ARE GOVERNMENTAL CULTURE
DEPARTMENTS IMPORTANT?: An Empirical
Investigation
CLIVE GRAY & MELVIN WINGFIELD
Department of Public Policy
De Montfort University
IMPORTANCE OR IRRELEVANCE?
•
•
•
•
Censorship/manipulation
Lack of political significance
Increasing intervention
New Departments/Re-naming
COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE
• Not ‘absolute’ importance but
• Importance in terms of other departments
• Comparison across nation-states?
ANALYSIS
• Quantitative – allow the answer to follow the
data
• Rank orderings
• Qualitative – allow the answer to guide the
data
• Qualitative Comparative Analysis (Crisp-Set)
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: I
• Variables:
• Expenditure Variation (1993/4-2006/7):
financial importance for government
• Departmental Age: functional importance for
government
• Cabinet Committee Membership (2009):
political importance for government
• Public Service Agreements (2008-11):
implementation importance for government
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: II
• Legislation (1992-2008): Parliamentary
importance for government
• Press Coverage (1992-2005): Public
importance for government
• 13 Departments ranked
• Culture, Media and Sport: 11th
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: I
• Variables:
• Policy sector significance: manifesto coverage
1992-2005
• Functional centrality: central staff compared
to total staff
• Departmental remit: clear/diffuse policy focus
• Ministerial career trajectory: pinnacles or
stepping-stones?
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: II
• Specified outcome: departmental significance
• What contributes to this outcome?
• Either: sector significance and centrality and
career trajectory
• Or: sector significance and career trajectory
and absence of definition
• Or: clear definition and career trajectory and
absence of sector significance and centrality
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: III
CONCLUSIONS
• For Britain –
• The Culture Department is not important for
government when compared with other
departments, either quantitatively or
qualitatively
• Is this true for other countries?
• How about a comparative study?