School of Social and Political Sciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableWhen design meets power: design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policy-making(Policy Press, 2023-01-01)
-
ItemThe Entrepreneurial Public Servant: Unlocking Employee Potential Through Recognition and Inclusion(SAGE Publications, 2023-01-01)Can public sector employees act as entrepreneurs and help solve some of the world’s most pressing problems? Amid crises such as COVID-19, rising inflation, and climate disasters, governments worldwide are facing credibility and legitimacy crises, and the need for innovation and entrepreneurship in the public sector has never been more critical. To understand how to make public servants more entrepreneurial, this study explores the relationship between human resource management (HRM) practices, person-environment fit theory, and attitudes toward public sector entrepreneurship. Based on data from the 2019 Australian Public Service census survey (n = 92,128), this study finds the practices of promoting employee recognition and inclusion exhibit the strongest effects on entrepreneurial attitudes of public servants, via person-job and person-organization fit respectively. However, practices such as performance appraisal and trainings show irrelevant effects. Overall, this article suggests that public managers should instill a culture of inclusion, innovation, and participation within their organizations to unleash the entrepreneurial public servant, while they need to rethink their performance appraisal systems to serve better the purpose of improving employees fit with their tasks.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePolicy on innovation in Australia: Divergence in definitions, problems, and solutions(WILEY, 2023-03)Abstract Innovation has joined the mainstream in many nations as governments search for new ways to tackle challenging societal and economic problems. But Australia is seen to be lagging on innovation policy. Is this related to how governments define innovation? What do they regard as the problem they are addressing? What proposed solutions follow from this? This paper examines how Australian governments have defined innovation over four decades, signalling their policy intentions about how to make the nation more innovative. Definitions of innovation are analysed using 79 Australian (national level) policy documents published from 1976 to 2019. Close reading of these documents suggests two main definitions: innovation as technology, and innovation as culture. Topic modelling uncovers more differentiated themes, shows how definitions change over time, and demonstrates an association between definitions and political parties in government. The divergent approaches suggest a lack of coherence and continuity to policy on innovation in Australia. Points for practitioners Innovation has expanded and broadened in its definition and governments and policymakers have paid increasing attention to it. In Australia, there are two main definitions of innovation used in policy—one related to technology and one related to culture. The technology view of innovation can be further divided into a focus on businesses or a focus on research and development (R&D). Different innovation definitions, problems, and solutions dominate at different times, with Coalition governments tending to favour business and technology over culture, and Labor governments doing the opposite. There are divergent approaches to policy on innovation in Australia which suggest a lack of coherence and consistency in policy over the long term.
-
ItemTeaching Policy Design: Themes, Topics & Techniques(Editora Blucher, 2021-12-01)
-
ItemAre policy tools and governance modes coupled? Analysing welfare-to-work reform at the frontline(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2021-07-03)ABSTRACT This paper considers the link between policy tools and governance modes – the characteristic ways frontline staff are meta-governed. It asks: Are substantive policy tools coupled to procedural tools (governance modes) that can guide local service delivery agencies and the work of individuals delivering welfare services? The substantive policy tools in this case are those typically utilised to reform welfare-to-work services: contracting-out of services and competitive tendering, and the regulation of quasi-markets. These are hypothesised to flow through to procedural policy tools in the form of corporate and market incentives and regulatory (bureaucratic) methods that shape how work is done (governance modes), privileging certain practice orientations at the frontline. Policy makers seek to shape these meta-level governance modes because they should result in systemic change, based on a reconfiguration of policy actors and their interrelationships, for both service delivery agencies and the individuals working in them. We identified four ideal-type governance modes (bureaucratic, corporate, market and network) and tracked which of these were dominant in-practice at the frontline in Australia and the UK at two levels: office and personal, at four points in time (1998, 2008, 2012 and 2016). We found that the dominant mode of organisation at the office level was corporate, followed by bureaucratic in both nations. But the bureaucratic mode had grown in strength over time, particularly in Australia, and as a personal priority for staff, as re-regulation occurred. The results indicate a coupling between substantive policy tools and governance modes at the frontline of welfare-to-work.
-
ItemProcedural policy tools in theory and practice INTRODUCTION(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2021-07-03)ABSTRACT Policy tools are a critical part of policy-making, providing the ‘means’ by which policy ‘ends’ are achieved. Knowledge of their different origin, nature and capabilities is vital for understanding policy formulation and decision-making, and they have been the subject of inquiry in many policy-related disciplines and sector-specific studies. Yet many crucial aspects of policy tools remain unexplored. Existing studies on policy tools used in policy formulation tend to focus on ‘substantive’ tools – those used to directly affect policy outcomes such as regulation or subsidies – and largely neglect ‘procedural’ tools used to indirectly but significantly affect policy processes and outcomes. A key aim of this special issue is to fill this knowledge gap in the field. This article introduces the issue by establishing that procedural tools play a more determining role in public policy-making than is generally acknowledged and deserve a more systematic inquiry into their workings, their impact on the policy process and the organization and delivery of public and private goods and services.
-
ItemUnderstanding, measuring, and encouraging public policy research impact(Wiley, 2021)Academics undertaking public policy research are committed to tackling interesting questions driven by curiosity, but they generally also want their research to have an impact on government, service delivery, or public debate. Yet our ability to capture the impact of this research is limited because impact is under-theorised, and current systems of research impact evaluation do not allow for multiple or changing research goals. This article develops a conceptual framework for understanding, measuring, and encouraging research impact for those who seek to produce research that speaks to multiple audiences. The framework brings together message, medium, audience, engagement, impact, evaluation, and affordance within the logics of different fields. It sets out a new way of considering research goals, measurements, and incentives in an integrated way. By accounting for the logics of different fields, which encompass disciplinary, institutional, and intrinsic factors, the framework provides a new way of harnessing measurements and incentives towards fruitful learning about the contribution diverse types of public policy research can make to wider impact.
-
ItemImproving public policy and administration: exploring the potential of design(Policy Press, 2020-01-01)In recent years, design approaches to policymaking have gained popularity among policymakers. However, a critical reflection on their added value and on how contemporary ‘design-thinking’ approaches relates to the classical idea of public administration as a design science, is still lacking. This introductory paper reflects upon the use of design approaches in public administration. We delve into the more traditional ideas of design as launched by Simon and policy design, but also into the present-day design wave, stemming from traditional design sciences. Based upon this we distinguish between three ideal-type approaches of design currently characterising the discipline: design as optimisation, design as exploration and design as co-creation. More rigorous empirical analyses of applications of these approaches is necessary to further develop public administration as a design science. We reflect upon the question of how a more designerly way of thinking can help to improve public administration and public policy.
-
ItemThe limits of policy labs: characteristics, opportunities and constraints(TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2021-04-03)Policy labs are promoted as providing supportive structures and processes for innovation. Their contributions to policy advisory systems are seen as residing in developing creative policy solutions “outside” traditional bureaucratic structures, and in providing experimental sites for solving problems. This paper examines the characteristics of policy labs in terms of their organizational forms, size, focus and the methods that they employ. It then analyses the opportunities and constraints that labs have in relation to policy design. Labs can be government-controlled, government-enabled, government-led or independently run. They are typically small and tend to be short-lived. Labs often focus on “design” methods. Their autonomy and close connection to citizens and communities provide opportunities, and design-led approaches are helpful in reframing policy problems and finding a broader set of potential solutions. While a key strength is flexibility, labs are comparatively easy to shut down, defund, or ignore, and their survival depends on political patronage. Labs also face constraints in terms of operational capacity and their favored (design) methods, which clash with standard policy processes and bureaucratic structures. Policy labs certainly provide capabilities for improving the design of public policies. However, labs reside in broader policy advisory systems and alone, they cannot provide the solution to all policy design challenges.