Transforming the Australian agricultural biosecurity framework: The role of institutional logics

被引:4
作者
Bryant, Melanie [1 ,4 ]
Higgins, Vaughan [2 ]
Hernandez-Jover, Marta [3 ]
Warman, Russell [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tasmania, Coll Business & Econ, Hobart, Tas, Australia
[2] Univ Tasmania, Coll Arts Law & Educ, Sch Social Sci, Hobart, Tas, Australia
[3] Charles Sturt Univ, Fac Sci & Hlth, Sch Agr Environm & Vet Sci, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
[4] Univ Tasmania, Coll Business & Econ, Private Bag 14, Hobart 7001, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
agricultural biosecurity; governance; institutional logics; meta-governance; shared responsibility approach; GOVERNANCE; COMPLEXITY;
D O I
10.1111/1467-8500.12572
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; D035 [国家行政管理]; D523 [行政管理]; D63 [国家行政管理];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ; 1204 ; 120401 ;
摘要
The Australian government has transformed the national biosecurity framework by shifting from a quarantine to a shared responsibility approach. This reflects a move from centralised to network-based governance. While network governance enables the development of private and public networks needed to enact a shared responsibility approach, it can sit in tension with this approach, which requires the sharing of risk and legitimacy across an array of non-government actors. Further, little is known about how the beliefs and values of individuals involved in biosecurity decision-making influence whether or how a shared responsibility approach is enacted. We use an institutional logics framework to investigate these issues and found that despite risk-shifting and scale and efficiency logics underpinning a shared responsibility approach, a bureaucracy logic has remained dominant. While a dominant bureaucracy logic can enable a shared responsibility approach by providing clear guidelines around biosecurity compliance, it can also create barriers by creating ambiguity, or increasing reliance of actors on government in the event of a biosecurity outbreak. It can also reflect shadows of hierarchy in which governments moving to network-based governance are either not ready to share power or seek to retain authority over the direction of their policy intention. Points for practitionersEnacting a shared responsibility approach is subject to an array of challenges. However, little is known about how the beliefs and values of individuals involved in biosecurity decision-making influence whether or how a shared responsibility approach is enacted.Problems can arise with implementation of a shared responsibility approach particularly related to the different and conflicting ways in which decision makers can interpret and understand a policy intention.Despite efforts from public and private partners to work together, a shared responsibility approach is dominated by a bureaucracy logic. This can provide clear guidelines for actors around compliance but can also create further dependence on government in the event of a biosecurity outbreak.
引用
收藏
页码:407 / 423
页数:17
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
Alvesson M., 2000, REFLEXIVE METHODOLOG
[2]  
Beale R., 2008, ONE BIOSECURITY WORK
[3]  
Bell S, 2009, RETHINKING GOVERNANCE: THE CENTRALITY OF THE STATE IN MODERN SOCIETY, P1
[4]   MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS IN ORGANIZATIONS: EXPLAINING THEIR VARIED NATURE AND IMPLICATIONS [J].
Besharov, Marya L. ;
Smith, Wendy K. .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2014, 39 (03) :364-381
[5]   For love and money: Organizations' creative responses to multiple environmental logics [J].
Binder, Amy .
THEORY AND SOCIETY, 2007, 36 (06) :547-571
[6]   Managing the grand challenge of biological threats to food production: The importance of institutional logics for managing Australian biosecurity [J].
Bryant, Melanie ;
Higgins, Vaughan .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 2019, 44 (04) :534-550
[7]   The Power of Constructivist Grounded Theory for Critical Inquiry [J].
Charmaz, Kathy .
QUALITATIVE INQUIRY, 2017, 23 (01) :34-45
[9]   Adaptive Approaches to Biosecurity Governance [J].
Cook, David C. ;
Liu, Shuang ;
Murphy, Brendan ;
Lonsdale, W. Mark .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2010, 30 (09) :1303-1314
[10]  
Creswell J. W., 2018, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach, V5th