POLITICS AND CULTURE: REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM

CLIVE GRAY

Department of Public PolicyDe Montfort UniversityLeicester LE7 9SU

Tel: 0116 2577787Email: cjg@dmu.ac.uk

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association, Aberdeen University, April 2002.

1

Introduction

Attempts to use the concept of ‘culture’ as an explanatory variable in political science

have become increasingly common. Unfortunately the development of a ‘cultural turn’ in

politics has not been matched by the development of any meaningful findings that locate

culture as a central component of either causality or explanation. The intention of this

paper is to question the ways in which ‘culture’ has been adopted in politics, to identify

the weaknesses of current attempts to operationalise the concept for purposes of

empirical enquiry, and to suggest potential avenues for development that would free the

concept from some of the less useful routes down which it has been driven.

Culture as a Concept

A major problem with attempting to utilise ‘culture’ is that it ‘is one of the two or three

most complicated words in the English language’ (Williams, 1976, p. 76). This has led to

a proliferation of usages of the concept: even by the 1950s there were over 150

definitions of culture (Crang, 1998, p. 2) and goodness knows how many more have been

coined since then. ‘Culture’ (with or without the apostrophes) would seem to be a classic

example of an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie, 1955/6), one that is capable of

multiple definitions and with no clear system for choosing between these as to what the

term actually ‘means’.

In this respect culture has become something of a case-sensitive term, being used by

writers for particular purposes at particular times without there being any consistency

between these usages. A consequence of this has been a tendency to make indiscriminate

2

use of the concept which has generated problems of determining whether what is being

examined is ‘cultural’ at all or whether there has been a conflation of categories that

muddies the waters and explains little at all.

A generalised solution to the proliferation of usages of the concept of culture has been to

simply categorise uses into particular types. The usual summary that develops from this

(see Smith, 2000, ps. 22-3) is to discuss culture as referring to:

Some form of realisation of universal values. The usual starting point here is with a

particular reading of Arnold (1960).

A way of life shared by a particular social group based on shared values, institutions,

modes of behaviour, meanings and languages, whether an entire society (eg. German

or Nigerian or British culture) or a sub-section of the whole (eg. club or biker or drug

culture). In academic terms the exploration of various sub-cultures (Hebdige, 1979)

can be balanced against more ‘artistic’ examinations of such lived cultures (see, for

example, Laxness, 2001 on rural Iceland in the first part of the 20th century).

The recording of human experience and how this is understood and interpreted by

both members of the social group concerned and by interested outsiders. This can

range from criticism of artistic products (books, paintings, music, etc) to

anthropological explorations of societies.

Each of these understandings of what ‘culture’ means opens up the possibilities for

exploration through the employment of a wide range of techniques. Examples of such

approaches that have been previously used, or which have been proposed for use, could

3

include those deriving from anthropology (Jenks, 1993, chs. 2-3), or biography (Inglis,

1993, ch. 9), or ‘cultural studies’ (Finlayson and Martin, 1997). Perhaps the only thing

that is common amongst such techniques is that they are overwhelmingly qualitative in

nature and are rarely capable of providing a simple explanation for the complex

phenomena that are the subject of exploration. Indeed the greater the tendency towards

various forms of post-modernist discussion and argument the less simplicity (or clarity)

there appears to be.

The discussions that have taken place within these arguments have, however, generated a

number of issues for debate that are of relevance for the study of politics and, of course,

more specifically for the analysis of culture and politics. Rather than go through these in

detail here they will simply be mentioned as they will be returned to at a later stage of the

discussion. Of key concern (as with a great deal of political science) are the issues of

structure and agency, causality and meaning. The importance of these will become

apparent after considering how politics has currently attempted to use culture in the past.

Politics and Culture

The ‘cultural turn’ in political science has taken as many turns as there have been

discussions of ‘culture’ in the discipline. In this, at least, political science has been no

different to other disciplines. Where the study of politics has tended to part company

with other readings of the concept has been as a consequence of the dominant acceptance

of behavioural approaches to the analysis of the subject. This methodological

predilection can be seen from the usual starting-point of discussion of culture in politics

4

with the attempt to investigate a ‘civic culture’ (Almond and Verba, 1963). The version

of ‘culture’ employed in this was, of course, concerned with the evaluations, knowledge

and emotive feelings about politics and political organisations and actors that were

contained within populations.

This was clearly not the same view of culture that has become prevalent in other areas,

particularly in terms of being limited in scope. If anything it leads to a view of politics as

being essentially some form of sub-culture that takes a distinctly different form to all

other sub-cultures, or, indeed, the general culture of which it is a part. A more

generalised problem is that by treating politics as a sub-cultural arena of action the links

between politics and the more general, overall, culture of a society becomes an issue of

secondary concern and fails to link ‘political’ culture to wider patterns of social

behaviour. Apart from this concern the forms of political culture that were identified (ie.

parochial, subject and participant) are clearly limiting, even as generalisations. The

existence of distinct patterns of patron –client forms of relationship, for example, is not

easily accounted for (at a superficial level these could be treated as a form of subject

culture but this rather ignores some of the more important elements of these

relationships, particularly in their implications for the working of the political system as

a whole).

The initial attempts to make some sense of the obvious point that politics and political

activity occur within a particular set of circumstances and contexts effectively generated

more problems than they resolved, not only at the theoretical level but also at the

5

methodological. Not least amongst these was that the behavioural model of investigation

that was employed (and is still regrettably common) tended to assume a commonality of

meaning being attached to words (the obvious example being the use of the word ‘pride’

to assess levels of positive feelings for the political system). Such a view led to instances

of cultural confusion so that it was always unclear as to whether the research was

identifying common characteristics across systems or not.

Regardless of these difficulties ‘culture’ has been extended in use in politics such that it

is possible to now identify a range of uses within the literature. These include seeing and

using culture as:

Societal contexts within which politics takes place (societal culture).

A sub-set of society aimed simply at politics (political culture).

Sets of rule-governed behaviour (administrative culture).

Each of these contains distinct variants on the general idea of culture but they effectively

share a common set of assumptions about the role and impact of culture on politics.

At the very least these assumptions include the banal, if not trivial, point that variations

between political systems should be expected to exist as a consequence of differences

between the societal settings within which politics occurs. Secondly, it is assumed that

there are specific effects upon politics that are generated by discrete arenas of human

behaviour. Thirdly, these effects are different to those that are generated by distinctly

political elements of social life (for example, ideology). Following from these are then a

set of methodological assumptions about how the effect and impact of these variations

6

can be at least assessed, if not precisely measured, usually through some crudely

positivist approach to data and information. To justify these claims a brief summary of

some of the work that has been undertaken in the areas identified above is necessary.

In terms of the societal context within which politics takes place there are a number of

studies that emphasise the importance of different combinations of factors that contribute

to the acceptance of such a view. The usual pattern in these studies is to claim that a

factor influences the operations of the political system and that this factor is ‘cultural’ in

itself. That is that there is something specific about the composition or operation of this

factor that makes it peculiar to the particular society that is being studied. A major

difficulty here is that the ‘cultural’ element that is being studied is often not ‘cultural’ at

all but is simply a re-labeling of another factor altogether. For example, the discussion in

Lockhart (1999), arguing for a cultural explanation of the structure of states

organisational capacities is not actually demonstrating such a thing at all but, rather, is

identifying an ideological explanation. In a similar vein Rose and Page (1996), for

example, identified differences between politicians from the old West and East

Germanys that affected their views of how the new, reunified, German state should

function. These differences were certainly ideological but whether this formed an

element in a distinct cultural formation (and how it would do so) remains unclear (Rose

and Page did not claim that they were ‘cultural’ differences).

Peters (2000), identifies other factors operating in this sphere – such as an acceptance, or

not, of legal-rational authority as an organising principle of the state – but can only

7

tenuously demonstrate that this is actually a ‘cultural’ phenomenon. The difficulty with

this idea is that while it is clearly important for the acceptance of certain forms of

organisational structure and behaviour it is much more difficult to draw any clear

connection between it and anything that can unambiguously be seen as being cultural.

Reference by Peters to the earlier work of Katz and Eisenstadt (1960) implies that there

may be a cultural influence at work in this area but this is at best indicative and requires

further examination of how such processes as bartering or, again, patron-client type

relationships create and actually structure what occurs in organisational settings.

Further elements of the societal context can also be considered as affecting politics,

administration and management in differing societies. The extent of homogeneity or

heterogeneity within societies, for example, could potentially affect the extent to which

dominant forms of mobilisation and organisation are accepted, or not. The Japanese

system, for example, appears to display an almost monolithic sense of how and why

political structures and actors should operate that is developed from a host of elements

(including religion, the practices of Japanese feudalism and the experience of rapid

industrialisation). This is in marked distinction from divided societies (much of sub-

Saharan Africa would fall into this, for example) where fragmented societies make the

establishment of common patterns of political organisation and action somewhat more

difficult, particularly in the context of the instrumental rationality that is associated with

legal-rational authority (Turner and Hulme, 1997, ch. 4).

8

At this level there are clearly difficulties in demonstrating the precise mechanisms by

which general societal cultures affect politics, even if there indicative signs that there is

some form of causal relationship between the two. These difficulties are multiplied if the

early versions of ‘political culture’ (discussed briefly above) are considered. If the idea

of political culture is to mean anything it, arguably, needs to go beyond evaluations,

feelings and knowledge to identify the subject as something that has specific implications

for the practices of politics. Apart from the definitional and methodological problems of

distinguishing elements of culture from elements of politics itself (for example, the

confusion of ‘culture’ with ideology) some idea of the actual processes of politics

themselves is surely required to identify the core of the matter. Simple questions – such

as, for example, how are negotiation, bargaining and compromise undertaken – are a part

of this and need to be developed further.

Examples from comparative politics, of course, exist that attempt to differentiate between

political systems in terms of, for example, preferred patterns of policy-making

(Richardson, 1982), or administrative traditions (Knill, 1998). In this respect ‘culture’

would appear to have some mileage behind it in the context of ‘administrative cultures’.

The manner in which administrative machines operate and are managed contains within

it the idea of a specific ‘way of life’ that is undertaken within the context of shared belief

systems, languages, codes of behaviour and symbolic practices that allow for the

development of specific explanations and accounts of what is occurring. Mentioning such

obvious and well-used ideas as ‘rules of the game’ (Rhodes, 1981), ‘village life’ (Heclo

9

and Wildavsky, 1974), and ‘street level bureaucracy’ (Lipsky, 1980) indicate the range of

already existing arguments that could be developed in this context.

Developing Cultural Explanations

The attempt to use ‘culture’ in political analysis clearly has some difficulties attached to

it. Apart from the simple definitional matters that surround the concept there are also

methodological and epistemological factors that need to be considered.

Of central importance in this respect is the question of what ‘culture’ is actually being

used for in terms of political analysis. Is it simply being utilised as a factor that has

explanatory value in a positivist, and largely behavioural, sense; or is it being utilised as

a contextualising variable that is required for understanding behaviour? The second usage

has limited concern with the idea of explanation that is central to the first usage, even if it

can be extended in such a fashion if necessary. If the distinction between these two

approaches to the use of the concept of ‘culture’ is accepted then there are clear

distinctions to be drawn between how the concept is to be investigated. The difficulties

that arise from the study of culture from a behavioural perspective are largely those that

have been already identified. In particular, the problems of operationalising the concept

in such a fashion that it is capable of being measured, weighed, rated, assessed and given

a value lead to conceptual confusion precisely because of definitional problems.

While it is generally accepted that there are cultural differences between societies and

that these differences have important implications for how societies are structured,

10

administered and operate, it is much more difficult to identify something that is a crudely

causal relationship between the relevant variables. To some extent at least this problem

rests on the problem of adequately identifying something that is unambiguously

‘cultural’, rather than being merely a re-labeling of other concepts and ideas. Given that,

in the broadest sense, ‘culture’ is engrained in everything that exists and is undertaken

within particular social formations it would be easy to simply use the concept as some

form of residual category that contains everything that has not been distinctly and

separately identified and investigated as contributing to the structuring and running of

societies. If, on the other hand, ‘culture’ is accepted as an important differentiating

component between and within societies then mechanisms to identify precisely what

establishes and contributes to it are required that go beyond broad generalisations and

stereotypes.

In this case recent discussions of ‘culture’ and administration have some relevance.

Smith (2001, ps. 147-8), for example, discusses culture as comprising two general forms

- matters of working practices, and the dominant ‘ethos and outlook’ of public servants –

and argues that the deeply entrenched nature of these within the British civil service has

served to limit the extent to which effective change has taken place at a cultural level.

This is a different interpretation of the significance of culture to that which is presented

by Knill (1998), who sees the characteristics of the British administrative system (what

Smith sees as its’ culture), as being capable of adapting to change without the necessity

for cultural reappraisal anyway, thus implying that the embededness of administrative

11

cultures has marked implications for policy and administration depending upon cultural

context.

Thus, the interpretation of culture is clearly of significance for delineating what it is

composed of, and, as importantly, what the implications to be drawn from cultural

analysis are to be. Returning to the original three general views of culture identified

above (page 3) it is possible to identify distinct means of analysis that politics could

undertake to make sense of this subject. In terms of culture and universal values forms of

political philosophy would appear to be the obvious point of departure. In terms of

patterns of shared life, forms of analysis that are based around the exploration of what

these are composed of are required. The manner in which this can be achieved would

perhaps be best served by a multiple approach that identifies the shared characteristics of

the forms of life that are lived by the various sub-cultures (or indeed the dominant

culture, whatever that may be) that are of concern. In this respect approaches such as

those contained in anthropology (see, for a very dated but still interesting discussion,

Balandier, 1972, or, alternatively, Lewellen, 1994), biographical studies (see

Theakston,1999a; 1999b), and discourse analysis (Burton and Carlen, 1979) would all be

appropriate tools to utilise.

Indeed, a major difficulty in this area could actually be trying to find forms of analysis

that are not entirely appropriate for understanding such lived cultures. Certainly a more

inter-disciplinary approach to ‘culture’ could bear fruit here as subjects as diverse as

history (eg. Rietbergen, 1998; Brewer, 1997; Blanning, 2002), sociology (eg. Sharpe,

12

1994), and musicology (eg. Whittall, 1995, Introduction; Sadie and Latham, 1990, ps.

282-85) have all investigated the relationships between their subject-matter and cultural

concerns. If a full picture of the diversity of cultures is needed, as it would need to be to

develop a precise fixing of politics and political concerns within particular cultural

contexts, then the drawing together of all of the elements of these cultures is required. To

simply isolate one element from the totality of culture and to then claim that this provides

a cultural ‘explanation’ of politics is, at best, misleading.

This is particularly the case where the inevitable simplifications that are generated by the

positivist tendencies in behavioural research are invoked. Lockhart (1999) is a case in

point: the use of the grid-group approach of Douglas (for a brief summary of this model

see Douglas, 2001/2) presents a picture of culture (and that means all cultures) that is

explicable by reference to simply two variables: acceptance of the legitimacy of authority

(expressed as being either ‘high’ or ‘low’), and feelings of group affiliation (likewise

expressed). This creates an image of four cultural forms within societies (fatalism,

hierarchy, individualism and egalitarianism), with the balance between these affecting

the structure and modes of operation of the state. Apart from the point that this is a rather

crass generalisation about any society, it must be questioned as to whether the variables

that have been chosen are appropriate for the task in hand, and whether the cultural forms

that are identified are meaningful.

In terms of the former it is clear that they ignore as many cultural variables as they

capture: thus, matters of administrative tradition are clearly relevant to explaining state

structure and form (Knill, 1998; Weale et al, 1996), as are matters of administrative

13

culture itself and simple political choice (Wallis and Dollery, 2001). Equally, what the

state chooses to do (or not) is as clearly influenced - if not directly affected – by such

matters as religious observance (Minkenberg, 2002), and this in turn has a cultural

component to it (Esposito, 1998). Culture is simply too complex a phenomenon to be

captured by reference to only a handful of issues.

In terms of whether the cultural forms that are utilised are meaningful the answer is less

clear cut. As some form of ideal type classificatory schema they may have some usage.

If, however, they are meant to define the range of possibilities that societies could

contain they are severely limited. Apart from the inbuilt cultural bias that they display

(whether either of them would be of much use in the proverbial Amazonian jungle

society is debatable, for example), the labels attached to them are fairly vacuous. The

same sorts of conclusion to those that Lockhart drew could be developed if the cultural

types identified were re-labeled Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Buzz Lightyear and

Woody. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a great deal can be drawn from the grid-group

approach given this limitation. As constituent parts of particular groups of social actors

the labels capture something, but ‘culture’ is made up of far more than generalised

patterns of social behaviour that are limited to two dimensions anyway. There are further

difficulties with the grid-group approach that could be discussed (for example, how such

political considerations as power and ideology are handled within the framework; or how

wider dimensions of cultural life could be fitted in with it), but it is probably sufficient

for now to question the extent to which it actually provides a cultural explanation

anyway.

14

In terms of the third variant of ‘culture’ - how human experience is understood,

interpreted and recorded, then clearly interpretive methods of analysis are going to be of

significance. In this area investigations of administrative cultures are likely to be

important for understanding the ways in which the mechanisms of political society are

constructed and utilised by the members of different sections of the wider societies in

which they exist and operate. In this respect culture is not treated as a given that

underlies whatever occurs within societies, rather it is a component of societies that is

being continuously constructed and reconstructed in the light of changing

preconceptions, ideologies, values and beliefs. A consequence of this is that culture is no

longer a static given but a subject of political activity in its own right, and thus becomes

open to the application of political analysis. Such analysis needs to be rooted, however,

in the understandings of the participants in the process, implying, again, the need for an

interpretive twist to analysis that over-rides the normal assumptions of, in particular,

behavioural analyses.

Reformulating the Problem

The consequence of adopting any of the approaches that have been identified above is

that the pre-existing notions of the role and significance of ‘culture’ for the study of

politics require reappraisal. At the very least culture needs to be considered not as being

an objective phenomenon that is made up of clear ‘facts’ which can be measured and

rated, but, rather, that it is an on-going project of creation and re-creation. To this extent

it would appear that the development of some form of anti-foundational epistemology

15

(see, for example, Bevir and Rhodes, 1999) would be useful. Given the complexities of

culture, and the various manifestations of it through particular forms and sub-species, a

method that encompasses a form of analysis that is open-ended and capable of at least

interpreting, if not actually translating, these complexities is required.

At the very least a repetition of the call for a diverse research strategy that encompasses a

variety of methodological (probably with a bias towards qualitative research agendas)

approaches and which is truly inter-disciplinary would not be out of case. Such a call

does not, of course, demand the promiscuity and essentially atheoretical assumptions of

various post-modernist strategies to the analysis of politics (see Rhodes, 1997), but

neither does it demand the adoption of a single strategy for the explanation, investigation

and understanding of politics. In some respects, of course, the study of politics already

displays evidence of such an open-ended approach, with appropriate models and ideas

that are of direct relevance to the study of culture being available, albeit in a rather

disaggregated form. Thus, the work on administrative cultures discussed above is clearly

applicable, but so also are discussions in such diverse areas as political philosophy

(Unger, 1997) and public policy (Gray, 2000, ps. 95-103 on values in the politics of the

arts).

The usual point that is made in conference papers of this sort is that more work needs to

be done, both to flesh out the arguments that have been advanced, and to develop some

applications of proposed changes to existing approaches to the study of politics. In this

respect this paper is no different to the mainstream. The ‘cultural turn’ in politics in

16

recent years has generated a great deal of heat but very little actual light. This position

has largely been a consequence of the fairly crude approach that has been adopted to the

concept of culture in the first place. By seeking to discover some single version of a

vastly complex phenomenon, and then using that version in a crudely positivistic fashion,

the subtleties and nuances of the concept have been rather lost. The use of a varied set of

approaches, drawn from a number of distinct disciplinary settings, offers the possibility

of being able to establish an area of research (and life) that is too little examined and

certainly too little understood.

As a preliminary starting point to map out the territory that could be usefully pursued in

the light of the argument that has been presented above it could be argued that the two

most obvious areas at which to make a start would be:

the relationship of societal culture with politics, and, secondly,

the internal cultures that permeate the world of politics.

In the case of the former of these the construction of a more realistic model of societal

culture than has been utilised in the recent past is required. Given the complexities of

culture and cultural formations an approach that is concerned with interpretation, and

building on a range of techniques and methodologies, would almost certainly be required

if any meaningful sense is to be made of the subject. In this respect the ideal-typical

formation of the grid-group approach to culture, for example, must fail as a consequence

of its very parsimony. The difficulties that would be involved in an enterprise of this sort

17

should not be underestimated and almost certainly the lessons of anthropology (if not

zoology in the case of some societies) would be of benefit for the erstwhile researcher.

In the case of the latter there are many examples that already exist. What is required at

the very least is an attempt to bring together the findings from a range of national and

comparative studies to identify the component elements of the internalised cultures that

exist, how these are put together, and what the consequences of them are. Given that a

definitive answer to these questions is unlikely to be readily apparent then an

interpretive analysis would be at least helpful in coming to terms with the issues that are

involved, and with the variations that exist as a consequence of different patterns of

cultural establishment.

Conclusion

The intuitive notion that culture has an impact on the world of politics is neither new

nor, in itself, significant. Attempting to actually understand the processes and paths by

which it has the effects that it does raises, however, a range of questions and issues that

need to be dealt with before investigation can take place. Traditional behavioural

approaches to culture have generally been unimpressive, either confusing cultural with

other forms of explanation, or presenting such a constrained understanding of the

concept as to be largely worthless. Given the nature of the concept as being essentially

contested alternative methodologies and epistemologies to those of behaviouralism are

more likely to have some hope of clarifying the relationships between culture and

politics that at present are shrouded to the point of total opacity. For this reason, if no

18

other, the exploration of alternative approaches to the understanding of culture and the

effects of culture on politics needs to be undertaken if the concept is to escape from

being a residual category and is to become a meaningful component of analysis.

References

Almond, G and S. Verba (1963), The Civic Culture (Princeton, Princeton University

Press).

Arnold, M (1960), Culture and Anarchy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Balandier, G (1972), Political Anthropology (Harmondsworth, Penguin).

Bevir, M and R. Rhodes (1999), Studying British Government, British Journal of Politics

and International Relations, Vol. 1, ps. 215-39.

Blanning, T (2002), The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture (Oxford, Oxford

University Press).

Brewer, J (1997), The Pleasures of the Imagination (London, Fontana).

Burton, F and P. Carlen (1979), Official Discourse (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul).

Crang, M (1998), Cultural Geography (London, Routledge).

Douglas (2001/2), Culture a Backdoor Approach, CSD Bulletin, Vol. 9, No.1, ps. 1-2,18.

Esposito, J (1998), Islam and Politics (Syracuse, Syracuse University Press).

Finlayson, A and J. Martin (1997), Political Studies and Cultural Studies, Politics, Vol.

17, ps. 183-9.

19

Gallie, W (1955/6), Essentially Contested Concepts, Proceedings of the Aristotelian

Society, Vol. 56, ps. 167-97.

Gray, C (2000), The Politics of the Arts in Britain (London, Macmillan).

Hebdige, D (1979), Subculture (London, Methuen).

Heclo, H and A. Wildavsky (1974), The Private Government of Public Money (London,

Macmillan)

Inglis, F (1993), Cultural Studies (Oxford, Blackwell).

Jenks, C (1993), Culture (London, Routledge).

Katz, E and S. Eisenstadt (1960), Some Sociological Observations on the Response of

Israeli Organizations to New Immigrants, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5, ps.

113-33.

Knill, C (1998), European Policies: the Impact of National Administrative Traditions,

Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 18, ps. 1-28.

Laxness, H (2001), Independent People (London, Harvill).

Lewellen, T (1994), Political Anthropology (2nd Ed., New York, Bergin and Garvey).

Lipsky, M (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy (New York, Russell Sage Foundation).

Lockhart, C (1999), Cultural Contributions to Explaining Institutional Form,

Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 32, ps. 862-93.

Minkenberg, M (2002), Religion and Public Policy, Comparative Political Studies, Vol.

35, ps. 221-47.

Peters, B (2000), The Politics of Bureaucracy (5th Ed., London, Longman).

Rhodes, R (1981), Control and Power in Central-Local Government Relations

(Aldershot, Gower).

20

Rhodes, R (1997), Towards a Post-Modern Public Administration, ps. 180-200 in R.

Rhodes, Understanding Governance (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Richardson, J (1982), Policy Styles in Western Europe (London, Allen and Unwin).

Rietberger, P (1998), Europe: A Cultural History (London, Routledge).

Rose, R and E. Page (1996), German Responses to Regime Change, West European

Politics, Vol. 19, ps. 1-27.

Sadie, S and A. Latham (Eds) (1990), The Cambridge Music Guide (Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press).

Sharpe, S (1994), Just Like a Girl (2nd Ed, Harmondsworth, Penguin).

Smith, J (2001), Cultural Aspects of Europeanization, Public Administration, Vol. 79, ps.

147-65.

Smith, M (2000), Culture (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Theakston, K (1999a), Leadership in Whitehall (London, Palgrave).

Theakston, K (1999b) (Ed), Bureaucrats and Leadership (London, Palgrave).

Turner, M and D. Hulme (1997), Governance, Administration and Development

(London, Macmillan).

Unger, R (1997), Politics: The Central Texts (London, Verso).

Wallis, J and B. Dollery (2001), Understanding Cultural Changes in an Economic

Control Agency, Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 21, ps. 191-212.

Weale, A, G. Pridham, A. Williams, and M. Porter (1996), Environmental administration

in Six European States, Public Administration, Vol. 74, ps. 255-74.

Whittall, A (1995), Music Since the First World War (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

Williams, R (1976), Keywords (Glasgow, Fontana).

21