Better use of evidence is at the centre of the ambitious Australian Public Sector Reform agenda, providing an authorising environment in which to test new ideas, tools, and approaches to bridge the research–practice gap. As the interlocutors between research and practice, knowledge brokers have a critical role to play in promoting the structural and behavioural changes necessary to build the knowledge networks and new capabilities that enable an evidence ecosystem. In particular, this article makes a case for harnessing the relational nature of knowledge brokering and trialling new mechanisms for research–practitioner collaboration and evidence innovation. It is hoped that this article can serve as the foundation for a future research and practice agenda examining how knowledge brokering operates and where university‐produced research can best support evidence‐based reform.Points for practitionersAs the interlocutors between research and practice, knowledge brokers can encourage the cross‐boundary thinking, genuine partnerships, and new capabilities to support evidence‐based reform.The Australian Public Sector Reform agenda provides a unique opportunity to trial new mechanisms and approaches to expand understanding of how knowledge brokering operates in practice and the conditions that support successful research–practice collaboration.Mechanisms should be formal and accompanied by bureaucratic‐level support and incentives, providing them with the legitimacy needed to embed new mindsets, capabilities, and ways of working.A key consideration for public sector practitioners is how to establish arrangements and incentives that are mutually beneficial for researchers and practitioners alike and monitor the effectiveness of these initiatives over time.
{"title":"Knowledge brokering for public sector reform","authors":"Honae Cuffe","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12665","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>Better use of evidence is at the centre of the ambitious Australian Public Sector Reform agenda, providing an authorising environment in which to test new ideas, tools, and approaches to bridge the research–practice gap. As the interlocutors between research and practice, knowledge brokers have a critical role to play in promoting the structural and behavioural changes necessary to build the knowledge networks and new capabilities that enable an evidence ecosystem. In particular, this article makes a case for harnessing the relational nature of knowledge brokering and trialling new mechanisms for research–practitioner collaboration and evidence innovation. It is hoped that this article can serve as the foundation for a future research and practice agenda examining how knowledge brokering operates and where university‐produced research can best support evidence‐based reform.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>As the interlocutors between research and practice, knowledge brokers can encourage the cross‐boundary thinking, genuine partnerships, and new capabilities to support evidence‐based reform.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>The Australian Public Sector Reform agenda provides a unique opportunity to trial new mechanisms and approaches to expand understanding of how knowledge brokering operates in practice and the conditions that support successful research–practice collaboration.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Mechanisms should be formal and accompanied by bureaucratic‐level support and incentives, providing them with the legitimacy needed to embed new mindsets, capabilities, and ways of working.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>A key consideration for public sector practitioners is how to establish arrangements and incentives that are mutually beneficial for researchers and practitioners alike and monitor the effectiveness of these initiatives over time.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142209312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The notion of choice underpinning Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has its origin in neoliberal assumptions about the inherent value of market choice in human services reform and in the disability movement's advocacy for the right to self‐determination. Little is known about how people in institutional settings experience choice in the NDIS context. Based on a critical ethnographic study, this article explores the choices made by 12 people with psychosocial disability living in two Victorian supported residential services (SRS). The study found that despite the goal of most participants being to move into independent accommodation, 2 years after the start of the roll‐out of the NDIS, most participants were still living in SRS. Adopting a Bourdieusian conceptual framework, we show that the choices participants made were constrained by the institutional field in which they were living, their low capitals, and their relative powerlessness. This novel application of the concepts of field, habitus, and capitals in the NDIS context has implications for debates about the impact of marketisation and personalisation on individuals with limited agency. The findings have implications for policy and practice in other institutional settings and jurisdictions where public service delivery is framed around the notion of choice.Points for practitionersThis research shows that a key choice for residents with psychosocial disability living in SRS was to move into independent housing. However, choice over their housing goals was constrained by living in an institutional setting and their relative powerlessness.Residents in these settings and NDIS participants living in other segregated institutional settings will need independent housing and living navigators if they are to find pathways into independent housing.
{"title":"‘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","authors":"Elroy Dearn, Paul Ramcharan","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12660","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12660","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>The notion of choice underpinning Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has its origin in neoliberal assumptions about the inherent value of market choice in human services reform and in the disability movement's advocacy for the right to self‐determination. Little is known about how people in institutional settings experience choice in the NDIS context. Based on a critical ethnographic study, this article explores the choices made by 12 people with psychosocial disability living in two Victorian supported residential services (SRS). The study found that despite the goal of most participants being to move into independent accommodation, 2 years after the start of the roll‐out of the NDIS, most participants were still living in SRS. Adopting a Bourdieusian conceptual framework, we show that the choices participants made were constrained by the institutional field in which they were living, their low capitals, and their relative powerlessness. This novel application of the concepts of field, habitus, and capitals in the NDIS context has implications for debates about the impact of marketisation and personalisation on individuals with limited agency. The findings have implications for policy and practice in other institutional settings and jurisdictions where public service delivery is framed around the notion of choice.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>This research shows that a key choice for residents with psychosocial disability living in SRS was to move into independent housing. However, choice over their housing goals was constrained by living in an institutional setting and their relative powerlessness.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Residents in these settings and NDIS participants living in other segregated institutional settings will need independent housing and living navigators if they are to find pathways into independent housing.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142209314","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Robodebt controversy in Australia has led to an investigation regarding bureaucratic practices, particularly concerning the dissemination of false or misleading information. While overt falsehoods may be relatively easy to spot, this paper delves into subtler forms of misleading discourse that often evade detection, perpetuating a culture of deliberate ambiguity within governmental institutions. By analysing bureaucratic manoeuvres like feigned ignorance, selective knowledge and silent silencing, this study elucidates how policymakers strategically incorporate uncertainty to shield themselves from blame. Drawing on empirical evidence from the handling of a 2016 state‐wide blackout and the subsequent bureaucratic discourse, the paper highlights how routine bureaucratic interactions contribute to maintaining politically convenient narratives at the expense of transparency and democratic accountability. It proposes three key areas for policy organisations to address: engaging with what is being ignored, redefining objectivity to include diverse perspectives, and leaning into the tension between political desires and necessities.Points for practitionersPractitioners should start identifying and addressing subtle forms of misinformation in their own bureaucratic practices. This includes strategies like feigned ignorance, selective knowledge, and silent silencing, which are used to avoid blame and perpetuate a culture of deliberate ambiguity.By understanding how they employ such strategies, practitioners may be better able to foster diverse perspectives and redefine objectivity in ways that expand upon their institutional expertise.In politically charged situations, policy advisers may prioritise short‐term expedience, but they do so at the cost of longer term integrity of the public service. Lean into the tension and acknowledge that policy advice is not about turning a blind eye.
{"title":"Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking","authors":"Christiane Gerblinger","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12659","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>The Robodebt controversy in Australia has led to an investigation regarding bureaucratic practices, particularly concerning the dissemination of false or misleading information. While overt falsehoods may be relatively easy to spot, this paper delves into subtler forms of misleading discourse that often evade detection, perpetuating a culture of deliberate ambiguity within governmental institutions. By analysing bureaucratic manoeuvres like feigned ignorance, selective knowledge and silent silencing, this study elucidates how policymakers strategically incorporate uncertainty to shield themselves from blame. Drawing on empirical evidence from the handling of a 2016 state‐wide blackout and the subsequent bureaucratic discourse, the paper highlights how routine bureaucratic interactions contribute to maintaining politically convenient narratives at the expense of transparency and democratic accountability. It proposes three key areas for policy organisations to address: engaging with what is being ignored, redefining objectivity to include diverse perspectives, and leaning into the tension between political desires and necessities.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Practitioners should start identifying and addressing subtle forms of misinformation in their own bureaucratic practices. This includes strategies like feigned ignorance, selective knowledge, and silent silencing, which are used to avoid blame and perpetuate a culture of deliberate ambiguity.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>By understanding how they employ such strategies, practitioners may be better able to foster diverse perspectives and redefine objectivity in ways that expand upon their institutional expertise.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>In politically charged situations, policy advisers may prioritise short‐term expedience, but they do so at the cost of longer term integrity of the public service. Lean into the tension and acknowledge that policy advice is not about turning a blind eye.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142209316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article tracks the proportion of Australian ministerial advisory staff over time who are drawn from the public service. Using a mix of parliamentary and employment data, biographical data and interviews (1984‐2018), the paper tests if there has been a dramatic decline in the number of public servants in ministers' offices, and if the Australian ministerial office is evolving towards the cabinet ministeriel model found in Napoleonic countries, a concept known as cabinetisation. The paper shows that the proportion of Australian advisers who are public servants on leave is lower than in the past but has been consistently around 30% since 2010. The central argument advanced in the paper is that Australia's model of ministerial office has critical differences from Napoleonic ministerial cabinets and there is no evidence of cabinetisation. It argues that rather than bending towards European models, Australia's ministerial office is a response to peculiarly Westminster challenges and tensions, provoked by Washington aspirations. The paper shows that the institutional architecture of Australia's Westminster variant produces distinct and in some ways paradoxical dynamics: the separation designed to protect departments' impartiality threatens their marginalisation, leading to a push for greater presence in ministerial offices, despite the inherent frictions and risks of politicisation.Points for practitionersThere is a significant level of exchange between departments and ministers’ offices under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act in Australia which can create frictions when staff return to departments.The exchange is encouraged and desired by departments and seen as helping to address disconnection and lack of understanding between ministers’ offices and departments.However, the practice is limited by the recruitment preferences of ministers, who are wary of depoliticisation, seek a mix of backgrounds and skills in their offices, and have a ready supply of political cadres to draw on.The Thodey Review's recommendations to increase the number of public servants in ministers’ offices, and that Senior Executive Service officers work as advisers as part of their training, are unlikely to be accepted by ministers.
{"title":"Cabinetisation or a Westminster solution? Understanding the employment of public servants in Australian ministers’ offices","authors":"Maria Maley","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12655","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>This article tracks the proportion of Australian ministerial advisory staff over time who are drawn from the public service. Using a mix of parliamentary and employment data, biographical data and interviews (1984‐2018), the paper tests if there has been a dramatic decline in the number of public servants in ministers' offices, and if the Australian ministerial office is evolving towards the <jats:italic>cabinet ministeriel</jats:italic> model found in Napoleonic countries, a concept known as cabinetisation. The paper shows that the proportion of Australian advisers who are public servants on leave is lower than in the past but has been consistently around 30% since 2010. The central argument advanced in the paper is that Australia's model of ministerial office has critical differences from Napoleonic <jats:italic>ministerial cabinets</jats:italic> and there is no evidence of cabinetisation. It argues that rather than bending towards European models, Australia's ministerial office is a response to peculiarly Westminster challenges and tensions, provoked by Washington aspirations. The paper shows that the institutional architecture of Australia's Westminster variant produces distinct and in some ways paradoxical dynamics: the separation designed to protect departments' impartiality threatens their marginalisation, leading to a push for greater presence in ministerial offices, despite the inherent frictions and risks of politicisation.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>There is a significant level of exchange between departments and ministers’ offices under the <jats:italic>Members of Parliament (Staff) Act</jats:italic> in Australia which can create frictions when staff return to departments.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>The exchange is encouraged and desired by departments and seen as helping to address disconnection and lack of understanding between ministers’ offices and departments.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>However, the practice is limited by the recruitment preferences of ministers, who are wary of depoliticisation, seek a mix of backgrounds and skills in their offices, and have a ready supply of political cadres to draw on.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>The Thodey Review's recommendations to increase the number of public servants in ministers’ offices, and that Senior Executive Service officers work as advisers as part of their training, are unlikely to be accepted by ministers.</jats:list-item></jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142209337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Collaboration is ubiquitous in public policy life, with its presence and profile determined by prevailing governance conditions. Commitments to globalisation and marketisation in the latter part of the 20th century marked the onset of an era defined by collaboration, between and across tiers and spheres of government, with non‐state actors, and through market and network instruments. Current contextual instability poses questions for dominant public policy paradigms and the existing collaborative settlement. This article explores the challenges presented in the current moment and how policymakers and scholars might navigate them. It focuses on how ideas about economics and security shape public policy, illustrating the paradigm‐shifting impact of economism and securitisation. It argues for the replacement of economism and securitisation by sustainability, sovereignty, and justice and demonstrates the latter's engagement with economics and security and their accounting for what have hitherto been ‘subaltern voices’ in public policy. It discusses the implications for collaboration in relation to future collective action problems, more diverse and disconnected ‘publics’, and a more congested and lower trust policy environment. It highlights the need for collaborative plasticity and pluralistic agency.Points for practitionersPublic policymaking is shaped by dominant ideas about economics and security; ideas that become ‘taken for granted’ in policy practice. The prevailing ideas of economism and securitisation are being challenged by contextual changes, globally, regionally, and nationally. This creates space for new ideas to shape future public policy.Ideas of sustainability, sovereignty, and justice offer an alternative framework for public policymaking. These ideas can engage productively with economics and security, and they are also inclusive of a wider variety of ‘voices’ particularly those previously marginalised.Collaboration will remain integral to the success of public policy. However, it will need to adapt to new circumstances. This will include defining new purposes, reassessing its appropriateness, reshaping collaborative scope, scale, and form, and refining collaborative activities.A paradigmatic shift in public policy that highlights sustainability, sovereignty, and justice will require the active involvement of a plurality of actors enabled to contribute new knowledge and contest the status quo.
{"title":"Collaborating in future states—Contextual instability, paradigmatic remaking, and public policy","authors":"Helen Sullivan","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12661","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>Collaboration is ubiquitous in public policy life, with its presence and profile determined by prevailing governance conditions. Commitments to globalisation and marketisation in the latter part of the 20th century marked the onset of an era defined by collaboration, between and across tiers and spheres of government, with non‐state actors, and through market and network instruments. Current contextual instability poses questions for dominant public policy paradigms and the existing collaborative settlement. This article explores the challenges presented in the current moment and how policymakers and scholars might navigate them. It focuses on how ideas about economics and security shape public policy, illustrating the paradigm‐shifting impact of economism and securitisation. It argues for the replacement of economism and securitisation by sustainability, sovereignty, and justice and demonstrates the latter's engagement with economics and security and their accounting for what have hitherto been ‘subaltern voices’ in public policy. It discusses the implications for collaboration in relation to future collective action problems, more diverse and disconnected ‘publics’, and a more congested and lower trust policy environment. It highlights the need for collaborative plasticity and pluralistic agency.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Public policymaking is shaped by dominant ideas about economics and security; ideas that become ‘taken for granted’ in policy practice. The prevailing ideas of economism and securitisation are being challenged by contextual changes, globally, regionally, and nationally. This creates space for new ideas to shape future public policy.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Ideas of sustainability, sovereignty, and justice offer an alternative framework for public policymaking. These ideas can engage productively with economics and security, and they are also inclusive of a wider variety of ‘voices’ particularly those previously marginalised.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Collaboration will remain integral to the success of public policy. However, it will need to adapt to new circumstances. This will include defining new purposes, reassessing its appropriateness, reshaping collaborative scope, scale, and form, and refining collaborative activities.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>A paradigmatic shift in public policy that highlights sustainability, sovereignty, and justice will require the active involvement of a plurality of actors enabled to contribute new knowledge and contest the status quo.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142209338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines two Australian government programs from the Rudd/Gillard Labor government, the Home Insulation Program (HIP) and the Digital Switchover Household Assistance Scheme (HAS). Both became shibboleths of the Labor government's perceived waste and incompetence. Using key informant interviews and documents obtained under freedom of information (FOI), I analyse these programs against the multiple ‘dimensions’ of success proposed by Newman and common narrative frames around programme failure. I argue that the HAS was broadly successful across most dimensions of success, notwithstanding the adverse media attention. The study identifies four key factors driving HIP's failure: scheme design, installer training, demand control, and departmental expertise. All of these came back to the timeline pressures, driven by conflicting priorities, which in turn gave the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) more influence than would usually be the case. In comparison, HAS's success is attributed to crucial design choices, like the phased rollout and head contractor model. The article identifies the danger of ignoring subject matter expertise and poor policy/Cabinet processes, which have been reinforced by the recent Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.Points for practitionersDemand‐driven programmes need to have demand‐side control techniques built into them.The role of central agencies needs to be carefully considered, particularly in relation to areas that are not their expertise, such as detailed programme development and implementation.Lessons about poor policy and Cabinet processes, as well as cultural change from the Pink Batts Royal Commission, do not appear to have been sufficiently embedded in the culture of the APS, as there are ongoing echoes of the same problems evident in the Robodebt Royal Commission.
{"title":"Analysing policy success and failure in Australia: Pink batts and set‐top boxes","authors":"Daniel Casey","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12663","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>This article examines two Australian government programs from the Rudd/Gillard Labor government, the Home Insulation Program (HIP) and the Digital Switchover Household Assistance Scheme (HAS). Both became shibboleths of the Labor government's perceived waste and incompetence. Using key informant interviews and documents obtained under freedom of information (FOI), I analyse these programs against the multiple ‘dimensions’ of success proposed by Newman and common narrative frames around programme failure. I argue that the HAS was broadly successful across most dimensions of success, notwithstanding the adverse media attention. The study identifies four key factors driving HIP's failure: scheme design, installer training, demand control, and departmental expertise. All of these came back to the timeline pressures, driven by conflicting priorities, which in turn gave the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) more influence than would usually be the case. In comparison, HAS's success is attributed to crucial design choices, like the phased rollout and head contractor model. The article identifies the danger of ignoring subject matter expertise and poor policy/Cabinet processes, which have been reinforced by the recent Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Demand‐driven programmes need to have demand‐side control techniques built into them.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>The role of central agencies needs to be carefully considered, particularly in relation to areas that are not their expertise, such as detailed programme development and implementation.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Lessons about poor policy and Cabinet processes, as well as cultural change from the Pink Batts Royal Commission, do not appear to have been sufficiently embedded in the culture of the APS, as there are ongoing echoes of the same problems evident in the Robodebt Royal Commission.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141939695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID-19 pandemic showed that new digital tools played a major role in the design, implementation, and evaluation of policies aimed at containing and defeating the virus. However, relying on digital tools should not undermine the role of experts in the policy process. This paper answers the following question as means of examing the relationship between technology and expertise: To what extent has the introduction of technology-assisted tools complemented and empowered health experts to provide more effective policy advice? By answering this question, the paper investigates the opportunities and challenges of technology-backed sources of ‘policy knowledge’ as ‘advisory assistants’ of conventional expert communities in the policy processes. Drawing on a case study from a developing country, I demonstrate how the introduction of the ‘Wiqaytna’ mobile application in Morocco facilitated reporting of higher risk locations and provided operational feedback for ‘the scientific committee’ enabling them to deliver more efficient and effective actions against COVID-19, despite the underlying technical and ethical problems associated with the use of such tools.
Points for practitioners
Increasing interest and deployment of technology tools, such as artificial intelligence in the public policy and administration, means that a proper understanding and use of technology assisted tools is crucial for the delivery of smooth and effective public policy.
The role of human experts remains indispensable in the policy process, but technology assisted tools can be utilised to speed up implementation processes and help give policy feedback.
{"title":"Managing COVID-19 in Morocco: The adoption of novel technology tools in assisting expert policy advisors","authors":"Hamid AIT EL CAID","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12637","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12637","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The COVID-19 pandemic showed that new digital tools played a major role in the design, implementation, and evaluation of policies aimed at containing and defeating the virus. However, relying on digital tools should not undermine the role of experts in the policy process. This paper answers the following question as means of examing the relationship between technology and expertise: To what extent has the introduction of technology-assisted tools complemented and empowered health experts to provide more effective policy advice? By answering this question, the paper investigates the opportunities and challenges of technology-backed sources of ‘policy knowledge’ as ‘advisory assistants’ of conventional expert communities in the policy processes. Drawing on a case study from a developing country, I demonstrate how the introduction of the ‘Wiqaytna’ mobile application in Morocco facilitated reporting of higher risk locations and provided operational feedback for ‘the scientific committee’ enabling them to deliver more efficient and effective actions against COVID-19, despite the underlying technical and ethical problems associated with the use of such tools.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <div>\u0000 <ul>\u0000 \u0000 <li>Increasing interest and deployment of technology tools, such as artificial intelligence in the public policy and administration, means that a proper understanding and use of technology assisted tools is crucial for the delivery of smooth and effective public policy.</li>\u0000 \u0000 <li>The role of human experts remains indispensable in the policy process, but technology assisted tools can be utilised to speed up implementation processes and help give policy feedback.</li>\u0000 </ul>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"83 2","pages":"257-268"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12637","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141998695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This research note presents an exploratory case study that investigates ways in which Human Learning Systems (HLS) has been applied to a new UK health initiative, Collaborative Newcastle. Collaborative Newcastle is a multi‐agency venture that brings together the National Health Service, local government, higher education, voluntary organisations, and the community sector to encourage innovation and cooperation in delivering healthcare services. As part of this initiative, multi‐agency leadership training has been delivered to managers working within the Collaborative Newcastle organisations to lead within an HLS ethos. It will offer comments on some of the claims to originality that are made on behalf of HLS and other relational models of public management. HLS is in its infancy in Australasia, and therefore this note also offers suggestions from the case study on learnings that could be transposed into the southern hemisphere.Points for practitionersThe bespoke nature of the Human Learning Systems (HLS) approach makes it worthy of further exploration in Australasia.HLS, in this case, has created conditions for increased innovation and trust between multiple partnersHLS lends itself to utilising local knowledge and indigenous epistemologies
{"title":"Developing a Human Learning Systems approach for inter‐agency collaboration: Lessons from the UK NHS","authors":"Christianne Ormston, Michael Macaulay","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12649","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>This research note presents an exploratory case study that investigates ways in which Human Learning Systems (HLS) has been applied to a new UK health initiative, <jats:italic>Collaborative Newcastle</jats:italic>. <jats:italic>Collaborative Newcastle</jats:italic> is a multi‐agency venture that brings together the National Health Service, local government, higher education, voluntary organisations, and the community sector to encourage innovation and cooperation in delivering healthcare services. As part of this initiative, multi‐agency leadership training has been delivered to managers working within the <jats:italic>Collaborative Newcastle</jats:italic> organisations to lead within an HLS ethos. It will offer comments on some of the claims to originality that are made on behalf of HLS and other relational models of public management. HLS is in its infancy in Australasia, and therefore this note also offers suggestions from the case study on learnings that could be transposed into the southern hemisphere.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>The bespoke nature of the Human Learning Systems (HLS) approach makes it worthy of further exploration in Australasia.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>HLS, in this case, has created conditions for increased innovation and trust between multiple partners</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>HLS lends itself to utilising local knowledge and indigenous epistemologies</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141547788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Public–private partnerships (PPPs) have become an increasingly common model for government infrastructure delivery around the world. However, despite their widespread use, scholarship has been generally sceptical. This study identified 14 common policy and governance criticisms and observations of PPPs as they relate to the interests of citizens. Through interviews and surveys with 23 former government ministers—including 15 former premiers—and 87 political advisers, it tested levels of agreement with each criticism and observation. Its quantitative results find that politicians and their advisers agree with six of those criticisms/observations, reject three, and are neutral towards five. However, qualitatively, respondents were generally supportive of the PPP model, defending it against many of the criticisms and observations tested, particularly against apparent transparency shortcomings and the notion that the uptake of PPPs is motivated by direct electoral benefits. They also believed many criticisms of PPPs are overstated or could apply equally to the so‐called traditional procurement models. However, respondents cited significant human capital concerns about the ability of governments to achieve superior financial outcomes through effectively negotiated and monitored PPP contracts. The paper then notes that elected decision makers can identify apparent shortcomings in the PPP model, yet still accept its usage and considers why this might be the case.Points for practitionersPoliticians and their advisers accept some of the criticisms and observations made by scholars in relation to PPPs and citizen interests. Notwithstanding that, politicians and their advisers generally believe that PPPs are a technically superior delivery model when compared against its alternatives.Politicians and their advisers do not accept a number of assertions made by scholars, including that PPPs have undermined government‐to‐citizen accountability; that PPPs have been associated with a de‐skilling of the public‐sector and that the Public Sector Comparator has been set‐aside when governments have chosen to do so. They also rejected assertions that PPPs had required governments to obscure more information from citizens.Politicians and their advisers strongly believed that effective PPP contracts were critical to government achieving financial value through the PPP model. They believed the ability of government to achieve this was heavily depending on having capable public servants who could plan, negotiate and monitor PPP contracts. They believe governments can not easily find and retain said capable staff.
{"title":"What do ministers and their advisers say to the critics of Public–Private Partnerships? Results from a mixed‐methods study","authors":"Sebastian Zwalf","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12645","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>Public–private partnerships (PPPs) have become an increasingly common model for government infrastructure delivery around the world. However, despite their widespread use, scholarship has been generally sceptical. This study identified 14 common policy and governance criticisms and observations of PPPs as they relate to the interests of citizens. Through interviews and surveys with 23 former government ministers—including 15 former premiers—and 87 political advisers, it tested levels of agreement with each criticism and observation. Its quantitative results find that politicians and their advisers agree with six of those criticisms/observations, reject three, and are neutral towards five. However, qualitatively, respondents were generally supportive of the PPP model, defending it against many of the criticisms and observations tested, particularly against apparent transparency shortcomings and the notion that the uptake of PPPs is motivated by direct electoral benefits. They also believed many criticisms of PPPs are overstated or could apply equally to the so‐called traditional procurement models. However, respondents cited significant human capital concerns about the ability of governments to achieve superior financial outcomes through effectively negotiated and monitored PPP contracts. The paper then notes that elected decision makers can identify apparent shortcomings in the PPP model, yet still accept its usage and considers why this might be the case.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Politicians and their advisers accept some of the criticisms and observations made by scholars in relation to PPPs and citizen interests. Notwithstanding that, politicians and their advisers generally believe that PPPs are a technically superior delivery model when compared against its alternatives.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Politicians and their advisers do not accept a number of assertions made by scholars, including that PPPs have undermined government‐to‐citizen accountability; that PPPs have been associated with a de‐skilling of the public‐sector and that the Public Sector Comparator has been set‐aside when governments have chosen to do so. They also rejected assertions that PPPs had required governments to obscure more information from citizens.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Politicians and their advisers strongly believed that effective PPP contracts were critical to government achieving financial value through the PPP model. They believed the ability of government to achieve this was heavily depending on having capable public servants who could plan, negotiate and monitor PPP contracts. They believe governments can not easily find and retain said capable staff.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"143 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141504205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michelle J. Morgan, Elaine Stratford, Samantha Rowbotham, Siobhan Harpur
Collaboration is a key strategy among local governments as expectations of the sector grow and resources to meet them fall short. Thus, more research is needed to consider how local governments can be supported to collaborate with others, not least for community health and wellbeing outcomes. In an earlier study, we explored inter‐municipal cooperation using social network analysis and local government perspectives on community health and wellbeing in the Australian state of Tasmania. Extending that study in ways reported here, we interviewed elected representatives and council staff to understand how and why Tasmanian local governments might collaborate with others to support community health and wellbeing. Findings show participants want councils to work more collaboratively to effectively deal with common challenges but are impeded by factors such as isolation and resource shortages. Tasmania's local government reform and Healthy Tasmania strategic plan are significant opportunities for collaborative practice to be enhanced among its local governments generally, and specifically in relation to community health and wellbeing. We advocate for a more considered approach to collaboration for community health and wellbeing that could deliver far‐reaching benefits for local governments and their communities.Points for practitionersCollaboration in local government is often described in terms of ‘shared services’ and tends to focus on transactional services that require little tailoring to local communities.Our study found municipal personnel want their councils to work more collaboratively to address common place‐specific issues related to community health and wellbeing, but are influenced by cultures of self‐sufficiency, organisational capacity and support, connections, and legislation and policy processes.Local government collaborative practices could be supported by the development of a place‐based policy framework to guide collaboration across local government service types, establishment of an informal statewide community health and wellbeing network for councils to facilitate peer learning and support, funding guidelines that explicitly support and encourage collaboration, and identifying collaboration as a priority in strategic plans, policies, and frameworks.
{"title":"How can local government be better supported to collaborate for community health and wellbeing?","authors":"Michelle J. Morgan, Elaine Stratford, Samantha Rowbotham, Siobhan Harpur","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12643","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>Collaboration is a key strategy among local governments as expectations of the sector grow and resources to meet them fall short. Thus, more research is needed to consider how local governments can be supported to collaborate with others, not least for community health and wellbeing outcomes. In an earlier study, we explored inter‐municipal cooperation using social network analysis and local government perspectives on community health and wellbeing in the Australian state of Tasmania. Extending that study in ways reported here, we interviewed elected representatives and council staff to understand how and why Tasmanian local governments might collaborate with others to support community health and wellbeing. Findings show participants want councils to work <jats:italic>more</jats:italic> collaboratively to effectively deal with common challenges but are impeded by factors such as isolation and resource shortages. Tasmania's local government reform and Healthy Tasmania strategic plan are significant opportunities for collaborative practice to be enhanced among its local governments generally, and specifically in relation to community health and wellbeing. We advocate for a more considered approach to collaboration for community health and wellbeing that could deliver far‐reaching benefits for local governments and their communities.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Collaboration in local government is often described in terms of ‘shared services’ and tends to focus on transactional services that require little tailoring to local communities.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Our study found municipal personnel want their councils to work more collaboratively to address common place‐specific issues related to community health and wellbeing, but are influenced by cultures of self‐sufficiency, organisational capacity and support, connections, and legislation and policy processes.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Local government collaborative practices could be supported by the development of a place‐based policy framework to guide collaboration across local government service types, establishment of an informal statewide community health and wellbeing network for councils to facilitate peer learning and support, funding guidelines that explicitly support and encourage collaboration, and identifying collaboration as a priority in strategic plans, policies, and frameworks.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141190667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：