Special Advisers Research Articles

In Search of Culture: Lessons From the Past to Find a Role for the Study of Administrative Culture

H. Eckstein could say a few years ago that “political culture theory may plausibly be considered one of two still viable general approaches to political theory and explanation proposed since the early fifties to replace the long‐dominant formalism‐legalism of the field — the other being political rational choice theory” (1988, 789). For the last two decades, the rational choice approach has been dominant and thriving in many fields of political science, whether in international relations, political sociology, public administration or public policy; it has greatly reinforced the theoretical and empirical basis of the explanation of human freedom of action. But it has recently shown some signs of intellectual fatigue. Critics now underscore that, assuming that individuals compare expected benefits and costs of actions prior to adopting strategies for action, is valid and useful only in relatively simple choice situations where information is easily available and interpretable (Elster 1989; Dunleawy 1991). Some neo‐institutionalists have claimed that rationality comes not as means‐end calculus prior to action but rather as an ex‐post justification after choice (March, Olsen 1989; Hall 1986, 15–20). Others have come to say that the rational choice approach, which explains how people ought to act in order to achieve aims and not what these aims ought to be, totally misses the central question of why it is that people have “preferences” and pursue some aims rather than others (Wildavsky 1987; Cook, Levi 1990; Wildavsky 1994). It does not mean that the rational choice approach should be discarded: there should rather be a “contextualization” of rationality which explains both why the same man in different situations or contexts adopts different rationalities, and why in the same context two men can adopt different rationalities (Wildavsky 1994).But the rational choice approach is also showing its limits in the very field where it was born and has blossomed: economics. In a recent issue of a French national newspaper, two articles dealing with economics and development were pointing at the same problem: cultural explanations of economic behavior are needed. In the first article, the former General Secretary of the United Nations, now President of the UNESCO‐UNO World Commission on Culture and Development, J. Perez de Cuellar, advocated a cultural approach of the economic development of the Third World countries in order to find, at last, an enduring and practical solution to their endemic problems (1994). In the second article, a journalist reflecting on why the same hard economic therapies have worked in Poland but not in Russia could only refer to the “specific economic culture of Russia” described by economists (Vernholes 1994).These clear limits imposed upon the rational choice approach have brought culturalist theory back into favor among social scientists. Does this mean that a well‐built culturalist theory might be a new “explanatory panacea, a universal nostrum” (Thompson, Ellis, Wildavsky 1992, 516)? The aim of this article is to try to unravel the cultural approach and assess its potential in the specific field of public administration. To do this, we shall draw on two close but relatively separate disciplines — political science and organizational theory — which we believe (should) meet to give a richer account of administrative reality. Our purpose is to question the recent interest in and utilization of the cultural metaphor(s) by bureaucrats, politicians, “special advisers” and authors in the analysis and implementation of administrative reform. The reason for this inquiry is that, contrary to analysts of private sector organizations, specialists of public sector organizations have not yet seriously addressed a culturalist theory of public administration while acknowledging that there is or there are public administration culture(s). We therefore hope to evaluate the usefulness of a culturalist theory for public administration. In this rather complex theoretical field, we prefer to take the simple solution to try to explain first the classical culturalist theory, and second, the new culturalist theory. Third, we should see whether there is or should be anything specific about administrative culture and a culturalist theory of public administration.

THE IDEA BROKERS: THE IMPACT OF THINK TANKS ON BRITISH GOVERNMENT

Although there are few think tanks in Britain they have been credited with considerable influence on government policies since the late 1970s. This article charts their recent history, distinguishing between larger, ‘establishment’ bodies like the Policy Studies Institute and smaller, more politically partisan bodies such as the Centre for Policy Studies; generally the latter have enjoyed greater influence. It identifies the distinctive characteristics of these bodies–their ideological orientation, their concentration on élite opinion formers, their short to medium‐term horizons, their emphasis on originality and publicity. Think tanks face tactical dilemmas when pressing their views on Britain's comparatively closed system of government, in particular their choice between insider and outsider forms of persuasion; the tension between proximity to ministers and intellectual autonomy; and their advantages to politicians as deniable sources that can float new ideas, which can be counter‐balanced by politicians’ fluctuating appetite for radical ideas. As a case study the article examines the relations enjoyed by the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Centre for Policy Studies with Mrs Thatcher's government, and particularly the evolution of a potent network of influence embracing ministers, special advisers and backbenchers. Finally it considers the dangers of an overemphasis on novelty at the expense of feasibility, and the danger of burnout in the smaller think tanks dangers mitigated by the continuous turnover that operates in the world of think tanks.

The determinants of teachers' attitudes to integrating the intellectually handicapped.

Summary. The main purpose of this study was to identify those factors which serve as the best predictors of teachers' attitudes to integrating the intellectually handicapped. The factors that were investigated were selected on the basis of a review of the relevant research literature, a consideration of psychological and sociological theories of attitude formation and interviews with teachers and educational psychologists.Teachers' attitudes to integration were assessed by a Q‐sort, the content of which was derived from a review of the integration literature and discussions with teachers. The sample consisted of 550 primary and secondary teachers, special class and special school teachers, withdrawal teachers, special education advisers and school principals in Devon and Tucson, Arizona.The identification of interaction among the independent variables was the main feature of the data analysis. The attitude of the “contact” special educator, conservatism as a dimension of personality, type of teaching, the tradition of special educational organisation in the area and the teacher's perception of her competence in selecting appropriate methods were shown to be significant factors in teachers' support for or opposition to integration.

Ministers and special advisers: Tilting the balance away from cabinet

The Tories invented the CPRS, but Labour Ministers first recruited special ‐ or political ‐ advisers to supplement or counterbalance the advice they got from civil servants. Now Margaret Thatcher has abolished the CPRS, but increased the amount of policy advice available to individual Ministers ‐ particularly herself.

Special Advisers: A Personal View

Public AdministrationVolume 56, Issue 1 p. 87-98 Special Advisers: A Personal View JOAN E. MITCHELL, JOAN E. MITCHELL Dr. Mitchell is Reader in Economics at the University of NottinghamSearch for more papers by this author JOAN E. MITCHELL, JOAN E. MITCHELL Dr. Mitchell is Reader in Economics at the University of NottinghamSearch for more papers by this author First published: March 1978 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1978.tb00311.xCitations: 4Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume56, Issue1March 1978Pages 87-98 RelatedInformation

Advice and Dissent in British Government: The Case of the Special Advisers

Advice and Dissent in British Government: The Case of the Special Advisers

Biomedical Research: Would Special Presidential Advisers Help?

Biomedical Research: Would Special Presidential Advisers Help?

Recent Trends in Higher Education

A MONG the noticeable trends in higher education within recent years is the increasing attention paid to the individualization of education. Of course, the education of individuals as component parts of a group has long been sought, but general goals for a particular level of instruction have usually taken precedence over individual needs. This was a natural situation, partly because devices seemed to be lacking for centering attention on the individual when large numbers were involved and partly because specialization tends to make the instructional members of an institution subject-centered rather than student-centered. Individualization of teaching calls for more skill than the traditional method of pouring out knowledge in carefully planned and organized lectures. Realizing that the latter method frequently fails to stimulate reflection and independent thinking on the part of individual students, college faculties all over the country are trying to evolve ways of reaching individual interests and needs without sacrificing subject-matter. Few colleges can afford the tutorial system identified with Harvard University and English institutions. Under this system tutors especially assigned to a few students aim to direct their reading, help them meet their individual needs, show them how to fill gaps between courses, show interrelations of subjects, analyze critically the style and form of their writing, and challenge their conclusions and interpretations. To a lesser degree, other colleges are finding it desirable to use tutorial and special advisers in particular areas for some of these purposes. Following in the footsteps of Swarthmore, numerous colleges have tried the honors system and comprehensive examinations. The better qualified Juniors and Seniors are excused from full programs of required class attendance and are privileged to undertake independent study in special areas of emphasis and to meet in small seminar groups for consultation, direction, and exchange of views with professors of related fields. The comprehensive examinations frequently require both written and oral answers which show the ability of the student to convey the integration of topics within related courses, to think for himself, and to

The Adjustment of the Duties of the Supervisor to Those of the Principal

In cities where there are strained relations between the supervisors and the principals, the situation usually may be relieved by a clear definition of the functions of each group. Wherever there is doubt about the field of activity of any executive or wherever there is overlapping of authority, there are likely to be frequent occasions for misunderstanding and frequent conflicts of will. In a well-organized school system the principal is the direct representative of the superintendent in his school; he has full charge of the school and is responsible to the superintendent for his official conduct. The principal occupies a commanding position in the school system. He is the field officer directly responsible for the educational campaign in his district. Supervisors, on the other hand, are the special advisers of the superintendent in matters of policy relating to their departments. They are the experts to whom the superintendent must look for assistance in making decisions with regard to matters on which he needs technical and professional advice. The superintendent may assign supervisors to specific tasks in the various school buildings of the city. When a supervisor enters a school building, he comes within the jurisdiction of the principal of the school and should not undertake to make any radical changes or to introduce any policies without the knowledge and consent of the principal. It is only by an arrangement of this kind that a conflict of authority can be avoided. Just as the supervisor is the technical adviser of the superintendent, so should he be the technical adviser of the principal. Both superintendent and principal will do well to lean heavily on their technical advisers. As the superintendent may disregard the supervisor's advice because he is convinced that there is a better way to