![Sample our Sports and Leisure journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5949/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Sports-Leisure.jpg"})
Abstract
This study investigates why, unlike Sweden, Denmark and Norway have decided to establish independent national anti-doping agencies. Starting off from a new institutional perspective, a qualitative comparative method is applied, and this study outlines variables that enable us to explain the differences and similarities of the two approaches. It is concluded that Sweden differs because doping is regarded as a broader public health issue and thus administratively dealt with in an area not only concerned with sport, while Sweden has a tradition of low political interference in elite sport. Despite various differences, the similar solutions chosen by Denmark and Norway are explained by their focus on doping in elite sport, combined with a high political profile in anti-doping. Although one can argue in favour of sport as an example of a world-society culture with a huge institutionalizing impact, this study reveals a space open for national interpretation. Finally, this article discusses future challenges for the two models analysed.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Håkan Nyberg, Riksidrottsförbundet (Sweden) and Ivan Waddington for fruitful and critical comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Notes
2. These papers were first published in 1983 and 1977, respectively. Their basic claim was that organizational isomorphism was the result of organizations pursuing the legitimacy provided by their institutional surroundings rather than heading for rationalized solutions.
3. DIF (Sport Confederation of Denmark) organizes elite sport, including the national Olympic committee, and DGI (Danish Gymnastics and Sport Associations) caters non-competitive sports, gymnastics and movement cultures.