What Drives Machinery of Government Change? Australia,Canada and the United Kingdom, 1950–1997

Machinery of government arrangements attract a diverse and detailed literature, but surprisingly little comparative research. This article provides a graphically presented indication of functional changes in the architecture of national government in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom between 1950 and 1997. An analysis finds interesting national differences, with sharp changes in practice in Australia and Canada, but more gradual incremental adjustment in the United Kingdom. The correlation between parties and machinery change is weak for Canada and the United Kingdom, but all countries demonstrate stronger links between elections, new prime ministers and machinery of government changes. Further, all tend to oscillate between many specialist departments and fewer, broader agencies
The explanation for such machinery change, we argue, is found in the political, policy and administrative calculations made by prime ministers in Westminster-style parliamentary systems     

Facing the challenges of research‐informed knowledge mobilization: ‘Practising what we preach’?

The political imperative to make public services more evidence based has contributed to the growth in the past two decades of both research and practice in the field of knowledge mobilization: the range of approaches to encourage the creation, sharing and use of research‐informed knowledge alongside other forms of knowledge. Paradoxically the growth of the field has made the challenge of encouraging research use much more complex and uncertain, and the roles of knowledge mobilizers much more diverse and demanding. This in‐depth interview study of knowledge mobilization in 51 agencies concerned with knowledge for public services breaks new ground in exploring a paradox at the heart of knowledge mobilization practice: the challenges that research agencies face in practising in research‐informed ways themselves.     

Economic interest or security concerns? Which affected how individuals in five Asian countries—Indonesia,Japan, Malaysia,the Philippines,and South Korea—viewed China in 2013?

With rapid economic growth, China has become its neighbours’ largest trade partner in the twenty-first century. At the same time, the growth of China’s military and its assertiveness are raising concerns among its neighbours that China’s rise will pose a threat to them. In this context, will China’s neighbours—Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Korea—view China positively or negatively? By using statistical analysis, this paper aims to explore whether individuals are more affected by their economic position or national security concerns when they view China. The findings in this article suggest that individuals’ security concerns have stronger associations with their attitudes toward China than economic conditions. Specifically, individuals’ views on China’s military growth and territorial disputes had negative effects on their attitudes toward China. On the other hand, economic interests had weaker associations with individuals’ views of China than security concerns.