Life at the track: Country race clubs and social capital

Abstract

The aim of this article is to report the findings of a study that explored both the contributions of country race clubs to social capital within rural and regional communities as well as their utilization of social capital. The article reviews the key concepts associated with social capital and their relationships to sport, and presents evidence of how country race clubs contribute to and benefit from social capital in their respective communities based on a series of interviews with individuals associated with race clubs and their communities. The final section of the article discusses the implications of these findings in relation to what we currently know of social capital and community level sport clubs.

Keywords

community sport clubs non-profit social capital thoroughbred racing

Community sport organizations have increasingly come to be viewed by both policy-makers and researchers as ideal vehicles for the development of social capital (Burnett, 2006; Commonwealth of Australia, 2001; Jarvie, 2003; Okayasu et al., 2010; Sport Canada, 2002; Sport England, 2004; Walseth, 2008). However, investigating the extent to which this claim is accurate has only recently attracted academic interest (see for example, Blackshaw and Long, 2005; Brown, 2006, 2008; Coalter, 2007; Collins, 2003, 2004; Dyreson, 2001; Harvey et al., 2007; Jarvie, 2003; Nicholson and Hoye, 2008; Seippel, 2005, 2006; Sharpe, 2003, 2006; Tonts, 2005). One of the deficiencies of much of the literature focused on sport and social capital is that it has, in the main, focused on conceptualizing the potential linkages between social capital and sport rather than attempting to establish these links empirically. More recent attempts by authors such as Okayasu et al. (2010) and Walseth (2008) have shed some light on how sport generates social capital among members of sport organizations. This article continues this recent trend by exploring how one particular type of community sport club – country race clubs – may contribute to the generation of social capital as well as utilize social capital in carrying out its activities.

Thoroughbred horse racing centres, more commonly referred to as country race clubs, are considered to be an important focal point for communities, particularly in rural and regional areas of Australia (Centre for Strategic Economic Studies and Centre for Hospitality and Tourism Research, 2006). Local government authorities play an important role supporting the operations of country race clubs and offer varying levels of assistance in maintaining and developing racing infrastructure. Local communities are also integral to the viability of country race clubs that require local community groups and businesses to support them through entering into sponsorship agreements, supplying goods and services on event days and attending race meetings.

Studying social capital from the perspective of how specific organizations may contribute to the creation, development or maintenance of social capital is conceptually and methodologically difficult (Productivity Commission, 2003). However, country race clubs provide an excellent opportunity to do so due to their ability to draw together a range of community groups. The aim of this article is to report the findings of a study that explored both the contributions of country race clubs to social capital within rural and regional communities as well as their utilization of social capital. The article is presented in four parts. First, key concepts associated with social capital and their relationships to sport are reviewed. Second, an explanation of the method used to gather and analyse the data for the study is provided. Third, the evidence of how country race clubs contribute to and benefit from social capital in their respective communities is presented, drawing from a series of interviews with individuals associated with race clubs and their communities. The final section of the article discusses the implications of these findings in relation to what we currently know of social capital and community level sport clubs.

Social capital and sport

Among the many definitions of social capital, Bourdieu’s (1986: 248) statement of social capital as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ is particularly useful in relation to this study. Many of the leading authors on social capital have emphasized the notion that access to resources and investment of resources with an expected return are central to the concept of social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Lin, 2001; Portes, 1998). For others, the outcome of social capital is the ability of people to work together through enhanced communication, cooperation and positive collective action (see Putnam, 2000; Woolcock, 1998). Indeed, as (Putnam, 2000: 18–19) stated ‘the core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value’.

It should be acknowledged that the concept of social capital has not escaped criticism. Fine (2010: 5) is recognized as one of the most ardent critics of social capital and has said that its rise to prominence has been as a result of an ‘intellectual malaise within academic life’. Fine highlights that since Bourdieu’s (1986) thesis on social capital, subsequent authors have failed to acknowledge his focus on separating social capital from cultural, symbolic and economic capital. Fine argues that Coleman’s (1988) conceptualization of social capital from a rational choice sociologist’s perspective have superseded Bourdieu’s notions that social capital has both class and contextual dimensions. The result has been that social capital has become ‘definitionally chaotic, as it is imbued with so many different variables, approaches and applications’ (Fine, 2010: 5).

Despite the misgivings of Fine and others, there remain many researchers committed to exploring how individuals, groups and organizations work collectively and the associated benefits of doing so via the lens of social capital. For the purpose of our study we are drawing from the viewpoints of both Putnam and Bourdieu in exploring how the social networks created through sport organizations both facilitate the creation of positive collection action within communities, while at the same time seeking to understand how sport organizations might acquire resources through such networks to support their organization’s activities.

In relation to empirical studies of sport’s role in creating social capital, Seippel (2005) demonstrated that voluntary sport organizations play an important role in fostering social integration of individuals, but that membership of these organizations resulted in different types of social relations for those involved. Specifically, Seippel (2005) concluded that a person’s social background, recruitment and the nature of the sport activity itself were additional factors that affected whether involvement in a sport organization led to one being more socially integrated in a community. A more recent study by Walseth (2008) highlighted that young Muslim women can benefit as individuals through the establishment of social networks via involvement in sport but that there was little evidence that the value of such networks aggregate to benefit a community. Okayasu et al. (2010) found that Japanese comprehensive sport clubs (similar to Westernized sport clubs offering multiple sports) were better at fostering social capital than their traditional instrumentally focused sport club counterparts.

On the basis of these studies it seems that sport clubs can be considered sites that are conducive to the development of social capital but that perhaps these are limited to the members of the sport club and are of value more to individuals than the broader communities in which these clubs operate. Contrary to this view are Townsend et al.’s (2002) findings that residents of two small Victorian country towns believed that sporting activities provided a sense of unity, was a social leveller, fostered a sense trust, contributed to social cohesion, provided a focus for mentoring youth, provided an opportunity for social interaction and was a means of increasing community pride and loyalty. A study by Burnett (2006) also concluded that a sport club fosters the development of social capital for both individuals and communities. These mixed findings about the ability of sport clubs to develop social capital beyond the boundary of their sport-focused activities and membership highlight this as an area requiring further empirical research.

In contrast, the empirical evidence for sport organizations utilizing social capital to function and support their activities is scarce despite the many theoretical claims that this is the case. Indeed, Doherty and Misener (2008: 135) stated that the social networks among sport volunteers are ‘fundamental to the successful delivery of community sport’. Establishing whether sport club members utilize their social networks to facilitate the organization’s activities is an important question to answer. The significance of governing committees or boards in setting the direction for community sport organizations, including country race clubs, suggests that boards that focus on using their social networks to ‘get things done’ might be more effective than those that do not or can not use these networks effectively. King (2004: 471) highlighted the importance of the role of the board of non-profit organizations in fostering social capital, specifically to ‘raise philanthropic support, develop strategic partnerships, engage in advocacy, enhance community relations, and create a shared strategic vision and mission within the organization and its employees’. King (2004: 472) argued that non-profit board members ‘require competencies in accessing, building and employing social capital’ to achieve these outcomes. However, attempts to understand how non-profit boards currently do or should develop social capital are virtually absent. Indeed, Brass and Krackhardt (1999: 180) posited that the ‘social capital of leaders is perhaps the most ignored, under-researched aspect of leadership’. This project therefore addresses a significant issue concerning how the boards or committees and individuals serving as volunteer committee members contribute to social capital, and the underlying costs and benefits that accrue to their organization.

Method

The setting for the study comprised clubs affiliated with Country Racing Victoria Limited (CRV), the governing body for non-metropolitan thoroughbred horse racing in Victoria, Australia. CRV is responsible for facilitating the conduct of racing in rural and regional communities, has an operational budget of more than AUD$63M, and co-ordinates more than 450 country race meetings every year that attract more than 600,000 spectators (CRV, 2007). CRV represents 49 race clubs from outer metropolitan Melbourne (the capital city of Victoria) to remote rural areas of Victoria and is responsible for the profitable conduct, management, planning and development of non-metropolitan racing in Victoria (CRV, 2007). As a non-profit registered company, CRV is answerable directly to its member clubs, which are in turn governed by volunteer committee members.

Sample

Seven country race clubs were selected using purposive sampling based on the size of the local population serviced by the race club, the number of race meetings held annually, and annual on-course race day attendance figures. Victorian race clubs typically fall into three broad types based on the number of race meetings held each year (Category A, 20+ meetings per year; B, five to 18 meetings; or C, one to three meetings). CRV maintains a comprehensive database of race clubs, race meetings, race day attendances, and local population data, as well as details of race club organizational and governance arrangements. For each selected race club, between five and six interviews were conducted with board members, CEOs/GMs, other senior staff as well as key informants from the respective local community for each case study club such as elected politicians (i.e. local shire President or Mayor), and leaders of community and business groups such as Apex, Lions, Rotary and local Chambers of Commerce. A total of 36 interviews were conducted.

Instrument

The interviews gathered data on the perceptions of race club volunteer board members and staff and selected community representatives of how race clubs contribute to social capital within rural and regional communities as well as their utilization of social capital. Semi-structured interview schedules were used for the interviews to ensure consistency and minimize interviewer bias in the data collection procedures. The study employed triangulation through a number of data sources (interviews with board members, paid staff and community members) in order to strengthen the validity of the analysis and subsequent conclusions drawn from the study. The transcripts for each interview were used to probe emergent themes in subsequent interviews.

Data analysis

The data analysis employed qualitative procedures aimed at uncovering themes in the perceptions of interviewees regarding the factors associated with social capital creation, development and maintenance. The underlying themes emerged after several phases of response coding. Statements were coded first using an open (or initial meaning code) and secondly an axial (or categorization of open codes) coding scheme recommended by Miles and Huberman (1984). Where statements had several identifiable points they were duplicated and coded with appropriate separate codes. Thus statements could have several codes and the number of codes would tend to be more than the number of subjects. The coding procedures retained the essential meaning of the information provided about the role of country race clubs in creating, developing and maintaining social capital but constant comparison with other statements and previously used codes ensured a reduction of the variety and details of descriptions. A check of the reliability of coding was conducted using two coders independently analysing the same set of statements. It showed a high degree of consistency between coders’ choice of codes for statements.

Results

The results are presented in four sections that reflect the major themes that were evident from the interview data. First, the role of race clubs is explored, with particular attention to the purpose of race clubs in the community and how the interviewees perceived their function in delivering a social benefit to their community. Second, the governance and management of race clubs are examined, as they relate to the roles of the members of committees of management and CEOs in facilitating social networks and linkages between race clubs and their communities. Third, the notion of reciprocity is examined as it relates to the social networks and commercial relationships in which race clubs are involved. Finally, the various uses of race club facilities are explored in relation to how these provide the context for the use or development of social capital.

The role of race clubs in fostering social capital

Interviewees considered the purpose of country race clubs as encompassing three elements: first, the provision of racing and racing related services and facilities; second, the provision of events and entertainment that facilitate economic and social benefits; and third, the provision of community facilities that facilitate a range of activities that serve to broaden the club’s revenue base and link it to the broader community. All interviewees directly involved with the race clubs considered the provision of racing and race meetings to be the core purpose of the clubs. However, some saw the role of the club almost exclusively in the provision of economic benefits to those employed within the industry or to the town or city through tourism and associated activity, whereas others saw the role of the club as a physical space that was important to the community and where a range of activities took place. These latter purposes offer different perspectives on the way in which the clubs can fulfil their mission. Clubs that focus on the provision of racing and use the economic benefit that flows through the community as the primary justification for their existence appear more isolated from their communities, whereas those clubs that consider their activities and facilities as a community resource appear to be more connected and have greater levels of community support and social capital.

These three distinct purposes of the race clubs have implications for how social capital is created or accessed by race clubs. First, through the provision of racing and racing related services such as training of race horses, a social network is created among the people that work in the industry, as illustrated by the following comments:

[It is] . . . social networking for people that . . . come here and meet, have an interest in racing: owners, trainers, jockeys . . . various groups all come here to do their work, but it’s also extended friendships that develop from that . . . it’s just like an extended family. [And] . . . 250 horses go round on the training track and that obviously leads to . . . feed suppliers and farriers and vets . . . plus track riders and stable hands and so it’s sort of a fairly tangled sort of web of people . . . that are involved.

The value of this social network of people in related professions within a small community should not be underestimated, as these people are likely to provide each other with physical, emotional and social support, which is important in regional and rural areas. This network of people extends to owners, trainers, jockeys, track-riders, stable hands, farriers, vets, horse dentists and feed suppliers, as well as those people who are directly employed by the clubs in administrative or facility orientated roles (such as ground keeping). In a small rural community this network is likely to represent a significant form of social as well as financial support. In small country towns where the local cup day is a major event, this social network might extend to include most of the community, as various organizations, groups and individuals are involved in fundraising or other service roles: ‘everyone in the town is involved in some shape or form pretty well over that weekend’.

Second, the provision of events for the purpose of entertainment has a significant social impact by bringing people in rural communities together. It is also clear that this has increasingly become the emphasis of many country racing clubs, as illustrated by the following comment:

the role [of the race club] has changed quite a bit over my time in racing . . . it used to just be for industry people, but over the past few years there’s been a swing towards a more social aspect of it, which I guess culminates with our carnival and the girls’ marquee, which sells out every year.

While many of the people in smaller towns are likely to already know each other, gathering together at the races allows them to socialize in a different environment, to enhance old social networks or build new ones by meeting new people or capitalizing on distant friendships or acquaintances. The value of these networks was highlighted by several interviewees:

the role of the race club in the local community from our perspective is huge because it’s the biggest function area, social gathering area within [the district] [and] it does really provide a social outlet for people . . . in the community as locals have something to do and to come and hang out with their friends and meet new people and things like that, which is important in small rural communities.

The majority of the interviewees considered that their club losing a cup day or major race meeting would be a significant, if not devastating loss to a local community. In several instances it appears that the local councils have predicated their financial support of the race club on the basis that it not only provides an economic benefit to the community, but that it also has an identifiable social benefit.

Finally, the provision of the race club’s facilities in support of other community activities, which invariably involves social interaction, is another way in which the race clubs act to build social capital. This is accomplished through clubs acting as providers of facilities or space for rent or, alternatively, at no cost to other community organizations. This is exemplified by the following comment:

race day is where you get to meet the majority of your neighbours and exchange a lot of different subjects and ideas and have a good time and have a drink . . . I initially saw the role of the race club as being that, as bringing members of the community together. It’s only in more recent years that we’ve come to the view that the race track is a community asset and can be used for a lot more things other than racing.

These supplementary activities are often developed through negotiation with the local community, or are developed by the race club and evolve into some form of shared ownership. As noted previously, it is interesting that in many instances the provision of these facilities is deemed to be an act of social generosity or responsibility, and yet the club is acting as a commercial provider of a facility. It should also be noted that in some smaller communities, the scale of the facilities contained within the racing club’s infrastructure are unique. It appears that those clubs that have been more active in developing social networks and activities through encouraging others to use their facilities have been more successful in not only broadening their revenue base, but convincing their respective local council and the local community of their social contribution to their respective communities.

Race club boards’ role

The perception of what background and skills were required to be an effective race club committee member (i.e. a board member) varied considerably among interviewees. Some interviewees thought that committee members must have an intimate knowledge of racing and how a race meeting operates. This was particularly true in clubs where a more hands-on or operational approach was taken by the committee. However, it appears that the need for a racing background is diminishing as the roles and responsibilities of committee members change from previously being focused on the technical aspects of hosting a race meeting to more about how the club committee can engage with its local community, as the following comment indicates:

I’ve seen boards that are really focussed on racing and want to sit around and decide over programming a 1200 metre maiden or a 1400 metre maiden and will debate it for an hour or whatever, but those times are gone.

A significant number of interviewees believed that a contemporary racing club committee member should be responsible for making connections with the community, and it was therefore important to have a diverse range of committee members, with a variety of links and community networks: ‘the most important link to the community is the committee’. This view was most often expressed in the context of securing greater attendance to major race meetings conducted by the club. In this sense, the role of the committee member was conceptualized as a form of social marketing. The notion of the committee as an essential link to the community is exemplified in the following comments:

. . . connection with the members or in the local community, that’s what I see [as] their role and that’s the way they see their role . . . it’s not pricing the beer or unloading the truck and whatever. It is at a higher level and connecting with the community.

I’m sure it didn’t happen a decade ago. They were the race club and they ran race meetings. Now they realise with branding, they’ve got to be out in the community to get community support, and their funding depends on membership and those sort of things, so, they are out in the community.

Many interviewees stated that the committee of management of a country racing club needed to be composed of a group of people with a diverse set of skills that could help the club and the CEO to oversee, but not necessarily be in involved in, the operations of the club. In the majority of the larger race clubs, interviewees thought that a diverse range of people and skills had been co-opted onto their committee and one of the functions of the committee members was to engage with the community. This engagement was viewed as essential in making links with the community that would improve attendance and stimulate goodwill about the club in the community. This is somewhat problematic for committee members within smaller clubs who need to conduct operational duties in the absence of paid staff or other volunteers at the expense of spending more time engaging with the community.

It was also evident that there is a strong link between the capacity of the CEO and the capacity of the race club to generate social capital. CEOs employed full time at a race club have a far greater capacity to develop activities, events and community connections that lie outside the traditional sphere of racing. Given that these additional activities, events and connections are directly linked to the social capital that the club can create, maintain and utilize, those clubs with a full-time CEO seem to be in a much stronger position.

Race clubs, social capital and reciprocity

Access to resources and reciprocity are two key tenets of social capital. It is clear that there is significant social capital within country race clubs, which is often manifest in commercial reciprocity and is often facilitated by the members of the committee of management or by the CEO. This notion of reciprocity is neatly encapsulated in the following comments by two of the interviewees:

if a business supports you, then you should support them . . . and you own a business, you should support them back. For example . . . if you know the racing club buys paper from someone down the street, then that business then should support the racing club back by going to functions or things like that.

If you have any involvement with any local community group, whether it’s at a race day itself or whether you go and spend some time helping out one of these other groups, well you always seem to see that flow on to patronage and all that sort of thing . . . you might work with someone on some committee . . . and then you know a month later you haven’t seen them at a race meeting before, but there they are . . . [that’s] the way they support the club.

Often this reciprocity can have significant benefits for the local businesses in the area, particularly where the club has a policy of ‘buying local’ and supporting local businesses. It can also work the other way and have significant benefits for the club, as illustrated by the following comment by a race club committee member:

we had a $70,000 job done for $25,000 which was an enormous saving, and we really thank those businesses dearly for that. There will be a trade-off – we’ve got to give them some more signage, etc., when we have a Cup day or our Christmas break-up theme day, they’ll come in on a huge concession if they wish on those days. But that is just one small way that the club can reciprocate to these businesses that have put their hand in their pocket, so to speak, to help the club.

At all of the clubs there are also formalized modes of reciprocity, such as the relationships that exist between the clubs and the various service organizations in each of the geographical regions, such as Lions, Apex, Rotary and Kiwanis:

. . . service clubs provide us with a degree of labour on bigger days. So, service clubs will come in and do our car parking and do our track patching and bits and pieces where they’ll bring a team of their members out . . . their members donate their time and then we make a donation back to their service clubs.

This mode of reciprocity operated at all of the clubs that participated in the study. Most of the interviewees saw this as an example of the club’s ability to provide the community with a benefit through formal links, as illustrated by the following comment:

we facilitate fundraising opportunities for a number of charities and projects in the area. That might be with service groups that do certain things on behalf of the club, whether it be car parking or something to raise funds for whatever . . . we’ll use our event to facilitate fundraising . . . [it’s] the club’s [way] of being proactive in the community.

Contextual factors influencing social capital outcomes

All of the interviewees viewed their respective racing clubs as important and valuable providers of community facilities. The various racing clubs involved in the research provided venues or facilities for a wide range of user groups. First, race meetings themselves were considered as opportunities for the community to gather together, particularly for cup and major race days. Second, training and exercising of horses for the purpose of racing took place to varying degrees at all of the racing clubs that participated in this research with the resultant social benefit largely residing in the community of racing industry workers. Third, the clubs with function rooms which are either hired out or donated to the public for weddings, social functions or work gatherings were perceived as social spaces in which members of the community interact. Interestingly, the vast majority of interviewees (who were from the clubs) viewed this as a social benefit, despite the fact that on most occasions the clubs hired the facilities at commercial rates.

Fourth, using the clubs for other horse-related uses such as riding for the disabled, pony club and other horse events were considered in many instances as a social benefit or good, which might not have existed were it not for the generosity of the club. Fifth, the uses of club infrastructure for other community events such as agricultural shows, markets and other major events were also viewed as ways for the club to provide benefits to the community. Sixth, some clubs have the space and capacity to open up their facilities for public use, such as dog-walking, walking and jogging. This is most evident where the club is located close to the town or city, or is close to a residential area. Finally, some clubs were used in times of crisis by the local community, fire services and other government agencies such as using the club grounds as staging areas during the Victorian bushfires in February 2009. There are obvious social benefits to this, which relate to more than the conduct of racing, where the race clubs are viewed as an important and much valued community resource. It is also likely, according to the interviewees, that the community are more engaged with the racing club post-crisis and more aware of its community value.

The racing clubs that appeared to be most successful in generating social benefits or social capital through their activities were those that did more than use their facilities for the conduct of race meetings and the training of horses for the purpose of racing. These clubs were active in attempting to include the community in the activities of the club, by facilitating and managing non-racing based events and by opening up the club facilities to public use. As indicated by the following comment, establishing such community relationships has flow-on benefits:

it’s too good a facility to be locking up the gates and locking people out and turning them away. So by opening the gates and involving people in the club, it does have benefits. I mean those people will become advocates for the racing centre, you know, they talk about our [race] meetings in a positive way . . .

Those clubs with good commercial facilities (such as a function room, restaurant or bar) were also able to create links with the community, but often the racing club was competing with other community facilities in the same city or town. Clubs that were geographically distant from the city or town, were not located within a residential area or precinct, attracted few non-racing based events and did not facilitate public use were less able to create and sustain social capital outside their cup and major race days.

Discussion and conclusion

The aims of this article were to explore both the contributions of country race clubs to social capital within rural and regional communities as well as their utilization of social capital to facilitate their operations. In relation to the first aim, we conclude that Victorian country race clubs create and sustain significant amounts of social capital, which complements the economic and financial benefits they have for their communities. Thus, we concur with Seippel (2005) that sport clubs do develop social capital for individuals. However, this study has shown that in the context of race clubs, social capital development occurs in three ways: 1) via individual’s direct involvement in race activities as a horse owner, trainer, jockey or other role where the nature of one’s role facilitates contact with a wide range of other people; 2) via the race club hosting race meetings where people attend to socialize with others; and 3) the club hosting other community events and activities on their premises that attract people who would not otherwise attend the race club. Contrary to Seippel’s (2005: 261) caution that ‘one should definitely not automatically conclude that being member of a voluntary sport organization implies social integration’, it would appear that in the context of country race clubs, that the likelihood of such integration is very high. This study also suggests that the context of a person’s involvement in a sport organization is central to understanding how social interactions take place and the concomitant development of social capital. The findings of this study also support those of Townsend et al. (2002) that sport clubs in rural areas in general are of benefit to a wider community beyond the immediate membership of the organizations. Townsend et al. (2002: 4) had identified sport clubs in rural areas as ‘keeping the community together through providing a sense of unity, by being a social leveller, by fostering a sense of trust and contributing to social cohesion’, functions that were reflected in the findings of this study.

In relation to the second aim of the study, we have found clear evidence that supports the views of Doherty and Misener (2008) that sport clubs such as these depend on the social capital within its membership and wider community to sustain its activities. While there were differences between clubs as to how overt they were in fostering social capital, the diverse nature of race club activities that rely on a myriad of different skills from individuals and groups in the community provides the impetus for the creation of social capital. Reciprocity is at the heart of social capital, in the sense that strong social networks are formed when individuals and groups engage in activities which develop and sustain mutual trust. This appears strong in many of the race clubs that participated in this study, particularly those that focus much of their non-race activities on what might broadly be called ‘community development’. Those race clubs that actively seek to engage in strategies to foster social capital appear to secure greater levels of community support and recognition, which in turn supports their core focus on racing activities. The range of non-racing activities and functions within communities that are supported by the presence and actions of race clubs indicates both the development of social capital within communities and its utility to race clubs and their respective communities alike.

Those clubs that recognized the value in seeking to build and extend the social networks created through racing appeared to be in an advantageous position relative to those clubs that did not seek to develop such networks. As Sobels et al. (2001: 265) concluded in their study of the role of rural Landcare groups, the ‘key elements of social capital that were important in achieving these outcomes [i.e. success] were trust, norms, expectations of reciprocity and linkages’, all of which were evident in the operation of the country race clubs in this study. Borrowing from Putnam (2000), for country race clubs, social networks do indeed have value: for both themselves and their communities.

A further important finding of this study was that the maintenance of social capital associated with the race clubs in these communities was also dependent on developing and maintaining positive relationships with local government authorities as well as race clubs being cognizant of the key role that volunteer committee members have in developing and maintaining links with other community groups. The evidence from this study supports the claim by King (2004) that non-profit boards are central to the creation of social capital, especially through their investment in strategic partnerships, advocating on behalf of their clubs, and enhancing community relations. Those clubs that had board members and CEOs with the vision and motivation to access, build and employ social capital were better off than those clubs without such skilled and motivated boards, which in turn enabled their respective communities greater access to race club facilities and resources.

To conclude, this study has reinforced the value of Bourdieu’s (1986) definition of social capital, with its focus on the aggregate resources that can be utilized by both individuals and communities based on a durable network of relationships; in this case, relationships that exist between race clubs (in particular, their board members and CEOs) and their local communities. It has also shown how the social networks created through sport organizations such as race clubs facilitate the creation of positive collective action within communities (Putnam, 2000) as demonstrated by the race clubs’ success in service delivery, event hosting and supporting their local communities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of Country Racing Victoria for this research project.

References

Blackshaw

Long

(2005) What’s the big idea? A critical exploration of the concept of social capital and its incorporation into leisure policy discourse. Leisure Studies 24: 239–258.

Bourdieu

(1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson

(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, 241–258.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

LJD

(1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Brass

Krackhardt

(1999) The social capital of twenty-first century leaders. In: Hunt

Dodge

Wong

(eds) Out-of-the-box Leadership: Transforming the Twenty-First Century Army and Other Top Performing Organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 179–194.

Brown

(2006) The position of Australian community sporting organizations in the third sector: Membership profiles, characteristics and attitudes. Third Sector Review 12(2): 17–39.

Brown

(2008) Community sport/recreation members and social capital measures in Sweden and Australia. In: Nicholson

Hoye

(eds) Sport and Social Capital. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 165–186.

Burnett

(2006) Building social capital through an active community club. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 41: 283–294.

Centre for Strategic Economic Studies and Centre for Hospitality and Tourism Research (2006) Economic and social contribution of thoroughbred horse racing in country Victoria: Draft Report, Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne.

Coalter

(2007) Sports clubs, social capital and social regeneration: Ill-defined interventions with hard to follow outcomes? Sport in Society 10(4): 537–559.

10.

Coleman

(1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94(supplement): s95–s120.

11.

Collins

(2003) Sport and Social Exclusion. London: Routledge.

12.

Collins

(2004) Voluntary sports clubs and social capital. In: Nichols

Collins

(eds) Volunteers in Sports Clubs. Eastbourne: LSA, 105–118.

13.

Commonwealth of Australia (2001) Backing Australia’s Sporting Ability. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

14.

Country Racing Victoria (CRV) (2007) Annual Report 2006–2007.

15.

Doherty

Misener

(2008) Community sport networks. In: Nicholson

Hoye

(eds) Sport and Social Capital. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 113–142.

16.

Dyreson

(2001) Maybe it’s better to bowl alone: Sport, community and democracy in American thought. Sport in Society 4(1): 19–30.

17.

Fine

(2010) Theories of Social Capital: Researchers Behaving Badly. London: Pluto Press.

18.

Harvey

Levesque

Donnelly

(2007) Sport volunteerism and social capital. Sociology of Sport Journal 24: 206–223.

19.

Jarvie

(2003) Communitarism, sport and social capital. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 38: 139–153.

20.

King

(2004) Social capital and nonprofit leaders. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14(4): 471–486.

21.

Lin

(2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Nicholson

Hoye

(2008) Sport and social capital: An introduction. In: Nicholson

Hoye

(eds) Sport and Social Capital. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1–20.

24.

Okayasu

Kawahar

Nogawa

(2010) The relationship between community sport clubs and social capital in Japan: A comparative study between the comprehensive sport clubs and the traditional sport clubs. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45: 163–186.

25.

Portes

(1998) Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.

26.

Productivity Commission (2003) Social Capital: Reviewing the Concept and its Policy Implications. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

27.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

28.

Seippel

(2005) Sport, civil society and social integration: The case of Norwegian voluntary sport organizations. Journal of Civil Society 1(3): 247–265.

29.

Seippel

(2006) Sport and social capital. Acta Sociologica 49(2): 169–183.

30.

Sharpe

(2003) Its not fun anymore: A case study of organizing a contemporary grassroots recreation association. Society and Leisure 26(2): 431–452.

31.

Sharpe

(2006) Resources at the grassroots of recreation: Organizational capacity and quality of experience in a community sport organization. Leisure Sciences 28: 385–401.

32.

Sobels

Curtis

Lockie

(2001) The role of rural Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. Journal of Rural Studies 17: 265–276.

33.

Sport Canada (2002) The Canadian Sport Policy. Toronto: Sport Canada.

34.

Sport England (2004) National Framework for Sport. London: Sport England.

35.

Tonts

(2005) Competitive sport and social capital in rural Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 137–149.

36.

Townsend

Moore

Mahoney

(2002) Playing their part: The role of physical activity and sport in sustaining the health and well being of small rural communities. Rural and Remote Health (online) 109: 1–7.

37.

Walseth

(2008) Bridging and bonding social capital in sport – experiences of young women with an immigrant background. Sport, Education and Society 13(1): 1–17.

38.

Woolcock

(1998) Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society 27: 151–208.