PDF 115KB - Think Tanks and the Policy-Making Community in Australia

Description

PDF 115KB - Think Tanks and the Policy-Making Community in Australia

Informations

• Publié par: elysonev
• Nombre de lectures: 56
• Langue: English

Extrait

Policy Community

Think Tanks and the Policy-Making Community in Australia

by John Uhr

T WO I SSUES : D EMOCRACY AND D ELIBERATION ustralia has a reputation as a highly corporatized society with substantial rep A resentation in national policy making. p u b l i cs u p p o r tf o ri n t e r e s tg r o u p Although the general features of national think tanks remain very much as described by Ian Marsh in thisR e v i eiwn 1996, two initiatives stand out at this point in the second term of the conservative Howard government, first elected in 1996 and re-elected in 1998. First, on the international front Australia has taken its first major steps to link its international development assistance to the promotion of democratic governance and this has opened up new perspectives on the role of think tanks in both the domestic and international affairs of an established democracy like Australia. Second, with the approaching centenary of national Federation in 2001, the Australian policy scene has been dominated by public debate over the possibility of a constitutional change from a constitutional monarchy to a

35 NIRAReview

republic. A national referendum in November 1999 defeated a proposal for a republic, but the process of debate in this referendum gave rise to an unusual dispute over the role of think tanks in Australian policy development. This article deals with each topic in turn, beginning with the modest but encouraging steps Australia is taking to review the place of think tanks in international development assistance, before turning to the more domestic issues affecting the place of think tanks in community deliberation over constitutional change.

D EMOCRATIC G OVERNANCE

Contemporary democratic regimes face many challenges, including the international promotion of the role of independent policy research institutions as elements of the governance framework of emerging democracies. Australia’s participation in schemes to promote democracy in the developing world shows the potential of think tanks to feature at both ends of this form of

political cooperation: as resources feeding intofunded programs designed to promote good the promotion of democratic institutions andgovernance through international assistance. as recipients of international assistance, withMany other domestic think tanks of the type renewed capability to play an important partdescribed by Marsh in his 1996 article have in the policy process of emerging democracies.strong views on the policy merits of One can distinguish between policy-activeinternational assistance, but this emerges interest groups, such aswithin the context of the many non-their advocacy of government organiza-domestic policy priori- tions (NGOs) involved A ties. A good example NATIONAL REFERENDUM IN in development assist-relates to environ- N OVEMBER 1999 DEFEATED A ance, and policymental po l i c yw h e r e PROPOSAL FOR A REPUBLIC , BUT THE research bodies, orbusiness think tanks, think tanks, engaged ins u c ha st h eB u s i n e s s PROCESS OF DEBATE IN THIS policy advocacyCouncil of Australia primarily through the(BCA) debate with REFERENDUM GAVE RISE TO AN publication to theenvironmental think policy community oftanks, such as the UNUSUAL DISPUTE OVER THE ROLE credible research-basedAustralian Institute OF THINK TANKSIN A USTRALIAN investigation of policy(AI), about the en- options. The NGOsvironmental merits of POLICY DEVELOPMENT . might draw on thisAustralian business type of research but seeinternationally. In this their primary role astype of example, both o n eo fp r o g r a md e l i v e r y ;t h e ya r ea c t i v es e t so ft h i n kt a n k st e n dt od r a wo nl i k e - participants in the policy process but theirminded international think tanks to support priority is action as distinct from research.their policy interpretations. This is an Two interesting examples of AustralianAustralian example of the globalization of think tanks involved in the promotion ofthink tanks that was featured so prominently democracy in the areas of Australianin the Winter 2000 issue of thisReview. international development assistance are theThe time is now ripe for Australia and other long-standing National Center for“donor democracies” to begin to evaluate the Development Studies (NCDS) at the Australianplace of think tanks in the international agenda National University and the more recentof democracy promotion. Australia is one of Center for Democratic Institutions (CDI) at themany established democracies that are slowly same university. The CDI is a good example ofappreciating the idea that policy think tanks the use being made by the current governmenta d dg r e a t l yt ot h eq u a l i t yo fd e m o c r a t i c of non-government but publicly fundedgovernance, at home and abroad, by enriching organizations to think through and implementthe quality of civil society appropriate to forms of political assistance, based on the sorteffective democratic governance. Given its of political independence expected of ancorporatist leanings, Australia has much to independent think tank.offer evaluators of the governance impact of There are of course many other Australianthink tanks. think tanks involved in developmentThe Australian experience of using policy assistance. These two examples can stand asresearch bodies and NGOs to help illustrations of the traditional university-baseddevelopment schemes of governance assistance policy research institution (as with the NCDS),fits with international trends. Within the field and of the newer, government-outsourcedof development assistance, a striking policy development institutions (as with theillustration of the turn among “donor C D I ) ,t h a tc a r r yt h el o a do fg o v e r n m e n tdemocracies” to include the political

Spring 200036

infrastructure of democratic governance is the 1997World Development Reportof the World Bank. That report signaled the international arrival of a quite sophisticated version of democratic governance as the driving goal of development assistance. The significance of the 1997 World Bank Report was that it brought together many existing evaluations of international assistance to highlight the basic importance of thep o l i t y as well as thee c o n o mfoyr poverty reduction and the social development of modernizing nations. The polity covers the sphere of civil society as well the formal arrangement of state institutions, and among the institutions of civil society found in effective democracies are t h o s et h i n kt a n k st h a tw ea s s o c i a t ew i t h independent policy research and advocacy. The appreciation of the role of policy research institutions in democratization is still i ni t se a r l ys t a g e s ,d e s p i t et h ee x i s t e n c e internationally of many pro-democracy think tanks drawing financial support from a wide range of government and business interests.

37 NIRAReview

Australia provides a good illustration of the general picture of what is known about the policy importance of think tanks and of their place in democratization schemes, both as p r o v i d e r so fa s s i s t a n c ea n da so b j e c t so f assistance. In both these spheres, think tanks can promote the qualities of an effective or, as it is now often termed, deliberative democracy.

D ELIBERATIVE D EMOCRACY

The concept of deliberative democracy is attracting increasing interest from analysts of contemporary democracy. Ad e l i b e r a t i v e d e m o c r aicsyone that invests in structured public deliberation in its processes of official decision-making; the opposite is ad e c i s i o n i s t d e m o c r a,cwyhich prefers strong executive government and decisive leadership over the deliberative alternative of open parliamentary government involving community participation in the public policy process. A functioning democracy could work under either model, in that both the deliberative and

decisionist forms are compatible with regularIn 1992, right at the outset of the decade popular elections. The difference is that aleading up to the centenary of federation, the decisionist democracy requires little more of itsnational government established the voters than that they vote in order to giveConstitutional Centenary Federation (CCF) as legitimacy to the political regime. In contrast, aa publicly funded think tank to prepare the deliberative democracy expects more of itsAustralian community for an informed and citizens than simply the activity of voting, justbalanced appreciation of the achievements of as it expects more from its institutions of civil100 years of national political nationality. The society than that they stay out of the way ofCCF published a huge amount of applied politics, as might be expected under aresearch on community attitudes to the decisionist democracy. The relevance here ofconstitutional system and to proposed the growing political scieding the various options the concept of delblican Australia. By the democracy is that it oof the 1999 national prominent role for indepe T HE TIME endum on the proposed policy research institutionsublican model, the CCF IS NOW RIPE FOR contributors to sustainas seen as the A USTRALIA AND OTHER public deliberation and aovernment’s honest cultivators of publiroker and was given “ DONOR DEMOCRACIES ” participation in the policyresponsibility to edit and process. approvea so-called TO BEGIN TO EVALUATE Australia does notneutral education pretend that it is a modelcampaign so that THE PLACE OF THINK TANKS of deliberative democracyustralian voters would IN THE INTERNATIONAL In fact, Australia iave an opportunity for a interesting by virtue of illy informed vote. AGENDA OF DEMOCRACY open acknowledgment tut the CCF was not the when it comes to PROMOTION . organization involved in fundamental regime charendum. Precisely because those associated with thginally established as a referendum, the normal roeutral instrument of debate do not measure up against thep u b l i ce d u c a t i o n ,t h eC C Ff o u n di t s e l f standards of genuine political deliberation. Itunable to act as umpire in the battle between might be that Australia’s credibility as athe two primary advocacy groups, the “donor democracy” turns on its ability toAustralian Republic Movement (ARM) and invest in its own political infrastructure andAustralians for Constitutional Monarchy thus demonstrate its willingness to learn how(ACM). Both these mass membership to improve its own policy developmentorganizations were formed around the same processes. timeas the CCF. The interest of the Australian case isThe existence of these three entities makes associated with the national debate over thethe 1999 referendum an unusual political significance of the centenary in the year 2001 ofevent. The public funding of these three quite national existence as a constitutionaldifferent and independently organized bodies democracy. The most significant developmentsignals a new phase in Australian policy thus far has been the November 1999development. In routine policy development, referendum on the defeated republic option.Australian practice has been to establish a The results of the vote of November 1999 aregovernment policy research organization, such less important here than the decision to fundas the current Productivity Commission, with three special organizations with distinctiveresponsibility to act as a policy broker by referendum responsibilities.taking evidence from all interested think tanks

Spring 200038

and policy activists, before providingsupport for these contrasting options. Begun government with a review of policy options. Inindependently of government, their sustained this way government decision making can atcredibility requires distance from political least be seen to conform to a seriousauthority, but not necessarily to the point of consideration of all the relevant evidence on allrefusing government financial assistance. the feasible options.This procedure was unlike that of earlier But this latest constitutional referendum wasconstitutional referendums, and it has very unusual. Instead of letting the politicalstrengthened community interest in testing the process take its routine pathlimits of separating, at least of partisan disputation, theduring referendums, the national Parliament allowed T HE NATIONAL primary policy debate from the government to proceedthe established political P ARLIAMENT with its modest use of theparties. One effect of this new CCF as a policy educator. Butprocedure might be to anoint RECOGNIZED THAT THE it widened the scope for thinka limited number of public- tank participation by ISSUE OF THE REPUBLIC interest advocacy groups as authorizing substantiallyauthoritative think tanks for WENT TO THE CORE OF greater amounts of publicselected issues. Another funding to the two opposedpossible effect might be to THE NATION ’ S think tanks which hadincrease the demand for an emerged as the umbrella POLITICAL IDENTITY . independent policy broker groups supporting thethat can check and balance referendum antagonists.the misrepresentations of the The existence of the public funding of theparticipating think tanks in ways that were referendum contributions of these two campsbeyond the resources and authority of the points to the importance of independent policyCCF. research institutions in democratic life. The national Parliament recognized that the issueC ONCLUSION of the republic went to the core of the nation’s political identity. Community deliberationBoth areas of institutional development over the proposed change would be greatlycovered in this article highlight the importance enhanced if the primary responsibility for theof concepts of deliberative democracy. Policy management of this policy debate was given toresearch institutions can always help organizations that were to some considerablegovernments make better decisions on the extent independent of the mainstream politicalbasis of better information. But they can offer parties in Parliament.In an unprecedentedmore in terms of democratic governance. move at a national referendum, the nationalThink tanks can enrich the deliberative Parliament allowed the executive governmentprocesses of democratic society. The the authority to fund equally two campaigninternational promotion of democracy can teams based in large part on the two existingmake good use of think tanks because they advocacy groups, ARM and ACM.demonstrate that “good governance” reaches These two organizations were establishedbeyond economic decision-making to include s o l e l yi nr e s p o n s et ot h ep o s s i b i l i t yo fa communitydeliberation over a wide range of national referendum on a republic, and theysocial objectives. exemplify single-issue think tanks that draw on substantially private resources to generateJohn Uhr is reader in the Graduate Program in policy research to advocate their preferredPublic Policy, Asia Pacific School of Economics and referendum options. Both are federations ofManagement, Australian National University, aligned interests orchestrated to mobilizeCanberra.

39 NIRAReview

References Elster, Jon (ed.) (1998).Deliberative Democracy. New York:Uhr, John (1998).Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Cambridge University Press.Changing Place of Parliament. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hadenius, Alex (ed.) (1997).Democracy’s Victory and Crisis. New York: Cambridge University Press.World Bank,World Development Report 1997. Oxford University Press. March, James G. & Olsen, Johan P. (1995).D e m o c r a t i c Governance. New York: The Free Press.

Spring 200040