国际奥林匹克委员会大众体育政策的历史演进、特征及局限

全球化进程使国际体育组织为全球体育治理提供的公共产品备受学界关注。基于历史学与公共政策学交叉理论视角,采用文献资料法和逻辑分析法等,对国际奥委会促进大众体育发展的相关报告、宣言和政策文本等进行定性分析,以期厘清其政策特征。研究认为:国际奥委会凭借奥林匹克体系的领导者形象,依托其在体育运动领域专业优势逐步构建其大众体育政策体系。依据国际奥委会大众体育政策体系历史演进过程,可以将其划分为以竞技体育为核心的无暇顾及期、大众体育与竞技体育的互促发展期以及全球一体化背景下的逐步成熟期3个阶段。国际奥委会在逐步完善大众体育政策体系过程中体现出以下特征:设立专门大众体育政策执行机构,充分利用奥林匹克运动遗产促进大众体育发展,逐步完善大众体育政策工具等。受国际组织特殊属性的制约,国际奥委会大众体育政策表现出缺乏核心大众体育政策、社会资源权威性分配受限和政策约束力不强等局限性。

Historical Evolution,Characteristics and Limitations of IOC’s Mass Sports Policy

The process of globalization makes the public goods provided by international sports organizations for global sports governance receive academic attention.Based on the theoretical perspective of the intersection of history and public policy,this paper adopts the methods of literature and logical analysis to conduct qualitative analysis on the reports,declarations and policy texts related to the IOC’s promotion of mass sports development,so as to clarify its policy characteristics.This paper argues that based on the image of the leader of the Olympic system and its professional advantages in the field of sports,the International Olympic Committee(IOC) has gradually constructed its public sports policy system.According to the historical evolution process of the IOC public sports policy system,it can be divided into three stages,namely,the period of no time to take competitive sports as the core,the period of mutual promotion and development of public sports and competitive sports,and the period of gradual maturity under the background of global integration.In the process of gradually improving the policy system of mass sports,the IOC embodies the following characteristics:establishing a special executive body of mass sports policy;making full use of the Olympic heritage to promote the development of mass sports;gradually improving the public sports policy tools.However,restricted by the special nature of its international organization,the IOC’s mass sports policy shows the limitations such as lack of core mass sports policy,the restriction of authoritative distribution of social resources and the weak policy binding force.