歐盟體育政策治理模式

Governance Models of Sports Policy in the European Union

10.6547/tassm.2013.0010

柯伶玫(Ling-Mei Ko)

體育政策體系 ； 治理 ； 郡體育合作夥伴關係 ； sports policy system ； governance ； county sports partnerships (CSPs)

臺灣體育運動管理學報

13卷3期（2013 / 09 / 30）

229 - 246

繁體中文

近幾年來，全世界治理方式的趨勢已經由傳統官僚式上至下的治理方式，逐漸轉向為橫向網絡的治理，而這種趨勢在英國特別明顯。由於網絡治理方式在體育政策體系的實證分析還是比較缺乏的，因此本研究旨在描述這樣的差距。本文將首先討論歐盟體育政策體系的四大構型，進而探討不同構型的治理方式和其背後所支撐的政策思考。接著，本研究以英國體育政策體系變遷為例，評估新工黨政府為了推動網絡治理方式，在英格蘭地方體育政策體系所建立的組織，稱之為「郡體育合作夥伴關係」（County Sports Partnerships, CSPs）。本研究採用次級資料分析方法和深度訪談法，探討兩個英格蘭郡體育合作夥伴關係組織之個案，以期了解這種網絡治理方式在地方層級推動體育政策上的實際運作狀況。研究結果顯示雖然在兩個個案發現網絡中不同組織彼此合作的證據，但是證據卻非常有限。儘管如此，新工黨此次的試驗，在試圖引導體育政策體系走向社會性構型的作法上，無疑提供了非常寶貴的見解。

In recent years, the shift from traditional bureaucratic and hierarchical forms of governance to transversal networks has occurred worldwide and is particularly clear in the United Kingdom. However, empirical studies evaluating the operation of network governance in relation to sports policy are rare. Therefore, this study addressed this gap by exploring governance models of sports policy. Four configurations of European policy systems were examined and the aspects of governance and policy thought that underpin the configurations were determined. In addition, a case study of sports policy change in England was analyzed and an attempt by New Labour to introduce networked approaches to develop and deliver sports policy at the local level through County Sports Partnerships (CSPs) was evaluated. Secondary quantitative data were reviewed, in-depth interviews were undertaken to analyze two CSPs, and the implications of the delivery of this form of local governance were explored. The results accumulated from the two case studies suggested that cooperative engagement in a networked approach was limited. However, the attempt of New Labour provided valuable insights into directing policy systems toward a social model.

1. Aitchison, C.(1997).A Decade of Compulsory Competitive Tendering in UK Sport and Leisure Services: Some Feminist Reflections.Leisure Studies,16(2),85-106.
2. Fleming, J.(Ed.),Holland, I.(Ed.)(2003).Government reformed: Values, institutions and the state.Aldershot:Ashgate.
3. Fleming, J.,Rhodes, R. A. W.(2005).Bureaucracy, contracts and networks: The unholy trinity and the police.Australian And New Zealand Journal Of Criminology,38(2),192-205.
4. Giddens, A.(1994).Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics.Cambridge:Polity Press.
5. Giddens, A.(1998).The Third Way.Cambridge:Polity Press.
6. Harris, S.,Houlihan, B.(2014).Delivery networks and community sport in England.International Journal of Public Sector Management,27(2),113-127.
7. Henry, I.(2009).European Models of Sport: Governance, Organisational Change and Sports Policy in the EU.Hitotsubashi journal of arts and sciences,50(1),41-52.
8. Henry, I.(Ed.),Ko, L.(Ed.)(2014).Routledge Handbook of Sport Policy.Abingdon:Routledge.
9. Henry, I.(Ed.),Lee, P. C.(Ed.)(2004).Governance and Ethics.London:Pearson.
10. Hill, C. J.,Lynn, L. E.(2005).Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,15(2),173-195.
11. Hillman, A. J.,Withers, M. C.,Collins, B. J.(2009).Resource dependence theory: A review.Journal of management,35(6),1404-1427.
12. Hindley, D.(2002).Loughborough,Loughborough University.
13. Hoye, R.,Cuskelly, G.(2007).Sport Governance.London:Butterworth-Heinemann.
14. McDonald, I.(2005).Theorising partnerships: Governance, communicative action and sport policy.Journal of Social Policy,34,579-600.
15. Moore, M.,Hartley, J.(2008).Innovations in governance.Public Management Review,10,3-20.
16. Newman, J.(2001).Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society.London:Sage.
17. Rhodes, R. A. W.(2007).Understanding governance: Ten years on.Organization Studies,28(8),1243-1264.
18. VOCASPORT Research Group(2004).,Lyon:Euroepan Observatoire of Sport and Employment.

1. 簡全亮(2020)。應用幾何平均數做為運動場館設施普及性指標。中華體育季刊，34(1)，15-24。
2. 林靜萍,林建豪(2023)。身體素養在英國的政策與方向。中原體育學報，21，10-22。