Calculating Political Risk

Althaus, Catherine

doi:10.4324/9781315870595

Cited by 19 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Australian federal public policy context, theorists have identified that policy officials do not simply carry out the policy agenda set by their political masters, but provide ‘strategic vision, policy expertise and innovative risk‐taking flair’ (Althaus and Wanna : 128). However, as Althaus () observed, this is difficult to codify. Reinforcing Althaus’ observation, studies of Australian policy situations by Vas () and Beeson and Stone () concluded that the acuity of such operatives in applying their expertise to social–political contexts and policy conversations is the most likely explanation of how they are successful or not in influencing a policy pathway.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Success and Failure in Environment Policy: The Role of Policy Officials

Mackie

2015

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on interviews conducted between 2010 and 2013 with senior officials involved in Australian federal environmental policies over the past 30 years. It examines whether they have a prior sense of whether an environment policy is likely to succeed and their experience of the key factors driving environment policy success. Most interviewees claimed a strong prior sense of policy outcomes, but their expression of the key factors indicating success (consultation, clear objectives, a clear mandate, and a strong evidence base) varies from the usual emphases found in the public policy literature. The research illuminates the ways in which the policy officials at times exert a greater role than that suggested by the Westminster conventions or the policy theory literature. Not emphasised in the literature, yet pivotal for success in the vexed space of environmental policy, was the self‐directed yet at times skilful policy ‘agency’ exhibited by officials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Success and Failure in Environment Policy: The Role of Policy Officials

Mackie

2015

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The political imperatives of dramatic focusing events, morals panics and scandals, for example, can place immense pressures on policy makers to demonstrate swift and decisive action – for example, sudden surges in knife crime or dog attacks (Lodge & Hood ). Policy makers have multiple goals – often traded off against each other in calculated or even instinctive risk assessment of the political repercussions of pursuing policy‐oriented goals (Althaus ; McConnell , b). Attempting to definitively solve the policy problem may only be one among many policy‐making goals, and may be further down the pecking order than political imperatives.…”

Section: Extending the Streams Metaphor To Stages: Alternative Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory

Howlett

McConnell²,

Perl

2014

European J Political Res

158

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of metaphors is a staple feature of how we understand policy processes -none more so than the use of 'policy stages'/'cycles' and 'multiple streams'. Yet even allowing for the necessary parsimony of metaphors, the former is often criticised for its lack of 'real world' engagement with agency, power, ideology, turbulence and complexity, while the latter focuses only on agenda-setting but at times has been utilised, with limited results, to understand later stages of the policy process. This article seeks to explore and advance the opportunities for combining both and applying them to the policy-formation and decisionmaking stages of policy making. In doing so it examines possible three, four and five stream models. It argues that a five stream confluence model provides the highest analytical value because it retains the simplicity of metaphors (combining elements of two of the most prominent models in policy studies) while also helping capture some of the more complex and subtle aspects of policy processes, including policy styles and nested systems of governance.

show abstract

“…A third analytical approach has emphasised the role of state plans as new tools of governance, rather than focusing on the process by which they were written or the policy content of the plans themselves. Althaus () looks at state plans through the lens of how governments manage political risk, contrasting ‘traditional’ policy analysis with political risk analysis and argues that the former perspective suggests that state plans are ‘good image‐makers but policy sleights of hand’ while the latter suggests that state plans can ‘all be viewed as political successes.’ (Althaus :137)…”

Section: Existing Literature On Australian State Plansmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Althaus notes that the plans served to establish credentials in economic management unsullied by and distanced from reference to the record of previous Labor state governments and also to stamp a fresh impress on policy settings repudiating those of predecessor administrations and to cement the Premier's personal authority and vision. The plans identify the policy preferences of the electorate, to find remedies for problems identified, address needs and ‘ensure that potential political dangers – such as losing control – were addressed and contained’ (Althaus, :143). Gallop argues that state plans provide an alternative to NPM by offering a whole of government approach (Gallop ) and notes that: ‘[n]ot only is the Government giving itself a sense of purpose by adopting the plan, it is also providing a framework of accountability for ministers and agencies’ (Gallop ).…”

Section: Existing Literature On Australian State Plansmentioning

confidence: 99%

State and Territory Government Strategic Plans: Exercises in Managing, Monitoring and Marketing

McMahon

Phillimore

2013

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All but three of the Australian States and Territories have whole-of-government, jurisdictionwide strategic plans in place and the three exceptions had previously established a state plan in the decade after the first such plans were introduced by Tasmania and Victoria in 2001. Scholarly attention to date has been directed towards discrete aspects of state plans, such as the extent to which they can be seen as exercises in participative democracy or sustainability, rather than with examining state plans for what they explicitly purport to bestrategic plans originating in the core executive of government. We propose that there are three key strategic orientations for Australian state plans: to holistically manage, monitor and market government administration. These orientations may be competing, complementary or overlapping, and can vary over time. The article also proposes that state plans are a significant development in public management and warrant further and more detailed examination.

show abstract

Calculating Political Risk

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Success and Failure in Environment Policy: The Role of Policy Officials

Success and Failure in Environment Policy: The Role of Policy Officials

Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory

State and Territory Government Strategic Plans: Exercises in Managing, Monitoring and Marketing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About