This article was downloaded by:[Canadian Research Knowledge Network]On: 21 July 2008Access Details: [subscription number 783016864]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Managing LeisurePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713777462

Interorganizational linkages in the delivery of localleisure services in Canada: responding to economic,political and social pressuresLucie Thibault; Wendy Frisby; Lisa M. Kikulis

Online Publication Date: 01 July 1999

To cite this Article: Thibault, Lucie, Frisby, Wendy and Kikulis, Lisa M. (1999)'Interorganizational linkages in the delivery of local leisure services in Canada:responding to economic, political and social pressures', Managing Leisure, 4:3,125 — 141

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/136067199375805URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136067199375805

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

Interorganizational linkages in the delivery oflocal leisure services in Canada: responding to

economic, political and social pressures1

Lucie Thibault and Wendy Frisby

School of Human Kinetics University of British Columbia

Lisa M. Kikulis2

Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy Loughborough University

Due to the complex and dynamic economic, political, and social pressures in their environment, local

governments are having to change the way they do business. According to a number of

organizational theorists, organizations are increasingly developing linkages with other

organizations in order to deal with environmental pressures. The purpose of this research is to

examine how senior managers of local government leisure services interpret economic, political,

and social pressures in their environment and how these pressures are leading to the development

of interorganizational linkages with other public, nonpro�t, and commercial organizations.

Interviews with key individuals working in three leisure services departments of local governments

located in a large metropolitan area in Canada were conducted and relevant documents (i.e. local

government reports, newspaper clippings) were analysed. The results revealed that environmental

pressures (economic, political, social) are forcing local governments to develop new partnerships in

order to acquire important resources aimed at maintaining or enhancing the quality of service

delivery to the public.

INTRODUCTION

Fundamental assumptions about how gov-ernment operates have been challenged withthe introduction of changes that have beenlabelled, ‘new public management’ (Farnhamand Horton, 1996), ‘managerialism’ (Hood,1991), and the ‘reinvention of government’(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). The reformstaking place are generally described as theadoption and adaptation of private sectormanagement practices by the public sector.More speci�cally, the public sector hasstarted to develop a more strategic approachto how it operates (Farnham and Horton,1996). In much of the literature, this trend hasbeen linked to the complex and dynamiceconomic, political, and social pressuresfaced by government today (e.g. Farnhamand Horton, 1996; Kiel, 1994; Prior et al., 1995;

Walsh, 1995). Farnham and Horton (1996, pp.261–262) described these pressures whenthey stated that the �scal strain on govern-ments has resulted in ‘. . . cutting real levelsof public expenditure, redistributing existingpublic spending among different spendingprogrammes and making more ef�cient use ofexisting public �nancial resources’. Whilesocial pressures include ‘. . . rising expecta-tions . . . [for] more social provision by thestate . . . [such that] social demands [are]beginning to exceed the economic resourcesavailable’. These social and economic pres-sures have contributed to ‘a shift in politicalideas’ where ‘public expenditure [is] nolonger seen as desirable solely because itserved “good” purposes, whilst borrowingmerely to sustain public expenditure [is]seen as an “evil” since economic abundance

Managing Leisure 4, 125–141 (1999)

1360-6719 © 1999 E & FN Spon

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

[is] no longer assumed’ (Farnham and Hor-ton, 1996, pp. 261–262). Kiel (1994, p. 1)identi�ed the impact of these pressures ongovernment when he stated,

even as budgets continue to decline formany government organizations, citizensand politicians insist on better perform-ance from government. These demandsare made more challenging as new informa-tion technologies, employee calls forgreater workplace participation, and citi-zen insistence on access to governmentdecision making add to the complexity ofmanaging government organizations . . .The pressure for improved performanceand quality in service delivery has broughtdemands for fundamental and qualitativechanges in government organizations andwork methods.

One of the qualitative changes that is takingplace in local government is the developmentof linkages or networks with other publicorganizations, voluntary/nonpro�t organiza-tions, or commercial organizations (Brooke,1991; Hood, 1991; Leach et al., 1994; Prior etal., 1995; Walsh, 1995). Stoker and Young(1993) refer to this shift towards networkingand collaboration as the ‘new driving force’for local governments’ services. The devel-opment of linkages with other organizationsis considered to be an effective strategy topool resources, to solve problems, to im-prove effectiveness, to provide opportunitiesfor individuals, groups, and for other organiz-ations to contribute more to governmentdecision making (Kernaghan, 1992, 1993; Kiel,1994; Prior et al., 1995; Walsh, 1995). How-ever, the way in which managers interpretenvironmental pressures as a precursor toestablishing new linkages is not well under-stood (Thibault et al., 1997; Thibault andHarvey, 1997).

As part of their mandates, local govern-ments in Canada are responsible for thedevelopment and delivery of communitysport and leisure services (Searle and Bray-ley, 1993). According to Driver et al. (1991), a

strong case for local government sport andleisure services is made when the social,physical and economic bene�ts of participa-tion are considered. Furthermore, pressuresto broaden their mandates and to increaseaccess of their programmes are being felt bylocal governments. In attempting to meet thisrole, local governments are faced with anumber of challenges including economicrestraints, increasing demands for account-ability, and increasing pressures for publicinvolvement in the decision making process(Driver et al., 1991; Frisby et al., 1997; Searleand Brayley, 1993). In meeting these chal-lenges, the need to rationalize governmentservices has been considered in light ofdebates about privatization, decentralization(Dilger et al., 1997; Harper and Johnston,1992), and a more holistic approach to publicservice delivery. For example, joint initiativesbetween educational, health, and social in-stitutions using sport and leisure to addressquality of life issues (e.g. self-esteem, activeliving, healthy ageing, poverty, and antidotesto youth violence) have emerged in thecontext of local governments’ leisure ser-vices. As a consequence, leisure serviceprofessionals are having to develop newskills to negotiate effectively with partnerswho often have different educationalbackgrounds, professional languages, andvalues.

The manner in which local governmentsport and leisure services respond to andinterpret the need for change in servicedelivery is in�uenced by a number of factors.For example, the increasing involvement ofthe commercial sector as both a sponsor anda competitor (Balmer, 1995; Crompton, 1989;D’Amours, 1987), the decentralization of pro-gramming responsibilities undertaken bycommunity groups (Searle and Brayley,1993), the �nancial cutbacks to municipalservices (Harper and Johnston, 1992;Thibault et al., 1997), the pressures to pro-vide equitable access to disadvantagedgroups (e.g. seniors, low income people,

126 Thibault et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

people with disabilities) (Frisby et al., 1997;Kikulis and Jackson, 1996), and the pressuresto make public programmes and facilities�nancially viable (Frisby, 1995; Hunter, 1986)have meant that innovative ways of providingthese services are being considered. AsClarke (1994, p. 163) stated,

there is both a mixed economy in theprovision of leisure and in the types ofleisure provided within the different sec-tors [e.g. commercial, public, nonpro�t].This has helped to make leisure a veryvolatile �eld and one which is very re-ceptive to new ideas as it seeks to establishitself as a distinct �eld of operation.

While developing, maintaining, and enhanc-ing linkages with other organizations hasbeen identi�ed as a strategic response todeal with environmental pressures (Cleggand Hardy, 1996; Cravens et al., 1996;Eisenhardt and Schoonhovan, 1996; Walsh,1995), the development of interorganiza-tional linkages in leisure and sport servicedelivery has not been the focus of research.Therefore, the purpose of this study is toexamine how economic, political, and socialpressures lead to the development of inter-organizational linkages between local gov-ernment leisure services, other public sectoragencies, the commercial sector, and thenonpro�t sector.

INTERORGANIZATIONAL LINKAGES

According to Clegg and Hardy (1996, p. 9),because of a turbulent environment, ‘inter-organizational collaboration has taken ongrowing signi�cance as a potential way tosolve both business and social problems’.The authors explained that the externalboundaries previously delineating organiza-tions are vanishing as organizations developnetworks and strategic alliances with part-ners in their environment. Similarly, Cravenset al. (1996, p. 203) stated that networks havedeveloped ‘. . . as a strategic organizationalresponse to those dynamic environmental

pressures which provide an incentive todevolve and disaggregate business functions

to specialist partners in collaborations and

alliances’.

Even though organizations may strive forfunctional autonomy, Galaskiewicz (1979, p.

33) noted that ‘it is a state that is never fully

realized’ as ‘no organization is totally self-

suf�cient’. It is clear that linkages created ordeveloped between organizations are im-

portant as they represent strategies to ac-

cess �nancial, human, and materialresources as well as new strategies for

delivering products and/or services

(Galaskiewicz, 1979; Kanter, 1989; Paulson,

1985). Eisenhardt and Schoonhovan (1996)have developed this resource-based view of

strategic alliances by arguing that tangible

(e.g. �nances, personnel, facilities) and in-

tangible (e.g. reputation, status, expertise)resources provide organizations with assets

such that . . .

strategic alliances arise when [organiza-tions] in vulnerable strategic positionsneed the resources that alliances bring orwhen [organizations] in strong social posi-tions capitalize on their assets to createalliance opportunities. Alliances are, there-fore, cooperative relationships driven by alogic of strategic resource needs and socialresource opportunities (p. 137).

The development of links can be emergent(Benson, 1975) or can be created in response

to deliberate strategic actions initiated by an

organization (Fenell et al., 1987; Jarillo, 1988;

Kanter, 1989). Thus, while ‘the strategic as-pects of cooperation’ (Eisenhardt and

Schoonhoven, 1996, p. 137) are a result of

recognizing that it is more bene�cial to workwith others rather than alone, the social

aspects, or ‘the evolution of awareness,

mutual knowledge, and trust through status

and reputational processes and, moredirectly, social interaction is central to the

creation of cooperative relationships’

Interorganizational linkages in leisure services 127

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

(Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996, p.137).

Kernaghan (1993, p. 58) noted that ‘part-nerships involving public organizations havemostly been struck in the spheres of inter-governmental and business-government rela-tions. In recent years they have increasinglyincluded voluntary, non-pro�t, and labourorganizations’. The sharing of decision-making power, work, support, information,and resources (mostly �nancial) have allbeen identi�ed as bene�ts resulting fromsuch partnerships (Blau and Rabrenovic,1991; Brooke, 1991; Kernaghan, 1993). AsBrooke (1991, p. 527) stated,

in recognizing that they cannot achievestrategic objectives alone, local [govern-ments] have entered into partnershipswith the private sector and other agencies. . . those [partnerships] sought by local[governments] themselves, where part-ners share the same general objectives,have quite often made a signi�cant im-pact.

The issue of accountability with respect topublic service has also been raised in thecontext of interorganizational linkages(Brooke, 1991; Kearns, 1996; Leazes, 1997;Quirk, 1997). As Kearns (1996, p. xv) noted,being accountable ‘involves negotiating withand appropriately responding to the de-mands of clients, special interest groups, andother powerful stakeholders’. Furthermore,as Prior et al. (1995, p. 157) argued, ‘a localauthority [government] committed tostrengthening citizenship will need to besensitive to this complexity and to be con-stantly seeking to create and renew theinterrelationships between itself and thecommunity in all its manifestations’.

In what has been termed the ‘reinvention’of government, Walsh (1995) argued thatlocal governments must consider themselvesas being part of a market where issues ofcompetition for resources and for clients, ofprivatization of services and programmes,

and of accountability are becoming preva-lent. According to Walsh (1995), local govern-ments are now undertaking the process ofmarketization where market mechanisms arebeing introduced in the management of pub-lic services (i.e. contracting out, sponsor-ship, and privatization). As Walsh (1995, p.44) explained, ‘markets are increasingly seenas chains of enduring relationships involvinga variety of forms of exchange’.

INTERORGANIZATIONAL LINKAGES IN

SPORT AND LEISURE

Haywood (1994) found that strategies incommunity sport and leisure in the UnitedKingdom included ‘top-down’ local govern-ment initiated approaches, client-led ap-proaches, and partnership approaches.Similar approaches have been pro�led inEurope (Bramham et al., 1989; 1993; Fitzjohn,1988; Henry, 1988; Noe, 1991). These ap-proaches have all entailed the developmentof links or partnerships with related organi-zations as local governments are assumingthe role of enabler or facilitator with respectto the delivery of sport and leisure ser-vices.

Sport and leisure delivery in Canada hasbeen depicted as an integrated and coordi-nated system (Searle and Brayley, 1993; TaskForce Report, 1992). This suggests that anumber of organizations operating at thelocal, provincial, and federal levels partici-pate collectively in the achievement of goalsand objectives related to the provision ofsport and leisure to all Canadians. In numer-ous public policy documents, the partners ofthis ‘integrated’ system have been identi�edas the public sector, (e.g. education, health,social services), the nonpro�t sector (e.g.community sport and leisure groups), andcommercial organizations (e.g. sponsors; pri-vate sport organizations) (Campagnolo,1979; Task Force Report, 1992). However, theextent to which these partners are actuallydeveloping the mechanisms necessary to

128 Thibault et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

ensure that they work together harmoniouslyis not well understood. While there has beenconsiderable discussion on a theoreticallevel about the interorganizational relation-ships in the sport and leisure departments oflocal governments (Harvey et al., 1990;Thibault et al., 1997; Thibault and Harvey,1997; Vail, 1992; 1994), there has not beencomparable attention devoted to empiricalresearch. This paper aims to address this gapin the research.

RESEARCH METHOD

Research site. The municipal leisure ser-vices departments of three cities located inthe Greater Vancouver area in Canada wereselected for case study analysis. In order toensure con�dentiality, the names of thesecities were renamed (City 1, City 2, and City3). These cities were selected as the researchsite because: (i) sport and leisure services inthese urban centres are well established andare characterized by substantial resourcecommitments; (ii) given the size and thescope of the sport and leisure services, thelocal governments of these cities have anumber of partners which allow for a richanalysis of interorganizational linkages; and(iii) the choice of the different sites allows fora better understanding of how the context ofdifferent local governments affect the deliv-ery of sport and leisure services.

Data collection and analysis. The primarysource of data was semi-structured inter-views with one key individual from each ofthe local governments (i.e. the senior man-agers of the parks and recreation depart-ment). These senior managers were selectedbecause of their experience and knowledgeof the organizational environment of localgovernment leisure services. All managershad over 10 years of work experience in the�eld. During the interviews, the managerswere asked questions covering such topics

as the economic, political, and social pres-sures affecting their departments, the impactof these pressures on the development ofpartnerships, the extent to which their de-partment have undertaken partnerships, thenature and bene�ts of the partnerships, andthe mechanisms put in place to managepartnerships. The second source of data waskey documents including annual reports,policy documents, business plans, missionstatements, leisure guides, and newspaperclippings. The audio-taped interviews andthe key documentary passages were tran-scribed into a word processing �le. Analysisinvolved the identi�cation of themes andpatterns emerging from the data and categor-izing these data under the appropriatethemes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Overall, the results revealed that all threelocal governments are increasingly relying onpartnerships to acquire important resourcesfrom their environment in order to betterservice their clients. The resources beingshared between organizations (e.g. humanresources, �nancial resources, land, andfacilities); the bene�ts (e.g. service ef�cien-cies, reduced duplication, and interdepend-ency), and the costs associated with thesepartnerships (e.g. loss of autonomy, in-creased investment of time and increasedneed for communication to develop andmaintain the partnerships) are numerous.The focus of this paper, however, is on howenvironmental pressures are perceived byleisure services managers and how thesepressures impact on the development ofinterorganizational linkages.

To provide a context for the interpretationof environmental factors, background in-formation on the three research sites wasobtained. The Greater Vancouver area is thethird largest urban centre in Canada (follow-ing Toronto and Montreal). With a populationof more than 1.8 million, the Greater

Interorganizational linkages in leisure services 129

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

Vancouver area experienced a 14.3% growthin population from 1991 to 1996 (StatisticsCanada, 1997). This growth in populationrepresented the largest increase in all censusmetropolitan areas in Canada (StatisticsCanada, 1997). Population growth is attrib-uted to two factors; domestic relocation andimmigration, particularly from the Paci�cRim region. Data regarding the populationand yearly leisure services departmentbudgets of the three cities are presented inTable 1.

All three cities offer a wide variety of�tness, leisure, and sport programmes andservices to its residents. Parks and leisurefacilities such as swimming pools, sport�elds, �tness centres, and ice arenas areavailable for use to all residents.

With respect to the history of interorganiz-ational linkages in these three local govern-ments, all three cities had some priorexperience with partnerships with schoolsand organizations from the nonpro�t sector.Supporting previous research (Task ForceReport, 1992; Vail, 1992; 1994), these long-standing partnerships were founded mainlyon the exchange of services and facilities.The interviewees from all cities stated thatthe number of partnerships with schools andnonpro�t organizations had remained stableover the last three years, however, thenumber of partnerships with private com-mercial organizations had increased signi�-cantly. As Crompton (1989) and Glover andBurton (1998) suggest, these new partner-ship arrangements seem to re�ect new waysof doing business in leisure services. Thereasons for these new ways of doing business

are revealed when environmental pressuresare examined.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

In discussing the development of interorgan-izational linkages in leisure services withinlocal governments, all senior managersagreed that economic, political, and socialpressures played a role. They interpretedeconomic pressures as budget cuts andmaintaining the same level of leisure serviceswithout increasing taxes. Political pressureswere de�ned by senior managers as theexistence of competing values held by politi-cians, special interest groups, and the public.Notions of accountability also surfaced intheir interpretation of political pressures. Forsocial pressures, population growth and eth-nic diversity were identi�ed as key elementsby the senior managers. Ethical considera-tions associated with corporate sponsorshipand the special needs of certain client groupswere raised as part of social pressures facingleisure services. Even though there wasgeneral agreement in the senior managers’interpretation and de�nition of these pres-sures, they differed on the impact that thesepressures have on the provision of leisureservices and the management of interorgani-zational linkages.

Economic pressures. The major environ-mental pressure leading to the growth ofinterorganizational linkages for all three localgovernments was economic in nature. Inresponse to public demands, local politiciansfrom all three local governments had prom-ised that no or negligible tax increases would

Table 1 Population and leisure services yearly budget for the three cities

City Population (1996)3 Leisure Services yearly budget (1995)4

City 1 125 220 $11 500 000City 2 148 311 $13 000 000

City 3 535 699 $44 400 000

130 Thibault et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

be instituted. At the same time, however, allof the interviewees indicated that residentdemands for leisure services and pro-grammes were increasing dramatically with-out a corresponding increase in budget.Consequently, new ways of doing businesswere being sought. As explained by thesenior manager from City 3:

Economics is the challenge that everybodyfaces. We have had annual reductions inoperating budgets over the last �ve yearsranging from 2–3% to 15% in some cases.The con�ict arises when you have to choosewhether to reduce service or reduce staff. ButI think that presents a good challenge and itreinforces us to be creative and examineopportunities for partnerships. So it is notalways a bad thing – it makes life dif�cult fora while but it does force us to be creative.The move [towards developing partner-ships] probably came from staff who felt itwould be appropriate given that annualrevenues were decreasing and we just didn’thave a substantial infusion of capital money.We have to �nd a way to maintain andsometimes increase the level of servicewithout increasing cost to people. They don’twant more taxes but they don’t want areduction in service. The only way is to �ndalternate sources of revenue to provide thatsame level of programming.

Along the same lines, a strategic goal of City1 was to maintain the same level of servicewithout increasing taxes (City 1, CorporateBusiness Plan, 1998). In order to accomplishthis goal, new sources of funding are beingsought, often with private commercial sectorpartners. Recently, City 1 initiated the devel-opment of a ‘corporate sponsorship/stra-tegic partnership strategy’ to investigate itsfeasibility (City 1, Corporate Business Plan,1998, p, 11).

From our analysis, it was clear that theneed for �nancial resources was a primaryimpetus for these local governments in devel-oping interorganizational linkages. The crea-tion of linkages was perceived to be one of

the only alternatives for obtaining additionalresources. As con�rmed by the senior man-ager from City 1:

The shortage of dollars increased the need to�nd different ways of doing business, one ofthe best being partnerships. It’s a culturalshift in business practice – when we thinkabout a new project our �rst question is, whodo we partner with? That’s where we startinstead of �nishing.

It is important to emphasize that the develop-ment of interorganizational linkages is a shiftin business practice for local governments –it represents a fundamental change in howlocal government is attempting to deliverleisure programmes and services to its resi-dents. This requires a shift from an internalfocus to an external focus where localgovernment managers consider ways of net-working with organizations in their environ-ment to enhance or improve the delivery ofleisure services. As Brooke (1991, p. 529)argued,

as local [governments] lift their eyes fromdirect service provision, they are increas-ingly focused on the needs of their com-munities. . . . The true enabling [localgovernment] will take a synoptic view ofthe community and its needs. It will assessthose needs, plan a strategy, devise actionand monitor continuously the movementtowards achievement of its communitytargets. The [local government] will relateto a wide variety of agencies in trying toachieve results in areas important to thecommunity.

At the same time, forming partnerships inorder to alleviate economic pressures oftenchallenges the fundamental values guidingleisure service delivery, particularly whenthe partner is from the corporate sector. InCities 2 and 3, access to �nancial resourceswas one of the major reasons Council mem-bers made the decision to undertake partner-ships with the private commercial sector(Aird, 1996; Mayor of City 2, 1996; Sarti, 1995).

Interorganizational linkages in leisure services 131

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

The mayor of City 2 noted that ‘we mustadjust our budgets to accommodate a $3.7million dollar shortfall in our revenue-sharing grants from the province. In a veryshort period of time, we must �nd ways ofmaking up that difference without burdeningour taxpayers with higher taxes. . . . Councilhas already signalled its willingness to ex-plore new ways of doing business by enteringinto public/private partnerships’ (1996).With City 3 facing a budget shortfall of $14million, one councillor stated in the localnewspaper, ‘I think it would be irresponsiblenot to take a look at this [partnershipsbetween the local government and corporatesponsors] (Bula, 1997, p. B3).

It is important to note, however, thatconcerns were raised with respect to thepressures towards an increasing reliance onthe private sector for funds for the parks andrecreation domain. As evidence of this con-cern, leaders from City 3 expressed someapprehension over the participation of pri-vate corporations in public programmes.

City government has a special role to playin serving the public interest and in makingcommunity decisions without prejudice toparticular private interests. There is con-cern that with the acceptance of sponsor-ship revenue, elected of�cials will becomeaccountable not exclusively to the public,but may also be in�uenced to make deci-sions which serve the interests of corpor-ate sponsors (City 3, Policy Document –Sponsorship of City Activities, 1996).

Similar concerns were echoed by leaders ofCity 2. In a presentation on the future of parkdesign and development, the issues of �nan-cial corporate support was raised. Achievingthe right balance between meeting the needsof the leisure department and the needs ofcorporate sponsors was discussed. The issueof partnerships between local governmentsand the corporate sector is further discussedin the paper, in the section on social pres-sures.

The importance of economic pressures intriggering partnerships by local governmentsis supported by a number of researchers whohave identi�ed a critical relationshipbetween economic pressures and the crea-tion and maintenance of partnerships(Kernaghan, 1993; Kikulis and Jackson, 1996;Stoker, 1991; Stoker and Young, 1993;Thibault et al., 1997). As Stoker (1991, p. 227)explained, ‘advocates of bringing in the pri-vate sector as partners [with local govern-ments] make their case substantially on thebasis that public sector sources of invest-ment have been reduced and that privatesector funds are needed to �ll the gap’. Infacing economic constraints, local govern-ments are recognizing that they can nolonger tackle their mandate without intro-ducing radical changes in how they operate.Stoker and Young (1993) believe that thischange must include the establishment ofinterorganizational networks and that thebasis of this networking is the ‘pooling ofresources’ of which �nancial resources are akey component (Stoker and Young, 1993, p.184).

City 1 provides an excellent example oflinks between the private sector and the cityrecreation department aimed at pooling andsharing resources. The department has es-tablished linkages with a number of smalloutdoor adventure companies. The seniormanager of the leisure services departmentof City 1 explained that the partnershippermitted the department to expand thetypes of activities and programmes offered toits citizens without increasing the depart-ment’s budget. The partnership was ideal forboth parties . . .

We [City 1] don’t have the equipment, thehighly skilled instructors, knowledge of theterrain and the overall outdoor product.They [the outdoor adventure companies]don’t have large marketing dollars, access tothe 50 000 households in our data base andthe 100 000 active participants in our pro-grammes, we have a highly computerized

132 Thibault et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

registration system and we have a positiverelationship with our clients. Our clients trust

us and there needs to be a lot of trust inoutdoor recreation programming so we feel

it’s a good match.

The synergy that is possible from public–private partnerships means that objectives

should be compatible. This is particularly

important if ‘private means [are] to con-tribute to the solution of public problems, or

for public means to be used to respond to

commercial opportunities or threats’

(Kouwenhoven, 1993, p. 121).However, Stoker and Young (1993) have

noted that not all partners come into the

partnership with equal amounts of resources

which can lead to power imbalances that, ifleft unresolved, could lead to the dissolution

of the partnership. Power imbalances did not

appear to be an issue for City 1’s partnership

with the outdoor adventure companies eventhough different resources were brought to

the table. For example, the city leisure ser-

vices department has the marketing dollars,

the computerized registration systems, andthe good reputation among the community

while the outdoor recreation centres have

the programming expertise, the equipmentand the quali�ed instructors. The exchange

of these resources ful�lled both parties’

needs and expectations.

Political pressures. Our research uncovered

an extensive involvement of local politicians

and special interest groups in decisions

affecting the nature and development oflinkages in parks and recreation depart-

ments. This involvement has affected the

establishment of partnerships between thelocal government and other groups. In City 1,

politicians and staff recognize the need to

involve residents in the decision-making

process of local government activities. Asnoted in their corporate business plan,

‘mindful that achieving the goal of livable

community starts with decisions at the locallevel, we seek to maintain and enhance

quality of life for all residents through effec-

tive, responsible and responsive govern-

ment, by encouraging citizens to participatein decision making on issues that affect them’

(City 1, Corporate Business Plan, 1998, p. 3).

The importance of input from residents was

also raised by the senior manager fromCity 1:

There has been a shift in who’s running themunicipal of�ce . . . more and more there

are ‘single issue’ people running for of�cewho are really well connected to their

community and their number one priority is

community input . . . You have the politics ofno growth, three new council members are

for no growth and they’re winning the day.They want to wipe out the land development

section of municipal hall and that means no

capital [funds] for anything, so no infra-structure development, no new projects.

Community input has allowed politicians todemocratize, to a certain extent, the pro-

grammes and services offered by the local

government. As Brooke (1991, p. 529) states,

‘the . . . commitment to a market democracyis paralleled by an increasing local [govern-

ment] commitment to participatory democ-

racy’. This input has meant that community

members have had some say in the decisionsabout leisure and may enhance the level of

commitment, pride, and public ownership in

local government’s programmes and ser-vices. As such, linkages with these groups

must be established if input is to be ob-

tained.

In some situations, members of the councilhave chosen to adopt a ‘wait and see’

attitude with respect to some new aspects of

interorganizational linkages. In City 3, forexample, the senior manager claimed that:

Even though council members have not yet

approved a formal process for sponsorshipsolicitation, they agreed to allow the park

Interorganizational linkages in leisure services 133

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

board to solicit partnerships with the corpor-ate sector. They [politicians/council mem-bers] are sitting back in the wings andwaiting to see how our [the leisure depart-ment’s] sponsorship arrangement goes andwhat sort of response we get. They think itwill be nice to have the park board receivingall the negative feedback and criticism sothey can learn from that and have things gosmoother . . . There are quite a few new folkson this board [city council]. So I can’thonestly know where they sit in terms ofcorporate sponsorship. I think they’ll sit onthe fence and �lter all the informationcoming at them.

Even though City 2 did not have the samelevel of involvement as City 3 with private/commercial sector partnerships, it was ex-periencing some political pressure toincrease these types of partnerships. In thiscity, the promotion of linkages with privatecommercial organizations was primarily theresponsibility of city councillors, who arealso business men and women. Leisure ser-vices department staff of City 2 were notinvolved in the process, however, the seniormanager did acknowledge that this maychange in the future:

We are not doing much with corporatesponsorships, but I see a push for more withthe private sector from the council. Most ofthem on council now come from the businesssector so that is where they’re looking.

Some of the organizational documents origi-nating from the mayor’s of�ce also re�ectedthis new direction with respect to privatecommercial involvement in leisure services(City 2, Parks Design, Construction, Pro-grammes, and Operations, 1998; Mayor ofCity 2, 1996). As the mayor stated, ‘we will beevaluating new revenue sources by means ofthe recently adopted corporate sponsorshippolicy’.

In addition to their consideration of part-nerships with the private commercial sector,politicians in City 2 have expressed theirwish to have more input and control over the

decision-making process regarding the lei-sure programming opportunities offered toresidents. Those decisions are currently de-centralized to numerous volunteer-basedcommunity associations. As explained by thesenior manager from the leisure departmentof City 2:

The level of decision making by volunteerboard members [of community associations]has not changed but city council has ques-tioned that. Council would like to have moreof a say. Right now, the community associ-ations can set fees without any approvalfrom the city and they keep all the reven-ues.

Politicians from City 2 would like to play alarger role in the leisure programming oppor-tunities in order to standardize the types andthe quality of services offered in all commun-ity leisure centres. The politicians have ex-pressed the view that since communityassociations are making decisions aboutwhat is offered in the leisure centres, there islittle consistency in the types of pro-grammes, activities, and services offeredthroughout the leisure centres of the city.This lack of consistency between centres isapparently driving politicians’ desire to bemore involved in the decision-making pro-cess (City 2, Parks Design, Construction,Programmes, and Operations, 1998; Mayor ofCity 2, 1996, 1997).

For Cities 1 and 3, public participation inthe decision-making process was also evi-dent. For City 3, public participation wasincluded in the mission document of theparks and recreation department: ‘to providethe opportunity for the involvement andparticipation of the public both as individualand interest groups’ (City 3, Mission of Parksand Recreation Department, 1998, p. 1).Similar public input was an integral part ofthe corporate business plan of City 1: ‘toimprove our decision-making processes toensure that council receives timely and ap-propriate input from staff and the public’

134 Thibault et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

(City 1, Corporate Business Plan, 1998, p.13).

Even though the politicians in these threecities have the ultimate decision-makingpower in all their cities, they are beingheavily in�uenced by the recent push to-wards greater citizen participation. As such,public involvement in local governments’activities is changing the political nature ofthe process. Prior et al. (1995) argued thatcitizens are exercising their rights andshould be considered to be part of the‘political community’ (p. 19). Public partici-pation is much more than simply exercisingthe right to vote for members of the citycouncil; it involves interacting with themonce they are elected and interacting withother local government of�cials to ensurethat their voices regarding services, pro-grammes, and policies of the government areheard (Kiel, 1994; Prior et al., 1995; Stoker andYoung, 1993). According to Prior et al. (1995,p. 21), ‘the practice of citizenship . . . is onewhich locates citizens as active participantsin this relationship [with local government]and which entitles and empowers citizens tobe fully engaged in the processes of itsrenegotiation and rede�nition’.

The involvement of citizens in thedecision-making process allows the city andits politicians to enhance accountability. Thisnotion of accountability has been identi�edas an important foundation for the relation-ship between citizens and local governments(Kearns, 1996; Prior et al., 1995; Stoker andYoung, 1993). ‘Accountability is central to theintegrity and functioning of that [local gov-ernment] infrastructure’ (Prior et al., 1995, p.68). The issue of accountability was dis-cussed by the senior manager of City 1:

Of course accountability is a big one and Ithink the council is trying to make toughdecisions and they’re making us be moreaccountable. You know there’s no doubtabout it but I think also there’s work, it’salmost a work ethic, a work practice where

organizations are just initially starting with:who do we partner with?

Our data suggest the increasing participationof citizens and interest groups in the decisionmaking process affecting sport and leisureservices and programmes is an importantconsideration. This process has led, to acertain extent, to the increased democratiza-tion of programmes and services offered bylocal governments, however, as certain re-searchers caution us, there are issues toconsider when local governments rely in-creasingly on the information and opinions ofinterest groups (Prior et al., 1995; Stoker andYoung, 1993; Walsh, 1995). As Stoker andYoung (1993, p. 188) argued, ‘if local author-ities only involve themselves in a restrictednumber of networks, focused around alimited range of interests, then the processesof local democracy and representation maybe skewed and biased’. In some cases, localgovernment has relied on the informationand opinions that originates from a fewpowerful, organized, and vocal interestgroups. However, new groups who havetraditionally been marginalized are now get-ting organized and are involving themselvesin the local government decision-makingprocess. If politicians and members of localgovernments are genuinely concerned aboutcitizens’ participation, then they need toensure that all groups have access to theprocess of representation. Prior et al. (1995,p. 131) provided several examples of strate-gies to involve citizens as partners in localgovernment:

the more systematic use of public meet-ings to air speci�c issues of local policy,the development of community consulta-tion processes . . ., the establishment ofopen neighbourhood forums, are all waysof both enabling people to make andexpress their choices and preferences withregard to particular issues, and makingclear to formal representatives and servicemanagers what the nature of citizens’choices are.

Interorganizational linkages in leisure services 135

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

Social pressures. Although the lack of �nan-cial resources was a pressure affecting City 2,the population growth and changes in thedemographics represented an importantchallenge and forced them to reconsiderinterorganizational linkage strategies. Since1991, City 2 had experienced a 13.8% growthin population; the largest change in popula-tion comparatively to the other two cities inour study (BC Stats, 1997). Concurrent withthe increasing population, the ethnic fabricof the community has diversi�ed. The follow-ing comment illustrates the struggles mem-bers of City 2 are currently facing due togrowth and changing demography,

With our changing population, which do wevalue most? . . . integration or participation?. . . I think the big issue for us in leisure is thechanging ethnicity of [City 2]. It’s just such ahuge issue that sometimes it handcuffs you,sometimes it paralyses you, sometimes itexcites you. But clearly that’s the issue forthis city.

In City 2, one third of the residents are ethnicChinese (Pynn, 1998). The view of the seniormanager of City 2 was that leisure andrecreation is not a priority among theChinese community. As he explained:

Over eighty percent of our recent immigrantsare Chinese and security is big issue forthem. They’ve been able to raise money forthe �re and the police departments. . . .[Chinese] parents [allow] their children toparticipate in leisure activities according toacademic success. So, in a way, participationin leisure is used as a reward for childrenwho do well in school. This represents somechallenges for our programmers as theynever know what to expect in terms ofattendance in their programmes.

The demographic changes in City 2 haveforced the local government to reconsidertheir programming and promotional ap-proaches. A better understanding of thevarious ethnic groups could be achieved bypartnering with these groups. As a result, the

partnerships could lead to better pro-grammes and services. One local sport

organization had recognized the problem of

low attendance in their sport programmesand consequently had chosen to adjust their

registration deadlines around the time when

report cards were issued in schools. As aresult of this change in registration dead-

lines, their attendance rates have stabil-ized.

Another social issue that was identi�ed in

our data involved the ethics and the socialvalues of developing linkages with some

partners. For example, establishing linkages

with nonpro�t organizations (e.g. local sportclubs, sport leagues) and/or other public

agencies (e.g. hospitals, schools) weredeemed acceptable, while partnerships with

the corporate sector were raising major

concerns among some parks and recreationof�cials and some politicians. The notion of

compatibility between corporations and

local governments was being questioned, aswas noted by the senior manager in City 1:

You have ethical question about who youpartner with . . . I think we’re going to fall

into tough times with council with partner-ships like Nike . . . we’re going to struggle. I

think council would have the �nal say.

Even though the value of ‘compromising’ was

promoted by the members of the differentinterest groups, the ‘anti-corporate sponsor-

ship folks’ received the most visibility in the

media (Aird, 1996; Sarti, 1995). The complex-ity of public-corporate partnership is high-

lighted by the senior manager for City 3:

They [people, in general] are used to having

things for free . . . but they are the same folkswho are just adamant that we not have a

corporate presence. That’s the dilemma, butI’m still a �rm believer that there is no other

way. The anti corporate sponsorship folksget a lot of headlines but I think there is a

silent majority who don’t like it either butunderstand that it is a reality. So it’s those

136 Thibault et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

vocal people who we constantly have tojustify our existence and justify the deals.

In City 3, it was acknowledged that sponsor-ship is not fully embraced by all. In amemorandum to members of the city coun-cil, the city manager for the corporate man-agement team noted ‘corporate sponsorshiphas the potential of producing a moderateamount of additional revenue to support Cityfacilities and services. An opinion poll con-�rms that the public generally supports theCity entering into sponsorship arrangements– but with signi�cant reservations’ (City 3,Policy Document – Sponsorship of City Activ-ities, 1996).

The anti-corporate feelings by some resi-dents have restricted the extent to whichleisure services departments have been ableto fully embrace linkages with commercialorganizations, as was revealed in City 3:

Those [partnerships between City 3 andcorporate sponsors] are increasing but veryslowly and there’s that debate in the pressand the community at large as to the bene�tsand disadvantages to corporate sponsorshipand the evil corporate giants . . . it’s a prettycontroversial issue.

According to the upper management teamfrom City 3, a great deal of work is neededbefore corporate sponsorships are inte-grated in government’s activities. They notedthat ‘there is very little municipal sponsor-ship experience to draw upon from [City 3]or from any other cities. The marketabilityand value of potential sponsorship relation-ships is, therefore, highly speculative’ (City 3,Policy Document – Sponsorship of City Activ-ities, 1996).

Furthermore, the leisure services managerof City 3 identi�ed the conspicuous reactionsthat links with corporate agencies instigateand the cautious manner in which they needto be implemented when he stated:

Often times we get into a mindset that if it’snot an idea [developing partnerships] thatwe’ve come up with, then there must be

something wrong with it. You know there’sgot to be other ulterior motives for peoplewanting to partner with us and it’s kind of thefear of the unknown and the fear of changeso I think, like anything, if there’s a changeinvolved and we’re sometimes reluctant towhole heartedly embrace it, it’s kind of a‘show me’ attitude . . . let’s prove this beforewe jump on the band wagon. So I think, inthat respect, there’s been a necessity for us tochange and adapt to it. I think also the publicmay not agree whole heartedly with all thechanges and the fact that we need to partnerbut . . . we do need to and the reality is weneed to . . . the public says well, there’s noplace for Nike in the public parks or there’sno place for Coke machines all over com-munity centres and I think therein lies theconcern. We need to do it tastefully so that itdoesn’t have a huge impact on the park orthe community centres . . . so it’s been atough go.

Due to the differences in the interests ofcorporate and public agencies, our �ndingshave shown how dif�cult decisions to de-velop linkages with corporate partners havebeen for politicians to make, for employeesto implement, and for the public to accept.The complexity of public–corporate partner-ships is highlighted in the work of a numberof researchers when the practical bene�ts ofgreater access to resources (Balmer, 1995;Searle and Brayley, 1993) are contrasted withethical issues regarding the compatibility ofcorporate partners with public, tax-basedmandates (Aird, 1996; Sarti, 1995; Thibault etal., 1997; Thibault and Harvey, 1997).

One of the less contentious partnershipsemerging in the three cities was between thehealth and social sectors and leisure servicesdepartments. Balmer (1995) has suggestedthat as local governments have to deal withan ageing clientele and have to consider newclient groups (e.g. low income individuals,single parents, and heart patients), linkageswith special interest groups and with themedical community are emerging. Both City 1and City 2 have developed partnerships with

Interorganizational linkages in leisure services 137

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

groups who can assist in the delivery of spe-cial programmes to suit the needs of theseclientele. In City 1, the concept of wellness isbeing successfully introduced throughouttheir community centres (e.g. City 1, LeisureGuide, 1998; Gram, 1997). Cardiac rehabilita-tion, developing leadership and social inter-action skills for children through leisure andsport, and provision of leisure for peoplewith mental illness are all examples of in-novative programmes undertaken by City 1(City 1, Leisure Guide, 1998; Gram, 1997). Asexpressed by one staff member of City 1, ‘weare positioning ourselves as wellness pro-viders . . . we’re into rehab, and we’re intoprevention’ (Gram, 1997, p. B8). While suchinitiatives were considered to ‘�t’ with thepublic mandate of local government, thesedevelopments raise questions about thebroadening mandate of leisure services de-partments and whether or not staff have thetraining and experience needed to undertakethe additional responsibilities.

CONCLUSION

Economic, political, and social pressures area strong impetus for developing linkages withother public organizations, with nonpro�torganizations, and/or with commercialorganizations. As Balmer (1995) explained,government is moving away from the directprovision of services in order to better servetheir clients. He noted that ‘our future will beone of strategic alliances’ (1995, p. 15).Furthermore, Balmer believes that ‘sport andrecreation has displayed both a willingnessand a talent for building partnerships withclient groups and the non-pro�t sector. Theseskills will be essential as we forge alliancesand get on with the more complex challengesof the 21st century’ (Balmer, 1995, p. 15).

As explained by Clegg and Hardy (1996),developing linkages with other organizationsmay actually allow them to ‘control’ theuncertainty originating from their environ-ment. They explained that ‘by maintaining,

modifying and transforming multifacetedinterorganizational relationships, organiza-tions can construct their own environment,their own markets as they seek allies towhich they can bond for periods of mutualbene�ts’ (Clegg and Hardy, 1996, p. 10).

According to Oliver (1990), access to muchneeded resources, an economic pressure, isone of the primary reasons behind the rise inpartnerships. Even though political andsocial pressures are also mentioned in theliterature as playing a role (Benson, 1975;Galaskiewicz, 1979), all three sources ofpressures interact in complex ways. Kikulisand Jackson (1996) reported that the part-nership between a nonpro�t sport organiz-ation and a provincial governmentdepartment responsible for sport and leisurewas founded on economic pressures, but thepartners rationalized their relationship usingsocial and political arguments. In turn, thesepressures have led leisure service managersto respond strategically by developing part-nerships with public, nonpro�t, and commer-cial organizations.

Ful�lling their community’s sport and lei-sure needs with quality programmes andservices always has been the focus of localgovernments in Canada (Searle and Brayley,1993). However, the economic, political, andsocial pressures are requiring public admin-istrators to consider innovative strategiesand are resulting in changes in the way localgovernments are operating. The develop-ment of partnerships has become whatStoker and Young (1993, p. 179) call ‘the newdriving force’ in local government.

Although this paper focused on inter-organizational linkages as a response toeconomic, political, and social pressures, thestructural and systemic changes within localgovernments and changes to the values,interests, and power of the key adminis-trators must eventually occur if ‘the newpublic management’ practice is to be fullyunderstood. There is still much research tobe undertaken on the topic of partnerships in

138 Thibault et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

leisure. Future research on interorganiza-tional linkages in local governments’ leisureservices needs to consider these issues.Additional questions arising which areworthy of further investigation include: howare resource allocations being affected, howare partners interpreting and reacting tochanges, how are leisure service depart-ments attempting to manage theserelationships, and what impact does inter-organizational linkages have on theprogrammes and services offered to thepublic? A better understanding of theseissues may lead to an increase in the qualityof leisure services offered at the local level.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council ofCanada (reference # 410–98–0326) for provid-ing the funds for research on which thispaper is based.

NOTES

1 An earlier version of this paper was presentedat the Fifth Congress of the European Associ-ation for Sport Management in Glasgow, Scot-land on 20 September 1997.

2 Lucie Thibault and Wendy Frisby are from theSchool of Human Kinetics, University of BritishColumbia, 6081 University Blvd., Vancouver,British Columbia, V6T 1Z1, Canada. Lisa M.Kikulis is from the Institute of Sport and LeisurePolicy, Department of Physical Education,Sports Science & Recreation Management,Loughborough University, Loughborough, Lei-cestershire, LE11 3TU, England.

3 From BC Stats (1997) British Columbia municipal

and regional district population estimates1991–1996. World Wide Web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun9196e.htm).

4 From Munro, H. (1997) Surrey park spendinglags. The Vancouver Sun, 10 March, p. B3.

REFERENCES

Aird, E. (1996) Nike puts its mark on B.C. basket-ball. The Vancouver Sun, 11 May, pp. A1, A6.

Balmer, K. (1995) Re�ections of three years ofleisure watching. Leisure Watch Canada, 3(6),1–7.

BC Stats (1997) British Columbia municipal and

regional district population estimates

1991–1996. World Wide Web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun9196e.htm).

Benson, J.K. (1975) The interorganizational net-work as a political economy. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 20, 229–249.Blau, J.R. and Rabrenovic, G. (1991) Interorganiza-

tional relations of nonpro�t organizations: Anexploratory study. Sociological Forum, 6(2),327–347.

Bramham, P., Henry, I., Mommaas, H., and van derPoel, H. (eds) (1989) Leisure and Urban Pro-

cesses. Critical Studies of Leisure Policy in

Western European Cities, London, Routledge.Bramham, P., Henry, I., Mommaas, H., and van der

Poel, H. (eds) (1993) Leisure Policies inEurope, Wallingford, CAB International.

Brooke, R. (1991) The enabling authority. Public

Administration, 69(4), 525–532.Bula, F. (1997) Council split over corporate spon-

sorship. The Vancouver Sun, 19 November, pp.B1, B3.

Campagnolo, I. (1979) Partners in Pursuit ofExcellence. A National Policy on Amateur Sport,Ottawa, Fitness and Amateur Sport, Govern-ment of Canada.

Clarke, A. (1994) Leisure and the new mana-gerialism, in J. Clarke, A. Cochrane and E.McLaughlin (eds), Managing Social Policy,London, Sage, pp. 163–181.

Clegg, S. and Hardy, C. (1996) Introduction: organ-izations, organization, organizing, in S. Clegg,C. Hardy, and W.R. Nord (eds), Handbook of

Organization Studies, London, Sage, pp. 1–28.Cravens, D.W., Piercy, N.F., and Shipp, S.H. (1996)

New organizational forms for competing inhighly dynamic environments: The networkparadigm. British Journal of Management, 7(3),203–218.

Crompton, J.L. (1989) A taxonomy of public-commercial joint ventures. Loisir et societe/

Society and Leisure, 12, 107–121.D’Amours, M. (1987) La ‘Privatisation’ des Loisirs

Municipaux. Etudes du Loisir, Cahier no. 4,Trois-Rivieres, Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres.

Interorganizational linkages in leisure services 139

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

Dilger, R.J., Moffett, R.R., and Struyk, L. (1997)Privatization of municipal services in Amer-

ica’s largest cities. Public Administration

Review, 57(1), 21–26.

Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., and Peterson, G.L. (1991)

Bene�ts of Leisure, State College, Venture.Eisenhardt, K.M. and Schoonhoven, C.B. (1996)

Resource-based view of strategic alliance

formation: Strategic and social effects in

entrepreneurial �rms. Organization Science,7(2), 136–150.

Farnham, D. and Horton, S. (1996) Public service

managerialism: A review and evaluation, in D.

Farnham and S. Horton (eds), Managing the

New Public Services, London, Macmillan, pp.259–276.

Fenell, M.L., Ross, C.O., and Warnecke, R.B. (1987)

Organizational environment and network

structure. Research in the Sociology of Organ-

izations, 5, 311–340.

Fitzjohn, M. (1988) Sport – shifting sands in

turning tides, in J. Benington and J. White

(eds), The Future of Leisure Services, Essex,

Longman, pp. 141–154.Frisby, W. (1995) Broadening perspectives on

leisure service management and research:

What does organization theory offer? Journal

of Park and Recreation Administration, 13,

58–72.Frisby, W., Crawford, S. and Dorer, T. (1997)

Re�ections on participatory action research:

The case of low income women accessing

local physical activity services. Journal of

Sport Management, 11(1), 8–28.

Galaskiewicz, J. (1979) Exchange Networks and

Community Politics, Beverly Hills, Sage.

Glover, T.D. and Burton, T.L. (1998) A model of

alternative forms of public leisure servicesdelivery, in M.F. Collins and I.S. Cooper (eds),

Leisure Management: Issues and Applications,

Oxon, CAB International, pp. 139–155.

Gram, K. (1997) Fitness as a way of life. The

Vancouver Sun, 31 March, pp. B8, B9.Harper, J.A. and Johnston, B.L. (1992) Balancing

the scales in public parks and recreation

departments. Recreation Canada, 50(4),

18–20.Harvey, J., Andrew, C., and Dawson, D. (1990) Le

loisir municipal et l’Etat-providence. Re-

cherches Sociographiques, 23(1), 25–44.

Haywood, L. (1994) Concepts and practice incommunity leisure and recreation, in L. Hay-wood (ed.), Community Leisure and Rec-

reation, Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann, pp.26–50.

Henry, I. (1988) Alternative futures for the publicleisure service, in J. Benington and J. White(eds), The Future of Leisure Services, Essex,Longman, pp. 207–243.

Hood, C. (1991) A public management for allseasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

Hunter, D. (1986) The municipal role in communitydevelopment. Recreation Canada, 44(5),18–21.

Jarillo, J.C. (1988) On strategic networks. StrategicManagement Journal, 9, 31–41.

Kanter, R.M. (1989) Becoming PALs: Pooling, ally-ing, and linking across companies. The Acad-

emy of Management Executive, 3, 183–193.Kearns, K.P. (1996) Managing for Accountability.

Preserving the Public Trust in Public and Non-pro�t Organizations, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Kernaghan, K. (1992) Empowerment and publicadministration: Revolutionary advance orpassing fancy? Canadian Public Administra-

tion/Administration publique du Canada,35(2), 194–214.

Kernaghan, K. (1993) Partnership and publicadministration: Conceptual and practical con-siderations. Canadian Public Administration/

Administration publique du Canada, 36(1),57–76.

Kiel, L.D. (1994) Managing Chaos and Complexity in

Government. A New Paradigm for ManagingChange, Innovation, and Organizational Re-

newal, San Francisco, Jossey Bass.Kikulis, L.M. and Jackson, P. (1996) Government-

non-government organization partnerships insport: Responding to socio-political and eco-nomic issues. A paper presented at the FourthEuropean Congress on Sport Management/First International Sport Management Alli-ance Conference, October 2–5, Montpellier,France.

Kouwenhoven, V. (1993) The rise of the publicprivate partnership: a model for the manage-ment of public–private cooperation, in J.Kooiman (ed.), Modern Governance: New Gov-

ernment – Society Interactions, London, Sage,pp. 119–130.

140 Thibault et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Can

adia

n R

esea

rch

Kno

wle

dge

Net

wor

k] A

t: 18

:42

21 J

uly

2008

Leach, S., Stewart, J., and Walsh, K. (1994) The

Changing Organisation and Management ofLocal Government, Hampshire, Macmillan.

Leazes, F.J. (1997) Public accountability. Is it aprivate responsibility? Administration & Soci-

ety, 29(4), 395–411.Munro, H. (1997) Surrey park spending lags. The

Vancouver Sun, 10 March, p. B3.Noe, N. (1991) Politique sportive municipale:

une analyse des relations Municipalite-Associations. STAPS, Revue des sciences et

techniques des activites physiques et sportives,12(26), 23–35.

Oliver, C. (1990) Determinants of interorganiza-tional relationships: Integration and futuredirections. Academy of Management Review,15(2), 241–265.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing

Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is

Transforming the Public Sector, New York,Plume.

Paulson, S.K. (1985) A paradigm for the analysis ofinterorganizational networks. Social Net-

works, 7, 105–126.Prior, D., Stewart, J. and Walsh, K. (1995) Citizen-

ship: Rights, Community and Participation, Lon-don, Pitman.

Pynn, L. (1998) Richmond council short ethnicmembers. The Vancouver Sun, 3 January, p.B1.

Quirk, B. (1997) Public management – accountableto everyone: Postmodern pressures on publicmanagers. Public Administration, 75(3),569–586.

Sarti, R. (1995) Park corporate sponsors: Paintsprayed on �rms’ sign. The Vancouver Sun, 17March, p. B2.

Searle, M.S. and Brayley, R.E. (1993) Leisure Ser-

vices in Canada. An Introduction, State College,

Venture.

Statistics Canada (1997) Population in census

metropolitan areas. World Wide Web site

(http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/

Population/demo05.htm).

Stoker, G. (1991) The Politics of Local Government,

London, Macmillan.

Stoker, G. and Young, S. (1993) Cities in the 1990s.

Local Choice for a Balanced Strategy. Essex,

Longman.

Task Force Report (1992) Sport: The Way Ahead.

Minister’s Task Force on Federal Sport Policy,

Ottawa, Minister of Supply and Services

Canada.

Thibault, L., Frisby, W., and Kikulis, L.M. (1997)

Interorganisational linkages as a strategic

response to change: the case of public com-

munity, in I. Davies and E. Wolstencroft (eds),

Fifth Congress for the European Association for

Sport Management. Conference Proceedings,

Glasgow, EASM, pp. 351–358.

Thibault, L. and Harvey, J. (1997) Fostering inter-

organizational linkages in the Canadian sport

delivery system. Journal of Sport Management,

11(1), 45–68.

Vail, S.E. (1992) Toward improving sport delivery:

A community perspective. Journal of Applied

Recreation Research, 17, 217–233.

Vail, S.E. (1994) Better together: Partnership build-

ing between recreation and sport leaders.

Recreation Canada, 52(5), 11–14.

Walsh, K. (1995) Public Services and Market Mech-

anisms. Competition, Contracting and the New

Public Management, Hampshire, Macmillan.

Interorganizational linkages in leisure services 141