Advertisement

Democratic Participation in Voluntary Associations: A Multilevel Analysis of Sports Clubs in Europe

  • Bjarne IbsenEmail author
  • Karsten Elmose-Østerlund
  • Svenja Feiler
  • Christoph Breuer
  • Ørnulf Seippel
  • Jan-Willem Van der Roest
  • Jeroen Scheerder
ORIGINAL PAPER
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

Non-profit associations are usually democratically organized, and this feature plays a legitimizing role for the public support to associations. This article examines which characteristics at country level, organizational level and individual level can explain variations with regard to member engagement in the association democracy in sports clubs in Europe. The statistical analyses use data on 12,755 members from 642 sports clubs in ten European countries. The findings show that the majority of the members in sports clubs participate in the association democracy, but the level and form of engagement varies considerably. At the country level, no link between the democratic strength and quality of the countries on the one hand and member engagement on the other could be identified. Instead, characteristics at the organizational and individual level were found to be relevant. More concretely, (1) the size of the sports club, (2) the socioeconomic background of the members (gender, age and education), and (3) the way in which the members are involved in and affiliated to the club (engaged in voluntary work, participating in social activities, etc.) were found to be significantly correlated with the engagement of members in the association democracy.

Keywords

Participatory democracy Organizational characteristics Macro, meso and micro level 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable contribution to this article from research partners in the project ‘Social Inclusion and Volunteering in Sports Clubs in Europe’ (SIVSCE): Elien Claes, KU Leuven, Belgium; Geoff Nichols, University of Sheffield, England; Matthew James, University of Wales Trinity Saint David; Dirk Steinbach, Leadership Academy, Germany; Szilvia Perényi, University of Physical Education in Budapest/University of Debrecen, Hungary; Harold van der Werff, Mulier Institute, the Netherlands; Monika Piątkowska & Sylwia Gocłowska, Josef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Poland; Ramon Llopis-Goig, University of Valencia, Spain; Siegfried Nagel & Jenny Adler Zwahlen, University of Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

This study has been co-funded with 500,000 Euros by the Erasmus + Programme of European Commission (Grant No. 2014-3140/004-001).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and have not received funding that would influence their conclusions or data presentation for this research.

References

  1. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, B. J. (1984). Strong democracy. Participatory democracy for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blais, A., Gidengel, E., & Nevitte, N. (2004). Where does turnout decline come from? European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), 221–236.Google Scholar
  4. Breuer, C., Feiler, S., Llopis-Goig, R., Elmose-Østerlund, K., Bürgi, R., Claes, E., et al. (2017). Characteristics of European sports clubs. A comparison of the structure, management, voluntary work and social integration among sports clubs across ten European countries. Odense: University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
  5. Breuer, C., Hoekman, R., Nagel, S., & van der Werff, H. (2015). Sport clubs in Europe. A cross-national comparative perspective. Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W., Müller, L., Giebler, H., & Wessels, B. (2012). Demokratiebarometer: ein neues Instrument zur Messung von Demokratiequalität [Democracy Barometer: A new tool for measuring democracy quality]. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 6, 115–159.Google Scholar
  7. Coffé, H. C., & Bolzendahl, C. (2010). Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles. A Journal of Research, 62(5–6), 318–333.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1995). Associations and democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Europe. (2004). European crossroads: SportFront door to democracy. In Conference on 13–14 May, 2004: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sports/news/european-countries-debate-benefits-of-sport-for-democracy.
  10. Dean, J. (1995). Reflexive solidarity. Constellation, 2(1), 114–140.Google Scholar
  11. Dekker, P. (2014). Tocqueville did not write about soccer clubs: Participation in voluntary associations and political involvement. In M. Freise & T. Hallmann (Eds.), Modernizing democracy? Associations and associating in the 21st century (pp. 45–58). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Dekker, P., & Uslaner, E. (2001). Social capital and participation in everyday life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Denters, B., Goldsmith, M., Ladner, A., Mouritzen, P. E., & Rose, L. (2014). Size and local democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Eckstein, P. P. (2008). Angewandte Statistik mit SPSS. Praktische Einführung für Wirtschaftswissenschaftler [Applied statistics with SPSS. Practical introduction for economists]. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  15. Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behaviour in American cities. The American Political Science Review, 67(1), 11–28.Google Scholar
  16. Elmose-Østerlund, K., & van der Roest, J. W. (2017). Understanding social capital in sports clubs: Participation, duration and social trust. European Journal for Sport and Society, 14(4), 366–386.Google Scholar
  17. Enjolras, B. (2002). The commercialization of voluntary sport organizations in Norway. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 352–376.Google Scholar
  18. Enjolras, B. & Seippel, Ø. (2001). Norske idrettslag 2000. Struktur, økonomi og frivillige innsats [Norwegian sports clubs 2000. Structure, economy and voluntary action]. Oslo: Institute for Social Research, report 4.Google Scholar
  19. Etzioni, A. (Ed.). (1995). New communitarian thinking: Persons, virtues, institutions, and communities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  20. Fahlén, J. (2017). The trust-mistrust dynamic in the public governance of sport: Exploring the legitimacy of performance measurement systems through end-users’ perceptions. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9(4), 707–722.Google Scholar
  21. Fahlén, J., Stenling, C., & Vestin, L. (2008). Money talks: A qualitative analysis of the organizational change connected with the corporation formation of a voluntary sports club. Sport und Gesellschaft: Sport and Society, 5(2), 153–177.Google Scholar
  22. Feldberg, R. L., & Glenn, E. N. (1983). Incipient workplace democracy among United States clerical workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 4(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
  23. Freise, M., & Hallmann, T. (Eds.). (2014). Modernizing democracy? Associations and associating in the 21st century. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Fung, A. (2003). Associations and democracy: Between theories, hopes, and realities. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(2003), 515–539.Google Scholar
  25. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society, 29, 5–42.Google Scholar
  26. Gerring, J., & Zarecki, D. (2011). Size and democracy, revisited. Boston: Paper, Boston University.Google Scholar
  27. Goerres, A. (2007). Why are older people more likely to vote? The impact of ageing on electoral turnout in Europe. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(1), 90–121.Google Scholar
  28. Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2004). Advocacy coalitions and elite sport policy change in Canada and the United Kingdom. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39(4), 387–403.Google Scholar
  29. Gundelach, P. (1988). Sociale bevægelser og samfundsændringer [Social movements and social change]. Aarhus: Politica.Google Scholar
  30. Gundelach, P., & Torpe, L. (1997). Social reflexivity, democracy, and new types of citizen involvement in Denmark. In J. W. van Deth (Ed.), Private groups and public life. Social participation, Voluntary associations, and political involvement in representative democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hansen, J. (2018). Folkelig Sundhed og foreningsservice? Et debatskrift om DGI gennem 25 år [Public health and association services?]. DGI. Dgi.dk.Google Scholar
  32. Harris, S., Mori, K., & Collins, M. (2009). Great expectations: Voluntary sports clubs and their role in delivering national policy for English sport. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(4), 405–423.Google Scholar
  33. Heck, R. H., Thomas, S. L., & Tabata, L. N. (2012). Multilevel modeling of categorical outcomes using IBM SPSS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Hirst, P. (1994). Associative democracy. New forms of economic and social governance. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hirst, P. (2002). Renewing democracy through associations. The Political Quarterly, 73, 409–421.Google Scholar
  36. Horch, H. D. (1982). Strukturbesonderheiten freiwilliger Vereinigungen. Analyse und Untersuchung einer alternativen Form menschlichen Zusammenarbeitens [Structural features of voluntary associations. Analysis and study of an alternative form of human cooperation]. Campus Verlag: New York.Google Scholar
  37. Horch, H. D. (1992). Geld, Macht und Engagement in freiwilligen Vereinigungen. Grundlagen einer Wirtschaftssoziologie von Non-Profit-Organisationen [Money, power and commitment in voluntary associations. Foundations of an economic sociology of non-profit organizations]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  38. Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90, 459–488.Google Scholar
  39. Ibsen, B. (1992). Frivilligt arbejde i idrætsforeninger [Voluntary work in sports clubs]. Copenhagen: DHL/Systime.Google Scholar
  40. Ibsen, B., & Levinsen, K. (2016). Unge, foreninger og demokrati [Youth, associations and democracy]. Movements. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark (p. 03).Google Scholar
  41. Ibsen, B., & Seippel, Ø. (2010). Voluntary organized sport in Denmark and Norway. Sport in Society, 13(4), 593–608.Google Scholar
  42. Ibsen, B., Thøgersen, M., & Levinsen, K. (2013). Kontinuitet og forandring i foreningslivet. Movements. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark (p. 11).Google Scholar
  43. Kaspersen, L. B., & Ottesen, L. (2007). Associationalism for 150 years and still alive and kicking: Some reflections on Danish civil society. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 4(1), 105–130.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230108403340.Google Scholar
  44. Kikulis, L. M., & Slack, T. (1995). Sector-specific patterns of organizational design change. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 67–100.Google Scholar
  45. Kirbis, A. (2013). Determinants of political participation in Western Europe, East-Central Europe and the post-Yogoslav countries. In S. Flere, M. Lavric, R. Klanjsek, M. Krajne, B. Musel, & A. Kirbis (Eds.), Problems and prospects of countries of former Yogoslavia. Maribor: Center for the Study of Post-Yugoslav Societies.Google Scholar
  46. Kriesi, H. (1995). The political opportunity structure of new social movements: Its impact on their mobilization. In J. G. Jenkins & B. Klandermans (Eds.), The politics of social protest. Comparative perspectives on states and social movements. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  47. Larsen, C. A. (2002). Municipal size and democracy: A critical analysis of the argument of proximity based on the case of Denmark. Scandinavian Political Studies, 25(4), 317–332.Google Scholar
  48. Lassen, D. D., & Serritzlew, S. (2011). Jurisdiction size and local democracy: Evidence on internal political efficacy from large-scale municipal reform. American Political Science Review, 105(2), 238–258.Google Scholar
  49. Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92.Google Scholar
  50. Maloney, W. A., & Rossteutscher, S. (2007a). Social capital and associations in European democracies. A comparative analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Maloney, W. A., & Rossteutscher, S. (2007b). Assessing the significance of associational concerns. Leisure, politics and markets. In W. A. Maloney & S. Rossteutscher (Eds.), Social capital and associations in European democracies. A comparative analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Martiniello, M. (2005). Political participation, mobilization and representation of immigrants and their offspring in Europe. Willy Brandt series of working papers in international migration and ethnic relations 1/05. School of International Migration and Ethnic Relations, Malmö University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  53. Meyer, D. S. (2004). Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 125–145.Google Scholar
  54. Micheletti, M. (1994). Det civila samhället och staten. Medborgarsammanslutningarnas roll i svensk politik [Civil society and the state. The role of civil society associations in Swedish politics]. Stockholm: Publica-Fritzes.Google Scholar
  55. Ministry of Culture in Denmark. (2016). Idrætspolitiske sigtelinjer [Sport policy guidelines]. Political document. February 8, 2016.Google Scholar
  56. Nagel, S. (2006). Sportvereine im Wandel: Akteurtheoretische Analysen zur Entwicklung von Sportvereinen [Sports clubs in transition: Actor-theoretical analysis on the development of sports clubs]. Schorndorf: Hofmann.Google Scholar
  57. Nagel, S., Schlesinger, T., Wicker, P., Lucassen, J., Hoeckman, R., van der Werff, H., et al. (2015). Theoretical framework. In C. Breuer, R. Hoeckman, S. Nagel, & H. van der Werff (Eds.), Sport Clubs in Europe. A cross-national comparative perspective (pp. 7–27). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Østerlund, K. (2014). Foreningsidrættens sociale kvaliteter. En social kapital inspireret undersøgelse af danske idrætsforeninger og deres medlemmer [Social qualities of sports clubs. A social capital inspired study of Danish sports clubs and their members]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
  59. Østerlund, K., & Seippel, Ø. (2013). Does membership in civil society organizations foster social integration? The case of Danish voluntary sport organizations. Journal of Civil Society, 9, 1–23.Google Scholar
  60. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. American Political Science Association, 10(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
  62. Peterson, S., Catásus, H., & Danielsson, E. (2016). Vem håller I klubban? Om demokrati och delaktighet I idrottsföreningar [Democracy and participation in sports associations]. Sweden: Centrum för idrottsforskning.Google Scholar
  63. Putman, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  64. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Quintelier, E., & Hooghe, M. (2013). The impact of socio-economic status on political participation. In K. Demetriou (Ed.), Democracy in transition. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. Rossteutscher, S. (Ed.). (2005). Democracy and the role of associations. Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Safari, A., Salehzadeh, R., & Ghaziasgar, E. (2018). Exploring the antecedents and consequences of organizational democracy. The TQM Journal, 30(1), 74–96.Google Scholar
  68. Sam, P. M. (2009). The public management of sport. Public Management Review, 11(4), 499–514.Google Scholar
  69. Schlesinger, T., & Nagel, S. (2013). Who will volunteer? Analysing individual and structural factors of volunteering in Swiss sports clubs. European Journal of Sports Science, 13(6), 707–715.Google Scholar
  70. Schlesinger, T., & Nagel, S. (2015). Does context matter? Analysing structural and individual factors of member commitment in sport clubs. European Journal for Sport and Society, 12(1), 53–77.Google Scholar
  71. Seippel, Ø. (2008). Norske idrettslag: 1999–2007 [Norwegian sports clubs: 1999–2007]. Oslo: Akilles.Google Scholar
  72. Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  73. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (2011). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Stegmueller, D. (2013). How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and bayesian approaches. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 748–761.Google Scholar
  75. Streeck, W. (1995). Inclusion and secession: Questions on the boundaries of associative democracy. In E. O. Wright (Ed.), Associations and democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  76. Swierzy, P., Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2018). Usefulness of multilevel modeling in sport management research. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367x.2018.1438289.Google Scholar
  77. Tarrow, C. (1994). Power in movement, social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Theodoraki, E. I., & Henry, I. (1994). Organizational structures and contexts in British national governing bodies of sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 29, 244–265.Google Scholar
  79. Thiel, A., & Mayer, J. (2009). Characteristics of voluntary sports clubs management: A sociological perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9(1), 81–98.Google Scholar
  80. Van der Roest, J. (2016). Consumerism in sport organizations: Conceptualizing and constructing a research scale. European Journal for Sport and Society, 13(4), 362–384.Google Scholar
  81. Van der Roest, J.-W., Van Kalmthout, J., & Meijs, L. (2016). A consumerist turn in Dutch voluntary sport associations? European Journal for Sport and Society, 13(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  82. Van der Meer, T., & Van Ingen, E. (2009). Schools of democracy? Disentangling the relationship between civic participation and political action in 17 European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 48(2), 281–308.Google Scholar
  83. Van Deth, J. W., Maraffi, M., Newton, K., & Whiteley, P. (Eds.). (2007). Social capital and European democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Warren, M. E. (2003). The political role of nonprofits in a democracy. Society, 40(4), 46–51.Google Scholar
  87. Wicker, P., Breuer, C., Lamprecht, M., & Fischer, A. (2014). Does club size matter? Journal of Sport Management, 28(3), 266–280.Google Scholar
  88. Wuthnow, R. (1991). Act of compassion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Yazdani, N. (2010). Organizational democracy and organization structure link: Role of strategic leadership and environmental uncertainty. Journal of the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi, 5(2), 51–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.German Sport University CologneCologneGermany
  3. 3.Norwegian School of Sport SciencesOsloNorway
  4. 4.Mulier InstituteUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations