Configuring relationships between state and non-state actors: A new

conceptual approach for sport and development

Authors:

Iain Lindsey (Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University)

Tony Chapman (Policy and Practice, St Chad’s College, Durham University)

Oliver Dudfield (Commonwealth Secretariat)

Address for Correspondence:

Dr Iain Lindsey

School of Applied Social Sciences

Durham University

42 Old Elvet

Durham University

DH1 3HN

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 0191 334 6988

Twitter: @iainlindsey

1
Configuring relationships between state and non-state actors: A new

conceptual approach for sport and development

Abstract

The importance placed on collective action to enhance the contribution of sport to

wider development objectives is reflected in ‘partnership’ being a pervasive term

throughout ‘Sport for Development and Peace’ (SDP) policy, practice and research.

However, state and non-state organisations can be involved in various forms of

relationships, which may overlap but also extend beyond those that are

encompassed by the often ill-defined terminology of ‘partnerships’. The need for

more nuanced conceptualisations of how relationships between state and non-state

actors may be configured has become more urgent given that the advent of the

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) brings implications for the engagement of a

broader array of sport stakeholders than from the SDP sector alone. Therefore, this

article draws on existing categorisations in the development studies literature to

identify six potential configurations of relationships between state and non-state

actors associated with sport and development, namely: state-centred

implementation, complementary implementation, co-produced implementation, non-

state-centred implementation, state-led regulation, and non-state-led adversarial

advocacy. In practice, the enactment of differently configured relationships will be

influenced by political and economic contexts as well as the characteristics of

relevant state and non-state actors. Configurations also vary in their utility according

to the differing ways in which sport may contribute to particular SDGs and their

constituent Targets. These complexities mean that the set of configurations is not

presented as a deterministic model but is, rather, a heuristic by which policy makers,

2
practitioners and researchers can improve analysis, relationships and, ultimately, the

contributions of sport to development.

Keywords

Sport for Development and Peace (SDP); Government; Civil Society; Non-

governmental organisations (NGOs); Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs);

Partnership

3
Introduction

This article develops a new conceptualisation of ways in which relationships between

state and non-state actors associated with sport and development may be

configured. No such conceptualisation has been proposed in the sport and

development literature previously. Instead, policy and research debates have often

been framed by all-encompassing but imprecise notions of ‘partnership’. There is a

need for greater differentiation of organisational relationships associated with sport

and development, and the conceptualisation offered in this article is intended to

prompt new ways of thinking about, and researching, the ways in which relationships

between state and non-state actors are currently configured or how they could

beneficially be developed in the future.

Changes across sport and development add to the relevance of considering

relationships between state and non-state actors in these sectors. The ‘Sport for

Development and Peace’ (SDP) movement that initially emerged around the turn of

the century (Kidd, 2008) has continued to expand - engaging growing numbers and,

importantly, an increasing diversity of organisations in different contexts across the

world (Svensson and Woods, 2017). These developments undoubtedly contributed

to the significant acknowledgement of the potential contribution of sport in the latest

global development policy framework, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development (UNGA, 2015). Likewise, as will be explored further in the next section,

the 2030 Agenda brings new implications for sport in that the broad scope of a

number of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and associated SDG Targets

have relevance beyond the SDP movement alone so as to also implicate actors

4
engaged with what could be conceived as ‘mainstream’ sport at different levels from

grassroots through to elite and professional levels. Therefore, just as the 2030

Agenda specifically identifies the importance of a wide range of state institutions and

non-state organisations to achieving the SDGs, so the same is true of such actors

engaged with sport. By way of introduction, an overview of current and potential

roles of state and non-state organisations engaged in sport and development is

provided in Table 1.

[Table 1 around here]

Given this context, the lack of specific studies of relationships between state and

non-state actors associated with sport and development is a major concern.

Challenges that occur due to the diversity of state and non-state actors involved

across these sectors can still be identified. Difficulties associated with fragmentation

and duplication of practice are reported together with problems arising from

competition amongst actors (see, for example, Kidd, 2008; Lindsey and Banda,

2011; Giulianotti, 2011b). In individual countries, these problems are often deeply

rooted and are associated with historical tensions between some SDP NGOs and

government institutions i. The potential for international NGOs to enact or impose

their own agendas independent of domestic governments has also been a

recognised issue (Sanders et al., 2014).

Such problems have not limited enthusiasm for collective action. Indeed, advocacy

for multi-sectoral partnerships has been and remains a common and ongoing theme

in sport and development policy documents (Hayhurst, 2009; Lindsey and Bitugu,

5
2018b). However, the discourse of ‘partnership’ can be subject to similar issues to

those Black (2009) identifies with many development ‘buzzwords’, namely that their

frequent use and application means that they ‘become profoundly ambiguous in their

meanings and implications’ (p125). An early SDP policy statement by the United

Nations (2006, p61) illustrates this point through broadly stating that:

Local development through sport particularly benefits from an integrated

partnership approach to sport-in-development involving a full spectrum of

actors in field-based community development including all levels of and

various sectors of government, sports organizations, NGOs and the private

sector.

The continuing use of such all-encompassing and imprecise language (e.g.

UNESCO, 2017) indicates that there is a need for the terminology of partnership to

be deconstructed and replaced with more nuanced accounts of relationships

between state and non-state actors associated with sport and development. As there

are currently no conceptual contributions within the SDP literature to aid this task,

the article draws upon classifications of relationships between state and non-state

actors that have been proposed in the development studies literature (Teamey,

2010). This article will synthesise and apply such insights to help understand how

state and non-state actors associated with sport and development may be

configured. After conceptualising six potential configurations of these relationships,

the article will then consider the implications of enacting these relationships and the

factors that may affect them in practice. First, it is necessary to locate potential

configurations within the current policy context by considering more fully the

6
substantial implications that the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals

bring for state and non-state actors associated with sport and development.

Sport and development relationships in the context of the Sustainable

Development Goals

The 2030 Agenda transformed the global policy context for sport and development

when it replaced the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with a broader set

of seventeen Sustainable Development Goals. While sport was not explicitly

mentioned in any of the SDGs themselves, the accompanying 2030 Agenda text did

specifically recognise sport ‘as an important enabler of sustainable development’

(UNGA, 2015, p10). Indeed, it was emphasised that sport could contribute to a broad

range of aspirations including ‘promotion of tolerance and respect … the

empowerment of women and of young people, individuals and communities as well

as to health, education and social inclusion objectives’ (UNGA, 2015, p10). This was

the first time that any overarching policy for global development had included such a

wide-ranging statement on sport.

The inclusion of sport in the 2030 Agenda prompted the development of significant

global and transnational policy documents for sport which promoted alignment with

particular SDGs and associated SDG Targets. Notable examples of such policy

documents are the Kazan Action Plan (UNESCO, 2017), adopted at the Sixth

International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical

Education and Sport (MINEPS VI), and Commonwealth policy guidance on

‘Enhancing the contribution of Sport to the Sustainable Development Goals’

(Commonwealth Secretariat, 2017). The list of SDGs and SDG Targets identified in

7
these policy documents is provided in Appendix 1 and the documents themselves

give both implicit and explicit recognition of the greater diversity of ways in which

sport could be connected and contribute to the array of SDGs than had been the

case with preceding MDGs. Similarly, in one of the first academically published

analyses of sport and the 2030 Agenda, Lindsey and Darby (2018) suggest three

broadly differentiated ways in which sport may relate to particular SDGs and their

associated Targets.

First, existing aims and practices identifiable in the SDP sector continue to be well

aligned with various SDGs and Targets. In the SDP sector, sport is characteristically

and instrumentally utilised as a tool towards identified, wider developmental

objectives (Hayhurst, 2009). Such objectives have included, in different SDP projects

and different contexts, those associated with combatting HIV/AIDS and other

communicable diseases (SDG Target 3.3), reducing alcohol and drug abuse (SDG

Target 3.5), developing leadership amongst girls and women (SDG Target 5.5), and

the promotion of entrepreneurship and employment (SDG Targets 8.3 and 8.5) .

Educational activities are also a central component of many SDP approaches (Rossi

and Jeanes, 2016). As such, these approaches could align with SDG Target 4.7,

which broadly promotes ‘education for sustainable development’ including elements

that may be found in SDP projects such as sustainable lifestyles, citizenship, gender

equity, peace and human rights (UNGA, 2015, p17).

Second, within the wide scope of the SDGs, some specific SDG Targets have

relevance to more conventional approaches to sports development that are centred

on the provision of infrastructure and opportunities to participate and compete in

sport (Coalter, 2010). Within the field of sports development, common and long-

8
standing efforts to address underrepresentation of groups in sport broadly links with

the core ‘pledge’ in the 2030 Agenda that ‘no one is left behind’ (UNGA, 2015, p12).

More specifically, attempts to develop women’s participation in sport and reduce

other gender disparities may find succour in SDG Target 5.1 to ‘end all forms of

discrimination against all women and girls everywhere’ (UNGA, 2015, p18). The

aspiration to ‘provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and

public spaces’ (UNGA, 2015, p22) provides another example of an SDG Target

(11.7) which has relevance through encouraging provision of facilities that could aid

the development of sport participation. More broadly, developing different aspects of

sport has been consistently advocated to have benefits such as the reduction of non-

communicable diseases or increasing economic growth (SDG Targets 3.3 and 8.1).

A final set of SDGs and Targets bring into focus the need to reform those

organisations and practices in sport which are detrimental to development. Issues of

violence against women and abuse against children, as captured in SDG Targets 5.2

and 16.2 have been recognised in many sporting contexts and require action (Lang

and Hartill 2014). Similarly, the orientation of SDG Targets 8.7 and 8.8 towards

eradicating harmful employment practices and protecting labour rights invites

scrutiny of the problematic practices of some sport manufacturing companies

(Thilbault, 2009), the operation of sporting mega-events (Millward, 2017), and the

exploitation of migrant sportspeople, particularly within professional football (Darby,

2013). Recent policies have broadly grouped these and other problems as ‘threats

… to the integrity of sport’ (e.g. UNESCO, 2017, p21) and have, in response, sought

to foster ‘good governance’ of sporting institutions in line with the principles of

accountability and transparency enshrined in SDG Target 16.6.

9
Clustering SDGs and Targets in this way demonstrates that they can be relevant to

organisations and institutions involved with sport in various ways. In particular, the

breadth of SDGs and Targets means that they are not the sole preserve of

organisations within the SDP movement, but can also be associated with those that

are primarily associated with ‘mainstream’ sport at different levels from grassroots

through to elite and professional sport. This is not to say that SDGs and Targets are

equally applicable in all contexts and to all organisations and institutions, especially

as they are intended to be relevant across ‘the entire world, developed and

developing countries alike’ (UNGA 2015, 3). For this reason, the 2030 Agenda

places significant emphasis on national ownership whereby responsibility for

determining SDG priorities and implementation resides with individual countries and

their governments. This is combined with recognition that the SDGs cannot be

achieved by governments alone; but, rather, that a collective approach is required to

‘bring together Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations

system and other actors’ (UNGA 2015, p10). However, the continuation of the

nebulous terminology of ‘partnerships’ still predominates within the 2030 Agenda,

clouding the potential to analyse and realise purposeful relationships between state

and non-state actors in practice. A more precise conceptualisation of such

relationships is needed given the range of links between sport and the SDGs and the

various ways in which state and non-state actors that may be collectively involved in

realising these links. It is towards conceptualising differently configured relationships

between state and non-state actors that the article now turns.

Configuring relationships between state and non-state actors

10
Within the development studies literature, various frameworks have been proposed

which conceptualise and categorise relationships between state and non-state

actors. These frameworks commonly use similar terminology to describe specific

types of relationships. For example, ‘collaboration’ often appears in frameworks

proposed by Wamai (2004), Sansom (2006) and Zafar Ullah et al. (2006);

‘contracting’ in those proposed by Brinkeroff (2002), Sansom (2006) and Batley and

Mcloughlin (2010); and variants of ‘regulation’ or ‘control’ feature in Sansom’s

(2006), Zafar Ullah et al.’s (2006) and Batley and Mcloughlin’s (2010)

conceptualisations. Such shared terminology serves as a valuable point of departure

in synthesising development studies literature to identify configurations of

relationships that may be specifically relevant to sport and development.

Furthermore, Teamey’s (2010) review of development studies frameworks usefully

identifies three facets that may enable comprehensive consideration of the range of

potential relationships between state and non-state actors in particular country

contexts. First, Teamey (2010) recognises that frameworks which are based on

simplistic schema for classification, especially if orientated towards a one-

dimensional continuum, are inherently limited. Whilst not overcoming such a critique

entirely, Najam (2000) provides a two-dimensional framework that differentiates

relationships based on: (i) the extent to which there may or may not be alignment

between different actors’ desired development aims and (ii) the extent to which the

means which actors’ use towards these ends may or may not be compatible. This

two-dimensional approach is worth preserving given the diverse range of objectives

and operational practices across the breath of sport-based organisations that are

relevant to the SDGs.

11
Second, the more comprehensive frameworks reviewed by Teamey (2010)

encompass both those relationships that align with the mutually supportive ethos of

‘partnership’ and also more adversarial relationships between state and non-state

actors. That the extended agendas encompassed by the SDGs may, in particular

cases, justify reform within the sport sector indicates the importance of recognising

relationships that may be more or less adversarial, in addition to those that may be

considered as mutually supportive. Finally, Teamey (2010) argues that the

usefulness of many frameworks in the development studies literature is narrowed

because relationships are considered primarily from the standpoint of either state or

non-state actors. The array of potential roles of state and non-state actors

associated with sport and development means that it is necessary to recognise

different relationships in which the balance of contributions across state and non-

state actors may vary.

With these issues in mind, Figure 1 illustrates six potential configurations of

relationships between state and non-state actors that are relevant to sport and

development. These relationships are differentiated, firstly, according to whether the

desired ends of state and non-state actors may align or diverge. Where desired ends

align, four ‘ideal typical’ approaches to implementation are identified: state centred,

co-produced, complementary and non-state centred. At the other end of the

spectrum, where action of state or non-state actors can detract from achieving

development aims, state-led regulatory intervention or non-state led adversarial

advocacy configurations are identified. The six configurations are, therefore,

differentiated by the extent to which state and/or non-state actors may have primacy

12
in implementation towards development aims, as the vertical axis in Figure 1

indicates. In the following sub-sections, each of the six configurations are developed

and explained in turn. This exposition draws on continued synthesis of conceptual

and empirical development studies literature, which is linked throughout to examples

and issues that may be particularly relevant to sport and development.

[Figure 1 around/prior to here]

Non-state-centred Implementation

Approaches to implementation in which non-state actors play a central role is the

most common configuration for SDP, as well as for sport, provision in many contexts.

Research has consistently identified NGOs as being at the forefront of implementing

approaches that instrumentally use sport to contribute to various development

objectives (Svensson and Woods, 2017). This predominance of NGOs reflects wider

and long-standing perceptions that they are better suited than state institutions to

contribute to participatory and grassroots development (Mcloughlin, 2011; Banks and

Hulme, 2012). For example, local NGOs may be best placed to ensure that sport-

based approaches are responsive to local needs, engage those who may be

excluded from other forms of provision and utilise innovative approaches to achieve

personal and social development (Fokwang, 2009; Thorpe and Rinehart, 2013;

Mwaanga and Banda, 2014). Additionally, some sport federations, institutions and

organisations can also have existing sport development aspirations that are strongly

aligned with particular development objectives. For example, governing bodies and

clubs associated with female-dominated sports are, by their very nature, well-aligned

13
with previously identified SDG Targets that seek to promote female leadership and

address discrimination against girls and women. They would independently

contribute to these development objectives, just so long as their own resources are

sufficient to do so.

Several caveats are necessary. First, practical constraints can distort the extent to

which NGOs and other non-state actors are able to offer the forms of provision that

are more responsive to the development needs of local communities or target groups

(Hulme and Banks, 2012). Accountability may instead be distorted towards powerful

external or international donors that SDP NGOs can be reliant upon (Akindes &

Kirwan, 2009), presenting issues that will be further emphasised and returned to

later in the article. Second, non-state-centred implementation can result in

geographic and/or demographic ‘unevenness’. For example, Lindsey and Bitugu

(2018a) note that provision by SDP NGOs in Ghana and Tanzania is largely limited

to specific urban communities. Richards and Foster (2014) similarly identified

disparities in engagement by different population groups in an NGO-led football

programme for physical and mental health in Gulu, Uganda. Such unevenness would

vary across different countries and contexts but, more generally, this configuration

may be better suited towards development objectives that are not predicated on

universal engagement or scale of provision. Third, the possibilities of this

configuration are dependent upon the willingness of non-state actors to respect the

autonomy of other independent actors. Failing to do so can result in unnecessary

levels of competition and/or duplication of practice that detract from overarching

objectives with which all actors broadly agree (Zafar Ullah et al., 2006).

14
While non-state actors clearly play a pivotal role, this is not to suggest that state

institutions lack relevance in this configuration. Indeed, non-state and state actors

would generally need to share recognition of mutually agreed ends. As Lindsey

(2017) has identified, international SDP NGOs may actually recognise benefit from

state institutions providing clarity as to nationally or locally prioritised goals.

Furthermore, states play a vital role in providing legal frameworks for the status,

registration and operation of non-state actors, be they NGOs, other sporting

organisations, or from the private sector (Brinkerhoff, 2002; Zafar Ullah et al., 2006).

Within this configuration, however, states would not significantly determine, directly

influence, or restrain non-state actors’ delivery of sport-based provision orientated

towards relevant aspects of development. Any relationships that encompass higher

levels of interaction or integration between state and non-state actors would instead

resemble one of the other configurations that follow.

Complementary Implementation

Complementary implementation involves close interaction between state and non-

state actors, but not to the extent of imposing unnecessary or unwieldy legal,

contractual or procedural obligations or constraints on those involved. Such

relationships have been explored elsewhere in the development studies literature.

Najam’s (2000) framework specifically includes a category of ‘complementary’

relationships in which there is commonality in actors’ desired goals but differences in

their respective contributions to implementation. Within Zafar Ullah et al.’s (2006)

continuum of relationships those that enhance ‘cooperation’ or ‘coordination’ could

also respectively be considered within and towards the boundary of what may be

15
considered complementary implementation. More specifically, Maxwell and Riddell

(1998) and Batley and Mcloughlin (2010) both recognise that productive policy-

related dialogue and information sharing may occur through relatively loose

relationships between state and non-state actors.

Complementary relationships could enhance the contribution of sport to development

objectives in a number of ways that are aligned with the insights from development

studies literature. For example, in relation to SDG 11.7 that was highlighted earlier,

state organisations commonly have responsibility for infrastructure and ‘green

spaces’ planning, but doing so in consultation with non-state organisations is

important because these actors may subsequently use such spaces for sport-based

activities (Paramio-Salcines, 2014). Further examples of complementary

relationships can be identified through existing SDP research. In South Africa,

Sanders et al. (2014) identified NGOs working with state schools in order to both

access school-based facilities and support their engagement with young people.

Lindsey and Bitugu (2018b) similarly provide examples from Ghana that illustrate

how state institutions for education and health have begun to build their own capacity

to utilise sport-based approaches through training from SDP NGOs.

Contributions in the development studies literature usefully recognise other features

of complementary relationships together with their limitations. Complementary

relationships may be particularly fluid, flexible and diverse depending on context and

orientation (Brinkeroff, 2002). As such, state and non-state actors could be involved

in complementary relationships of varying levels of formalisation in different

institutional contexts. There is also potential for complementary relationships to vary

16
according to the numbers of actors involved, across a span from bilateral

associations between specific state and non-state organisations to wide-scale, multi-

actor networks (Batley and Mcloughlin, 2010). Similarly, complementary

relationships may be open-ended over time, but the involvement of state and non-

state actors can vary and does not necessarily need to be continuous (Sansom,

2006). Instead, organisations can ‘step in’ and ‘step out’ without resulting in the

cessation of activity.

The goals of complementary relationships amongst state and non-state actors also

require consideration. First, while these relationships may have been developed to

achieve shared or overlapping objectives, this is not to say that such relationships

are the best way to achieve all types of development objectives. Batley (2006) warns

that, for example, complementary relationships may not always be well suited to

enable the ‘scaling up’ of development efforts in the short-term. Complementary

relationships can, nevertheless, provide a location for mutual learning which can lead

to the expansion of operations over time through ‘processes of imitation, example

and institutional replication’ (Batley and Mcloughlin, 2010, p145). Second, it should

be recognised that actors are likely to seek some form of benefits for their own

organisation through their involvement in complementary relationships (Zafar Ullah

et al., 2006). Concomitantly, involvement in complementary relationships is less

likely to impinge on individual actors’ autonomy and so there are fewer risks from

engagement compared to more formalised, co-produced implementation – as shown

below.

Co-produced Implementation

17
Unlike complementary relationships, co-production requires actors to provide and/or

pool resources to a greater extent. Either state or non-state actors may be the

source, recipients or conduit for such resources, dependent on the nature of specific

relationships. For example, international donors can provide funding for state and

non-state actors within particular countries to work towards co-production, as has

been the case through the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation’s

funding for community sport development in Zimbabwe that linked the national Sport

and Recreation Commission with local community clubs (Hasselgård and Straume,

2015). Alternatively, states can channel funding to sporting bodies to incentivise or

enhance their contribution to development priorities. In the UK, for example, state

funding bodies have altered funding conditions so that national governing bodies do

not only focus on their own sports development agendas but address issues of

governance and gender inequality in doing so (Sport England/UK Sport, 2016).

Although the resource base of co-producing relationships may extend beyond

funding, it is the balance of resources amongst state and non-state actors that is key

to distinctive characteristics and limitations of this kind of relationship. Sharing

resources in co-produced implementation means that formalisation of these

relationships is likely and would potentially require documented specification of

agreed objectives, practices and accountability mechanisms (Mayhew, 2005;

Sansom, 2006). Therefore, these relationships constrain the autonomy of actors to

some extent (Batley, 2006). Issues of power and dependency are particularly

relevant when resources for co-production are provided by one specific actor.

Development studies literature emphasises that this may result in non-state actors

18
being co-opted into state agendas or apparatus (Najam, 2000; Mcloughlin, 2011). On

the other hand, limited government budgets for sport in the global South may allow

scope for international donors to exert much stronger influence in co-production

(Soublière and Cloutier, 2015).

Co-produced relationships can be further distinguished from complementary

relationships because they are more likely to operate within agreed and fixed

timescales (Sansom, 2006). Often they involve complex and structured interactions

which require greater levels of commitment from those involved. As such, co-

produced relationships often involve relatively few state and non-state actors when

compared with some of the more diffuse, complementary networks discussed above.

One consequence can be that those organisations involved in co-produced

interventions are vulnerable to accusations of excluding other organisations with a

strong interest in the same area of work. Research across various SDP contexts by

Lindsey (2017) and with his colleagues (2017) shows, for example, that smaller or

less well-recognised non-state actors are more likely to be excluded from formalised

relationships with state institutions. While such criticism has relevance, the

effectiveness of co-produced implementation is also dependent on the inclusion of

actors that share trust and confidence to deliver on their respective commitments

(Hulme and Edwards, 1997; Soublière and Cloutier, 2015).

State-centred Implementation

State institutions taking principal control over implementation is more common in

other development sectors than is the case with sport. In part, this reflects

19
institutionalised expectations surrounding the ‘autonomy of sport’ and is reflected in

established non-state organisational structures (such as national or international

sport bodies) that can, to varying extents, draw on an independent resource base.

Global policy documents associated with sport and development nevertheless

recognise issues where the state is more likely to occupy a central role in

implementation. The responsibility of governments to ensure universal provision and

access to physical education, for example, is consistently recognised in international

conventions, declarations and policies (e.g. United Nations, 1989; UNOSDP, 2011;

UNESCO, 2015). More recent global sport policy documents have also sought to

identify the potential contribution of sport to economic growth (e.g. UNESCO, 2017)

which may be aided by governments independently implementing fiscal and tax

measures to promote sport-related industries (Dudfield and Dingwall-Smith 2016).

The preceding arguments and examples suggest that state-centred implementation

may be less likely in government ministries with specific responsibility for sport, but

rather may be actioned by those, such as education or finance, that have wider

remits that overlap in some way with sport. In this regard, it is pertinent that the

examples in the preceding paragraph specifically relate to SDGs (4 for Education

and 8 for Decent Work and Economic Growth) that represent the broadened scope

of the 2030 Agenda when compared to the previous MDGs. The broadening of

potential ways in which sport may be aligned with development, as indicated earlier

in the article, therefore expands the possibilities of non-sport ministries enacting

state-centred implementation associated with sport. Batley and Mcloughlin’s (2010)

argument that state-centred implementation is pertinent when universality of

provision or scale of impact may also be relevant in this regard.

20
Universal provision requires substantive capacity on behalf of state institutions. The

example of physical education illustrates the importance of caveats in cases where

there may be constrained state capacity. In countries in both the global North and

South, non-state actors have become more involved in delivery of physical education

within schools as a result of limitations of state provision (Njelesani, 2011; Cope et

al., 2015). Consequently, there are risks if states lead implementation in a way that

precludes or impedes the possibilities of non-state provision (Batley and Mcloughlin,

2010). However, the extent to which an overall pattern of state-centred

implementation can also accommodate and enable additional aspects of non-state

provision is likely to be dependent on the specific orientation and design of

governmental systems in particular countries. Such context-specificity is an issue

that will be returned to within the penultimate section of the article, given that it can

affect all configurations.

State-led regulation

As highlighted earlier, legal frameworks provided by the state may be relevant to,

and be supportive of, the operation of non-state actors in all of the configurations

discussed so far. Some countries, for example, have legislation that affirms the

status of sporting institutions, such as National Olympic Committees or governing

bodies for sport. SDP NGOs are also commonly subject to legislation and

procedures related to the civil society sector as a whole. As such, non-state actors

associated with sport are accorded state recognition, although the form and depth of

such recognition varies considerably between countries. There is, however, a

21
category distinction between recognition and this configuration’s orientation towards

more substantive forms of state regulation of non-state actors (Sansom, 2006).

Regulation can include, for example, determining ‘market entry’ (i.e. specifying those

non-state actors allowed to operate in particular contexts) and/or through ensuring

‘minimum service quality levels’ (i.e. regulating the ongoing operation of non-state

actors) (Sansom, 2006).

Kidd (2008) was the first to raise substantive concerns regarding the ‘completely

unregulated’ status of the SDP sector. This characterisation continues to hold true

with arguments for regulatory intervention by states in relation to sport also given

further justification as a result of the broadened agendas encompassed by the

SDGs. Educational goals associated with sport have, for instance, been recognised

throughout the article and the increasing trend of privately-employed coaches

delivering physical education and school sport in many contexts has led to calls for

the adoption and application of regulatory standards for such provision (Blair and

Capel, 2011; Gordon et al., 2016). The inclusion within the SDGs of issues such as

abuse and violence against children and women and the need to combat corruption

represents a significant shift in development policy with consequences for when

intrusion through state regulation may be justified. No sport organisation, not just

those in the SDP sector, can fall back on arguments for the autonomy of sport from

state interference if they fail to address such problems. State regulation thus

becomes appropriate in cases where the implementation practices of non-state

actors would significantly detract from development.

22
Defining the terrain upon which state-led regulation should be enacted remains

controversial. This is especially so when there is no clear moral justification for

regulation which constrains non-state actors from contributing in a positive way to

development. As Batley and Mcloughlin (2010, p136) put it, state regulation ‘may

have an adverse impact … without achieving compensatory benefits’. Moreover,

especially in the global South, states themselves can lack the capacity for, or be

burdened by, the processing of information on non-state actors that is required for

effective regulation (Batley and Mcloughlin, 2010; Kidd, 2008). State encouragement

or support for collective self-regulation by non-state actors may instead require lower

levels of capacity and engagement on behalf of the state (Sansom, 2006), and thus

may be an option that could be given further consideration in sport.

Non-state-led adversarial advocacy

In comparison to their more supportive roles in the first four configurations, non-state

actors that are associated with sport have been less commonly involved in

positioning themselves as ‘challengers’ to (Pereira, 2005) or in ‘adversarial

relationships’ with (Young, 2000) state institutions. This may be attributed to non-

state actors’ common belief in the potential for sport to positively contribute to

development and their resultant focus on delivery of sport-based activities rather

than advocacy that may be directed towards state actors (Lindsey and Bitugu,

2018a). That stated, Giulianotti (2011a) has noted the existence of some non-state

actors that take more radical approaches to addressing problematic issues

associated with sport and development. Adversarial advocacy by non-state actors

has particular pertinence when state-led policies and practices associated with sport

23
are detrimental to SDGs and specific Targets. For example, campaigns around the

hosting of sporting mega-events have highlighted particular states that have been

complicit with, or even responsible for, breaches of those human and workers’ rights

that SDG 8.8 seeks to protect (Millward, 2017).

Such an example may appear relatively straightforward in moral terms, but

significant complexities associated with adversarial relationships can be readily

identified. Non-state actors in this configuration are not necessarily instituted as

organisations, with athletes, activists, reporters and academics also operating

individually or in networks (Giulianotti, 2011a; Wilson et al., 2015). For individual

non-state actors, there can be considerable difficulty if they hold multiple interests

which may concurrently straddle more mutually-supportive and more adversarial

relationships with state institutions (Banks and Hulme, 2012). Political issues

regarding neo-colonialism can also come to the fore when advocacy is undertaken

by international non-state actors, often from the global North, who wish to change

policies or practices enacted by states in the global South (Giulianotti, 2011a).

Complexities are also evident in cases where state and non-state actors hold

significantly different interpretations of what achieving particular development

aspirations may involve. Peace is a significant theme within the 2030 Agenda and is

particularly associated with is the focus of SDG 16 and yet, in the example of the

Israel-Palestine conflict, sport has been rhetorically and practically used in radically

different ways by opposing state and non-state actors that have each asserted moral

authority for their differing actions (Dart, 2017). It is therefore the case that

adversarial relationships between non-state and state actors all have complex

political dimensions at their core.

24
Enacting differently configured relationships between state and non-state

actors

The previous section has identified six configurations of relationships between state

and non-state actors associated with sport and development. The purpose of this

section is to develop understanding of how these relationships may be enacted in

practice. The first half of the section explains why implementation by or amongst

state and non-state actors is inevitably a complex balancing act. This is followed by

an exploration of factors that influence the realisation of differently configured

relationships, and offers observations on the differing potential for sport to contribute

to development objectives through each of them.

Complexities in and across relationships between state and non-state actors

The six configurations of relationships between state and non-state actors are not

mutually exclusive. Individual actors may engage in several, differently configured

relationships at the same time. To give a practical example, Lindsey and Bitugu

(2018b) show that the NGO, Right to Play Ghana, has relatively informal

complementary relationships focused on policy dialogue with national ministries

whilst also, at a localised level, being more formally involved in the co-production of

SDP opportunities with various state schools. State ministries, departments and

agencies are equally likely to have multiple relationships with non-state actors in a

variety of configurations. In a single country, the whole range of state and non-state

25
actors may work in types of relationships which span all six configurations identified

in the previous section.

It should also be expected that complex interactions amongst state and non-state

organisations will, in practice, cut across and blur distinctions between the six

configurations identified. This is not problematic given that the set of configurations

should be thought of as a heuristic device. For example, it may not be easy to

differentiate in practice between non-state actors’ involvement in complementary

relationships in which they engage in policy dialogue with state institutions and their

adoption of more adversarial positions to challenge state policies or practices.

Similarly, there may be blurred boundaries between states offering passive support

(for example, by developing a coherent policy framework) and imposing regulatory or

other constraints on implementation by non-state actors (for example, seeking to

ensure that NGOs align to a national policy framework). That different state and non-

state actors (and also researchers) may interpret these relationships in different

ways emphasises the impossibility of maintaining sharp divisions between the six

configurations in practice.

The way that lines between different configurations are blurred is, in turn, affected by

temporal factors. The practical enactment of any relationship, and the extent to

which particular outcomes may or may not be realised, inevitably gives rise to

changes for those state and non-state actors involved (Batley and Mcloughlin, 2010;

Soublière and Cloutier, 2015). Moreover, as explored further in the next subsection,

fluidity can be increased over time in response to the changing contexts within which

these relationships occur. These complexities mean that the six configurations

26
should be considered as dynamic rather than static and, in practice, particular

relationships may change to resemble different configurations to a greater or lesser

extent over time. As an empirical matter, considering how relations between state

and non-state actors may change and potentially evolve over time may be a

particularly pertinent issue for future sport and development research.

Factors affecting the realisation of differently configured relationships between state

and non-state actors

The political context of any country is significant in influencing configurations of

relationships between state and non-state actors. Existing comparative research

indicates that national sport policies, for example, are influenced by the orientation of

specific countries’ overall welfare regime (Bergsgard et al., 2007; Nicholson et al.,

2011).The extent to which a state orientates itself towards neo-liberal or social

democratic regimes, for example, has implications for relationships between state

and non-state actors that are associated with sport and development. Similarly, such

relationships would also be shaped by the level of decentralisation evident and

prioritised by a state (Bawole and Hossain, 2015). State and non-state actors

associated with sport are unlikely to be in a position to exert substantive influence

upon the wider political context - they are more likely to have to respond to existing

political circumstances. This in turn shapes choices on which configurations of

relationships they can enter into in order to work towards desired development

objectives.

27
Similar constraints and influences on the configuration of relationships comes from

the network of power relationships within which state and non-state actors are

situated and by which they operate. Most obviously, the extent of resources held by

international non-state donors can place them in a position whereby they have

greater or even unilateral power to shape, determine or bypass relationships with

less well-resourced state institutions in countries of the global South. The practices

and approaches of in-country non-state actors can also be affected by their

international and/or domestic funding arrangements which, again, will have

consequences for the relationships that they may have or develop with respective

state institutions. Non-state actors with different interests or roles at different levels

of sport can also seek relative advantage over each other when developing and

embedding relationships with state institutions. Therefore, while the article has

focused on relationships between state and non-state actors specifically, it must be

recognised that neither sector can be entirely autonomous given that both are

engaged in webs of other relationships from which they may draw influence, or be

subjected to constraints imposed by others.

Similarly, but more specifically, the characteristics of state and non-state actors

represent another cluster of influences on the realisation of relationships between

them. The respective capacities of state and non-state actors is a central issue that

affects the establishment, operation and effectiveness of differently configured

relationships (Batley and Mcloughlin, 2010). A lack of state capacity to provide

resources for sport has led to the emergence of SDP approaches based primarily on

NGOs in a number of country contexts (Kidd, 2008; Lindsey et al., 2017). Financial

capacity is, however, but one of a range of different capacities that may be

28
differentially held by state and non-state actors. For example, state institutions may

have institutional or legal capacities for co-ordination or regulation which are very

different from the expertise-orientated resources possessed by those non-state

actors which represent individual sports or engage in community-centred

development. There is the potential, therefore, for differently configured

relationships to productively build on the different capacities of state and/or non-state

actors. On the other hand, Batley and Mcloughlin (2010) bring attention to the risk of

negative outcomes if either state or non-state actors adopt roles that they do not

have the capacities to fulfil.

Other specific characteristics of individual actors may also influence, positively and

negatively, the possibilities of differently configured relationships. Research by

Yarrow (2011) and Brass (2012) in Ghana and Kenya respectively demonstrates in

great detail how many particular relationships between state and non-state actors

are affected in various ways by the personal histories, characteristics and attitudes of

the individual personnel involved. Changes in senior politicians and senior civil

servants who have held varying personal attitudes towards sport can have, often

sudden, implications for ongoing relationships between state and non-state actors

irrespective of context ii. Furthermore, the extent of individual and institutionalised

trust between different actors is a key determinant of relationships as, for example,

Reis et al. (2016) found in SfD programmes in Brazilian communities in which there

was a longstanding mistrust in government institutions.

Finally, the nature of actors’ individual and collective objectives also influences the

way relationships between them are configured. It is extremely rare for actors not to

29
have their own financial and organisational sustainability, if not their own profit or

advantage, as a key focus that sits alongside any aspirations to achieve wider

developmental objectives. State and non-state actor’s engagement in differently

configured relationships has consequences not only for the achievement of wider

development objectives but also for their own ends as an organisation or institution.

Putting this in practical terms, Saunders et al. (2014, p801) recognises that

‘partnering with government is a catch-22 situation for many civil society

organisations as it may empower them with funding and resources but may limit their

independence’. Such implications will vary according to the specific configuration of

relationships between state and non-state actors. Co-producing relationships, as one

example, place greater constraints on actors independently furthering their own,

distinct objectives than engagement in complementary relationships would. More

significant consequences may arise in cases where more adversarial relationships

offer direct challenge to particular actors’ aspired or realised ends.

Beyond the objectives of individual actors, different configurations of relationships

may have more or less relevance depending on different ways in which sport may

relate to particular SDGs and their associated Targets. More adversarial

relationships associated with either state regulation or non-state advocacy may be

particularly relevant, not to say morally justified in some cases, when practices

associated with sport may be detrimental to development, or specific SDGs and

Targets. Alternatively, the use of sport-based activities to instrumentally contribute to

various SDGs and Targets often requires engagement with otherwise excluded

groups or the provision of adaptive support for personal and social development.

These approaches may likely benefit from configurations that allow greater flexibility

30
for non-state actors that have specialised capacity to implement localised and in-

depth approaches. On the other hand, greater state engagement in relationships

may be required when a meaningful contribution of sport to SDG Targets requires

implementation on a wider or more uniform scale. Improving physical education to

realise developmental and educational purposes was cited earlier as such a case, as

may be implementation towards increasing population-level participation in sport and

physical activity so as to combat non-communicable diseases. All of these

considerations are necessarily offered broadly and cautiously at this point. There is

certainly a need for empirical research that investigates how existing and emerging

relationships between state and non-state actors may be orientated according to the

different ways in which sport may be associated with, contribute to or detract from

individual SDGs and Targets.

Conclusions

The preceding section has highlighted many complexities that are important to

implementation of any of the six configurations of relationships between state and

non-state actors which have been identified. The conclusion to draw from this

analysis is that the set of six configurations should not be considered as a model or a

framework or, worse still, a tool kit that can be harnessed in a deterministic way.

Instead, the purpose of identifying and examining potential configurations of state

and non-state actors in this article is to provide a heuristic device for policy makers,

practitioners and researchers to use to better understand how different relationships

may (or may not) enhance potential contributions of sport to development.

31
For policy makers and practitioners, specifically, the article has demonstrated the

importance of moving beyond the simplistic terminology of ‘partnership’ that has

continued to predominate across sport and development sectors. Different

configurations of relationships between state and non-state actors involved with

sport have varying applicability towards different SDGs and targets. While the 2030

Agenda is intended to involve and be relevant to all countries, individual countries

are expected to prioritise and develop implementation approaches towards SDGs

that are appropriate in their own contexts. Therefore, options to pursue particular

configurations of relationships to enhance the potential contribution of sport to

particular SDGs and Targets are most appropriately determined within individual

countries. In making such decisions, influential contextual and organisational factors

that have been explored throughout the article are important for both state and non-

state actors to consider.

The article also serves to identify and encourage investigation of new agendas for

sport and development research. That there have been few studies in the SDP field

that consider the enactment and implications of relationships between state and non-

state actors is an obvious but relevant limitation, and the conceptualisation offered in

this article can underpin new empirical studies that can address this gap. Moreover,

the extensive development studies literature on relationships between state and non-

state actors has yet to substantially consider the extent to which specific types of

relationships may be more or less relevant to different development objectives.

Addressing this gap in understanding is now especially important given the broad

range of SDGs and Targets set in the 2030 Agenda. With sport having relevance

across multiple SDGs and Targets, research that utilises the conceptualisation and

32
ideas presented in this article in examining differently configured relationships across

sport and development has the potential to make substantive contributions not only

in the SDP field but also across development studies. The article thus presents and

supports a novel, ambitious and challenging research agenda. It is an agenda that

requires significant work from sport and development researchers, but one that

would bring ongoing and valuable rewards across policy, practice and academia.

33
References

Akindes, G. and Kirwan, M., 2009. Sport as International Aid: Assisting Development

or Promoting Under-Development in Sub-Saharan Africa? In: R. Levermore and A.

Beacom, eds. Sport and International Development. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 215-

245.

Banda, D., 2017. Sport for Development and Global Public Health Issues: A Case

Study of National Sports Associations. AIMS Public Health, 4(3), 240-257.

Banks, N. and Hulme, D., 2012. The Role of NGOs and Civil Society in Development

and Poverty Reduction. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No. 171.

Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2072157 [Accessed 26 July 2017].

Batley, R., 2006. Engaged or divorced? Cross‐service findings on government

relations with non‐state service‐providers. Public Administration and Development

26(3), 241-251.

Batley, R. and Mcloughlin, C., 2010. Engagement with Non‐State Service Providers

in Fragile States: Reconciling State‐Building and Service Delivery. Development

Policy Review, 28(2), 131-154.

Bawole, J. N., and Hossain, F., 2015. Marriage of the unwilling? The paradox of local

government and NGO relations in Ghana. Voluntas, 26(5), 2061-2083.

34
Bergsgard, N.A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Nødland, S.I. and Rommetwedt, H.,

2007. Sport policy: A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Blair, R., and Capel, S., 2011. Primary physical education, coaches and continuing

professional development. Sport, Education and Society, 16(4), 485-505.

Brass, J. N., 2012. Blurring boundaries: The integration of NGOs into governance in

Kenya. Governance, 25(2), 209-235.

Brinkerhoff, J., 2002. Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework,

Public Administration and Development. 22(1), 19 – 30.

Burnett, C., 2015. Assessing the sociology of sport: On Sport for Development and

Peace. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(4-5), 385-390.

Chepyator-Thomson, J. R. 2014. Public policy, physical education and sport in

English-speaking Africa. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(5), 512-521.

Coalter, F. 2010. The politics of sport-for-development: Limited focus programmes

and broad gauge problems? International review for the sociology of sport. 45(3),

295-314.

Commonwealth Secretariat, 2016, Policy Guidance to Commonwealth Governments

on Protecting the Integrity of Sport. Available from:

35
http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/inline/Policy%20Guidance%20to%20C

ommonwealth%20Governments%20on%20Protecting%20the%20Integrity%20of%2

0Sport%202016.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2017].

Cope, E., Parnell, D., Macfadyen, T., and Reeves, M. J., 2015. A Critical Debate on

Provision of Primary Physical Education: the English Context. Journal of Sport

Science and Physical Education. 68, 56-62.

Dart, J., 2017. Showing Israel the red card. Activists engaged in pro-Palestinian

sport-related campaigns. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, DOI:

10.1080/19406940.2017.1292303

Deacon, B., 2016. Assessing the SDGs from the point of view of global social

governance. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 32(2), 116-130.

Darnell, S. C., and Black, D. R., 2011. Mainstreaming sport into international

development studies. Third world quarterly, 32(3), 367-378.

Dudfield, O., 2014. Sport for Development and Peace: Opportunities, Challenges

and the Commonwealth’s Response”. In: O. Dudfield, ed., Strengthening Sport for

Development and Peace: National Policies and Strategies. London: Commonwealth

Secretariat, 1-12.

Dudfield, O. and Dingwall-Smith, M., 2016. Sport for Development and

Peace and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Analysis Report. London:

36
Commonwealth Secretariat.

Fokwang, J., 2009. Southern Perspective on Sport-in-Development: A Case Study of

Football in Bamenda, Cameroon. In: R. Levermore and A. Beacom, eds. Sport and

International Development. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 198-218.

Giulianotti, R., 2011a. The Sport, Development and Peace Sector: A Model of Four

Social Policy Domains. Journal of Social Policy, 40(4), 757-776.

Giulianotti, R., 2011b. Sport, Transnational Peacemaking, and Global Civil Society:

Exploring the Reflective Discourses of ''Sport, Development, and Peace'' Project

Officials. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 35(1), 50-71.

Gordon, B., Dyson, B., Cowan, J., McKenzie, A., and Shulruf, B., 2016. Teachers’

Perceptions of Physical Education in Aotearoa/New Zealand Primary Schools. New

Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(1), 99-111.

Hasselgård, A., & Straume, S., 2015. Sport for development and peace policy

discourse and local practice: Norwegian sport for development and peace to

Zimbabwe. International journal of sport policy and politics, 7(1), 87-103.

Hayhurst, L., 2009. The power to shape policy: charting sport for development and

peace policy discourses. International Journal of Sports Policy and Politics, 1(2),

203-227.

37
Hayhurst, L. M., 2011. Corporatising sport, gender and development: Postcolonial IR

feminisms, transnational private governance and global corporate social

engagement. Third world quarterly, 32(3), 531-549.

Hulme, D. and Edwards, M., 1997. NGOs, States and Donors: An Overview. In: D.

Hulme and M. Edwards, eds. NGOs, States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort?

Basingstoke: MacMillan, 3–23.

International Olympic Committee (IOC), 2015. The Contribution of Sport to the

Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 Development Agenda. Available

from:

https://www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/sport_contribution_to_post

_2015_agenda_eng_feb.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2017].

Kay, T. and Dudfield, O., 2013. The Commonwealth Guide to Advancing

Development through Sport. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K., 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in

international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Keim, M. and de Coning, C., eds., 2014. Sport and Development Policy in Africa:

Results of a Collaborative Study of Selected Country Cases. Stellenbosch:

AFRICAN SUN MeDIA.

38
Khoo, C., Schulenkorf, N., and Adair, D., 2014. The opportunities and challenges of

using cricket as a sport-for-development tool in Samoa. Cosmopolitan Civil

Societies, 6(1), 77.

Kidd, B., 2008. A new social movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in

Society, 11(4), 370-380.

Lang, M. and Hartill, H., eds., 2014. Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in

Sport: International Perspectives in Research, Policy and Practice, Abingdon:

Routledge.

Levermore, R., 2008. Sport: A New Engine of Development. Progress in

Development Studies, 8(2), 193-190.

Levermore, R., 2010. CSR for Development Through Sport: examining its potential

and limitations. Third World Quarterly, 31(2), 223-241.,

Lindsey, I., 2017. Governance in sport-for-development: Problems and possibilities

of, not) learning from international development. International Review for the

Sociology of Sport, 52(7), 801-818.

Lindsey, I., 2018. Analysing policy change and continuity: physical education and

school sport policy in England since 2010. Sport, Education and Society, doi:

10.1080/13573322.2018.1547274.

39
Lindsey, I. and Banda, D., 2011. Sport and the fight against HIV / AIDS in Zambia: A

‘partnership’ approach? International Review of Sociology of Sport, 46(1), 90-107.

Lindsey, I. and Bitugu, B.B., 2018a. Distinctive policy diffusion patterns, processes

and actors: Drawing implications from the case of sport in international development.

Policy Studies, 39 (4), 444-464.

Lindsey, I. and Bitugu, B.B., 2018b. Partnerships in and around Sport for

Development and Peace. In: H. Collison, S. Darnell, R. Giulianotti, D. Howe, eds.

Routledge Handbook of Sport for Development and Peace. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lindsey. I. and Darby, P., 2018. Sport and the Sustainable Development Goals:

Where is the policy coherence? International Review of the Sociology of Sport

Lindsey, I. and Grattan, A., 2012. An ‘international movement'? Decentering sport-

for-development within Zambian communities. International Journal of Sport Policy

and Politics, 4(1), 91-110.

Lindsey, I., Kay, T., Jeanes, R. and Banda, D., 2017. Localizing Global Sport for

Development. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Manzo, K., 2012. Development through Football in Africa: Neoliberal and

Postcolonial Models of Community Development. Geoforum, 43(3), 551-560.

Maxwell, S. and Riddell, R., 1998. Conditionality or contract: Perspectives on

40
partnership for development. Journal of International Development, 10(2),

257-268.

Mayhew, S., 2005. Hegemony, politics and ideology: The role of legislation in NGO-

government relations in Asia. The Journal of Development Studies, 41(5),

727-758.

McLoughlin, C., 2011. Factors Affecting State–Non‐Governmental Organisation

Relations In Service Provision: Key Themes From The Literature. Public

Administration and Development, 31(4), 240-251.

Millward, P., 2017. World Cup 2022 and Qatar’s construction projects: Relational

power in networks and relational responsibilities to migrant workers. Current

Sociology, 65(5), 756–776

Mwaanga, O., 2013. The Role of Sport for Development NGOs. In: I. Henry and L.M.

Ko, eds. International Hand Book for Sport Policy'. London, Routledge, 83-92.

Mwaanga, O. and Banda, D., 2014. A postcolonial approach to understanding sport-

based empowerment of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in Zambia: The case

of the cultural philosophy of Ubuntu. Journal of Disability and Religion, 18(2), 173-

191.

Najam, A., 2000. The four C’s of third sector – government relations: Cooperation,

confrontation, complementarity and co-optation. Nonprofit Management and

41
Leadership, 10(4), 375-396.

Nicholson, M., Hoye, R. and Houlihan, B., eds., 2011. Participation in Sport:

International Policy Perspectives. Routledge, Abingdon.

Njelesani, D., 2011. Preventive HIV/AIDS Education through Physical Education:

Reflections from Zambia. Third World Quarterly, 32(3), 435-452.

Paramio-Salcines, J. L., 2014, Sport and urban regeneration, In: I. Henry and L.M.

Ko, eds. International Hand Book for Sport Policy'. London, Routledge, 275-288.

Pereira, J., 2005. Against the state, with the state, within the state: The risks of being

an NGO in a context of health reform in Santiago and Montevideo, RC19 paper,

University of Texas at Austin – Population Research Center.

Reis, R. S., Salvo, D., Ogilvie, D., Lambert, E. V., Goenka, S., Brownson, R. C., and

Lancet Physical Activity Series 2 Executive Committee., 2016. Scaling up physical

activity interventions worldwide: stepping up to larger and smarter approaches to get

people moving. The Lancet, 388(10051), 1337-1348.

Richards, J. and Foster, C., 2014. Sport-for-Development Programme Objectives

and Delivery: A Mismatch in Gulu, Northern Uganda. In: N. Schulenkorf and D.

Adair, eds., Global sport-for-development: critical perspectives. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan, 155-172.

42
Sanders, B., Phillips, J. and Vanreusel, B., 2014. Opportunities and challenges

facing NGOs using sport as a vehicle for development in post-apartheid South

Africa. Sport, Education and Society, 19(6), 789-805.

Sansom, K., 2006. Government engagement with non‐state providers of water and

sanitation services. Public Administration and Development, 26(3), 207-217.

Skinner, J., Zakus, D. H., and Cowell, J., 2008. Development through sport: Building

social capital in disadvantaged communities. Sport management review, 11(3), 253-

275.

Sport England / UK Sport, 2016. A Code for Sports Governance. Available from:

https://www.sportengland.org/media/11193/a_code_for_sports_governance.pdf

[Accessed 26 July 2017].

Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group, 2006. From Practice

to Policy. Available from:

https://www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/20__s_for_dev_and_peac

e__from_practice_to_policy.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2017].

Soublière, J. F., and Cloutier, C., 2015. Explaining Levels of Local Government

Involvement in Service Delivery: The Dynamics of Cross‐Sector Partnerships in

Malawi. Public Administration and Development, 35(3), 192-205.

43
Svensson, P. and Woods, L., 2017. A systematic overview of sport for development

and peace organisations. Journal of Sport for Development, 5(9), 36-48.

Teamey, K., 2010. Research on relationships between government agencies and

non-state providers of basic services: A discussion on the methods, theories and

typologies used and ways forward. Non-Governmental Public Action Programme

Working Paper. Available from:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/research/NGPA/publications/ngpa_

wp38.aspx [Accessed 26 July 2017].

Thibault, L., 2009. Globalization of sport: an inconvenient truth. Journal of

Sport Management, 23(1), 1–20.

Thorpe, H., and Rinehart, R., 2013. Action sport NGOs in a neo-liberal context: The

cases of Skateistan and Surf Aid International. Journal of sport and social

issues, 37(2), 115-141.

United Nations, 2006. Report on the International Year of Sport and Physical

Education 2005, Geneva: United Nations

United Nations, 1989. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child. Available from: https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the

_child.pdf?_ga=2.100109782.916047172.1501059422-2046639037.1501059422

[Accessed 26 July 2017].

44
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 2015.

International Charter of Physical Education, Physical Activity

and Sport. Available from: unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235409e.

pdf [Accessed 26 July 2017].

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030

Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available from:

www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/L.1andLang=E. [Accessed 26

July 2017].

United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace, 2003.

Sport for Development and Peace: Towards Achieving the Millennium Development

Goals, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations Office on Sport for Development and Peace, (UNOSDP), 2017.

Sport and the Sustainable Development Goals: An overview outlining the

contribution of sport to the SDGs. Available from:

https://www.un.org/sport/sites/www.un.org.sport/files/ckfiles/files/Sport_for_SDGs_fin

alversion9.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2017].

United Nations Office on Sport for Development and Peace and International

Olympic Committee, 2011. 2nd International Forum on Sport for Peace and

Development. Available from:

https://www.un.org/sport/sites/www.un.org.sport/files/ckfiles/files/10-

45
11_05_2011_UN-IOC_FORUM_Geneva_REPORT_EN.pdf [Accessed 26 July

2017].

Wamai, R., 2004. Recent International Trends in NGO Health System Organization,

Development and Collaborations with Government in Transforming Health Care

Systems: The Case of Finland and Kenya, Unpublished PhD doctoral dissertation,

Department of Social Policy/Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki,

Finland.

Wilson, B., Van Luijk, N. and Boit, M.K., 2015. When celebrity athletes are

“social movement entrepreneurs”: A study of the role of elite runners in

run-for-peace events in post-conflict Kenya in 2008. International Review for the

Sociology of Sport, 50(8), 929–957.

Woodcock, A., Cronin, O., and Forde, S., 2012. Quantitative Evidence for the

Benefits of Moving the Goalposts, a Sport for Development Project in Rural Kenya.

Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(3), 370-381.

Yarrow, T., 2011. Development Beyond Politics: Aid, Activism and NGOs in Ghana.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Zafar Ullah, A. N., Newell, J. N., Ahmed, J. U., Hyder, M. K. A., and Islam, A., 2006.

Government–NGO collaboration: the case of tuberculosis control in

Bangladesh. Health policy and planning, 21(2), 143-155.

[Appendix 1 Around Here]

46
Figure 1: Configurations of relationships between state and non-state actors

ENDS

Divergent potential impacts

Common potential impacts detract from (particular) SDGs

towards (particular) SDGs

IMPLEMENTATION

State-centred implementation State-led regulation

MEANS OF

Complementary Co-Produced
Implementation Implementation

Non-state-centred implementation Non-state-led adversarial advocacy

47
Table 1: State and Non-State Actors in Sport and Development

State Actors ‘The state’ encompasses a range governmental and public

institutions within a specific country.

Distinctions can be made amongst state institutions and

organisations that have relevance to sport:
• between governmental ministries that have specific
responsibilities for sport and those (e.g. health and education)
whose wider responsibilities have some specific relevance or
overlap across sport and development.
• across different tiers of the state, including national (e.g.
government and national sports councils), sub-national (e.g.
regional/local authorities), and local (e.g. schools) levels.

Global policy documents (SDP International Working Group, 2006;

UNESCO, 2017) have continually advocated for greater state
involvement in SDP. There remains significant variation across
countries in the extent to which governments have actively sought
to use sport to contribute to development objectives (Dudfield,
2014; Keim and de Conning, 2014; Lindsey and Bitugu, 2018).

Non-state The set of non-state actors associated with sport and development
actors includes non-governmental organisations (NGOs), sporting
federations and bodies, and private sector businesses.
• NGOs are particularly prevalent and prominent as key actors in
the SDP ‘movement’ (Levermore, 2008; Mwaanga, 2014;
Svensson & Woods, 2017). There is considerable diversity
amongst both development and SDP NGOs. NGOs range from
those that work across multiple countries to those that are
located within, and focus on, specific communities (Giulianotti,
2011b; Mwaanga, 2014). The scale, availability and security of
resources of such NGOs can also vary to significant degrees.
• International sporting bodies such as the IOC and FIFA have
often made strong policy statements in support of the role of
sport in development and have funded a variety of
organisations to implement programmes in particular regions,
countries and contexts (Giulianotti, 2011a; Manzo, 2012). There
are also examples of national governing bodies and other sport
organisations that have engaged with development issues
relevant to their own country contexts (Banda, 2017; Khoo et
al., 2014).
• Transnational corporations have been influential in SDP through
instigating their own specific ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’
programmes (Giulianotti, 2011b). Domestic private sector
organisations both within and beyond the sport industry itself
can also be of relevance to sport and development.

48
Appendix 1: SDGs and SDG Targets prioritised in global sport policy documents
(Commonwealth Secretariat, 2017; UNESCO, 2017)

SDG Target Description

Sustainable SDG
Development Target
Goal Number
By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis,
malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat
3.3 hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other
communicable diseases
By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from
SDG 3: Ensure 3.4 non-communicable diseases through prevention,
healthy lives treatment and promoting mental health and wellbeing
and promote Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance
well-being for 3.5 abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use
all, at all ages of alcohol
By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and
reproductive healthcare services, including family
3.7 planning, information and education, and the
integration of reproductive health into national
strategies and programmes
By 2030, aim to ensure that all girls and boys complete
free, equitable and quality primary and secondary
4.1 education leading to relevant and effective learning
outcomes.
By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth
SDG 4: Ensure and adults who have relevant skills, including technical
4.4 and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and
inclusive and
entrepreneurship
equitable
quality By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and
education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and
promote 4.5 vocational training for the vulnerable, including
persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and
lifelong learning
children in vulnerable situations
opportunities
for all By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the
knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable
development including … human rights, gender
4.7 equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-
violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural
diversity and of culture's contribution to sustainable
development
SDG 5: Achieve End all forms of discrimination against all women and
5.1 girls everywhere
gender equality
and empower eliminate all forms of violence against all women and
all women and 5.2 girls in the public and private spheres, including
girls trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.

49
 Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and
5.3 forced marriage and female genital mutilation
Ensure women’s full and effective participation and
5.5 equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of
decision-making in political, economic and public life.
Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through
diversification, technological upgrading and innovation,
8.2 including through a focus on high-value added and
labour-intensive sectors
Promote development-oriented policies that support
productive activities, decent job creation,
entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and
8.3 encourage the formalization and growth of micro-,
SDG 8: Promote small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through
access to financial services
sustained,
inclusive and By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and
sustainable decent work for all women and men, including for
8.5 young people and persons with disabilities, and equal
economic
growth, full and pay for work of equal value
productive By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth
employment 8.6 not in employment, education or training.
and decent Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate
work for all forced labour, end modern slavery and human
trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination
8.7 of the worst forms of child labour, including
recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end
child labour in all its forms
Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure
working environments for all workers, including
8.8 migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and
those in precarious employment.
By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic
and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex,
SDG 10: Reduce 10.2 disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic
inequality or other status
within and
among Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible
migration and mobility of people, including through the
countries 10.7 implementation of planned and well-managed
migration policies
By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable
SDG 11: Make
urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated
cities and 11.3 and sustainable human settlement planning and
human management in all countries.
settlements
inclusive, safe, By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and
accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for
resilient and 11.7 women, children, older persons and persons with
sustainable disabilities.

50
 Implement the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on
Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, all
12.1 countries taking action, with developed countries
taking the lead, taking into account the development
and capabilities of developing ocuntries
By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and
12.2 efficient use of natural resources
SDG 12: Ensure
sustainable Encourage companies, especially large and
consumption transnational companies, to adopt sustainable
12.6 practices and to integrate sustability information into
and production
patterns their reporting cycle
By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the
12.8 relevant information and awareness of sustainable
development and lifestyles in harmony with nature
Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable
12.b development impacts for sustainable tourism that
creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
SDG 13: Take
urgent action to
Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-
combat climate 13.1 related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
change and its
impacts
Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related
death rates everywhere, by building relationships,
16.1 encouraging positive interaction, and foster respect
SDG 16:
between groups affected by conflict or marginalisation.
Promote
peaceful and End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of
16.2 violence against and torture of children
inclusive
societies for Promote the rule of law at the national and
sustainable 16.3 international levels and ensure equal access to justice
development, for all
provide access By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms
to justice for 16.4 flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen
all, and build assets and combat all forms of organised crime
effective,
accountable and Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their
16.5 forms.
inclusive
institutions at Develop effective, accountable and transparent
16.6 institutions at all levels
all levels
Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and
16.7 representative decisions-making at all levels

51
i See, for example, Sanders et al., 2014 and Lindsey et al., 2017, who identify longstanding issues of

organisational status and racial profiles as being problematic for such relationships in different African
contexts.
ii See, for example, Lindsey (2016) in respect of Ghana, and Lindsey (2018) in respect of England

52