Decision-making processes in bidding for large scale sports events

book 278 Decision-making processes in bidding for large scale sports events Author: Paul Salisbury Institution: Leeds Trinity University College E-mail: p.salisbury@leedstrinity.ac. uk Introduction An initial foray into the study of decision-making processes for large scale sports events was provided by Roche (1994) in his coverage of the 1991 World Student Games in Sheffield. Here, he acknowledged that in order to research large scale sports events there is a need for researchers to consider two issues. Firstly, a detailed account must be provided concerning the situational rationality of the policy decisions. From a practical perspective, this entails consideration of the mechanics of the policy-making process which means accounting for which decisions were made, when and how they were made and by whom. Roche continued that further research in this area should consider this, but also the mediation between contextual forces and urban policy. The latter approach has already been adopted by some scholars in general works on local sport policy (see for example King, 2009) and to an extent by Horne and Manzenreiter (2006) with regards to large scale events. However, to date, no studies have attempted to use meso-level policy frameworks in order to explain how the mediation of these contextual frameworks results in the situational rationality of policy decisions in the field of large scale sporting events. Therefore, this paper follows the suggestion given by Roche, which outlined a method for exploring decisions to host, but furthers this through the application of policy models, most notably the multiple streams framework (Kingdon 1984), in order to provide a sophisticated understanding of how policy decisions are made at the local level. In order to achieve this, three British bids were analysed: Sheffield’s bid for the 1991 World Student Games (Universiade), Manchester’s failed bid for the 2000 Olympic Games and Glasgow’s bid for the 2014 Commonwealth Games. The rationale for the selection of these cases was largely due to their correspondence with significant, ‘formative moments’ in the context of British sport policy. The expectation upon commencing this study was that these three bids would respectively have been city-led, sport-led and central government-led. Theoretical Frameworks Initial attempts at policy analysis by academics in the 1970s was largely seen as a means by which democratic governance could be facilitated (Houlihan 2005). The field of study emerged as in several areas, including sport, governments were becoming more interventionist. Generally, these initial analyses focussed on the early stages of the policy process: policy identification, agenda setting and policy formulation and they were characterised by a largely quantitative methodology based upon a neo-positivist epistemology (Houlihan 2005). However, when government investment in areas such as sport failed to produce the intended policy outcomes, there was a refocusing of this approach towards a macro-level, quantitative approach which became broader and relied more heavily on an analysis of the role of the state. Traditional macro-theoretical accounts which attempted to generalise on policy areas were no longer deemed as solely adequate for explaining policy. For instance, with regards to elite sport and hosting, neo-Marxist accounts argue that the attempt to bring mega events to a nation are merely rationalising the entrenched political interests of the state in order for capitalists to legitimise their interests, however this ignores the softer ‘ideas’ such as Olympism which are not subordinated to the needs of instrumental rationality (Houlihan 2005). Hence, attention has shifted towards a meso-level approach for policy analysis and several authors (see Richardson 1982, Kingdon 1984, Sabatier and JenkinsSmith 1988, 1993) have attempted to create frameworks to aid understanding. For the purpose of this study, two such frameworks were selected based upon their respective ability to explain the articulation of power within policy subsystems. Namely, these were policy networks and the multiple streams framework (MSF). Policy networks, conceptualised by Rhodes (1988) and Marsh (1998), allow for meso level policy theorisation based upon the principle of neo-pluralism or corporatism. According to Adam and Kriesi (2007) policy-making takes place in domain specific subsystems, which operate more or less independently of each other. It follows, then, that analysis of policy in a domain such as sport should focus on the features of that specific subsystem. Within the broad realm of network theory, two alternative models are offered: policy communities and issue networks. Issue networks were defined by Rhodes (1988) as having large numbers of participants and, which in turn have limited interdependence. In comparison with policy communities, they are less stable and have looser ideological bonds uniting them. Perhaps the key feature of issue networks is the absence of an ideological focal point that ties them together. King (2009) claims that this has meant issue networks have tended not to have a significant impact on the policy-making process, unlike policy communities. However, given the temporary and fragmented nature of bidding committees, particularly during the very early stages of bids for large scale sports events, issue networks were retained as a possible analytical framework through which to explore these decisions. The multiple streams framework (illustrated in Figure 1 below) is primarily concerned with the process of agenda setting and Kingdon (1984: 175) notes that ‘[it] is as far away from the sequential model of policy-making as can be imagined. ’ The premise of this framework is illustrated in Figure 1 below and claims that the success of policy is based upon the ability of individuals within a system to couple three existing streams within a policy subsystem: the problem stream, the politics stream and the policy stream. In order to be successful, the policy entrepreneur must wait until the political ‘conditions’ are right and exploit the policy launch window New Researcher Award www.easm2012. com 18-21 September 2012, Aalborg, Denmark 279 . Figure 1. Diagram of the multiple streams framework. Adapted from Zahariadis (2007). In terms of its relative usefulness for this study, it was felt that the MSF could provide a useful tool for analysing the Sheffield 1991 bid, given the absence of any central policy towards hosting in the UK, and also allow for depicting the development of all bids in their early stages, especially agenda setting. Early consideration of the meso-level frameworks indicated a somewhat blurred picture, in that each appeared to demonstrate some potential usefulness for charting policy decisions in regards to hosting and all had some perceived value. Indeed, it was considered unlikely that any one theory would provide a perfect ‘match’ to the findings of this study. Method Essentially, the purpose of this study was to address the following research questions:  Why and how did the selected cities decide to bid for major/mega event?  To what extent have these decisions reflected national policy towards ‘hosting’? In order to provide adequate and valid responses to these questions, consideration was given to Grix’s (2002) strategy for research in this area. Hence, the research was designed to demonstrate a logical ‘flow’ from the chosen ontological position to the detailed methods to be employed. The ontological paradigm selected fits most closely with that of anti-foundationalism, which links succinctly to the to the chosen critical realist epistemology. These lead to the assumptions that reality is considered to be local and specific, often unobservable and those realities which do exist are often shaped by unobservable political and social processes. The purpose of the selected methods was not only to uncover the actions of agents within a policy subsystem, but also the structures which influence and inhibit these actions. This was supported by a qualitative methodology which encompassed extensive triangulation. The specific methods used to collect data were initially documentary research and semi-structured interviews and these contributed to a wider case study approach. Documentary research was largely archive-based and involved content analysis of a range of official documents held in numerous local authority and sports federation archives and was followed by a series of semi-structured interviews with actors both central to, and excluded, from the decision-making processes in each bid. Interview participants were initially selected following content analysis of the documents and further participants were recruited using snowball sampling. Interviews took place between April 2009 and April 2012 and were fully transcribed and analysed using a combination of open and axial coding. Discussion of Results The findings of the study tentatively suggested that, despite its predominant focus on the agenda setting phase of policy decisions, the MSF is a convincing analytical tool to understand the rise of the all three bids onto the relevant national and local political agendas. There is little doubt that in each case there was significant influence achieved by individuals acting in manners akin to policy entrepreneurs. In addition, there was also some evidence that these actors were able to couple three ‘streams. ’ For instance, in Glasgow’s case there existed a clear link between the regeneration already taking place in the city (problem stream) and the quest by the newly devolved Scottish Government for a project through which Scottish identity could be harnessed (politics stream). At the same time as these were occurring, the two key policy entrepreneurs in this bid attended the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester and were inspired to develop a Scottish bid (policy stream). All interviewees referred to this