The book is an interdisciplinary exploration of the complexities of ‘popular’ culture as a category of public policy. It approaches the notions of ‘cultural policy’ and ‘popular culture’ flexibly, examining what each comes to mean, explicitly or implicitly, in relation to the other. This generates a rich variety of approaches, but also a number of identifiable commonalities. We start from the proposition that 'popular culture' is largely absent as an explicit category of arts policy and debate today. The ‘arts’ are still, in practice, construed in terms of elite culture (despite claims to the contrary), while artefacts such as popular music, television, fashion, and so on are assumed to figure among the cultural or creative ‘industries’, giving the popular a set of narrowly economic, professional and commodity connotations. And yet, the popular is, in a range of ways, powerfully present as an implicit dimension of public policy and as a catalyst of cultural practices and attitudes. This apparent paradox underpins the proposal. The book is a collaboration between two UK-based institutions: the University of Leeds’s Popular Cultures Research Network and the well established Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick. This book was originally published as a special issue of International Journal of Cultural Policy.

The book is an interdisciplinary exploration of the complexities of ‘popular’ culture as a category of public policy. It approaches the notions of ‘cultural policy’ and ‘popular culture’ flexibly, examining what each comes to mean, explicitly or implicitly, in relation to the other. This generates a rich variety of approaches, but also a number of identifiable commonalities. We start from the proposition that 'popular culture' is largely absent as an explicit category of arts policy and debate today. The ‘arts’ are still, in practice, construed in terms of elite culture (despite claims to the contrary), while artefacts such as popular music, television, fashion, and so on are assumed to figure among the cultural or creative ‘industries’, giving the popular a set of narrowly economic, professional and commodity connotations. And yet, the popular is, in a range of ways, powerfully present as an implicit dimension of public policy and as a catalyst of cultural practices and attitudes. This apparent paradox underpins the proposal. The book is a collaboration between two UK-based institutions: the University of Leeds’s Popular Cultures Research Network and the well established Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick. This book was originally published as a special issue of International Journal of Cultural Policy.

This book examines the role of popular music in city, regional and national cultural policy. Examining music policy in Canada, Britain, the US and Australia, it focuses upon questions of aesthetics, funding and power. This book was originally published as a special issue of The International Journal of Cultural Policy.

This volume studies the relationships between government and the popular music industries, comparing three Anglophone nations: Scotland, New Zealand and Australia. At a time when issues of globalization and locality are seldom out of the news, musicians, fans, governments, and industries are forced to reconsider older certainties about popular music activity and their roles in production and consumption circuits. The decline of multinational recording companies, and the accompanying rise of promotion firms such as Live Nation, exemplifies global shifts in infrastructure, profits and power. Popular music provides a focus for many of these topics—and popular music policy a lens through which to view them. The book has four central themes: the (changing) role of states and industries in popular music activity; assessment of the central challenges facing smaller nations competing within larger, global music-media markets; comparative analysis of music policies and debates between nations (and also between organizations and popular music sectors); analysis of where and why the state intervenes in popular music activity; and how (and whether) music fits within the ‘turn to culture’ in policy-making over the last twenty years. Where appropriate, brief nation-specific case studies are highlighted as a means of illuminating broader global debates.

The modern presidency is increasingly seen as in troubleby all sides of the political spectrum and by people of themost diverse political views. Understanding why this isthe case requires examining the basic principles of thepresidency itself, and there is no better place to start thanWilliam Howard Taft's Popular Government. His views onexecutive power and constitutional interpretation of thispower are not rooted in nostalgia. Instead, Taft describeshow and why the Progressive Movement marked one ofthe major turning points in American political thought. Taft wrote out of concern over the nature of the Americansystem itself. He sought to describe the foundingprinciples of the country, arguing that grasping these isessential for Americans' understanding of themselves asa people and for their daily exercise of citizenship. Theconcerns he addressed remain central today. Th at is becauseTaft's quarrels with the liberal-progressive traditionin politics have not yet completely played themselves out,either in academic life, or in the political arena. In a brilliant new introduction, Sidney Pearson arguesthat neither Roosevelt nor Wilson should be viewed asenemies of free government by any serious student ofAmerican political thought, nor should Taft be so regardedeither. The concerns Taft engages remain important for anyunderstanding of the problems that confront the Americanexperiment in popular government. Popular Governmentis a basic introduction to debate about the nature of thepresidency and the larger constitutional context in whichsuch arguments take place. Th ere is no better way to gainperspective on the debate than reading this volume. William Howard Taft served as thetwenty-third president of the United Statesfrom 1909-1913 and as Chief Justice of theSupreme Court from 1921-1930. He is theonly person to have held the highest officein two of the three branches of Americangovernment. He wrote numerous booksincluding Our Chief Magistrate andHis Powers, The Anti-Trust Act and theSupreme Court, and The Covenanter: AnAmerican Exposition of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Sidney A. Pearson, Jr. is professor emeritus of political scienceat Radford University. He is also the series editor of Library ofLiberal Thought at Transaction Publishers.

In his eye-opening work, Dye explodes the myth that public policy represents the “demands of the people” and that the making of public policy flows upward from the masses. In reality, Dye argues, public policy in America, as in all nations, reflects the values, interests, and preferences of a governing elite. Top Down Policymaking is a close examination of the process by which the nation’s elite goes about the task of making public policy. Focusing on the behind-the-scenes activities of money foundations, policy planning organizations, think tanks, political campaign contributors, special-interest groups, lobbyists, law firms, influence-peddlers, and the national news media, Dye concludes that public policy is made from the top down.

Political theory consists in clarification of language and concepts, in description and analysis of institutions and behavior, and in appraisal and evaluation of political events. Hyneman's theory is not one of the behavioral or functional varieties that rely on special language and concepts drawn from other disciplines than political science. It emphasizes a central concern of both conventional and behavioral theory: the distribution of "power," or what proportion of people have influence over what aspects of government. He is also interested in how power is shared, divided, checked, and balanced.The main task of political theory, Hyneman thinks, is clarification of the values served by and sustaining American democracy. This task gives meaning and direction to analysis of the elements of democracy and to empirical research on the processes of democracy. In this sense political science is not "value-free"; it is most useful in pursuit of the implications of basic beliefs and ideals. These beliefs and ideals can be found in historical statements as well as inferred from institutions and behavior.Hyneman's emphasis on popular control, electoral politics, and equality of influence tends to challenge both of the "pluralist" and "ruling elite" schools-though it should be clear that he is not engaged in a scholastic debate. The freedom of his analysis, ranging from specific reference to the professional controversies of his day is one of its strengths and a probable source of originality. He connects it explicitly to the literature of political science at critical points, as it existed when originally published in 1968.