This article compares women’s sport advocacy groups in Canada and the United States from an institutionalist perspective. Women’s sport advocacy groups address similar issues and have similar mandates in both countries, but yet differ markedly in their evolution and strategy choices. We seek to understand the extent to which their institutional environment constrains and/or enables group strategies to enhance our understanding of which factors influence advocacy organizations in the sport policy sector. The article concludes by arguing that institutional, cultural, and economic factors as well as differences in the political opportunity structure (POS) help explain the differences in the development and strategy choices of women’s sport advocacy groups in both countries.
Abelson, D., & Carberry, M. ( 1998). Following suit or Falling Behind? A comparative analysis of think tanks in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31, 525-556.
2.
Andrews, K.T., & Edwards, B. ( 2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process . Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479-596.
3.
Bashekvin, S. ( 1996). Losing common ground: Feminists, conservatives and public policy in Canada during the Mulroney years. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 29, 211-242.
4.
Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women. ( 2002). CAAWS withdraws gender equity demands. Retrieved from http://www.caaws.ca.
5.
Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women. ( 2009). The Life and Times of CAAWS. Retrieved from http://www.caaws.ca/e/about/caaws.cfm.
6.
Canadian Heritage. ( 1986). Policy on women in sport. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Services Canada .
7.
Canadian Heritage. ( 1991). Canadian policy on doping in sport. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Services Canada.
8.
Canadian Heritage. ( 2005). Sport Canada’s policy on aboriginal peoples’ participation in sport. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Services Canada.
9.
Canadian Heritage. ( 2006). Policy on sport for persons with a disability. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Services Canada.
10.
Carpenter, L., & Acosta, R.A. ( 2004). Title IX. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
11.
Cassidy, H. ( 2001). WSF sports experts offers advice for PSAs; AT&T, Hyundai re-up with Turner, Brandweek, 42(38), 12.
12.
Coleman, W.D., & Jacek, H.J. ( 1983). The roles and activities of business interest associations in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 16, 257-280.
13.
Delacourt, S. ( 2010, April 10). More woman trouble for Harper and cabinet. Toronto Star, 1.
14.
Forbes, S.L. ( 1993). Government and interest group relations: An analysis of the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport. Unpublished master’s thesis. Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
15.
Gattinger, M. ( 2005). Canada-United States electricity relations: Policy coordination and multilevel associative governance. In G. B. Doern (Ed.), How Ottawa Spends: 2004-2005 (pp. 143-162). Montreal, Ontario, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
16.
Green, M. ( 2007). Olympic glory or grassroots development? Sport policy priorities in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, 1960-2006. International Journal of the History of Sport, 24, 921-953.
17.
Green, M., & Houlihan, B. ( 2004). Advocacy coalitions and elite sport policy change in Canada and the United Kingdom. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39, 387-403.
18.
Hall, A. ( 2002). The girl and the game. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
19.
Hult, J.S. ( 1989). Women’s struggle for governance in U.S. amateur athletics. International Review for Sociology of Sport, 24, 249-263.
20.
Jenkins, J.C. ( 1987). Nonprofit organizations and policy advocacy. In W. W Powell (Ed.), The Nonprofit Sector (pp. 296-318). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
Jenson, J. ( 2009). Writing gender out: The continuing effects of the social investment perspective. In A. Dobrowolsky (Ed.), Women & Public Policy in Canada: Neo-liberalism and After? (pp. 25-47). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
22.
Kikulis, L.M. ( 2000). Continuity and change in governance and decision-making in National Sport Organizations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 14, 293-320.
23.
Langille, D. ( 1987). The Business Council on National Issues and theCanadian State. Studies in Political Economy, 24, 41-79.
24.
Macintosh, D., Bedecki, T., & Franks, C.E.S. (1987). Sport and politics in Canada: Federal government involvement since 1961. Kingston, Ontario , Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
25.
Macintosh, D., & Whitson, D. ( 1990). The game planners: Transforming Canada’s sport system. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
26.
Meyer, D., & Minkoff, D. ( 2004) Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces, 82, 1457-1492.
27.
Montpetit, E. ( 2002) Pour en finir avec le lobbying : comment les institutions canadiennes influencent l’action des groupes d’intérêts . Politique et Sociétés, 21(3), 91-113.
28.
Mueller, M., Pagé, C., & Kuerbis, B. ( 2004). Civil society and the shaping of communication-information policy: Four decades of advocacy. The Information Society , 20: 169-186.
29.
National Association for Women and Girls in Sport. ( 2009). Available from http://www.aapherd.org/nagws
30.
Orsini, M. ( 2002). The politics of naming, blaming and claiming: HIV, Hepatitis C and the emergence of blood activism in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 35, 475-498.
31.
Peters, G. ( 1999). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism . London: Continuum.
32.
Phillips, S. ( 1991). How Ottawa blends: Shifting government relationships with interest groups. In F. Abele (Ed.), How Ottawa Spends 1991-92: The Politics of Fragmentation. (pp. 183-213). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Carleton University Press .
33.
Presthus, R. ( 1974). Interest group lobbying: Canada and the United States . The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 413(1), 44-57.
34.
Savoie, D. ( 1999). Governing from the centre: The concentration of power in Canadian politics. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
35.
Smith, M. ( 2005). A civil society? Collective actors in Canadian political life. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
36.
Smith, M. ( 2008). Political institutions and lesbian and gay rights in the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
37.
Sparvero, E., Chalip, L., & Green, B.C. ( 2008). United States. In B. Houlihan & M. Green (Eds.), Comparative elite sport development: Systems, structures and public policy (pp. 242-171). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
38.
Thibeault, L., & Harvey, J. ( 1997). Fostering interorganizational linkages in the Canadian sport delivery system. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 45-68.
39.
Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. ( 2007). Contentious politics. Boulder, CO : Paradigm Publishers.
40.
Trumpy, A. ( 2008). Subject to negotiation: The mechanisms behind co-optation and corporate reform. Social Problems, 55, 480-500.
41.
Whalstrom, M., & Peterson, A. ( 2006). Between the state and the market: Expanding the concept of political opportunity structure. Acta Sociologica, 49, 363-377.
42.
Women’s Sports Foundation (2009). Retrieved from http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org
