Introduction

Feist, Andrew; Hutchison, Robert

doi:10.1080/09548969009390282

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…129-30). While there are problems with comparative expenditure data (Feist and Hutchison, 1990), studies of public expenditure on cultural policy are an important source of information about changing preoccupations on the part of government and require development.…”

Section: Cultural Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing cultural policy: A reformulation¹

Gray

1996

The European Journal of Cultural Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication of Kawashima's (1995) article in this Journal is an important first step towards the development of a consciously comparative approach to the study of cultural policy. However the approach that is presented for how such studies should be conducted, and the questions that are identified as being significant for them, are both open to debate. In particular the methodological assumptions and the implicit support for a certain form of research strategy that are presented require a great deal more justification than they are given.The intention of this article is to argue that there is no single 'best' strategy for undertaking comparative policy research in the field of cultural policy, and that there is no all-inclusive list of what should be investigated. Starting from different views of what comparative policy research is concerned with provides the possibility for developing an alternative prospectus for future comparative work that incorporates but is more wide-ranging than that presented by Kawashima (1995, ps. 298-303), and which allows for the development of a multiplicity of approaches and areas of study for the comparative analyst. COMPARING PUBLIC POLICIESThe comparative study of public policies has developed a great deal since the fledgling efforts of the 1970s. A range of strategies have been developed over time that lead to different emphases upon aspects of the policy process: Hancock (1983), for example, differentiates between general and theoretical perspectives, those that deal with the determinants of policy and those that are concerned with policy outputs and evaluation. Heidenheimer et al (1990, ps. 7-9) distinguish between six analytical approaches: socio-economic, cultural values, party government, class, neo-corporatist and institutional-political. Hall (1986, ps. 5-20) likewise identifies six approaches: functionalist, cultural analysis, public choice, group, state-centric and institutional.This plethora of strategies for understanding public policy in a comparative sense by no means exhausts the list of what is available but what is important is that they identify distinct modes of analysis, emphasising certain aspects of the policy process over others and investigating different features of what is involved in this process. In this respect Kawashima (1995) is essentially concentrating on policy outputs and evaluation within a framework that is predicated upon assumptions from economics.

show abstract

Section: Cultural Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%