Serving the State and the private sector: The paradoxical effects of the reconstruction of public action on the career paths of Sports Ministry agents in France
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2015
Serving the State and the private sector: The paradoxical effects of the reconstruction of public action on the career paths of Sports Ministry agents in France
Faced with the problems of governing high-level sports policy in France caused by the mobilisation of various categories of private actors, and with the downgrading of France in the ranking of leading sports nations, the Sports Ministry instigated a reform of this policy based on the principles of New Public Management. While some studies have shown that neo-managerial reforms provoke opposition among public agents, or even a decline in certain professions, the results of the survey conducted on Technical Sports Advisors (Conseillers Techniques Sportifs – CTS), Sports Ministry agents who ‘report to’ the sports federations, instead reveal that they heighten the uncertainty of these agents’ careers and exacerbate the segmentation of this professional group. These observations can also be explained by the now recurrent tensions between the State and the French sports movement, tensions which confirm that the conduct of public action is above all a matter of power and institutional legitimacy.
AbbottA (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
BayleEDurandC (2004) Vingt ans de relations entre le mouvement sportif et l’Etat: d’une collaboration ambivalente vers une régulation managériale? [Twenty years of relations between sports movement and State. Of an ambivalent collaboration towards a managerial regulation?]. Politiques et Management Public22(2): 113–134.
3.
BayleEDurandCNikonoffL (2008) France. In: HoulihanBGreenM (eds) Comparative Elite Sport Development: Systems, Structures and Public Policy. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, pp. 147–165.
4.
BezesPDemazièreD (eds) (2011) New Public Management et professions dans l’Etat: au-delà des oppositions, quelles recompositions [New Public Management and professions in the public administration: Beyond opposition, what new patterns are taking shape?]. Sociologie du travail53: 293–348.
5.
BezesPLodgeM (2007) Historical legacies and dynamics of institutional change in civil service systems. In: RaadscheldersJCN (eds) Comparing Civil Service Systems in the 21st Century. London: Palgrave, pp. 121–136.
6.
BrintS (1994) In an Age of Experts: The Changing Role of Professionals in Politics and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
Cour des Comptes (2009) L’Etat et les fédérations sportives face aux mutations du sport [State and sports federations in front of transformations of sport]. Rapport d’activité, 4February.
8.
ChiffletP (1993) Associations de sportifs ou entreprises du sport [Sports associations or sport companies]. In: LoretA (ed.) Sport et management: de l’éthique à la pratique. Paris: Dunod, pp. 33–54.
9.
DahlR (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
De BosscherVDe KnopPVan BottenburgM. (2007) Explaining international sporting success: An international comparison of elite sport systems and policies in six countries. Sport Management Review12: 113–136.
11.
DentMChandlerJBarryJ (2004) Questioning the New Public Management. Aldershot: Ashgate.
12.
DentMO’NeillMBagleyC (1999) Professions: New Public Management and the European Welfare State. Staffordshire: Staffordshire University Press.
13.
DreyfusF (2006) Servir l’Etat, un idéal encore moderne? [Serve the State, a still modern ideal?]. Pouvoirs2(117): 5–15.
14.
EnaultG (1979) Le sport en France: Bilan et perspectives [The Sport in France: Results and Prospects]. Paris: Berger-Levrault.
15.
EttoreG (2012) Rapport d’information sur la gouvernance des fédérations sportives [Information Report on the Governance of Sports Federations]. Paris: Assemblée Nationale, 22February.
16.
FarrellCMorrisJ (2003) The “Neo-Bureaucratic” State: Professionals, managers and professional managers in schools, general practices and social work. Organization10: 129–156.
17.
FerlieEPettigrewAAshburnerL. (1996) The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
FortierI (2010) Expérience des réformes et transformation de l’ethos de service public dans l’administration publique québécoise [Experience of the reforms and transformation of public service ethos in the public administration in Quebec]. Pyramides19: 71–86.
19.
GreenM (2004a) Changing policy priorities for sport in England: The emergence of elite sport development as a key policy concern. Leisure Studies23(4): 365–385.
20.
GreenM (2004b) Power, policy, and political priorities: Elite sport development in Canada and the United Kingdom. Sociology of Sport Journal21(4): 376–396.
21.
GreenM (2009) Podium or participation? Analysing policy priorities under changing modes of sport governance in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics1(2): 121–144.
22.
GreenMHoulihanB (2004) Advocacy coalitions and elite sport policy change in Canada and the United Kingdom. International Review for the Sociology of Sport39(4): 387–403.
23.
GreenMOakleyB (2001) Elite sport development systems and playing to win: Uniformity and diversity in international approaches. Leisure Studies20: 247–267.
24.
GrixJCarmichaelF (2012) Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics4(1): 73–90.
25.
HayesG (2002) Environmental Protest and the State in France. New York: Palgrave.
26.
HealdD (1985) Will the privatization of public enterprises solve the problem of control?Public Administration63: 7–22.
27.
HenryI (2009) European models of sport: Governance, organisational change and sports policy in the EU. Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences50(1): 41–52.
28.
HontaM (2007) Organising the dual sporting-social project for high-level athletes in France: The difficulties of learning of collective action. International Review for the Sociology of Sport42(2): 133–148.
29.
HoodC (1991) A public management for all seasons. Public Administration69: 3–19.
30.
HoodCLodgeM (2004) Competency, bureaucracy and public management reform: A comparative analysis. Governance17(3): 313–333.
31.
HoulihanBGreenM (2008) Comparative Elite Sport Development: Systems, Structures and Public Policy. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
32.
HughesEC (1958) Men and Their Work. Glencoe: The Free Press.
33.
KeelerJ (1987) The Politics of Neo-Corporatism in France. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
KessousM (2012) Amsalem: «On nous demande plus avec moins» [‘They ask us more with less’]. Le Monde, 14April, 3.
35.
KitcheltH (1986) Political opportunity structure and political protest: Anti- nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science16(1): 57–85.
36.
Kooiman (ed.) (1993) Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: SAGE.
37.
La Lettre de l’Economie du Sport (2012) Le CNOSF revendique la gestion du haut niveau [The CNOSF claims the management of the high-level sport]. La Lettre de l’Economie du Sport1093: 1.
38.
LaneJE (2000) New Public Management: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
39.
Le GalèsP (1998) Regulations and governance in European cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research22(3): 482–506.
40.
MassegliaD (2010) «L’Etat ne doit plus décider seul!» [‘The state should no longer decide alone!’]. Acteurs du sport123: 18.
41.
MengerPM (2011) Les intermittents du spectacle: Sociologie du travail flexible [The Entertainment Workers: Sociology of Flexible Work]. Paris: EHESS.
42.
MiègeC (2009) Le sport dans les Etats membres de l’Union Européenne [Sport in the Member States of the European Union]. Paris: INSEP.
43.
Ministère des Sports (2002) Les Etats Généraux du Sport [The General States of Sport]. Paris: Ministère des sports.
44.
Ministère des Sports and Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français (CNOSF) (2011) Pour une France 100% Sport [For a France 100% Sport]. Paris: La Documentation Française.
45.
OsborneDGaeblerT (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
46.
PollittCBouckaertG (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
PressmanJLWildavskyA (1973) Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
48.
RichardsonJJ (2000) Government, interest groups and policy change. Political Studies48: 1006–1025.
49.
RobbinsS (2010) Play nice or pick a fight? Cooperation as an interest group strategy at implementation. Policy Studies Journal38(3): 515–535.
50.
SchmidtV (1996) The decline of traditional State Dirigisme in France: The transformation of political economic policies and policymaking processes. Governance4: 375–405.
51.
SiegristH (1990) Professionalisation as a process: Patterns, progression, and discontinuity. In: BurrageMTorstendahlR (eds) Professions in Theory and History. London: SAGE, pp. 177–202.
52.
Van KoteG (2000) L’échec de Sydney a exacerbé les divisions de l’athlétisme Français [The failure of Sydney has exacerbated the French athletics divisions]. Le Monde, 27November, 21.
53.
WrightV (1987) Actualité de la dualité public/privé dans la société britannique [Actuality of the duality public/private in the British society]. Politiques et Management Public5(1): 113–145.
