Intergovernmental Relations and the Role of Senior Officials: Two Case Studies and Some Lessons Learned

Davis, Glyn; Silver, Helen

doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12171

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the absence of national leadership states and territories pursued action on obesity through the intergovernmental mechanisms available to them. This avenue was available because of the ongoing structure of COAG, its Councils, and working groups [ 23 ]. The end of the NPAPH (2014) coincided with the total removal of prevention from the national agenda.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The state/territory (subnational) governments have extensive (and costly) responsibilities to deliver health care but have access to few own-source revenues (taxes that they control) and are dependent on fiscal transfers from the Commonwealth government and the conditions that are often attached. This ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’ creates tensions between states’ limited revenue raising capacity and a tendency towards ‘Commonwealth centralisation’ [ 23 ]. The Australian Constitution assigns overlapping and contested powers between the levels of government, which can lead to ‘joint decision traps’ (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior to its establishment in 1992 by a Labor government, Australia had a more ad hoc approach to intergovernmental relations with the central government using its financial powers to direct policy agendas and the states quietly resisting [ 24 ]. COAG’s role was to establish greater policy coherence and accountability and smooth out the effects of ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’ and negative coordination [ 23 ]. Although agreements can pass with a majority, COAG and its Councils sought consensus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Intergovernmental policy opportunities for childhood obesity prevention in Australia: Perspectives from senior officials

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Early childhood (from conception to five years) is a key life stage for interventions to prevent obesity. In the Australian Federation, policy responsibility for obesity prevention sits across all levels of government and several intergovernmental institutions, rendering a complicated policy space. There is a gap in our understanding of the role of intergovernmentalism in developing obesity prevention policy in Australia. Given the complexity of intergovernmental structures and initiatives influencing childhood obesity prevention policy, it is important to understand the perspectives of senior health officials within the bureaucracy of government who through their roles may be able to influence processes or new strategies. Methods Document analysis relating to obesity prevention in the intergovernmental context provided material support to the study. This analysis informed the interview guides for nine interviews with ten senior health department officials (one interview per jurisdiction). Findings Several opportunities exist to support nutrition and obesity prevention in early childhood including marketing regulation (discretionary choices, breastmilk substitutes, commercial complementary foods and ‘toddler milks’) and supporting the early childhood education and care sector. This study found a widening structural gap to support national obesity policy in Australia. New public management strategies limit the ability of intergovernmental institutions to support coordination within and between governments to address complex issues such as obesity. Subnational informants perceived a gap in national leadership for obesity prevention, while a Commonwealth informant noted the commitment of the national government to partner with industry under a self-regulation model. In this gap, subnational leaders have pursued nationally consistent action to address obesity, including the development of a national obesity strategy as a bipartisan endeavour across jurisdictions. Public officials calculate the strategic possibilities of pursuing opportunities within state agendas but note the limited chances of structural change in the absence of national leadership and funding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intergovernmental policy opportunities for childhood obesity prevention in Australia: Perspectives from senior officials

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending on the regime type, various political "designers" of portfolios have been identified in the literature. In Westminster style parliamentary systems, portfolios are defined and designed by the Prime Minister (Davis and Silver, 2015;Dewan and Hortala-Vallve, 2011). In presidential systems, the legislature strategically designs portfolios with the aim of ensuring policy implementation in their best interest (Ting, 2002).…”

Section: How the Bureaucratic Structure Comes About: The Design Of Departmental Portfoliosmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of department structure on policy-making: How portfolio combinations affect interdepartmental coordination

Hegele¹

2020

Public Policy and Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Departments are the primary structure of the bureaucratic apparatus of governments. They can be structured as silo organizations responsible for one policy sector or as non-silo organizations combining different portfolios under one roof. While several studies have identified explanations for the structure of government departments and their portfolio combinations, little is known about the effects portfolio combinations have on public policy. This article theoretically discusses department structure from a procedural perspective, and, taking an empirical approach, explores its effects on policy coordination as one aspect of policy-making. Circumventing the problem of lacking counterfactuals of national governments, the study analyzes the 16 German substate governments and their joint decision-making processes in the German Bundesrat. The analysis is based on two original datasets, one on the combination of portfolios in departments and one network dataset on the policy coordination process. Applying the tools of social network analysis, the findings show that departments develop preferences and goals and allocate attention based on their portfolio combination. Consequently, governments with atypical portfolio combinations are less integrated into the policy coordination process while departments comprised of similar policy sectors coordinate more closely with each other, which make them more likely

show abstract

“…It is used to help measure the resource needs and performance of government agencies, and as such, it is a vital aid to budgeting. Quite simply, it serves to demonstrate government accountability Council of Australian Governments (COAG), arguably the most important forum for intergovernmental relations in Australian Federalism (Davis & Silver, 2015), established the Review of Government Service Provision (the Review) in 1993 to benchmark the effectiveness and efficiency of government services in Australia's federal system (in response to the pandemic the National Cabinet replaced COAG as the intergovernmental decision-making forum in March 2020). The central role of the Productivity Commission (PC) in the Review explains the approach to performance reporting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking government: Report on government services (RoGS) – 25 years on

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robust indicators and measures for outputs and outcomes against agreed objectives are the holy grail of performance reporting. Transparent performance reporting can be a means to improving accountability to taxpayers for public funds and responsiveness to users. The Report on Government Services (RoGS) for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is widely seen as 'an exemplar of benchmarking in a federal system.' Twenty-five years on, RoGS has been institutionalised and the approach to performance reporting was central to the COAG reform agenda. Annual reports compare the equity, effectiveness, and efficiency of outputs and outcomes across governments in six key areaschildcare, education and training; health; justice; emergency management; community services; and housing and homelessness. Performance indicators and measures have increased the accountability of state and territory governments for their management of public funds.The significance of RoGS is the unprecedented scale and scope of performance indicators and its longevity.

show abstract

Intergovernmental Relations and the Role of Senior Officials: Two Case Studies and Some Lessons Learned

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

Intergovernmental policy opportunities for childhood obesity prevention in Australia: Perspectives from senior officials

Intergovernmental policy opportunities for childhood obesity prevention in Australia: Perspectives from senior officials

The impact of department structure on policy-making: How portfolio combinations affect interdepartmental coordination

Benchmarking government: Report on government services (RoGS) – 25 years on

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About