Regional policy and organizational fields in multi-level sport governance

ABSTRACT

Research Questions

Broadly, we sought to explore the role of regional policy in sport institutions and understand their implications for organizational fields in multi-level sport governance systems. Our research questions were (1) how do changes in regional policy impact the way that organizational fields are structured within multi-level governance structures? and (2) how does regional policy impact sport policy implementation?

Research Method

We used an instrumental case study methodology of regional policy in the Province of Ontario. Data were collected using document analysis. We collected 88 policy documents produced between 1995 and 2021. Data were analyzed using a critical policy analysis approach.

Results and Findings

Our findings demonstrate the ways that administrative arrangements and the ideas and beliefs underpinning regional policy had important implications for sport policy implementation in Ontario. The location of sport in successive provincial administrations had implications for the expected role of sport in the province. Ideas and beliefs related to what regional government should do, and who should be responsible for the delivery of services also impacted the way that sport was delivered in the province through the period studied.

Implications

Our work examines the agency of regional policymakers in the structuration and change of organization fields in sport institutions. We also critically examine the linkages between organizations in multi-level sport governance. Future work is required to understand the range of regional pressures that impact sport policy implementation in multi-level sport governance systems.

KEYWORDS:

• Organizational fields
• sport policy
• provincial policy
• policy implementation
• institutional theory

There is a growing body of literature drawing from institutional theory to understand how sports institutions work (Nite & Edwards, 2021; Robertson et al., 2022). Rooted in sociology and analyzing institutions as processes, practices, and ideas, institutional theory provides a framework through which to examine how institutions govern action (Washington & Patterson, 2011). Wooten and Hoffman (2017) posited that institutional theory offers a lens to examine how social choices are shaped, mediated, and channeled by the institutional environment. Thus, ‘organizational action becomes a reflection of the perspectives defined by the group … out of which emerge the regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive systems that provide meaning for organizations’ (Wooten & Hoffman, 2017, p. 55). While early work focused on legitimacy, change, and isomorphism, sports scholars have diversified their conceptual framing to examine constructs of logics, fields, and institutional work (Robertson et al., 2022). The shift represents an important attempt to recognize how actors can exercise agency within sports institutions (Nite & Edwards, 2021).

Sports scholars (Cousens & Slack, 2005; Kitchin & Howe, 2013; Robertson et al., 2022) have noted that understanding concepts such as organizational fields and institutional logics enable researchers to examine a community of organizations linked by shared meaning, governance systems, and patterns of relationships. Canadian sport is structured as a system of multi-level governance (Thibault & Harvey, 2013), and the public policy landscape in Canada is highly regionalized (Savoie, 2019); thus, institutional theory provides a tool to examine regional policy and the agency of policymakers, as well as their implications for sport policy implementation in Canada.

In this paper, we theorize amateur sport in Canada as an institution with clearly defined structures, actors, and fields that can be analyzed and as such, we add to the literature through an investigation of agency in this institution. To date, scholarly attention has focused on sport policy at the national level (Barnes et al., 2007; Parent et al., 2018; Thibault & Babiak, 2005; Thibault & Harvey, 2013) and on the managerial and policy-related issues experienced by Community Sport Organizations (CSOs, Doherty et al., 2014; Misener & Doherty, 2013; Rich & Misener, 2019) and municipal recreation organizations (Llewellyn & Rich, 2023; Oncescu & Fortune, 2022a, 2022b). Although provincial governments and sport organizations are important actors in the institution of sport in Canada, less is known about the impact of policy at the provincial level and how it shapes institutional arrangements and the implementation of policy between levels of governance. In this context, we understand policy as any ‘course of action or inaction chosen by public authorities to address a given problem or interrelated set of problems’ (Pal, 1992, p. 2). In the study of sport institutions, organizational fields, which can be defined as the complex networks of social relationships in which actors are positioned (Kitchin & Howe, 2013), have received less scholarly attention than other constructs (Roberston et al., 2022). Therefore, within multi-level sport governance frameworks, the role of provincial governments and the agency of policymakers within these organizational fields represent an under-explored element of the policy system. Therefore, in this paper, we consider the role of regional actors and the influence they have on the broader institution of sport. We examine regional policy as a powerful constituent within organizational fields of the Canadian amateur sports system. Therefore, our analysis seeks to understand how political changes (at the regional level) impact the structuration and change of fields related in that region, and how these changes impact the translation of ideas and implementation of policy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine provincial (henceforth referred to as regional) policy and the agency of policymakers, in order to explore their implications for institutions and sport policy implementation in Canada. Specifically, we examine regional policy as a constituent of organizational fields to understand how the actions of regional policymakers impact the structuration and change of fields and implementation of sport policy in the province of Ontario, Canada. In doing so, we provide an exploration of the mechanisms that explain the workings of multi-level sport governance in Canada. The following research questions guide this work: (1) how do changes in regional policy impact the way that organizational fields are structured within multi-level governance structures? and (2) how does regional policy impact sport policy implementation? As organizational fields represent important contextual considerations for understanding policy implementation, our work contributes to the discussion of the relationships between agencies and the institutional structures of amateur sports in Canada.

Literature review and theoretical framework

To frame this study, we review literature related to sport policy and regional development/governance in Canada. Next, we frame our contribution theoretically by examining organizational fields.

Policy and multi-level governance in Canada

In Canada, sport is governed through a federated, multi-level governance system. The federal branch of government (Sport Canada) is responsible for sport and federal sport policy, which is implemented through organizations at the provincial and community level (Parent et al., 2018; Shilbury et al., 2013, 2016). Through Sport Canada, policies and programs are established which guide decisions related to participation in both recreational and elite sports (Rich & Misener, 2019; Thibault & Harvey, 2013). However, these policies are implemented throughout a complex network of organizations including national sport organizations (NSOs), provincial and territorial sport organizations (PTSOs) who are generally organized around one or a small number of sports, and CSOs who deliver a large proportion of sport participation opportunities in Canada. Therefore, there are many actors involved and multiple steps before policy finds its way to the grassroots level. Multi-sport service organizations such as Canadian Sport for Life, Canadian Women in Sport, and the Aboriginal Sport Circle also enact and support government policies, programs, and objectives across sports and organizations (Rich & Misener, 2019). Building on these understandings, we theorize amateur sport in Canada as an institution with clearly defined structures, actors, and fields that can be analyzed.

The Canadian Sport Policy (CSP, Government of Canada, 2012) was formalized in 2002, with policy renewal processes in 2012 and 2022. This federal policy outlines the direction for Canadian sport and identifies desired outcomes (Thibault & Harvey, 2013). In addition to the networks of NSOs, PTSOs, and CSOs, Sport Canada has entered into bilateral agreements with regional governments to develop programs related to physical activity and sport (Thibault & Harvey, 2013). These agreements are designed around objectives related to increasing sports participation:

1. To support projects that strengthen physical literacy and children and youth participation that are compatible with the first three stages of Sport for Life or programming at comparable stages that exist across jurisdictions.

2. To support projects that provide opportunities for persons from under-represented and/or marginalized populations to actively participate in sports including in roles as athletes, coaches, officials, and volunteer leaders.

3. To strengthen Indigenous Capacity and Leadership for the Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies (PTASBs).

4. To increase culturally relevant sport programming for Indigenous children and youth at the community level. (Government of Canada, 2021, para 6).

Therefore, while sport and physical activity fall under federal administrative structures, each province and territory has exclusive jurisdiction within its territory over significant aspects of the delivery of sport participation opportunities. Given the influence of provincial and territorial governments and policy on municipalities and their governance, these relationships and formalized agreements are an important element of public policy designed to increase sport participation. Each province and territory therefore has the power to adopt tailored policies and programs, provided they do not contravene the federal government's jurisdiction (Rose, 2006; Thibault & Harvey, 2013). For example, the Government of Ontario supported the development of local sports programs in Indigenous communities with the 2009–2011 Sport for More bilateral agreement.

Municipalities also play an important role in delivering sport participation opportunities, which often occurs through facilities and programming in municipal parks and recreation organizations. Indeed, the recreation sector is identified in CSP as one of the most prominent stakeholders implicated in the sport system (Canadian Heritage, 2012). Municipalities provide resources such as low-cost infrastructure and subsidies to CSOs (generally private sector organizations) which assist in developing and delivering participation opportunities. These provisions are also supported through policy and funding provided by both Federal and Provincial governments. For example, in 2006, the federal Recreation Infrastructure Program and the provincial Ontario Recreation Program provided more than $380 million for 758 recreation facility projects in the province of Ontario (Government of Ontario, 2009). Thus, the implementation of sport policy in Canada involves stakeholders at the national, provincial/territorial, and municipal levels. The resulting complex system of multi-level governance requires an interrogation of the relationship and influence of actors at different levels (Nite & Edwards, 2021) to develop a robust understanding of policy implementation.

Scholars have provided thorough historical overviews of sport policy in Canada (Thibault & Harvey, 2013) as well as comparative studies of sport policy between Canada and other nations (Bergsgard et al., 2007; Green & Houlihan, 2005; Green & Oakley, 2001). However, this work is often focused on sport policy at the national level. A more comprehensive understanding of implementation processes can be achieved by examining the complex nexus of factors that influence policymaking and implementation at different levels of governance: institutional theory offers the theoretical tools through which these relations can be understood. For example, Parent et al. (2018) examined how environmental changes (specifically related to updated federal legislation for not-for-profit corporations) impacted governance structures and processes in Canadian NSOs. These changes led to operational practices which emphasized accountability, transparency, and performance outcomes. Comeau (2013) drew from a historical institutionalism perspective to examine the evolution of CSP and how past policy decisions continue to impact sport policy formulation. The analysis highlighted that during policy orientation there was a focus on participation and health promotion, which later evolved to the promotion of excellence to foster national unity and finally the emergence of neoliberalism, where the responsibility of participation was placed on the individual (Comeau, 2013). These shifts were informed by changing political ideologies and orientations which underpinned policy development. Collectively, these studies demonstrate the complexity of relationships and influence within multi-level sports governance systems.

Recently, scholars have further highlighted how – despite a rhetoric of sport for all – institutional ideas, beliefs, and arrangements have been detrimental to the pursuit of equal opportunities to participate in sports for equity-deserving groups (Skille, 2011; Tink et al., 2020). These discussions often attribute these trends to tensions associated with neoliberalism – a political ideology that emphasizes the value of free market principles, with core tenets of individuality, efficiency, and accountability (Cureton & Frisby, 2011; Silk & Andrews, 2003). Within a neoliberal framework, administrations aim to govern at a distance by conceiving individuals as autonomous citizens capable of regulating their lifestyle choices to maximize their health and productivity and limit their potential harm to society (Lupton, 2013). In Canada, Oncescu and Fortune (2022a) noted how privatization and neoliberal ideology have impacted practitioners’ conceptualizations and administration of recreation services. Drawing from Woolford and Nelund (2013), they elaborated how under neoliberal governmental agendas

responsibilization is a set of techniques and methods used by the government to cultivate action on the part of individuals and community organizations in the private and non-profit sectors that they take active responsibility in relation to government and society at large (Oncescu & Fortune, 2022b, p. 2).

These techniques place the responsibility of tasks previously associated with the government on local organizations (Fahlén et al., 2015). Scholars have demonstrated that CSOs are increasingly expected to achieve social outcomes, be entrepreneurial, and operate with less support from the government (Bjärsholm & Norberg, 2021; Fahlén et al., 2015; Green & Houlihan, 2006; Oncescu & Fortune, 2022a, 2022b). Therefore, understanding the role of political, social, and economic contexts is an important consideration for an examination of agency, organizational fields, and sport policy implementation.

Regional development and governance systems in Canada

Among industrialized market economies, Canada is one of the most highly regionalized and fragmented. Savoie (2019) claimed that ‘[g]eography explains virtually everything Canadian, and it is central to understanding the workings of Canadian democracy’ (p. 16). The relevance of regional policy and jurisdiction is recognized in the 2012 iteration of the CSP, which was conceptualized as a ‘road map’ and stated that ‘each government will determine which of the goals and objectives of the Policy they plan to pursue, taking into account their relevance to jurisdictional mandate and priority’ (Government of Canada, 2012, p. 3). Despite this recognition, little academic research has examined regional policy and its implications for sport policy implementation.

Economic and regional development scholars have highlighted the importance of regional differences and the need for flexible public policy structures that emphasize local contexts and encourage regional collaboration (Vodden et al., 2019). In the context of neoliberalism, the decentralization of governments, and skepticism about top–down development models, new ways of thinking about regions and regional development have gained prominence in both theory and practice. In the context of multi-level governance systems, changes in regional development practice are motivated by changing dynamics of power within and between public and private sector actors (Conteh, 2021). Departing from top–down approaches to development, new regionalism is espoused by incremental and place-based development approaches as well as thinking about the fluid and emergent nature of how regions are defined to encourage regional collaboration instead of competition (Conteh, 2012; Vodden et al., 2019).

There are clear synergies between the trends in new institutionalism and new regionalism. These shifts recognize shortcomings in top-down approaches and a need to acknowledge the agency of actors at the community or organizational level. These trends also resonate with calls in sports literature for participant-centered and asset-based approaches to sports development (Bates & Hylton, 2021; Misener & Schulenkorf, 2016; Rich, Moore, et al., 2022; Rich, Nicholson, et al., 2022). In this paper, we examine regional policy as a constituent and empirical evidence of an organizational field. To address the dearth of research at the regional level, we explore how regional policy (and the agency of policymakers) influences organizational fields and how changes in regional policy impact policy implementation in the context of multi-level governance.

Organizational fields

Fields can be understood as the arenas or institutional environments in which an actor operates. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) noted that fields ‘constitute a recognized area of life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations … ’ (p. 148). Common languages, understandings, and ideologies may also describe the boundaries of an organizational field (Washington & Patterson, 2011). Building on Bourdiuesian Theory, Kitchin and Howe (2013) explained fields as complex networks of social relationships in which actors are positioned. Additionally, Wooten and Hoffman (2017) propose that an organizational field ‘is as much about the relationship between the actors as it is about the effect of the field on the actors’ (p. 63). These networks frame the way that actors compete or maneuver for resources. Ultimately, fields are richly contextualized spaces where actors engage in a common rule structure and shared normative understandings regarding matters that are consequential for field-level and organizational activities. Fields, therefore, construct the logics that inform actors’ activities, as these positions and competitions require logics that underpin what is and isn't valuable as well as acceptable ways of achieving objectives (Kitchin & Howe, 2013). As key components of the field, logics are understood as diverse belief systems that differ fundamentally in their content, ordering principles, and nature of central assumptions (Washington & Patterson, 2011). Existing as both material and symbolic, institutional logics offer formal and informal rules of behavior and interaction, which guide and limit decision-makers in achieving the organization's tasks (Skirstad & Chelladurai, 2011). Institutional logics determine what is acceptable or not acceptable in a field and are considered the frame of reference that helps actors within their respective fields make decisions and act according to these principles, norms, and rules (De Bock et al., 2021). Within the field, actors are carriers of the dominant logics and governance structures (Cousens & Slack, 2005).

As the concept of field involves understanding the extent to which they are institutionally defined (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), it is important to examine elements of field structuration. Structuration in organizational fields refers to the ‘recursive interdependence of social activities and norms’ (Scott, 1995, p. 106) continuously being produced and reproduced over time. Sports researchers are beginning to focus on the structuration processes to understand how the structuring of fields contributes to intra- and inter-organizational processes. For example, drawing on Bourdieu's conceptualization of the field, Wright (2009) examined how institutional change and formation occurred in first-class County cricket in England. Bourdieu's concept of field highlights that fields are sites of struggle for capital among relationally positioned actors and are constituted at multiple levels (Wright, 2009). As such, Wright (2009) suggested that first-class County cricket emerged in England as a field of restricted cultural reproduction, through an interplay between societal, organizational, and individual levels of the field. However, findings also suggest that the conception of the organizational field is formed empirically, inviting a reframing of the organizational field, which is dynamic, multi-level, and nuanced. In this research, we consider the organizational field of amateur sport in Ontario, within the broader institution of amateur sport in Canada. While the institution of amateur sport has specific structures, practices, and ideas that govern actions of actors and organizations more broadly, this regional field is bound both geographically and politically and has socially recognizable structures for actors within and outside of sports organizations in the province.

Institutional theorists have conceptualized the organizational field as the ‘domain where an organization's actions were structured by the network of relationships within which it was embedded’ (Wooten & Hoffman, 2017, p. 56), and the activities producing and reproducing these structures (Robertson et al., 2022). Within sports, studies have examined the interdependence of these social activities and structures and how they relate to institutional change (Cousens & Slack, 2005; Fahlén & Stenling, 2019; Nite & Edwards, 2021; Spaaij et al., 2018). For example, Gerard et al. (2017) examined multi-level institutional change in the International Paralympic Committee and suggested that field-level logics are simultaneously shaped by societal pressures coming from the top (i.e. from society to field) and from the bottom–up (i.e. organizations influencing the broader field). The researchers posit that at the field level, logic gradually moved from a rehabilitation-focused logic to a sport-focused logic resulting from both top–down and bottom–up pressures. They ultimately demonstrated that institutional change processes result from an interplay between the societal, field, and organizational levels. Also examining the nature of field-level change, Cousens and Slack (2005) analyzed changes in four facets of organizational fields over time, specifically: ‘communities of actors, their exchange processes, their governance structures, and their beliefs and institutional logics of action’ (p. 13). Their analysis demonstrated a shift in dominant logics from embracing sport-specific qualities to stressing the entertainment value of major league sport, resulting from changing governance models brought about by the deregulation of cable television. These researchers acknowledged that the organizational field informed institutional logics and vice versa, which is important for understanding the complex ways change happens in organizational fields.

Actors within an organizational field are exposed to a range of pressures, practices, logics, ideas, and beliefs through their engagements with other actors. Through the process of translation, the meanings associated with organizational practices can change ‘as individual field members incorporate these items into their own organization’ (Wooten & Hoffman, 2017, p. 67). Field members determine how to adapt an existing organizational practice such that it will hold meaning for their own organization, with the field playing a key role in facilitating this translation process. Robertson et al. (2022) noted that ‘translation primarily investigates how ideas travel’ (p. 5). This concept explains how organizations can import new institutional elements into their organization, to respond to internal and external pressures (Robertson et al., 2022). For example, organizational elements such as ‘Organizational accountability, formalization of structure, focus on goal definition and emphasis on managerialism will impact how organizations respond to internal/external pressures in society while maintaining their own organizational goal(s)’ (Krücken & Meier, 2006, p. 248). These organizational elements are important because internal/external pressures (e.g. political ideologies) will challenge these elements (Krücken & Meier, 2006). For example, Skille (2011) examined translation in a Norwegian football club and demonstrated that sports club policy is shaped by internal and external influences (e.g. team/club leader’s interests, other sports clubs) and results in translations of ideas from similar football clubs that are viewed as legitimate. Therefore, policies and the translation of new organizational elements are important for maintenance and legitimacy within an organization's field.

In this research, we sought to examine regional policy as a constituent of organizational fields. Within the institution of amateur sport in Canada, we conceptualize the organizational field as an amateur sport in the Province of Ontario, a regional field that is bounded geographically, as well as politically as regional policy has implications for the actors and their operation within the field. Specifically, we sought to examine how political changes and the actions of regional policymakers impact the structuration and change of fields in the province. Therefore, these research questions guided our work: (1) how do changes in regional policy impact the way that organizational fields are structured within multi-level governance structures? and (2) how does regional policy impact sport policy implementation?

Methodology

We utilized an instrumental case study methodology to examine regional policy in the Canadian Province of Ontario. As we understand policy as any course of action or inaction used to address a single or interrelated set of problems (Pal, 1992), we focused on regional policy related to the public management of sport, which can be understood as a set of complex and interrelated (or wicked) problems (Sam, 2009). Case studies are a useful approach to understand a specific phenomenon within a naturalistic context (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Instrumental case studies are employed to ‘get insight into the [research] question by studying a particular case’ (Stake, 1995, p. 3). That is, the case is instrumental in building an understanding of something else (i.e. a phenomenon) or for building theory. As we were interested in understanding how regional policy (and changes therein) impacts sport policy implementation and the way that organizational fields are structured, we examined regional policy in the Province of Ontario with an instrumental case study.

Data were collected using document analysis. We systematically searched for documents related to the policy and decision-making processes of the Government of Ontario. Targeted searches on each provincial administration were conducted through Google, our Institutional Library, as well as the Archives of Ontario. Search terms included ‘Sport’, ‘Recreation’, ‘Physical Activity’, and ‘Sport Policy’, and were limited to documents published and pertaining specifically to policy at the provincial level. Additional search terms included the name of each premier (elected head of the provincial government) and year, to help differentiate sport policy and decision-making during different administrative terms (e.g. 2006 AND McGuinty AND Sport). Given that we were interested in the implementation of sport policy, we limited our search to documents published and produced from 1995 onward. Although sport policy was formalized at the federal level in 2002, the Government of Ontario at the time (i.e. the Harris Government) was elected in 1995. Therefore, to capture documents related to the work of this Government, documents were collected pertaining to the 36th Parliament (of Ontario) forward.

The collected documents were organized chronologically for analysis allowing the research team to explore the administrative terms of different premiers (i.e. Harris, McGuinty, Wynne, and Ford), and how policy and ideas were translated based on the structure and actions taken by the provincial governments over time. The search turned up 88 unique documents including policy documents, websites, and publications published between 1996 and 2021. Specifically, these included strategies and action plans, mandate letters for provincial ministers, press releases, academic publications examining provincial policy, as well as websites and policy documents related to provincial ministries and their programs. All data were stored and analyzed using NVIVO data analysis software.

Data analysis was conducted using a critical policy analysis approach (Jedlicka et al., 2022). This analytical approach highlights the institutions, ideas/beliefs, key actors, networks/administrative arrangements, and contexts/key events in policymaking processes. Informed by the literature on institutional theory broadly (Robertson et al., 2022) and organizational fields specifically (Wooten & Hoffman, 2017), we coded data deductively based on the constructs of critical policy analysis (i.e. institutions, ideas/beliefs, key actors, networks/administrative arrangements, and contexts/key events in policymaking processes). Following an initial round of coding, recurring codes associated with these constructs were identified and discussed by the research team collectively. For example, codes associated with ideas/beliefs included economic growth and self-reliant organizations. Subsequently, initial codes were grouped thematically. For example, codes such as investing in games and hosting events were grouped as sport creates tourism. Codes and thematic groups were then organized into higher-order themes and titled. Finally, the research team discussed these higher-order themes and selected examples from the data which best illustrated the identified themes.

Findings

The results of our critical policy analysis identified two key themes that are implicated in the administrative arrangements as well as the ideas and beliefs (Jedlicka et al., 2022) related to sport in regional policy. These two key themes: The Changing Role of Sport and Accountability and Responsibilization both illustrate the implications of regional policy and the actions of regional governments on sport policy implementation and the structuration of organizational fields.

The changing role of sport

Sports policy at the federal level has become increasingly centralized and professionalized since the formalization of the CSP in 2002. This is evident in the centralization of the National Coaching Certification Program and the implementation of the Long-term Athlete Development Framework.¹ Although provincial governments imported ideas and beliefs from federal sports policy (in many cases using language directly), the location of sport within provincial government administration changed several times in Ontario, and these changes had important implications for how sport was understood within the province. The first theme examines the implications of the changing location of sport within regional government. The theme was constructed from codes such as enhancing health outcomes, supporting societal well-being, and sport enhances the economy.

Sport was not explicitly recognized in the title of a provincial ministry until 2011. However, prior to this, sport was associated with the roles and responsibilities of various ministries. Sport’s contribution to the economy was underscored by all administrations. As highlighted in a press release: ‘Building a more active province can directly contribute to positive economic and social outcomes such as increased labor force productivity, improved student achievement and the social strength of individuals and communities’ (Government of Ontario, 2013). However, ministerial responsibility for sport had implications for the extent to which this association was emphasized. Prior to 2002, sport was explicitly associated with economic growth and providing value to taxpayers. This was a recurring theme that arose throughout the documents analyzed, in which sport was identified as a tool to enhance economic outcomes or the productive state of the economy:

Competitive amateur sport stimulates broad-based participation … at all levels and in all regions in Ontario. This results in significant public benefits: To the economy of the province and its communities through a wide variety of associated expenditures by individuals and families (Government of Ontario, 1996, p. 2).

Revenue-generating opportunities were therefore an integral part of sport and largely, sport-related policy was a means for the government to be accountable to the taxpayer.

However, in June 2005, the responsibility of sport was transferred to a newly created provincial Ministry of Health Promotion by Premier Dalton McGuinty (Rose, 2006). This is when more specific sport action plans were introduced such as the Ontario Sport Action Plan and the ACTIVE2010 Strategy, which aimed to achieve enhanced participation, excellence, capacity, and interaction (goals identified in the CSP). For example, through ACTIVE2010, the government promised an investment of $5 million per year to improve awareness of the benefits of physical activity and motivate people to get active (Government of Ontario, 2004). This funding included a campaign to promote lifelong fitness to adolescents (10–14 years old) and one to educate adults (45–-65 years old) on the benefits of exercise (Government of Ontario, 2004). These action plans guided much of the decision-making, sport strategies, and funding in this period. Although this may appear to be distinct from previous (economic) associations within provincial administration, documents demonstrated that sport, tourism, and health outcomes remained in some ways interrelated. For example, a 2008 press release indicated:

A successful Pan/Parapan American Games will be a catalyst for new and improved sports and recreation infrastructure for all Ontarians to lead healthier, active lives. These are some of the fundamental reasons the Pan/Parapan American Games bid is so important to our Province (Government of Ontario, 2008, para. 5).

The formalization of the relationship between sport and health resulted in increased funding opportunities (e.g. through the Communities in Action Fund), strategies (e.g. ACTIVE2010), and policies (e.g. Access to Recreation for Ontarians Policy Framework). With the recognition of the interdependencies of sport and health, government ministries also partnered to create initiatives (e.g. Healthy Kids Panel) to enhance health outcomes generally and specifically to address specific health outcomes (e.g. reducing obesity rates) in Ontario: ‘Overweight and obesity are threatening our children’s future and the future of our province … If our children are not healthy, then our society will not flourish’ (Healthy Kids Panel, 2013, p. 2).

In 2011, the role of sport shifted again when sport was then added to the portfolio of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (Government of Ontario, 2011). The repositioning of sport alongside culture and tourism represents a realignment with economic development priorities. As indicated in a government press release, ‘[a]ligning tourism, culture and sport will help the ministry take a leading role in enhancing economic growth and business across the province’ (Government of Ontario, 2011, para. 2). The responsibility of sport remained with this ministry until 2019, when it was renamed the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport Industries by the Ford Government – further emphasizing how economic development priorities remain implicated in sport-related policy in the province.

Despite these changing administrative arrangements, sport’s potential to contribute to the economy was identified throughout the time period studied, regardless of the government in power. In many cases, identifying sport as a value to the taxpayer came up before identifying or discussing other health or social benefits, as highlighted in a press release related to hosting the Pan/Parapan American Games:

Hosting the Games is part of the McGuinty government's plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy. It will also provide new sport venues for athletes to train and compete at home and recreation centres for Ontario families to lead healthier lives (Government of Ontario, 2012, para. 5).

Importantly, the shifts outlined here are also associated with changes to reporting and accountability measures for sport organizations and ultimately how legitimacy is framed and understood by actors within these networks. The intentions of the Provincial Government to impact accountability measures are made clear in the mandate letter for the Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Sport:

As Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, you will support festivals and events that build a strong economy and vibrant communities, attract tourists and contribute to job creation. You will continue to measure the contributions of these events and festivals and ensure that all decisions relating to them are supported by sound economic analysis (Government of Ontario, 2014, p. 2).

Considering the association of sport with different sectors (e.g. health and tourism), and the influence this has on funding, resources, and decision-making, it is important to consider how the role of sport is framed and articulated in regional policy. This framing ultimately illustrates how the actions of provincial policymakers dictate the relationships, support, and resources available to sport organizations – which also have implications for the structuration and change of organizational fields.

Accountability and responsibilization

The second theme examines the ideas and beliefs that underpinned changes in regional policy. Specifically, we identified an emphasis on accountability and responsibilization of individuals and organizations by regional actors. This theme was constructed using codes such as self-reliant organizations, sport as value to the taxpayer, and sport enhances productivity.

Prior to 1996, the province relied on the National Recreation Statement and the Community Recreation Policy Statement to guide its involvement with sport (Rose, 2006). The Community Recreation Policy Statement identified the role of municipalities in recreation and sport delivery: ‘Municipalities are creations of the province through the Municipal Act and The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Act, they are endowed with the responsibility for the provision of recreation services, programs, and facilities’ (Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, 1987, para. 5). Throughout the period studied, the increasing prevalence of neoliberal rhetoric within regional policy also had important implications for the organization of sport. This rhetoric was evident in documents related to the Harris government (1995–2002) and their Common Sense Revolution (Sancton, 2000) which saw a proliferation of language related to accountability and the value of sport to the taxpayer (particularly through private sector partnership and tourism development). These beliefs illustrate the desire of the Provincial Government for sports organizations to be self-sufficient, decrease dependence on government funding, and be accountable for public spending. As indicated in the Ontario Amateur Sport Strategy:

Government is prepared to support only those activities which are consistent with its goals and are provided in an effective and efficient manner, representing value to the tax payer. This approach to support will also take into account the responsibilities of other stakeholders and participants. Government is prepared to work together with sport organizations to help them move towards the ultimate goal of self-reliance where the organizations are able to depend on their own resources. (Ministry of Citizenship Culture and Recreation, 1996, p. 2):

The emphasis on accountability continued with subsequent governments. For example, a mandate letter from the Wynne Government to the Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Sport in 2014 (Wynne & Coteau, 2014) stated, ‘It is of utmost importance that we lead with responsibility, act with integrity, manage spending wisely and are accountable for every action we take’ (p. 3).

Initially, these trends led to a local services realignment which ultimately downloaded many of the responsibilities and costs arising from local services (previously held by the Province) to municipalities without providing extra financial support (Siegel, 2003; Tindal, 2015). As a result, services were drastically reduced. These financial reforms impacted the municipal capacity for delivering a range of services. For example, new funding criteria for eligible sport organizations to receive funding stipulated in the Strategy for Amateur Sport in Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship, Culture & Recreation, 1996) identified that, to receive funding from the province, organizations needed to be affiliated with a PSO or NSO and have a minimum number of prescribed registrants. These changes affected unorganized, recreational sport opportunities such as pick-up sport, after-school sport, and drop-in programs. The responsibility to support these organizations was downloaded to municipalities, who through the local services realignment, had limited resources to support new services. With the Municipal Act, 2001 (legislated in 2003), municipalities were given more scope and autonomy for service provisions, including recreation; however, they had to rely mainly on their tax base and service charges for service delivery (Siegel, 2003). These changes had direct implications for the delivery of grassroots sport and recreation programs and participation opportunities.

Currently, the role of recreation service delivery remains with municipalities. As indicated in the 2018 Financial Information Return (Eidelman et al., 2018), parks and recreation expenditures by municipalities in Ontario were funded 98% through municipal revenues. The remaining 2% was funded through provincial and federal transfer payments. Through these processes, the focus of policy appears to be on increasing accountability, which – in the context of other changes – means the accountability of local (i.e. Municipal) governments. For example, The Strategy for Amateur Sport in Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship, Culture & Recreation, 1996) stated: ‘[t]he Ministry will also be turning its attention to the need for strategic directions in the areas of recreation and active living. Support to provincial recreation organizations will be focused on increasing self-sufficiency for recreation organizations’ (p. 3). The diminished role of the provincial government is reflected in their withdrawal of responsibility for the delivery of sport and recreation. The shifting locus of control places the responsibility of sport at the local level, where organizations have varying levels of understanding and capacity to implement programs and initiatives associated with broader policy frameworks. Furthermore, it frames accountability for sport and recreation as an issue for municipal governments.

The policies of the Government of Ontario also promoted accountability by engaging with national sport policy accountability measures. NSOs and PTSOs in Canada are required to adhere to the objectives in the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF, Canadian Heritage, 1995), as a requirement to receive funding from the federal government (Comeau, 2013). The SFAF provides a detailed framework for decisions concerning the funding of sports and outlines strict guidelines emphasizing accountability and efficiency. Cost-sharing agreements, transfer payments, and disbursements to the provinces follow similar principles (Comeau, 2013; Rose, 2006). These principles were also translated into policy at the regional level. As a founding framework for Ontario’s investment in sport, the Amateur Sport Strategy for Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship, Culture & Recreation, 1996, pp. 7–8) stipulated that ‘Ontario’s support to amateur sport organizations will be tied to results, with support for administrative components tied directly to strategic activities’ and ‘As a condition of funding, PSOs will be expected to prepare business plans and to negotiate performance contracts with the ministry’. The assessment stages of the SFAF included evidence-based evaluation, the use of performance indicators to assess performance in the areas of high performance and sport participation, and accountability agreements with each organization which are tied to the goals of the federal government (Thibault & Harvey, 2013, p. 110). Both policies, therefore, identify qualification requirements related to results and/or performance indicators.

Notably, a strategic plan for the Sport Alliance of Ontario (a provincial sport development organization that lost funding and declared bankruptcy in 2015) indicated one of the main goals of the organization was to ‘develop and provide quality programs and maximize business services’ through the objective of ‘operating efficient, well-run services that meet or exceed the needs/expectations of members’ (Sport Alliance of Ontario, 2010, p. 2). Importantly, these parameters for funding eligibility and strategic planning goals indicated that accountability and efficiency were key components for monitoring, evaluation, and reporting structures. Sports organizations were at risk of losing or not obtaining funding if they did not adhere to these criteria. For example, a representative from the province commented that they pulled funding from the Sport Alliance of Ontario citing:

a review found ‘financial, governance and operational issues that were affecting its ability to adequately deliver our sport programs. In response to the report’s findings and as part of our work to modernize and improve Ontario’s sport system, a decision was made not to renew our funding agreement’ (Gillespie, 2015, p. 1).

Although the documents examined indicated the requirement to measure financial accountability and efficiency, discussions of measuring participation numbers, health benefits, or other non-financial outcomes were notably absent. As such, ideas and beliefs underpinning the notion of accountability appear to be firmly grounded in economics rather than principals of health promotion or political will to increase the quantity or quality of sport participation opportunities in the province.

Discussion and conclusion

Our analysis highlights the role of regional policy in shaping organizational fields and policy implementation. In doing so, we examine the agency of regional actors and their implications for institutional elements of amateur sport. Although provincial governments in Ontario took leadership from federal levels on the language and content of their sport-related policy, the ideas and beliefs that underpinned their actions and the administrative arrangements that shaped their implementation had important implications for how policy was implemented within the province. Below, we discuss the implications of our findings for institutional theory and policy implementation in sports.

Regional policy and the structuration of organizational fields

Collectively, our work contributes important nuances to understanding the structuration and change of organizational fields by focusing on regional policy and its implications for sport policy implementation. As highlighted above, fields are the complex networks of social relationships in which actors are positioned to construct the logics that inform organizational activities and practices (Kitchin & Howe, 2013). Our analysis shows regional policymakers influence the ideas, beliefs, and administrative arrangements that underpin sport in regional policy, which has implications for the ways that actors compete and maneuver for resources within the province. Although CSP was influential in shaping structures and nature of relationships between sport organizations (Barnes et al., 2007), regional policy was influential in determining the resources (e.g. funding, facilities, etc.) available to actors who fall directly under their jurisdiction (e.g. Municipalities, sport development organizations). Policy documents provided insight into the logics that underpin changes in these organizational fields and how the actions of regional policymakers have implications for the broader institution of sport. As such, regional policy provided empirical evidence that can be helpful in mapping out the structure of and changes in organizational fields. Further, given that regional governments are regularly changing, examining regional policy offers important insights into how different actors (particularly those outside of sports organizations) exercise agency and ultimately political power that influence changes to organizational fields in multi-level governance frameworks.

Our analysis highlighted that, even in successive governments formed by the same political party (e.g. the McGuinty and Wynne governments), sport can be positioned differently – which suggests that tensions related to competing logics (Skirstad & Chelladurai, 2011; Stenling & Fahlén, 2009) are not only present for actors in sport organizations. Although leadership and broader policy orientation are established at the federal level, analysis of policy that is subject to an assessment of ‘relevance to jurisdictional mandate and priority’ (Government of Canada, 2012, p. 3) must consider the role of regional government and the agency of regional policymakers in implementation processes. This may be particularly relevant when the political orientations of governments at the federal and regional levels do not align. We suggest that regional governments are powerful actors within organizational fields and sport institutions more broadly and require further investigation by sport scholars. While flexible public policy systems are important for highly regionalized policy contexts (Vodden et al., 2019), we must continue to analyze the complex power dynamics that are inherent in multi-level governance systems (Conteh, 2021) to better understand the ways that actors exercise agency in structuring organizational fields. In this context, our analysis provides a foundation for further exploration into how institutional elements shape policy implementation processes – and ultimately outcomes – in different regions within multi-level governance.

Regional policy and sport policy implementation

Although investments in sport are legitimatized as investments in health and social outcomes at the federal level, as a result of actions taken by regional policymakers, this framing did not appear to have a durable presence within regional policy. Rather, after a short time associated with the Ministry of Health Promotion (following the formalization of the CSP), sport was re-coupled with tourism and associated more clearly with an economic development imperative. While sport’s various contributions (i.e. to health, tourism, economic development, and community development) were recognized by all governments, the administrative arrangements surrounding sport served to frame which of these contributions were important and what practices were perceived as legitimate for sport actors and organizations in the province. In this way, our findings demonstrate the ways that ideas, beliefs, and administrative arrangements intersect with organizational fields and the logics that underpin them. These findings have implications for theoretical understandings of the structuration and change of organizational fields (Kitchin & Howe, 2013; Robertson et al., 2022) as well as methodological approaches to sports policy analysis (Jedlicka et al., 2022) and policy implementation in sport institutions (Fahlén, 2017; Skille, 2008; Stenling, 2014).

Our findings also illustrate the role of regional policy in the translation of ideas between organizations in multi-level governance frameworks (Robertson et al., 2022). Despite the many potential contributions of sport, a regional policy that dictated measures of funding and accountability framed how organizations needed to operate to remain viable and legitimate. As such, regional policy represents a powerful constituent of organizational fields that is likely to impact the practices of sport organizations and the way that policy is implemented as it moves through the sport system. In this way, we contribute to the small body of literature that has examined the influence of regional-level actors in Canadian amateur sport (Edwards et al., 2009) as well as the nature of the relationships between actors at different levels of multi-level governance frameworks.

The ideas and beliefs underscoring regional policy also had important implications for sport policy implementation. The simultaneous downloading of responsibility to municipal governments and moves to increase accountability within sport and recreation organizations effectively diminished the role of provincial governments in sport. Rather, an increase in focus on economic development and self-sufficiency of organizations emerged within regional policy, as this is aligned with the broader orientation of successive government visions for sport. The findings of our work contribute to the literature which has explored the roles of accountability (Fahlén, 2017) and commercialization of community sport (Stenling & Fahlén, 2009). Further, these findings highlight the role of regional governments in perpetuating neoliberal rhetoric that has been widely critiqued in the context of sport and recreation organizations in Canada (Cureton & Frisby, 2011; Oncescu & Fortune, 2022a, 2022b; Tink et al., 2020). Our analysis points to changes across a range of policy contexts (e.g. the local service realignment) and the implications they have for CSOs in Ontario. As such, regional policy and the agency of regional policymakers appear to be an important consideration for understanding how sport policy is implemented in Canada and within multi-level governance frameworks.

Our findings suggest a need for continued work to understand how changing political ideologies and actions at the regional level are key to understanding effective ways to craft and implement sports policy within complex power relationships inherent in the structures of multi-level governance frameworks. Therefore, our work contributes a theoretical understanding of how organizational fields are structured and changed and how regional policy impacts institutional elements and sports policy implementation processes. Importantly, our work contributes an understanding of the linkages between actors at different levels within multi-level governance frameworks. In conclusion, we offer reflections on the limitations of this study and possible directions for future research.

Our analysis provided exploratory insights into the role of regional policy in multi-level sport governance in one region (Ontario). Future research should interrogate policy in multiple regions to understand convergences and divergences of policy orientations and outcomes. These comparative analyses will provide more nuance to the discussions we have initiated here, as well as insights into best practices for policy makers. Future analyses may interrogate a range of external factors at the regional level that shape the agency of actors involved in sport policy implementation. For example, demographic changes associated with (ex)urbanization, migration, and economic restructuring may have implications for the way that regional governments understand sport and craft policy related to it. Highly regionalized contexts may provide the opportunity to examine the role of regional culture and local context in sport institutions and policy implementation. These future lines of inquiry may provide a robust understanding of the factors shaping organizational fields, their role in policy implementation, and how their influence(s) may vary across regions. Finally, the insights available from data collected through policy documents is limited. Future research should examine the agency of regional policymakers (and other regional-level actors) through methods that account for and critically examine their experiences (e.g. interviews and/or observations).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [grant number 430-2021-00177].

Notes

1 These programs were notable outcomes of the 2002 Canadian Sport Policy objectives related to enhancing capacity within the sport system and interaction between sport stakeholders. They represented centralized frameworks that were established to apply to all sports.