Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Figures -- Tables -- Abbreviations and acronyms -- Contributors -- 1. Designing governance structures for performance and accountability: Developments in Australia and greater China -- 2. Theorising public bureaucracies: Comparing organisational purpose, function and form, while counter-posing political control versus bureaucratic autonomy -- 3. How independent should administration be from politics? Theory and practice in public sector institutional design in Australia -- 4. Governance structure, organisational reform and administrative efficiency: Lessons from Taiwan

AbstractThe article describes the long history of urbanisation, including developments in four jurisdictions – three in Greater China (the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan) and Australia. While each has its own history, all now face challenges associated with continuing urbanisation and the growth of very large cities. There are broadly similar economic forces at work, but differences in scale and differences in the "growth machines" involved and the institutional arrangements within which urban governance operates. The article explains the growing importance internationally of urban governance and the growing interest in the "performance" of cities. The authors then set out two case studies describing developments in urban governance around Shanghai and around Sydney. In both cases, the scale of big city growth is demanding both horizontal and vertical coordination, and processes that facilitate citizens and civil society participation. While the very different institutional arrangements in these jurisdictions have led to different urban governance arrangements, there are common challenges that have led to some common governance developments such as having a lead government with citywide and comprehensive public service responsibilities, and also having the national government play an increasingly active role in support.

AbstractPublic administration has undergone a fundamental change in China since Deng Xiaoping initiated a process of openness and reform in the late 1970s. While reform is widespread in Greater China (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau), only limited scholarship has been conducted to theorize these changes and empirically document them. This is somewhat surprising given the growing international prominence of China as a major powerhouse in the world economy and a political leader. This symposium seeks to contribute towards building knowledge and evidence on the changing nature of public administration in Greater China. In this article, key themes unique to Greater China are drawn out, the emergent status of public administration scholarship in China is discussed, and the key ingredients of a research agenda are presented.

AbstractIncreasing interest in participatory budgeting has been observed in local governments around the world. This paper stresses direct citizen participation in the budgeting process leads to good governance, deepens democracy and improves social justice, while also highlighting some challenges in its efficiency and effectiveness. Unlike participatory budgeting, the Sub‐borough Chiefs Forum is a community‐based representative democratic mechanism; it could be regarded as a form of participatory budgeting in a broad sense. If so, then did the Taipei programme simply duplicate the goals of the Forum or lead to a better governance by making up for the inadequacies of the Chiefs Forum? To find out whether the Taipei participatory budgeting programme made a difference, we carried out qualitative and quantitative comparisons of projects passed under the participatory budgeting process and at the Forum. We also interviewed several participatory budgeting participants and sub‐borough chiefs. The findings suggested that participatory budgeting and the Forum generated different proposals and budget requests, and the Taipei programme supplemented the shortcomings of the Forum and therefore led to deeper civic engagement and better urban governance.

We use simulations based on a multiequation model of federal budgetary outcomes to assess the Reagan administrations impact on the federal budget during fiscal years 1982–86. Reagan's aggregate budget priorities represent a significant departure from the priorities of prior postwar administrations. The bulk of this shift in priorities had occurred by fiscal 1984. Defense spending and uncontrollable domestic spending were higher, and spending on domestic controllable programs lower under Reagan than they would otherwise have been. The distinctiveness of Reagan's budgetary priorities can be attributed to his tax cuts and—far from a strategy of "starving the budget by reducing revenues"—to a failure to allow fiscal pressures to restrain spending. The model projects that without tax cuts Reagan's predecessors would have spent no less on defense than Reagan. Cutting taxes increased the deficit by about $400 billion cumulatively during fiscal years 1982–86 and reduced expenditures by roughly $30 billion.

This book draws on more than a decade of workshops organised by the Greater China Australia Dialogue on Public Administration, involving scholars and practitioners from Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Australia. Although these workshops recognised the major differences in the institutional frameworks of these jurisdictions, until recently they focused largely on the shared challenges and the diffusion of ideas and approaches. As rising international tensions inevitably draw attention to areas where interests and philosophies diverge, it is the differences that must now be highlighted. Yet, despite the tensions, this book reveals that these jurisdictions continue to address shared challenges in public administration. The book's contributors focus in detail on these four areas: intergovernmental relations, including the shifting balance between centralisation and decentralisation budgeting and financial management, including during and after the COVID-19 pandemic the civil service, its capability, and its relationship with government and the public service delivery, particularly in health and aged care. This book is aimed at a wide readership, not only at those within the jurisdictions it explores. It emphasises the importance of continued engagement in understanding different approaches to public administration—confirming fundamental philosophical differences where necessary but also looking for common ground and opportunities for shared learning.