No. 8, pp. 36–38

Published: 28.07.2026

CC BY 4.0

Abstract

Objective of the study is to identify the distinctive aspects of classifying and applying state-policy instruments within the sports sector of a metropolis and to justify the need for an integrated approach to their typology that reflects the specifics of the field. Methods and structure of the study. The methodological basis of the research is based on systematic and institutional approaches applied to the analysis of Russian and foreign scientific works devoted to the typologization of public policy instruments. The research includes an analysis of existing approaches to classifying public policy instruments; a comparative comparison of the features of their use in mass and professional sports; a generalization of the identified differences, taking into account the conditions for the implementation of sports policy in a megalopolis. Results and conclusions. The study found that no universal approach to classifying state-policy instruments currently exists, which gives rise to multiple readings of their nature and mechanisms of influence. Mass and professional sport were shown to rely on differing combinations of instruments that vary in their aims, degree of institutionalisation, range of actors, and conditions of use. The findings substantiate the need for a multi-level typology of sports-policy instruments that accounts for the distinct segments of this area of public relations and for the particular features of the metropolis.

1. Bondarenko O.A. Konstitutsionnye osnovy pravovogo regulirovaniya fizicheskoy kultury i sporta v Rossii [The constitutional foundations of the legal regulation of physical culture and sports in Russia]. Physical education and sports training. 2022. V. 2. No. 40. Pp. 129-133.
2. Grigoryeva V.V., Andreev N.V., Pozdnyakov K.K. Osobennosti i prioritety razvitiya infrastruktury massovogo sporta [Features and priorities of mass sports infrastructure development]. Bulletin of the Altai Academy of Economics and Law. 2021. No. 10-3. Pp. 225-230. DOI: 10.17513/vaael.1911.
3. Capano G., Engeli I. Using instrument typologies in comparative research: Conceptual and methodological trade-offs. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2022. V. 24. No. 2. Pp. 99-116. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2020.1871297.
4. Capano G., Pritoni A., Vicentini G. Do policy instruments matter? Governments’ choice of policy mix and higher education performance in Western Europe. Journal of Public Policy. 2020. V. 40. No. 3. Pp. 375-401. DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X19000047.
5. Grix J., Carmichael F. Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. 2012. V. 4. No. 1. Pp. 73-90. DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2011.627358.
6. Hood C. The tools of government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers, 1986.
7. Salamon L.M. The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
8. Vedung E. Policy instruments: Typologies and theories, in: M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. Rist, and E. Vedung (Eds) Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Pp. 21-58.