Acomparative Study Of The "Heteronomy" And "Autonomy" In Urban Community Sports

There are three types of urban community sports governance: the “heteronomy”,autonomy and the mixed governance. Due to the complexity of the urban communitystructure as well as the heterogeneity of the residents, many problems have been found in thecurrent urban community sports governance. Thus, it is necessary to make a systematic studyto the urban community sports governance.In this study, the author use urban community sports governance as the main line. TheLiterature, interviews and comparative study methods were used to deeply analysis thecharacteristics of the “heteronomy” and autonomy. The author carried out a detailedcomparative study about the “heteronomy” and autonomy in urban community sports fromthe five elements that constitute community sports which are community sports organizations,community members, facilities and funds,sports managers&mentors and community sports.1）The “heteronomy” of urban community sports is the government-led managementmodel, it is following the vertical hierarchical structure and emphasizing administrativecontrol. The autonomy of urban community sports organizations is matrix structure,it reflectsthe line about separation Official separately The principle of politics in all.2）The “heteronomy” of urban community sports is lacking of resident participation,which always led to the so called"community apathy syndrome", while on the other hand, theresident of autonomy is much more positive, but still insufficient. The “heteronomy” andautonomy are facing a arduous task of nurturing communities.3)The funds of urban community sports governance comes from three ways: governmentfunding,community individuals and organizations’donations and self-financing.Venues andfacilities are basically dominated by government, while some are providing by enterprises.The “heteronomy” only can rely on government funding to develop community sports, on theother hand, the funding source of autonomy not only have government funding,self-financing but also accept donations.4)The government as the only managers and mentors of the “heteronomy”,but inautonomy the government only fulfill the role of mentor, the management body tends to bemultiple. Compared with autonomy, the “heteronomy” is lacking of community sportsactivities, and results is relatively poor.Combined with the inherent demands of urban community sports development and the opportunity to promoting the modernization of national governance system and capacity,tapping the potential advantages of autonomy in urban community sports, summarized theurban community sports autonomy is an inevitable trend of urban community sportgovernance. And also we should notice that the urban community sports autonomy is acontingency and forward-looking choice, it requires the joint efforts from thestate,society,urban community residents.