What parliamentarians think about Australia's post-COVID-19 aid program: The emerging ‘cautious consensus’ in Australian aid

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1002/app5.338
Benjamin Day, Tamas Wells
{"title":"What parliamentarians think about Australia's post-COVID-19 aid program: The emerging ‘cautious consensus’ in Australian aid","authors":"Benjamin Day,&nbsp;Tamas Wells","doi":"10.1002/app5.338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian Government has been ambiguous in the way it has communicated the aid budget. On some occasions, it has sought to downplay increases in aid spending, while at other times it has sought to downplay cuts to aid spending. We draw on interviews with federal parliamentarians and key informants to understand these dynamics, in the context of obtaining their views on changes to Australia's post-COVID-19 aid policy. We find evidence that a new political consensus is forming around Australian aid. While this ‘cautious consensus’ countenances aid spending increases, motivated in part by humanitarian concerns but especially by anxiety about increasing Chinese influence in the region, these priorities are tempered by considerable concern about public backlash at a time of significant economic challenges for Australian citizens. Based on this evidence, we define the contours of an emerging ‘cautious consensus’ by showing how it will differ from the earlier ‘golden consensus’ era of Australian aid.</p>","PeriodicalId":45839,"journal":{"name":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","volume":"8 3","pages":"384-400"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/8b/APP5-8-384.PMC8653146.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app5.338","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian Government has been ambiguous in the way it has communicated the aid budget. On some occasions, it has sought to downplay increases in aid spending, while at other times it has sought to downplay cuts to aid spending. We draw on interviews with federal parliamentarians and key informants to understand these dynamics, in the context of obtaining their views on changes to Australia's post-COVID-19 aid policy. We find evidence that a new political consensus is forming around Australian aid. While this ‘cautious consensus’ countenances aid spending increases, motivated in part by humanitarian concerns but especially by anxiety about increasing Chinese influence in the region, these priorities are tempered by considerable concern about public backlash at a time of significant economic challenges for Australian citizens. Based on this evidence, we define the contours of an emerging ‘cautious consensus’ by showing how it will differ from the earlier ‘golden consensus’ era of Australian aid.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
议员们对澳大利亚后疫情援助计划的看法:澳大利亚援助中正在形成的“谨慎共识”
自2019冠状病毒病大流行爆发以来,澳大利亚政府在传达援助预算的方式上一直模棱两可。在某些情况下,它试图淡化援助支出的增加,而在其他时候,它又试图淡化援助支出的削减。我们通过对联邦议员和主要线人的采访,了解这些动态,并获取他们对澳大利亚后covid -19援助政策变化的看法。我们发现有证据表明,围绕澳大利亚援助正在形成新的政治共识。尽管这种“谨慎共识”支持援助支出的增加,这在一定程度上是出于人道主义考虑,但主要是出于对中国在该地区影响力日益增强的焦虑,但在澳大利亚公民面临重大经济挑战之际,对公众反弹的相当大的担忧使这些优先事项有所缓和。基于这些证据,我们通过展示它与早期澳大利亚援助的“黄金共识”时代的不同,定义了新兴的“谨慎共识”的轮廓。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies is the flagship journal of the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University. It is a peer-reviewed journal that targets research in policy studies in Australia, Asia and the Pacific, across a discipline focus that includes economics, political science, governance, development and the environment. Specific themes of recent interest include health and education, aid, migration, inequality, poverty reduction, energy, climate and the environment, food policy, public administration, the role of the private sector in public policy, trade, foreign policy, natural resource management and development policy. Papers on a range of topics that speak to various disciplines, the region and policy makers are encouraged. The goal of the journal is to break down barriers across disciplines, and generate policy impact. Submissions will be reviewed on the basis of content, policy relevance and readability.
期刊最新文献
Rural Transformation, Water Scarcity and Policy Responses in China Is Chinaʼs Capital Liberalisation Policy Effective? Issue Information The BRICS Nations Framework for Curbing Carbon Emissions: Evidence From Energy Intensity, Renewable Energy, and Environmental Policy Real Wage Growth in Papua New Guinea Over Three Decades
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1