We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter introduces the main research themes of this book, which explores two current global developments. The first concerns the increased use of algorithmic systems by public authorities in a way that raises significant ethical and legal challenges. The second concerns the erosion of the rule of law and the rise of authoritarian and illiberal tendencies in liberal democracies, including in Europe. While each of these developments is worrying as such, in this book, I argue that the combination of their harms is currently underexamined. By analysing how the former development might reinforce the latter, this book seeks to provide a better understanding of how algorithmic regulation can erode the rule of law and lead to algorithmic rule by law instead. It also evaluates the current EU legal framework which is inadequate to counter this threat, and identifies new pathways forward.
Why do Chinese state-owned enterprises routinely respond to central-level goals and policies in different ways, and why do their reform trajectories often vary significantly across firms and over time? This book introduces a leadership approach to studying the politics, process, and outcomes of economic reform in China's public sector. Using a series of in-depth case studies, Wendy Leutert analyses the exercise and effects of leadership in Chinese state-owned enterprises. She uncovers the 'intra-organizational politics of reform': the daily dynamics of cooperation and conflict between leaders and their subordinates inside public-sector organizations. She also identifies common tactics that Chinese state-owned enterprise leaders use to execute their agendas and ways their subordinates respond. Updating and expanding existing knowledge, this book highlights the growing global consequences of leadership in Chinese state-owned enterprises and why leadership remains vital for understanding China today.
I begin the analysis of oil-financed institutionalized practices with a focus on government transfers and subsidies, highlighting the variation in access to resources in Gulf monarchies. I describe various types of transfers: 1) universal – those, such as free health care and subsidized household utilities, which all citizens enjoy; 2) particularist – those which are extended to specific communities – as in allowances to members of tribes or royal families and contracts to business elites; 3) idiosyncratic – as in funds to men to assist with their marriage expenses. I note changes to government distributions from mid-2014 and the oil price downturn. I then explore matters of equity and exclusion, highlighting those social categories who are privileged and those who are discriminated against in access to distributions in these states. I argue that the hierarchization of society and the related variation in access to resources are both integral to the shaping of the national community and a means for the state to exercise control insofar as key social categories are appeased via the relative marginalization of others.
Chapter 1 introduces the book’s core argument: that leadership in China’s public sector helps to explain variation in reform outcomes at the organization level. Focusing on Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), it introduces the book’s analysis of the effects of leader decisions about strategy and structure and their execution on two types of reform outcomes: (1) the degree to which SOE market expansion is decentralized and (2) changes in the balance of influence among intra-firm actors – who gains and who loses during reform. This chapter also provides an overview of Chinese SOEs’ domestic economic presence and their strategic functions for the state. It distinguishes between SOEs owned by central and local governments and situates them in China’s administrative hierarchy. Next, the chapter takes a closer look at central SOE leaders: their demographics, integration in China’s political system, and attributes relative to other Chinese officials. It concludes by previewing the content of the remaining chapters.
Robust regulatory scrutiny is an unavoidable and necessary part of professional life for public sector professionals. Inspection and investigation can lead to poor mental health for individuals already working under pressure owing to increased workload and anticipation of poor outcomes. Although good regulation maintains standards and provides accountability to government and the public, regulators must face their obligation to understand the wider impact of their practices on the mental health of those they evaluate. This article discusses how regulation affects public sector culture and the potential risks and negative impact of regulatory practices and highlights how clinicians, working in occupational practice, are well placed to recognise ‘regulatory stress’ among public sector workers and offer vital support, guidance and advocacy.
Are there differences between public and private organizations? If so, what are they, and why do these differences matter for innovation? This chapter provides answers to these questions. It discusses the similarities and differences between public and private organizations, along with what makes public organizations “public.” Scholars have been discussing the unique aspects of public organizations for some time based on ownership, funding, control, and the personnel management system. Generally, if an organization is owned and controlled by the government, its funding primarily comes from the government, and its personal system is regulated or controlled by the government, then this organization is a public organization. Understanding sectoral differences matter because these distinctions may have different implications for different outcomes, including innovation. Thus, this chapter also discusses how these differences affect innovative activities in the public sector. For example, the rationale (the “why” question), the mechanism (the “how” question), the criteria for success, the measurement, accountability, the organizational climate, and the transferability of innovations differ based on the sectoral differences that this chapter explains.
This chapter explains and discusses the definition of public sector innovation. Public sector innovation includes two concepts or terms: (1) public sector and (2) innovation. The first concept, “the public sector,” refers to the general government organizations owned and funded by the government and may include or exclude state-owned enterprises. The second concept, “innovation,” refers to novel ideas or practices implemented organizations. Thus, novelty and implementation are two key terms defining innovation. Therefore, public sector innovation refers to innovative activities in the public sector, and this chapter provides information about it. In addition, this chapter discusses how and in what ways innovation differs from public management reforms, organizational change, invention, creativity, entrepreneurship, and improvement.
Chapter 7 shows that EU leaders had already started in the 1980s to steer the trajectory of national public services in a commodifying direction. The commodifying pressures from direct EU interventions reached a peak in 2004 with the Commission’s draft Services Directive, which failed to become law because of unprecedented transnational protest movements. After the financial crisis however, the EU’s shift to its new economic governance (NEG) regime empowered EU executives to pursue public service commodification by new means. Our analysis reveals that the NEG prescriptions on public services for Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Romania consistently pointed in a commodifying direction, by demanding both a curtailment of public resources for public services and the marketisation of public services. Although our analysis uncovers some decommodifying prescriptions, namely, quantitative ones calling for more investment at the end of the 2010s, they were usually justified with policy rationales subordinated to NEG’s commodification script.
Interventional clinical studies of convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19 were predominantly funded and led by public sector actors, including blood services operators. We aimed to analyze the processes of clinical studies of convalescent plasma to understand alternatives to pharmaceutical industry biopharmaceutical research and development, particularly where public sector actors play a dominant role. We conducted a qualitative, critical case study of purposively sampled prominent and impactful clinical studies of convalescent plasma during 2020-2021.
Governments are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist, augment, and even replace human administrators. In this chapter, Paul Miller, the NSW Ombudsman, discusses how the well-established principles of administrative law and good decision-making apply, or may be extended, to control the use of AI and other automated decision-making (ADM) tools in administrative decision-making. The chapter highlights the importance of careful design, implementation and ongoing monitoring to mitigate the risk that ADM in the public sector could be unlawful or otherwise contravene principles of good decision-making – including consideration of whether express legislative authorisation for the use of ADM technologies may be necessary or desirable.
Many international organisations have recently acknowledged the significance of whistleblowing in preventing institutional corruption, particularly in the public sector. Likewise, many countries have enacted whistleblower protection laws, though a robust whistleblower protection system certainly requires much more than legislation. One challenge in developing effective protection systems is finding empirical evidence to evaluate existing systems. Can we measure the effectiveness of whistleblower protection systems accross different countries? What conditions do we need to make the whistleblower protection system work effectively in the public sector? This paper investigates two cases: South Korea and the Republic of Kosovo. South Korean data comes from the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of South Korea, while its counterpart from Kosovo comes from a survey of 400 public officials about whistleblower protection. By analysing both datasets, this paper creates a new index that evaluates the effectiveness of whistleblower protection. Composed of quantitative and qualitative sub-indices, the index serves as a digital comparison tool for assessing whistleblower protection systems across different countries and at different times. In addition to enacting high-quality laws, this index identifies several additional measures that can strengthen whistleblower protection systems in the public sector.
In this chapter we explore the multi-temporalities and organisational challenges that emerge in telework adopted by public sector organizations, looking at how temporal structures from office and home eventually collide. We interviewed 32 civil servants from six different Brazilian public sector organizations that freely opted to work at home in a pre-pandemic period. Our findings reveal contradictions related to how teleworkers perceive temporal structures shaping their daily activities in home office. Such contradictions emerge as temporal structures from office and home may not allow accommodation, mainly for synchronous tasks.
Chapter 9 is about how public institutions contribute to the trajectory of progress. The most common methods for public involvement are through creating institutions (universities, research facilities, etc.) and through distributing grants. There are any number of combinations by which governments and public institutions can give out grants, with each country having their own unique variation. These mechanisms are crucial in determining the rate and direction of progress. By supporting certain research areas, we commit to making progress in one area while potentially reducing it in others. The chapter is also concerned with how public funding differs from private funding, how important public funding is in steering the direction of research towards areas directly relevant to the common person, and how public funding has become more commercialized.
Edited by
Bruce Campbell, Clim-Eat, Global Center on Adaptation, University of Copenhagen,Philip Thornton, Clim-Eat, International Livestock Research Institute,Ana Maria Loboguerrero, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security and Bioversity International,Dhanush Dinesh, Clim-Eat,Andreea Nowak, Bioversity International
Well-designed markets and public-sector actions can promote climate-resilient agriculture and improve livelihood opportunities for farmers. To enable small-scale farmers to access appropriate technologies, agronomic services, and markets while fostering rural industrialisation, countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa have created geographically focused, transformative commodity value-chain clusters. In addition, novel initiatives to incentivise the adoption of sustainable practices have demonstrated potential to contribute to food-system transformation. For example, private-sector co-investments with small and medium-sized enterprises and farmer cooperatives aim to accelerate financial inclusion and scale climate-resilient agriculture. National policy adoption of low-emissions practices, such as alternate wetting and drying, supports innovations in rice systems. Together, the public sector and privately driven initiatives can build markets that are advantageous for small-scale farmers and lessen their risks.
We introduce a themed collection of articles examining how the public sector has responded to, and been impacted by, the COVID-19 crisis. Although the pandemic has affected the roles, functions, economies, governance and structures of public sectors, this themed collection focuses on public sector employment relations. Authors examine significant areas which have been subject to accelerated change stemming from the pandemic. Building on decades of public sector reform, these changes impact public sector enterprise bargaining, terms and conditions of employment, working arrangements and practices, and the relationship between public servants and their employer. The articles in this collection provide important insights into the longer-term influences of the COVID-19 pandemic for public sector workforces. The collection also raises questions around whether the positive lessons from this crisis can be sustained to help manage serious crises in the future, or whether the public sector will slip back into a state of unpreparedness.
Although a Labor government fiscal stimulus had helped Australia weather the 2008 global financial crisis, budget deficits increased, and the public service was targeted for economies. The Liberal/National (Coalition) opposition won office in 2013, promising public sector cuts. In this context, the Walton et al. concept of a forcing strategy helps analyse the 2014–2016 bargaining round in the Australian Public Service. A forcing strategy involves three negotiating processes: distributive bargaining to achieve concessions in pay and working conditions, the structuring of attitudes to heighten animosity between the negotiating parties, and the management of internal differences to minimise intragroup conflicts. The Liberal/National (Coalition) government adopted elements of these approaches, requiring Australian Public Service agencies to reduce a range of employment conditions to justify pay increases. Interactions between Australian Public Service management and the principal Australian Public Service trade union, the Community and Public Sector Union became increasingly hostile over the course of the bargaining round. In addition, internal differences emerged between the Australian Public Service Commission, which oversaw the bargaining process, and individual Australian Public Service agencies. We consider the efficacy of this forcing strategy in light of the potential for the Community and Public Sector Union to mobilise its membership to resist such an approach to pay negotiations.
The 2008 economic crisis has had significant impacts on labour markets around the world. In Europe, in particular, the need for internal devaluation within European Union nations in financial difficulty precipitated a wave of labour market reforms alongside the reform of welfare systems struggling to cope with high levels of unemployment. Various analyses have explored the nature of these changes separately for the labour market and welfare systems. Using a conceptual framework rooted in a political economy understanding the social nature of labour, this article takes an inclusive approach to understanding regulatory changes for both employed and unemployed labour. We do this using the case of Ireland, a country that went through a severe economic crisis, was subject to a European Union/European Central Bank/International Monetary Fund bailout in 2010 and witnessed one of the most significant labour market crises in Europe. The Irish case is instructive because it highlights both the range and depth of regulatory interventions utilised by the state during periods of crisis to deal with the social nature of labour and its role under advanced capitalism.
The absence of institutionalised childcare and education during the lockdowns, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, put parents who worked from home in a stressful situation in which they had to combine the roles of teacher, parent and employee. This study aims to analyse how the closure of kindergartens and schools during the March–May 2020 lockdown in Slovenia changed the reported allocation of time, and perceived emotional exhaustion of parents working from home, compared to nonparents. We also focus on the differences in the impacts of lockdown between genders, status of family-provision and employment sectors of parents. Using data from a survey carried out on cohabiting and married individuals in Slovenia and applying a difference-in-difference estimator, we find that parents incurred a significant increase in their unpaid work burden, reductions in time devoted to paid work and leisure and suffered an increase in emotional exhaustion. Namely, Slovenian parents reported roughly 2 h less of paid and 4 h more of unpaid work per day during the lockdown in comparison to nonparents. The analysis also demonstrates that females performed more unpaid work and enjoyed less leisure before the lockdown, but the lockdown adjustment did not further increase gender inequality.
This article proposes an account of how two teachers’ labour federations have been reacting to austerity measures in public education. Current austerity measures have coincided with the renewal of collective agreements, thus allowing the study of how unions link bargaining stances to wider issues of service quality and accessibility. Union responses are the result of at least three influences: the institutional framework for public sector collective bargaining and worker representation, the previous orientation of members and their organisations towards social and work relations, and ongoing innovations for renewal and member engagement. We posit that union responses can contribute to renewal if they are guided by concerns to redefine union purpose, union organisation and building capacities. Under these conditions, unions are able to engage members and push forward an alternative agenda to that of the government. In doing so, they may be able to forge temporary alliances with outside stakeholders, namely parents. Analysis of union responses should consider the dialectic between union renewal effort and the opportunities and constraints of the institutional framework for public sector collective bargaining. The challenge for these two labour federations is in sustaining member engagement and activism beyond the current context of collective bargaining.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic forced large sections of the workforce to work from home, the uptake of working from home in the public sector had been limited and subject to the discretion or ‘allowance decisions’ of individual managers. Allowance decisions are influenced by factors at the organisational, group and individual levels. This research examines managers’ allowance decisions on working from home at each of these levels. It compares two qualitative datasets: one exploring managerial attitudes to working from home in 2018 and another dataset collected in mid-2020, as Australia transitioned out of the initial pandemic lockdown. The findings suggest a change in the factors influencing managers’ allowance decisions. We have identified a new factor at the organisational level, in the form of local organisational criteria. At the group level, previous concerns about employee productivity largely vanished, and managers experienced an epiphany that working from home could be productive. At the individual level, a new form of managerial discretion emerged as managers attempted to reassert authority over employees working remotely. These levels intersect, and we conclude that allowance decisions are fluid and not made solely by managers but are the result of the interactions between the organisational, group and individual levels.