Advertisement

Anglophone Systems: Diffusion and Policy Transfer within an Administrative Tradition

  • John Halligan
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter addresses the diffusion of public management among Anglophone countries. It differs from the standard literature by addressing diffusion and transfers among a set of countries linked by an administrative tradition. The focus is on the process and effects by which commonalities are maintained while individual countries follow their own pathways. It is argued that convergence is not necessarily a prerequisite for sustaining the tradition, and that substantial divergence may exist up to a point. Fast-track transfer and diffusion is possible because of compatibilities, but do they invariably avoid discordant results? There are then two levels of analysis: that of the group within which diffusion occurs, and that of transfers between countries.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Accenture (2008) An International Comparison of the United Kingdom’s Public Administration (London: National Audit Office).Google Scholar
  2. AGRAGA (Advisory Group on the Reform of Australian Government Administration) (2010) Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the Reform of Australian Government Administration (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia).Google Scholar
  3. AIM (Australian Institute of Management) (2012) Shared Services in the Public Sector: A Triumph of Hope over Experience? (North Sydney: AIM).Google Scholar
  4. Aucoin, P. (1995) The New Public Management: Canada in Comparative Perspective (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy).Google Scholar
  5. Aucoin, P. (2008) ‘New Public Management and the Quality of Government: Coping with the New Political Governance in Canada.’ Conference on ‘New Public Management and the Quality of Government,’ SOG and the Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg, November 13–15.Google Scholar
  6. Boston, J. and J. Halligan (2012) ‘Political Management and the New Political Governance: Reconciling Political Responsiveness and Neutral Competence’, in H. Bakvis and M. Jarvis (eds) From New Public Management to the New Political Governance (Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Boston, J., J. Martin, J. Pallot and P. Walsh (1996) Public Management: The New Zealand Model (Auckland: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  8. Bouckaert, G. and J. Halligan (2008) Managing Performance: International Comparisons (London and New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  9. Breul, J.D. (2006) ‘How “the Government Performance and Results Act” Borrowed from the Experience of OECD Countries,’ International Public Management Review, 7(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  10. BPSAG (Better Public Services Advisory Group) (2011) Better Public Services Advisory Group Report, November (Wellington: New Zealand Government).Google Scholar
  11. Carroll, P. (2006) ‘Historical Trends in Policy Transfer in Australia.’ Presented to the Australian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Newcastle, September 25–27.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, P. and R. Common (eds) (2013a) Policy Transfer and Learning in Public Policy and Management: International Contexts, Content and Learning (Abingdon: Routledge).Google Scholar
  13. CFAR (Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review) (2012) Is Less More? Towards Better Commonwealth Performance (Canberra: Department of Finance and Deregulation, Commonwealth of Australia).Google Scholar
  14. Elston, T. and M. MacCarthaigh (2013) ‘Shared Services in Ireland and the UK: Unpicking the (Latest) Public Sector Panacea.’ Paper presented to the 35th Annual Conference of the European Group of Public Administration, Edinburgh, September 11–13.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, M. and J. Davies (1999) ‘Understanding Policy Transfer: A Multi-Level, Multi-Disciplinary Perspective,’ Public Administration, 77(2), 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fawcett, P. and O. Gay (2010) ‘The United Kingdom,’ in C. Eichbaum and R. Shaw (eds) Partisan Appointees and Public Servants: An International Analysis of the Role of the Political Adviser (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp. 24–63.Google Scholar
  17. Government of Canada (2013) Blueprint 2010: Building Tomorrow’s Public Service Together (Ottawa: Government of Canada).Google Scholar
  18. Halligan, J. (1996) ‘The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform,’ in H. Bekke, J.L. Perry and T.A.J. Toonen (eds) Civil Services in Comparative Perspective. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Halligan, J. (ed.) (2003a) Civil Service Systems in Anglo-American Countries (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
  20. Halligan, J. (2003b) ‘Anglo-American Civil Service Systems: Comparative Perspectives,’ in Halligan, 2003a, pp. 195–217.Google Scholar
  21. Halligan, J. (2007a) ‘Anglo-American Systems: Easy Diffusion,’ in J.C.N. Raadschelders, T.A.J. Toonen and F.M. Van der Meer (eds) Comparative Civil Service Systems in the 21st Century (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 50–64.Google Scholar
  22. Halligan, J. (2007b) ‘Reintegrating Government in Third Generation Reforms of Australia and New Zealand,’ Public Policy and Administration, 22(2), 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halligan, J. (2012) ‘Leadership and the Senior Service from a Comparative Perspective,’ in B.G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds) Handbook of Public Administration (London: Sage), pp. 98–108.Google Scholar
  24. Halligan, J. (2014) ‘Changing Relationships between Politicians and Civil Servants in Anglophone Countries.’ Paper presented at the IRSPM Conference, University of Carleton, Ottawa, April 10–12.Google Scholar
  25. Halligan, J. and J. Power (1992) Political Management in the 1990s (Melbourne: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  26. Hart, P.’t (2010) ‘Lifting its Game to Get Ahead: The Canberra Bureaucracy’s Reform by Stealth,’ Australian Review of Public Affairs, July, www.australianetreview/2010/072011..Google Scholar
  27. Heintzman, R. (2013) ‘Establishing the Boundaries of the Public Service: Toward a New Moral Contract,’ in J. Bickerton and B.G Peters (eds) Governing: Essays in Honour of Donald J. Savoie (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press), pp. 85–138.Google Scholar
  28. HM Government (2012) The Civil Service Reform Plan (London: HM Government).Google Scholar
  29. Hood, C. (1996) ‘Exploring Variations in 1980s Public Management Reform,’ in H. Bekke, J.L. Perry and T.A.J. Toonen (eds) Civil Services in Comparative Perspective (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).Google Scholar
  30. Hood, C. and M. Lodge (2006) The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward, Competency, Loyalty — and Blame (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) (2013) Accountability and Responsiveness in the Senior Civil Service: Lessons from Overseas (London: Cabinet Office).Google Scholar
  32. Kelemen, R.D. (2015) ‘Introduction: Why Look to Europe for Lessons?’ in R.D. Kelemen, (ed.) Lessons from Europe? What Americans Can Learn from European Public Policies (Los Angeles, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
  33. Knill, C. (2005) ‘Introduction: Cross-national Policy Convergence: Concepts, Approaches and Explanatory Factors,’ Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. KPMG (2009) Benchmarking Australian Government Administration Performance (KPMG).Google Scholar
  35. Levitt, R. and W. Solesbury (2012) Policy Tsars: Here to Stay but More Transparency Needed (London: Kings College).Google Scholar
  36. Lijphart, A. (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  37. Lipson, L. (1948) The Politics of Equality: New Zealand’s Adventures in Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  38. Marsh, D. and P. Fawcett (2011) ‘Branding and Franchising a Public Policy: The Case of the Gateway Review Process 2001–2010,’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marsh, D. and J.C. Sharman (2010) ‘Policy Diffusion and Policy Transfer,’ in M. Evans (ed.) New Directions in the Study of Policy Transfer (Abingdon: Routledge).Google Scholar
  40. Nutley, S, J. Downe, S. Martin and C. Grace (2013) ‘Policy Transfers and Local Government Performance Improvement Regimes,’ in P. Carroll and R. Common (eds) Policy Transfer and Learning in Public Policy and Management: International Contexts, Content and Learning (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 30–49.Google Scholar
  41. OAG (Office of the Auditor General of Canada) (2001) Public Sector Management Reform: Progress, Setbacks and Challenges (Ottawa: OAG).Google Scholar
  42. OECD (1995) Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  43. OECD (1999) The State of the Higher Civil Service after Reform: Britain, Canada and the United States (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  44. Patapan, H., J. Wanna and P. Weller (2005) Westminster Legacies: Democracy and Responsible Government in Asia and the Pacific (Sydney: UNSW Press).Google Scholar
  45. Peters, B.G. (1997) ‘Policy Transfers between Governments: The Case of Administrative Reform,’ West European Politics, 20(4), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peters, B.G. (1998) Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods (Basingstoke: Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pollitt, C. (1990) Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  48. Pollitt, C. (ed.) (2013) Context in Public Policy and Management (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
  49. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  50. Pollitt, C., C. Talbot, J. Caulfield and A. Smullen (2004) Agencies: How Governments do Things Through Semi-Autonomous Organizations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Savoie, D.J. (1994) Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press).Google Scholar
  52. Te Kawa, D. and K. Guerin (2012) ‘Provoking Debate and Learning Lessons: It is Early Days but What Does the Performance Improvement Framework Challenge Us to Think About?’ Policy Quarterly, 8(4), November.Google Scholar
  53. Wettenhall, R. (2010) ‘Mixes and Partnerships through Time,’ in G.A. Hodge, C. Greve and A.E. Boardman (eds) International Handbook on Public-Private Relationships (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
  54. Wilson, G.K. (1998) Only in America: The Politics of the United States in Comparative Perspective (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House).Google Scholar
  55. Zifcak, S. (1994) New Managerialism: Administrative Reform in Whitehall and Canberra (Buckingham: Open University Press).Google Scholar
  56. Zussman, D. (2013) Off and Running: The Prospects and Pitfalls of Government Transitions in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John Halligan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Halligan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations