International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

ISSN: 1940-6940 (Print) 1940-6959 (Online) Journal homepage:

Is sport for development already an

anachronism in the age of austerity or
can it be a space of hope?
Tony Rossi & Ruth Jeanes

To cite this article: Tony Rossi & Ruth Jeanes (2018) Is sport for development already an
anachronism in the age of austerity or can it be a space of hope?, International Journal of Sport Policy and
Politics, 10:1, 185-201, DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2017.1380682
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2017.1380682

Published online: 25 Oct 2017.

Article views:
181
 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=risp20
INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS, 2018
VOL. 10, NO. 1, 185–201
https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2017.1380682

ARTICLE
Is sport for development already an anachronism in the age of
austerity or can it be a space of hope?
Tony Rossia and Ruth Jeanesb
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
a

Australia; bFaculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT
This paper examines the capacity of sport for development (SfD) to survive ARTICLE HISTORY
within the context of economic austerity. The Global Financial Crisis placed Received 6 February 2017
severe pressure on development aid budgets around the world. The effect Accepted 12 September 2017

of this is being felt within low-to-middle income countries (LMIC) and

amongst organisations working in the development space. SfD, as a less Sport for development;
austerity; capability
established development entity, has the potential to struggle for funding in
framework; critical pedagogy
an increasingly competitive development market. This paper considers the
current economic situation and examines the potential of a coalescence
between the ideas of Sen, Nussbaum and Friere related to development as
freedom, a capabilities framework and critical pedagogy as a conceptual
framework for reimagining SfD in an era of austerity. We propose that a
capability approach, combined with tenets of critical pedagogy, provides a
framework which positions SfD as a locally driven, sustainable endeavour
that is less reliant on the fortunes of the global economy, where
development and progress can be captured and understood at the level of
local achievement (capabilities) rather than a reliance on economic metrics.
Introduction
With the world economy in an uncertain state largely because of the legacy of the Global Financial
Crisis (GFC), there is the potential for sport for development (SfD) in spite of its current status within
the United Nations, to become a casualty of economic prudency and calls for the end to the age of
entitlement. Kidd (2008) outlined the potential of SfD to contribute significantly to development
outcomes as a ‘new kid on the block’. However, we argue that barely a decade later, its life expectancy
may be challenged in times of economic austerity leaving its early promise unfulfilled. This paper
explores whether SfD programmes could potentially be under threat and if they can remain tools for
development as the economic conditions of ‘austerity’ become more pronounced. We further ask if,
under the weight of neo-liberalism, SfD is already an anachronism or whether its potential can be
realised via a critical agenda (Freire 1972) framed by a capabilities approach (Sen 1999, 2010,
Nussbaum 2011).
The central purpose of the paper is to discuss how SfD could become an embedded and sustainable
entity with less reliance on external financial support through its repositioning within an alternative
capability/critical pedagogy framework. As such, the paper seeks to consider the potential impact of
such significant structural changes on the practise of SfD and whether a capabilities approach can
represent a more sensitive indicator of programme success. To begin, the paper outlines the pertinent
elements of the economic climate and the politics of austerity that we consider could present a threat
to the SfD movement. This includes a discussion of what is known about the relationship of, for
186 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES
CONTACT Tony Rossi anthony.rossi@qut.edu.au School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
example, aid and the economic circumstances of donor nations and groups. Such a discussion warrants
an examination of what was speculated about this relationship in light of the GFC, and what
subsequently came to pass. The paper then goes on to consider the extending critique of the SfD
movement and what this body of literature identifies as key challenges for the movement. In the final
part of the paper, we explore a possible alternative framework that could be utilised more extensively
within SfD that not only aligns with the movement’s community development-orientated goals but
also could contribute to sustainability and self-determination in a way that might more sensitively
recognise the outcomes and achievements of such programmes. We further argue that such a
reorientation could help to safeguard SfD from challenging economic conditions. In this section of the
paper, we examine the value of drawing on the theoretical ideas of Amartya Sen (see, 1999, 2010),
supported by Martha Nussbaum’s ideas (2011) position associated with a capabilities approach to
provide a conceptual underpinning for development work utilising sport and then consider the role
community-based pedagogies have within this locally driven, assets-based understanding of
development. To conclude the paper, we outline a ‘revision’ of SfD, drawing on the concepts of
‘development as freedom’ and ‘capabilities’ (Sen 1999, 2010). We are not alone in this endeavour.
Svennson and Levine (2017) , drawing on the earlier impetus provided by Rossi (2015), have also
advocated for a rethink of SfD by utilising a ‘capabilities’ approach. In doing so, they have responded to
Schulenkorf and Spaaij’s (2016) recommendation that SfD researchers become more informed by
theories from the broader development literature. We support and advance this position by adding a
discussion of the possibilities of sustainable ecological models and critical pedagogy to drive practical,
ongoing change at a local level. This also responds to Svennson and Levine’s (2017) call for SfD work
not to be essentialised through theory or method, but to be eclectic in approach when tacking
challenging circumstances. To this end, we agree with Svennsson and Levine’s ( 2017) position and with
Rossi’s (2015) earlier suggestions that a capabilities approach begins from the perspective of
development rather than sport. We consider this a more robust way forward. The paper, therefore,
contributes a theoretical reimagining of SfD that offers a potential solution around local empowerment
that is consistent with Frierian (1972) ideas and which might avert the possibility of SfD falling victim to
the politics of austerity.

The current political climate

In a far-reaching essay in The Economist in March 2014, the deep divisions within democratic nation
states were brought to the fore. For example, the article lamented how the US Congress had
functioned over the previous years, often being brought to a standstill through partisan politics most
often around vexed questions of economics or more specifically around the political ideology
associated with economic policy. More recent events, such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump,
might, on the one hand, signal the benefits and indeed the triumphs of democracy. Yet at the same
time, these events have made very visible, some of the deep divisions in prominent highincome
countries particularly around economic, domestic and foreign policy. The impact of these, what could
be regarded as unexpected outcomes, is not only felt locally but tends to reverberate around the
world. There is a developing discourse that seems to be associated with these outcomes that
foreground a growing distrust in politics, specifically politicians, a return to deep-seated nationalism, a
retreat from purpose and spirit of welfare, and the rise of a neo-right brand of politics. The
triumphalism of the West, particularly since the end of the Cold War and the advent of neoliberalism
(Harvey 2005), has seemingly left many untouched by economic growth, in spite of its promise. For
example, Fletcher and Guttmann (2013) indicate that Australia has had persistent economic growth for
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 187

the last 25 years. However, income inequality has also risen. Whilst the reasons for this are considered
to be complex and not attributable to any one single factor, those who would judge that they have
missed out on the boom times are likely to feel dissatisfied. Krugman (2007) is more specific and
suggests that neo-liberalism has failed to deliver broad-based prosperity to all as was promised he
argues by its architects. This has led to shrinking middle classes in high-income countries, and
persistent poverty, famine and illness in low-to-middle income countries (LMIC) and even among the
nations states considered to have developing robust economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and more
recently South Africa or BRICS) where large numbers of their populations are said to have been lifted
clear of poverty as a consequence of globalised trade.
The claims of western exceptionalism may be exaggerated The Economist article suggested, given
China’s economic achievements even if they are artificial (see Soros 2015). China’s achievements, in
spite of its challengeable human rights record, are considered to be impressive, not only in terms of
economic growth but also in terms of education – regarded as a key attribute in development (see Sen
1999) , health, infrastructure and pension coverage. No matter what political system one considers, the
neoliberal agenda has meant that politicians of all nation states have relinquished power to global
markets and what The Economist calls supranational bodies particularly the financial services sector.
Soros (2015) considers this to have been a gross error of judgement largely because of the inequity it
seems to foster and the level of dissatisfaction this is likely to cause. The new face of politics that
appears to be emerging from the complexities of global economics and a turbulent world order seems
to focus on who should or should not receive financial support and for what purpose, who should or
should not benefit from ‘welfare’ and who should or should not be allowed to enter particular
countries. Against the backdrop of this uncertainty, the neo-liberal agenda of reducing the role of
government continues and with this comes the inevitable call for reductions in public spending, the
cutting of government programmes and a retreat from welfare. In short, these are calls for austerity
measures.

The politics of austerity

Whilst on the face of it, ‘austerity’ is an economic measure aimed at reigning in public debt in the
interests of economic stability, austerity should also be considered as a political tool (Konzelmann
2014). As Konzelmann (2014) points out, austerity is invariably used as a way to curb public
expenditure, which has the likely outcome of reducing the number of government workers and
thereby reducing the level of services governments can offer. As Bach (2012) shows, public sector work
is often heavily unionised and much of the work that they do can be broadly categorised as supporting
the ‘welfare’ of others. The purpose here is not to evaluate decisions to cut public sector jobs but
rather it is to show that such austerity measures have as much political motivation as they do
economic. Boyer (2012) suggests that the current circumstances of austerity were born out of a private
credit boom that involved complex financial products and services that were considered to be highly
risky. This is in contrast to the conventional discourse that austerity is inevitably born out of high
sovereign or local government debt caused by bloated public spending. In essence, Boyer (2012)
suggests the complexity of lending products, schemes and financial innovations in the period leading to
the GFC rendered often the poorest members of society ‘into Ponzi speculators’ (p. 285) incurring high
debts but unable to make any profit from these. Hence, Boyer (2012) suggests that the contemporary
discourse associated with austerity measures that tend to focus on the ‘correction of previous public
finance imbalances’ (p. 286) may be misplaced. In spite of the questions surrounding the veracity of
austerity measures for debt reduction and subsequent economic growth, austerity remains a guiding
principle for government fiscal policy. It is likely that the politics of austerity have far more appeal than
the contestable economics of it, largely because of its capacity to reduce the role of government and
188 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES

the role and indeed the size of the public sector. In short, austerity is as much an ideological tool as it is
an economic one.

Contemporary development and the calls for austerity

The consequence of austerity being used as a political tool means that the economic orthodoxy of the
twenty-first century, the neo-liberal imaginary as Ball (2012) calls it, is able to recruit austerity as an
idea in ways that make the urgency of its enactment convincing. However, a number of low-to-middle
income nation states have been more selective in how they have implemented economic policy based
upon the neo-liberal agenda. Countries such as Chile and some Asian nations were more particular in
what they chose to implement. The BRICS collective to all intents and purposes redesigned the
neoliberal agenda in their preferred image (Ban and Blyth 2013). In the process, the role of the state, it
is argued, has been reclaimed in the name of development by these sovereign nations (Ban and Blyth
2013). Nonetheless, the neo-liberal (Stiglitz 2003, Harvey 2005) meme has shaped economic practice
for at least 35 years and the most willing participants in this have been the high-income nations of the
‘West’. The key principles associated with neo-liberalism are now well rehearsed and emphasise
individual responsibility, self-management and self-interest. These have become the sine qua non of a
civilised society. Calls for austerity or more euphemistically belt tightening have foreshadowed the end
of the era of entitlement (see Hockey 2012) which of course emphasises the role and responsibility of
the individual and signals the retreat of government from welfare commitments and obligations.
Moreover, a close reading of Hockey’s (2012) speech makes a clear connection between entitlement
and welfare even though these might be quite different things. In doing so, Hockey (2012), either
intentionally or inadvertently, conflated the ideas of entitlement and austerity. This seems to suggest
that available funds for programmes of development both within and offshore from high-income
countries will likely come under considerable threat. This seems paradoxical at a time when the larger
emerging economies such as Brazil pursue growth policies but with redistributive mechanisms
facilitated through inclusionary state activism (Ban and Blyth 2013). It is a further example of the
hybridisation of neo-liberalism aimed at being seen to follow the blue print, either ideologically or
imposed, but finessing carefully bounded nuances to suit national agendas that do not cause upheaval
in foreign exchange markets. The overriding purpose of this Keyensian course tuning (see Clift and
Tomlinson 2007) by BRICS was to facilitate social programmes without the perception of profligacy.
The success of these strategies is far from clear and this has considerable implications for international
development aid and consequently development practices.

Austerity and development as a ‘shrinking space’

Wade (2003) argues that ‘“development space” for diversification and upgrading policies in developing
countries is being shrunk behind the rhetorical commitment to universal liberalization and
privatization’ (p. 622). Not only is this shrinking the development space, Wade (2003) continues that
such globally networked policies are shrinking what he calls the self-determination space. Austerity
measures, and at more local levels the impending end to entitlement, will make development a severe
challenge for some communities and nations. Whilst some LMIC might overcome some of this because
of the size of their economies, many if not most will find it difficult to ‘rise up the value chain’ (Wade
2003, p. 622) through needs-based programmes. Available resources within such contexts to support
social programmes including programmes of sport and physical activity may simply not be made
available. The likely consequence of this is that sport, as a tool of development must be supported by
aid from the developed world – who themselves are in various states of austerity, defined by cuts to
services, reduction in public employees and the removal of support mechanisms for industries in
transition or potentially privatised (see Hayhurst and Giles 2013). In Australia, austerity measures
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 189

imposed by a government keen to deal with what it refers to as a spending problemratherthan a

revenue problem(see Grattan 2015) led to reductions in overseas aid (through the Australian Agency
for International Development or AusAID) and the integration of AusAID into the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade. This might not mean that much outside Australia. However, it should be
noted that AusAID has stood on its own in terms of operation and reach for over 40 years. Inevitably,
how this is interpreted depends on what media outlet one accesses. Social commentators for example
within the Murdoch press praised the move identifying significant public expenditure savings. The
Fairfax press in Australia that sits more towards the middle of Australian politics preferred to refer to
the changes as the shame of Australia’s foreign aid policy. As Mark Baker (2013) said, ‘the new
government is prepared to ride roughshod over the world’s poor and retreat from this nation’s long-
standing commitment to the global fight against hunger, disease and illiteracy’ (para 7). Whilst this is
only illustrative of the approach of one country, OECD figures (2014) suggest that from 2011 to 2014,
development aid fell by 6%, a reduction that has been felt keenly within the development field
(Mawdsley et al. 2014).
Aid, support for others and development
The question as to whether there is a relationship between aid and/or support and development is a
vexed one. It should be understood that the contribution of high-income countries, often (but not
exclusively) grouped as the OECD, is compelled by law to move towards an aid target of .7% of GNI.
Few nations have ever managed this. Nonetheless, aid is considered to be generous and in fact
continued to rise to 2010, which was a record year for aid donations from sovereign participating
nations. However, the broad-brush picture of aid is not particularly clear. In 2009, Hallet tried to find
whether a strong relationship existed between economic cycles and development aid. He found that
between 1971 and 2008, there was only a weak correlation and that in only about half of the episodes
of serious recession did aid from sovereign donor nations decline. He went onto say that in most cases,
there was time lag and the ‘pinch’ of recession was most often felt in the aid budgets later than the
recession itself. Hallet warned, however, that in the case of the GFC, learning from the past had serious
limitations not least because the GFC presented a scenario unlike no other given that the crisis had
serious depth and what he termed global synchronicity. As he noted, some nations, for example
Ireland, had by 2009 already scaled back its commitments to aid.
Interestingly, however, in 2013, the United Kingdom, one of the largest economies in the world as
measured by GDP attained an aid budget of .7% of GNI, exactly inline with OECD targets. This is in spite
of the severe impact of the GFC on the United Kingdom. This confirms Hallet’s position that aid
commitments relative to a country’s economic strength are uneven and to some extent unpredictable.
The United Kingdom’s unique achievement in reaching this level of aid was more to do with the
nation’s leadership and its political commitment to aid than it was the economic circumstances of the
country. However, it is apparent that the leadership of the United Kingdom came under pressure
largely led by hostile sections of the media to reverse its commitment to aid budgets given that
austerity measures were being imposed elsewhere in the economy. In this sense, the term austerity
was used politically, as Konzelmann (2014) suggests, rather than economically. Hence, a political
discourse of aid budgets being bloated, wasteful and offering little support to democracy or freedom
as reported by Birrell (2015) was relatively easy to prosecute. The private debt that precipitated the
GFC, which then morphed into sovereign debt in multiple countries through bail outs, stimulus
packages and other support mechanisms for the financial sector, led not only to an austerity burden
for many people in high-income countries, it also contributed to the contraction of welfare support
and aid budgets to low-income countries ( see Hallet 2009). As the political discourse steered towards
profligate public expenditure as being the primary motivator for austerity measures, the political
power of the term ‘austerity’ became all the more obvious (Konzelmann 2014). It is worth noting that
in 2016, just 3 years after the United Kingdom achieved its OECD aid budget target, it was announced
190 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES

that aid would be progressively scaled back towards 2019 , with the need for austerity measures being
cited as the reason (see Merrick 2016). As we have already reported, other high-income nations have
already taken this step.
Generally, there is a level of acceptance that reductions in aid have occurred since 2010 and in
general this decline has either continued, even if modestly, for some donor nations or at best flattened
out for others. Hallet’s (2009) time lag suggestion seems to be borne out. It is worth re-emphasising
that the commitment of .7 of GNI has seldom been reached by any contributing nation. Perhaps of
significant concern is the news reported in The Society Pages (see Szto 2017) that the office for SfD
within the United Nations has had to close as a cost-cutting measure. It seems that the very office
setup to promote this new approach to development is itself a potential victim of austerity.

Taking up the slack philanthrocapitalism, not-for-profits organisations and social

entrepreneurship
The idea that philanthropy will compensate for short falls in aid and development budgets has become
prominent over at least the last 10 years. In 2006, The Economist introduced the idea of
philanthrocapitalism arguing, at the time, that calls for philanthropy to more closely resemble forprofit
capital markets were becoming more common. In order for this to happen, three conditions had to be
met. First, there had to be something in which to invest – the equivalent of a company but an entity
that was managed by social entrepreneurs; second, there had to be some kind of infrastructure to
support this type of investment such as banks and markets; and finally there had to be a visible social
return on investment, which The Economist referred to as a social return.
A reading of philanthrocapitalism might suggest that philanthropy has now also come under the
pervasive influence of neo-liberalism. However, these ideas are far from new and certainly predate
neoliberalism as an idea. As The Economist (2006) points out, early charitable foundations such as the
Carnegie and Rockefeller philanthropic organisations were built on an entrepreneurial/investment type
model and these two foundations in particular can point to significant social achievements with a
prolonged commitment. The philosophy that guides this approach to giving can be traced to the
classical liberalism of, among others, Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Malthus and the rehabilitation
purposes of ‘poor relief’ (see Nally and Taylor 2015). The Economist (2006) notes that this level of
commitment is the exception rather than the rule and goes on to identify problems with foundation
governance, levels of disclosure and a culture of secrecy, and constant repetition. Nally and Yaylor
(2015) also show that the promotion of an entrepreneurial approach to development with emphasis
on self-reliance and individualism is not new. They acknowledge that large foundations do take on the
appearance of a corporation of neo-liberal times and for the most part are consistent with their
predecessors who sought to align values and commitments to market relations and market solutions.
Nonetheless, Sandel (2012) argues that we live not so much in a market economy as we do in a
market society. Hence, it might be reasonable to assume that as governments of high-income
countries back away from aid and support as we described earlier, albeit at different rates and
intensities, the space will be, if only partially, filled by large foundations and other organisations
framed by an entrepreneurial/venture philanthropy orientation allegedly with efficient and not overly
excessive bureaucratised governance. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one such organisation.
It is now the largest organisation of its kind and in 2007, it is estimated that the Gates Foundation
contributed almost as much to global health in dollar value as the World Health Organisation (McCoy
et al. 2009). However, McCoy et al. (2009) also point to concerns that have been raised about the
foundation’s operation in terms of its ‘role, effect and lack of accountability’ (p. 1645), concerns they
suggest exist for all foundations. Analysis of McCoy et al. (2009) tends to show that sub-beneficiaries
are difficult to detect through public reports; hence, it is unclear whether broad-based support for
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 191

health (as an example) is spent on the ground. The authors suggest that the Gates Foundation (and
others) is not simply passive donors and that such organisations tend to have a strong voice in policy
making at a networked and global level and through its donations to universities is able to set research
agendas. There is also what appears to be strong support for the private sector particularly in health,
leading McCoy et al. (2009) to suggest that the foundation is keen to ‘promote the growth of private
health-care providers in low-income and middle-income countries’ (p. 1651). These authors further
suggest that the emphasis of the Gates Foundation at least on technological and biotechnological
solutions to problems can obscure the social determinants of health such as poverty. Donor
governments tend to be called upon to address these challenges more readily than foundations.
Social entrepreneurship, though similar in mission to philanthrocapitalism, first emerged through
the 1980s as a way of funding those working in the public sector as community organisers for change
and social gain rather then profit. As McGoey (2012) shows, this field has expanded to include for-
profit projects. Social entrepreneurship has gained support more widely in the university sector as well
as politically (see McGoey’s account for political interest in the United Kingdom and in the USA). Social
entrepreneurship also has dedicated conferences annually.
There can be no doubt that civically minded workers in the not for profit sector do seek to
undertake activities that improve the lives of others. Even in the SfD context, Svensson et al. (2016)
reporting on research undertaken in the USA indicate that there are “hundreds of SDP (Sport for
Development and Peace) organisations operating in urban settings across the USA (p. 501 ,
parentheses added). Given the focus of Svensson et al.’s research these organisations are from the
non-for-profit sector and are part of the national SDP coalition ‘Up2Us. These organisations have a
central focus on social change with a specific remit to re-engage young people with education using
sport as the ‘hook’. They appear to be funded to different levels (based on the size and intentions of
the programme) with funding coming from smaller grants, individual donations, fundraising and some
corporate grants. This level of funding perhaps distinguishes this type of social entrepreneur activity
from large-scale philanthrocapitalism. It is not necessarily unique to the USA but is perhaps a particular
feature of USA charitable work and is more attuned to the hand-up philosophy rather than the
handout. Organisations such as these may not therefore be subject to some of the criticism associated
with philanthrocapitalism.
However, perhaps the relationship between foundations, not-for-profits and more conventional
(foreign) aid and the roles that each of them plays, needs to be understood in a more nuanced way
such that sensible and meaningful collaboration between these different types of funders can be
marshalled to bring about desired change and development possibilities.
Despite various foundations and smaller entrepreneurship groups providing philanthropic aid, and
donor governments continuing to contribute significant levels of support, the likelihood is that
aid/support will probably not increase. The priority for high-income democratic nations is to get their
own economies in order using austerity measures and the preferred fiscal tools to do so. Whilst aid is
unlikely to dry up altogether given that UN member nations are required to spend a percentage of
their GNI to meet the sustainable development goals (in Australia’s case, it was predicted to be .5 % by
2017, though more recent fiscal statements suggest it will be closer to .2%), restrictive budgets are
likely to see a curtailment or delay of aid funding commitments. This may well affect small social
mission type groups also. In other words, communities and the professionals and volunteers that work
with them are likely to have to do more with less or worse still, be unable to do it at all.

Implications for SfD

The unstable global financial circumstances and turbulent global politics have potential yet significant
implications for SfD. Sport has been presented as a fresh approach to tackling ongoing developmental
192 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES

challenges (Black 2011). Sport has routinely been heralded as a different way to contribute to all of the
United Nations development goals (Beutler 2008). It can be a valuable attraction mechanism,
particularly for development programmes targeting young people, but beyond this sport has what
Coalter (2010) describes as a mythopoeic status as a ‘powerful prosocial force for character building
and self-discipline’ (Hartmann and Kwauk 2011, p. 4). However, the positioning of SfD as a different
and perhaps cheaper alternative to mainstream development is unlikely to safeguard it against global
austerity measures as they begin to have an impact.
Despite the proclamations of sport’s capacity to offer different and alternative resources and
strategies to undertake development work, an increasingly critical discourse has outlined that much of
its practise remains entrenched within traditional top-down approaches to development that aligns to
the dominant neo-liberal ideology rather than seek to challenge it. Far from sitting outside of the
influence of the broader political economy and dominant development approaches, the critical
interrogation of SfD practice led by scholars such Simon Darnell and Lyndsay Hayhurst (e.g. Darnell and
Hayhurst 2011, Darnell 2012) has highlighted how entwined much of SfD practice is with neo-liberal
philosophies and colonial paternalism (Forde 2015). Many initiatives, though not all, are devised,
developed and importantly funded outside of the countries where intended recipients are located,
usually by agencies within high-income countries. Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and
several Scandinavian countries have all been major players in funding for SfD. Even when projects are
managed and delivered by local or Indigenous stakeholders and staff, there remains a noticeable
imprint of a high-income country’s priorities and practices (Hayhurst 2009). For example, Forde (2015,
p. 3) argues that ‘SDP aligns with neo-liberal approaches to development that emphasize individual
responsibility and entrepreneurialism, and often promote universal and simplistic solutions to social
problems at the expense of addressing broader structural factors’. There have been some counter
narratives presented to the assumption that SfD is entirely driven and funded by high-income country
imperatives. Lindsey and Grattan (2012), for example, illustrate how some SfD projects in Zambia were
established and are maintained with limited external funding, whilst also highlighting that even when
projects are the recipients of resources from high-income countries, local stakeholders, deliverers and
communities reshape and contest top-down priorities to adapt and develop projects that best suits
local needs. Darnell and Hayhurst (2011), however, suggest that whilst it is important to recognise local
agency and understand the nuances of how SfD becomes reinterpreted at local level, this does not in
itself suggest that the broader neo-liberal agenda is less influential. Instead, they argue that it is
necessary to recognise how agency remains restricted by the broader sociopolitical context.
With the uncertain economic climate, SfD is in a somewhat precarious position. In times of
economic constraint, initiatives utilising sport are rarely seen as a priority within LMIC, making SfD
increasingly reliant on external funding and the constraints and directives that accompany externally
funded programmes (Banda 2010). With the reductions in global aid referred to earlier, numerous
development agencies are competing for an increasingly smaller pool of resources putting pressure on
SfD initiatives to illustrate why they are a ‘value for money’ investment against other development
approaches. To some extent, as a new actor on the international development stage, SfD has
continually struggled with an ongoing need to prove itself. This has become increasingly pertinent in
times of austerity. Within both academic and policy circles, there have been ongoing calls for evidence
to demonstrate the value of sport and proof of what development it can achieve ( Coalter 2010).
Jeanes and Lindsey (2014) have argued that such calls are counter-productive, in that they promote a
focus on measurable, attainable targets that are often irrelevant to the communities in which projects
are located. Jeanes and Lindsey (2014) draw on examples of projects focusing on numbers of
participants involved or number of peer leaders trained. These data subsequently become evidence for
funding agencies that projects are achieving reach and benefit. However, the need to prove that SfD
works is pervasive and increasingly perceived to be important in times of financial hardship. Local
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 193

deliverers of SfD are likely to feel pressured to provide appropriate evidence that activities are making
a difference to avoid funding cuts (Jeanes and Lindsey 2014).
In a context so highly charged by global economics, the opportunity to develop initiatives grounded
in local knowledge that meet the needs of communities in ways that they define becomes highly
restricted (Spaaij and Jeanes 2013). To date, there has been limited exploration of how the ‘era of
austerity’ within high-income countries will influence the position and presence of SfD. Parnell et al.
(2016) have highlighted how the UK government’s austerity measures have begun to impact on sport
development and leisure service provision, highlighting, in particular, the negative influence this has on
deprived areas. As a result of austerity measures, communities no longer have access to particular
recreation and leisure facilities or projects. Parnell et al. (2016) highlight the irony of cutting services
that were supported on the premise that they could reduce spending in other budget areas including
health and education. It is likely therefore that the global financial situation will have a significant
impact on SfD as it is currently structured and organised. In the following section, we move on to
consider how SfD as a rapidly growing movement could begin to protect itself in such circumstances.
We outline a framework that is gaining traction in the SfD space that might provide impetus to a
restructuring of SfD away from its current position as an endeavour heavily supported, influenced and
dependent on high-income countries to a sustainable entity, embedded and owned by the
communities it seeks to serve.

Thinking about development differently: the idea of ‘capabilities’

The previous sections have highlighted the potential for SfD, as an endeavour that is often heavily
reliant on external aid and therefore inextricably interwoven with global financial changes to become a
casualty of current financial challenges. In the following section, we outline potential ways that SfD
could be reframed to reduce its reliance on external funding and in doing so facilitate SfD practice that
is genuinely activated and driven by local need. As discussed in the introduction, we consider the work
of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum to provide a highly relevant conceptual framework for
underpinning the notion of development in SfD. We are not alone in this theorising and are
encouraged by the work being undertaken by Svennsson and Levine (2017) in reframing SfD using
Sen’s (1999) idea of capabilities.
Sen (1999) argues that ‘development’ as an idea about people needs to be expanded beyond the
conventional notions of development. In other words, development is broader than improving GNP or
modest health gains. Development, Sen (1999) argues, is better focused on the freedoms that people
have and on eliminating the ‘unfreedoms’ that necessarily restrict their lives. In many respects, Keynes
(1937) said as much nearly 80 years ago, suggesting that the great political problem of the time was to
ensure the equal combination of economics and its efficiencies, social justice and the sanctity of
individual liberty. We argue this holds true today. Against the unfreedoms listed by Sen (1999) that are
far reaching and seemingly intractable in some cases, access to sport programmes might seem rather
unimportant. However, given the United Nations agenda related to SfD, we suggest that access to
sport is not only a ‘freedom’ as described by Sen (1999) but is also consistent with his ‘idea of justice’
and is commensurate with how we should understand liberty. Sen (1999) says that justice does not just
emerge from social actions but from the elimination of injustice. Hence, Sen suggests that what lies at
the heart of development is individual agency and individual agency is simply not self-motivated but
facilitated by the freedoms created by systems, communities and relationships to which agents have
access.
Sen claims then that it is the development, rather than the restriction, of the capabilities of
individuals that encourages agency in the form of participation, leadership and achievement. ‘Justice’ is
deeply connected to the removal of ‘unfreedoms’ (see also Sen 2010 and his text The Idea of Justice).
194 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES

Freedoms, Sen suggests, are not simply the primary ends of development but are significant among its
means. As he says ‘[G]reater freedoms enhances the ability of people to help themselves and also to
influence the world, and these matters are central to the process of development’ (1999, p. 18). Here,
Sen is definitive about what he understands as ‘agent’ – ‘someone who acts and brings about change,
and whose achievements can be judged in terms of her own values and objectives, whether or not we
assess them in terms of some external criteria as well’ (p. 19). This approach is not therefore limited by
either the preoccupation with economic metrics as evidence of development or is it constrained by a
libertarian discourse concerned solely with the sanctity of the individual. Rather, it is a symbiotic
relationship between the self as a developing individual and the role of the self in developing
communities. Development brought about by the dismantling of ‘unfreedoms’ is multifaceted, not
solely individual but largely community focused and based on rights and entitlements that many of us
simply take for granted.
It is important to note that Sen (1999) argues there are two prevailing attitudes to the idea of
development. One he argues is the ‘tough love’ approach. Invariably, this approach favours a
noninterventionist approach that tends to advocate austerity instead of institutional support and
encourages individualism and what Ayn Rand (1964) might have called self-interest. By contrast, the
alternative is what Sen sees as a ‘friendly’ approach to development framed by a collaborative and
supportive environment. It is the latter of these that acts as both the primary end and the primary
means to development. The process of development Sen argues, ‘when judged by the enhancement of
human freedoms’ (1999, p. 37), must include the removal of deprivation, undo the imposition of limits
and constraints and must champion the right to speak and participate. These freedoms and rights he
suggests not only enrich the process of development but go some way towards defining it.
Consistent with Sen’s ideas related to freedom are the ideas surrounding capability. Sen has written
widely about capabilities (as has Nussbaum 2011) and their association with social justice. We argue
that Sen’s ideas related to development as being contingent upon the freedoms that are gained
though development have to be harnessed to the idea of freedom as social justice. This, in turn, must
be seen within the broader context of how both Sen and Nussbaum refer to capabilities.
There is much in common between Nussbaum (2011) and Sen (1999, 2010)). For example,
Nussbaum (2011) argues that a capabilities approach to human development can be defined as a
quality of life assessment that moves away from the reliance on GDP as a definitive measure of a
country’s progress. Stiglitz et al. (2010) have consistently argued that economic growth is a poor
indicator of a nation’s quality of life or well-being. Moreover, they claim that GDP as a measure is more
akin to a miss-measure of lives. However, there are subtle differences between Sen and Nussbaum
that warrant some attention. Nussbaum, for example, is more emphatic about the capabilities
approach taking each person as an end with a focus on their well-being and the opportunities to
enhance this as being a point of comparison rather than gross economic metrics. Moreover, Nussbaum
(2011) specifically suggests that these should be understood on an individual basis because individuals
make different and often quite diverse decisions. So whilst individuals exist within communities,
development is not based upon aggregating individuals’ achievement to create a developmental
metric. Rather, a capability approach is based upon the pursuit of goals and interests that are
individually focused but which can then contribute to the wellbeing of community. Sen (2010) has a
degree of sympathy with this position but uses somewhat softer language suggesting that a capability
approach cannot in any cogent way be detached from the community in which it is located. The idea
that a capability approach has an individual focus Sen (2010) acknowledges can be open to criticism
and indeed may sound as though it is a neo-liberal philosophy by another name. But really, Nussbaum
(2011) is saying that the collective capabilities of community members cannot simply be reduced to a
single numerical scale. Consistent with Sen (1999, 2010), Nussbaum (2011) says that capabilities are
about overcoming the ‘unfreedoms’ that restrict individuals. In other words, at the heart of a capability
approach is a commitment to well-being through social justice rather than, necessarily, economic
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 195

output. Sen emphasises the importance of capabilities as a key element to a person’s well-being and to
their development and by extension therefore to the development of communities. What both Sen
and Nussbaum agree upon is that ‘capabilities’ is a way of recognising what people can do or are able
to do and what it is they can be (Sen 1999, 2010, Nussbaum 2011) and that these things, not economic
output, are more accurate indicators of development.
Capability then can be understood as a precursor to freedom, which provides the platform for
development. The idea of a ‘capabilities’ approach has been gathering interest since about 1990 (see
Nussbaum 2011) and is increasingly seen as a localised approach aimed at improving people’s quality
of life not necessarily measured by the limits of economic metrics but framed by broadly shared values
that include respect for equality, respect for dignity and the right to control one’s destiny. A
capabilities approach is shaped by opportunity, freedom and the ambition of social justice. In this way,
the urgent task of public policy, as Nussbaum (2011) claims, is to improve everyone’s quality of life, as
defined by their own capabilities. If our understanding of development in SfD is reimagined using Sen’s
work, we suggest that sustainability is more likely to come through empowerment and self-
determination and drawing on the local ‘capabilities’ in order to secure freedom. We acknowledge that
these things may be achieved without recourse to a capabilities approach. However, our position is
that a capabilities approach, based as it is in human dignity as a central concern, is commensurate with
the emancipatory agenda of a Frierian approach to education, where education is the practise of
freedom. We see this as a key point of coalescence between the ideas of Sen, Nussbaum and Friere –
that is, freedom lies at the heart of development.
Ways in which this can be brought into being and what could guide SfD practice is considered in the
following section.

Renewal of SfD via emancipatory pedagogy: a way forward?

Spaaij and Jeanes (2013) suggest that in spite of the educative focus of SfD projects, there has been
little focus of the pedagogies used to deliver such programmes. This is perhaps a generous assessment.
It seems that ‘pedagogy’ doesn’t even register as a feature of programmes. Naturally, programmes are
delivered using some kind of pedagogical approach, though our view is that there is little theorising
around the idea of pedagogy as either a feature of the intended outcome of programmes or as a
developmental process. We argue that this warrants scrutiny. Both Spaaij and Jeanes ( 2013) and
Giulianotti (2011) suggest that for SfD to achieve transformative outcomes, it needs to be grounded
within a critical framework that has an explicit focus on social justice. Similar to Spaaij and Jeanes
(2013), we believe a Frierian underpinned critical pedagogy is essential to SfD achieving its
transformative potential.
Under the auspices of neo-liberalism, the free market could be construed as the new wave
colonialism. Whilst Sen (1999) does not entirely support this idea in so far as he has greater faith in the
utility of markets, the thinking of Freire (1972) and Sen is not that far apart. Both agree that education
is central not only to development but to freedom also and as we have shown, for Sen, development
and freedom are inseparable. In addition, Frierian pedagogy is inherently social and political – it aims
to problematize that which is taken for granted. We argue that in an audit culture (Ball 2003), driven
by a neo-liberal imaginary (Ball 2012), problematizing a political economy that seems to lead to greater
inequality (see Stiglitz 2003, Krugman 2007) is not just desirable but urgent. Hence, the educative
process is not to be perceived in pre-packaged terms, rather it needs to be driven by local interests,
capacities, desires and aspirations that make the standardisation of learning experiences unrealistic
and the measurement of the outcomes whilst helpful diagnostically, insufficient as a marker of
‘success’ or ‘failure’. We acknowledge that whilst Frierian pedagogy provides an essential starting point
for transformative action, it may not achieve this on its own. Within the following section, therefore,
196 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES

we consider how critical pedagogy could be embedded as part of a wider community development
perspective aimed at developing capabilities.

Community pedagogy and ecological models

A way forward might be to abandon the colonial model (see Darnell 2007) of ‘we will help you’ in
favour of an approach that is internally designed and directed, is shaped by local needs and
aspirations, is centred on collective capabilities and involves a community inspired emancipatory
pedagogy. As Noel Pearson the Aboriginal activist, leader and spokesperson suggested, the Indigenous
people of Australia would benefit from a hand-up rather than a handout (Pearson 2009). Gruenewald
(2003) claimed that, though informed by different intellectual traditions, critical pedagogy and place-
based education can be drawn together as a critical pedagogy of place. We would go further and
suggest that a critical pedagogy of place is a community pedagogy which implies if not defines
community capability. As Gruenewald (2003) points out, place ‘foregrounds a narrative of local and
regional politics that is attuned to the particularities of where people actually live, and that is
connected to global development trends that impact local places’ (p. 3). The diversity of descriptors
attached to ‘place-based education’ may make it a clumsy construct in the context of this paper.
However, it is the ecological intent of place-based education that makes the concept useful. By
ecological we refer here to a general understanding of ecology as the relationships between organisms
and the environments in which they exist. Social ecological models (SEM) are not new and their place
in health promotion should provide some insight as to their relevance in SfD programmes. In other
words, SEM (and more recently family ecological models) focus on the relational aspects within
communities among people, social contexts, environmental factors, economic conditions and so on.
This is really the point of Spaaij and Jeanes’ (2013) paper – there is no one size fits all and critical
pedagogy among other things seeks to eschew grand narratives of pedagogy or learning or education
(and we can add here development). Rather, critical pedagogy embraces place and seeks to empower
(Freire 1972). Though critical pedagogy has been criticised on this [Ellesworth (1989) being the most
celebrated mostly through a feminist argument], if we think of empowerment as a community asset
and as pedagogy as being community owned, then perhaps a new start point for SFD programmes
emerges.
In a sense, this is a reassertion of the radical tradition of community-based work, a case made by
Ledwith (2001) that remains relevant today especially if Sen’s (1999) and Nussbaum’s (2011) ideas
around capabilities are allowed to take centre stage. Arguing that community-based work had survived
some of the more aggressive ravages of early neo-liberalism, Ledwith (2001) suggests that the ‘radical
tradition’ has not only been diluted but hijacked and reformed into a ‘moral responsibility’ trope as the
welfare state has been wound back and ‘rights’ have been transformed into responsibilities. As we
progress ever further into the twenty-first century, this seems to have a broader acceptance. Sen
(1999) and in the case of Indigenous Australia, Pearson (2009), both argue for the right to take
responsibility and further suggest that rights cannot exist without responsibility. However, this is some
way from simply transforming the idea of a right into a responsibility. The radical imperative of
community work is appropriately located within the relational concepts of fairness, justice and equity,
characteristics that Nussbaum claims sits at the heart of capabilities approach. Even though Ledwith
(2001) suggests that the ambiguity of these terms weakens their impact, they are principles that
nonetheless sit at the forefront of community-based emancipatory pedagogy. This is the position taken
by Spaaij and Jeanes (2013) and is entirely consistent with Sen’s (1999) idea of development as
freedom and Nussbaum’s (2011) advocacy for the centrality of a capabilities approach.
SfD underpinned by the principles highlighted above would therefore always be a locally developed
endeavour, responding to the needs and challenges of local communities. Drawing on capability
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 197

principles the start point for such projects would be what resources and skills exist within communities
that can be harnessed to achieve locally defined aims and objectives. It is here that engagements with
communities (these sometimes get referred to as interventions – a word we prefer not to use) should
occur. Programmes should therefore be built around established needs and existing resources and
have greater opportunities to remain sustainable compared to programmes drawing heavily on
external resources and funding. From here, the design of needsbased assistance of local leaders and
workers as an investment in rather than an imposition on communities can take place such that a
reflexive cycle of development is created – once that sustains itself. External agents and NGOs do not
need to deliver SfD programmes but rather help design and provide any skill development necessary to
aid the removal of unfreedoms. The use of community-based pedagogies and education underpinned
by socio-ecological understandings again enable the development of relevant initiatives that provide
participants with opportunities to critically reflect and collectively devise solutions. The localising of SfD
(Lindsey et al. 2017) in this way reduces reliance on external agencies and in doing so begins to protect
initiatives from the effects of global financial changes and austerity driven policies in traditional
donating nations and organisations. Whilst many SfD initiatives are often established with the goal of
being locally owned and sustainable, the process of localising does not always occur at the outset.
Instead, projects are often initiated with substantial input from funding agencies and representatives
from high-income countries and this support, both personnel and financial, is reduced over a period of
time to encourage local ownership and responsibility. We would argue that this potentially makes
sustainability difficult because local communities do not necessarily feel the connection or
responsibility to the project that would exist if it were developed from the bottom up. There are very
few examples of such an approach to draw from but some do exist within current SfD practice. As
Mwaanga and Prince (2016) highlight, the work of Indigenous Zambian NGO EduSport was initiated
and developed through local capacity and has successfully utilised a peer leader model and education
programmes underpinned by critical pedagogies and localised philosophies to continue their initiatives
for nearly three decades. Whilst the NGO has been a recipient of international funding during this time,
external support has assisted in growing initiatives and adding new programmes but has not been
critical to programme sustainability and longevity (Mwaanga and Prince 2016). Many programmes are
established as part of the day-to-day social fabric in Lusaka’s compound communities, with a regular
cycle of participants moving into peer leadership roles to ensure the project continues for future
generations. A further example is the oft-cited Mathare Youth Sports Association (MYSA) initiative in
Kenya. Although founded by a Canadian ex-patriate Bob Munro, this programme was undertaken in
partnership from the outset with the local community living within the Mathare slums (Willis 2000).
Munro has suggested that MYSA has been able to continue to operate as a locally driven, sustainable
initiative because of the lack of interest or investment from development agencies during the project’s
formative years which allowed it to be a genuine community driven endeavour (Coalter 2010b). Whilst
now a large scale, multi-funded initiative the programme continues to have as its core driver the needs
of the local community.
We acknowledge both the challenges and complexities of initiating community-based development
projects (through sport or otherwise) to provide ongoing and sustainable benefits ( Coalter 2010,
Schulenkorf 2017; Sherry and Schulenkorf 2016). There are however emerging models that connect
with our proposals. Owen and Westoby (2012) as an example from the general development literature
suggest that the dialogic first step in development projects and initiatives is often underplayed. That is,
inadequate attention is given to inter-personal communication as the crucial initial step of community
building. As they say:

How practitioners navigate the challenge of communicating their intentions, how they position themselves so as
to be receptive to the interests and intentions of others, and how they find common spaces amid these exchanges
– all of these have direct bearing on the quality of the developmental process that is being forged, and indeed
whether a process will be forged at all. (p. 307)
198 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES

The nature of the partnership arrangements between all parties concerned then is considered crucial a
point emphasised by Sherry and Schulenkorf (2016), Svensson and Hambrick (2016), Welty Peachy et
al. (2017) and Spaaij and Jeanes (2013) with the latter researchers emphasising the need to locally
grounded understanding of the developmental and community contexts. To return to Owen and
Westoby (2012) , they suggest that collective action for the purposes of development ‘does not
spontaneously occur’ ( p. 309) and goes onto argue that a purposeful developmental relationship
occurs when connections made transform into agreements for action. Community-based critical
pedagogy is centred upon such relationships. This can present a challenge organisationally when there
are multiple partners involved and multiple partnerships in operation. Welty Peach et al. (2017)
identified at least five barriers to ongoing and sustainable partnerships that ranged from competition
to resources, shifting goals and priorities or what they referred to as mission drift, staff mobility and
unequal power sharing. Svensson and Hambrick (2016) similarly identified complex challenges
particularly of implementation of projects and initiatives that emanate from the not-for-profit sector.
Particularly, salient are the challenges of capacity, time, energy and maintenance of commitment,
common challenges in the volunteer sector. In a later piece, Svensson (2017) moves on to talk about
partnership hybridity. Hybridity he suggests can overcome the overdependence on single partners or
indeed funding agencies.
As we identified earlier, it is generally agreed that there is no grand narrative of development. The
centrality of place is crucial and here we return to Grunewald’s (2003) notion of foregrounding local
narratives and regional politics that are attuned to the nuances of where and how people live, what
they do and how they are connected. SfD initiatives based on locality, framed by communitybased
pedagogy, aimed at creating capabilities such that success can be understood through these
capabilities offers much to the development space that may find itself under increasing pressure as the
resources of support become harder to access.

Some concluding thoughts

Wendy Brown (2015) claimed that neo-liberal reason has economised not only political life but also
other non-economic spheres. As we indicated earlier, Sandel (2012) goes further and says that the
world is not so much framed by a market economy but, rather, the world has been reimagined as a
market society. As Brown (2015) suggests and as was discussed earlier, an outcome of a marketised
society is the intensification of inequity. Invariably as the work of governments becomes economised
and influenced by corporate ethics and the model of the market, the availability of development funds,
support for the welfare of others and care and concern for those who sit beyond the reach of
economic benefits is likely to wither. As Brown (2015) says, though neo-liberal reason has different
points of origin, one of its current guises takes the form of austerity politics and with that is likely to
come as Wade (2003) described, a shrinking developmental space.
To combat these challenges, Mayo, as long ago as 1999, suggested that far from backing away from
the neo-liberal imaginary, it makes more sense to embrace but more specifically reconfigure it to suit
community development. In other words, concepts such as difference, globalisation and advancing
technology need to be embraced as part of a community’s assets. Mayo’s position then is that a
community’s assets should be seen from a ‘strengths-based’ perspective rather than seeing the
community as being deficient. This is exactly what Nussbaum (2011) argues and this is consistent with
Sen (1999) and with contemporary development theory and just as importantly with the idea of
institutional renewal. This is central to the ideas of Spaaij and Jeanes (2013) that for SfD not to become
anachronistic before it manages to achieve its real potential and indeed its objectives under the
Sustainable Development Goals initiative, it must embrace a radical pedagogical approach. This means
that rather than rely on welfare models of development or even corporate intervention, communities
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 199

can reconstitute themselves around notions of community assets, community support, community
integrity, self-determination and sustainability in the pursuit of developing capabilities. Under these
conditions, the promise and future of SfD as a development tool remain robust.
We acknowledge, however, that whilst a capability/critical pedagogy approach may sound
appealing and appropriate, greater consideration needs to be given to how it could be operationalised
within the SfD sector. As discussed above, there are some examples of SfD initiatives that are locally
owned, developed through communities and as such are far less precarious in relation to the global
financial situation than others. These represent valuable cases, illustrating the benefits of community-
driven development and importantly provide insights into how such approaches can come to fruition.
We would suggest that changes to how high-income countries and agencies fund SfD are essential if
the sector is to be empowered to embrace a capability framework. As various scholars have
documented, although the concepts of local ownerships, collaboration and co-participation are
becoming more widely discussed within SfD policy, aspects of neo-colonialism are still prominent
(Darnell and Hayhurst 2011). Funding agencies continue to largely dictate what projects looks like,
what they should be seeking to achieve and importantly how success will be defined and measured.
Whilst this may be done in collaboration or consultation with local stakeholders, the capacity for local
communities to fully own this process is generally limited. Shifting the way in which SfD is funded and
how project success is evaluated therefore remains critical for a capability/critical pedagogy approach
to become a reality. Local communities have to be able to determine their own needs, shape projects
in ways that they see fit and determine their own measures of success. We are not advocating for a
lack of accountability but instead that local stakeholders determine how they will demonstrate their
successes and project value. For us, it is only through a shift in how funding is allocated to SfD that the
alternative framework for SfD practice could become a more widespread reality.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and guidance that help strengthen the
central thesis of this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Tony Rossi is an Associate Professor and the Discipline Lead of the Sport, Health and Physical Education group in the
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences at QUT. His interests are in teachers’ work in health, and sport as a
developmental resource. In January 2018, he will take up a position with Western Sydney University in Sydney,
Australia.
Ruth Jeanes is a Senior Lecturer in Sports Coaching and Community Development within the Faculty of Education at
Monash. Ruth’s research interests focus on the use of sport and recreation as a community development resource,
particularly to address social exclusion amongst acutely marginalised groups.

References
Bach, S., 2012. Shrinking the state or the Big Society? Public service employment relations in an era of austerity. Industrial
relations journal, 43 (5), 399–415. doi:10.1111/irj.2012.43.issue-5
200 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES
Baker, M., 2013. The shame that is Abbott’s foreign aid policy. Sydney Morning Herald 2 November Available from: www.
smh.com.au/comment/the-shame-that-is-abbotts-foreign-aid-policy-20131101-2wrxt.html [Accessed 2 April 2014].
Ball, S.J., 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy, 18 (2), 215–228.
doi:10.1080/0268093022000043065
Ball, S.J., 2012. Global education Inc: new policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. London: Routledge.
Ban, C. and Blyth, M., 2013. The BRICs and the Washington Consensus: an introduction. Review of international political
economy, 20 (2), 241–255. doi:10.1080/09692290.2013.779374
Banda, D., 2010. Zambia: government’s role in colonial and modern times. International journal of sport policy and
politics, 2 (2), 237–252. doi:10.1080/19406940.2010.488072
Beutler, I., 2008. Sport serving development and peace: achieving the goals of the United Nations through sport. Sport in
society, 11 (4), 359–369. doi:10.1080/17430430802019227
Birrell, I. 2015. Britain should stop wasting money on foreign aid. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
politics/11756594/Britain-should-stop-wasting-money-on-foreign-aid.html [Accessed 6 May 2017].
Black, D.R., 2011. The ambiguities of development: implications for ‘development through sport’. Sport in society, 13 (1),
121–129. doi:10.1080/17430430903377938
Boyer, R., 2012. The four fallacies of contemporary austerity politics: the lost Keynesian legacy. Cambridge journal of
economics, 36, 283–312. doi:10.1093/cje/ber037
Brown, W., 2015. Undoing the demos. New York: Zone Books.
Clift, B. and Tomlinson, J., 2007. Credible Keynesianism? New Labour macroeconomic policy and the political economy of
coarse tuning. British journal of political science, 37 (01), 47–69. doi:10.1017/S0007123407000038
Coalter, F., 2010. The politics of sport-for-development: limited focus programmes and broad gauge problems?
International review for the sociology of sport, 45 (3), 295–314. doi:10.1177/1012690210366791
Coalter, F., 2010b. Sport for development: going beyond the boundary? Sport in society, 13 (9), 1374–1391.
doi:10.1080/17430437.2010.510675
Darnell, S., 2007. Playing with race: right to Play and the production of whiteness in ‘development through sport’. Sport in
society, 10 (4), 560–579. doi:10.1080/17430430701388756
Darnell, S., 2012. Sport for development and peace: a critical sociology. London: A&C Black.
Darnell, S.C. and Hayhurst, L.M., 2011. Sport for decolonization: exploring a new praxis of sport for development. Progress
in development studies, 11 (3), 183–196. doi:10.1177/146499341001100301
Ellesworth, E., 1989. Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy.
Harvard educational review, 59 (3), 297–324. doi:10.17763/haer.59.3.058342114k266250
Fletcher, M. and Guttmann, B., 2013. Income inequality in Australia. In: Economic round up, Issue 2. Canberra: The
Treasury, Commonwealth of Australia.
Forde, S.D., 2015. Fear and loathing in Lesotho: an auto ethnographic analysis of sport for development and peace.
International review for the sociology of sport, 50 (8), 958–973. doi:10.1177/1012690213501916 Freire,
P., 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Penguin.
Giulianotti, R., 2011. Sport, peace-making and conflict resolution: a contextual analysis and modelling of the sport,
development and peace sector. Ethnic and racial studies, 34 (2), 207–228. doi:10.1080/01419870.2010.522245 Grattan,
M., 2015. Our problem is spending, not revenue, says Treasurer Morrison. The Conversation, 23 September.
Gruenewald, D.A., 2003. The best of both worlds: a critical pedagogy of place. Educational researcher, 32 (4), 3–12.
doi:10.3102/0013189X032004003
Hallet, M., 2009. Economic cycles and development aid: what s the evidence from the past. Ecfin economic brief, Issue 5,
November. European Commission: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs.
Hartmann, D. and Kwauk, C., 2011. Sport and development: an overview, critique, and reconstruction. Journal of sport &
social issues, 35 (3), 284–305. doi:10.1177/0193723511416986
Harvey, D., 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. London: Oxford University Press.
Hayhurst, L., 2009. The power to shape policy: charting sport for development and peace policy discourses. International
journal of sports policy and politics, 1 (2), 203–227. doi:10.1080/19406940902950739
Hayhurst, L. and Giles, A.R., 2013. Private and moral authority, self-determination, and the ‘domestic transfer objective:’
Foundations for understanding sport for development and peace in aboriginal communities in
Canada. Sociology of sport journal, 30, 504–519. doi:10.1123/ssj.30.4.504
Hockey, J., 2012. The end of the age of entitlement. A speech to the Institute of economic affairs in London on April 17 ,
2012. Reprinted in The Age, April 19 2012. Available from: www.theage.com.au/national/the-end-of-the-age-
ofentitlement-20120419-1x8vj.html (Accessed 27 June 2014].
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 201
Jeanes, R. and Lindsey, I., 2014. Where’s the “Evidence?” Reflecting on monitoring and evaluation within sport-
fordevelopment. In: K. Young and C. Okada, eds. Sport, social development and peace. Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, 197–217.
Keynes, J.M., 1937. “How to Avoid a Slump.” The Times, 12–14 January. Reprinted in The Collected Writings of John
Maynard Keynes Vol. 21. London: Macmillan.
Kidd, B., 2008. A new social movement: sport for development and peace. Sport in society, 11 (4), 370–380.
doi:10.1080/17430430802019268
Konzelmann, S.J., 2014. The politics of austerity. Cambridge journal of economics, 38, 701–741. doi:10.1093/cje/bet076
Krugman, P., 2007. The conscience of a liberal. New York: W.W. Norton.
Ledwith, M., 2001. Community work as critical pedagogy: re-envisioning Freire and Gramsci. Community development
journal, 36 (3), 171–182. doi:10.1093/cdj/36.3.171
Lindsey, I., et al., 2017. Localising global sport for development. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lindsey, I. and Gratton, A., 2012. An ‘international movement’? Decentering sport-for-development within Zambian
communities. International journal of sport policy and politics, 4 (1), 91–110. doi:10.1080/19406940.2011.627360
Mawdsley, E., Savage, L., and Kim, S.-M., 2014. A ‘post-aid world’? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development
cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum. The geographical journal, 180, 27–38.
doi:10.1111/geoj.2014.180.issue-1
Mayo, P., 1999. Gramsci, Freire and adult education: possibilities for transformative action. London: Zed Books.
McCoy, D., et al., 2009. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s grant-making programme for global health. The lancet, 373,
1645–1653. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60571-7
McGoey, L., 2012. Philanthrocapitalism and its critics. Poetics, 40, 185–199. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2012.02.006
Merrick, R. 2016. Theresa May set to cut 0.7% foreign aid spending commitment, downing street signals. Available from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-uk-foreign-aid-budget-cut-review-2020-
signala7472051.html [Accessed 4 May 2017].
Mwaanga, O. and Prince, S., 2016. Negotiating a liberative pedagogy in sport development and peace: understanding
consciousness raising through the Go Sisters programme in Zambia. Sport, education and society, 21 (4), 588–604.
doi:10.1080/13573322.2015.1101374
Nally, D. and Taylor, S., 2015. The politics of self-help: the Rockefeller Foundation, philanthropy and the ‘long Green
Revolution’. Political geography, 49, 51–63. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2015.04.005
Nussbaum, M.C., 2011. Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University.
OECD, 2014. Aid to poor countries slips further as governments tighten budgets. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/
dac/stats/aidtopoorcountriesslipsfurtherasgovernmentstightenbudgets.htm [Accessed 15 October 2015].
Owen, J.R. and Westoby, P., 2012. The structure of dialogic practice within developmental work. Community
development, 43 (3), 306–319. doi:10.1080/15575330.2011.632093
Parnell, D., Millward, P., and Spracklen, K., 2016. Sport and austerity in the UK: an insight into Liverpool 2014. Journal of
policy research in tourism, leisure and events, published online. doi:10.1080/16184742.2016.1257552 Pearson, N., 2009.
Up from the mission. Melbourne: Black.
Rand, A., 1964. The virtue of selfishness: a new concept of egoism/With additional articles by Nathaniel Branden. New
York: New American Library.
Rossi, T., 2015. Expecting too much? can indigenous sport programs in australia deliver development and social
outcomes?. International journal of sport policy and politics, 7 (2), 181-195.
Sandel, M.J., 2012. What money can’t buy – the moral limits of markets. New York: Penguin.
Schulenkorf, N., 2017. Managing sport-for-development: reflections and outlook. Sport management review, 20, 243–
251. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2016.11.003
Schulenkorf, N. and Spaaij, R., 2016. Commentary: reflections of theory building in sport for development and peace.
International journal for sport management and marketing, 16 (1/2), 71–77.
Sen, A., 1999. Development as freedom. London: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A., 2010. The idea of justice. London: Penguin.
Sherry, E., and Schulenkorf 2016. League bilong laif: rugby, education and sport for development partnerships in papua
new guinea. Sport education and society, 21 (4), 513–530.
Soros, G., 2015. A partnership with China to avoid world war. New York review of books, 62 (12), July 9.
Spaaij, R. and Jeanes, R., 2013. Education for social change? A Freirean critique of sport for development and peace.
Physical education and sport pedagogy, 18 (4), 442–457. doi:10.1080/17408989.2012.690378 Stiglitz,
J., 2003. The roaring nineties. London: Penguin.
202 T. ROSSI AND R. JEANES
Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A., and Fitoussi, J.-P., 2010. Miss-measuring our lives – why GDP doesn’t add up. New York: The New
Press.
Svennsson, P.G. and Levine, J., 2017. Rethinking sport for development and peace: the capability approach. Sport in
society, 20 (7), 905–923. doi:10.1080/17430437.2016.1269083
Svensson, P.G., 2017. Organizational hybridity: a conceptualization of how sport for development and peace organizations
respond to divergent institutional demands. Sport management review. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2017.03.004
Svensson, P.G. and Hambrick, M.E., 2016. Pick and choose our battles” -Understanding organizational capacity in a sport
for development and peace organization. Sport management review, 19, 120–132. doi:10.1016/j. smr.2015.02.003
Svensson, P.G., Hancock, M.G., and Hums, M.A., 2016. Examining the educative aims and practices of decision makers in
sport for development and peace organizations. Sport, education and society, 21 (4), 495–512. doi:10.1080/
13573322.2015.1102723
Szto, C. 2017. Engaging Sports. The Society Pages Available from: https://thesocietypages.org/engagingsports/2017/
05/15/the-ioc-and-the-united-nations-strategic-and-strange-bedfellows/ [Accessed 18 May 2017].
The Economist, 2006, The birth of philanthrocapitalism. Available from: http://www.economist.com/node/14704627
[Accessed 9 May 2017].
The Economist, 2014. What’s gone wrong with democracy? March Edition. The Millennium development goals report.
New York: United Nations.
Wade, R.H., 2003. What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The world trade organization and the
shrinking of ‘development space’. Review of international political economy, 10 (4), 621–644. doi:10.1080/
09692290310001601902
Welty Peachy, J., et al., 2017. Challenges and strategies of building and sustaining inter- organizational partnerships in
sport for development and peace. Sport management review. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2017.06.002
Willis, O., 2000. Sport and development: the significance of Mathare Youth Sports Association. Canadian journal of
development studies, 21 (3), 825–849. doi:10.1080/02255189.2000.9669914