Social Capital and Sport in the UK
Liam Delaney Economic and Social Research Institute
Evidence From National and International Survey Data: April 19th, 2005.
Simple Message
“The existing data paints a convincing picture of correlations between participation in sports activities and high levels of social capital. The next step for researchers and policy makers is to determine to what extent the causality is running from one to the other. It is almost certainly two way, but we cannot tell the extent from the existing evidence”.
Introduction
Social capital is an increasingly important concept in national policy making. Increasing attention being paid to the role of sport in civil and community life. Also an increasing emphasis on quantifying the role and value of the sports sector. This report examines survey data. Delaney (2005) examines cultural participation and social capital.
Scope of Report
“Sport means all forms of physical activity which through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels”. European Sports Charter, 1993 Focuses on participation in sports and physical activity that fall under the DCMS remit.
Existing Literature on the Role of Sport
Huge literature on the economic significance of the cultural, heritage and sporting sectors. Large and growing literature on the physical and health benefits of sport. Recent emphasis on social benefits of sport. See Daly (2004) for a comprehensive review of social capital studies. See paper for a review of other sports studies.
Civil Renewal/Social Capital
A number of diverse theoretical positions. This presentation considers the broadest and utilises measures across different theoretical streams. Social trust, trust in institutions, subjective well-being, civic membership, informal group activity, political activity. Disentangling social capital and civil renewal.
Types of Social Capital Derived From Sport Individual.
– Sport may provide a basis for an individual to form a friendship base, provide goals and foster well being. – Sport may absorb pro-social motivations and utilise the talents of diverse individuals. Local/community. – Sport may provide a basis for the building of local networks. – Through interacting with children’s sports, parents networks may form which have potentially beneficial effects. – Sport may provide a basis for bringing different sections of communities together. National. – Sport may provide a basis for common shared norms and conversational points as well as providing a basis for collective memory. – Sport can act to transmit pro-social values such as fairness and rule following. – Sport may act as a vehicle for citizens to engage with other countries.
A Cost-benefit Should Also Include Costs
Problem: we cannot simply assume that Net Benefit is increasing in the level of sports membership, attendance and playing. Net Benefit = Benefits(individual benefits, indirect individual benefits, external benefits) – Costs (individual costs, external costs). Bridging and bonding social capital.
– Sports may also generate socially negative effects.
Social liability.
Empirical Questions
Does Britain have a “social capital deficit” when compared to other EU countries? What are the patterns of social capital and civil engagement within britain? What are the patterns of sporting participation within britain? To what extent are these patterns linked? At one level, they are linked tautologically in that sporting membership/volunteering is arguably a form of social capital but we are also asking about the links with other forms of social capital.
Data Utilised
European Social Survey 2002. British Social Attitudes Survey 1984-2002. Time Usage Survey 2000. Home Office Citizenship Survey 2001.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Switzerland Luxembourg Italy Netherlands Greece Total Ireland Hungary Austria Germany Belgium Israel United Kingdom Spain Portugal Slovenia Czech Republic Poland
UN Law Police Politicians Parliament EU Parliament
0
5
Britain Has Below Average Levels of Social Trust
Trust in Institutions Among EU Citizens
And Average Levels of Individual Trust
Individual Trust (ESS 2002)
Denmark Norw ay Finland Sw eden Sw itzerland Netherlands Ireland Luxembourg Austria Belgium United Kingdom Total Spain Germany Israel Italy Slovenia Portugal Czech Republic Greece Hungary Poland
People can be trus ted People try to be fair People Helpful Satis fied with Life Satis fied with dem ocracy Happy Socialis e Health Safety
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Men Are More Likely to Take Part in Sport Than Women, Although Sport Is Still One of the Most Prevalent Forms of Activity for Both Sexes
Sports / exercise (taking part, coaching or going to watch) Religion Hobbies / Recreation / Arts/ Social clubs Children's education/ schools Local community or neighbourhood groups Education for adults Youth / children's activities (outside school) Health, Disability and Social welfare Trade union activity The environment, animals The elderly Safety, First Aid Citizen's Groups Politics Justice and Human Rights Don't Know None of these Gender Male Female 31.68 22.09 23.29 25.62 21.61 16.40 11.35 18.93 10.83 10.45 9.47 12.80 9.37 9.33 6.85 10.82 6.75 3.95 6.36 7.03 4.72 7.23 3.94 4.80 2.93 2.79 2.85 1.56 2.62 2.65 0.15 0.09 36.65 38.56
Walking is the most popular type of activity
% WALKING/ HIKING (RECREATIONAL) FOR 2 MILES OR MORE? SWIMMING OR DIVING INDOORS? CYCLING? KEEPFIT, AEROBICS, YOGA, DANCE EXERCISE, EXERCISE BIKE ? SNOOKER, POOL, BILLIARDS (EXCL BAR BILLIARS)? FOOTBALL OUTDOORS (INCL 5-A-SIDE)? JOGGING, CROSS COUNTRY, ROAD RUNNING? GOLF, PITCH & PUTT, PUTTING, (EXCL CRAZY GOLF)? WEIGHT TRAINING (INCL BODY BUILDING)? TENPIN BOWLING? TENNIS? SWIMMING OR DIVING OUTDOORS? FOOTBALL INDOORS (INCL 5-A-SIDE)? DARTS? BADMINTON? BASKETBALL? NETBALL? CRICKET? GYMNASTICS? HOCKEY (EXCL ICE, ROLLER OR STREET - SEE 'OTHER' BELOW)? ANGLING/ FISHING? TABLE TENNIS? NONE OF THESE?
22.64 19.07 14.94 14.93 11.19 8.95 6.37 5.62 5.29 4.74 4.64 4.55 4.15 3.75 3.59 3.47 2.98 2.86 2.45 2.35 2.14 2.08 36.95
Mean
8.72 3.84 8.67 7.35 4.5 6.73 5.69 3.69 8.5 1.46 3.28 6.45 3.99 4.59 3.1 3.68 3.64 3.7 4.28 3.27 2.88 3.44
Sport is the most frequent field of volunteering for men
Sports/Exercise Religion Hobbies / Recreation / Arts / Social clubs Children's education/ schools Youth / children's activities (outside school) Local community or neighbourhood groups Health, Disability and Social welfare Education for adults The elderly The environment, animals Politics Trade union activity Safety, First Aid Citizen's Groups Justice and Human Rights ANY TYPE OF UNPAID HELP NO UNPAID HELP GIVEN Male 13.74 11.53 9.08 7.80 6.52 6.00 4.41 3.67 3.33 3.07 1.88 1.86 1.83 1.63 1.48 36.34 63.51 Female 7.43 13.94 6.50 14.06 6.56 5.56 6.80 4.63 4.93 3.72 1.01 1.13 2.42 1.58 1.65 37.67 62.22
Volunteering Takes Several Different Forms
Raising or handling money Leading the group/ member of a committee Organising or helping to run an activity or event Visiting / befriending people Giving advice / information / counselling Secretarial, admin or clerical work Providing transport / driving Representing Campaigning Other practical help Any other help Don't Know No help given in last 12 months GIVEN ANY UNPAID HELP IN LAST 12 MONTHS Male 14.29 11.30 20.12 4.04 10.06 4.64 13.55 5.01 1.84 7.72 1.47 0.18 56.45 43.36 Female 10.94 5.89 12.89 4.79 5.05 3.16 8.68 2.74 1.53 8.31 1.68 0.32 66.07 33.61
There are particularly strong Cross National Correlations between participation in sport and trust in other people (see Appendix 1 for Interpretation)
internet sportmem sportpar culmem People fair 0.9** 0.8** 0.8** 0.8** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 People help 0.9** 0.9** 0.8** 0.8** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trust parl 0.3 0.8** 0.5** 0.5** 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trust legal 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6** 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 Trust police 0.7** 0.5** 0.4 0.6** 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Trust politic 0.8** 0.7** 0.6** 0.6** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat life 0.9** 0.7** 0.6** 0.8** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat democ 0.7** 0.5** 0.3 0.6** 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Social friends 0.7** 0.5** 0.5** 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsafe -0.7** -0.5** -0.2 -0.5** 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Unhealthy -0.6** -0.5** -0.5** -0.7** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Education 0.6** 0.7** 0.7** 0.8** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). culpar soccmem soccpar 0.7** 0.7** 0.6** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7** 0.8** 0.6** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6** 0.6** 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5** 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6** 0.7** 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6** 0.7** 0.5** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5** 0.6** 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5** 0.4 0.5** 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.5** -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.5** -0.6** -0.6** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6** 0.7** 0.7** 0.0 0.0 0.0
Correlations Between Social Trust and Participation (UK) – See Appendix 2 for Interpretation
internet sportmem sportpar culmem culpar soccmem soccpar
Trusted 0.1** 0.0 People Fair 0.0 0.2 People helpful 0.0** 0.0 Trust in parliament 0.1** 0.0 Trust in the legal system 0.1** 0.0 Trust in the police 0.1** 0.0 Trust in politicians 0.1** 0.0 Satisfied with life 0.0 0.3 How often meet with friends 0.0 0.7 Unsafe -0.2** 0.0 Unhealthy -0.2** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.0** 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.0** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 -0.2** 0.0 -0.2** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 -0.1** 0.0 -0.2** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1** 0.0 -0.1** 0.0 -0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 -0.1** 0.0 -0.1** 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1** 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1** 0.0 0.1** 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1* 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2
Membership of a Sports/outdoor Activity Club Has a Positive Effect on Well-being Controlling for Other Factors
Civic Trust B t sig 15.9 7.3 0.0 -0.2 -3.7 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.1 -0.6 -1.6 0.1 0.7 1.6 0.1 1.0 2.3 0.0 -3.3 -6.0 0.0 0.2 2.7 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.054 Personal Trust B t sig 9.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.1 3.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.9 0.4 0.9 2.9 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.3 -1.4 -3.9 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.5 3.2 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 0.6 0.068 Well Being B t sig 17.8 15.3 0.0 -0.1 -1.6 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 -0.9 0.3 -0.4 -1.8 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.7 3.2 0.0 -1.5 -5.1 0.0 0.4 8.5 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.3 -0.1 -0.7 0.5 0.085
(Constant) Age Age squared Years of full-time education completed Gender Cultural/hobby activity organisation Sports/outdoor activity club Member of a group discriminated against Household's total net income, all sources Mother's highest level of education Father's highest level of education R-Squared
The Demographic Determinants of Sporting Participation
By examing the demographic determinants of sports participation we can begin to think in a more targeted fashion on the potential role of sport in building communities and social capital Results from the statistical models show that women, manual workers and unemployed, and older people play markedly less sport, which should be taken in to account when thinking about social capital generation.
Who doesn’t Participate in Sport? (Binary Logistic Model based on Time Usage Data)
Number of Children Unemployment in the Area Population Density Managerial & professional occs Social Class Intermediate occs Routine & manual occs Never worked Students/Other Male Age Group 16 -24 yrs 25 -44 yrs 45 -64 yrs 65 yrs or more Constant B 0.08 0.07 0.00 S.E. 0.03 0.01 0.00 Wald 7.91 88.04 5.80 223.37 21.98 176.03 87.85 0.78 81.69 549.35 396.36 415.04 177.93 0.46 df 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
0.34 0.82 0.96 0.12 -0.45 -2.05 -1.61 -0.94 -0.06
0.07 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.08
Different Sports – Different Demographics (See appendix 3)
Number of Children Unemployment in the Area Population Density Social Class Managerial & professional (Ref. Group) Intermediate occs Routine & manual occs Never worked Students/Other Male Age Group 16 -24 yrs 25 -44 yrs 45 -64 yrs 65 yrs or more (reference group) Constant Walking B -0.09 -0.04 0.00 Football Swimming Sig B Sig B Sig 0.01 0.04 0.47 0.13 0.00 0.00 -0.03 0.15 -0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.37 -0.12 -0.64 -0.13 2.88 5.89 4.46 2.44 -9.18 0.08 0.43 0.12 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.31 -0.74 -0.82 -0.33 -0.39 1.43 1.47 0.81 -2.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-0.24 -0.64 -0.71 -0.19 -0.19 0.42 0.66 0.71 -0.88
How People Become Involved
Male From someone else already involved with the group 39.65 Through previously using services provided by the group myself 21.07 Place of worship (church, chapel, mosque, synagogue or templ 16.74 School, college, university 14.26 Local events 7.05 Local newspapers 5.25 Promotional events / volunteer fair 4.16 Community centre 4.00 Employer's volunteering scheme 3.68 Internet / organisational website 2.44 Local TV / radio 2.36 Library 2.28 National newspapers 2.20 Volunteer bureau, council for voluntary service or other voluntary orgs. 2.04 Female 38.60 16.66 20.15 23.45 4.78 5.52 3.89 4.07 3.36 1.67 1.51 3.02 1.94 2.44
Barriers to Further Involvement
General references to lack of time/being too busy No-one has ever asked me to/never been asked Work commitments No need/no need locally/help not needed Parenting/caring/family responsibilities Reasons to do with physical/mental health/disability Not involved in local community Studying commitments Life stage New to area Male Female Col % Col % 29.00 27.31 19.76 17.60 11.19 8.70 8.38 8.18 5.53 14.43 5.53 7.26 2.85 3.21 2.36 2.41 1.77 1.84 1.54 1.36
Ways to Get People More Involved
If someone asked me directly to get involved If my friends or family got involved with me If someone who was already involved was there to help get me If I knew it would help me improve my skills or get qualific If more information about the things I could do was availabl If I knew it would benefit me in my career or improve my job If I could do it from home If I knew I could get my expenses paid If someone could provide transport when I needed it If I had time/more time If the activity was enjoyable/interesting/worthwhile If I was in better health/well enough If I could choose the activity If I knew there was a need If I was younger Child care Other Dont know None of these Not Stated Male Female 35.50 34.61 30.05 29.63 19.44 22.84 18.93 18.92 16.93 18.15 16.55 15.98 15.85 23.26 8.66 9.08 7.25 10.96 0.92 1.13 0.42 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.17 3.54 3.41 26.30 24.50 0.76 0.69
Future Research
Develop more refined statistical models of existing measures. Develop refined, agreed upon, and publicised scales. Track existing measures through time. Programmatic evaluations incorporating measures of social capital that extend beyond economic cost-benefit. Disentangling the macro correlation?
References (1)
Attwood, C., Singh., G., Prime, D., and Creasey, R. (2001) “2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey : people, families and communities”. Home Office Research Study 270”. Bailey, R., (2005). “Evaluating the relationship between education, sport and social inclusion” educational review, volume 57, issue 1, pp 71 –90. Collins, M. (2004). "Sport, physical activity and social exclusion." Journal of Sports Sciences 22(8): 727-740. Curtis, J., McTeer, W., And white, P., (2003). “Do high school athletes earn more pay? Youth participation and earnings as an adult.” Sociology of sport journal, volume 20, issue 1, pp 60 –76. Daly, S. (2004). “Social capital and the cultural sector: literature review prepared for the department of culture, media and sport.” Center for civil society, LSE. Department of culture media and sport, UK (2002): game plan: A strategy for delivering government's sport and physical activity objectives.
References (2)
Delaney, L. (2005). “Cultural Participation and Social Capital: Evidence from Survey Data” Paper Presented at the ippr Conference, “Cultural Participation and Communities”. Held at the UK Home Office, January 2005. Delaney, L. and Fahey, F., (2005). “The Social and Economic Value of Sport in Ireland, Dublin, Economic and Social Research Institute. (Forthcoming). Fahey, T., Layte, R., And Gannon, B., (2003). “Sports participation and health among adults in Ireland.” Dublin, economic and social research institute. Hall, P. A. (1999). "Social capital in Britain." British Journal of Political Science 29: 417-461. Home office, citizenship survey, 2002. Performance and Innovation Unit (2002). “Social Capital: A discussion paper”. London PIU, Cabinet Office. Putnam, R. D. (2000), bowling alone: the decline and revival of American community, new York: Simon Schuster.
References (3)
Sport England website www.sportengland.org. Stolle, D. And M. Hooghe (2005). "Review article: inaccurate, exceptional, one-sided or irrelevant? The debate about the alleged decline of social capital and civic engagement in western societies." British journal of political science 35: 149-167. Sturgis, P., And Jackson, J. (2003). “Examining participation in sporting and cultural activities: analysis of the UK time usage survey. Phase 2”. Commissioned by the department of culture, media and sport. November. World health organisation (2003): consultation document to guide development of a WHO strategy for diet, physical activity and health.
Appendix 1
The Cross-National Correlations are Spearman Rank Correlations between the average score on social capital variables (down the side) and the average score on Participation Variables (across the top). We have 20 countries. So, for example, a correlation of 0.9 between x and y means that there is a 90% correlation between a countries level of x and a countries level of y within the 20 countries
Appendix 2
The National Correlations are Pearson Correlations between the average score on social capital variables (down the side) and the average score on Participation Variables (across the top). We have approximately 1400 individuals. So, for example, a correlation of 0.1 between x and y means that there is a 10% correlation between an individuals level of x and an individuals level of y within the 1400 observations
Appendix 3
The statistical models used in this presentation are called “binary logistic models”. They examine the probability of observing a response (in this case whether the person played a sport or not) as a function of a set of variables (in this case social class, gender etc).