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":null,"pages":null},"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 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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Robodebt was an administratively harmful policy created by bureaucrats incrementally extending existing welfare compliance policies in Australia. This article analyses the long history that created the malign institutional state in which Robodebt was able to occur. It argues the fertile ground for this policy was laid through the historical interplay of three institutional processes: the rules of Commonwealth budget making, the fractured relationship between policy and service delivery in Australian social security, and the structure of the fraud and compliance framework of the Department of Human Services. This created a pattern of institutional change in which compliance policies were added in incremental layers over decades before Robodebt as part of an ongoing drive for savings and operational efficiency. The article concludes by arguing the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which focus on improved legal processes and oversight, are insufficient to resolve the institutional problems at the root of Robodebt. Robodebt occurred as a result of bureaucrats incrementally extending existing welfare compliance policies, which was a standard annual practice that had been occurring for about the preceding 30 years. The expansion of compliance programs was one of the only ways for the Department of Human Services, as the service delivery arm of social security, to meet annual demands from central agencies and politicians to cut expenditure and provide offsets for new spending. For long‐term change, the government and the Australian Public Service will need to go further than the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission by addressing the offsetting mechanisms of Commonwealth Budget processes and the structure of the social services portfolio that separates policy and service delivery.
{"title":"Not my debt: The institutional origins of Robodebt","authors":"Jacob Priergaard","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12658","url":null,"abstract":"Robodebt was an administratively harmful policy created by bureaucrats incrementally extending existing welfare compliance policies in Australia. This article analyses the long history that created the malign institutional state in which Robodebt was able to occur. It argues the fertile ground for this policy was laid through the historical interplay of three institutional processes: the rules of Commonwealth budget making, the fractured relationship between policy and service delivery in Australian social security, and the structure of the fraud and compliance framework of the Department of Human Services. This created a pattern of institutional change in which compliance policies were added in incremental layers over decades before Robodebt as part of an ongoing drive for savings and operational efficiency. The article concludes by arguing the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which focus on improved legal processes and oversight, are insufficient to resolve the institutional problems at the root of Robodebt.\u0000Robodebt occurred as a result of bureaucrats incrementally extending existing welfare compliance policies, which was a standard annual practice that had been occurring for about the preceding 30 years.\u0000The expansion of compliance programs was one of the only ways for the Department of Human Services, as the service delivery arm of social security, to meet annual demands from central agencies and politicians to cut expenditure and provide offsets for new spending.\u0000For long‐term change, the government and the Australian Public Service will need to go further than the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission by addressing the offsetting mechanisms of Commonwealth Budget processes and the structure of the social services portfolio that separates policy and service delivery.\u0000","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141920918","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}
Various studies have provided evidence that, especially in the Global South, relational street‐level bureaucracy can play a constructive role in bridging the gap between vulnerable population groups and a distant, formal bureaucracy that often fails to guarantee citizens’ rights and factual access to public services and benefits. However, studies have also highlighted street‐level bureaucracies’ vulnerability to practices of corruption, patrimonialism, and clientelism as they engage with citizens through more informal mechanisms. In this article, we contribute to understanding which institutional conditions can promote constructive citizen‐bureaucrat interactions by presenting findings from a qualitative study on proximity policing in a densely populated suburb of Mexico City with some of the highest crime levels in the entire metropolitan area. Sustained and managerially supported implementation of proximity policing has improved citizen‐police relations and facilitated learning processes by both officers and residents, while minimizing risks of clientelism. Although this model of municipal policing is no panacea for complex security issues, it does confirm existing evidence regarding the importance of relational street‐level bureaucracy for improving citizen trust and, moreover, highlights the importance of consistent managerial and citizen involvement as enabling factors. The traditional focus on bureaucratic control and capacities has often involuntarily ended up worsening public service provision in contexts with weak state institutions. Relational street‐level bureaucracy can play a constructive role in bridging the gap between vulnerable population groups and a distant, formal bureaucracy. Consistent managerial support, citizen involvement, and professional deliberation are crucial elements in mitigating the downsides of informality in street‐level interactions.
{"title":"Relational street‐level bureaucracy: Proximity policing and the construction of trust between citizens and municipal police officers in Nezahualcóyotl, Mexico","authors":"Nashellit González‐Martínez, Rik Peeters","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12656","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12656","url":null,"abstract":"Various studies have provided evidence that, especially in the Global South, relational street‐level bureaucracy can play a constructive role in bridging the gap between vulnerable population groups and a distant, formal bureaucracy that often fails to guarantee citizens’ rights and factual access to public services and benefits. However, studies have also highlighted street‐level bureaucracies’ vulnerability to practices of corruption, patrimonialism, and clientelism as they engage with citizens through more informal mechanisms. In this article, we contribute to understanding which institutional conditions can promote constructive citizen‐bureaucrat interactions by presenting findings from a qualitative study on proximity policing in a densely populated suburb of Mexico City with some of the highest crime levels in the entire metropolitan area. Sustained and managerially supported implementation of proximity policing has improved citizen‐police relations and facilitated learning processes by both officers and residents, while minimizing risks of clientelism. Although this model of municipal policing is no panacea for complex security issues, it does confirm existing evidence regarding the importance of relational street‐level bureaucracy for improving citizen trust and, moreover, highlights the importance of consistent managerial and citizen involvement as enabling factors.\u0000The traditional focus on bureaucratic control and capacities has often involuntarily ended up worsening public service provision in contexts with weak state institutions.\u0000Relational street‐level bureaucracy can play a constructive role in bridging the gap between vulnerable population groups and a distant, formal bureaucracy.\u0000Consistent managerial support, citizen involvement, and professional deliberation are crucial elements in mitigating the downsides of informality in street‐level interactions.\u0000","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141921080","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":null,"pages":null},"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}
We argue that new public management (NPM) and other processes have led to adverse selection and agency rent problems within the political elite in Australia. The politicisation of the public service and the rise of careerist politicians have led to the de‐separation of what was once two distinct career paths within the political elite. This has changed the decision premise of the advisory system for policy formation and implementation, leading to worse public policy, even policy disasters. We recommend that some of the principles of the Westminster form of government be updated and re‐instituted for political elites within the structures of the Australian government. We canvass four reforms: return to merit appointments and promotion for public servants; a return to tenure for senior public servants; an enhanced push for descriptive representation within the career public service; and a formal role for staffers with centralised appointments, inability to instruct public servants, and restrictions on political and policy roles once leaving public service. These are designed to end the distrust, perceived corruption, and poor governance in the Australian government. Having separate career paths for non‐elected policy elites and elected elites is vital for information transmission and good governance. Each should operate with separate decision premises and work together in creative tension. NPM practices have weakened the separate career paths of public servants and politicians, leading to adverse selection and agency rent for both. The Westminster system has a logic that has been diluted or weakened within the Australian government, leading to poorer policy and policy disasters. The paper presents four areas for reform.
{"title":"Bad governance in Australia and how to mitigate it","authors":"Keith Dowding, Marija Taflaga","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12654","url":null,"abstract":"We argue that new public management (NPM) and other processes have led to adverse selection and agency rent problems within the political elite in Australia. The politicisation of the public service and the rise of careerist politicians have led to the de‐separation of what was once two distinct career paths within the political elite. This has changed the decision premise of the advisory system for policy formation and implementation, leading to worse public policy, even policy disasters. We recommend that some of the principles of the Westminster form of government be updated and re‐instituted for political elites within the structures of the Australian government. We canvass four reforms: return to merit appointments and promotion for public servants; a return to tenure for senior public servants; an enhanced push for descriptive representation within the career public service; and a formal role for staffers with centralised appointments, inability to instruct public servants, and restrictions on political and policy roles once leaving public service. These are designed to end the distrust, perceived corruption, and poor governance in the Australian government.\u0000Having separate career paths for non‐elected policy elites and elected elites is vital for information transmission and good governance. Each should operate with separate decision premises and work together in creative tension.\u0000NPM practices have weakened the separate career paths of public servants and politicians, leading to adverse selection and agency rent for both.\u0000The Westminster system has a logic that has been diluted or weakened within the Australian government, leading to poorer policy and policy disasters.\u0000The paper presents four areas for reform.\u0000","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141650015","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：