Privatization: Critical Perspectives on the Sport Economy

| March 16, 2014

[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”adssa” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]
Order Details
Privatization: Critical Perspectives on the sport Economy
Privatization process usually lead to the enhancement of productivity as well as performance of economic corporations in individual level since ownership is one of the most crucial factors in the effectiveness of the corporations. The modern, classical Under these circumstances, transfer of ownership and management of the company from the public sector to private viewpoint recommends reducing state possessions in order to enhance efficiency. At present, selling state- owned corporations to the private section and competitive markets are regarded as the essence of the world?s general policies. Supporting privatization, the World Bank emphasizes that privatization leads to efficiency if understood and implemented correctly and encourages investment as well as enhancing financial conditions of the companies and improving quality of the process, thus leading to the development and creation of new job opportunities in infrastructures and social plans. Nowadays, the issue of privatization has received attention in all industries and sports industry is not an exception. Privatization of sports in western developed countries is quieter crucial and has been investigated vigorously. The economic importance of sports and healthy recreation is one of the most important reasons for this. Having an up-to-50-percent growth in a decade, the 400 billion dollar sports industry in the U.S has been introduced as one of the top 10 industries. Sports play a crucial role in several commercial fields and plans, including multi-national media and entertainment. Perjuda (2002) describes the role of sports organizations to be increasingly difficult in the free market condition and contends that financial supply through traditional approaches such as central and local financial plan is decreasing and inefficient. He points out modifying the organizational and legal structure, management approaches and techniques to make rapid changes in the performance of sports organizations. Shortage of sports palaces and their optimal and correct distribution by considering the population of urban areas and scant state monetary resources to expand sports places is one of the biggest problems facing cities especially large ones. According to recent statistics, sports places per capita in the country are much fewer than international standards; there is a need, thus, to a modern look in management to develop sports management. There is a direct correlation between the share of sports in national economy and the amount of investment made in sports section which is far less than developed countries due to the restrictions and bottlenecks the private section is faced with for contributing in the development of sports.
After winning the general election, The Conservative party under Margaret Thatcher takes power in 1979 and introduced Compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) in 1980. Local authorities must put out to tender sports and leisure management services in 1989, after they are added as a "defined" CCT activity under secondary legislation. Margaret Thatcher (CCT) in sport fails at that time but must of sport services in the UK are private sector nowadays. This emerged the conflict between the government’s economic policies and social acceptance. Regional differences show the causes and consequences of the transfer of responsibility for funding of social services from enterprises to municipalities in many countries such as Russia. Nigel M. Healey, Vladimir Leksin & Aleksandr Svetsov (2013) study the social impact of economic reform in Russia. sports facilities were moved wholesale into municipal ownership between 1993-1997. Moreover, most of the stadiums in chain were traditional institutions whose funds mostly came from allocated finance, and that their operational autonomy partly lays down. This big financing burden of the government and disunification of both rights and obligations. XU Wenqiang,et al (2007), YANG Ming (2006) and LI Ming (2003) study the Present Condition and Non-State Owner Sports Economy in China include the Management System of Public Stadiums in China. Study focused on non-state owner sports economy, and the main effects that institutional environment takes on non-state owner sports economy of china. Some paths of choices on improving the development of non-state owner sports economy in these studies. used more narrowly here, policy paradigms are attempts (by policy-makers or other interest groups) to establish causal relationships and to suggest how policy objectives might best be achieved. Their importance lies in how they link means and ends. For instance, specific methods such as those adopted from business and managerial economics, including re-engineering, privatization and strategic planning are profoundly tied to goals of efficiency (Alvesson, 1991). These paradigms and others like them have had significant effects on public sector management in countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Aucoin, 1990b). In sport, the premises of what could broadly be called a ?new public management paradigm? (that includes preferences for business models, strategic planning and marketing) have similarly been promoted as both the means to address problems and as worthy ends in themselves. Policy paradigms thus contain both descriptive and prescriptive elements (Jenson, 1989).
Discuss ?in-depth? Privatization: Critical Perspectives on the sport Economy within 4 pages to clarifying the following?
1. Models of government practices in privatization sport sector around the world evidences from U.S.A, UK, Russia, China and The European Union.
Political and administrative practices to implement privatization sports sector policies.
2. The contribution of the sports sector in GDP in U.S.A, UK, Russia, China and The European Union countries and around the world ?Economic value of sport?.
3. Social and cultural Perspectives in support or opposition privatize Sports sector (politicians, officials, decision ?maker and citizens).
4. Lessons from the success and failure of plans to privatize the sports sector around the world.
* The paper should include cases from a number of countries around the world such as Europe, America, Asia and Africa specially UK and USA.
References:
1. The Political Economy of Privatization by Thomas Clarke and Christos Pitelis (29 Jun 1995.
2. Sport and the economy: http://www.sportengland.org/research/benefits-of-sport/economic-value-of-sport/
3. Handbook on the Economics of Sport (Elgar Original Reference) by Wladimir Andreff and Stefan Szymanski (30 Jan 2009).
4. Ian Jeffries (2002) The New Russia: A Handbook of Economic and Political Developments.
5. The Economics of Sport: An International Perspective by Professor Robert Sandy, Professor Peter Sloane and Professor Mark Rosentraub (6 Feb 2004).
6. Sport in the City: The Role of Sport in Economic and Social Regeneration by Chris Gratton and Ian Henry (26 Apr 2001).
7. Managing Sport: Social and Cultural Perspectives edited by Sean Hamil, David Hassan, Jim Lusted.
8. Sports Economics: Theory, Evidence and Policy (Sport Management) by Paul Downward, Alistair Dawson and Trudo Dejonghe (23 Feb 2009).
9. The Political Economy of Professional Sport (New Horizons in the Economics of Sport) by Jean-Francois Bourg and Jean-Jacques Gouguet (1 Mar 2010).
10. Privatization: Critical Perspectives on the World Economy by Piotr Jasinski and George Yarrow (29 Aug 1996)
11. Global Sport-for-Development: Critical Perspectives (Global Culture and Sport Series) by Nico Schulenkorf and Daryl Adair (17 Jan 2014)
12. Sport, Economy and Society in Britain 1750-1914 (New Studies in Economic and Social History) by Neil Tranter (22 Jan 1998)
13. The Political Economy of Privatization by Thomas Clarke and Christos Pitelis (29 Jun 1995)
14. Privatization Of The Economy by Nazimudeen Saleem (8 May 2009)
15. Sports Law and Policy in the European Union (European Policy Research Unit)
16. Parrish, Richard
17. The Political Economy of Privatization
18. Clarke, Thomas
19. The Politics of Leisure Policy (Public Policy and Politics)
20. Henry, Ian P.
21. The impact on local authority leisure provision of compulsory completive tendering, financial cuts and changing attitudes. Nichols, Geoff and Taylor, peter (1995), local government studies 21 (4), pp. 607-22, UK.
22. ?compulsory competitive tendering for sport and leisure management: a lost opportunity? Coalter, fred (1995), managing leisure 1, pp.3-15 UK.
23. Szymanski, Stefan (1996), ?the impact of compulsory competitive tendering on refuse collection services?. Fiscal studies 17 (3), pp 1-19.
24. Trevor Slack and Milena M. Parent (2011) International Perspectives on the Management of Sport.
25. Delivering best value for leisure ? Taylor, peter, 1995, leisure management contractors association UK.
26. CCT: The private sector View: a report on a survey of private sector firms department of the environment, 1995 ref: A5887 UK.
27. ?Why compulsory competitive tendering for local government services is Not as good as privatization? ?Frederick, Danny (1994), Libertarian Alliance.
28. The 19981 local government act and compulsory competitive tendering: David Parker (1990), urban studies 27 (5), pp. 653-67.
29. Bidding and compulsory competitive tendering for refuse collection contracts: in review of industrial organization, v18, n1< pp.105-13.
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”best” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]

Get a 5 % discount on an order above $ 150
Use the following coupon code :
2018DISC
Discuss your professional goals in future as in studying in Graduate Certificate Program in Organizational and Executive Coaching
Discourse Community Analysis Paper: Gym and University Students

Tags:

Category: Sport

Our Services:
Order a customized paper today!