Compulsory Arbitration and the Australasian Model of State Development: Policy Transfer, Learning, and Innovation

Abstract

Policymakers transfer knowledge about policies, ideas, and institutions between political systems, learning from one another in a process of policy learning; lesson drawing; diffusion; or policy transfer. As Dolowitz and Marsh observe: “While terminology and focus often vary … studies are concerned with the process by which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions, and ideas in one political system (past or present) are used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political system.” The literature on policy transfer has mainly addressed how policymakers glean potential lessons and use those experiences to devise reforms. It asks questions about why policy transfer occurs; who was involved; what was transferred; from where; the extent of the transfer; and how the process of transfer is “related to policy ‘success’ or ‘failure.’” Greener distinguishes this from policy learning, where policymakers make deliberate adjustments in response to experience or new information, and learning is evident when policy changes as a result of this process. Some scholars see policy transfer as a subset of policy learning, since these are often part of the same procedure. Oliver and Pemberton advance a model, for example, of how ideas are absorbed through learning, in which bureaucratic battles ensue to institutionalize a new policy, and reformers' success in securing support can be critical in determining the extent of policy learning and transfer.

“Super” Debates within the Antipodes? Explaining Differing New Zealand and Australian Retirement Policies in the late Twentieth Century

“…Most studies consider policy transfer. 80 Rather than this kind of convergence I have concentrated on debate, divergence and the exploration of policy alternatives. As Denis Bouget has suggested, convergence studies all too often overlook the "contradictions in trajectories" and underestimate "the power of certain divergent forces" in the evolution of the social welfare systems.…”

Review Essay: Settler Capitalism Revisited

“…For the Australian case was, indeed, part of an antipodean experiment. Its most distinctive attribute and institution, arbitration and conciliation, emerged from a process of cultural and political traffic across the Tasman (Goldfinch and Mein Smith, 2006). Kelly's other claimed features -racial exclusion, protection, statism and imperialism -were characteristic not only of Australia and New Zealand but also of Canada and South Africa, and were in general far more widely-spread period attributes of sub-imperial and imperial cultures into the 20th century (Hyslop, 1999;Bonnett, 2003;Kirk, 2003;Thompson, 2005).…”

A Trans-Tasman business elite?

“…This was to the extent that a shared Australasian model of state development developed and existed for much of the 20th century. In turn, this model was dismantled in the 1980s and 1990s in a rapid and comprehensive process of economic liberalization, which also shared important characteristics (Goldfinch, 2000;Goldfinch and Mein-Smith, 2006).…”