Juggling Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes in the Search for Policy Competence
Recent Experience in Australia
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6264488 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Colin Campbell (0000-0002-6218-0866, Georgetown University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2001 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 253-282 |
| Publication date | 2001-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Governance (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0952-1895 • E-ISSN: 1468-0491 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/0952-1895.00160 |
| OpenAlex | W2067565722 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 16 |
During the mid‐ to late 1980s, the Labor government in Australia under Prime Minister Bob Hawke distinguished itself by achieving a balance in its budgeting and management approaches. This allowed for focusing on inputs, outputs, and outcomes in tandem. The approach differed considerably from that pursued in New Zealand. There, an overemphasis on outputs introduced serious distortions to the relations between ministers and officials, which reformers in Wellington have subsequently taken strides toward correcting.As often happens with reform movements, the Australian process reached a plateau by the early to mid‐1990s. Broadly, officials welcomed a change of government in 1996 with the expectation that the coalition under Prime Minister John Howard would give new impetus to innovative public management. Ironically, this coalition addressed the issues surrounding budgeting and management reform through an unreconstructed 1980s lens, highlighting outputs at the expense of balanced emphasis of inputs and outcomes as well. As suggested by the Labor government's success in the 1980s and the adjustments attempted by New Zealand governments in the 1990s, collective dynamics among and between members of cabinet and officials, respectively, are key to a balanced approach. These dynamics foster a sense of trusteeship whereby participants see that inputs, outputs, and outcomes form part of a seamless web centered on public interest. The analysis of the Coalition's performance so far suggests thhat its efforts at reform have proven retrogressive when evaluated by this standard
Cabinet (room · Coalition government · Competence (human resources · Economic growth · Economics · Government (linguistics · Management · Political science · Politics · Prime minister · Public policy · Community Development and Social Impact · Engineering · Law · Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering · Public Administration · Public Policy and Administration Research
Who needs a review of the financial system in Australia? the case of the Wallis inquiry
Shifting the Focus From Women to Gender Relations
Assessing the Relative Merits of Policy Commitments
Rules and Flexibility in Public Budgeting
Spontaneous Adaptation in Public Management
The United States Federal Government and New Public Management
Polyarchy
The Calculus of Consent
Economic Rationalism in Canberra
How Ottawa Decides
Reform of the Core Public Sector
New Zealand's public sector management reform
Linking strategy and performance
Political Responsibility For Bureaucratic Incompetence
The Leadership Question
Back to the Future? Senior Federal Executives in the United States
A New Zealand Tragedy
The Political Roles of Senior Government Officials in Advanced Democracies
Governments under Stress
| Citations per year | 0.24 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2001 - 2015 (15) |
| Highly cited | No |