Sport policy in the Netherlands

Sport policy in the Netherlands Maikel Waardenburg & Maarten van Bottenburg

Published as: Waardenburg, M. & van Bottenburg, M. (2013). Sport Policy in the Netherlands. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 5(3): 465-475.

Keywords: government, policy instruments, voluntary sector, sport organisation, challenges, the Netherlands

Introduction This article provides an overview of the contemporary developments regarding sport policy in the Netherlands. Sport and movement policy is governed by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS). This article focuses on the role of VWS and its predecessors and Dutch umbrella organisations of sport in sport policy developments in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy counting 16.8 million inhabitants on 3.4 million hectares land area. The Netherlands is a densely populated and highly urbanized country. In terms of Esping-Andersen (1990) the Netherlands can be seen as a hybrid welfare state type. It combines corporatist characteristics with social-democratic principles (Van Oorschot 2006). The Netherlands were initially formed as an alliance between seven provinces against the centralistic regime of the Habsburgs (Burger 1997). The alliance – a federation called the Republic of the United Provinces or the Dutch

1

Republic - had a strong decentred character. This decentred character has always been part of the subsequent state forms. In this decentralized unitary state civil society organisations traditionally hold a strong position in service delivery and policy development. This finds expression in a policy making process based on consensus decision-making at the national, provincial and local government level, including continuous consultations of industrial associations, labour unions, nongovernmental organisations, and other political lobby groups (the so-called ‘polder model’). The interplay between such organisations in the sport sector is the primary focus of this article. It starts with a brief overview of the contemporary organisation of sport, before turning to a detailed history of sport policy development1. The article ends with a discussion on some challenges regarding current sport policy issues.

Organisation of sport While sport participation in the Netherlands can be provided through schools, playgrounds, local community buildings and commercial organisations, the large majority of sport participation and sport activities is organised through local voluntary sport clubs (VSCs). Of a total of 28.000 clubs, a little over 25.000 are registered (through their respective national sport association (NSO)) with the national sport umbrella organisation NOC*NSF. Most NSOs, which number 75 in total, are united in NOC*NSF. Most VSCs are member of one of the 75 NSOs. These are the governing bodies of the specific sports they represent. The largest NSO is the soccer federation, with 1.18 million members in 2010, followed by tennis (690,370), golf (353,165) and gymnastics (255,281). The smallest is the racquetball association, with 27 members (NOC*NSF,

2

2011). Next to NOC*NSF there are also several umbrella organisations with a religious or cultural denomination, but with far fewer registered clubs and often overlapping with clubs registered with NOC*NSF. All national sport umbrella organisations and voluntary sport clubs are organized on the principles of voluntary association, where members can decide on strategic decisions through a bi-annual membership meeting. All local sport clubs and national umbrella organisations have a voluntary board and work with volunteers. Today, approximately 1.5 million volunteers (mainly club members, parents of youth club members, and former club members) and 13,000 paid employees (3,600 full-time equivalents) are involved in running these clubs (Goossens et al., 2008). Financially, the sport clubs depend mainly on their own members and only to a lesser extent on external relations and support: on average membership fees cover 58% and canteen income 13% of the overall budget of sport clubs, whereas sponsorship count for 9% and local governmental subsidies for 4% (Kalmthout et al. 2009). NOC*NSF is an independent legal entity that pursues its own policy, with responsibilities in both elite sport and sport for all; although its decisions require approval from the General Meeting of representatives of the NSOs, which makes the final policy and budget decisions. It also acts as the political interlocutor of VWS and has the task of distributing money from the national games of chance (Lotto) to its member associations by mutual arrangement. A part of this Lottery money goes to the umbrella organisation itself. Besides this, the umbrella organisation is mainly financed by subsidies of the national government, sponsorship and, to a lesser extent, membership fees and other benefits (NOC*NSF 2008).

3

Today, the most important governmental actor in the Dutch sporting structure are the 443 municipalities: they account for 87 per cent of public spending on sport, mainly for the construction and financial management of sports facilities and venues (Goossens et al. 2008). The twelve Dutch provinces are responsible for regional planning and environmental matters and fund so-called provincial sport councils, which provide assistance to sport clubs and other sport providers at the local level. The role of national government is primarily one of coordination and encouragement, although – as will be shown in the next section – it has strongly gained in significance in sport policy in recent decades. The sports department at ministerial level has, over the years, been located in a range of different ministries: it moved as a small unit from the ministry of Education, Arts and Sciences, through the ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work (1965), and later the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Culture (1982), before it became an explicitly visible department in the ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (in Dutch Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport (VWS)) in 1994. During these periods national government went back and forth in taking an explicit role in sport policy.

Historical development of national sport policy Sport in the Netherlands developed from below in the late nineteenth century as citizens started to organize private initiatives to practice sport in voluntary sport clubs (in Dutch: sportverenigingen). Local governments facilitated and stimulated this activity by approving the use of public grounds for sport activities (Stokvis 1979). National sport organisations were founded by members of these local clubs to coordinate the regulation

4

and organisation of sport competitions, and for decades they did so without government interference at a national level. The Netherlands Olympic Committee was founded in 1912 because of the need of international regulations to compete in international championships and in the Olympics. While religious oriented sports organisations also went through an institutionalising process, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not allow them membership of a national Olympic committee. Furthermore, the majority of an NOC had to consist of Olympic sporting bodies. This prevented the NOC to become the national representative organisation of sports in the Netherlands. Thus, after some years of debate among Olympic, non-Olympic and religious national sports organisations they formed the Netherlands Sport Federation (NSF) (Pouw 1999). The NOC and the NSF were both organised on voluntary and democratic principles, existing and operating by the grace of their members. By the nineteen sixties the Dutch voluntary sport sector was extensive, well established and highly institutionalised. National government did not take a seat on the board of the NSF which the Landelijke Contactraad (a network organisation of local governments) saw as a missed chance (Pouw 1999: 183-186). It can be argued that this was a critical juncture (Mahoney 2000); the distant position national government preferred at this point in time sustained the relative autonomous development of the Dutch sport sector. Next to this voluntary structure municipalities played a major role in sport development in the first half of the twentieth century and especially after World War II. They influenced the growth possibilities of voluntary sport clubs through their role in developing and maintaining sports facilities (Stokvis 1979). National government only

5

developed ambitions for sport after WWII. The scale of direct national government involvement remained small until the 1960s, with a total budget of less than one million guilders, equivalent to the contemporary purchasing power of €3 million (Van Bottenburg 2002). Between 1945 and 1954 national government was much more strongly, though indirectly, involved with the development of sport. During this period, subsidies were provided to local governments to reconstruct houses and infrastructure destroyed during war time and, in doing so, to promote employment. Local governments invested 24 million guilders out of this budget to create about 750 sports fields and grounds, although it was not allowed to build indoor sports centres with this money as preference was given to house building (De Heer 2000). By investing in local sport infrastructure, the local authorities aimed to contribute to the reconstruction of destroyed sport fields and the creation of a positive living environment. National government stressed the contribution of sport to the ‘renewal of man and society’ in general and the moral uplifting of the post-war youth generations in particular. In the first decade after WWII concerns rose about the non-educated workingclass youth (Langeveld 1952). One of few places where interventions with this target group were possible was at local sport clubs. National government tried to tackle the problem by supporting coaches and supervisors of youth members in sport clubs. As such, the first subsidy provided by national government in the field of sport concerned the training of sport instructors in 1946 (Stokvis 1979).

1969 – 1982: the growing of a tense relationship

6

Until the end of the 1960s national government was continuously invited by the voluntary sport sector to take a more prominent role in sport policy, but was cautious in doing so. In 1969 the then Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Societal Work started to debate national government’s role in sport policy (Ministerie van CRM 1969). Since the 1960s, national as well as provincial and local governments have become more strongly involved in sport policy, in term of budgets, aspirations, and instruments. At the local level, net public spending on sport increased from 12 million Dutch guilders in 1959 to 385 million in 1971 and 1,094 million in 1981 (Van Bottenburg 1999). At the national level, the government’s sport budget rose from three million Dutch guilders in 1964 to 11 million in 1972 and 43 million in 1982 (Van Bottenburg 2002). This sharp increase in spending was made possible by a long-lasting period of economic growth, during which the gross national income of the Netherlands multiplied and tax revenues increased. The tenfold increase of tax revenues between 1960 and 1980 provided the government with the financial means to establish a net of social provisions and services that would constitute the so-called welfare state (Stokvis 1979). These funds came with strings attached. In 1974 the government issued its first ever policy document explicitly and exclusively on sport. It highlighted progressive values such as informality, spontaneity and non-commitment, mirroring important social ideals of that time. The voluntary sport structure, focusing on competition, rules and excellence did not quite fit the picture. National government’s sport policy in the 1970s can therefore be viewed as a way to bypass the voluntary sport structure and stimulate alternative sport-for-all activities. As this policy direction threatened their monopoly position, it was met with stern opposition from the NSF and the sport associations

7

(Stokvis 1979, Van Bottenburg 1999, Van Bottenburg 2002). Nonetheless, both the NSF and the local and national government came to terms to support two national promotion campaigns to promote ‘sportive recreation’, aiming for an increase in sport participation outside local sport clubs. The term ‘sportive recreation’ linguistically symbolizes the struggle between the government and the voluntary sport sector (Pouw 1999, Stokvis 1979, Waardenburg 2011). Interestingly, it was mainly the number of members of voluntary sport clubs that rose during the 1970s continuing an upward trend evident before these campaigns were launched (Stokvis 1989). As an indirect result though, voluntary sport clubs, traditionally focusing on competition, started to initiate more recreational forms of sport (Waardenburg 2011). Another direct contribution to the development of voluntary sport clubs resulting from the 1974 policy document was the professionalization of technical staff in local sport clubs. This so-called STK-policy started in 1979 to tackle the increasing complexities of the organisation of sport and the problem of the large turnover of volunteers. Paid professionals funded by government had to assist in and take over some of the tasks performed by volunteers at club and at NSO level. To further realize its objective that more attention be paid to recreational sport the government felt it necessary that some of these professionals intervened in the NSOs’ curriculum for technical staff (Ministerie van CRM 1974). After five years 180 professionals were appointed of which 132 worked in voluntary sport clubs and local councils (Pouw 1999). Most of them contributed to organising training sessions at local level.

1982-1993: ‘each to their own’

8

National government’s explicit involvement in sport policy quickly came to an end due to the early 1980s recession. Compared to other parts of the social welfare policy system, the government’s sport budget was still relatively small. Substantial savings therefore could not be achieved in this area. Still, the then Secretary of State for sport felt the need to withdraw government’s involvement in the way citizens developed their leisure activities (Van Bottenburg 2002). This is an expression of the broader political attitude towards the welfare sector in that time frame in the Netherlands. The government’s detached attitude towards national umbrella organisations of sport led to a cooling in their mutual relationship of the 1980s and can therefore be seen as an interval period where little sport policy development occurred. Because of their relatively low dependence on government funds, the absence of national government did not affect the strength of most sport umbrella organisations. The majority of income of national sport organisations comes from membership fees and lottery money. Since the introduction of the first lottery in 1960 and the second in 1975, the net profits have been divided among sport organisations (receiving almost threequarters) and the nation’s leading charity organisations (receiving one-quarter). These lottery revenues are perceived as money from private sources, not as public funds (De Heer 2000). The fact that sport organisations receive the lottery money without interference of national government makes them more independent. This became particularly important after 1996 (see the next section) when the pressure on sport organisations to contribute explicitly to non-sport specific policy goals in return for receiving governmental subsidies increased.

9

1993-present: the growing of a policy network Dutch sport organisations started a powerful lobby in the 1990s, backed by prominent businessmen and politicians, stressing the societal meaning of sport participation and elite sport, putting sport back on the political agenda. This lobby was reinforced in 1993 by the establishment of NOC*NSF as the overall umbrella organisation for sport, merging the Netherlands Sports Federation with the Netherlands Olympic Committee. Following these developments several conferences and debates were organized and publications printed, both stressing the perceived powers of sport – and elite sport as its flagship - as a source of inspiration and an opportunity to contribute to addressing complex social problems – the so-called wicked issues (Van Bottenburg & Schuyt 1996, ATKearney 1992, Stam 1996). Members of Parliament and civil servants in the ministerial sport department vigorously supported this ‘sport lobby’. These groups, represented different institutions, enunciated a common belief regarding the importance of sport and sport policy. This development mirrors that of other Northwest European countries (cf. Bergsgard et al. 2007). In 1994 a new cabinet, formed by social democrats and right and left wing liberals took office. A former Olympic medalist, Erica Terpstra - president of NOC*NSF between 2003 and 2010 - was appointed State secretary of sport. When the new cabinet took office it changed the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Culture into the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, symbolizing the predominance of health over welfare and, second, the promotion of sport as a policy domain in its own right. For the first time in history, the term ‘sport’ appeared in the name of a Dutch ministry.

10

In 1995 three Members of Parliament asked the new cabinet for an ‘integral interdepartmental sport policy document, acknowledging the unique chances that sport offers for a well-balanced development of society at large.’2 This document, published in 1996 (Ministerie van VWS 1996), also reflected an international tendency in this period to stress the growing social and cultural significance of sport and its multidimensional and malleable character to help achieve non-sport policy goals (Bergsgard et al 2007, Bloyce & Smith 2010). The document strongly emphasized the alleged educational, social, health and economic functions of sport, and the assumed utility of sport as a means for social development, social integration, public health and job creation. In time, the sport lobby resulted in a closer policy network between government and sport umbrella organisations and a substantial increase in national government’s sport budget. Between 1999 and 2010, the sport budget multiplied by four, as illustrated in Table 1.

**INSERT TABLE 1 NEAR HERE**

Simultaneous with the increased budget, there were significant changes in the distribution and destination of allocated funds. Before 2003 a dominant part of the national government’s sport budget went directly to NOC*NSF and the national sport associations. These institutional subsidies were based on membership figures and were converted into project grants that contributed to policy goals formulated by national government (Van der Poel 2006), such as an increase in sport participation by immigrant youth, or organising more sport activities at school grounds by voluntary sport clubs

11

(Ministerie van VWS 2006). This was the result of a broader political change in which it is believed that civil society organisations should be supported for their contribution to society, not for their mere existence and membership base. This switch in policy implied a move to more contractual relations between NSOs and government. It clearly increased the pressure on NSOs to demonstrate that they deliver (public) value for (public) money, as is the case in other Western countries (Houlihan & White 2002; Sam 2011). From the national government’s budget for sport about 80 per cent went to projects contributing to goals formulated by national government to increase the quality of the local sport infrastructure and to further the utilization of the wider social role for sport. In addition local authorities themselves had to contribute an additional 50 per cent of the project costs (Van der Poel 2003). This created a multiplier effect; the local public spending increased from €855 million in 1999 to €1.499 million in 2010 (see Table 1). Another change in this period was that the Dutch government started to endorse elite sport as a policy tool. The budget for elite sport gradually rose from €2 million in 1987 (Pouw, 1999), to €5.7 million in 1999 and followed by a sharp increase to €26.5 million in 2008 and €36.3 million in 2011. Thus, in the distribution and destination of the rising public sport budget substantially more money was allocated to elite sport. The establishment of a Fund for the Elite Athlete in 1994 marked the starting point for this policy change. It was followed by a systematic and coherent elite sport policy process directed towards improving the ‘elite sport climate’ (Van Bottenburg 2000).3 Initially, the main goal of this policy was to utilize the social value of elite sport by giving support to national sport organisations, improving the social conditions of elite athletes, and counteracting negative side-effects of elite sport (Ministerie van VWS

12

1998). Although this policy goal reflected a paradigm shift compared to the government’s attitude towards elite sport in the 1980s and earlier, the government was criticized by NOC*NSF and several NSOs for its vagueness and lack of ambitions. In response to these critics and the public enthusiasm for the historically unparalleled successes of Dutch athletes at the Olympics of 2000 and 2004, the government aligned its elite sport policy goals with the umbrella organisations of sport. In 2005 the government declared that it ‘supports the aim of the sports sector to ensure the Netherlands ranks among the top ten countries in the international sports world’ (Ministerie van VWS 2005). The government referred to the importance of elite sport ‘as a symbol for ambition, as a source of relaxation and for the benefit of our national image at home as well as abroad’ (Ministerie van VWS 2005) as justification for this policy goal. The share of elite sport in the overall ministerial sport budget increased from 20.4 per cent in 1999 to 36.3 per cent in 2011 (see table 2). This suggests that the advocacy coalition for high performance achievement in Olympic sports has undoubtedly become stronger in both sport organisations and government sport policy departments. While government involvement has grown significantly compared to other sectors self-organizing and relatively autonomous networks of civil-society organisations still play a central role in the coordination of sport and sport policies. Together with government and semi-governmental organisations, and to a lesser extent commercial organisations, these voluntary sport organisations form a policy network which determines the sport governance structure in the Netherlands.

** INSERT TABLE 2 NEAR HERE**

13

Current sport policy trends and challenges In this section we discuss current sport policy trends in the Netherlands, focussing on the new policy agenda of NOC*NSF and the new policy course of VWS. In 2011 the then new Minister of Sport announced the Cabinet’s major policy concerns for sport. The Cabinet had formulated four themes for policy intervention from the part of national government: two sport-for-all themes, one on elite-sport and one on major sport events (Ministerie van VWS 2011a). In the following we will discuss each briefly, show how NOC*NSF’s policy is related and present some challenges that these policy issues pose. The first and major theme VWS announced was a policy programme titled ‘Sport and movement in the neighbourhood’ (Sport en Bewegen in de Buurt, Ministerie van VWS 2011b). This theme was developed in close cooperation with NOC*NSF, the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG), the Netherlands Institute of Sport and Movement (NISB) and the employers organisation VNO-NCW. The policy theme focuses on creating possibilities for safe and nearby sport participation for every citizen. It tries to realize this through a holistic approach in which dozens of formerly developed policy initiatives that are defined as a success are combined. By stimulating local partnerships between sport organisations and other public and private organisations and by partly funding the appointment of paid professionals (buurtsportcoaches) it is expected that voluntary sport clubs can deliver a higher quality of services and are better able to fulfil the needs of diverse target groups. There are several challenges that arise from the inception of such local partnerships. Are voluntary board members and other volunteers of VSCs for instance able to stand tall among the more professional organised

14

potential partners? Professional expertise in such partnership is often regarded as more important and dominant over voluntary involvement (Van der Klein et al. 2011). How then can volunteers of local sports clubs make sure that the course of development of their club is still a choice of their own choosing? Another question that arises from this theme is how the deployment of volunteers will be affected when VSCs are going to contribute to sport activities on locations other than there own sporting grounds and on new time frames. At the administrative as well as strategic level there is frequent personal contact between NOC*NSF and VWS. As a result the policy choices of the two major policy actors in sport increasingly mimic each other. Both organisations directly contributed to each other’s policy texts, resulting in an implicit partnership (Waardenburg 2011). This creates tensions within the voluntary organized sport sector. In 2010 several major NSOs blew the whistle stating that the umbrella organisation was drifting away from its members (Sportbonden 2010). NOC*NSF reacted with an internal reorganisation, but continued and even intensified its connections with the ministry. NOC*NSF thus positions itself as the authority in sport, broadening its policy objectives. In this light it is exemplary that NOC*NSF in its most recent policy document (NOC*NSF 2012) left its decades long focus on club membership as its main policy strategy, instead primarily focussing on a rise in general sport participation to 75 per cent. NOC*NSF is coming to see its activities more and more as a sector organisation instead of an umbrella organisation. It is also actively encouraging NSOs to see themselves this way. Although the policy change from membership towards general participation creates many opportunities for initiating alternative sport activities to attract new target

15

groups, it also puts pressure on NSOs and voluntary sport clubs to be more externally oriented. This might shift their attention away from their primary focus and their concern with individual members which should to date be seen as the pillars of the current high level of sport participation in the Netherlands (Boessenkool et al. 2011, European Commission 2010). While involvement of civil society in public programmes - generally labeled as ‘active citizenship’ - is met with enthusiasm, it holds the danger that voluntary involvement becomes instrumentalized, thereby precisely endangering the powers of civil society organisations to generate social capital and higher levels of trust (Waardenburg & Van de Bovenkamp, forthcoming) A second sport-for-all theme, titled ‘Towards a safer sports climate’, reflects a major political issue in the Netherlands during prior elections. As a result of these elections and the central-right political parties that took office in 2010, safety became a leading theme in the 2010 Cabinet’s agreements (VVD & CDA, 2010). The policy programme aims for a situation in which practicing sport appeals to everyone without being worried about the possibility of intimidation or violence (Ministerie van VWS 2011c). Undesirable behaviour will be punished, desirable behaviour will be stimulated. The policy programme tries to realize this through a stricter application of sport specific rules, closer cooperation between sport organisations, the police and the justice department and the creation of greater awareness of the desired behaviour. When excesses occur, ‘zero tolerance’ is the preferred reaction, mirroring policy strategies in the wider community safety sector. Such a zero tolerance strategy might initially result in severe punishments to set examples. Many amateur football clubs have already complained that the new restrictive attitude has resulted in too many teams being

16

excluded from competition and overly severe punishments for youth members (e.g. lifetime bans). As a result the Dutch football association is already changing its one yearold rules on this matter. It poses the question regarding the consequences of sport lending itself too easily as a symbolic policy area for national politicians. A third theme that the Ministry of VWS is actively stimulating is elite sport development. VWS supports the ambition of NOC*NSF and NSOs to belong to the top10 elite sport countries in the world. To this end VWS invests in more and better medical care, better connections between school and elite sport activities and more variety in bursaries for elite athletes. It also highlights an effective anti-doping policy. For a selected number of sport disciplines targets have been set – and finances accordingly distributed - by NOC*NSF and NSOs to belong to the top eight countries when performing at World Championships and Olympic Games. Such targets bring along the risk of disappointing performances, considering that other nations – with larger economies - invest more heavily in elite sport performances (Van Bottenburg et al. 2012). In other countries such disappointment has had an impact on the autonomy and funding of sport organisations (Girginov & Hills, 2008; Grix, 2010; Hoye & Nicholson, 2009). A last theme is the withdrawal of national government’s support for the ambition of an alliance of organisations to host the Olympic Games in Amsterdam in 2028. The ambition was seen as a way to inspire society and to excel at many different levels, and ultimately to host the Olympic Games in Amsterdam. The government invested €2 million in 2012 in the Program Office that coordinates all activities related to the ambition (Ministerie van VWS 2011a). In addition, several municipalities invested several millions on hosting international sport events in recent and coming years to build

17

a track record - e.g. world championships in judo (Rotterdam, 2009), gymnastics (Rotterdam, 2010), cycling (Valkenburg, 2012), hockey (The Hague, 2014), beach volleyball (The Hague, 2015), and other events such as the European Championships Athletics (Amsterdam, 2016), and the European Youth Olympic Festival (Utrecht, 2013). The Olympic ambitions also encouraged NOC*NSF, VWS and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) to initiate a sector plan for education and research in sport (NOC*NSF, 2011). This resulted in a combined budget of €10 million for societally relevant scientific research into the social role of sport, exercise and elite sport. Although its commitment to scientific research continues, in light of the economic climate the current Cabinet in office decided in the autumn of 2012 not to follow up on the broader Olympic ambition. Besides the withdrawal from the Olympic Plan, the global and European financial crisis has as yet not resulted in a decrease in government funding on sport in the Netherlands. Sport for all and elite sport development can both still annually work with an increase in budget. However, with an increasing policy focus on a steady top-10 position in the global sporting arms race and local governments’ increasingly debating their funding policies on sports facilities, it could well be that ‘sport-for-all’ might have to foot the bill in the near future.

Notes 1. The section on the historical development of sport policy in the Netherlands draws on Van Bottenburg, M. (2010). 2. Motion Essers-Middel-Fermida, Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1995-1996, 24400 XVI, nr. 50. 3. The social and organisational environment that provides the circumstances in which athletes can develop into elite sports athletes and can continue at the highest levels in their branch of sport.

18

References ATKearney, 1992. Sport als bron van inspiratie voor onze samenleving. Amsterdam: ATKearney. Bergsgard, N.A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Nodland, S.I. & Rommetvedt, H. (eds.), 2007. Sport policy. A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Boessenkool, J.H., Lucassen, J.M., Waardenburg, M. & Kemper, F. (eds.), 2011. Sportverenigingen: tussen tradities en ambities. Nieuwegein: Arko Sports Media. Bloyce, D. & Smith, A., 2010. Sport policy and development. An introduction. London/New York: Routledge. Burger, A., Dekker, P., Van der Ploeg, T. & Van Veen, W., 1997. “Defining the Nonprofit Sector: The Netherlands.” Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, no. 23, edited by L.M. Salamon & H.K. Anheier. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. De Heer, W., 2000. Sportbeleidsontwikkeling 1945-2000. Haarlem: De Vriescheborg. European Commission, 2010. Special Eurobarometer 334 “Sport and Physical Activity”. Brussels: EC Esping-Andersen, G., 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Vol. 6. Cambridge: Polity press. Girginov, V. & Hills, L., 2009. The political process of constructing a sustainable London Olympics sports development legacy. International Journal of Sport Policy, 1(2), 161-182. Goossens, R., Kamphuis, C. & Van Veldhoven, N., 2008. Sportinfrastructuur: organisaties, accommodaties en vrijwilligers. In K. Breedveld & A. TiessenRaaphorst, eds. Rapportage Sport 2008. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Grix, J., 2010. The ‘governance debate’ and the study of sport policy. International Journal of Sport Policy, 2(2), 159-172. Houlihan, B. & White, A., 2002. The politics of sports development. Development of sport or development through sport?. London/New York: Routledge. Hoye, R. & Nicholson, M., 2009. Social capital and sport policies in Australia. Public Management Review, 11(4), 441-460. Kalmthout, J., De Jong, M. & Lucassen, J., 2009. Verenigingsmonitor 2008. De stand van zaken bij sportverenigingen. ’s-Hertogenbosch/Nieuwegein: W.J.H. Mulier Instituut/Arko Sports Media. Langeveld, M.J., 1952. Maatschappelijke verwildering der jeugd; Rapport betreffende het onderzoek naar de geestesgesteldheid van de massajeugd. Den Haag, Staatsuitgeverij. Mahoney, J., 2000. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and society, 29, 507548. Ministerie van CRM, 1969. Discussienota met betrekking tot het sportbeleid. The Hague: The Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work. Ministerie van CRM, 1974. Nota Sportbeleid. The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij.

19

Ministerie van VWS, 1996. Wat sport beweegt. Contouren en speerpunten van het sportbeleid van de rijksoverheid. Rijswijk: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Ministerie van VWS, 1998. Sturen op doelen, faciliteren op instrumenten. Beleidskader lokaal sociaal beleid. Rijswijk: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Ministerie van VWS, 2005. Time for sport. Exercise, participate, perform. The Hague: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Ministerie van VWS, 2006. Samen voor sport. Uitvoeringsprogramma van de kabinetsnota “Tijd voor sport – Bewegen, meedoen, presteren, 2006-2010”. The Hague: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Ministerie van VWS, 2011a. Beleidsbrief sport “Sport en bewegen in Olympisch perspectief”. The Hague: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Ministerie van VWS, 2011b. Programma Sport en Bewegen in de Buurt. The Hague: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Ministerie van VWS, 2011c. Uitwerking actieplan “Naar een veiliger sportklimaat”. The Hague: The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. NOC*NSF, 2008. Jaarverslag 2008. Arnhem: NOC*NSF. NOC*NSF, 2011. Ledental NOC*NSF over 2010. Arnhem: NOC*NSF. NOC*NSF, 2012. Sport inspireert! Sportagenda 2016. Arnhem: NOC*NSF. Pouw, D., 1999. 50 Jaar nationaal sportbeleid. Van vorming buiten schoolverband tot breedtesport. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Sam, M.P., 2011. Building legitimacy at Sport Canada: pitfalls of public value creation?. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(4), 757-778. Sportbonden, 2010. Op zoek naar evenwicht. Retrieved from http://www.sportknowhowxl.nl/files/NotitieBondenNOCNSF26032010.pdf, September 20th 2010. Stam, P.J., 1996. Sportief bewegen en gezondheidsaspecten. Amsterdam: SEO. Stokvis, R., 1979. Strijd over sport. Organisatorische en ideologische ontwikkelingen. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus. Stokvis, R., 1989. De sportwereld. Een sociologische inleiding. Alphen aan den Rijn/Brussel: Samsom. Van Bottenburg, M., 1999. Van pro tot prof. 50 jaar lokaal sport- en recreatiebeleid. Dordrecht: Landelijke Contactraad. Van Bottenburg, M., 2000. Het topsportklimaat in Nederland. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Diopter. Van Bottenburg, M., 2002. Op de drempel van een vrijetijdsmaatschappij. Recreatie- en sportbeleid, 1965-1982. In I. de Haan & J.W. Duyvendak, eds. In het hart van de verzorgingsstaat. Het ministerie van Maatschappelijk Werk en zijn opvolgers (CRM, WVC, VWS) 1952-2002. Zutphen: Walburg Pers. Van Bottenburg, M., 2009. Op jacht naar goud. Het topsportklimaat in Nederland, 19982008. Nieuwegein: Arko Sports Media. Van Bottenburg, M., 2010. The Netherlands. In: M. Nicholson, R. Hoye & B. Houlihan, eds. Participation in Sport: International Policy Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 25-41.

20

Van Bottenburg, M., Dijk, B., Elling, A. & Reijgersberg, N., 2012. Bloed, zweet en tranen en een moment van glorie. 3-meting topsportklimaat in Nederland. Nieuwegein: Arko Sports Media. Van Bottenburg, M. & Schuyt, K., 1996. De maatschappelijke betekenis van sport. Arnhem: NOC*NSF. Van der Klein, M., Mak J. & Van der Gaag, R., 2011. Professionals en vrijwilligers (organisaties) rond jeugd en gezin. Literatuur over samenwerking in de pedagogische civil society. Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Instituut. Van der Poel, H., 2003. Ontwikkelingen in het sportbeleid. In K. Breedveld & A. Tiessen-Raaphorst, eds. Rapportage sport 2003. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Van der Poel, H., 2006. Ontwikkelingen in het sportbeleid. In K. Breedveld & A. Tiessen-Raaphorst, eds. Rapportage sport 2006. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Van Oorschot, W., 2006. The Dutch welfare state: recent trends and challenges in historical perspective. European Journal of Social Security, 8(1), 57-76. VVD & CDA (2010). Vrijheid en verantwoordelijkheid. Regeerakkoord VVD-CDA. Den Haag. Waardenburg, M., 2011. Autonome organisaties? Sportverenigingen, nationaal sportbeleid en het Olympisch Plan 2028. In J.H. Boessenkool, J.M. Lucassen, M. Waardenburg & F. Kemper (eds.). Sportverenigingen: tussen tradities en ambities. Nieuwegein: Arko Sports Media. Waardenburg, M. & Van de Bovenkamp, H. (forthcoming). Civil society organisations as government steering mechanism: a comparison between patient organisations and sport associations in the Netherlands. In T. Brandsen, W. Trommel & B. Verschuere, eds. Manufacturing civil society: the risks of governance. London/New York: Routledge.

21