No description available.

In their seminal work on policy implementation, Pressman and Wildavsky (1973:143) have argued that 'there is no point in having good ideas if they cannot be carried out.' The use of a New Public Management (NPM) service delivery approach in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) health area, referred to as the Purchaser Provider Model (PPM), was seen as one of those good ideas. The then-ACT Government hoped that the use of this model as part of its public policy reform agenda would assist it in successfully achieving its goal of restraining the growth of ACT public health care costs. The PPM was in operation between 1996 and 2002, when it was discontinued, suggesting a policy implementation failure. In this thesis, the PPM is used as a case study as a basis for supporting the argument that the administrative architecture through which public policy is implemented plays a crucial part in the success or otherwise of the implementation of that policy, especially in the area of public service delivery. The administrative architecture is defined as, the administrative components that have been designed to assist the implementation of public policy. To undertake the analysis the PPM is expressed in terms of the following three extremely important components of the administrative architecture: - the configuration of role and role relationships; - resource allocation arrangements; and - the performance management framework. Pattern matching logic in conjunction with the literature is used to show how crucial was the part played by the above components and hence the administrative architecture in the implementation of public policy. While the thesis provides compelling evidence (based on the case study and the academic literature) to support its claim, the crucial part played by the administrative architecture in the implementation of public policy, especially in the area of service delivery, has hitherto received little attention in the implementation literature.

No description available.

Doctor of Philosophy(PhD) / Animal welfare legislation does not consistently protect all nonhuman animals against all harms under all circumstances. Through an analysis of current legislative arrangements and the origins of animal protection law, and an examination of popular attitudes towards animal cruelty, this study seeks to comment on the role of visibility in informing the level and type of state-sponsored interest protection an animal receives. It is argued that different types of animals enjoy different levels of visibility and that an animal’s level of visibility influences the extent to which the state is willing to intervene to protect the animal from harm. These findings are significant because the highly politicised nature of the lives of many nonhuman animals raises questions about the appropriateness of an animal welfare legislative regime which is at once biased and which also tends to favour those animals who are most readily visible. It is argued that the practice of regulating animal welfare by use of legislative instruments which are inconsistent is problematic from the perspective of liberal principles because liberalism places a heavy emphasis on the concept of equality. Similarly, the practice of preferential treatment for the most visible is not consistent with democratic values because it removes citizens from the process of establishing agreed-upon standards for animal protection. In conclusion, it is argued that because some animals have been effectively drawn into the liberal democratic political landscape, the principle of equitable treatment should be applied to the manner in which the state regulates animal use. Such an approach would mean that animal use would be regulated according to the same values that are applied to other areas of political society. It would also have the effect of establishing what the community views as the appropriate level of nonhuman animal interest protection, by challenging the existence of a double standard predicated on the principle of low visibility.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, School of Economics, 2004. / "August, 2004" Bibliography: leaves 198-208.

Thesis (SJD) -- Bond University, 2005. / "A thesis submitted to Bond University in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Legal Science"-- t.p. Bibliography: pages 320-340. Also available via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (LL. M.)--University of Toronto, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Rutgers University, 2007. / "Graduate Program in Planning and Public Policy." Includes bibliographical references (p. 221-231).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Rutgers University, 2008. / "Graduate Program in Planning and Public Policy." Includes bibliographical references (p. 479-498).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Rutgers University, 2008. / "Graduate Program in Planning and Public Policy." Includes bibliographical references (p. 273-281).