Suchergebnisse

The structures, behaviours and problems of governance in small states have always fascinated me. I attribute this fascination to the fact that I began my career of teaching and research in public administration in Tasmania, Australia's island state with its population of around half a million, and then had many opportunities to compare and contrast the Tasmanian system with those of other small and many much larger jurisdictions. Continuing that career in the Australian Capital Territory, a 'quasi-state' even smaller in population terms, provided other such opportunities and challenges. Drawing on this research experience, this paper looks first at the relationship between statehood and size. It then considers how a number of governance issues mostly related to structuring and operating the executive and legislative branches of government have been affected over the years by the smallness factor. The illustrations come mostly from jurisdictions that would loosely be regarded as belonging to the family of Westminster-style governments, however much that style has been adapted to accommodate the factor of smallness. ; peer-reviewed

AbstractCommonwealth‐enforced changes to the constitutional status of Norfolk Island through 2014–2016 have removed the island's autonomous identity as a self‐governing Australian territory. Its conversion to what is effectively a part of New South Wales, with the main instrument of governance titled 'regional council', is said to be based on a NSW local government model. However, it is difficult to view Norfolk Island as a region, and difficult also to trace the thinking that bestowed the form of the regional council on its governance. This article briefly summarizes the Norfolk changes. It then considers how the concept of the regional council has been used in NSW, and moves on to Queensland where the concept is better defined. It notes particularly how it has been applied in the case of the Torres Strait Islands, and asks whether that application might have relevance for Norfolk. It concludes with speculation about what might be a better approach in designing a system of governance suitable for Norfolk conditions.

A big challenge to wise administrative reform is to ensure that reform does not threaten the organizational stability needed to ensure effective policy implementation and service delivery. There are of course many challenges, but this a vitally important one, and it is a main aim of this article to emphasize it. The article first presents a brief survey of the rise over the past 40 years of what is here called the "administrative reform industry". It then looks at several recent contributions to the discourse about administrative reform, and in that connection notes some worthwhile suggestions about reform strategies, and some warnings about things to avoid. While the treatment is primarily reflective, a few practical illustrations are included.

PurposeHowever well‐intentioned are public sector reform movements, they are often compromised by misunderstandings about meanings and directions and by the organisational amnesia that comes from too rapid change and too little attention to the past. A better appreciation of these problems is needed. This paper aims to address these issues.Design/methodology/approachThe paper combines discussion about factors that inhibit successful outcomes of many reform programmes with examples drawn mostly from the Australian experience.FindingsReform programmes are likely to have better outcomes if they are designed with these possible impediments in view. Similarly theoretical understandings will be safer and sounder if more attention is given to administrative history and more care is taken to reconcile conflicting views.Originality/valueThe paper focuses on issues that have not been given much attention in the literature of public sector reform.

It is fitting that Canada, as one of the world's leading federations, should play host to important ventures in the study of federal capitals, and in the analysis of how these capitals are governed and financed. A generation ago it was Canadian professor of political science Donald Rowat who produced the first anthology of these capitals. His edited book, with 17 case studies contributed by leading scholars of the time, provided excellent coverage of its subject and has remained the major text in the field for over 30 years. But there have been important developments in the field since Rowat's book was published by University of Toronto Press (Rowat 1973), and we can be thankful that another Canada-based team has produced a sequel volume that brings the story up-to-date and extends it in significant ways (Slack & Chattopadhyay 2009).