Author(s): JING, M., YANG, H., ZHAO, Y., Institution: CHENGDU SPORT UNIVERSITY, Country: CHINA, Abstract-ID: 323

Introduction: Sport embodies youth, health, and vitality, serving as a cornerstone for public well-being and national development. With its distinctive characteristics and multifaceted roles, it is an essential vehicle for enhancing public health, fulfilling citizens’ aspirations for a better life, and fostering comprehensive human development. This study explores the teleological, agency-driven, structural, instrumental, evaluative, and institutional foundations of sport development in China through three historically situated configurations.
Methods:A mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating historiography, systematic documentary analysis, abductive reasoning, and semi-structured interviews with policy experts and sector leaders. A systematic search of the CNKI database using “Sports Power” and “Sports Development” as keywords within CSSCI-indexed journals published between 2021 -2026 yielded 142 and 106 articles. More than 50 papers were reviewed, and over 10 interviews were conducted with leading experts in the field of sport development.
Results:The evolution of China’s national sport system is an inherently historical process. As internal and external conditions shift, sport has evolved through various configurations across different periods, each corresponding to distinct developmental phases. This paper identifies three ideal-typical paradigms that have shaped the organization of sport development in China:
1. The Catch-up Paradigm (1949–2000s): Focused on national fitness, this phase was state-driven through the DanWei system, characterized by mandatory planning, evaluated by quota-based outcomes, and legitimated by top-down policy directives.
2. The Sustainability Paradigm (2008–2017): Shifted towards human-centered sport, enacted through public–private partnerships, regulated by collaborative governance structures, operationalized through balanced resource allocation, assessed by self-referential criteria, and stabilized within a legal framework.
3. The High-Quality Development Paradigm (Post-19th CPC National Congress): Emphasizes sport for the people, co-produced by diverse stakeholders, integrated through aligned sectoral policies, activated by relational governance mechanisms, assessed with optimization metrics, and supported by normative institutional frameworks.
Conclusion:The transition between paradigms is not a linear progression but rather a dialectical process of continuity, refinement, and transcendence. Each configuration represents a rational response to the specific historical and socio-political conditions of its time. These paradigms illustrate the complex, evolving trajectory of China’s sport development, reflecting both the challenges and achievements of the nation's efforts to modernize and optimize its sport system. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how sport can be strategically leveraged for national development and public well-being, offering insights for future policy directions.