Suchergebnisse

AbstractLimited or incomplete achievement of societal aspirations, such as the realisation of sustainable development, can lead to distrust in government and the public sector. This paper takes an empirical approach to uncover (1) what factors influence public decision‐makers, (2) if such factors apply equally irrespective of the decision, and (3) which are most important. Thirty‐five interviews of public servants within the subnational State of Victoria, Australia, yield 40 common influences upon decision‐makers. Collectively, these influences result in an unmanageably complex operating environment. Statistical and network mapping analyses further demonstrate decision context and decision‐maker self‐efficacy impact influence importance.Points for practitioners
Forty different influences make the public sector operating environment incredibly complex; they explain why public outcomes can deviate from stated objectives.
These influences vary in impact (barriers, enablers), scale, and importance, pending the decision context and the self‐efficacy of the decision‐makers involved.
While distinct factors, the 40 influences often operate in concert, with some masking others; decision‐makers themselves may not recognise the most important factors upon their work without deep reflection.
Far from being at the mercy of the influences, decision‐makers can shape public outcomes by recognising the influences on their decisions and seeking to engage them as enablers of optimal decisions.
Applying systems thinking may enable widespread public decision‐making improvements, through the identification of high‐value leverage points.

Sustainable development ('SD') is a longstanding internationally accepted and adopted policy concept, but little is known about how well it is understood and applied by public decision-makers. This article enhances that understanding by empirically examining public servant experiences within the State of Victoria, Australia. Thematic and statistical analyses of 35 semi-structured interviews and 97 online survey responses yield seven key insights: (1) SD is more widely understood than the associated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), although variable understandings exist for both, and participants indicate neither are being widely or consistently implemented; (2) Definitions of SD are inconsistent, and a holistic understanding of the concept is absent within some decision-makers' intuitive thinking, but potential for consensus exists; (3) Applications and interpretations of the polluter pays and precautionary principles of sustainable development are similarly varied; (4) Legislative and institutional structures are likely contributing to the latter findings; (5) Implementation is considerably impacted upon by heuristics and framing; (6) Leadership is recognised as a necessary catalyst for the achievement of the SDGs within Victoria; and, encouragingly, (7) public decision-makers possess many ideas for enhancing intergenerational equity, and overall decision-making effectiveness. These novel insights illustrate sustainable development is not being consistently considered or achieved by public decision-makers in Victoria, and that solutions can and must be identified and implemented to achieve the 'future we want'.

AbstractRegulation plays a vital role in reducing harms and promoting public order. However, regulatory reform has been likened to painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge, it never ends. Coupling this reality with the increasing array of areas requiring regulation, there is an acute need for regulators to become more effective in how they work. We discuss the leadership skills needed to ensure regulators consistently contribute to the creation of public value.Points for practitionersRegulators can be more effective when they appreciate their authorising environment and the factors which make that environment dynamic.Careful calibration of enforcement practices to the capabilities of those being regulated can reduce conflicts and improve outcomes.Regulators with good communication skills can do much to resolve apparently intractable disputes.

The inability of global governments to meaningfully progress sustainable development over the past three decades is deeply concerning. AI is increasingly framed as a solution for achieving such outcomes, sometimes uncritically. We argue that: 1) for AI to improve public decision-making, the conditions and factors influencing public decisions must be better understood and considered; 2) to mainstream AI-enabled insights, transformations of those conditions and factors are necessary; and, 3) critical governance questions about those transformations must be addressed. To develop our arguments we draw on: original research identifying factors shaping public decision-making; ongoing interdisciplinary research exploring conditions that influence the use of AI for sustainable development policy; and, conceptual framings from literature concerned with transitions, earth system governance, leverage points and policy entrepreneurship - all sharing ambition to understand transformative change. In so doing, we seek to advance critical knowledge on the, potentially, transformative implications of AI in public decision-making.