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
[21]  
Hajer M., 2005, Eur Polit Sci, V4, P340, DOI DOI 10.1057/PALGRAVE.EPS.2210034
[22]  
Haveman H.A., 2017, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management, DOI DOI 10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190224851.013.137
[23]   Imbrications of institutional logics: the case of an e-government initiative in Greece [J].
Hayes, Niall ;
Introna, Lucas ;
Petrakaki, Dimitra .
NEW TECHNOLOGY WORK AND EMPLOYMENT, 2014, 29 (02) :124-138
[24]  
Heritier A., 2008, Journal of Public Policy, V28, P113, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0143814X08000809
[25]   Harmonising devolved responsibility for biosecurity governance: The challenge of competing institutional logics [J].
Higgins, Vaughan ;
Bryant, Melanie ;
Hernandez-Jover, Marta ;
McShane, Connar ;
Rast, Luzia .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A-ECONOMY AND SPACE, 2016, 48 (06) :1133-1151
[26]   Biosecurity and the topologies of infected life: from borderlines to borderlands [J].
Hinchliffe, Steve ;
Allen, John ;
Lavau, Stephanie ;
Bingham, Nick ;
Carter, Simon .
TRANSACTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH GEOGRAPHERS, 2013, 38 (04) :531-543
[27]   The institutional framing of policy debates - Economics versus the environment [J].
Hoffman, AJ ;
Ventresca, MJ .
AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, 1999, 42 (08) :1368-1392
[28]  
Holton JA, 2010, GROUNDED THEORY REV, V9, P21
[29]   Mobilizing the logic of managerialism in professional fields: The case of academic health centre mergers [J].
Kitchener, M .
ORGANIZATION STUDIES, 2002, 23 (03) :391-420
[30]  
Koppenjan JoopF. M., 2004, Managing Uncertainties in Networks, DOI [10.4324/9780203643457, DOI 10.4324/9780203643457]