Suchergebnisse

Policy advisory systems, which provide evidence-informed policy advice to governments, are put under great pressure in times of crisis. Crisis situations may engender conflicting interpretations by stakeholders about how to respond. These conflicts are compounded by inevitable gaps in knowledge and uncertainties about how the crisis might develop. All governments face challenges beyond their control which can take many forms, ranging from financial and political disruptions through to health pandemics, natural disasters, and threats to national security. Such decision-making pressures were especially evident during the COVID-19 crisis and followed different trajectories in different countries. This introductory article frames a group of research studies that brings new insights into various aspects of how governmental policy advisory systems responded to this crisis. Policy advice was formulated against a backdrop of controversies about how to prioritise health outcomes, economic livelihoods and social interaction. These studies analyse policy advisory systems with particular attention to the quality of the available knowledge base, the disciplinary mix of expertise within advisory bodies, the roles of experts as either trusted insiders or as external commentators, as providers or 'shapers' of knowledge, and the degree of (in)formality in their relationships with politicians. These issues are also investigated in the context of creeping crises, such as climate change. Taken together, the special issue provides new insights into how knowledge provided through policy advisory systems informs crisis governance. In this way, it advances our knowledge of the relationship between experts in policy advisory systems and political decision-makers in times of crisis.

In 2016, the International Water Centre (IWC), with funding from the World Bank, commenced a review of the water utilities reform processes in Australia. The aim of this work is to explore the key success factors in the reform of urban water supply services through a study of the Australian example, from which relevant lessons can be drawn for other countries. To meet this aim, the IWC and researchers from the University of Queensland have sought to identify commonalities and differences between the steps taken by the various states and water utilities during Australia's experience of reform in the urban water sector. One goal of our research is to reveal insights into the interplay between the state level of reform and regulation and national framework agreements. The related story of regulatory oversight, as part of the overall reform process, has been examined elsewhere. For example, the role of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) in New South Wales is important to that state's pricing, regulatory, and sector reforms. Because there are many lessons to be learned from the New South Wales case, including and beyond IPART, the urban water sector reforms in New South Wales are the subject of a case study. Thus, this report analyzes urban water reforms initiated by recent national agreements in Australia, and demonstrates variations between jurisdictions and between approaches at different times. The analysis focuses on water utilities in the major cities (principally the state-level capital cities). The analysis also demonstrates how the Australian urban water reform process is part of a wider and longer series of national and subnational regulatory reforms since the late 1980s. These include competition policy reform, corporatization of government agencies, and the formation in the 1990s of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The COAG was crucial for bringing all states on board for reform in Australia, but there are major questions about how such coalition building among governmental leaders and senior bureaucrats can be adapted to the circumstances of other countries.

AbstractAcademics and policy makers in many Western countries are perceived as occupying separate communities, with distinct languages, values, and reward systems. However, data from a survey of more than 2,000 policy officials and 126 in‐depth interviews with public servants in Australia suggest that the "two communities" conceptualization may be misleading and flawed. More realistically, there is a range of interaction between policy and academia, with some individuals valuing and using academic research more than others. Furthermore, this relationship is complicated by the internal division between the political and administrative components of the public policy process.

Related Content: Valenzuela (PAR November/December 2017)Related Content: Gooden (PAR November/December 2017)

Related Content: Barbero et al. (PAR September/October 2017)Related Content: Crowley and Scott (PAR September/October 2017)

Related Content: Kagarise and Zavattaro (PAR July/August 2017)
Related Content: Mergel (PAR July/August 2017)