Australian Public Policy, Federalism, and Intergovernmental Relations: The Federal Factor

Public policy is the overt activity of governing and what governmentshave as their primary purpose. This is so whether the politicalsystem is unitary or federal. There are many more elements thatcomplicate policymaking in a federal system. In particular,constitutional, financial, and political issues intrude becauseof the necessary interdependence of otherwise independent andautonomous national and subnational components. This articleaddresses this complexity of joint action through use of theideas about federalism, the structure of governing institutions,and the processes of policymaking. The extent to which an outcomedepends on the mixture of independence and interdependence isconceptualized as degrees of the federal factor. Linking thisconcept to particular policy arenas may provide a better understandingof federal systems than explanation from centralization or decentralizationor dependence or independence.     

Accountability: Is Westminster the Problem?

The outcome of the Symposium reported in AJPA 58(1) is said by the convenors to be that there are many different kinds of accountability and that there may be clashes between them. This paper suggests one possible reason is that the Westminster label hides the potential tensions between the increasing demands for accountability, more responsiveness and responsibility, the new public management and the institutional framework. Everyone wishes to cover perceived unmet demands and expectations, providing we remain with basic Westminster as our starting point. The paper suggests that commitment to what we call Westminster is the problem. It restricts understanding of the reality of Australian governance because it is not an uncontested term. Westminster is made to mean whatever the normative stance of the commentator requires. The paper argues that it is an opportune time to answer some basic questions about responsible parliamentary democracy in Australia.     

Resistance and reform: discourses on marital law in Japan*

This article examines opinions concerning fūfubessei (a married couple retaining their birth surnames) posted on an online forum. Recently, the topic of fūfubessei has once again come under a spotlight, since the Japanese Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Code Article 750, which stipulates that a married couple must choose either the husband's or wife's surname upon marriage registration. Owing to the large number of women forfeiting their surnames, the fūfubessei issue has often been researched from feminist perspectives, which may have hindered the voices of others. This article analyzes, using text mining (quantitative analysis) and discourse analysis (qualitative analysis), a large number of opinions from people of various cultural backgrounds. The results of this study reveal a diversity of beliefs and attitudes towards Article 750, reflecting the complexity of the issue. In general, proponents of reform claim the law violates equality, rights and liberty. From opponents there was a strong push to conform rather than to recognize a need for individual choice. Moreover, the many personal narratives provided insight into issues on the ground and revealed how many in Japanese society have dealt with the law, social pressure and social expectations and why they have followed the path they have chosen.