View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Loughborough University Institutional Repository Elite Sport Development in South Korea: An Analysis of Policy Change in the Sports of Athletics, Archery and Baseball by Jae Woo Park A Doctoral Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements For the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University February 2011 © Jae Woo Park 2011 Abstract This thesis explores the process of elite sport policy development in South Korea. The thesis analyses the process of policy change in the sports of athletics, archery and baseball at the elite level. The three objectives of the study are: (i) to trace the emergence, development and current status of elite sport policy in South Korea; (ii) to identify how elite sport policy has changed in response to both exogenous factors and endogenous factors; and (iii) to evaluate the utility of the macro‐level and meso‐level theories of the process of policy change in relation to Korean elite sport development. A multiple‐case study approach is adopted, focusing on each of the three sports in turn, wherein a qualitative methodology (semi‐structured interviews and document analysis) is utilised in order to elicit data regarding elite sport policy change and development. The analysis of the three case studies is organised by following the two principal themes indentified by Green & Houlihan (2005). Firstly, the organisational structure and administration of the national governing body of athletics is explored followed by an analysis of the nature of the body’s relationships with other organisations and an assessment of the influence and significance of business. Secondly, the potential influences on elite sport development in each of the three sports are examined following the three key dimensions of high performance sport policy identified by Green & Houlihan (2005): (i) identification of, and support for, talented athletes; (ii) improvements in sport science, coaching and facilities; and (iii) the provision of more systematic competition opportunities for elite level athletes. It could be argued that Green & Houlihan’s (2005) analytical framework was very useful in investigating elite sport development in the cases of athletics, archery and baseball, but it did not identify all distinctive aspect of Korean elite sport system. A further prominent area of elite sport development has emerged and identified in the cases of the three sports: that is a ‘cash‐award system’. This study reveals the significance of business leaders on the development of the three sports in general, and the sports’ successes in international sporting competitions in particular. The study also identifies that all three sports have been shaped by the actions of a sport policy community involving a small number of groups or actors which share common perceptions and the ultimate goal of each sport’s success in international sporting events. The study concludes that the over‐lapping assumptions between elitism and neo‐pluralism are the most likely explanation of the Korean elite sport policy process at the macro‐level analysis. It is concluded that although three frameworks, ACF, MSF and policy networks, provide partial insights into Korean elite sport policy process in the three sports, none of the three frameworks adopted provides a comprehensive explanation of policy change in the three sports. In particular, the advocacy coalition framework has proved useful in drawing attention to the notion of exogenous factors (e.g. a sport’s failure at an international sporting completion and the change of the presidency of NGBs) and policy learning as a key source of policy change. The concept of policy community which is a type of policy network has provided partial insights in terms of illuminating the characteristics of the Korean elite sport policy process at the macro‐level analysis, although it has not been a particularly useful lens for explaining the mechanism of policy change in the three sports investigated. Key words: elite sport, policy change, athletics, archery, baseball, policy process, South Korea i Acknowledgements It is a pleasure to thank those who have made this thesis possible. First and foremost, I am heartily thankful to my supervisor, Prof. Barrie Houlihan. Without his encouragement, supervision, guidance and support this thesis would not be completed. I would also like to acknowledge my gratitude to my initial supervisor Dr. Mick Green who passed away after a short illness on 6th February 2009. His guidance enabled me to develop an understanding of the study of sport policy. I would also like to thank members of the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, in particular, Prof. Ian Henry for his advice and support and Dr. Mahfoud Amara for his challenging questions and goodwill that I was given at the difficult time in my early PhD journey. I wish to express my sincere gratitude and special thanks to my Korean teacher Prof. Lim Tae‐Sung for his constant encouragement and support during this long period of time. Studying abroad would not have been possible without his encouragement. I would also like to thank a Korean scholar Prof. Park, Jin‐Kyung for his encouragement and assistance that has helped make this thesis possible and the PhD study more joyful. Thanks are also due, then, to my fellows at Hanyang University in Korea, in particular, Seo Se‐Hoon, Park Hyun‐Uk and Kim Ju‐Young for their aid and help of collecting research materials. I am also grateful to those who gave up their time for interviews in Korea (see Appendix 1.) and offered valuable research materials that have allowed me to complete this thesis. I would like to say a big thanks to Prof. Um Young‐Ai at Catholic University of Daegu for her encouragement and help of overcoming hard times in the early PhD journey when she was in Loughborough as a visiting scholar. And I offer my regards and gratitude to all of those who have supported me in any respect during my PhD journey. I believe that studying abroad is one of the best decisions I’ve ever made, and the experience of conducting my doctoral program in the United Kingdom will remain a wonderful memory for the rest of my life. Finally, there are no words to express the debt of gratitude I owe to my father Park Hyang‐Soo and mother Lee Yun‐Sim. Without your boundless sacrifices, dedication and support my PhD dream would never have come true. They have dedicated all of their efforts to help me do well and to make the man I am. I realise I can never truly repay my parents for their great dedication, support and sacrifices made. ii Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... x Table of Tables .................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ xiii CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1.1 Research aim and objectives ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Justification for investigating elite sport policy change ............................................... 1 1.3 Research phases ............................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Thesis structure .............................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2: Policy process and policy change: Theoretical perspectives 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Theories of the state ...................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Criteria for ‘usefulness’.................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Marxism .............................................................................................. 12 2.2.2.1 Neo‐Marxism ........................................................................................... 13 2.2.2.2 Strengths and weaknesses ....................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Elitism ................................................................................................. 15 2.2.3.1 Modern Elitism ......................................................................................... 16 2.2.3.2 Strengths and weaknesses ....................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Pluralism ............................................................................................. 18 2.2.4.1 Neo‐pluralism ........................................................................................... 20 iii 2.2.4.2 Strengths and weaknesses ....................................................................... 20 2.2.5 Corporatism .......................................................................................