Search results

However well‐intentioned are public sector reform movements, they are often compromised by misunderstandings about meanings and directions and by the organisational amnesia that comes from too rapid change and too little attention to the past. A better appreciation of these problems is needed. This paper aims to address these issues.

The paper combines discussion about factors that inhibit successful outcomes of many reform programmes with examples drawn mostly from the Australian experience.

Reform programmes are likely to have better outcomes if they are designed with these possible impediments in view. Similarly theoretical understandings will be safer and sounder if more attention is given to administrative history and more care is taken to reconcile conflicting views.

The paper focuses on issues that have not been given much attention in the literature of public sector reform.

There are two connected purposes: to reflect on the widespread current use and abuse of the term “public‐private partnership”, and to present a case study of an unusual joint venture associating a public and a private enterprise in delivering a multi‐utility service in the Canberra region of Australia.

The article combines the case study method with a review of relevant discourse about PPPs.

On the case study evidence presented, the article concludes that this joint venture comes much closer to being a genuine public‐private partnership than many arrangements loosely described as PPPs today.

The article invites the practitioner/academic community to think more precisely about the factors that need to be considered before it is appropriate to claim that a PPP exists.

The joint venture that is the subject of this case study has not previously been analysed in this way. The article suggests that it has value in serving as a model for the development of better thinking about PPPs.

Managerial restructuring of the Australian public service during the period of the Keating Government was designed to provide greater responsiveness on the part of public servants to ministers. Increased use of ministerial advisers and the formalisation of contract employment for departmental secretaries pointed to a possible erosion of responsible government norms, but this process was moderated by tension between the private sector practices being introduced and an adherence to the traditions of responsible government. We suggest that a pragmatic approach to public sector reform partly accounted for this unease and we speculate that the more ideological commitment to managerialism displayed by the Howard Government might indicate that responsible government within the Commonwealth Public Service is in further danger of erosion.

This study aims to explore the state of environmental management accounting practice and the motivations for its use with a view to improving waste and recycling management by local government. The focus is on practice in local governments situated in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Prior studies suggest the need for environmental management accounting as a supporting tool for waste management.

An exploratory case study method was applied in 12 NSW local government organisations. In each local government interviews were conducted with managers responsible for waste and recycling issues.

Contrary to prior research this study found that, in the local governments investigated, an increasing amount of environmental management accounting information is being made available. The case studies found two main motivations encouraging the development of environmental management accounting in local government: first, social structural influences, such as regulatory pressures from different environmental regulatory bodies, environmental expectations from local communities, and pressures from peer councils; second, organisational contextual influences reflecting situational needs in the organisational contexts, such as complex waste operations and service designs, changes and uncertainties in waste and recycling management, and the council's strategic position for waste management.

The results imply that institutional theory and contingency theory provide different but complementary explanations for the development of environmental management accounting in waste management. Although previous environmental studies are overwhelmingly in favour of social system‐based theories, such as institutional theory, to explain environmental changes in organisations, an organisation's contextual dynamics seem to be equally important.

The findings about motivations provide useful information for environmental strategists and government regulators to make policies that improve accountability and the efficiency of waste and recycling management as well as promote future development of environmental management accounting to support sustainable waste management solutions.