TY - JOUR
T1 - Transforming the Australian agricultural biosecurity framework
T2 - The role of institutional logics
AU - Bryant, Melanie
AU - Higgins, Vaughan
AU - Hernández-Jover, Marta
AU - Warman, Russell
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Australian Journal of Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Institute of Public Administration Australia.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - 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 practitioners: Enacting 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.
AB - 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 practitioners: Enacting 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.
KW - agricultural biosecurity
KW - governance
KW - institutional logics
KW - meta-governance
KW - shared responsibility approach
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85144176851
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85144176851&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1467-8500.12572
DO - 10.1111/1467-8500.12572
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85144176851
SN - 0313-6647
VL - 82
SP - 407
EP - 423
JO - Australian Journal of Public Administration
JF - Australian Journal of Public Administration
IS - 4
ER -