Configuring relationships between state and non-state actors: a new conceptual approach for sport and development

ABSTRACT

The importance placed on collective action to enhance the contribution of sport to wider development objectives is reflected in ‘partnership’ being a pervasive term throughout ‘Sport for Development and Peace’ (SDP) policy, practice and research. However, state and non-state organisations can be involved in various forms of relationships, which may overlap but also extend beyond those that are encompassed by the often ill-defined terminology of ‘partnerships’. The need for more nuanced conceptualisations of how relationships between state and non-state actors may be configured has become more urgent given that the advent of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) brings implications for the engagement of a broader array of sport stakeholders than from the SDP sector alone. Therefore, this article draws on existing categorisations in the development studies literature to identify six potential configurations of relationships between state and non-state actors associated with sport and development, namely: state-centred implementation, complementary implementation, co-produced implementation, non-state-centred implementation, state-led regulation, and non-state-led adversarial advocacy. In practice, the enactment of differently configured relationships will be influenced by political and economic contexts as well as the characteristics of relevant state and non-state actors. Configurations also vary in their utility according to the differing ways in which sport may contribute to particular SDGs and their constituent Targets. These complexities mean that the set of configurations is not presented as a deterministic model but is, rather, a heuristic by which policymakers, practitioners and researchers can improve analysis, relationships and, ultimately, the contributions of sport to development.

KEYWORDS:

• Sport for Development and Peace (SDP)
• government
• civil society
• Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• partnership

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. See, for example, Sanders et al. (2014) and Lindsey et al. (2017), who identify longstanding issues of organisational status and racial profiles as being problematic for such relationships in different African contexts.

2. See, for example, Lindsey (2017) in respect of Ghana, and Lindsey (2018) in respect of England.