Search results

This chapter provides a brief overview of community sanctions in Australia and examines the extent to which McNeill’s analysis in Pervasive Punishment (2019) is applicable in the Australian context. Two key issues in the Australian context are, firstly, state and territory-level variations within a federal political structure, and secondly, disproportionate Indigenous imprisonment and community sanction rates and the generally destructive impact of the criminal legal system on Indigenous communities and peoples. The chapter argues that developing a better agonistic politics around community sanctions requires descending from the broad level of historical and sociological analysis to examine state and territory-level variations in judicial and correctional structures, histories and cultures. Further, that Australian community sanctions cannot be understood without a primary focus on the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous rates, experiences and meaning. The key to addressing the destructive impact of criminal legal processes and practices on Indigenous peoples lies in developing Indigenous governance, empowerment, self-determination, sovereignty and nation-building. Two recent developments promoting Indigenous governance are examined: the Uluru Statement from the Heart and Justice Reinvestment projects initiated by First Nations communities, highlighting the importance of activism, contest and struggle by community organisations.

A central question of public administration is how political principals secure the cooperation of administrators within organisational frames and contexts; increasingly, rational influences are being considered alongside bounded rationality and non-rational influences. This paper aims to explore the intent of New Zealand’s Public Service Act 2020 in managing administrative behaviour.

The methodology is primarily ethnographic, combining emic and etic perspectives. A mixed-methods approach comprises participant observer field notes and meeting documentation, substantiated by official documents; documents were analysed thematically and triangulated with other data sources.

The Public Service Act introduces new bounds on administrative behaviour. The stated rationale for these changes reveals an attempt to set limits on the principal–agent relationship between politicians and administrators and causes predictable deviations from rational behaviour by cultivating public service motivation and a unified public service identity.

As the legislation in question was only passed in 2020, it is too early to definitively assess the ultimate impact of legislation on administrative behaviour. This case study demonstrates that behavioural approaches to public administration are being applied intentionally by governments. The choice architecture created in the case study blends rational, bounded, and non-rational influences. Together, this produces a bricolage of semi-relevant theories from other disciplines, especially psychology, to explain administrative behaviour. Further refinement is needed to develop a cohesive and comprehensive theory of administrative behaviour that can account for contemporary practice.

Administrators act as agents of political principals, within ethical and rules-based limitations and influenced by public service motivation and social identity. Shifting from implicit to explicit choice architecture does not negate possible tensions between bounds and can signal them more explicitly. Shared symbols are sometimes intended to influence identity and therefore adherence to behavioural norms.

This paper explores the manipulation of choice architecture as a viable strategy for altering behaviour for the better and, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, is the first known instance of choice architecture being “legislated in” rather than merely “showing through”. This study illustrates the blending of rational, boundedly rational and non-rational factors into a choice architecture for public administrators that help mediate the biases and challenges of principal–agent relationships (which form a cascade in New Zealand’s public administration system).

The extant literature underlines the inadequacies of legal and policy frameworks addressing the safety and health concerns of sandstone mineworkers in India. Notably, Rajasthan, a state renowned for its extractive industries, mirrors these concerns. Against this backdrop, this paper aims to critically evaluate the relevant legal and policy landscape, with an emphasis on the recent central statute: the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code of 2020 (OSHWCC). Given that the Code subsumes the key legislation pertaining to the safety and health of mineworkers, an in-depth critical analysis is essential to forge suitable policy interventions to address continued gross violations of human rights.

The critical analysis of legal and policy frameworks on silicosis in sandstone mineworkers is based on a comprehensive reading of existing literature. The literature includes relevant laws, case law, reports of the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission and National Human Rights Commission, publicly available data and key scholarly contributions in the field.

Although the OSHWCC has made some changes to the existing regulatory architecture of mines in India, it has failed to safeguard the safety and health of mineworkers. Notably, the vast majority of mines in India – constituting approximately 90%, which are informal, seasonal and small-scale – remain beyond the jurisdiction of this Code. In Rajasthan, there are specific policies on silicosis, but these policies are poorly implemented. There is a serious shortage of doctors to diagnose silicosis cases, leading to under-diagnosis. The compensation for silicosis victims is insufficient; the distribution mechanism is complex and often delayed.

The central and many state governments have not established the regulatory institutions envisaged under the OSHWCC 2020; therefore, the working of the regulatory institutions could not be critically examined.

The paper critically evaluates laws and policies pertaining to silicosis in sandstone mineworkers, with a special emphasis on the state of Rajasthan. It offers a comprehensive critique of the OSHWCC of 2020, which has not received much attention from previous studies.