Local authority sport services under the UK coalition government: retention, revision or curtailment?

References

• Alford, J., 2007. Engaging public sector clients: from service delivery to co-production. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Altheide, D., 1996. Qualitative media analysis. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Association for Public Service Excellence, 2009. In-sourcing: a guide to bringing local authority services back in-house. Manchester: APSE.
   Google Scholar
• Association for Public Service Excellence, 2011a. Localism and decentralisation bill. The views of APSE members on the proposed ‘Community Right to Challenge’. Briefing Paper 11–21. Manchester: APSE.
   Google Scholar
• Association for Public Service Excellence, 2011b. Proof of delivery? A review of the role of co-operatives and mutual’s in local public service provision. Manchester: APSE.
   Google Scholar
• Association for Public Service Excellence, 2012a. The ensuring council: an alternative vision for the future of local government. Manchester: APSE.
   Google Scholar
• Association for Public Service Excellence, 2012b. Local authority sport and recreation services in England: where next? July. Manchester: APSE.
   Google Scholar
• Audit Commission, 1989. Sport for whom? Clarifying the local authority role in sport and recreation. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Audit Commission, 2006. Public sports and recreation services: making them fit for the future. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Audit Commission, 2010a. Strategic financial management: delivering services with a reduced income. London: Audit Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Audit Commission, 2010b. Surviving the crunch. London: Audit Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Audit Commission, 2011. Tough times: council’s responses to a challenging financial climate. London: Audit Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, S. and Reid, G., 1994. Contracting municipal sports management: policy-making interactions. Local Government Policy Making, 21 (2), 55–65.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, G. and Keep, M., 2011. The local government finance settlement 2011–13. Research Paper 11/16, 8 February. London: House of Commons Library.
   Google Scholar
• Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W., 1998. Interpreting British governance. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blond, P., 2009. The ownership state: restoring excellence, innovation and ethos to the public services. London: NESTA, ResPublica.
   Google Scholar
• Blond, P., 2010. Red Tory. How left and right have broken Britain and how we can fix it. London: Faber and Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Blunt, L. and Harris, M., 2010. Mass localism: a way to help small communities solve big social challenges. London: NESTA, The Lab: Innovating Public Services.
   Google Scholar
• Bovaird, A., 2007. Beyond engagement and participation – user and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67 (5), 846–860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle, D., 2009. The challenge of co-production. London: New Economics Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle, D., 2010. Right here, right now: taking co-production into the mainstream. London: New Economics Foundation, The Lab: Innovating Public Services and NESTA.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, S. et al., 2010. Exploring strategic commissioning models – a discussion paper. January. London: Anna Gaughan Consulting/Darley Consulting/Whole Systems Partnership.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, P., 2005. Review of national sport effort and resources. London: Sport England/DCMS.
   Google Scholar
• Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), 2011. Redefining local government. London: CIPFA.
   Google Scholar
• Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)/Solace, 2009. After the downturn – managing a significant and sustained adjustment in public sector funding. December. London: CIPFA.
   Google Scholar
• Chief Leisure Officers Association (CLOA), (2011) Culture and leisure impact survey. Summary of findings. March. London: CLOA.
   Google Scholar
• Clifford, D., Rajme, F.G., and Mohan, J., 2010. How dependent is the third sector on public funding? Evidence from the National Survey of Third Sector Organisations. Working Paper 45, October. Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Coalter, F., 1985. The defence of public leisure services. Leisure Management, 5 (5), 12–15.
   Google Scholar
• Coalter, F., 1990. The politics of professionalism: consumers or citizens? Leisure Studies, 9 (2), 107–119.
   Google Scholar
• Coalter, F., 1995. Compulsory competitive tendering for sport and leisure management: a lost opportunity? Managing Leisure, 1, 3–15.
   Google Scholar
• Coalter, F., 1998. Leisure studies, leisure policy and social citizenship: the failure of welfare or the limits of welfare?. Leisure Studies, 17 (1), 21–36.
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane, A., 2004. Modernization, managerialism and the culture wars: reshaping the local welfare state in England. Local Government Studies, 30 (4), 481–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, M.F., 1997. Does a new philosophy change the structures? Compulsory competitive tendering and local authority leisure services in Midland England. Managing Leisure, 2 (4), 204–216.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, M.F. and Kay, T., 2003. Sport and social exclusion. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Conservative Party, 2009a. Extending opportunities: a conservative policy paper on sport. London: Conservative Party.
   Google Scholar
• Conservative Party, 2009b. Control shift: returning power to local communities. London: Conservative Party.
   Google Scholar
• Conservative Party, 2010. Big society, not big government. London: Conservative Party.
   Google Scholar
• Co-operative Council Citizens’ Commission/Lambeth Borough Council, 2010. The co-operative council: sharing power – a new settlement between citizens and the state. London: Co-operative Council Citizens’ Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010. Local government finance report 2010/11. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011a. Community right to buy. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011b. Community right to challenge. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), 2008. Playing to win. London: DCMS.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), 2011. Encouraging involvement in Big Society: cultural and sporting perspective. London: DCMS.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), 2012. Creating a sporting habit for life: a new youth sport strategy. London: DCMS.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS)/Cabinet Office, 2002. Game plan: a strategy for developing government’s sport and physical activity objectives. London: DCMS.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health, 2012. New focus for public health: fact sheet. London: Department of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Department of the Environment, 1975. Sport and recreation (White Paper Cmnd. 6200). London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, F., 1995. Qualitative analysis. In: D. Marsh and G. Stoker, eds. Theory and methods in political science. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Flick, U., 1998. An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A., 2009. The politics of climate change. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Green, M., 2006. From ‘sport for all’ to not about ‘sport’ at all? Interrogating sport policy interventions in the United Kingdom. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6 (3), 217–238.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, S., 2010. ‘Small change? Why innovation can make a big difference to costs’ in Ipsos MORI: Understanding Society: where next? London: Lambeth Council.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, M. and Albury, D., 2009. The innovation imperative: why radical innovation is needed to reinvent public services for the recession and beyond. London: NESTA and The Lab: Innovating Public Services.
   Google Scholar
• Haywood, L., 1992. Community recreation and local government in the 1990s. In: J. Sugden and C. Knox, eds. Leisure in the 1990s: rolling back the welfare state (LSA Publication No. 46). Eastbourne: LSA, 41–44.
   Google Scholar
• Henry, I.P., 2001. The politics of leisure policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Hilton, M. and McKay, J., eds. 2011. The ages of voluntarism: how we got to the Big Society. Oxford: OUP/British Academy.
   Google Scholar
• HM Government, 2010. The coalition: our programme for government. London: Cabinet Office.
   Google Scholar
• HM Government, 2011a. Localism act. London: TSO.
   Google Scholar
• HM Government, 2011b. Open public services white paper. London: TSO.
   Google Scholar
• HM Government, 2012. Public services (social value) act. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• HM Treasury, 2010a. Spending review 2010. London: HM Treasury.
   Google Scholar
• HM Treasury, 2010b. Budget 2010. London: HM Treasury.
   Google Scholar
• Horne, M. and Shirley, T., 2009. Co-production in public services: a new partnership with citizens. London: Cabinet Office.
   Google Scholar
• Houlihan, B., 1991. The government and politics of sport. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Houlihan, B., 1997. Sport, policy and politics: a comparative analysis. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Houlihan, B., 2001. Citizenship, civil society and the sport and recreation professions. Managing Leisure, 6 (1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Houlihan, B. and Lindsey, I., 2012. Sport policy in Britain. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Improvement and Development Agency (I&DeA), 2007. Delivering public service transformation. London: I&DeA.
   Google Scholar
• Innovation Unit, 2009. The engagement ethic: the potential of co-operative and mutual governance for public services. London: Innovation Unit.
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Local Government Studies, 2012. A new model for public services? A Discussion Paper. University of Birmingham, INLOGOV.
   Google Scholar
• IPPR, PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009. Who’s accountable? The challenge of giving power away in a centralised political culture. London: IPPR.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., 1988. The new politics of welfare. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., 2010. Why the third way failed: economics, morality and the origins of the ‘Big Society’. Bristol: The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• King, N., 2009. Sport policy and governance: local perspectives. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• King, N., forthcoming. Local government and sport services: politics, policy and practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Laffin, M., 2009. Central-local relations in an era of governance: towards a new research agenda. Local Government Studies, 35 (1), 21–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach, S., 2009. Reorganisation, reorganisation, reorganisation: a critical analysis of the sequence of local government reorganisation initiatives, 1979–2008. Local Government Studies, 35 (1), 61–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach, S. and Davies, H., 1996. Introduction. In: S. Leach, H. Davies and Associates. Enabling or disabling local government. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leadbeater, C., Bartlett, J., and Gallagher, N., 2008. Making it personal. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Lentell, B., 1993. Sports development: goodbye to community recreation? In: C. Brackenridge, ed. Body matters: leisure images and lifestyles (LSA Publication No. 47). Eastbourne: LSA, 141–149.
   Google Scholar
• Local Government Association (LGA), 2011. Taking the lead: self-regulation and improvement in culture, tourism and sport. London: LGA.
   Google Scholar
• Localis, 2012. Catalyst councils: a new future for local public service delivery. London: Localis.
   Google Scholar
• Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, L., 2012. Local governance under the coalition government: austerity, localism and the ‘Big Society’. Local Government Studies, 38 (1), 21–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, M., 2006. Lyons inquiry into local government. London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, I., 1995. Sport for all – RIP: a political critique of the relationship between national sport policy and local authority sports development in London. In: S. Fleming, M. Talbot, and A. Tomlinson, eds. Policy and politics in sport, PE and leisure. Eastbourne: LSA.
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh, P. and Charlton, V., 1985. The impact of sport for all policy, 1966–1984 and the way forward. London: Sports Council.
   Google Scholar
• Mulgan, G., 2007. Ready or not? Taking innovation in the public sector seriously. London: NESTA.
   Google Scholar
• NESTA, 2010. Co-production: right here, right now. London: NESTA.
   Google Scholar
• New Economics Foundation, 2007. Unintended consequences: how the efficiency agenda erodes local public services and a new public benefit model to restore them. London: New Economics Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• New Local Government Network (NLGN), 2011. Future councils: life after the spending cuts. London: NLGN.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J., 2001. Modernizing governance: new labour, policy and society. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, G., 1995. The impact of compulsory competitive tendering on planning in leisure departments. Managing Leisure, 1, 105–114.
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, G. and Taylor, P., 1995. The impact on local authority leisure of CCT, financial cuts and changing attitudes. Local Government Studies, 21 (4), 607–622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, J., 2010. The Big Society: the anatomy of the new politics. Buckingham: University of Buckingham Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ockenden, N., Hill, M., and Stuart, J., 2012. The big society and volunteering: ambitions and expectations. In: A. Ishkanian and S. Szreter, eds. The Big Society debate. A new agenda for social welfare? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Pestoff, V. and Brandsen, T., 2007. Co-production: the third sector and the delivery of public services. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ravenscroft, N., 1992. The future role of the public sector in the provision of leisure facilities in Britain. In: J. Sugden and C. Knox, eds. Leisure in the 1990s: rolling back the welfare state (LSA Publication No. 46). Eastbourne: LSA, 21–32.
   Google Scholar
• Ravenscroft, N., 2001. The changing regulation of public service provision. Leisure Studies, 17 (2), 138–154.
   Google Scholar
• Razan, A. and Sadca, E., 2005. The decline of the welfare state: demography and globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, L., 2004. Managing public leisure services. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Skelcher, C., 2000. Changing images of the state: overloaded, hollowed-out, congested. Public Policy and Administration, 15 (3), 3–19.
   Google Scholar
• Sport England, 1999. Best value in sport. London: Sport England.
   Google Scholar
• Stoker, G., 2005. What is local government for? Refocusing local governance to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. London: New Local Government Network.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, H., 2011. Governing the mix: how local government still matters. In: J. Richardson, ed. From recession to renewal. The impact of the financial crisis on public services and local government. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sweeting, D. and Copus, C., 2012. Whatever happened to local democracy. Policy and Politics, 40 (1), 21–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, P. and Page, K., 1994. The financing of local authority sport and recreation: a service under threat? Sheffield: ISRM.
   Google Scholar
• The Young Foundation, 2010. Public services and civil society working together: promising ideas for effective local partnerships between state and citizens. London: The Young Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• UK Parliament, 2010. Academies act. London: HM Government.
   Google Scholar
• University of Birmingham Policy Commission (UBPC)/Demos, 2012. When tomorrow comes’: the future of local public services. Birmingham: UBPC.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, P., 2002. Co-production. In: E. Mayo and H. Moore, eds. Building the mutual state: findings from virtual thinktank. London: New Economics Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. and Game, C., 2011. Local government in the UK. 5th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar