Search results

It is common (and comforting) to see public policy as the result of careful craft work by expert officials who recognise a problem, identify and evaluate possible responses, and choose the most appropriate strategy the policy cycle'. The reality is more complex and challenging. Many hands are involved in policy-making, not all of them official, they are not all addressing the same problem, they have different ideas about what would be a good answer, and the process is rarely brought to a neat close by a clear decision. The development of policy can resemble firefighting, with players rushing to react to demands for action in areas that are already in crisis, or it can be a less frenetic process of weaving, as they search for an outcome which reflects the concerns of all the stakeholders. Effective participation in the policy process calls for a clear understanding of this complexity and ambiguity.Beyond the Policy Cycle sets policy in this wider context. It recognises that participants in the process are drawn from both government and diverse areas outside government, and looks not at a model' process but rather at how the game is played: how issues rise to prominence, who is actually doing the work, and exactly what it is that they are doing. With detailed Australian case studies, and examining the implications of recent trends in policy such as the outsourcing of service provision, Beyond the Policy Cycle offers students and practitioners a critical and engaged look at the activity of policy that reflects the reality of the policy experience.

Governance is a term which is widely, but not always precisely, used, and this article seeks to clarify what the term is being used to mean. In particular, it is concerned with whether it denotes a particular mode of government, or whether is a broad category encompassing all modes of government. It focuses on the arguments about political practice on which the original claims about governance were based, and the evidence that there has been a change is political practice which demands a new label. It concludes with a discussion of the way that accounts of government are used in the practice of governing, and the incentives that this gives both participants and observers to adopt the warm but fuzzy term 'governance'.

Interpretation is a critical element in both the analysis and the accomplishment of governing, and taking an interpretive approach to policy should not be seen as a methodological option for consenting adults, but as an integral element of political analysis. Understanding governing (whether by practitioners or analysts) raises questions about the shared meaning which makes action valid, and makes a reality of 'the government'. This calls for attention to the ways in which this is done, and how this interpretive construction has been recognised in political science (and other social sciences) in Australia and elsewhere, and for a consideration of what this means for political scientists' agenda of inquiry.

Rhodes and Wanna (2007)
 have criticised Moore's argument for 'public value' as an organising construct for public managers, claiming that it is confused, ill‐informed, ignores the central dynamic of political life, and demands that public managers become 'Platonic guardians', making it totally inappropriate for use in Australia. This article examines Moore's analysis and Rhodes and Wanna's critique, and explores the relevance for the argument of the complex nature of authority in Australian government, recent developments in the social science understanding of governing, and the experiential knowledge of practitioners. It cites the governing of the Murray‐Darling Basin as an example, and discusses the different discourses that academics and practitioners use in making sense of complexity in governing.

Policy is a construct in & about the practice of governing, & like other institutions, it is subject to adaptation. This article argues that "policy" is a distinct account of government, distinguishable from other accounts such as "tradition" or "market failure", & identifies the underlying assumptions of the policy account. The contemporary appeal of "policy" can be traced back to reform currents in American government from the post-war years, which gave rise to the emergence of "policy analysis" as a body of knowledge & a field of practice; the article traces the key elements of this "policy project ." It goes on to identify the characteristics of government in Southeast Asia, & asks what questions are raised by the application of the concept of policy to the practice & the analysis of government in the region. 24 References. Adapted from the source document.