A Capacity for Central Coordination: The case of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

There are no files associated with this record.

Title A Capacity for Central Coordination: The case of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Author Hamburger, Peter; Stevens, Bronwyn; Weller, Patrick Moray
Journal Name Australian Journal of Public Administration
Year Published 2011
Place of publication Australia
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia
Abstract For the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) the year 1987 can now be seen as pivotal in marking a clear end to a period of transition in coordinating structures in the Australian Public Service (APS) that had lasted roughly 20 years. The abolition in 1987 of the Public Service Board, formerly a powerful coordinating agency, is the most obvious marker of the change. The PSB’s departure left the Secretary of PM&C with a role that is now often described as ‘head of the public service’. More broadly, the 1987 changes to the machinery of government both formalised and enabled a sea-change in PM&C’s role. Before 1987 a large policy initiation and development project would usually have been considered as beyond PM&C’s scope. Since then, extensive and direct policy development work byPM&Chas become common. The continuing debates have been over whetherPM&C actually delivers in these roles (an empirical question) and how far it should play them (a normative issue). In this article we itemise the capacity, both continuing and developing, which PM&C has to support policy development. Traditional coordination mechanisms are an important part of this armoury and PM&C has long experience of most of them. However policy initiation and development calls for other tools which PM&C has had to develop over the past few decades. There is scope for conflict between the coordination and initiation/development roles. Understanding how a central agency like PM&C carries out each of them and balances the two can potentially contribute to debates on organisational design. We also address the normative issue: whether the growth of prime ministerial impact is a result of an increase in public service support or a cause of its increase (Walter and Strangio 2007) and whether it should be restrained. We accept that the new developments give prime ministers the capacity to oversee policy arenas where once they could not, but regard this as a consequence as much of demand from above as of ambition within the department.
Peer Reviewed Yes
Published Yes
Alternative URI http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2011.00739.x
Volume 70
Issue Number 4
Page from 377
Page to 390
ISSN 0313-6647
Date Accessioned 2012-02-14; 2012-03-20T22:31:09Z
Research Centre Centre for Governance and Public Policy
Faculty Griffith Business School
Subject Policy and Administration
URI http://hdl.handle.net/10072/43665
Publication Type Journal Articles (Refereed Article)
Publication Type Code c1

Show simple item record

Griffith University copyright notice