Sport for all in Scandinavia: sport policy and participation in Norway, Sweden and Denmark

Abstract

While sport for all is a popular topic in both policy and research, and leaning on the egalitarian policies and culture of Scandinavian countries, this article discusses sport for all within the Scandinavian sport and sport policy context. First, sketching the national political and organizational arrangements of sport in the three Scandinavian countries, the main part of the article discusses the limitations of the possibilities for reaching sport for all through the established institutional arrangements. The main findings are that, although more inclusive in participation terms than many other countries, the sport organizations in Scandinavia are exclusive in at least two ways. During adolescence, most people quit organized sport, and the patterns of participants follow socio-economic division lines favouring the middle class. Second, sport for all is difficult to achieve because other conventions, such as the competitive one, dominate the sport organizations. In sum, the balance between focusing on competition and providing sport for all is extremely difficult, and alternatives are vulnerable since sport subsidies from the state traditionally go to monopolistic umbrella organizations in Scandinavia. Nevertheless, there are indications that in order to get closer to sport for all, differentiation is needed to challenge the hegemonic structures and institutional relationships.

Keywords:

• policy
• participation
• Scandinavia
• sport for all
• organization

Notes

1. A striking aspect of this organization is that there seems to be a strong and doxic belief among policymakers as well as among sport organizers that there is a mutual dependency implying that elite sport generates mass sport (Skille 2006). There is not sufficient space to enter into this debate here.

2. The theoretical rivals mentioned by Houlihan are The stages model, ‘which is based on a division of the policy process into a series of discrete stages following the rational actor model’ (Houlihan 2005, p. 168); Institutional analysis, where institutions are considered as something that ‘constrain choice through their capacity to shape actors’ perceptions of both problems and acceptable solutions’ (Houlihan 2005, p. 170); and The multiple streams framework, which ‘is primarily concerned with the process of agenda setting’ (Houlihan 2005, p. 171) and which offers ‘a powerful critique of rational models … and … institutional interests’ (Houlihan 2005, p. 172).

3. The study comprised Norway, Sweden and Finland. Unfortunately, for this discussion, Denmark was not present.

4. The others are (1) trying to eliminate pluralism and (2) institutionalization. These will not be considered further here.

5. The third way is probably best known through UK New Labour policy, and the Giddens’ (1998) support of it. In principle, it is the same as discussed here, aiming at overcoming the dichotomous way of thinking state policy or sport organization, respectively. The term is also used about the Nordic Sonderweg (Nielsen 2003), a golden mean between freedom and equality within state administration and civic society.