Search

Governments around the world have increasingly used experimental findings from behavioural trials to fine‐tune their service delivery policy models and their communication with citizens. In some areas of policy review, government teams have drawn on 'behavioural' methods, developed through Behavioural Insights (BI) and Behavioural Economics (BE) approaches, with a view to enhancing cost‐efficiencies and regulatory compliance. We compare the practices of several teams in Australia and New Zealand, based on 40 practitioner interviews with staff in governmental BI–BE units. We outline staff perceptions about the challenges and opportunities for BI–BE units in their quest to make positive contributions to policy innovation in the informational, regulatory, and service domains. In most instances, their focus has been on selecting specific researchable topics where experimental methods can be deployed, and where measurable positive changes are anticipated. Although benefits have been produced in many such areas, complex issues have not yet been tackled. However, BI–BE approaches could potentially contribute to broader teams addressing more complex problems. We compare the practices of several teams in Australia and New Zealand, based on 40 practitioner interviews with staff in governmental BI–BE units. We outline staff perceptions about the challenges and opportunities for BI–BE units in their quest to make positive contributions to policy innovation in the informational, regulatory, and service domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides a summary of the future agendas for research offered by the participants to the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) Future Research Agenda Workshop, organized under the major topics of inquiry. Workshop purpose of developing a common understanding of the research imperatives and interests for the public service and academic members of the ANZSOG consortium.

Co-production is an idea being discussed in the international public management literature but less so in New Zealand and Australia. Co-production rejects the idea of service delivery to passive users, proposing instead they be treated as active participants in the production of outcomes. As partners in delivery, users bring resources, skills and capabilities to their interactions with providers. Co-production requires providers to share power and negotiate the interaction. There are strong managerial reasons for adopting co-production to improve effectiveness and efficiency. But the political reasons for adopting co-production are even stronger because of trends of many decades towards greater citizen participation. These reasons oblige public managers in Australasia to adopt co-production in many fields of policy as part of the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Royal commissions with their wide powers, independence and uncertain outcomes are adopted sparingly by government. Hence, those charged with establishing such an inquiry are often left to begin anew. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (VBRC) provides a means of exploring lessons for public administration in light of its inquiry approach and internal operation. Similarly, recent reports on the conduct of statutory inquiries provide the opportunity to examine good practice. This article explores the central issue of what mode of inquiry is suited for particular circumstances. It characterises three different types of inquiry and analyses their features. The author provides participant observer insights from the VBRC and reflects on lessons learned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surveys research on the New Zealand government, both academic research and research that is linked directly to policy development. Directions in which Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) research could fruitfully proceed; View that research should be trans-Tasman in nature; Fostering networks of researchers in Australian and New Zealand universities; Emphasis on the development of cases suitable for teaching purposes.