Abstract
In 2013, the creation of Chile’s Ministry of Sport (MINDEP) formalized the importance of sport for central government. Alongside its executing branch, the National Institute of Sport (IND), MINDEP became responsible for all sport-related policy and programme decisions. However, almost a decade later, the extent to which the new institutional order has enabled, constrained, improved, or undermined sport policymaking and the prospect of institutional change remains unexplored.
Drawing from institutional theory (March & Olsen, 1995, 1996, 2006) this study considers continuity and change within the Chilean sport policy-making complex. More particularly, and based on Lowndes & Roberts (2013) framework of institutional constraints, the purpose of this thesis is to: 1) contextualize contemporary sport policymaking between 2001-2022; and 2) analyse how the institutional rules, practices and narratives interrelate, and how they are interpreted/acted upon within MINDEP and the IND.
This study employed a qualitative approach, with data gathered from document analysis and semi-structured interviews with six policymakers and bureaucrats from MINDEP and IND. Data was analysed through thematic coding of available texts (e.g., policies, interview transcripts, speeches, tweets) via MAXQDA 2022 qualitative analysis software. This coding technique provided insights into the institutional constraints that explain the continuity and/or change of the Chilean State Sport institution, and the underlying lived experiences, emotions and behaviours of participants’ with respect to MINDEP-IND.
Two findings emerged. First, the introduction of New Public Management (NPM) during the mid 1990s and the creation of the National Institute of Sport (Law 19.712 of 2001) conflicted with entrenched practices from previous institutional arrangements. The combination of new rules, practices like shortermism and uncooperativeness, and, narratives encompassing ‘legitimacy’ and ‘sport’s goodness’, produced significant instability, conflict and change during this period.
Secondly, the ‘layering’ of MINDEP over the IND after 2013 added bureaucratic procedures and gaps that increased the complexity of the policy-making process. Law 20.686 created a dichotomy, with the MINDEP positioned as thinker, and IND as doer, increasing the conflict and tensions within the institution. Officials thus reported new practices of small politics (i.e., self-interested political behaviour) that conflicted with NPM doctrines (rules) pursuing efficiency and optimization. Reinforcing this conflict, institutional narratives
ii
surrounding frustration, pessimism and incapacity, were cast as working against the self- interested political practices of Ministers and IND Directors.
From this second finding, the period 2013-2022 is characterized by the institution’s hybridity, which is when conflicting and incompatible rules, practices and narratives surrounding sport policy coexist. However, unlike the previous period, evidence suggests that this period experienced both stability and change; or in general terms, a contained conflict. The presence of stability and change suggests that in the near future, institutional alterations are unlikely to occur as MINDEP and IND have locked in the rules of the game, institutionalised cultural practices and nurtured an environment of unique stories and political significance (March & Olsen, 1989).