The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic GamesThe Impact of Resource Inequality upon
Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games
Ian Brittain（The Centre for Business in Society at Coventry University, UK）

Introduction
Alongside the issues of health, inclusion and empowerment that are addressedas part of the sport for development agenda, the most visible challenge facedby the IPC, with direct significance to its legitimacy as an international
advocate for disability rights, is the gulf in resourcing for Para-sports, between
resource-poor and resource-rich regions. This gulf creates an asymmetry
between national teams, evident in levels of representation and podium success
at Para-sport events, significant enough to challenge the very notion of the
Paralympic Movement as truly international in its reach.
（Beacom, 2018; p. 354）

The above claim made by Beacom（2018）forms the basis for this piece of research.
In a study of National Governing Bodies of Olympic sports in Great Britain and theirrelationships with FTSE 100 companies, Morrow and Robinson （2013） claim that
“predictably the unequal distribution of valued resources leads to asymmetricexchange and power relations between organisations and arguably it is the lessresource rich organisation that will be the less powerful partner”（p. 414）.In terms of
disability and Paralympic sport, Novak （2014） claims that there is a failure “torecognize a persistent ‘disability divide’ between the communities who possess the
economic means to compete on the playing field and those who do not” （p.57）.
Although both Beacom and Novak make the claim for a link between access toresources and representation and podium success, it would appear that this claim has
41

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

yet to be empirically tested. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to investigate theseclaims in terms of participation and medal success at the Paralympic Games in order
to ascertain whether, and to what extent, access to resources might play a part andto investigate some of the possible reasons for this.

The Growth of the Paralympic GamesFor an event that began its life in 1948 as a small demonstration to the public at a
spinal injury rehabilitation centre in Stoke Mandeville, UK, of what people with spinal
cord injuries could achieve（at a time when society generally consigned most people
with disabilities to the scrapheap of life）, the Paralympic Games have grown beyond
all recognition in a relatively short space of time（Brittain, 2016）. This is particularly
true of the last thirty years starting in Seoul 1988 since when the Paralympic Games
have consistently been held in the same host city and venues as the Olympic Games.
Brittain（2016）claims that this connection to the Olympic Movement has played amajor part in the growth of the Paralympic Games. These Games since 1988 are often
referred to as the modern Paralympic Games（Legg & Steadward, 2011）. Over thelast thirty years, tables 1 and 2 clearly show that involvement in the summer
Paralympic Games has developed rapidly on all continents, but with some majordifferences. Africa in particular has grown from just four competing nations in 1988
to forty-two in 2016. However, even though the number of competing nations fromAfrica at the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games was exactly the same as the number ofcompeting nations from Europe（42）there was a marked difference in average teamsize between the two continents（Europe = 42 athletes, Africa = 7 athletes）. The
differences for the winter Paralympic Games（see table 2）are even more stark withthe vast majority of teams and athletes at the latest Games in PyeongChang 2018coming from Europe. One of the aims of this paper is to investigate the potential roleof resource accessibility in deciding who can and who cannot participate.

42

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

Table 1. NPC and Number of Athletes Participation by Continental Association at
the summer Paralympic Games（1988 – 2016）
Location

EuropeAmericas

AfricaAsia

Oceania

Total

Seoul

（27）1479（55） （11）706（64）（4）73（18）（16）610（38）（2）189（95） （60）3059（51）Barcelona（33）1798（54） （16）630（39）（11）94（9）（20）316（16）（2）147（74） （83）3001（36）Atlanta（41）1939（47） （18）654（36）（16）130（8）（25）339（14）（3）197（66） （103）3259（32）Sydney（41）2076（53） （20）668（33） （20）213（11） （33）583（18）（7）339（48） （122）3882（32）Athens（42）1927（46） （24）695（29）（28）216（8）（36）778（22）（5）192（38） （135）3808（28）Beijing（45）1954（43） （24）751（31）（30）251（8）（40）858（21）（7）197（28） （146）4011（27）London（47）2085（44） （28）803（29）（39）307（8）（42）854（20）（8）188（23） （164）4237（26）Rio（44）1859（42） （26）1010（39） （42）314（7）（39）925（24）（6）207（35） （157）4315（27）Right Brackets = No. of NPCs; Middle Figure = Total No. of Athletes; Left Brackets = Average Team Size

Table 2. NPC and Number of Athletes Participation by Continental Association at
the winter Paralympic Games（1992 – 2014）
Location

EuropeAfricaAsia（18）288（16） （2）48（24）（0）0（0）（2）17（9）（2）12（6） （24）365（15）Lillehammer （24）367（15） （2）61（31）（0）0（0）（3）30（10）（2）13（6） （31）471（15）Nagano（22）396（18） （2）82（41）（1）1（1）（4）74（19）（2）9（5）（31）562（18）Salt Lake（25）273（11） （3）86（29）（1）1（1）（5）48（10）（2）8（4）（36）416（12）Torino（25）315（13） （4）92（23）（1）1（1）（6）54（9）（2）12（6） （38）474（12）Vancouver（30）310（10） （5）101（20）（1）1（1）（6）77（13）（2）13（7） （44）502（11）（30）334（11） （6）128（21）（0）0（0）（7）66（9）（2）10（5） （45）538（12）（31 ）273（9） （6）131（22）（0）0（0）（9）116（13）（2）14（7） （48）534（11）TignesSochi＊

PyeongChang

Americas

Oceania

Total

Right Brackets = No. of NPCs; Middle Figure = Total No. of Athletes; Left Brackets = Average Team Size＊
Does not include neutral Paralympic athletes（（1）30（30））

Resource Dependency Theory
Resource Dependency Theory（RDT）was first introduced by Pfeffer and Salancik（1978）in order to explain how an organisation’s strategy, structure and survival arecontingent on resources and dependency relationships with external institutions in its
environment. Hillman et al （2009） claim that RDT has become highly influential
within the fields of management and strategy due to the importance of resource
availability on the ability of organisations to operate, develop and succeed. These
43

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

resources can be tangible（physical and financial）or intangible（corporate reputation,
employees’ knowledge, experience and skills, and their commitment and loyalty）（O’
Boyle & Hassan 2014; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978）. According to Yeager et al（2015）
RDT focuses upon the significance of the external environment in understanding thedecisions made by organisations, with those possessing the necessary resources
finding themselves in a position of power and those that find themselves dependent
upon others being vulnerable to control（Malatesta & Smith, 2014）. The organisationin possession of the most important resources within a network will typically hold astrategic control within that network（Yan & Gray, 2001）. Problems may arise for an
organisation within that network not only because it is dependent upon its
environment, but also because the environment itself is not dependable or certain（Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978）. According to Giannoulakis et al（2017）, RDT offers anappropriate framework to understand organisations operating with ‘shifting’ sourcesof funds, which partly describes the situation for most National Paralympic
Committees （NPCs） and particularly those from less developed nations, where
sources of funds may not only be extremely uncertain, but also extremely limited
even in the best of times. Moreover, studies such as Vos et al（2011）and Wicker andBreuer（2011）apply RDT to the sporting context, with Walker and Hayton（2017）
also applying RDT to the disability sport context. This paper will, therefore, seek to
use RDT in order to investigate the success of NPCs at the Paralympic Games andwhether there is a link between the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index（IHDI）ranking of a country and its participation and potential for success at theGames.

People with Disabilities and Restricted Resources
Britain’s Department for International Development（DFID）broadly defines social
exclusion as a process by which certain groups are systematically disadvantaged
because they face discrimination based on their ethnicity, race, religion, sexual
orientation, caste, descent, gender, age, disability, HIV status, migrant status, orwhere they live. Discrimination occurs in public institutions, such as the legal systemor education and health services, as well as social institutions like the household（DFID, 2005）. Many authors within the field of critical disability studies（e.g. Baffoe,
44

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

2013; Sloane & Jones, 2012; Barnes & Mercer, 2005）claim that people with disabilities
are systematically and deliberately prevented from accessing the resources that mostnon-disabled people, particularly in developed countries, take for granted （e.g.
education, employment）. This occurs through an ideology known as ableism that
Wolbring （2012） describes as “prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviours
toward persons with a disability. Definitions of ableism hinge on one’s understandingof normal ability and the rights and benefits afforded to persons deemed “normal””（p.78）. Ableism devalues people with disabilities and results in segregation, social
isolation and social policies that limit opportunities for full societal participation. This
restriction from resources in all areas of life makes participation in life in generalincreasingly difficult, with the vast majority of people with disabilities living at or
below the poverty line（Stapleton et al, 2006）.There is a strong link between poverty
and disability, with both disability leading to poverty and poverty being a cause of
disability highlighted by the fact that in Kenya roughly 81% of persons withdisabilities have parents or guardians who come from the poorest economic levels（Crawford, 2004; p.12-13）According to Beal and Piron（2005）social exclusion canrefer to individuals or groups, is based upon social relations（putting power at thecentre of analysis）, includes an institutional dimension involving organisations andprocesses that exclude individuals or groups from the decision making process, has acausal dimension （such as prejudice） and involves a multi-dimensional processhighlighting the intersectionality of various aspects of discrimination such as genderand disability. Brittain（2006）states that:
Oliver（1990）claims that since the fifties an upswing in the economy in Britain
led to an increasing concern to provide more services for disabled people outof an ever increasing national wealth. That is not to say that social policy withregard to the disabled is purely a matter of economic determinism, although
the financial implications of any such policies will play an important regulatoryrole. Prevalent religious and cultural beliefs within a particular society will also
play a part in deciding the impact economics will play in determining whether
a particular policy will be implemented or not. It could be argued, therefore,that one possible measure of social and economic success within a particularcountry is the treatment and social status of minority groups such as the45

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

disabled. Given the costs of taking part in and achieving success in an elitesports event for disabled athletes such as the Paralympic Games it could also
be argued that such participation may be an indicator of how well people withdisabilities are regarded within the nation that they represent.
（Brittain, 2006; p. 39）

Unfortunately, persons with disabilities are also susceptible to internalisingstereotypes and negative beliefs（Campbell, 2008）. This process is called internalised
ableism and is similar to internalised racism and sexism regarding other devalued
groups. Internalised ableism in sport is experienced by athletes with disabilities,
coaches and administrators through their acceptance of the status quo and secondclass status compared to non-disabled athletes and non-disabled sports（Brittain, Legg
& Wolff, 2017）. Today’s mainstream sports organisations, sports media, sports
sponsors and the overall sports industry place an extensive focus on non-disabledathletes and non-disabled sports. While sports opportunities for persons withdisabilities continue to emerge in many international communities, athletes withdisabilities and disability-specific sports largely remain segregated and invisible fromthe mainstream sports environment（Brittain, 2016）. Historic and current barriers
and prejudices have reinforced the marginalisation of persons with disabilities in
sports. Building on Brittain’s quote（above）it would appear that in countries that areclassified as developing, where the economic and social resources for the country as awhole may be restricted, the impact of ableism upon the lives of people withdisabilities in terms of their access to resources, and therefore opportunities to takepart in sport, are likely to be even more restricted than for those living in a moredeveloped country where there may be more resources to go around.

People with Disabilities, Resources and Access to Sport
Farkas Karageorgos and Higgs（2018）claim that there is a link between disability
and poverty and that disability is both a cause and consequence of poverty, with theCouncil of Europe（2014）recognising that people with disabilities are often treated as
second class citizens who have to fight for even basic rights. Farkas Karageorgos and
Higgs（2019）list a number of challenges that can arise including “poor access to
46

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Gamesvenues, denial of entry to a mainstream school, or being prevented from participatingin sport and recreation alongside peers without disabilities”（p. 275）. Devine（1997）
claims that society has a prescribed set of standards by which we are all measured
and when someone’s biological make-up or function fails to meet these standards,
they are ‘assumed to be inferior and are subject to a decrease in inclusion in society’（p. 4）. This inclusion includes access to the available resources within that society.
Brittain（2016）claims that ‘this is equally true for many aspects of life, but in therealm of sport, where one of the key aims is to distinguish between different levels of
biological make-up and function through tests of physical strength, speed andendurance, this is especially true’（p. 75）. This potential exclusion from sport begins
within the wider social structure through the kinds of exclusions outlined above（education, employment）, which lead to many people with disabilities living at or
below the poverty line（Stapleton et al, 2006）and, therefore, spending what little
resources they have fighting to survive rather than involving themselves in sport orany other kind of leisure activity. Indeed, Crawford （2004） highlights inadequate
nutrition for athletes with disabilities as a major problem in Kenya with several
coaches cited as being fearful of pushing their athletes too hard for fear they had noteven eaten that day.
Even if they find they are lucky enough to have the necessary resources and thedesire to take part in sport, a number of other issues may prevent them from actually
doing so. Firstly, people with disabilities are often socialised into believing that, due totheir impairments, they are incapable of participating in sport, which is part of theprocess of internalised ableism outlined above. Secondly, the environment in whichsporting activity takes place（e.g. facilities）has historically been designed for the
non-disabled population（based upon the assumption that people with disabilities areincapable of doing sport） and so gaining access to the facilities can often proveextremely difficult, if not impossible（Jaarsma et al, 2014）. Thirdly, even if they cangain access to the facilities, there may well be a lack of sporting opportunities forthem to participate in or a lack of coaches with the knowledge or inclination to teachthem （Dieffenbach & Statler, 2012）. On an organisational level, the priority given
within society to non-disabled sport also impacts heavily upon resource availability
for sport aimed at people with disabilities, especially if the resources available for
sport as a whole are already limited. To put this into some kind of perspective,47

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

according to Tony Naar, former Information Manager for the Australian Paralympic
Committee（an NPC in the Very High IHDI rank）, the funding for the AustralianParalympic team for 2017-2018 amounts to around 13.7% of what the Australian
Olympic team will receive for the same period（Naar, 2017）. Therefore, in terms of
NPCs from less developed countries, on a Paralympic level Dowling et al（2017）pointout that ‘while each NPC may have formal rights and responsibilities within the
Movement, many are under resourced to the point of not being able to provide themost basic of services such as taking athletes to the Paralympic Games’.

Methods
Research Design and Data Collection
The research for this article involved a comparison of NPC participation fromcountries sorted into their relevant United Nations Inequality-adjusted Human
Development Index ranking（United Nations, 2015）and then compared against theirrespective team size data and medal success as found on the International Paralympic
Committee （IPC） results database （IPC website, 2017a）. According to the United
Nations （2015）, the Human Development Index （HDI） is a summary measure of
average achievement by countries in key dimensions of human development: a longand healthy life, being knowledgeable and having a decent standard of living.
However, the IHDI takes into account not only the average achievements of acountry on health, education and income, but also how those achievements are
distributed among its population by “discounting” each dimension’s average value
according to its level of inequality. Countries are then placed into four categories ofdevelopment; Very High （lowest inequality）, High, Medium and Low （highest
inequality）.

Data Analysis
Data from the IPC results database, including team sizes（total and by gender）and
medal success, was taken for all summer Paralympic Games from Sydney 2000 and
all winter Paralympic Games from Nagano 1998 onwards and placed into Excel
spreadsheets. Each competing NPC at a particular Games was then assigned with its
48

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Gamescorresponding rank（Very High, High, Medium and Low）from the United Nations
IHDI ranking list（United Nations, 2015）. Each set of data（Team size and Medalswon）was then grouped according to this assigned ranking. In terms of medal successdata only countries winning at least one medal was included. Once this had been
completed, this allowed for the total number of NPCs in each group ranking to beascertained, including the average team size（as well as average number of men andwomen） and the total number of medals won by NPCs within each ranking. In
addition, the data for the most recent summer Paralympic Games（Rio 2016）wasanalysed further to identify the number of NPCs within each ranking that had teamsizes of only one, three or less, and 5 or less athletes as well as the number of teams
with all male or all female athletes. Finally, the medal events in which those NPCs in
the Low IHDI ranking won medals at the last three summer Paralympic Games（Beijing 2008, London 2012 and Rio 2016）were analysed further. The results of thisdata analysis were then examined in terms of the potential impact of resource
dependency in order to try and ascertain to what extent resource dependency theory
may or may not provide an explanation for the results.

Results
The Summer Paralympic Games
Participation
An analysis of the participation of NPCs by IHDI ranking in terms of team size atthe last three summer Paralympic Games highlights several distinct patterns. As canbe seen in table 3, the number of participating NPCs from countries in the low IHDI
ranking has risen nearly fifty percent in the last decade alone. However, the average
team size is massively skewed towards those NPCs from countries in the Very Highand High IHDI rankings, where the average team size is approximately seventeen
times and eleven times（respectively）bigger than that for the NPCs from the Low
IHDI ranking. With the one exception of the Low ranked countries in Rio 2016, theaverage number of women as a percentage of the overall average team size also
decreases consistently from NPCs in the highest IHDI ranking to the lowest.
However, the result for the women from Low IHDI teams in Rio is possibly just a49

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

result of the very small overall team sizes for these NPCs.
Table 3. Average NPC team size by IHDI and gender at the last three summer
Paralympic Games（2008-2016）
Average Number
in Team（Beijing 2008）

Average Number
in Team（London 2012）

Average Number
in Team（Rio 2016）

Country
IHDI Band

NPCs

Men

Women

Total

NPCs

Men

Women

Total

NPCs

Men

Women

Total

Very High

51

31.71

17.49

49.20

53

31.02

17.66

48.68

51

30.41

19.76

50.17

High

41

20.22

10.02

30.24

45

19.53

10.96

30.49

43

20.04

12.74

32.78

Medium

30

4.27

1.97

6.24

30

5.83

2.17

8.00

29

6.17

2.34

8.52

Low

24

2.29

0.83

3.12

36

2.25

0.81

3.06

34

1.59

1.32

2.91

As can be seen in table 4 the number of NPCs with only one athlete also increases
greatly from the highest IHDI ranking to the lowest, with 52.9% of countries in the
Low IHDI ranking having only one athlete in the team. It can also be seen from table
4 that 50% of all NPCs in the lowest and 44.8% of NPCs in the medium IHDI rank had
no women at all in their team. None of the NPCs without a male athlete had morethan two women in their team and both of the teams in the Low IHDI ranking withno men only had a single female athlete in their team.
Table 4. Number of NPCs by IHDI group with only one, three or less and 5 or lessathletes and no men or no women at the Rio 2016 summer Paralympic Games
NPCs

1

3 or ＜5 or ＜No MenNo
Women

Very High

51

3

9

11

3

4

High

43

4

18

21

1

5

Medium

29

10

18

19

0

13

Low

34

18

27

31

2

17

Total

157*

35

72

82

6

39

＊

Does not include the two male Independent Paralympic Athletes

Medal successAs can be seen in table 5 NPCs from the Very High and High IHDI rankings have
won over 92.9% of all available medals at the last five summer Paralympic Games.
The percentage of medals won by NPCs from the Low IHDI ranking has remained
50

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

relatively static at around 1.5% over the same period, although the number of NPCs
from this rank winning medals in Rio 2016 did increase to a new high of seven.
However, this could conceivably be down to the absence of Russia, who finishedsecond in the medal table at London 2012, but were banned from participating in Rio
by the IPC due to allegations of state sponsored doping offences（IPC, 2016b）.
Table 5. Percentage of all available medals won by IHDI group at the last fivesummer Paralympic Games.
1. Very High

2. High

1+2

3. Medium4. Low

3+4

Sydney 2000

77.6（41）17.1（19）94.7（60）

4.1（4）

1.2（4）

5.3（8）

Athens 2004

67.1（43）

26.8（20）93.9（63）

4.5（7）

1.5（5）

6.0（12）Beijing 2008

58.0（41）36.6（23）

94.6（64）3.8（9）

1.6（5）

5.4（14）

London 2012

55.1（40）39.7（23）

94.8（63）

3.8（8）

1.4（4）

5.2（12）

Rio 2016

55.4（41）37.5（23）92.9（64）5.6（12）

1.5（7）

7.1（19）Numbers in brackets are the number of NPCs from that IHDI ranking winning medals

Statistical analysis of the participation and medal success data from the Rio 2016
Paralympic Games
Statistical analysis of four key variables（1. IHDI rank（1 = Very High, 4 = Low）;2,
Total team size; 3. Total number of women in the team and 4. Total number of
medals won） from the participation and medal success data for the Rio 2016
Paralympic Games delivered statistically significant correlations（at the 0.01 level）
between all variables（see table 6）. The implications of this analysis appear to be:
・The higher the IHDI rank of a country i. the bigger its team is likely to be; ii. themore women are likely to be in that team, and iii. the more medals it is likely to
win.
・The bigger the team i. the more women are likely to be in that team and ii. themore medals it is likely to win.
・The more women they have in a team the more medals they are likely to win.
Some of these correlations would appear to be self-evident as having a larger teamwill mean that more events and sports can be entered, thus increasing theopportunities to win medals. However, the correlation between IHDI rank and teamsize would appear to highlight a strong link between resource availability andopportunities by people with disabilities to participate in sport, as well as resource
51

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

availability and the possibility to win medals at the Paralympic Games.
Table 6. Pearson Correlations for NPCs participating at the Rio 2016 summer
Paralympic Games（N=157）
IHDI Rank
IHDI Rank 1= V. High, 4= Low

Team Size
＊＊

Women

Medals＊＊-.330-.245＊＊

1-.352

Team Size-.352＊＊

1.983＊＊.895＊＊

Women-.330＊＊.983＊＊

1.923＊＊

Medals-.245＊＊.895＊＊.923＊＊

1＊＊. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level（2-tailed）.

Analysis of the medals won by NPCs in the Low IHDI rank at the Rio 2016 summer
Paralympic Games
When the medals won at the last three summer Paralympic Games by NPCs in the
Low IHDI rank were investigated and analysed further some interesting results
emerged. Table 7 lists each of the NPCs from the Low IHDI ranking who won medals
at the last three summer Paralympic Games along with the number of medals won.
Table 7. Medals won by NPCs in the Low IHDI Group at the last three summer
Paralympic Games（2008-2016）.
Beijing 2008
NPC

London 2012

G

S

B

T

Kenya

5

3

1

9

Nigeria441Angola0

3

Pakistan0

Papua New Guinea

0

NPC

Rio 2016

G

S

B

T

Nigeria

6

5

2

9

Kenya

2

2

0

3

Angola1101

Ethiopia

0

1

0

1

NPC

G

S

B

T

13 Nigeria

8

2

2

12

2

6

Kenya

3

1

2

6

0

1

2

Ethiopia

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

Ivory Coast

0

1

0

1

Uganda0

1

0

1

Mozambique

0

0

1

1

Pakistan

0

0

1

1

The first point of interest to emerge was that the medals have only come from two
sports（Athletics（Track and Field）and Powerlifting）despite there being at least
twenty sports on the programme at each of the three Games. In addition, all of thepowerlifting medals（27 of 68）were won by one nation – Nigeria. According to Mark（2012）the Nigerian powerlifters have been successful ‘despite disorganisation and
52

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

inadequate funding’. Both Mark（ibid）and the BBC（2016）claim that the success of
the Nigerian powerlifters is down largely to the passion and drive of one man, AareFeyisetan, himself a wheelchair user and former powerlifting champion at the All
Africa Games, who coaches and advocates for the Nigerian powerlifting team. Despite
their success at the Paralympic Games, Feyisetan claims that his team leave theirhomes at 5.00am three times a week and push themselves along roads that nondisabled people find difficult to traverse, to start training at 6.00am using ‘broken
benches, inside the dark and dilapidated National Stadium in Lagos’ （BBC, 2016）.
However, Feyisetan still fears that some of his gold medal winning athletes still face alife of begging on the streets once they retire, such is the situation for people withdisabilities in Nigeria. The success of the Nigerian Paralympic powerlifting athletes
appeared to have not gone completely unnoticed by the Nigerian government, with
their Sports Minister claiming ‘The lesson for us is that rather than spread ourresources thin, we focus on areas where we can win. We’re going to put more money
into the sports where we have a comparative advantage’（Mark, 2012）. This comment
highlights a view that it is only success that is important, with little thought given to
the potential social benefits that might be gained from a nation’s participation in the
Paralympic Games and although this comment may have given some hope for current
Nigerian powerlifters, and maybe a few track and field athletes, it would appear tooffer little for the development of other Paralympic sports, nor the plight of people
with disabilities more generally within Nigerian society. However, given that thecomments by Feyisetan reported by the BBC （2016） came four years after theSports Minister’s comment, it would appear that little has actually changed. In fact
the powerlifters actually won three less medals at the Rio 2016 Games than in London
four years earlier. It is clear that the Nigerian team is successful, despite and not
because of the resources provided to them in terms of facilities, equipment andgovernment support, and that the key resource that has made them successful are
the passion and dedication of the national coach and his athletes for their sport.
A description of the types of athletics（track and field）events that the remaining
41 medals were won in is shown in table 8（below）.

53

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

Table 8. Classification of events where countries with a Low IHDI ranking
have been successful at the last three summer Paralympic Games.
Type of Event

Number of Medals

Blind and visually impaired track races（T11-13）

25

Upper limb deficiency e.g. missing hand（T46）

7

Seated throw（minimal disability i.e. F57/58）

5

Mild cerebral palsy（F37/38）

2

Seated throw（F54）1

Short stature（F40）

1What table 8 clearly highlights is a total lack of any event requiring either a racing
wheelchair or prosthetic lower limb, both of which can be prohibitively expensive for
either the NPC or the individual athlete from a country in the Low IHDI rank. The
implications of this will be investigated further in the discussion section below. In
addition, 25 of the 41 medals（61%）were won by visually impaired track athletes ofwhich 16（64%）were from Kenyan distance runners with a visual impairment. Kenya
has a world renowned tradition in distance running for non-disabled athletes and,
therefore, a plentiful supply of training partners and guide runners of sufficientcalibre to provide athletes with a visual impairment with an excellent training
environment, providing they can overcome other social issues that may arise as aresult of their impairment.

The Winter Paralympic Games
Participation
The link between the IHDI rank of a country and their NPC’s participation at theParalympic Games appears even more apparent when considering the winter Games.
NPCs in the Very High and High IHDI rank have consistently made up over 90% of
all of the competing NPCs at the last three winter Paralympic Games. Up until
PyeongChang 2018 no athlete from a country in the Low IHDI rank has competed ata winter Paralympic Games since Tofiri Kibuuka who competed for Uganda in 1976
and 1980, although it should be noted he was living in Norway throughout this period（Brittain, 2016）. PyeongChang 2018 saw the participation of two male athletes from
54

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

North Korea, although this was possibly all part of the sports diplomacy efforts being
brokered by the IOC between the two Koreas at the time. It will be interesting to see
if the participation of North Korea continues at Beijing 2022. The analysis also shows
almost exactly the same patterns as for the summer Games with average team size
and average number of women in a team decreasing as you move down the IHDI
ranks. The result for the men from Low IHDI teams in PyeongChang is likely just a
result of there only being the one team from this ranking in PyeongChang（North
Korea）. Only four NPCs from the Medium IHDI rank have competed since Torino
2006. Mongolia has participated at all three with a maximum team size of 2 men.
South Africa competed in Torino 2006 and Vancouver 2010, having previously also
competed in the two winter Games before that. However, this was actually just one
man, Bruce Warner, who competed in alpine skiing events from 1998 to 2010. Warner
lost a leg in a car crash and having previously intended to make a career in hockey,
he subsequently embarked on a career in skiing（Brittain, 2016）. That a country as
successful as South Africa in sport generally and at the summer Paralympic Games isunable to compete at the winter Paralympic Games highlights the impact of many of
the issues regarding participation at the winter Paralympic Games. Tajikistancompeted in their first winter Paralympic Games in PyeongChang with a malevisually impaired cross country skier and their guide. The final participating NPC
from the Medium IHDI rank was Uzbekistan with two male athletes in Sochi,
although it should be noted that in the latest UN IHDI rankings that came out after
this research had been completed, Uzbekistan have been upgraded to the High IHDI
rank（UN, 2017）. In the case of all four NPCs, all of the participating athletes at thefour Games were in standing classifications, which includes visual impairment,
amputees, co-ordination problems and muscle weakness in legs and/ or arms（IPC,
2017c）.

55

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

Table 9. Average NPC team size by IHDI and gender at the last three winterParalympic Games（2010-2018）
Average Number in Team
（Vancouver 2010）

Country
IHDI Band

Average Number
in Team（PyeongChang 2018）

Average Number
in Team（Sochi 2014）

NPCs

Men

Women

Total

NPCs

Men

Women

Total

NPCs

Men

Women

Total

Very High

30

10.93

3.1

14.03

29

10.83

3.14

13.97

30

11.87

3

14.87

High

12

4.17

2.33

6.5

14

6.64

2.64

9.28

15

4.73

2.8

7.53

Medium

2

1.5

0

1.5

2

1.5

0

1.5

3

0.67

0.33

1

Low

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

2

The major difference between the participation rates at the summer and winterParalympic Games is likely to be access to ice facilities, and geographical i.e. access tothe necessary topographical （e.g. mountains） and climatic conditions （e.g. snow）
needed for the regular practice of winter sports. Those countries lacking these
conditions would need to be able to afford to send athletes to train in areas of theworld where these conditions can be found, which, along with the cost of thenecessary adapted equipment, makes participation in winter sports for these nations
a very expensive proposition indeed.
In addition, as table 10 highlights, lower ranked countries are also less likely tobring competition partners such as guides for visually impaired athletes, as withlimited budgets, bringing a competition partner would probably mean bringing one
less athlete.
Table 10. Number of competition partners by NPC and IHDI
ranking at PyeongChang 2018.

56

Country
IHDI Band

NPCs

Very High

Number of Competition Partners
PyeongChang 2014
Men

Women

Total

30

38

11

49

High

15

21

2

23

Medium

3

1

0

1

Low

1

0

0

0

Total

49

60

13

73

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

Medal success
An analysis of medal success at the last six winter Paralympic Games（see table11）shows that one hundred percent of all medals have been won by countries in the
Very High or High IHDI rank. It would also appear to show that an increasing
number of medals have been won by a very small number of NPCs from countries inthe High IHDI rank. At the four winter Games prior to PyeongChang 2018 this has
been down to the same three NPCs（Belarus, Russia and Ukraine）, with Russia inparticular winning increasing numbers of medals culminating in them topping the
medal table in Sochi with 80 medals, which amounts to 37% of all available medals.
However, like Uzbekistan mentioned above, Russia have also been ‘promoted’ in thelatest IHDI rankings from High to Very High, and so it is highly likely that this trend
will be reversed in the future. This will either be because Russian medals from future
winter Games will count towards the Very High rank or, in the case of PyeongChang
2018, that the Russian ban from Paralympic sport for state sponsored doping meansthat the medals they might have won were picked up by other countries in the VeryHigh rank. Indeed the results from PyeongChang clearly highlight the absence of theRussian team and the impact their absence had upon the medal table. Even if the
Neutral Paralympic Team medals are included, given that Russia（where the neutral
athletes came from）is now ranked in the Very High IHDI ranking, this would meanthat 94.2 percent of all medals in PyeongChang were won by countries in the VeryHigh ranking.
Table 11. Percentage of all available medals won by IHDI group at the last five
winter Paralympic Games
1. Very High

2. High

1+2

3. Medium4. Low

3+4

Nagano 1998

89.1（19）

10.9（2）100.0（21）000Salt Lake 2002

87.3（19）

12.7（3）100.0（22）000Torino 2006

61.5（16）38.5（3）100.0（19）000Vancouver 2010

65.5（18）34.4（3）100.0（21）000Sochi 2014

50.0（16）50.0（3）100.0（19）00093.5（22）

6.5 （3）100.0（25）

0

0

0

＊＊

PyeongChang

Numbers in brackets are the number of NPCs from that IHDI ranking winning medals＊＊
Excludes Neutral Athletes Team medals

57

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

Discussion
Technology
Howe（2011; p. 872）claims that ‘medal tables at the Paralympic Games have been
traditionally dominated by Western nations in part because they are at the forefrontof the technological advancements in mobility apparatus’. According to Zettler（2009）
the more specialised a piece of equipment becomes, its cost increases greatly due tothe smaller pool of potential purchasers. A single racing prosthetic for a below theknee amputee with fitting can cost up to $20,000（Runners World, 2015）, and a top of
the range Invacare Top End Eliminator OSR Racing Chair with carbon fibre wheels
costs just over £6,200 （Invacare website, 2017）. Novak （2014） claims that theexistence of technology has brought those with the economic means to access it
closer together, whilst those that do not have access become even more isolated,leading to a ‘disability divide’. The implications of this divide have clearly been seenin the results of this research and Novak cites a number of examples of how this
impacts upon access to sport for people with disabilities on the wrong side of this
divide. He cites Noutcha （2008） who claimed that in Cameroon, only twenty-fivecompetition wheelchairs existed for 500 athletes, with the remaining athletes having
to use their own wheelchairs to compete in a range of sports from basketball toathletics. Novak also cites Crawford and Stodolska（2008）who stated that in Kenya‘the high cost of equipment forced athletes to use whatever was readily available,
even though it was not proper equipment to be used during international
competitions’（p. 141）
. However, as pointed out earlier in the quote from Naar（2017）,
it is not only those countries who are in the Low IHDI rank that struggle to accessthe necessary financial resources, with the Australian NPC apparently only receiving
13.7% the budget of the Australian Olympic Committee. If a country in the Very HighIHDI rank like Australia receives such a small fraction of their Olympic counterparts
it is highly conceivable that in countries in the Low IHDI ranking, where Olympic
budgets are likely to be much smaller by comparison, the budgets for the NPCs arelikely to be very small indeed.

58

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

Controlling the resources
The resources required by individuals and organisations wishing to take part insport for people with disabilities and ultimately to participate at the Paralympic
Games appear to be controlled and or restricted in a number of ways. Firstly, on an
ideological level, the concept of ableism is used to both exclude（to varying degrees
depending upon the country and the situation）people with disabilities from the wider
society and to restrict their access to the resources necessary to take a full and activerole within society. On a national level, this means that access to key resources
necessary for life such as education and employment may be restricted, making it
extremely difficult for people with disabilities to even consider getting involved in
sport. Ableism within the organisational structures of sport and its supporting
apparatus （e.g. government, sports federations, sponsors etc.） often mean that
resources are prioritised for non-disabled sport. The scarcer the resources and thegreater the inequalities within a country, the more likely athletes with disabilities andthe organisations that support them are to struggle to gain access to the resources
necessary to survive let alone succeed at the highest levels. Finally, control over the
resources is also maintained through the power held by those already in control.
Novak（2014）claims disability sport at the elite level requires expensive technologicalinputs in the form of sport prostheses, adapted equipment, and trained coaching,regulated by European and American institutions in the form of the Paralympic
Games and the sport federations that lay the ground rules for competition（p. 44）.
This appears to imply that the more developed nations maintain their power andcontrol over the less developed nations through a monopoly on resources necessary
to achieve success at the highest levels. When you put all of these factors together, it
is clear to see why there are such disparities in the participation rates and success at
the Paralympic Games of those countries in the Low IHDI rank compared to nations
ranked above them.

The Agitos Foundation and the development of Parasport
It is clear that IPC has its work cut out if it is to fulfil its proclaimed role as aninternational advocate of disability rights, rather than just as the organiser of a major
sports event. It needs to try and overcome the huge gulf in resources that areapparent from the analysis of results in this paper. According to former IPC
59

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

Development Manager Amy Farkas Karageorgos, the IPC has been carrying out
development work in Africa since at least 2003（Farkas Karageorgos, 2015; personalcommunication）and works closely with the African Sports Confederation of Disabled（ASCOD）, which is described in the IPC newsletter ‘The Paralympian’ of 2003 as the
IPC’s African regional committee （The Paralympian, 2003; p. 10）. The IPC has
certainly been running workshops in Africa covering various topics such asclassification seminars for doctors and physiotherapists since around the year 2000
（The Paralympian, 2000; p.8）
. However, more recently, as the IPC has grown instature and relative financial security, this has allowed them to set up an embryonicversion of the IOC’s Olympic Solidarity in order to try and promote the developmentof sport for people with disabilities around the world. The Agitos Foundation, whichtakes its name from the Paralympic Symbol, the Agitos, was launched by the IPC on
Tuesday September 4th, 2012 in order to fulfil its strategic goal in terms ofdevelopment and education, with the aim of supporting the implementation of theUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities （2006） andsustaining and delivering on the Paralympic Movement’s global objective of helping
to create a more inclusive society. It aims to do this by increasing awareness, forming
partnerships and securing the necessary resources to implement programmes
covering four key areas: i. Sports development; ii. Awareness and education; iii.
Advocacy and inclusion and iv. Knowledge and research（IPC Website, 2017d）.
In 2016, in the fourth year of their grant support programme（GSP）, the Agitos
Foundation put out a call for proposals from IPC member organisations to access€650,000 of funding to instigate partnerships in order to implement development
projects that support the IPC strategic priorities. The 2016 GSP received a total of 66
applications of which 33 received funding, bringing the total number of projects
funded over the four iterations of the programme to 126（Winters, 2016）. In the first
three years of the grant support programme the awards were split as follows（seetable 12）:60

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

Table 12: Agitos Foundation Grant awards by region（2012-2015）
RegionAfricaAmericas

Asia

EuropeOceania

Partnership between
Regions

Number of
Projects

21

16

9

16

4

27

Source: Agitos Foundation（2016）

In addition, the Agitos Foundation also runs a number of other programmes aimed
at increasing awareness, knowledge and capacity of and within the Paralympic
Movement.
・The Organisational Capacity Programme aimed at empowering NPCs with theknowledge, support and motivation to spread the Paralympic Movement acrosstheir countries.
・The Road to the Games programmes that aim to develop additional organisational
capacity in countries and sub-regions where a Paralympic Games or major eventis due to be held.
・The Proud Paralympian programme provides education about Paralympic
values and practical support throughout an athlete’s career.
・The I’m possible programme is an education toolkit aimed at young children andaspires to change perceptions and bring about social inclusion through Parasport
experiences, including the accomplishments, stories and experiences of Paraathletes.
・The WoMentoring programme is part of the IPC’s goal to see many more womenin positions of influence within the Paralympic Movement.
（IPC Website, 2017e）

In comparison to the IOC’s Olympic Solidarity, the Agitos Foundation is certainly a（financially） poor relation, but it is clear that it is doing its best with limited
resources to increase the capacity of the human resources available to nationalorganisations to maximise awareness of the Paralympic Movement, and in doing so
increase the resources of the parent organisation（the IPC）in its goal to grow anddevelop. Only by growing interest and opportunity at the national level can the IPC
hope to continue to develop interest from sponsors and spectators in Parasport at theinternational level, as without the necessary resources at the national level （e.g.
athletes, spectators, awareness and interest）they cannot hope to develop their own
61Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

resources and grow further as an international organisation. In order to further thisgoal, the Agitos Foundation signed a five year contract in 2016 with the Foundation
for Global Sport Development in order to ‘raise awareness and knowledge of Parasport across the world’（Pavitt, 2016）. By raising awareness and changing attitudes
towards sport for people with disabilities, it would appear that IPC is attempting tolessen the prejudice borne of ableism in order that ultimately this may lead to a fairer
distribution of resources and, therefore, provide greater resources for sport for people
with disabilities, particularly in less developed countries. In addition, this decrease ininequality at the national level may go some way to increase both participation andeventually success at the Paralympic Games by countries in the Medium and Low
IHDI ranks. Finally, this in turn may lead to increased resources for the IPC itself
from sources such as sponsorship, enabling IPC to then feed more resources into
promoting Parasport worldwide.

Conclusion
The results of this research have clearly highlighted the impact of a number offactors that impact upon the participation and success of nations at the Paralympic
Games. Prejudice borne out of an ableist ideology that sees people with disabilities
and sport for people with disabilities as something less worthy than non-disabledindividuals and non-disabled sport, leads to a restriction of resources in nearly allareas of the lives of people with disabilities that greatly restrict their opportunities
for participation in sport. This is particularly the case in less developed nations suchas those in the Low IHDI rank, where the United Nations deem inequalities between
those who have access to resources and those that do not to be greater. This is likely
exacerbated by there being less resources to go around, which leads to theprioritisation of those resources for non-disabled society and non-disabled sport, as it
is generally the non-disabled who are the gatekeepers of such resources. This ishighlighted by the fact that team sizes from these countries are significantly smaller
and they have far less success in terms of medals. This in itself is likely exacerbatedas a result of the very nature of Parasport, in that many of the sports require highly
expensive technology in order to compete. This again is highlighted by the fact thatcountries from the Low IHDI rank have only won medals in two sports at the last
62

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games

three summer Paralympic Games and have not even competed at the last three
winter Paralympic Games. In addition, the only events that they have won medals inat the last three summer Games are those that do not require access to expensive
technology such as racing wheelchairs or lower limb prostheses, or to major facilities
such as swimming pools. Beacom and Brittain （2016） claim that the most visible
challenge faced by the IPC is the gulf in resourcing for Parasport between high- andlow-resource nations and regions that remains significant enough to challenge thevery notion of the Paralympic Movement as truly international. This gulf in resources
is potentially damaging in the longer term to a movement predicated on international
representation and, therefore, promoting the rights of people with disabilities inresource-poor regions is critical to the longer-term development of Paralympic sport
by countries within these regions. It has clearly made a start in this direction throughthe work of the Agitos Foundation, but there is still a mountain to climb in order toachieve their aims.
Finally, it should be noted that similar patterns are likely to be found if Olympic
participation and success data were to be analysed in comparison to IHDI data. The
aim of this paper was to highlight the role of resource accessibility in terms oftechnology and also the role of ableism in determining participation and success at
the Paralympic Games. It would, however, be interesting to carry out further
research that compared the results of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Bibliography
Agitos Foundation（2016）The Agitos Foundation In Review 2012-2015. Retrieved from https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/151208145108949_2015_10+Agitos+Found
ation_Review_accessible.pdf
Baffoe, M.（2013）Stigma, Discrimination & Marginalization: Gateways to Oppression of Persons
with Disabilities in Ghana, West Africa. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3（1）:
187–198.
Barnes, C. & Mercer, G.（2005）Disability, work, and welfare: challenging the social exclusion ofd i s a b l e d p e o p l e . W o r k , E m p l o y m e n t a n d S o c i e t y , 1 9（3）: 5 2 7 – 5 4 5 . D O I :10.1177/0950017005055669.
BBC website.（2016）Rio Paralympics 2016: Nigeria’s Paralympic powerlifters show football stars
the way. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37406133
Beacom, A.（2018）The Paralympic Movement and Diplomacy: centring disability in a global
frame. In Brittain, I. & Beacom, A（Eds.）. The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies,
Palgrave; UK., p. 345-369.
Beal, J. & Piron, L.H.（2005）DFID Social Exclusion Review. Overseas Development Institute;63

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12
London.
Brittain, I.（2016）The Paralympic Games Explained（2nd Ed.）,Routledge; UK.
Brittain, I.（2006）Paralympic Success as a measure of national social and economic development.
International Journal of Eastern Sports and P.E. Vol. 10; p. 38-47.
Brittain, I., Legg, D. & Wolff, E. （2017） ‘Paralympian’: Discrimination or a necessary form ofdifferentiation? Kilvington, D & Price, J.（Eds.）Sport and Discrimination, Routledge; UK, p.
153-166.
Campbell, F. K.（2008）“Exploring Internalized Ableism Using Critical Race Theory.” Disability& Society. 23（2）: 151–162
Council of Europe.（2014）People with disabilities must no longer be treated like second-classcitizens. Retrieved from http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-EN.
asp?newsid=5329&lang=2.
Crawford, J.L. & Stodolska, M.（2008）Constraints Experienced by Elite Athletes with Disabilities
in Kenya, with Implications for the Development of a New Hierarchical Model of Constraints
at the Societal Level. Journal of Leisure Research; 40（1）,128-155.
Crawford, J.（2004）Constraints of Elite Athletes with Disabilities in Kenya, Unpublished Masters
Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
DFID （2005） Reducing poverty by tackling social exclusion, Department for International
Development, London
Dieffenbach, K.D. & Statler, T.A. （2012） More Similar than Different: The Psychological
Environment of Paralympic Sport, Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 3（2）; p. 109-118,
DOI: 10.1080/21520704.2012.683322
Dowling, M., Brown, P., Legg, D. &, Beacom, A.,（2017）Living with imperfect comparisons: The
challenges and limitations of comparative Paralympic sport policy research. SportManagement Review. DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.05.002
Farkas Karageorgos, A.（2015）Personal Communication. E-mail dated 23rd November 2015.
Farkas Karageorgos, A., & Higgs, C.（2018）The Paralympic Movement and the International
Development Agenda. In Brittain, I. & Beacom, A. （Eds.） The Palgrave Handbook of
Paralympic Studies, Palgrave; UK., p. 273-294.
Giannoulakis, C., Papadimitriou, D., Alexandris, K. & Brgoch, S., （2017） Impact of austerity
measures on National Sport Federations: evidence from Greece, European SportManagement Quarterly, 17（1）, 75-97
Hillman, A.J., Withers, M.C., and Collins, B.J.（2009）Resource Dependency Theory: A Review,
Journal of Management, 35（6）, 1404-1427.
Howe, P. D. （2011）. Cyborg and Supercrip: The Paralympics Technology and the （Dis）
empowerment of Disabled Athletes. Sociology, 45（5）,868-882.
IPC website,（2017a）IPC Historical Results Archive. Retrieved from https://www.paralympic.
org/results/historical
IPC website （2016b） The IPC suspends the Russian Paralympic Committee with immediate
effect. Retrieved from https://www.paralympic.org/news/ipc-suspends-russian-paralympiccommittee-immediate-effect
IPC website（2017c）Alpine Skiing classification. Retrieved from https://www.paralympic.org/
alpine-skiing/rules-and-classification
IPC website（2017d）‘Agitos Foundation Brochure’, Retrieved from http://www.paralympic.org/
sites/default/files/document/120817161051631_Brochure%2B-%2Bfinal_1.pdf.
64

The Impact of Resource Inequality upon Participation and Success at the Summer andWinter Paralympic Games
IPC website（2017e）Agitos Foundation Programmes. Retrieved from https://www.paralympic.
org/agitos-foundation/programmes.
Invacare Website（2017）The Invacare Top End Eliminator OSR Racing Wheelchair price list.
Retrieved from http://www.invacare.co.uk/eliminator-ma-85elien.
Jaarsma, E.A., Dijkstra, P.U., Geertzen, J.H.B. & Dekker,（2014）, Barriers to and facilitators ofsports participation for people with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24（6）,871–881
Legg, D. & Steadward, R.（2011）The Paralympic Games and 60 years of change（1948–2008）:
unification and restructuring from a disability and medical model to sport-based competition.
Sport in Society, 14（9）1099–1115.
Malatesta, D., & Smith, C. R.（2014）. Lessons for resource dependence theory for contemporary
public and nonprofit management. Public Administration Review, 74, 14–25. doi:10.1111/
puar.12181
Mark, M. （2012） How Nigeria’s Paralympic powerlifters are smashing prejudice athome.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/sep/07/nigeria-paralympicpowerlifters-smash-prejudice
Morrow, S. & Robinson, L.（2013）The FTSE-British Olympic Association Initiative:
A resource dependence perspective. Sport Management Review, 16, 413–423
Naar, T. （2017） Tweet on 9 June. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/tonynaar/
status/873045483383513091
Novak, A.（2014）Disability Sport in Sub-Saharan Africa: From Economic Underdevelopment toUneven Empowerment. Disability and the Global South, Vol.1（1）;p. 44-63
O’Boyle, I. and Hassan, D.（2014）Performance management and measurement in national-level
non-profit sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14（3）299-314. DOI:
10.1080/16184742.2014.898677
Oliver, M.（1990）The Politics of Disablement, MacMillan, London.
The Paralympian（2000）‘Disability Sport Gains Ground in African Region’, No. 4, p.8.
The Paralympian（2003）‘Africa Pleads More Participation of Women in Sport and Recreation’,No. 3, p.10.
Pavitt, M. （2016） Agitos Foundation and the Foundation for Global Sports Development
announce five-year partnership. Retrieved from http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1041202/agitos-foundation-and-the-foundation-for-global-sports-developmentannounce-five-year-partnership
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R.（1978）The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Runners World, 2015, 4-Year-Old Girl Learns to Run on Prosthetics. Retrieved from http://www.
runnersworld.com/newswire/4-year-old-girl-learns-to-run-on-prosthetics.
Sloane, P.J. & Jones, M.K.（2012）Disability and Social Inclusion. In Parodi, G. & Sciulli, D.（Eds.）
Social Exclusion: Short and Long Term Causes and Consequences, p. 127-148.
Stapleton, D., O’Day, B., Livermore, G., & Imparato, A.（2006）. Dismantling the poverty trap:
Disability policy for the twenty-first century. The Milbank, Quarterly, 84（4）,701-732.
United Nations （2015） Human Development Index Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/
content/human-development-index-hdi
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities（2006）Retrieved fromhttps://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with65

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12
disabilities.html
Vos, S., Breesch, D., Kesenne, S., Van Hoecke, J., Vanreusal, B., and Scheerder, J. （2011）
Governmental subsidies and coercive pressures. Evidence from sport clubs and theirresource dependencies. European Journal for Sport and Society, 8（4）,pp257-280.
Walker, C.M. & Hayton, J.W.（2017）: Navigating austerity:balancing ‘desirability with viability’in a third sector disability sports organisation, European Sport Management Quarterly, 17（1）,98-116
Wicker, P. and Breuer, C.（2011）Scarcity of resources in German non-profit sport clubs. SportManagement Review, 14（2）188–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2010.09.001
Winters, M. （2016） Agitos Foundation will support projects aimed at helping refugees andearthquake survivors. Retrieved from http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1040331/
agitos-foundation-will-support-projects-aimed-at-helping-refugees-and-earthquake-survivors.
Wolbring, G.（2012a）Expanding Ableism: Taking down the Ghettoization of Impact of Disability
Studies Scholars, Societies, Vol 2; p. 75-83.
Yan, A., & Gray, B. （2001）. Antecedents and effects of parent control in international joint
ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 393–416. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00242
Yeager, V.A., Zhang, Y, and Diana, M.L. （2015） Analysing Determinants of Hospitals’
Accountable Care Organisations Participation: A Resource Dependency Theory Perspective,
Medical Care Research and Review, 72（6）, 687-706
Zettler, P.（2009）.Is it Cheating to Use Cheetahs? The Implications of Technologically Innovative
Prostheses for Sports Values and Rules. Boston University International Law Journal, 27（2）,367-409.

66リソースの不平等がパラリンピック夏季・冬季大会への参加と成功に与える影響

リソースの不平等がパラリンピック夏季・冬季
大会への参加と成功に与える影響
イアン・ブリテン（英国コベントリー大学

ソーシャル・ビジネスセンター）

本研究では，リソースの格差がパラリンピック競技大会における各国パラリンピック
委員会（NPC）（とりわけ発展途上国の NPC）の参加およびメダル獲得力に与える影響について検証した。国連の不平等調整済み人間開発指数（IHDI）のランキングと，国際パラリンピック委員会の成績データベースを用い，夏季および冬季両パラリンピック
大会における各国パラリンピック委員会の参加に関して，チームの規模と獲得メダル数で見た成果という２つの観点から分析した。また，IHDI のランキングが最下位層であった諸国の NPC が夏季パラリンピック大会の直近の３大会においてメダルを獲得した種目の種類についても分析を行った。
分析の結果明らかになったのは，次の点である。IHDI のランキングが下位の国ほど，派遣するチームの規模は極めて小さい傾向にあるとともに，女子選手が一人もいない可能性が高く，またメダル獲得の可能性も著しく低かった。加えて，IHDI のランキング
が最下位層の国々が獲得したメダルはいずれも，競技用車椅子や下肢義肢などの高価な用具あるいはスイミングプールなど主要スポーツ施設の利用が必要とされない個人種目においてである。
結論として，とりわけ多くのパラスポーツにおいて求められる技術的要件を踏まえると，IHDI のランキングの最上位層と最下位層の国々の間に存在するリソースの不均衡
が，機会の平等を基盤にパラリンピック競技大会の発展・推進を目指す国際パラリン
ピック委員会の取り組みを阻害する大きな要因となっていることが指摘できる。
キーワード：リソース依存，エイブリズム，パラリンピック大会，参加，成功67