Conceptualising Australia's tradition of pragmatic federalism

Abstract

This article reviews existing scholarly debates about Australia's pragmatic federalism and seeks to refine it conceptually. It does so against the background of burgeoning international governance literature informed by insights from philosophical pragmatism, as well as in the context of disjuncture in Australian inter-governmental experiences. Pragmatic federalism is posed not merely as a one-dimensional notion referencing a series of ad hoc inter-governmental arrangements over time. Rather, it is conceptualised as multi-dimensional and encapsulating a confined range of institutional designs and postures that can (potentially) be observed across different policy fields and over time. An initial demonstration of the utility of the heuristic to recent empirical experience and change is presented. The consequence is more serious engagement with both the formal and informal features that characterise inter-governmental arrangements at different levels of government, and attention to the degrees to which dialogue and practices are connected.

Who’s steering the ship? National curriculum reform and the re-shaping of Australian federalism

“…This focus is important, as there is a distinct void in contemporary research in terms of examining the repositioning of state-level agencies and actors as a result of national schooling reforms. As Smullen (2014) argues, Australian federalism research is dominated by a focus on the federal government, processes of centralisation and 'vertical' relationships between state and federal governments, at the expense of focusing on the new roles that states are playing in emerging national policy formations.…”

Multi-level Governance: Conceptual challenges and case studies from Australia

“…In particular, we can see linkages around issues of power and resources that can set in train systems of coercive federalism, rather than the more pragmatic, collaborative or cooperative forms that exist at times within COAG and other flexible and negotiated systems (Mathews 1977;Fenna 2012;Smullen 2014; Kay; see also Mercer and Jarvie for another collaborative COAG working example). We also see how blurred responsibilities in many areas can lead to tension (see also Painter 2001; Fawcett and Marsh; and Mulgan on accountability), slow progress and a political willingness to 'cut through' with unilateral action to solve the impasse and attempt to 'get the job done' by controlling and directing its implementation.…”

Multi-level Governance: An Introduction

“…It thus links to the studies in federalism that show how alternative conceptualisations of the roles and relative powers of these two levels of government, and how they influence each other or work together, can create very different policy development and implementation outcomes (Smullen 2014;Kay). Specifically, an ideal form of MLG holds the promise of policy learning as repeated interactions in novel arrangements, including beyond governments, to help transform interests, build trust and allow evidence to be used and respected in a less partisan manner.…”