Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Potekoe definisanja pojma policy:

It seems reasonable to suppose, however, that all policies can be viewed as


involving the following overlapping and interrelated features: human action
aimed at achieving certain objectives; human action aimed at resolving, or at
least ameliorating, an identified problem; and human action aimed at
maintaining or modifying relationships within an existing organization, between
dierent organizations, or a human figuration of some other kind (Nloyce and
Smith, 2009: 13).
Before we examine these issues, it is important to remind ourselves that any
study of the complexities involved in the policy process is fraught with several
diculties, the most important of which is that we are always dealing with the
study of dynamic, complex social processes or human figurations. Indeed, we are
ourselves in process, and part of broader social processes. It is for these reasons
that we can only realistically aspire to explain the relational complexities involved
in the sport policy process more adequately (Murphy, 1998; Smith and Platts,
2008). As with our knowledge of broader social processes more generally, it
would be foolhardy to suggest that it is possible to have a complete
understanding or, indeed, anything approaching it of the processes involved.

The construction of sport policy, like all other areas of policy, presupposes a
commitment among those individuals and groups involved who are better able to
develop various activities that enable them to bring about desirable change in
ways that other individuals and groups may not (str. 14-15).

It is our contention, then, that if policy-makers and SDOs wish to improve the
eectiveness of their programmes, and to appreciate what realistically their
strategies are likely to achieve, then it is important that they examine policy
problems, not from an overly involved position, but from a relatively detached
and longer-term developmental perspective. Of course, we appreciate that it is
very dicult within the heat of the struggle for sport policy-makers and
development ocers to stand back and try to develop such a relatively detached
view. We are also aware that it is dicult for these groups to begin to translate
into practice should they be inclined to do so the insights that could be

derived from engaging in the foregoing type of abstract sociological reection.


(str. 16-17).

Razvoj sportske politike kao oblasti javne politike


Although we clearly recognize that the roots of the organization and
administration of modern sport can be traced back to England, in particular,
during the eighteenth and
nineteenthcenturies(Dunningetal.,2004;Holt,1989;HoulihanandWhite,2002),itwast
he period between the1960sandmid-1970s that was characterized by a growing
willingness by the British government to accept sport and leisure as a legitimate
area of public policy, not least because of the commitment towards developing
and sustaining the welfare state ideology and the recognition of the growing
social significance of sport. (str. 29).

Despite the initial government antipathy towards sport in the early decades
of the twentieth century, one of the key organizations that came to play a central
role in sport policy and sports development activity in Britain was the Central
Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR), the inauguration of which, in 1935, was
primarily a response to growing concerns over the health of the nation (CCPR,
1960). The CCPR was, and still is, an independent voluntary body representing a
wide range of governing bodies in the promotion, improvement and development
of sport. In 1957, the CCPR commissioned Sir John Wolfenden to serve as Chair of
a Committee to examine the status of sport in the UK, and the subsequent
Wolfenden Report, published in 1960, not only raised the profile of sport among
government, but also helped provide the context within which public
involvement in sport was to be considered for the next generation (Houlihan and
White, 2002: 18). In view of the perceived interest that government was taking in
sport and the sport policy and development policy agendas, Coghlan (1990: 11)
has claimed that the Wolfenden Report was published against what he referred to
as a somewhat euphoric background. For the most part, this was because the
Report was published within the context of growing public, media and even

political support for greater funds to be directed at sport, and especially following
the perceived success of the British Olympic team at the Summer Olympics that
took place in Rome during the same year. The Report and the implications of its
contents were not met with universal acclaim, however, for some within the
British Olympic Association (BOA), for example, expressed particularly strong
reservations about the Committee that was to produce the Wolfenden Report,
since no BOA members were to be represented on it. In particular, there were
said to be concerns by bodies such as the BOA that the CCPR might attempt to
use it to increase its own power and inuence at the expense of other bodies
(Evans, 1974: 146). (str. 30).