Implementation of Good Governance Principles: A Case of Lithuanian Strategic Sport Federations

Vilma Cingienė, Skaistė Laskienė, Alvydas Raipa

Abstract


The ideology and implementation of the new (good) public governance principles requires more effective institutionalization of strategic planning from the public sector organisations, more intensive development efforts to improve the preparedness of governance elite to achieve social – intellectual creativity. Implementation of good governance principles depends on the development of social responsibility, social solidarity, and transparency criteria and public communication as an instrument of transferring and integrating knowledge
and information. The analysis of the implementation of good governance principles shows, that good governance, as the last doctrine of public administration for each region and country (including Lithuanian public sector), has universal and specific features. The forms
and methods of the implementation of good governance principles (first of all transparency and public communication) can be classified, described and explained as the development of methodology, mechanisms and instruments of ongoing modernization reforms. The article aims to identify the key principles of good public governance, define their concepts, and evaluate the general parameters and dimensions of the implementation of good governance principles in the activities of Lithuanian strategic sports federations. The main focus is placed on the analysis of transparency and public communication criteria and factors, monitoring and control processes. The survey described in this article involved general secretaries or presidents of eight Lithuanian strategic sports federations. The questionnaire was designed by adapting and amending the instrument that was developed in 2013 for the EC co-funded project Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations and used for the assessment of good governance principles in sport organizations. We found great variations in the implementation level of certain principles. Only the principle of democratic governance process received the “Excellent” score (76.44%). The implementation of this principle is 90% and above in three out of eight federations. The implementation of stakeholder identification and role principle was found at high level (80%) in two federations. The average score of governance control and balance principle was the lowest and that can be explained by the fact that external audit was conducted following the established international standards. The analysis of separate statements in the block of strategic governance process implementation principle revealed that the lowest scores were given to the statement regarding the use of certain criteria in the assessment of strategic plan implementation. Solidarity and social responsibility principle is implemented only at the level of 54.75%. We found that half of the interviewed federations scored below 50% in the assessment of the said principle. It is the lowest score among all assessed principles of
good governance. The combined score of the statements used to assess transparency and public communication principle was the lowest (43.3%) among all analysed principles. Only one organisation has this principle implemented above 60%, while the others achieved only
“Satisfactory” level of 50%. The statistical analysis of obtained results revealed that five out of fifteen statements representing transparency and public communication principle are evaluated negatively. We may claim that, on the one hand, the principle of transparency and public communication is judged ambivalently by the persons in charge of federation governance though having full awareness of the responsibility for the implementation of this principle. On the other hand, the compliance of awareness and aspirations with the actual operation processes is often at odds with objective reality. Apparently, the current status of the implementation of good governance principles is influenced not only by the financial capacities of federations and popularity of the sport, but also by different attitudes and approach of the leaders towards the governance of the federation, their practical expertise, their goals and actions for the improvement of organizational governance procedures.

Keywords


new public governance, good governance, strategic planning, democratization of governance, changes of governance, networks of governance, sport organizations, sport federations, transparency, public communication.

Full Text:

PDF (Lithuanian)

References


Action for good governance in international sports federations. Play the Game/Danish Institute of Sport Studies. Final report. 2013. http://playthegame.org/fileadmin/documents/Good_governance_reports/AGGIS_Final_report.pdf

Acs, Z., Anderts, T., Strom, S. Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy. Cambridge: University Press, 2009.

Alford, J., Hughes, O. Public Value Pragmatism as the New Phase of Public Management. American Review of Public Administration, 2008, 38(2), 130 – 148.

Chappelet, J – L., Mrkonjic, M. Basic indicators for better governance in international sport: an assessment tool for international sport governing bodies. Lausanne: IDHEAP, 2013 ;

Bivainis, J., Raipa, A. Strateginis planavimas viešajame valdyme. Kn.: A. Raipa ir kiti. Modernus viešasis valdymas. Kaunas: Vitae litera, p. 263 – 280.

Burger, S. Compliance With Best Practice Governance Systems by National Sports Federations in South Africa. University of Pretoria: Pretoria, 2004;

Bourgon, J. The History and Future of National Building ? Building Capacity for Public Results. Inernational Review of Administrative Sciences, 2010, 72(2), 7.

Bovaird, T., Loffler, E. Public Management and Governance. London: Routledge, 2009.

Dror, Y. Strategic Brain for Central Government. M. Potuček (Eds.) The Capacity to Govern in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: NISPAcee. 2004, p.7 -15.

Groenevelde, S., Van de Wale, St. A Contingency Theory Approach to Representative Bureaucracy: Power, Equal Opportunities and Diversity. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2010, 7(2), 252 -253.

Klijn, E. Trust in Governance Networks: Looking for Conditions for Innovative Outcomes. In.: St. Osborne (Eds.) The New Public Governance. London: Routledge. 2010, p.305 – 307.

Lane, J-E. State Management. London: Routledge. 2009.

Lietuvos Respublikos kūno kultūros ir sporto įstatymas, 1995.

Likert, R.A. Technique for a means of attitudes//Archive of Psychology. 1932, Vol. 7, № 40. M.C.

Meijer, A. Understanding Modern Transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2009, 75(2), 255 – 256.

Melian – Gonsales, A., Batista – Karino, R., Sanches Madina, A. Identifying and Assesing Resources and Core Cpabilities in Public Organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 98 – 99.

Osborne, St. The New Public Governance. London: Routledge. 2010.

McNabb, D. The New Face of Governance. New York: CRC Press. 2009.

Palidauskaitė, J. Normatyviniai biurokratinės elgsenos aspektai. Kn.: A.Raipa (Red.) Biurokratija demokratinėje visuomenėje. Kaunas: Technologija. 2011, p. 101 -123.

Principles of good governance in sport. European Commission Expert Group „Good Governance“, 2013. Peržiūrėta 2014, lapkričio 20, adresu: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/policy_documents/xg-gg-201307-dlvrbl2-sept2013.pdf

Public Administration in a Global Context: IASIA At 50. O. Dvivedi (Eds.) Bruxelles: Brulyant. 2010.

Wall, A. Public – Private Partnership in the USA. New York: Tailor and Francis. 2013.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13165/VPA-15-14-4-01

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




"Public Policy and Administration" ISSN online 2029-2872 / ISSN print 1648-2603