related resources

on our site

news

Home page
> Management Advisory Committee > Connecting Government > Abstracts
> Connected Government website
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 20 April 2004

Connecting Government: Whole of government responses to Australia's priority challenges

25 key abstracts from the 'Connecting Government' literature search and review

Leat, D. Seltzer, K. & Stocker, G., (2002), Towards Holistic Governance: The New Reform Agenda, Government Beyond, The Centre Series, Palgrave, Basingstoke

This is a UK-focused analysis of joined-up government initiatives, combined with a normative agenda: "True holistic government emerges where government agencies and their partners share reinforcing objectives and can identify shared commitment to a range of mutually supportive tools to achieve that objective." The article draws on academic literature in social relations, and looks at the co-existence of multiple forms of organisational frameworks (e.g. hierarchy, community, individualism) in contemporary social systems. It applies the theoretical framework to nine local UK case studies and also draws some comparisons with international cases (NZ, Australia, Canada, USA). Furthermore it acknowledges the arguments against holism in government (e.g. over-ambitious, risks unintended and uncontrolled consequences), but suggests holistic government is necessary and often rewarded with success. It includes extended discussions on finance and budgetary implications, the impact of holistic approaches on accountability, and the use of IT as an enabler.

Key conclusions

• Fatalism: doubts about the prospects for holistic government are common and understandable. There are not many supporting examples of successful change.
• Accountability: holistic approaches elevate accountability for effectiveness and outcomes, with probity and efficiency considerations being aligned with the higher level issues of impact and value (but the authors acknowledge the tension between this way of framing accountability and established structures of legal, constitutional and, especially, managerial accountability).
• Patience: initiatives of this sort take time and rarely deliver "quick wins" (especially a problem with political pressures).
• Risk: there is a need to address risk in a systematic and consistent way, both in terms of anticipation (probabilities and planned responses) and resilience (coping and adjusting to circumstances as they actually arise, and being tolerant of failure).
• Legitimacy: experiments in boundary-crossing work need to achieve legitimacy through careful management of the accountability requirements of central agencies and government.
• Trust: needs to be built on experience, reputation and shared identity of the parties involved (hence takes time and effort to build and maintain).
• Technology: is a powerful tool for working across organisational boundaries, but its design and deployment is fundamentally shaped by the social and organisational processes, not the other way around.
• Finances and budgeting: an excessive emphasis on strong budgetary control can be counterproductive for holistic approaches, preferring instead to develop collective approaches to financial management.
• Measurement: there is a need to take great care in designing and testing the performance-monitoring regime to ensure it is measuring the right things, and furthermore to adjust the measurement regime as the system evolves.
• Conflicting priorities: efforts to integrate can conflict with other priorities - a fact that needs to be recognised and managed from the outset.

Aucoin, P., (2002), Beyond the 'new' in Public Management Reform in Canada: Catching the Next Wave, The Handbook of Canadian Public Administration, edited by Dunn, P. OUP, pp. 37-52

This chapters main theme is that although new public management has successfully put emphasis on increasing the efficiency of the public service, it is only one aspect of good governance. Public servants also need to develop knowledge on addressing public policy issues, especially 'wicked problems' confronting contemporary government.

A major victim of reform has been "policy capacity", due to the reduced role of the state (competition, de regulation, privatisation). Ministers want the public service to concentrate more on economics and efficiency, and where research and analyses is needed it is sourced from outside the public service. There has been a move towards public servants managing the policy process rather than doing it. New Public Management fragmented the capacity of the government to address wicked problems that spill over portfolio boundaries. Acknowledging the need for improved policy capacity means recognising the importance of engaging the external research community in policy research. Policy ideas will need to be subject to the broadest range of critical review.

In Canada there has been increasing emphasis on considering customers or clients as citizens, which goes beyond good private sector practices, as citizens have rights. Citizen centred service means that attention must be paid to critical legal, rights and due process issues.

This chapter also addressed the issue of leadership. The public service is now in an era where it no longer monopolises either public services delivery or policy advice. The dynamics of leadership and accountability has changed especially where services/policy are contracted out or in partnership arrangements. Public service leaders must be responsive to the political climate and foster a public service culture that appreciates the intimate connections with the public. The public service needs to be managed as a corporate resource. 

Auditor General of Canada, (2002,) Modernising Accountability in the Public Sector, Report to the House of Commons, December 2002

Some characteristics of the modern Canadian public sector challenge traditional notions of accountability, including a focus on results, increased flexibility of managers, and the use of partnering arrangements to deliver government services. This report by the Canadian Auditor-General examines the impact of these factors on the Canadian government's ability to establish effective accountability practices. It also proposes the following definition of accountability, with the aim of enabling modern developments in public management and governance to be more adequately incorporated into the accountability arrangements of the government:

Accountability is a relationship based on obligations to demonstrate, review and take responsibility for performance, both the results achieved in light of agreed expectations and the means used.

The report also outlines five principles of effective accountability that should be applied appropriately to suit individual accountability relationships and practices. The principles involve: ensuring clear roles and responsibilities; clear performance expectations; a balance of expectations with capacities; credible reporting; and reasonable review of performance. The report advises that strong application of these principles will shift the accountability process away from the practice of laying blame, and result in more effective and robust mechanisms for scrutinising and improving the performance of those involved in the activities of government.

The report also proposes that the effectiveness of accountability processes could be strengthened if parliament played a more active role in examining government performance expectations against actual performance achievements.

Bardach, E., (1998), Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

This study of "managerial craftsmanship" in theory and practice. The analysis focuses on innovative approaches to interagency cooperation between US state and local government agencies. These are examined under the rubric of "interagency collaborative capacity" (ICC)-an agency's ability to engage in collaborative activity. ICC has an objective and a subjective component. The former encompasses formal agreements at the executive level; personnel, budgetary, equipment, and space resources assigned to collaborative tasks; delegation and accountability relationships that pertain to those tasks; the various administrative services that support all this collaborative work. The latter includes the relevant individuals expectations of others availability for, and competency at, performing particular collaborative tasks.

"Interagency collaborative capacities differ from more conventional organisational capacities mainly by virtue of their component parts having thicker boundaries and more powerful sources of environmental influence than average." (p. 21)

Key conclusions

"Craftsmanship thinking" and "craftsmanship activity" in the public sector management context requires:

• Managers integrating with the administrative process purposively and creativity
• accommodating creativity and public spiritedness, something most public choice or political economy models fail to do
• constraining creativity within a clear functionalist conception of action
• supplying managers with a stock of ready-made ideas about smart practices
• easily recognising the causal importance of synergistic interactions in the development of both process and product. A manager is better able to simultaneously align major craft components such as the politics, the personalities, and the policy, instead of bringing into play only one of them at once
• taking into account the causal role of qualitative potentialities (and limits) in the world, for example, challenge, opportunity, capacity, and vulnerability;
• illuminating the unfamiliar causal role in management and related creative activities played by "chance"
• focusing a more systematic analytic lens on certain kinds of managerial phenomena, such as programmatic innovations, organizational reinvention, and complex capacity-building activity.

Barrett, P., (2003), Governance and joined-up government - Some issues and early successes, Paper to the Australian Council of Auditors-General, Melbourne (June).

(Available from www.anao.gov.au)

The author, the Commonwealth Auditor-General, looks at the major issues surrounding the implementation of 'joined-up government' initiatives in the Federal context. He examines the associated implications for Australian governance and provides detailed descriptions of some 'joined-up' successes so far. In discussing the workings of these 'cross-agency governance arrangements' he explores both what has been happening and the effect on the government, the Australian Public Service, and service delivery to clients and citizens. Through auditing he also analyses the wider ramifications of these developments, chiefly in accountability. The author explores at length the three main models for effective joined-up or connected government:

• the lead agency model where the main agency applies its corporate governance framework to the partnership, with overall responsibility for the constituent parts;
• the committee model where a loose confederation of players comes together and allocates corporate governance responsibility to discrete parts of the activity. In this way overall corporate governance equals the sum of the corporate governance from each party (for example, Centrelink); and
• the board model where a Board is established to govern and manage the partnership. This is a separate entity with clear and comprehensive responsibility for all aspects of the partnership but only for the partnership.

Key conclusions

• In both the private and public sectors, appropriate corporate governance arrangements are a major factor in corporate success
• Because new, non-traditional parameters of risk accompany the provision of joined-up or integrated services, the public sector faces additional challenges and demands in ensuring that the public interest is protected and government policy objectives are enforced
• To secure 'robust accountability' in this increasingly complex environment there needs to be a very clear understanding and appreciation of the roles and responsibilities of participants involved in the integrated service delivery framework
• In cases in which there is private sector involvement in joined-up arrangements-as distinct from solely public sector participation-the Government and the Parliament might need to re-examine the more traditional notions of accountability and any extension of them to private sector participants
• The most successful examples of Commonwealth Government joined-up arrangements are those where the governance structures have been clearly agreed and responsibilities defined

Cabinet Office [Her Majesty's Treasury], (2001), Wiring It Up - A Progress report to the Prime Minister, A Performance and Innovation Unit report,

(Available at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/2001/joinedup/govstratju.htm)

This is a twelve-month follow up progress report on the recommendations of the 'Wiring It Up' report and includes:

• Part one examines leadership for crosscutting policies and services with fifteen cross portfolio reviews were undertaken leading to joint performance targets. There is a new Senior Civil Service performance management system that includes cross cutting targets. Plus staff training programs
• Part two looks at improving cross-cutting policy design and implementation. This includes innovative approaches to consultation, involving outside experts. The fifteen reviews consulted with outside experts and service providers. There has been training on working with experts and a Code of Practice on written consultation developed.
• Part three outlines the skills for cross cutting policies and services, including training, more movement between agencies and sectors, incentives. There have been increased targets for staff mobility, a new Public Sector Leaders Scheme and corporate training.
• Part four investigates flexible funding for cross cutting polices. A Spending Review, an Evidence Based Policy Fund, and a Policy Innovation Fund have secured more funds for cross cutting programs. There can be more than one accounting officer through the Accounting Officer Memorandum.
• Part five looks at auditing and external scrutiny regarding cross cutting policies and services.
• Part six reports on getting the role of the centre right.

Comptroller and Auditor General [UK], (2001), Joining up to Improve Public Services, National Audit Office, London

(Available at www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/01-02/0102383.pdf)

This paper examines the recent "joint working" or "joined up" government developments in the United Kingdom, with special emphasis given to the central leadership and coordinating role of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. The report follows up the Modernising Government White Paper (March 1999) and examines the delivery of integrated or seamless services through the "joining up" of public sector efforts across departments. Part 1 of the report contains, concise definitions and charts relating to "joint working".  Part 2 assesses the impact of five "joint working" initiatives aimed at improving public services for three client groups-rough sleepers, pre-school children, and small to medium sized businesses (the Rough Sleepers Unit, Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships, Sure Start, Business Link partnerships, and British Trade International).  Part 3 utilises relevant fieldwork and research to highlight good practice likely to support successful joint working

Key conclusions:

• The Cabinet Office should improve the dissemination of good practice on joint working and assess the benefits and disadvantages of different forms of joint working and the circumstances when they are most appropriate.
• The Treasury should disseminate the lessons learned from introducing cross-cutting Public Service Agreements to departments.
• Departments should ensure that their procedures and management approaches support "joint working" by identifying clearly when joint working is needed, determining the most appropriate form of joint working, providing appropriate support for joint working and establishing reliable accountability arrangements.

The five key requirements for successful "joint working" are outlined and four National Audit Office reports relevant to improving "joint working" practice are listed

Di Francesco, M., (2001), Process not Outcomes in New Public management? Policy Coherence in Australian Government, The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 1 (3), pp. 103-16.

The increasing inability of the public sector to deliver coherent policy is a result of New Public Management reforms, as the focus on managing for outcomes has not resulted in the intended outcome of coherent policy development. This has occurred because of the effects of incorporating business management practices and market mechanisms into the public sector which has undercut the value of bureaucratic policy advice relative to that sourced from political advisors. The 'hollowing out' thesis / rise of the contract state reduces government leverage over public policy because of escalating fragmentation and loss of expertise. This article aims to assess this situation by examining the more traditional focus of achieving policy coherence, through coordination as a process, rather than an outcome.

Policy coherence is both a political imperative (the threat of appearing inconsistent in the electorate) and an economic imperative (the need to conserve scarce public resources). The decline of policy coherence is seen to be an ideologically driven move to replace the bureaucracy with the market. The article examines whether policy coherence is about controlling process or outcomes and whether control is the same as coordination.

Edwards, M., (2003), Participatory Governance, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, vol 107, March, pp. 1-6

The author defines 'governance' as 'how an organisation steers itself and the processes and structures used to achieve its goals', which includes the ways in which organisations relate to each other, and their clients/customers. 'Participatory governance' is defined as 'structures and arrangements which support effective relationships across the public, private and community sectors as they collaborate in decision-making processes towards agreed objectives'. This is seen as essential, since governments cannot remain as firmly in control of the policy decision-making process as they have in the past and, at the same time, move towards a more facilitative or enabling role. The author identifies the key governance challenge for the public sector as one of dealing with stakeholders and citizens outside of government in the interests of more effective decision-making and sound policy. The article explains the context for discussion of participatory governance; analyses the main (and changing) policy development framework; sets out the accountability implications of reform; outlines the major challenges for the respective sectors; and suggests directions for future collaboration.

Key conclusions

• In future, a broader sharing of decision-making power will take place between the government and the sectors with which it deals as these sectors transform their roles in coping with change
• The government will continue to increase its role as a facilitator rather than a provider of services-in effect, it will be 'more comfortable in steering than in rowing' -in a culture in which citizen involvement in policy formulation and service delivery influence government more and more
• In enhancing the growth of 'participatory governance' the government will need to advance dialogue with the community sector and business, and establish operational processes within government in order to create something like the proposed Canadian Accord. Such an accord, charter or compact would improve communication between sectors considerably
• Possible difficulties include defining roles and responsibilities; devising an appropriate accountability framework; uncertainty in coming to terms with new learning and communications requirements and decision-making; and frustrations in fostering new collaborative relationships

Langford, J. and Edwards, M., (2002), Boundary Spanning and Public Sector Reform in Australia and Canada, Optimum Online: The Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 32, no. 4

(Available from http://www.optimumonline.ca>

This article summarises the proceedings of a 2002 symposium entitled 'New Players, Partners and Processes: A Public Sector Without Boundaries?' The gathering was co-sponsored by the National Institute for Governance, University of Canberra and the Centre for Public Sector Studies, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, Canada. The proceedings, edited by the authors and published under the same title (Canberra and Victoria, NIG and CPSS, 2002), includes papers by Mark Considine, Rod Dobell, David Good, John Langford, Evert Lindquist, Alison McClelland, Jenny Stewart and Kath Wellman on four important boundary-spanning activities in Australia and Canada:

• engaging private and third sector organisations in the delivery of government services
• partnerships with private and third sector organisations
• community-based management of natural resources
• horizontal coordination among government departments.

Important issues to emerge at the symposium included:

• the increased managerial and political complexity of spanning arising from the wider networks of participants in a particular activity
• the growing pressure to open government activities up to new actors
• the need to coordinate initiatives internally around more broadly-conceived policy problems, to contract out, to partner, and to share decision-making and management with affected stakeholders
• the need for a more collaborative approach to cross-jurisdictional decision-making
• case studies indicate the effectiveness of integrated service arrangements to have been mixed, in fact, some outsourced service delivery networks established by departments exist 'more in the eye of the beholder' than in the experience of stakeholders and clients
• reducing organizational barriers in the interests of more cooperative service delivery can increase the threat to traditional democratic values
• the question of more diffused power and responsibility leads to concerns about accountability, notably, complex notions of shared accountability
• the involvement of stakeholder and 'citizen engagement' in state management structures has the potential to erode the public service's traditional political neutrality and anonymity
• the increasing challenges facing governments to perform competently in a world without boundaries, namely, the new roles implicit in this world (for example, steering, coordinating, managing contracts, partnering and providing quality service, demand skills traditionally in short supply in the public sector).

Key conclusions

• Definitive answers regarding the efficacy of new integrated service arrangements are difficult to arrive at
• The conclusions hitherto revealed are far from definitive, though they are not especially encouraging for promoters of new governance arrangements
• In the areas examined at the symposium boundary spanning is shown to have been only 'modestly successful' at best
• There are, surprisingly, some signs that the boundary-spanning pendulum has reached its zenith and begun to swing back
• Governments in both Australia and Canada are already beginning to ask whether they should move further in the direction of boundary spanning, though it is unlikely to disappear completely.

Hopkins, M., Couture, C., and Moore, E., (2001), Moving from Heroic to the everyday: Lessons learned From Leading Horizontal Projects, CCMD Roundtable on the Management of Horizontal Initiatives, chaired by James Lahey, Canadian Centre for Management Development, Canada

(Available at http://www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/Research/publications/pdfs/horinz_rt_e.pdf)

This paper uses literature, case studies, and public servant expertise to explore the management of horizontal initiatives /projects. This type of management is considered central to good governance because it is effective, it uses up to date technology; and its values match expectations of current generations.

However it is not a science, it is an art and one which is not always relevant. It is also prone to problems for example: 'group think', requiring large investments of time, and can become disconnected to vertical accountability. The report features four reoccurring themes, which are the need to reinvent leadership, the need to build on a foundation of trust and culture, the need to manage changing needs and the need to maintain vertical contact.

There are four chapters:

1. Mobilising teams and networks - including sharing leadership, investing in teamwork, developing a shared culture, building trust.
2. Developing a shared framework - including defining shared goals and results, addressing the accountability conundrum.
3. Developing supportive structures - including selecting a supportive structure, matching structure to task, and matching structure to life cycle stage.
4. Maintaining momentum - this chapter generally moves beyond the scope of the Whole of government report. Includes leadership and momentum, identifying a champion, building on small successes, managing transitions, ensuring continuous learning.

The appendix contains an accountability checklist and a table of horizontal coordination mechanisms used by the Canadian government.

IPAA [Institute of Public Administration Australia], (2002) Working together - integrated governance, IPAA National Research Project undertaken by Success Works, Brisbane.

Breaking down the barriers to integrated outcomes is 'slowly occurring'. There are working examples of integrated governance; but there is 'some level of frustration in undertaking an integrated approach within the existing governmental structure'. This project analyses seven case studies using integrated governance which fall into four categories:

• service delivery integration - e.g. Centrelink
• integration around programs - e.g. regional coordination, NSW
• integration around partnership agreements - e.g. working together, SA
• whole-of-government integration - e.g. Victoria.

The key findings are:

1. Integration can be divided into four categories (or three if service delivery integration subsumes integration around partnership agreements)
2. Each level of integration is hindered by the level above it
3. Bureaucratic barriers are the most prominent
4. There are common success factors, including political commitment and flexible funding
5. Leadership is critical
6. A lead agency or individual must have prime responsibility
7. Integrated governance is hard and resource-intensive - its use should be selectively.

Kettl, D. F., (2002) The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

The chief aims of this book are to examine the historical traditions of US public administration, to identify the current challenges facing it, and to chart the tensions between what it has to do and its capacity to do it. The top-down model of bureaucratic accountability which dominated US public administration until the end of World War II has been increasingly challenged over the past half-century by "bottom-up accountability", greater citizen participation in service provision and "inside-out accountability", notably, the "reinventing government" movement. Although there are advanced theories about government, those concerning the relationship between government and the nongovernmental partners who play a critical role in executing government policy, are underdeveloped. The gap between traditional understanding of government and governance has thus widened. Resolving these challenges is the second major aim of this book. Ten basic strategies are offered for building a new approach to the field, more particularly, for better reconciling theory and practice. Central to this dilemma is the emerging gap between government and governance. The former refers to "the structure and function of public institutions" and the latter to "the way government gets its job done."

Key conclusions

Ten principles are proposed for bridging the government-governance divide:

1. Hierarchy and authority cannot and will not be replaced, but they must be fitted better to the transformation of governance
2. Complex networks have been layered on top of hierarchical organisations, and they must be managed differently
3. Public managers need to rely more on interpersonal and interorganisational processes as complements to-and sometimes as substitutes for-authority
4. Information is the most basic and necessary component for the transformation of governance.
5. Performance management can provide a valuable tool for spanning fuzzy boundaries
6. Transparency is the foundation for trust and confidence in government operations
7. Government needs to invest in human capital so that the skills of its workers match the jobs they must perform
8. The transformation of governance requires new strategies and tactics for popular participation in public administration
9. Civic responsibility has become the job of government's nongovernmental partners
10. Americans need to devise new constitutional strategies for the management of conflict.

Lindquist, E., (2000), Reconceiving the Centre: Leadership, Strategic Review and Coherence in Public Sector Reform, Government of the Future, OECD, Paris, pp. 149-183.

After two decades of public sector reform, the governments of OECD member countries continue to display varying degrees of commitment to change. Rather than being mainly proactive, they remain predominantly reactive to the demands of technological innovation, freer trading regimes, alternative governance arrangements, interest groups, and budget and debt pressures. Nor have the central tasks of restoring and maintaining the confidence of citizens in political and administrative leaders yet been adequately addressed. The paper sets out a conceptual framework designed to assist public servants in assessing and comparing experiences within and between their respective jurisdictions. The author aims also to establish a basis for further empirical study, chiefly concerning the role of central agencies. He postulates the existence of three levels of public sector reform-Comprehensive, Selective, and Ad Hoc. Also explored are two major types of governance systems (Type I, centralised, Type II, more devolved), and the ways in which there appears to be convergence between these systems due to external pressures on governments. He also examines how challenges for strategic review might differ at various stages of the reform cycle (for example, developing blueprints, implementation, and consolidation). The author's conclusions relate strongly to his observations of the Canadian experience, though there is a marked flavour of broader administrative theory.

Key conclusions:

• Governance frequently renders the demands of much politics and public administration short-term, which increases the importance of 'strategic review', which permits a longer vision via review mechanisms such as Cabinet committees, central bureaux, portfolio reviews, consultants and commissions.
• While the principles of strategic review and public sector reform are similar in different countries, clearly, reform has different meanings in different jurisdictions. The importance of forums, such as the PUMA group at the OECD, in providing an opportunity to explore and sketch out models for both practitioners and academics, cannot be overstated.
• Future investigations of review and reform could be based on the use of roundtables:
• to focus on a handful of specific areas of administrative policy, thus allowing for the exchange of more detailed information despite the diversity in governance systems
• to explore the recent experiences of governments that have utilised specific instruments for strategic review, and also, perhaps, to identify three or four policy sectors (for example, health, youth unemployment) to serve as case studies across jurisdictions
• to foster the development of more systematic empirical studies of central and corporate bureaux within the context of the centre-devolution debate.

Ling, T., (2002), Delivering Joined Up Government in the UK: Dimensions, Issues and Problems, Public Administration, Volume 80 Issue 4 - Winter, pp 615 -642

The Blair government's "Third Way" reform is in its second term. The first term made 'joined up government' a central feature and saw it as a way of 'modernising government'. In the second term it is more muted and is seen as a way of focusing on 'delivery' and 'quality services'. Joined up government had a variety of different meanings and there was little guidance from central government, resulting in a more fluid and contestable situation than what might be expected.

Ling briefly traces the major developments in the organisation of public services between the 1940's and the 1990's. There is also a snapshot of international examples of joined up government (including Australia, Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, USA).

Ling investigates four dimensions of what has been termed joined up government:

• new ways of working across organisations, emphasising partnerships
• new accountabilities and incentives
• new types of organisation
• new ways of delivering services.

Although this could be viewed as wholesale public sector change there is little evidence of this. Ling summarises thirty reviews/guides that have been published since 1997 to over come the barriers of joined up government, most of which contradict each other. This calls for agreement and coordination from the centre. The other major theme of agreement is the need for a change of public service culture and skills.

Matheson, C., (2000), Policy Formation in the Australian Government: Vertical and Horizontal Axes, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol 59, No 2 pp. 44-55

The article explores the vertical and horizontal 'axes' of public policy-making at the federal level. The former is marked by hierarchical relationships, while bargaining, negotiation and persuasion characterise the relationships of the latter. Vertical axes permit governments to take and enforce technically rational decisions as they pursue consistent goals. Horizontal axes allow governments to make broadly-based decisions based on group assent and electoral support. In recent years, vertical axes have grown stronger, bringing with them increased technical rationality and consistency. The concomitant cost has been a narrowing of the scope of political debate and a notable decline in electoral support for government. In essence, 'within central government, increased centralisation and the decline of departmentalism have strengthened the vertical axis at the expense of the horizontal one.'

Although the presence of both axes is widely recognised, their respective roles in the policy process have not been examined in detail. The article seeks to do so by locating the sources of each axis; by identifying the processes or means by which they enable policies to be formulated; and by ascertaining their effect upon policy outcomes. The author concentrates on the formulation of policy rather than on its implementation or evaluation.

Key conclusions

• While decisions taken by means of vertical processes are generally more consistent, they may prove difficult to implement due to the comparatively narrow range of cooperation achieved and factors taken into account.
• One of the advantages of horizontal processes is that they enable disputes to be resolved without recourse to adjudication by authority-an important function given the heavy workloads borne by Cabinet.
• Another reason for fostering the horizontal process is that governments rule as much by consent as they do by command.
• The relative importance of each axis within the policy formulation process varies according to the degree of centralisation in government.
• More recently, the vertical axis has become stronger at the expense of the horizontal axis. This has delivered greater consistency and formal rationality in policy-making but at the price of declining popular support for government policy initiatives.
• A government's relationship with the electorate is reliant on the horizontal axis as much as governments must persuade voters in order to remain in office. Over-reliance on vertical processes has led successive federal governments to neglect this task.

Mulgan, R., (2002), Accountability issues in the new model of governance, Discussion Paper No 91, Graduate Program in Public Policy, ANU Canberra.

This report looks at a trend of governments and their agencies no longer delivering services even though they remain the main purchasers of certain essential services. Governments increasingly rely on private sector providers from either the for-profit commercial sector or the non-profit "community" sector. This approach is part of the global movement of public sector reform. Reasons for the change are discussed as well as the relatively recent popularity of two key words in the title of this paper, "accountability" and "governance". The paper looks at the meaning of "accountability" compared to previously used words such as "responsibility", "scrutiny", "questioning", and "sanctions". "Accountability is a situational concept in that it needs to be specified in context: who is accountable to whom and for what. The report also looks at the meaning of "governance" making the point that "governance" does appear to have one significant advantage over "government" in that it can include non-government institutions in the enterprise of governing.

Key conclusions

Accountability is compared between the three relevant sectors - public, private and non-profit.

• In comparison with the public sector, the commercial public sector tends to be more accountable for objectives but it falls shorter in terms of transparency and accountability for process
• The non-profit sector is the least accountable of the three. Generalisation is difficult because of the wide variety of different institutions, ranging from major organisations such as the Red Cross or the traditional church-based charities to small, informal groups such as neighbourhood law centres or child-care cooperatives

The paper also looks at 'to whom' outsourced contractors and their staff are accountable and the significantly altered range of matters for which providers are now accountable (the 'for what'). Regarding this issue, the following conclusions were drawn:

• outsourcing definitely reduces accountability in certain respects
• the introduction of a contract between a purchaser and provider interposes a break in the chain of hierarchical control between ministers and front-line staff
• using contractors from private sectors brings in providers with quite different expectations about levels of accountability to the public
• private sector standards of accountability still constitute, on balance, an accountability deficit when compared to public agencies, such as Parliament.

New Zealand Government, (2001) Report of the Advisory Group on the Review of the Center, Presented to the Ministers of State Services and Finance, 69 pages.

(Available from http://www.ssc.govt.nz)

This publication reports on the outcome of a wide-ranging review of New Zealand's state sector conducted over a four-month period in 2001. The Group comprised Public Service chief executives, external commentators and a Public Service Association representative. The chief finding was that, although New Zealand's public management system provides a solid platform for the future, it must meet more effectively the needs of Ministers and citizens. Specifically, the report proposes improvements in three areas:

• integrating service delivery across multiple agencies
  • inter-agency teams to tackle problems that have come to be regarded as intractable;
  • greatly improved regional coordination
• dealing with problems that have emerged in some areas through the separation of policy and operations
  • addressing the loss of focus on the big picture arising from a proliferation of agencies and Ministerial portfolios and an over-emphasis on vertical accountabilities at the expense of whole-of-government approaches; and
  • reducing the adverse effects of fragmentation through networks of related agencies, better accountability and reporting, and improved consolidation and targeting of policies and their more integrated implementation
  • addressing fragmentation of the State sector and improving its alignment
• improving the systems by which State servants are trained and developed.
  • supporting the present activities of the State Services Commission in bringing about a culture shift in the State sector (i.e. more dynamism and innovation, a stronger regional focus, a greater balance between outcomes, outputs and capability, renewed emphasis on staff and leadership development as well as a longer term focus in all of these spheres)
  • more specific reforms that could include the establishment of an over-arching human resources framework in the context of the Partnership for Quality Agreement with the PSA, and with the collective participation of staff.

Progress following the Review of the Centre is reviewed regularly in reports appearing on the State Services Commission website (above). These reports are valuable for charting developments. Good recent examples are Getting Better Results (May 2003) and Integrated Service Delivery (July 2003). The State Services Commission has been behind the establishment of cross-agency 'circuit-breaker' teams to resolve especially difficult problems by combining knowledge at the front-line with central technical support.

OECD, (2003), The E-government Imperative, Paris.

This OECD report emphasises that the public sector needs to change the way in which it works if the maximum benefits from e-government are to be achieved. Government agencies will need to work together and coordinate e-government initiatives to enable services to transcend government structures thus achieving greater productivity gains and efficiencies.

The report identified a number of barriers and challenges regarding the process, including the difficulties in:

• establishing governance frameworks which foster cross-agency cooperation
• providing a level of central coordination that supports innovation and creativity whilst establishing frameworks that reduce duplication and support the integration of services
• ensuring appropriate evaluation and monitoring of e-government initiatives;
• ensuring the public sector workforce has the skills necessary for this transition
• using public-private partnerships.

It identifies ten guiding principles for successful e-government:

1. integration of e-government with broader reform policies and programs, as e-government is an enabler and not an end in itself;
2. a customer focus that emphasises access;
3. offer customers choice;
4. ensure privacy protection;
5. citizen engagement to encourage participation and improve government policies, programs and services;
6. inter-agency collaboration, cooperation and common frameworks that support interoperability, enhance efficiencies and reduce duplication;
7. financing models that treat ICT spending as an investment where appropriate and provides stability for ICT spending;
8. leadership and commitment at all levels of government to maintain momentum and manage change;
9. appropriate accountability frameworks; and
10. monitoring and evaluation of e-government initiatives.

Peters, G., (1998), Managing Horizontal Government - The Politics of Coordination, Canadian Centre for Management Development, Canada

This paper delves deeply into aspects of coordination in the public sector, specifically defining coordination, outlining the why and how, discussion of the major issues exposed by coordination efforts and lessons for the 'would be coordinator'. The report is based on interviews with senior public servants from Canada, Britain and Australia.

Barriers to effective departmental coordination have been an ongoing issue for the public sector. Much of the failure is at the policy level, as opposed to the management or implementation level. These problems have been intensified by factors that characterise the modern public service, (such as the existence of a multiplicity of autonomous agencies, the conduct of activities based on private sector models, decentralisation and the increasing tendency for issues dealt with across departments to be interrelated). Coorodination is a prominent issue at the moment because there is less public money available to meet demands. At the same time the public are demanding lower taxes and greater accountability of public expenditure. Reducing expenditure is the most fundamental reason for coordination efforts. However tighter budgets also produce a tendency for departments to focus in on core functions rather than collaborative efforts.

This article analyses issues relating to coordination among public sector organisations such as whether coordination should be imposed or bargained for by political leaders and senior management. The processes used could be hierarchical, based on market forces or alternatively on networks. Each has its place and purpose and the article explores a range of 'how to' structures such as central government processes, inter departmental / inter ministerial structures and coordination efforts from the bottom up.

Key conclusions

Learnings for the 'would be ' coordinator:

• Structural changes cannot proceed behavioural changes, especially if existing behaviour is reinforced by other factors of government such as the budgetary process, powerful external interest groups. Behavioural change requires active intervention from political leaders at the top of government
• There is often greater willingness to coordinate programs at the bottom level of organisations than at the top level
• Timing is critical. It is much easier for coordination efforts to occur in the early parts of program / policy formulation process rather than prior to the existence of a clear idea about new policies / programs (as turf protection may take over at this stage)
• Formal processes may not be as effective as informal methods such as bargaining.

Podger, A., (2002), Whole of Government innovations and Challenges, Keynote Address to 'Innovations and Impacts' seminar, IPAA National Conference, Adelaide, 16 November

This paper outlines how 'integrated' or 'joined-up' government or whole-of-government collaboration is receiving international attention. It notes that "joined-up" government can be beneficial, but there are costs and tradeoffs, and its use should be selective.

The idea of integration in Australia is not new, as the Prime Minister's Office of 1911 attests. Centrelink, delivering integrated services to numerous Commonwealth and State agencies, is a recent manifestation that can be traced back to the RCAGA in 1976. Integration is not value-free, yet governments of all persuasions have embraced it.

The main current drivers and demands are globalisation, budgetary pressures, community expectations, and technology. Technology is both creating expectations and providing the means, so it is especially important.

Possible lessons and challenges

• Policy integration and service integration are well understood; but the structures between policy and service are an 'organisational space' which is a challenge. The key areas to be considered are information, accountability, responsiveness, leadership, and cooperation. Strong local commitment is required for success.
• Commonwealth State relations-the biggest challenge for a whole-of-government approach. There will always be political argument, and public servants must adjust to that. One way to help that adjustment is for them to be encouraged to distinguish between control and influence
• Whole-of-government drive from top to bottom-the UK experience is an exemplar 'involving firm, centrally determined priorities . through and across portfolio agencies to local providers
• Information support is a challenge not only for technical reasons but also reasons of policy
• Integration is based fundamentally on relationships. It needs leadership, if there is to be confidence that flexibility will be applied responsibly

Queensland Government, (2002), Community Engagement: leading and facilitating an integrated multi-level initiative, Submission to the CAPAM International Innovation Awards, 2001 - 2002

This report outlines how the Queensland Government aims to enhance citizen engagement with government, through changes to governance and whole-of-government improvements and by making government more accessible to the community (particularly to socially and economically disadvantaged groups). Cross government CEO committees were responsible for advising Cabinet on the whole-of -government strategy, and how it could be integrated to foster community involvement with the policy development and implementation processes. The initiative involves strong political commitment and central agency leadership across government.

The initiative entails a multi-level approach to involving citizens with the central institutions of government by:

• making Parliament more accessible and taking Cabinet to local communities
• establishing regional citizen forums attended by Ministers and using e-technologies to engage new and marginal communities
• targeting fragmented and disadvantaged communities, including the development of partnerships with indigenous communities and improving the involvement of women and ethnic groups.

State Services Commission. (1999) Integrated Service Delivery, Occasional Paper No. 12, Wellington, New Zealand, 42 pages

(Available from http://www.ssc.govt.nz)

The paper sets out a method for making decisions regarding the integration of government service delivery, for instance, into a 'one-stop shop'. An integration spectrum ranging from high integration to high specialisation is included. Also included is an evaluation matrix with criteria for evaluating alternative arrangements. The purpose of the project described in this article was to provide a means of determining when integration of government service delivery becomes worthwhile. The project revealed that a high degree of integration makes sense when:

• a set of preconditions are met, namely, a clear role for government and common objectives or joint providers for the services
• the current arrangements can be improved, chiefly in terms of efficiency, equity and other policy objectives
• the timing is right
• the option is practically feasible
• a full cost benefit analysis confirms the decision to integrate services.

The usefulness of this methodology was confirmed in an initial test-case as applied to the formation of the Department of Work and Income (WINZ). Its success has led to a decision by the State Services Commission (SSC) to employ the method in future to guide thinking on integration decisions relating to service delivery, both in terms of the optimal and desirable degree of integration and the relevant criteria that may be applied in this context. This report also offers guidance on more general contracting issues and other elements of organisational design.

The paper outlines preconditions to be met and criteria to be applied in evaluating integration options. The appendixes are especially instructive. The proposed process is summarised in Appendix 1. The second appendix sets out a spectrum of integration options and criteria for consideration. Appendix 3 provides valuable guidance on the factors to be taken into account when assessing the benefits of alternative contractual arrangements. The fourth appendix examines international examples of the various integration options. Appendix 5 explores the ways in which the framework was utilised to establish the WINZ.

Key conclusions:

Two principal conclusions are articulated in the paper:

• the application of the methodology to this case has confirmed that it is workable in practice, and that the recommended outcome (i.e. full structural integration) would have been achieved had this methodology been used when providing advice on integration
• authoritative anecdotal evidence from inside the relevant department involved in developing advice on the WINZ integration suggests that officials adopted an analysis methodology similar to this, and that the use of an articulated methodology such as this one would have been helpful both as a guide to analysis (further to existing Machinery of Government principles) and as a check on the robustness of the analysis.

Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C., (2002), Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services, Palgrave Macmillian, Baskingstoke

Public policy throughout the world is now developed collaboratively, across government, private, community sectors. Globally, partnership is the new language of public governance. A web of interpersonal relationships which arise through networking often supports the formality of partnership, providing the context to mediate questions of power, trust and motivation, which are central to collaboration. Collaboration is both formal and informal and involves both horizontal and vertical forms of inter organisational engagement.

The authors pose four questions for this book:

• why does collaboration happen and what are the key imperatives that result
• what are the prevailing forms of collaboration and how widely do they manifest themselves across levels of government and sectors of society
• how can collaborative performance be explained
• how can collaborative activity be evaluated

This book argues that the collaborative agenda for the public purpose has been both under theorised and over looked. Essentially the experience of Britain over the last two decades are used. Chapter two examines the process of 'hollowing out' which fragmented the organisational structure of government and shows how the collaborative institutions re integrated the state in new ways and especially by tying business, voluntary and community organisations to partnership bodies. Chapter three examines that relevant theoretical perspectives for collaboration - organisational sociology, political science and new institutional theory. Chapter four and five examine the imperatives for collaboration in cross cutting issues. Chapter six and seven examine the factors that inhibit collaboration, including an individual skills and resources, organisational culture and the structural feature that support sustainable relationships. This is developed by looking at the differences over the life cycle of a collaborative relationship. Chapter eight explores the question of partnership governance. Chapter nine follows through with the role of citizens in accountability arrangements for partnerships. Chapter ten looks at the issues surrounding evaluation of whether collaboration actually works.

Weller, P., Bakvis, H. and Rhodes, R., (eds) (1997), The Hollow Crown: Countervailing trends in Core executives, Transforming Government, ESCR Whitehall Programme, Macmillan Press, Britain.

Centralised governments are becoming less cohesive and influential. There is less capacity for government to control a range of activities because of privatisation, corporatisation, contracting out, internationalisation of business. Market forces may determine conditions over which governments formally had authority. There is also more pressure from discrete but powerful policy communities. The state is not necessarily being eroded by outside forces but 'hollowing out' from its core, executive government.

This book addresses two key challenges in examining the role of executive government:

1. What are the institutional forces which shape the executive's capacity to develop strategic coherence across government?
2. How do similar systems of government executives across five nations compare on key issues

The chapters deal with the following issues:

• The processes of obtaining and maintaining support for the government.
• Collectivity in government - to what extent can individual ministers act independently of the collective will.
• Who provides policy advice - public servants, think tanks, advisors, and management-consulting firms?
• How are resources allocated and what ability does the core executive have to use the budgetary system as a means to achieve its purposes? How much state activity is outside its powers?
• How affective are the processes of coordination? What are the values inherent in the coordinating processes?
• How do changes in principles of public sector management fit with the desire for government direction? Is cohesion compatible with managerialism, devolution?

Key conclusions:

• Institutionalisation and pluralisation is a common challenge to core executives in the five countries analysed
• Networks of organisations not formal legal institutions are 'functionally equivalent' in each country and therefore are the appropriate unit of analysis for existing these issues
• The traditional mechanisms of accountability in parliamentary democracy were never designed to cope with multi organisational fragmented policy systems
• There is a hollowing out of core executive capacity due to globalisation
• Federalism dilutes the capacity of political parties to direct policy directions because the policy agenda is contested in a number of arenas and the same parties at different levels will often have contradictory agendas.
• The prospects for collective government are best when cabinets not only bring together the various departments of state but also various satisfactions, regions

Australian Public Service Commission   A-Z index   Privacy, legal & copyright   Contact us
This page can be found at www.apsc.gov.au/mac/connectinggovernmentabstracts.htm