Suchergebnisse

Résumé Le système d'emploi australien a été complètement reconstruit par trois gouvernements successifs ; aussi bien à droite qu'à gauche de l'échiquier politique, l'accord s'est fait sur une privatisation des services préférable au « tout public » ou à un système mixte État et opérateurs privés. Néanmoins, l'impact de la privatisation en Australie n'a pas toujours été anticipé. Dans cet article, nous soulignons comment le secteur de l'emploi a été externalisé. Alors que le système australien se veut un exemple d'efficacité d'aide à l'emploi, les décideurs ont encore du chemin à faire avant de trouver le juste équilibre entre un système bien régulé et la possibilité de laisser place à des réponses innovantes au chômage.

Scholars and policymakers have long known that there is a strong link between human development and spending on key areas such as education and health. However, many states still neglect these considerations in favour of competing priorities, such as expanding their armies. This book examines how states arrive at these decisions, analysing how democratic accountability influences public spending and impacts on human development. The book shows how the broader paradigm of democratic accountability - extending beyond political democracy to also include bureaucratic and judicial institutions as we.

This study examines the impact of adminstrative reforms upon the work of frontline staff in the employment services of three refrom-oriented countries – Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. These changes have involved greater use of private agents, more detailed performance contracts, clearer expectations about outcomes for job-seekers, and increased competition between agencies seeking government work. The study compares the work characteristics and strategies of front-line staff in agencies in the three systems in 2008 and a decade earlier, using surveys.The results show that there are substantial differences in the level of tailoring and investment in these countries. There are three relatively stable modes of governance in these cases and the most stable of these types across countries and across time is what we term the corporate-market mode – more generally labelled New Public Management (NPM). Despite the expectations of theorists and of reformers, the role of network governance proves neither as stable nor as generalised as expected.

Innovation and innovators inhabit an institutional space, which is partially defined by formal positions and partially by informal networks. This article investigates the role of politicians and bureaucrats in fostering innovation inside government and provides an empirical explanation of who the innovators are, whether this is mostly an attribute of position or role, or mostly an effect of certain forms of networking. The study uses original data collected from 11 municipal governments in Australia in order to define and describe the normative underpinnings of innovation inside government and to show the importance of advice and strategic information networks among politicians and senior bureaucrats (n = 947). Social network analysis is combined with conventional statistical analysis in order to demonstrate the comparative importance of networks in explaining who innovates.

Theories of democratic government traditionally have relied on a model of organization in which officials act impartially, accept clear lines of accountability and supervision, and define their day–to–day activities through rules, procedures, and confined discretion. In the past 10 years, however, a serious challenge to this ideal has been mounted by critics and reformers who favor market, network, or "mixed–economy" models. We assess the extent to which these new models have influenced the work orientations of frontline staff using three alternative service types—corporate, market, and network—to that proposed by the traditional, procedural model of public bureaucracy. Using surveys of frontline officials in four countries where the revolution in ideas has been accompanied by a revolution in methods for organizing government services, we measure the degree to which the new models are operating as service–delivery norms. A new corporate–market hybrid (called "enterprise governance") and a new network type have become significant models for the organization of frontline work in public programs.

Networks arise when actors become engaged in ongoing interaction. Networks describe the architecture of this interactivity & networking defines the style & intensity of actor-to-actor engagement. Applied to public policy, networking arises from the ongoing interactions of officials in different agencies who use professional contacts to resolve problems, trade information, get resources, & help clients. We hypothesized that national differences in patterns of networking would reflect one of three "regimes" -- the market type, the managed partnership type, & the standard bureaucratic type. Using structured interviews & questionnaires we examined the level & intensity of engagement between officials, & identified three distinct networking types -- basic, public, & civic. These reflect different patterns of engagement among government, for-profit & nonprofit agencies occupying the same policy field, producing the same type of public service. The different repertoires help to explain the different forms of networking in the three countries, but there are also important differences between agency types within countries. 5 Tables, 31 References. Adapted from the source document.