Post on 18-Jan-2018
description
Inequality and the limits of sports policy
Prof Fred Coalter
Is laughing at Vicki Pollard related to sports participation?
The problem with the Irish is that they have problems for all the solutions
Tried everything else............... even a £10 billion ‘legacy’
In participation terms, we start from a low base…..comparable
countries have more people playing sport. Only 32% of adults in
England take 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week, as
recommended by health professionals..... we are a long way behind the
best-achieving nations: in Finland the participation rate is 80% and
increases with age.
...... only 46% of the population participate in sport more than 12
times a year, compared to 70% in Sweden and almost 80% in
Finland
A benchmark for this could be Finland...........70% of population reasonably active by 2020
Portugal
Greece
Italy
Spain
Austria
Germany
Luxembourg
Belgium
France
UK
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
At least once per week 1-3 times per month Less often etc
What is the issue?
European Social Survey 2002
45
48 4746 44
43
47
46
49 48 48 49 4948 47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1987 GHS 1990 GHS 1993 GHS 1996 GHS 1999 GHS 2002 GHS 2005 GHS 2006 APS 2008 APS 2009 APS 2010 APS 2011 APS 2012 APS 2013 APS 2014 APS
Sports Participation in England 1987 - 2014
Why is this a problem?
• Promoting sport?• Excellence and performance?
..you can have a performance strategy based on good quality identification and structure that doesn’t necessarily have to link into mass participation............ The reality is that there are some sports in which we can genuinely anticipate success on a world stage, but have to face the fact that they will never be mass participation sports….
Externalities: core policy, bonus or rationalisation? • Health/obesity, ‘social inclusion’............?• Sport or PA? • Once a week???????
’only a niche role for sport’
Why is sports participation regarded as ‘low’?
• Social equity?
Structure Agency
Consistent ‘associations’
• Age
• Sex
• Level of education
• Social class (taboo?)
Explaining levels of sports participation
National Statistics Socio-economic Classification
Goldthorpe: ‘New Labour vetoed any reference to class’
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AB C1 C2 DE
Social Class and Selected Sports Participation
SSSoooccciiiaaalll CCClllaaassssss AAABBB (((111888%%% ooofff pppooopppuuulllaaatttiiiooonnn)))
Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97 All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation
141516
202021212223242525252627282829
3234
363838
40414142
48
17
38
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Over-represented
Proportionatelyrepresented (±3%)Under-represented
Cricket
Squash
Snooker/billiards/pool
Basketball/netball/volleyball
Tenpin bowling
Multigym/weight training
Table tennis
Running/jogging
Sailing/water sports
Football (any)
Keep-fit/aerobics
Ice skating/ice hockey
Rugby
Golf
Martial arts
Walking (2+ miles)
Bowls
Skiing
Athletics
Horse riding
Gymnastics
Hillwalking/climbing/
Tennis
Fishing/angling
Yoga
Hockey
Badminton
Dancing
mountaineering
PercentageBase number: 3,521
CyclingSwimming (any)
SSSoooccciiiaaalll CCClllaaassssss CCC111 (((222555%%% ooofff pppooopppuuulllaaatttiiiooonnn)))
Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97: All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation
2225
26
282828282929293030303131323232323233333333
3535
3939
28
33
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Over-represented
Proportionatelyrepresented (±3%)
Sailing/water sports
Tennis
Snooker/billards/pool
Walking (2+ miles)
Football (any)
Horse riding
Basketball/netball/volleyball
Gymnastics
Cricket
Bowls
Swimming (any)
Rugby
Keep-fit/aerobics
Multigym/weight training
Ice skating/ice hockey
Dancing
Martial arts
Skiing
Tenpin bowling
Cycling
Table tennis
Hockey
Athletics
Fishing/angling
Yoga
Squash
Running/jogging
Golf
mountaineering
PercentageBase number: 4,866
Hillwalking/climbing/Badminton
SSSoooccciiiaaalll CCClllaaassssss CCC222 (((222333%%% ooofff pppooopppuuulllaaatttiiiooonnn))) Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97 All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation
81112
15161717
191920202121222222
2323232324242425
272828
32
14
27
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Over-represented
Proportionatelyrepresented (±3%)
Under-represented
Martial arts
Tenpin bowling
Cricket
Badminton
Hillwalking/climbing/
Swimming (any)
Cycling
Athletics
Snooker/billiards/pool
Hockey
Gymnastics
Sailing/water sports
Golf
Dancing
Squash
Running/jogging
Tennis
Fishing/angling
Walking (2+ miles)
Rugby
Table tennis
Bowls
Horse riding
Skiing
Ice skating/ice hockey
Football (any)
Multigym/weight training
Yoga
mountaineering
PercentageBase number: 4,352
Keep-fit/aerobicsBasketball/netball/volleyball
SSSoooccciiiaaalll CCClllaaassssss DDDEEE (((333444%%% ooofff pppooopppuuulllaaatttiiiooonnn)))
Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97 All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation
48
11
131414151515161717
1919
212121
23232424
2626
28
2930
3232
12
29
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Proportionatelyrepresented (±3%)
Under-represented
Tenpin bowling
Walking (2+ miles)
Sailing/water sports
Cricket
Yoga
Horse riding
Cycling
Running/jogging
Snooker/billiards/pool
Hockey
Badminton
Rugby
Ice skating/ice
Swimming (any)
Tennis
Table tennis
Squash
Fishing/angling
Gymnastics
Athletics
Keep-fit/aerobics
Dancing
Bowls
Skiing
Football(any)
Martial arts
Basketball/netball/volleyball
Hillwalking/climbing/mountaineering
PercentageBase number: 6,465
Multigym/weight trainingGolf
0102030405060708090
100
Male Female
Selected Sports Participation: Male and female
Source: sportscotland
Structure Agency
Consistent associations
• Age
• Sex
• Social class (taboo?)
• Education
(i) Individualism/consumerism
Supply DemandMeaning/motivations
Explaining levels of sports participation
•Elaine the empty nest career lady [sic]
Market segmentation and descriptive stereotypes
• Individual ‘consumers’ maximising their utility?• Sport as commodity? • Structure and culture.............?
• Leanne the supportive single
•Ben the competitive male urbanite
Structure Agency
Consistent associations
• Age
• Sex
• Social class (taboo?)
• Education
(i) Individualism/consumerism
Social marketing Theories of [rational] behaviour change
Foster et al Understanding Participation In Sport
• Govt policies set out to ‘change attitudes’ or ‘cultures’ with only the most cursory analysis • Well-meaning policies not rooted in realities of people’s lives
Supply Demand
(Relapse is the rule not the exception)
Meaning/motivations
Explaining levels of sports participation
It is evident ....that government policies designed to increase sports participation have had limited success ................ Some have had success..within small communities or specific cohorts..........same level of success has not been apparent within the mass population. Nicholson et al
… clear that governments and researchers don’t know enough about the way in which ‘complex systems of organisations function to either induce or disrupt sports participation patterns’. Nicholson et al
Finland (S Collins)
It is impossible with any certainty to determine what effect national and local government policies have had upon achieving high levels of sports participation
Well-meaning policies..........
Portugal
Greece
Italy
Spain
Austria
Germany
Luxembourg
Belgium
France
UK
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
At least once per week 1-3 times per month Less often etc
So, why are they ‘better’?
It’s all about clubs....
Finland7,800: 1.5 million [c 19%)
Denmark14,000 sports clubs: 1:4003.2 million members (64%)
But, is it all about clubs?
Sweden /Finland• Men are over-represented in club-related and competitive sport
• Women: Higher proportion of regularly/ intensively: non-competitive/non-club- contexts
Denmark 4/5 participants in ‘non-organised locations’
NetherlandsHigher proportion who participate ‘regularly’ outside clubs
Finland• 15% of sporting activity in a sports club• 1/3 ‘non-active’ members
Important social institutions, but ............
• High levels of participation not via organised sport • Women less likely to take part in competitive/organised sport• Shift in types of activity non-competitive/flexible/fitness etc
Does the answer lie in inequality?
Inequality is the key
UK
3-4
8-9
UK : 0.335Finland 0.269Sweden 0.234Denmark 0.232.
Legatum Prosperity Index: 2010
1 Norway2 Denmark3 Finland
6 Sweden
9 Netherlands
13 UK
79 variables
• Economic Fundamentals• Democratic Institutions• Health• Governance• Social Capital• Entrepreneurship and Innovation• Education• Safety and Security• Personal Freedom etc
The Spirit Level: Inequality is the key
Poverty Inequality: the extent of difference Not absolute standards of living/rising incomes Relative deprivation
Poverty Poverty of opportunity/aspiration
Inequality: damages social relationships
• Status denial of worth
• Social differences: Q of character/moral resolve/competence: Chavs/scroungers
• More vulnerable to status anxieties ‘respect’
‘Individual psychology and societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key’
They do not make rational considerations with respect to health consequences however
important they might find these, but ...base their choices primarily on the consequences
this has for their own identity, their relationships with others and the appreciation or
rejection that this may bring to mind van Bottenburg et al
Exercise and sport are thoroughly social phenomena, which take place and find their
meaning...within a broader societal context... The choice to take part in sport, how, where,
what and with whom is directly related to the issue of how people see and wish to
present themselves.....socio-culturally determined views and expectations also play a role
here’
Sport: more than market segmentation
‘Social mobility is widely seen as a process via which people are sorted by ability’ social value/status/personal worth/stigma
Social mobility and unequal societies
The higher the bar, the lower earnings mobility across generations.
UK: 40% of males will stay in same class as fathers (e.g. not moving from unskilled to skilled manual)
Comparable Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility
Britain Finland Sweden Denmark Norway0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.271
0.147 0.143 0.143 0.139
1 No mobility0 Total mobility
United Kingdom
Level of educational achievement seems to be the most important determinant of sports behaviour. Bottenburg et al
Late 1990s
1993
1981
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Richest 20% at aged 16 Poorest 20% at age 16
Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group: GB
Opportunity hoarding and the glass floor’
Sweden/Netherlands
No difference between highest/middle levels of education
Education plus.......
Finland
All educational levels more/less equal levels of sports participation
Sports participation
Women’s participation in ‘sport’Sweden : + 5%Finland: +2%
But not in clubs......
Women’s status
% of women on company boards• Norway 29%• Sweden 23%• Finland 20%• UK 11%
• % of women in legislatures• Male/female income gap• % of women completing higher education
Community and equality are mutually reinforcingPutnam
Norway, Finland and Denmark and the UK are not comparable countries in any
meaningful sense
Social evaluation threats Anxiety/depression Self-esteem insecure narcissism ‘respect
Concern with social judgments/other’s evaluations Self-esteem social esteem Greater inequality importance of social status anxieties
Anonymity of mass societies Unequal societies
Lack of trust Inequality damages social relationships More equal societies: collaborative/less status competition/anxiety More inclusive/participatory
Social inclusion precedes participation?
Social status ‘meritocracy’: ‘ability’; superiority/inferiority Chavs/scroungers/failures
‘Individual psychology & societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key’
Haberdasher’s Askes’s Boys School/ Reigate Grammar School/Bristol University?
Eton / Westminster/ St Paul’s Boys School/ St Paul’s GirlsHills Road Sixth Form College (Cambridge) send more students to Oxbridge PA than 2,000 comprehensive schools/FE colleges
S Collins
Social democratic values inherent in Finnish society, such as egalitarianism, have
supported and provided favourable environment for SfA policies...the legislation
merely recognise practices that were already in operation within Finnish sport’
Well-meaning policies..........
Inclusive political cultures and inclusive definitions
Finland
• Two sports acts (1980/2003)• Sports legislation/provision a central part of social policy• Sports clubs highly subsidised• Huge municipal facility provision• Government directing investment to areas of need.
Is sport epiphenominal?
Portugal
Greece
Italy
Spain
Austria
Germany
Luxembourg
Belgium
France
UK
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
At least once per week 1-3 times per month Less often etc
So, is this not an over-achievement for ‘sport’?
6 stone weakling meets 400 pound gorilla
Fancy a bit of
theory ?
Inequality and the limits of sports policy
Prof Fred Coalter
Laughing at Vicki Pollard is related to sports participation
mmMmmmmmmmmmm
1981 1993 Late 1990s0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Poorest 20% at age 16 Richest 20% at age 16 Educational inequality
Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group
The Spirit Level: Inequality is the key Poverty Inequality: the extent of difference
Not absolute standards of living/rising incomes
Social exclusion‘mechanisms that act to detach groups from the mainstream” Giddens
• The Hidden Injuries of Class• Cultural capital• Social capital Community and equality are mutually reinforcing. Putnam
Poverty Poverty of opportunity
Class Relative deprivation
Class Social status /status anxieties
Inequality: damages social relationships worry about how seen/judged more vulnerable to status anxieties ‘respect’
‘Individual psychology and societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key’
Sports research 2010 - changing times, challenging perspectives’
Fred CoalterUniversity of Stirling
The sports participation glass ceiling – myth or reality?
Re-thinking poverty, inequality and relative deprivation
M van Bottenburg et al (2005) Sports participation in the European union
M Nicholson et al (Eds) Participation in Sport: International policy perspectives
R Wilkinson and K Pickett (2009) The Spirit Level: Why equal societies almost always do better
Basic sources
Sports Participation in the EU Van Bottenburg et al (2005)
1960s 1990s significant increases
Late 1990s
Tentative generalisations
• Stagnation: Finland/Netherlands/Belgium/Austria/Portugal/Spain• Decline: UK/France• Decline among young adults: Sweden/Denmark • Decline in young adults time on sport: Netherlands/Denmark
Individualisation of ‘sports’
“swimming, cycling, walking and…fitness/keep-fit/aerobics are the most practiced sporting activities in almost all of the EU member states”
• Social mobility as an index of class
• Education
• Status of women
More equal countries almost always do better
Portugal
Greece
Italy
Spain
Austria
Germany
Luxembourg
Belgium
France
UK
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
At least once per week 1-3 times per month Less often etc
So, why are they so much better than us?
Can the The Spirit Level explain differences in sports participation?
Prof Fred Coalter
Glass ceiling or class ceiling?
Late 1990s
1993
1981
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Difference (educational inequality) Richest 20% at aged 16 Poorest 20% at age 16
Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group: GB
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Trends in participation in sport (% of adults 16 plus) 2005/6 to 2009/10
1 x30 moderate a week
3 x 30 moderate a week
Sport England’s problem
Trends in participation in sport – excluding walking (at least once in last 4 weeks)
45
48 4746
43
5758
57
54
51
34
39 3938
36
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1987 1990 1993 1996 2002
GH
S Pa
rtici
patio
n in
at l
east
one
spo
rt ex
c. w
alki
ng
All Men Women
Distribution of Income
Source OECD
Social Mobility and Child Poverty CommissionAlan Milburn
Cross-generational social mobility greater equality/fairness/ social cohesion
relationships weaken aggregate sports participation increase
Social Mobility