Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.

The Australian Journal of Public Administration aims to serve a diverse readership and is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management, and policy making. The journal encourages research, reflection, and commentary among those interested in a variety of public sector settings—federal, state, local, and inter-governmental. While the journal focuses on Australian issues, it also welcomes manuscripts related to international developments that are relevant to the Australian experience.

《Australian Journal of Public Administration》旨在服务于多元化的读者群，致力于公共行政、公共管理和政策制定的研究与实践。该期刊鼓励在联邦、州、地方及跨政府等多种公共部门环境中，对相关主题进行研究、反思和评论。期刊主要关注澳大利亚的相关问题，但也欢迎与澳大利亚经验相关的国际发展手稿。

Australian Journal of Public Administration

University governance is complex and contested. In view of the seemingly unceasing rise of commercial values within public universities, this contribution argues the case for a holistic, mission‐related integrated governance approach for the Australian public university sector. The ‘ABC of University Governance’, as proposed for broad‐scope governance within the sector, involves an integrated emphasis on the three key components of governance: academic governance, business governance and corporate governance. Respectively, these components of public university governance are concerned with scholarship, performance and conformance. Placing academic governance first in the ABC of university governance reminds us all of the vital role and importance of scholarship, which should never be downplayed or underestimated in public universities.

Garry D. Carnegie

Jacqueline Tuck

Understanding the ABC of University Governance

理解大学治理的ABC

Abstract Government organisations, and their employees, need to be resilient to manage challenges such as resource constraints, rising demands, and the tensions and contradictions that underlie much public sector work, often stemming from the need to balance different stakeholder interests. Employee resilience, defined as the capacity to continuously adapt and flourish, even in the face of challenge, is an individual level construct that also benefits organisations. Despite its benefits, little is known about how to foster it. This paper explores whether paradoxical leadership (PL) can contribute to employee resilience. PL – the ability to balance competing structural and relational demands over time – may be one means of supporting employee resilience, as it corresponds to the tensions and paradoxes that exist in public sector work. This correspondence between PL and tensions in public administration work means that PL may also help employees behave resiliently. Findings from a quantitative survey ( n = 233) in a large New Zealand public sector organisation indicate that PL antecedes resilience. The effect of PL facets on employee resilience is partially mediated by perceptions of organisational support.

Esme Franken

Geoff Plimmer

Sanna Malinen

Paradoxical leadership in public sector organisations: Its role in fostering employee resilience

公共部门组织中的悖论式领导：其在培养员工韧性中的作用

Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic compelled large sections of the workforce out of their workplaces and into their homes to work. Many commentators suggest this has forever changed how and where we work. This article analyses how Australia's biggest employers – state and federal governments – approached the transitions to working from home, and back into regular workplaces. It considers the timing of policy responses to the pandemic as one indicator of resistance to, or acceptance of, widespread working from home. The article also demonstrates previous resistance to working from home for public servants, and questions widespread conjecture that it will become the ‘new normal’.

Sue Williamson

Linda Colley

Sally Hanna‐Osborne

Will working from home become the ‘new normal’ in the public sector?

公共部门远程办公会成为“新常态”吗？

Abstract The ‘policy–implementation’ framework emerged in the 1970s to provide an academic and professional description of decisions and actions in public affairs, compatible with more open democracies with broader and more social agendas. It saw policies as designed and approved by governments with public services responsible for their implementation. This hierarchical simplicity was later softened by the introduction of the street‐level agenda and discussions of governance, but, in the administrative imaginary, policy and implementation continue to flow outwards and downwards. Whilst this may remain a plausible description of some public service settings, there are a growing number of others in which the everyday experience is radically different. Amongst these are services that require cross‐sector actions in complex and vulnerable settings and where policy is neither implemented nor translated but fragmented and rebuilt on a case‐by‐case basis. Is it sufficient to treat such cases as outliers, or is it time to rethink the curve? Could a public action framework provide a better option? The empirical focus of the article is on the policy–implementation framework for probation services for young people in São Paulo, Brazil, but similar challenges can be found in other areas in developing and developed countries. Points for practitioners For practitioners in street‐level organisations: remember that policies, directives, and other instructions need to be translated and sometimes they do not apply. For policy advisors: is the policy you are proposing capable of being translated into daily action? Does it converse with practice? For policymakers: take time out to meet with people who are trying to apply your policies in their day‐to‐day work.

Peter Kevin Spink

Issues of cross‐sector service delivery in complex settings: Does the ‘public policy–implementation’ framework help?

复杂环境下跨部门服务交付的问题：“公共政策-实施”框架是否有帮助？

Abstract The administrative burden literature has demonstrated a variety of ways in which administrative burdens can act as barriers to citizens accessing services to which they are entitled. This paper connects these insights to ideas from the Capabilities Approach to Human Development to articulate the ways that administrative burdens can be understood as constraints on freedom. Drawing from examples in the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme application process, we discuss potential barriers to accessing social support services in the conditional welfare state. This analysis demonstrates the subtle mechanisms through which citizens can be excluded from accessing services to which they are entitled and the disconnection between being entitled to a service in principle and being free to access that service in practice. The paper demonstrates that by paying more attention to the filtering mechanisms in social policies, administrative burden can offer insight into what constrains freedom in the modern welfare state. Points for practitioners For many policy areas within the welfare state, there are a variety of challenges that can prevent citizens from obtaining access to rights which they are entitled to receive, with administrative burdens being a common type of barrier to completing administrative processes that relate to accessing rights. Administrative burdens can act as constraints on freedom for people by preventing them from completing administrative processes which are necessary to complete in order to access supports to which they are entitled, and which would otherwise expand their freedom by increasing the range of meaningful choices which they would hold. Practitioners should think about structural components of the wider system they engage with when working on or changing an application process (like the health system), since those components of the system may become overloaded when they become a requirement for a widely applied for service, and this can make those requirements harder for applicants to comply with.

Jeremiah Thomas Brown

Eleanor Malbon

Administrative burden as a constraint on freedom in the modern welfare state

现代福利国家中行政负担对自由的制约

Abstract The strategic state was conceptualised 30 years ago in response to neoliberal reforms of government and the rise of New Public Management that began in Western democracies in the 1980s. The concept was widely used by the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development in assessing the performance of governments through the 2000s. This research note describes how the concept has evolved, lessons learned from the application of the concept over the last 20 years, and some new developments that affirm the continuing relevance of the concept but also make its practical application more challenging. Points for practitioners The strategic state is a well‐established concept of long‐term, outcomes‐based government. It is pertinent to contemporary debates around mission‐driven government and wellbeing approaches to government. The strategic state requires long‐term and sustained investment in strategic capabilities, in part to mitigate against electoral pressures. Secondly, it requires a connection from strategy to action through clear accountability processes for both individuals and organisations including appropriate budgeting and evaluation mechanisms. Thirdly, a successful strategic state requires effective collaboration between different levels of government. This can be supported through a relational approach to public service design and delivery. Challenges to the strategic state include increased turbulence from political events, economic crises, the climate emergency, and the rise of artificial intelligence; the erosion of public trust in government and social cohesion combined with the rise of populist movements; and a decay in the media environment with increasing public alienation and polarisation in political debate.

Ian C. Elliott

Alasdair Roberts

The concept of the strategic state: An assessment after 30 years

战略国家概念：30年后的评估

Abstract In 1992, Australia introduced a National Drought Policy comprising a number of policies each focused on achieving a common goal of a self‐reliant, productive farm sector capable of managing the challenges of climate variability. This paper considers two of these policies, one of which has been an acknowledged success and the other that is generally regarded as a failure. The paper assesses these schemes against the criteria proposed by Luetjens et al. and concludes that analysing policies in values terms is a more effective way of understanding, and potentially predicting, policy success and failure. Points for practitioners Policy is more likely to succeed if there is an alignment between the purpose underpinning a policy agency and the nature of the policy problem. Policy can fail where the values of the agency and the target population for the policy differ. Policy success is more likely where there is a single, clear goal embodying a single value priority rather than multiple values that are in conflict.

Linda Courtenay Botterill

The values dimension of policy success and failure: Considering two Australian rural adjustment policies

政策成功与失败的价值维度：考虑两项澳大利亚农村调整政策

Abstract Market mechanisms have emerged as a dominant approach in the provision of public welfare services, most notably in sectors such as disability care, aged care, and health care. While this shift promises potential benefits such as improved efficiency, enhanced service quality, and increased consumer support, it also presents significant challenges around equity, access, and the potential for market failure in the absence of effective regulation and governance. Stewardship of quasi‐markets from the national to the local level is essential for the success of such programs, and the effectiveness of that stewardship relies in part on good‐quality data for decision‐making. This research note provides a critical examination of the National Disability Insurance Scheme's (NDIS) data management in Australia and its implications for local market stewardship. This analysis highlights the considerable barriers local market stewards encounter in using NDIS market data for stewardship activities due to the pervasive issues of incomplete datasets and a lack of granular, comprehensive data. These obstacles constrain effective local decision‐making, obscure market predictability, and may hinder service improvement initiatives at the grassroots level. The study acknowledges ongoing improvements in NDIS data management while emphasising the need for rapid progress to ensure meaningful choice and control for all NDIS participants. Points for practitioners Public sector markets can provide efficiencies for government, but they also require management to ensure they are functioning effectively and protecting equity. ‘Stewardship’ actions, to address market issues, require good‐quality data. At present, data on the NDIS—both collected and distributed—have serious limitations that are hindering efforts to address market issues.

Abbreviation	Aust J Public Adm
Journal Impact	2.24
Quartiles(Global)	PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION(Q2)

ISSN	0313-6647, 1467-8500
h-index	53

Publication Information	Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd，Publishing cycle: ，Journal Type: journal，Open Access Journals: No
Basic data	Year of publication: 1937，Proportion of original research papers: 100.00%，Self Citation Rate:14.30%， Gold OA Rate: 44.29%

Australian Journal of Public Administration

Journal Citation Format

A journal article with 1 author

A journal article with 2 authors

A journal article with 3 authors

A journal article with 5 or more authors

Books Citation Format

Thesis Citation Format

Web sites Citation Format

Patent Citation Format

Staying up late manually editing references? ivySCI automatically matches journals and helps you generate references with a single click.

Share Submission Experience

Understanding the ABC of University Governance

Paradoxical leadership in public sector organisations: Its role in fostering employee resilience

Will working from home become the ‘new normal’ in the public sector?

Issues of cross‐sector service delivery in complex settings: Does the ‘public policy–implementation’ framework help?

Administrative burden as a constraint on freedom in the modern welfare state

Administrative burden as a constraint on freedom in the modern welfare state

Issues of cross‐sector service delivery in complex settings: Does the ‘public policy–implementation’ framework help?

The concept of the strategic state: An assessment after 30 years

The values dimension of policy success and failure: Considering two Australian rural adjustment policies

A critical examination of data for market stewardship: The case of the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme