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 ( ): implementation importance for government

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: II Legislation ( ): Parliamentary importance for government Press Coverage ( ): Public importance for government 13 Departments ranked Culture, Media and Sport: 11 th

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: I Variables: Policy sector significance: manifesto coverage 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?