Transforming the Australian agricultural biosecurity framework: The role of institutional logics

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Australian Journal of Public Administration Pub Date : 2022-12-18 DOI:10.1111/1467-8500.12572
Melanie Bryant, Vaughan Higgins, Marta Hernández-Jover, Russell Warman
{"title":"Transforming the Australian agricultural biosecurity framework: The role of institutional logics","authors":"Melanie Bryant,&nbsp;Vaughan Higgins,&nbsp;Marta Hernández-Jover,&nbsp;Russell Warman","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>The Australian government has transformed the national biosecurity framework by shifting from a quarantine to a shared responsibility approach. This reflects a move from centralised to network-based governance. While network governance enables the development of private and public networks needed to enact a shared responsibility approach, it can sit in tension with this approach, which requires the sharing of risk and legitimacy across an array of non-government actors. Further, little is known about how the beliefs and values of individuals involved in biosecurity decision-making influence whether or how a shared responsibility approach is enacted. We use an institutional logics framework to investigate these issues and found that despite risk-shifting and scale and efficiency logics underpinning a shared responsibility approach, a bureaucracy logic has remained dominant. While a dominant bureaucracy logic can enable a shared responsibility approach by providing clear guidelines around biosecurity compliance, it can also create barriers by creating ambiguity, or increasing reliance of actors on government in the event of a biosecurity outbreak. It can also reflect shadows of hierarchy in which governments moving to network-based governance are either not ready to share power or seek to retain authority over the direction of their policy intention.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Enacting a shared responsibility approach is subject to an array of challenges. However, little is known about how the beliefs and values of individuals involved in biosecurity decision-making influence whether or how a shared responsibility approach is enacted.</li>\n \n <li>Problems can arise with implementation of a shared responsibility approach particularly related to the different and conflicting ways in which decision makers can interpret and understand a policy intention.</li>\n \n <li>Despite efforts from public and private partners to work together, a shared responsibility approach is dominated by a bureaucracy logic. This can provide clear guidelines for actors around compliance but can also create further dependence on government in the event of a biosecurity outbreak.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12572","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12572","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Australian government has transformed the national biosecurity framework by shifting from a quarantine to a shared responsibility approach. This reflects a move from centralised to network-based governance. While network governance enables the development of private and public networks needed to enact a shared responsibility approach, it can sit in tension with this approach, which requires the sharing of risk and legitimacy across an array of non-government actors. Further, little is known about how the beliefs and values of individuals involved in biosecurity decision-making influence whether or how a shared responsibility approach is enacted. We use an institutional logics framework to investigate these issues and found that despite risk-shifting and scale and efficiency logics underpinning a shared responsibility approach, a bureaucracy logic has remained dominant. While a dominant bureaucracy logic can enable a shared responsibility approach by providing clear guidelines around biosecurity compliance, it can also create barriers by creating ambiguity, or increasing reliance of actors on government in the event of a biosecurity outbreak. It can also reflect shadows of hierarchy in which governments moving to network-based governance are either not ready to share power or seek to retain authority over the direction of their policy intention.

Points for practitioners

  • Enacting a shared responsibility approach is subject to an array of challenges. However, little is known about how the beliefs and values of individuals involved in biosecurity decision-making influence whether or how a shared responsibility approach is enacted.
  • Problems can arise with implementation of a shared responsibility approach particularly related to the different and conflicting ways in which decision makers can interpret and understand a policy intention.
  • Despite efforts from public and private partners to work together, a shared responsibility approach is dominated by a bureaucracy logic. This can provide clear guidelines for actors around compliance but can also create further dependence on government in the event of a biosecurity outbreak.
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
转变澳大利亚农业生物安全框架:制度逻辑的作用
澳大利亚政府已经改变了国家生物安全框架,从隔离方式转向共同责任方式。这反映了从集中式治理到基于网络的治理的转变。虽然网络治理能够促进制定共同责任方法所需的私人和公共网络的发展,但它可能与这种方法存在矛盾,因为这种方法需要在一系列非政府行为体之间分担风险和合法性。此外,人们对参与生物安全决策的个人的信仰和价值观如何影响是否或如何制定共同责任方法知之甚少。我们使用制度逻辑框架来研究这些问题,发现尽管风险转移、规模和效率逻辑支撑了共同责任的方法,但官僚主义逻辑仍然占主导地位。虽然占主导地位的官僚主义逻辑可以通过提供有关生物安全合规的明确指导方针来实现共同责任的方法,但它也可能造成障碍,因为它造成歧义,或者在生物安全爆发时增加行为体对政府的依赖。它还可以反映层级的阴影,在这些阴影中,转向基于网络的治理的政府要么不准备分享权力,要么寻求保留对其政策意图方向的权威。制定共同责任方法的实践者要点受到一系列挑战的影响。然而,对于参与生物安全决策的个人的信仰和价值观如何影响是否或如何制定共同责任方法,人们知之甚少。在实施共同责任办法时可能会出现问题,特别是与决策者解释和理解政策意图的不同和相互冲突的方式有关。尽管政府和私人合作伙伴都在努力合作,但共同责任的方式却被官僚主义逻辑所主导。这可以为行为体在遵守方面提供明确的指导方针,但也可能在发生生物安全疫情时进一步依赖政府。
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
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge brokering for public sector reform ‘We're trying to get out of here, that's what we're doing’: A Bourdieusian examination of ‘choice’ in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking Cabinetisation or a Westminster solution? Understanding the employment of public servants in Australian ministers’ offices Issue Information - TOC
×
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