What Makes a State Advocacy Structure Effective? — Conflicts Between Bureaucratic and Social Movement Criteria

State "advocacy structures"—agencies nominally designated to advance the status of collective social movements in public policy and society—must operate under conflicting criteria for "effectiveness." While government actors likely measure effectiveness as the ability to manage a policyissue—advancing policy influence by prioritizing and packaging demands —collective movements additionally or primarily emphasize structures' performance as representatives of the priorities and diversity of movements. This consequently leads to differing evaluations of agency "effectiveness." A case study of the Ontario Women's Directorate (OWD) analyzes the inherent conflicts and tensions between these two roles, particularly under repeated changes in government. The experiences of the OWD and other advocacy structures suggest that conflicting criteria are inherent and unavoidable in such institutions.     

What Is Governance?

This commentary points to the poor state of empirical measures of the quality of states, that is, executive branches and their bureaucracies. Much of the problem is conceptual, as there is very little agreement on what constitutes high‐quality government. The commentary suggests four approaches: (1) procedural measures, such as the Weberian criteria of bureaucratic modernity; (2) capacity measures, which include both resources and degree of professionalization; (3) output measures; and (4) measures of bureaucratic autonomy. It rejects output measures and suggests a two‐dimensional framework of using capacity and autonomy as a measure of executive branch quality. This framework explains the conundrum of why low‐income countries are advised to reduce bureaucratic autonomy while high‐income ones seek to increase it.     

What Makes an Agency Independent?

The responsiveness of government agencies to elected officials is a central question in democratic governance. A key source of variation in responsiveness is agency structure. Yet scholars often view agencies as falling into broad structural categories (e.g., cabinet departments or independent commissions) or fixate on some features of design (e.g., “for cause” protections). I develop new estimates of structural independence based on new data on 50 different structural features of 321 federal agencies in the federal executive establishment. Using a Bayesian latent variable model, I estimate independence on two dimensions: limits on the appointment of key agency decision makers and limits on political review of agency policy. I illustrate the value of this new measure by using it to examine how structure affects political influence and how agency independence can vary over time.     

Mid Staffordshire: a Case Study of Failed Governance and Leadership?

The public inquiry chaired by Robert Francis QC into failings of care at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust made 290 recommendations about matters including: standards of patient care in the National Health Service (NHS); organisational culture and leadership; the use of data and information; the need for greater openness; and compassionate and committed nursing. In this paper, we argue that Mid Staffordshire represented a profound failure of governance and leadership. We use findings from a national research study to analyse the response made by the boards and leadership of NHS hospitals to the inquiry recommendations, setting out the repertoire of board roles and behaviours required for the governance of safe and effective care.     

Governance,the State,and the Market: What Is Going On?

Analyses of the 'shrinking state' tend to focus on the pressures being felt by the welfare state. The 'state' is viewed as a provider of social benefits and as redistributing wealth. To the extent these functions are being challenged the state is perceived as being 'rolled back' by the forces of the market. Yet the state is also involved in 'building' markets. This function, overshadowed in the past, has now become an important state activity. Such activity, however, is carried out by state actors different from those involved in the provision of social benefits and the evolution of the welfare state. Majoritarian institutions are largely responsible for the latter while non-majoritarian institutions oversee theformer. Although the balance of power among different types of state actors has shifted, the power of public authority has not necessarily been 'rolled back' by the market.     

Do Managers Face a Performance Trade-Off? Correlations Between Production and Process Performance

The existence of multiple goals in public organizations inevitably raises the concern that managers face performance trade-offs. In particular, scholars have expressed the fear that public managers, in order to secure high production performance, are forced to sacrifice performance on goals like equity, accountability, and procedural justice. However, our knowledge of whether such trade-offs exist is scarce. Using an administrative 10-year panel data set of Danish public schools and principals, this article analyzes trade-offs between production performance (measured by student performance and student pass rate) and process performance (measured by equity, accountability, and procedural justice). Results show no evidence of trade-offs. In contrast, principals who succeed in raising student performance generally also succeed in securing high pass rates, high equity, high accountability, and high procedural justice. These results suggest that managers who are able to secure high performance on one dimension of performance will likely also be high-performing on other performance dimensions.     

Cornwall's Devolution Deal: Towards a More Sustainable Governance?

This article considers the devolution deal signed by Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in the summer of 2015. It asks if the deal constitutes a more sustainable approach to governance, concluding that while there are some factors that help to enhance sustainability, other areas urgently require more attention. These claims are made through an analysis of a model of sustainability which emphasises the importance of networks and feedback loops envisaging civil society as an adaptive organism. This helps to show that although power is significantly dispersed in some aspects of the ‘Cornwall Deal’, this latter does little to alter the highly centralised nature of governance across England, or provide spaces where local actors can feed back into central policy.     

Do Women Make a Difference?

Using qualitative interviews the authors analyse how women politicians at local and national level are impacting upon politics and the policy-making process and how this is affecting the nature of the political environment.     

What Makes an Aboriginal Council Successful? Case Studies of Aboriginal Community Government Performance in Far North Queensland

Indigenous community governments are at the frontline of current efforts to ‘close the gap’ between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous living standards. Yet there is little empirical evidence about successful performance by these organisations and considerable scepticism about whether introduced Western governance models can ever be viable in Indigenous communities. To identify the governance attributes that contribute to successful performance, case studies were conducted at three Aboriginal councils in far north Queensland. The untested assumptions in current notions of ‘good governance’ were examined. Currently accepted good governance principles and practices were investigated to ascertain their actual causal relationship with council performance. The research further identified key contextual, historical and cultural factors that are important in shaping successful or unsuccessful governance. Practical strategies are suggested for policy‐makers and Indigenous leaders to build the performance of Indigenous community governments.     

Does Collaboration Make Any Difference? Linking Collaborative Governance to Environmental Outcomes

This paper addresses two research questions: (1) Does collaborative environmental governance improve environmental outcomes? and (2) How do publicly supported collaborative groups with different levels of responsibility, formalization, and representativeness compare in this regard? Using a representative watershed quality data series, the EPA's National Rivers and Streams Assessment and Wadeable Streams Assessment, in conjunction with a watershed management regime database coded for this analysis, I test the relationship between collaborative governance and watershed quality for 357 watersheds. Since these are observational data, a multilevel propensity score matching method is used to control for selection bias. Using an augmented inverse propensity weighted estimator, I estimate the average treatment effect on the treated for six different water quality and habitat condition metrics. Collaborative watershed groups are found to improve water chemistry and in‐stream habitat conditions. I then use hierarchical linear regression modeling to examine how group responsibilities, membership diversity, and formalization affect the predicted impact of a collaborative group. Groups that engage in management activities (in comparison to coordination or planning) are found to achieve greater environmental gains. Limited differentiation is found with regards to the presence of a group coordinator, increased goal specificity, or greater stakeholder diversity.     

Do Constitutional Rights Make a Difference?

Although the question of whether constitutional rights matter is of great theoretical and practical importance, little is known about whether constitutional rights impact government behavior. In this article, we test the effectiveness of six political rights. We hypothesize that a difference exists between organizational rights—most notably, the rights to unionize and form political parties—and individual rights. Specifically, we suggest that organizational rights increase de facto rights protection because they create organizations with the incentives and means to protect the underlying right, which renders these rights self‐enforcing. Such organizations are not necessarily present to protect individual rights, which could make individual rights less effective. We test our theory using a variety of statistical methods on a data set of constitutional rights for 186 countries. The results support our theory: Organizational rights are associated with increased de facto rights protection, while individual rights are not.     

Do Project Pedagogies Make a Difference?

Community-based action research (CBAR) encourages students to view internships and other civic-engagement opportunities as the first steps in collaborative projects that build long-term relationships with community partners and model how democracy works. We marshal longitudinal data, qualitative and quantitative, on both attitudes and behaviors to demonstrate meaningful impacts of community-based work by university students. Our approach to this difficult question involves the use of a treatment group contrasted with two distinct control groups: one situated somewhat closely to the experiences of the treatment group and one more distantly. Despite the difficulty of developing metrics of attitude and behavior change over relatively short periods of time, we achieve leverage on the question of how project pedagogies and experiential learning shape civic attitude formation and associated changed behaviors.