What policy means for sports clubs ‘on the ground’

Taylor and Francis RPRT_A_421753. sgm 10.1080/19407960903215790 Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 945-2829 (pri t)/1945-2837 (online) Original Article 2 09 & Francis 30 0002009 It may still be surprising that in the UK, where there are over 100,000 Voluntary Sports Clubs (VSCs) (Nichols, 2003a) that are fundamental to the provision of sporting opportunities in the UK, relatively little still appears to be known about them. Given the heightened political and policy interest, from Major’s Conservative government (Raising the Game [DNH, 1995]) through New Labour (A Sporting Future For All [DCMS, 2000]; Game Plan [DCMS/Strategy Unit, 2002]) where VSCs have come under increasing scrutiny as both objects and subject of policy, the paucity of knowledge concerning VSCs presents a serious lacuna. Moreover, the apparent focus of policy on VSCs and those who volunteer within them presents a challenge to the oftcited notion of evidence-based policy (Solesbury, 2001), particularly as so little is known of both their processes and the outputs of those processes. In considering how VSCs translate and implement policy (Skille, 2008) the importance of New Labour’s modernisation programme is undeniable. This ‘project’ involves the embracing of the core tenets of the New Public Management, which includes a commitment to professional management, auditing and performance management as its standard bearers, and an embracing of contractualisation in relation to inter-organisational governance (McLaughlin, Osborne, & Ferlie, 2002). For VSCs the importance of modernisation is in the turn to, and strengthening of, civil society as the means to deliver New Labour’s political and policy mandate. In this respect VSCs have become viewed as civil society organisations (CSOs), and have received much attention (e.g. Blunkett, 2001; DCMS, 2000; DCMS/Strategy Unit, 2002), particularly as VSC volunteers make up the single largest component, that is 26%, of all voluntary activity occurring in England (Taylor et al., 2003). The adoption of Putnamian notions of social capital into British social policy, the use of the bowling metaphor to signal a decline in social capital, together with Putnam’s emphasis on voluntary associationalism (Putnam, 2000), has ensured that sports volunteering, active citizenship and civic renewal have become conflated by policymakers following this rationale. Unsurprisingly much has been claimed about sport and particularly formal sport occurring within a VSC in terms of the potential benefits to society. Benefits are seen to accrue mainly in the form of human capital, but also in economic and physical capital, and include reducing crime, improving health, improving skills that can lead to educational benefits and above all in relation to the perceived ‘positive’ characteristics of sport by policymakers (e.g. Carter, 2005; Coalter, 2007; DCMS, 2000; DCMS/ Strategy Unit, 2002; DNH, 1995; Nichols, 2003a, 2003b). In this way social capital has been invoked, both mysteriously as ‘the magic ingredient that makes all the difference’ (Blair, 1999, p. 3) and specifically in the sense that ‘a community’s ability to