The UK Department of National Heritage: a model for the development and integration of leisure policy in the new Europe?

Leisure is in the vanguard of a social and cultural revolution which is replacing the former East/West political bipolarity with a globalised economic system in which the new Europe has a central rôle. Within this revolution, leisure, including recreation, culture and tourism, is constructed as the epitome of successful capitalist development; the very legitimisation of the global transmogrification from a production to a consumption orientation. While acting as a direct encouragement to the political transformation in many eastern European states, it is uncertain how the issue of leisure policy is being handled, given its centrality to the new economic order. This paper therefore examines the experience of western Europe, considering in particular the degree to which the newly-created Department of National Heritage in the UK provides a potential model for leisure development and policy integration in the new Europe. Despite an official rhetoric of support and promotion of leisure activities, reflecting the growing economic significance of tourism and the positive relationship between leisure provision and regional economic development, the paper establishes that in the place of the traditional rôle of the state in promoting leisure interests, the introduction of the Department has signified a shift to the use of leisure to promote the Government's interests, particularly in regenerating citizen rights claims towards the market. While an institution such as the Department of National Heritage may have relevance to emerging states as a element in the maintenance of political hegemony, therefore, it is questionable how far it can be viewed as a promoter or protector of leisure as a signifier of a newly-won political, economic and cultural freedom throughout Europe.

Regional government and the "New Europe"

Introduction. Regional government in contemporary western Europe corresponds to a type of society and economy variously labeled "post-industrial", "post-bourgeois" or merely "the New Europe."l This New Europe evolved historically from the interconnected strands of capitalism; industrialism and pluralistic democracy. It resembles in many respects the type of economy and society familiar to us in North America. Regional government in such a society is thus merely an adaptation on the scale of half a continent of forms of social and economic organization which evolved historically at the national level. Regional government in the New Europe is the institutional and political recognition that societies have changed dramatically since 1945, so dramatically that they cannot be adequately described in the doctrines and ideologies made familiar by nineteenth and early twentieth century political thought. Hence the New Europe and its regional government is the future of that part of history which has also been aptly described as "the end of ideology."

National Minorities, Nationalizing States, and External National Homelands in the New Europe. Notes toward a Relational Analysis. Institute of Advanced Studies Political Science Series, 11 December 1993

Nationalism remains central to politics in and among the new nation-states. Far from »solving« the region's national question, the most recent reconfiguration of political space – the replacement of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia by some twenty would-be nation-states – only recast it in a new form. It is this new phase and form of the national question that I explore in this paper. I begin by outlining a particular relational configuration – the triadic relational nexus between national minorities, nationalizing states, and external national homelands – that is central to the national question in post-Soviet Eurasia. In the second, and most substantial, section of the paper, I argue that each of the »elements« in this relational nexus – minority, nationalizing state, and homeland – should itself be understood in dynamic and relational terms, not as a fixed, given, or analytically irreducible entity but as a field of differentiated positions and an arena of struggles among competing »stances.« In a brief concluding section, I return to the relational nexus as a whole, underscoring the dynamically interactive quality of the triadic interplay.