4.2 Article

Pakistan's Participation at the Summer Olympic Games, 1948 to 2016: A Social Development Theory Approach

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 511-526

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09523367.2021.1933952

Keywords

Pakistan; historical; Summer Olympics; athletes; social development theory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper adopts the perspective of social development theory to describe and analyze the historical background of Pakistan's participation in international sporting events, mainly focusing on the Summer Olympic Games. It aims to expand understanding of the challenges faced by this Islamic country in elite sports development.
Based on the existing literature, it is clear that the Summer Olympic Games since 1896 have been carefully evaluated, with detailed statistical records compiled accordingly. However, documentation and historical analysis of the Summer Olympic Games is lacking for some nations. In particular, a number of post-colonial and non-Western countries have a relatively low Olympic profile. This is the case with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which has a distinctive position in regard to its geography and its system of religious and cultural values. Although it is well-known that Pakistan began to participate in the Summer Olympic Games in 1948, the year after its independence was gained, few attempts have been made to explain why it has won a limited number of medals. In an effort to address this gap in existing knowledge, this paper adopts the perspective of social development theory, with the aim of describing and analyzing the historical background of Pakistan's participation in international sporting events, mainly focusing on the Summer Olympic Games. The paper will therefore expand understanding of a series of problems faced by this Islamic country against the background of its elite sports development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available