path dependency perspectives. Governance, 15(2), 161-183.

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 249

Hacker, J. (1998). The historical logic of national health insurance: Structure and sequence in the development of British, Canadian, and U.S. medical policy. Studies in American Political Development, 12, 57-130.

Heikkala, J., Honkanen, P., Laine, L., PuUinen, M., & Ruuskanen-Himma, E. (2003). The story of exercise and sport. Finland: Suomen Liücunta ja Urheüu.

Heikkala, J., & Koski, P. (1999). Reaching out for new frontiers: The Finnish physical culture in transition in the 1990s. Finland: Utiiversity of Jyvaskyla.

Heinelt, H. (2005). Do policies determine politics? (School for PoHcy Studies Working Paper Series No. Paper Number 11). Bristol: School for Policy Studies.

Heinilae, K. (1988). Social research on sport in Finland. Sportwissenschaft 18{\), 9-28. Henry, I. P. (2001). The politics of leisure policy {1"^ ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave. Hogan, K, & Norton, K. (2000). The 'price' of Olympic gold. Journal of Science and

Medicine in Sport, 3, 203-218. Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy, and politics: A comparative analysis. London:

Routledge. Houlihan, B. (2005). Public sector sport policy: Developing a framework for analysis.

Intemational Review for the Sociology of Sport, 40(2), 163-184 Houlihan, B., & Green, M. (Eds.). (2008). Comparative elite sport development: Systems,

structures and public policy. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Houlihan, B., & White, A. (2002). The politics of sport development: Development of sport

or development through sport? London: Routledge. Howlett, R, & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy cycles and policy sub-systems.

New York: Oxford University Press. Huber, E., & Stephens, J. (1998). Intemationahsation and the social democratic model.

Comparative Political Studies, 31, 353-397. Kay, A. (2003). Path dependency and the CAP. Journal of European Public Policy, 10,

405-420. Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in pohcy studies. Public

Administration, 83, 553-571. Kemp, R. (2006). Funding boost for Australian sport. (Media release by the Minister

for Arts and Sport). Available online: Retrieved on 10 May, 2006 from http://www. minister.dcita.gov.ati/kemp/media/media_releases/ñmding_boost for australian_ sport

Kiviaho, P. (1981). Regional distribution of sport organisations as a function of political cleavages. In J. W. Loy, Jr., G. S. Kenyon & B. McPherson. Sport, culture and society: A reader on the sociology of sport (2nd edn.). (pp. 259-265). Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.

Klein, R., & Marmor, T. (2006). Reflections on policy analysis: Putting it together again. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. Goodin (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of public policy. (pp. 892-910). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koski, P. (1999). Characteristics and contemporary frends of sports clubs in the Finnish context. In K. Heinemann (Ed.). Sports clubs in various European countries. (pp. 293-316). Stuttgart: Schomdorf Hofrnann.

250 Green and Collins

Krauss, R. (1990). Recreation and leisure in modem society. (4*̂ ed). New York: Harper Collins.

Lavelle, A. (2005). Social democrats and neo-liberalism: A case study of the Australian Labor FaTty. Political Studies, 53, 753-771.

Leibfried, S. (1990). The classification of welfare state regimes in Europe. Paper presented at the Social Policy Association Annual Conference, University of Bath.

Liberal Party and The Nationals. (2004). The Howard Government election (2004) policy: Building Australian communities through sport. Canberra: Liberal Party.

Liew, L. H. (2005). China's engagement with neo-liberalism: Path dependency, geography and party self-reinvention. Journal of Development Studies, 41, 331-352.

Liikuntalaki (Sports Act) 18.12.1998/1054. Available online: Retrieved on 14 March, 2008 from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/19981054

Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 33,298-310.

Macintosh, D. (1991). Sport and the state: The case of Canada. In F. Landry, M. Landry & M. Yerie (Eds.), Sport, . . . the third millennium (pp. 269-275). Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de l'Université de lavai.

Macintosh, D., & Whitson, D. (1990). The game planners: Transforming Canadas sport system. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Magdalinski, T. (2000). The reinvention of Australia for the Sydney 2000 OljTnpic Games. intemationalJoumal of the History of Sport. 17, 305-322.

Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29,507- 548.

March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organisational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

Marsh, I. (2005). Neo-liberalism and the decline of democratic governance in Australia: Aproblem of institutional design? Political Studies, 55(1), 22-42.

Ministry of Education. (2003). Sports in light of statistics: Basic statistical information 2003 (liikuntatoimi tilastojen valossa - perustilastot vuodelta 2003). Retrieved on April 12, 2006, from http://www.minedu.fi/julkaisut/liikuntay2005/opra24.pdf

Nygârd, M. (2006). Welfare-ideological change in Scandinavia: A comparative analysis of partisan welfare state positions in four Nordic countries, 1970-2003. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29, 356-385.

Paddick, R. J. (1997). Amateurism. In W. Vamplew, K. Moore, J. O'Hara, R. Cashman, & I. F. Jobling (Eds.), The Oxford companion to Australian sport (Kev. ed.), (pp. 11-15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pickup, D. (1996). Not another messiah: An account of the Sports Council, 1988-93. Edinburgh: Pentland Press.

Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing retums, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251-267.

Pyke, F., & Norris, K. (2001, September). Australia from Montreal to Sydney: A history of a change in model. Paper presented at 2nd Intemational Forum on Elite Sport, San Cugat, Catalonia, 7-16.

Sport Development in Australia and Finland 25Í

Pyykkönen, T. (2003). Elite sport is a lot, but not everything. Motion - Sport in Finland, 2, 22-23.

Roche, M. (1993). Sport and community: Rhetoric andreahty in the development of British sport policy. In J. C. Binfield & J. Stevenson (Eds.), Sport, Culture and Politics (pp. 72-112). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Ross, F. (2007). Questioning path dependence theory: The case of the British NHS. Policy and Politics, 35, 591-610.

Ruane, J., & Todd, J. (2007). Path dependence in settlement processes: Explaining settlement in Northem Ireland. Political Studies, 55, 442-458.

Semotiuk, D. (1986). National government involvement in amatetir sport in Australia 1972-1981. inM. L. Krotee & E. M. Jaeger (Eds.), Comparative physical education and sport, (pp. 159-171). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

SiaroflF, A. (1994). Work, women and gender equality: A new typology. In D. Sainsbury (Bd.). Gendering welfare states. London: Sage.

Stahl, T., Rutten, A., Nutbeam, D., & Kannas, 1. (2002). The importance of policy orientation and environment on physical activity participation - a comparative analysis between Eastern Germany, Westem Germany and Finland. Health Promotion Intemational, ;7(3), 235-246.

Stewart, B., Nicholson, M., Smith, A., &. Westerbeek, H. (2004). Australian sport: Better by design? The evolution of Australian sport policy. London: Routledge.

Stewart-Weeks, M. (1997). The third wave: Developing a post-2000 sports policy framework. The Sport Educator, 9(3), 4-11.

Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vuori, L, Lankenau, B., & Pratt, M. (2004). Physical activity policy and programme development: The experience in Finland. Public Health Reports, 119, 331-345.

Vuori, I., Paronen, O., & Oja, P. (1998). How to develop local physical activity promotion programmes with national support: The Finnish experience. Patient Education and Counselling, 33,111-110.

Wanna, J., & Weiler, P. (2003). Traditions of Australian govemance. Public Administration, 81{\), 63-94.

Wilson, J. (1994). Playing by the rules: Sport, society and the state. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Woodward, S. C. (1986). Finnish sport structures: An overview. Momentum (Edinburgh), 77(1), 51-61.

Wuolio, T. (2003). Fit for life programme gets adults moving gently. Motion - Sport in Finland (Helsinki), 70(10), 10-12.

Copyright of Sport Management Review (Sport Management Association of Australia & New Zealand) is the

property of Sport Management Association of Australia & New Zealand and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.