1. ARE GOVERNMENTAL CULTURE DEPARTMENTS IMPORTANT?: An Empirical Investigation CLIVE GRAY & MELVIN WINGFIELD Department of Public Policy De Montfort University

2. IMPORTANCE OR IRRELEVANCE? Censorship/manipulation Lack of political significance Increasing intervention New Departments/Re-naming

3. COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE Not ‘absolute’ importance but Importance in terms of other departments Comparison across nation-states?

4. ANALYSIS Quantitative – allow the answer to follow the data Rank orderings Qualitative – allow the answer to guide the data Qualitative Comparative Analysis (Crisp-Set)

5. 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

6. 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: 11 th

7. 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?

8. 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

9. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: III

10. 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?