US Sport Diplomacy in Latin America
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 6, Issue 10, August 2018 71 Journal of Sport for Development Original Research U.S. sport diplomacy in Latin America and the Caribbean: A programme evaluation Robert E. Baker1, Pamela H. Baker2, Christopher Atwater1, Craig Esherick1 1 George Mason University, Sport Recreation and Tourism, USA 2 George Mason University, Special Education, USA Corresponding author email: [email protected] ABSTRACT power to change the world.” He went on to acknowledge sport’s “power to inspire,” and to “unite people.” He The focus of this study is a specific SDP programme, further noted that sports “create hope,” and “decrease entitled Sports Visitors, executed in partnership between barriers.” 5 (para. 1) Right to Play International6 (p. 3) George Mason University and the U.S. Department of recognized that, “…the international use of sport, physical State. The purpose of this programme evaluation was to activity and play to attain specific development and peace examine a subset of Latin American and Caribbean groups objectives…” is an effective strategy. to ascertain the immediate, short-term impact of an intervention programme on the attitudes of participants Sport Diplomacy, as a component of Sport for relative to programme objectives. Nine groups comprised Development and Peace (SDP), can enhance peace- of 150 sport visitors participated in this investigation over a building and development efforts; and these diplomatic five year period. After the data were cleaned, 143 valid initiatives have become not only more prevalent over the responses remained for analysis. The findings are based past decade, but also more closely investigated. 1, 7, 8, 9,10 upon descriptive and effect size outcomes of quantitative Giulianotti 8 identified four categories of SDP policy: a) survey data supplemented by qualitative comments neo-liberal social policies in the form of commercial provided by participants. The overall total mean for all corporate social responsibility (CSR); b) developmental seven items combined yields a very large effect size of interventionist policies of non-governmental agencies 1.43. The results indicate that a) positive change occurred (NGO); c) social justice policies associated with social among LAC participants across all objectives measured, movements; and d) strategic developmentalist policies and b) changes were consistently reflected across each type associated with governments and sport federations. of LAC participant group based upon gender, role, and Government involvement in SDP has increased as sports gender with role. have demonstrated efficacy in developmental and diplomatic agendas. 1, 7, 11, 12 INTRODUCTION Theoretical Framework Sport is a universal language that can foster individual interface on a local level, as well as a social institution with Sport Diplomacy structural power that allows it to influence broader cultural interaction.1, 2, 3 The United Nations4 (para. 2) acknowledged Sanders13 (para. 1) observed that sport is “a gigantic and that sport “…can represent an area to experience equality, powerful medium for the international spread of freedom and a dignified means for empowerment.” information, reputations and relationships that are the Further, Nelson Mandela5 (para. 1) noted that, “Sport has the essence of public diplomacy.” Diplomatic efforts utilizing Keywords: sport diplomacy; sport for development and peace; global sport; international sport; programme evaluation www.jsfd.org Volume 6, Issue 10, August 2018 72 Baker et al. Journal of Sport for Development sport reflect established theoretical underpinnings. Effective bottom-up change is common. Effective intercultural diplomatic initiatives should comprise multiple arenas such change often involves both high-level diplomatic initiatives as sport to address numerous societal levels.14 Accordingly, and programmes that engage individual participants. Sanders13 (p. 1) further advised that, “A well-conceived public diplomacy strategy could capitalize on the The utility of sport as a mechanism to heighten mutual opportunities that sport presents.” understanding makes it valuable in diplomatic programming. Grassroots sport diplomacy programmes Change is often a long-term process, particularly in based on the concepts of Allport16 and Beer and Nohria18 diplomatic endeavors to facilitate intercultural change afford local individual interactions, which provide for broad through local sport programmes.15 Sports yield obligatory impacts, such as cultural change, that emanate from proximity and enables interaction among participants. individuals within the culture.16, 18 The universality of sport Therefore, Sport Diplomacy aligns with Allport’s16 contact allow for the pursuit of both global and local diplomatic hypothesis, which contends that facilitating contact among goals. While sport offers a mechanism by itself, Sport for diverse participants can diminish hostility, negate Development Theory (SFDT) posits that cultural and stereotypes, and inspire more tolerant attitudes. Authentic educational activities complement sport programming in engagement with dissimilar people or groups promotes successfully addressing the objectives of intercultural SDP fresh knowledge and diminishes apprehension. Mandatory initiatives.10, 20 Acknowledging the global influence of contact must be meaningful in order to foster effective sport, Sanders13 (para. 1) noted that “the audience’s level of stakeholder exchanges. Sport programmes often emulate the interest exceeds those of any other subject matter, including aforementioned contact hypothesis mechanisms wherein political news and the movies.” cooperative interaction enriches programme efficacy.16 Through engagement in interdependent sport experiences, Allport’s16 contact hypothesis and Beer’s and Norhia’s18 diverse individuals with common interests may accept Theory O identify the benefits of direct participant differences and increase mutual understanding, cooperation, interaction in maximizing the impacts of Sport Diplomacy and camaraderie. Kuriansky17 contends that interpersonal experiences. While grassroots programming through engagement in intercultural interventions is critical in authentic sport interaction improves intercultural achieving diplomatic ends. Sport Diplomacy agendas are understanding, the myriad, including peace-building, promoting intercultural understanding, and an array of community development; …effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by sport is a worthwhile mechanism in fostering intercultural institutional supports (i.e., by law, custom, or local relationships.1, 7 atmosphere)… provided it is of a sort that leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity Beer and Nohria 18 posit a premise for intercultural between members of the two groups.16 (p. 281) diplomatic change through Theory E and Theory O. Theory E bases its purpose in the creation of organizational value. Institutionally supported intercultural sport programming It involves centrally planned programmatic change pursued further promotes information exchanges in the development through formal structures and systems that are driven from of qualified personnel with the capacity to effectively the top down. Theory O is guided by the development of function in an internationalized sport environment.21 the organization's human capacity. Similar to the system’s thinking, the purpose is to implement strategy and learn Chufrin and Saunders22 (p. 158) concluded that, “While from experience.18, 19 Theory O depends on a high level of governments negotiate around interests and issues, member commitment and the expectation that change is citizens…” are essential in the success of diplomatic efforts. continuous and occurs through a participative process. Sport Diplomacy often involves governments’ international Theory E, or top-down change, yield more cost-effective agendas being pursued via local activities. Sport-based and immediate results. Theory O, or bottom-up changes are “glocal” tactics comprise both global and local interests and more costly, yet may yield more sustainable results. activities.23 Glocalization merges the significance of the local in global interests and the global in local interests. 24 In alignment with Allport,16 while Beer and Norhia’s18 top- The sports industry has actively engaged in “glocal” sport down Theory E endeavors are common and often opportunities and practices.25 Sport Diplomacy endeavors supported, bottom-up Theory O practices are likely to are frequently an element of a global diplomatic agenda that humanize stakeholders and shape mutual understanding. is being implemented through local grassroots Beer and Nohria18 suggest that combining top-down and programming. www.jsfd.org Volume 6, Issue 10, August 2018 73 Baker et al. Journal of Sport for Development Globalization in Sport of Sport for Development and Peace. Globalization compresses the world via increased Sport is an integral part of globalization.34 On a global interconnectedness while simultaneously increasing scale, sport is connected to social institutions and interests awareness of the world as a single entity.24, 26 Globalization and, on a local level, sport is the setting of personal is the facilitator of internationalization, wherein sport serves engagement and exchange.1, 2, 25, 30 Globalization in sport is as a strategic stakeholder.27 While many sport enterprises based upon the linking of global and local cultural interests. operate globally, most activities take place in the local 29 While many sport