IPS Publications

Policy Quarterly Volume 9 Number 2

2013-05-02T22:17:03Z

IGPS WP13/02 Collaborative Governance: Framing New Zealand Practice

2013-04-22T18:58:59Z

IGPS WP 13/01 Partnering and the Ideal State: Limits to Collaboration

2013-03-12T22:13:16Z

Policy Quarterly Volume 9 Number 1

2013-03-06T22:30:51Z

IGPS WP12/04 Statistical Analysis of the Managing for Organisational Performance Survey

2012-12-19T19:20:26Z

Abstract

The Institute’s Managing for Performance Project considered how the performance information system in the New Zealand state sector could be better aligned with the needs of key users and achieve a greater focus on outcomes. Underpinning this question was a perception that the information produced by the current formal performance information system was little valued by key stakeholders – parliamentarians, ministers, the public and, indeed, many state servants. To address such issues, the Institute of Policy Studies undertook a project that included a major survey of state sector managers augmented by seven detailed case studies of the performance management system. The findings from the research were published in a recent book The Iron Cage Recreated.^{^[1]} This working paper provides more detail on the statistical analysis undertaken of the survey results which were covered in Chapter 15 of The Iron Cage Recreated. It is accompanied on the Institute’s website by a database of the survey results for use by future researchers.

[1] Gill, D., editor (2011) The Iron Cage Recreated: The Performance Management of State Organisations in New Zealand. The Institute of Policy Studies, Wellington.

Policy Quarterly Volume 8 Number 4

2012-11-27T19:10:06Z

IGPS WP12/01 Governing the Recovery from the Canterbury Earthquakes 2010 -11: the Debate over Institutional Design

2012-11-22T21:14:28Z

New Zealand’s seismic vulnerability has always been well known to its residents. However, the sequence of earthquakes that has shaken Christchurch since September 4, 2010 shattered preconceived notions about the likely location and magnitude. As at February 2012 Canterbury had endured over 10,000 aftershocks since September 2010, of which over 3,000 were likely to be noticeable. The quakes not only shook buildings, infrastructure, and people in Canterbury, but also the governance arrangements and institutional design for recovery. The focus of this paper is to evaluate the frameworks for recovery from the disaster.

First, it provides background to the Canterbury quakes and the impacts of these events. Second, it briefly examines the literature on the governance of response to and recovery from major disasters, as well as the literature on community engagement in disaster recovery. Third, it describes and clarifies the framework for disaster response and recovery in New Zealand that existed prior to the disaster. Fourth, it evaluates the evolving governance arrangements that were created to manage the recovery from the September 2010 and February 2011 quakes. Finally, it discusses the inadequacies in institutional design and lessons highlighted by the Canterbury quakes. Recovery is still in its infancy a year after the devastating February earthquake.

This paper argues that the statutory framework for long term recovery in New Zealand at the time of the quakes was inadequate. The governance arrangements created after the September 2010 and February 2011 quakes addressed a number of concerns, but they also generated their own problems. A number of reviews of the February earthquake response and the governance framework are currently underway. Future arrangements must provide an institutional framework that addresses not just immediate response, but also adequate statutory and policy support for long-term recovery from disasters.

Ocean Governance: The New Zealand Dimension Full Report

2012-11-22T21:00:28Z

The Oceans Governance project was funded by the Emerging Issues Programme, overseen by the Institute of Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington. Its primary goal is to provide interested members of the public and policymakers with a general overview and a description of the types of principles, planning tools and policy instruments that can be used to strengthen and improve marine governance in New Zealand.

The major findings of this study are that the existing marine governance framework in New Zealand emphasises a traditional sector-by-sector approach to management and planning and that this fragmented governance framework contributes to a number of institutional challenges. In addition, the study identifies a number of factors that influence marine planning and decision-making in the country, including but not limited to; the relationships between economic use of marine resources and the maintenance of marine ecosystem services and goods; Māori interests, perspectives and treaty obligations; the role of international treaties and conventions; the synergistic and cumulative impacts of multiple use and climate disturbance on marine ecosystems, and the role of scientists and science in marine planning and decision-making.

The report makes two general recommendations. First, with respect to the territorial sea (which includes the marine area out to 12 nautical miles) the report recommends that regional councils develop integrative marine plans where conflict between users and users-ecosystems is likely to develop in the future. Second, the report recommends the adoption of new role for central government to support an ecosystem-based approach to integrative marine planning and decision-making.

IGPS WP12/02 The role of post-disaster institutions in recovery and resilience: a comparative study of three recent disasters – Victorian Bushfires (2009), Queensland Floods (2010-11), and Canterbury Earthquakes (2010-12)

2012-11-22T20:33:45Z

Introduction
Dealing with natural disasters and their after-effects are among the most difficult tasks governments face. Such disasters can seriously harm the financial, social, environmental, and human welfare of a country, and managing them often requires co-ordination between local authorities, businesses, neighbourhood groups, and volunteer organisations. Public policy makers and theorists are aware that effective management of natural hazards reduces their potential impact.
Four areas of disaster management, commonly known as the ‘four Rs’, concern policy makers. First, governments can reduce societal vulnerability and build resilience by mitigating known risks. Second, governments can prepare for potential disasters by planning their response and ensuring that sufficient capabilities are in place. Third, governments can effectively respond to natural disasters by providing basic human needs. Fourth, recovery from natural disasters is important both in the alleviation of immediate societal suffering and in improving citizens’ long-term prospects by building resilience against future disasters. Government decisions are critical in determining whether these objectives are achieved.
This paper addresses the fourth area of disaster management: recovery and resilience. Disasters are focusing events that can drive immediate policy change. It argues that good recovery institutions provide the adaptive capacity that enables communities to recover from natural disasters. This paper briefly describes recovery processes after three natural disasters in Australia and New Zealand between 2009 and 2011: bushfires in Victoria in 2009, flooding in Queensland from 2010-2011 and earthquakes in the Canterbury region from 2010. These cases demonstrate the importance of flexible governance arrangements. This is shown through the choice of recovery institution, evidence of institutional learning before and after disasters, the role of community engagement, response to insurance issues, and the building of resilience. Particularly important for resilience is the building of relationships between recovery institutions and local governments and communities.

IGPS WP12/03 Which Reform Is Most Important? - Some Evidence from New Zealand

2012-11-22T20:15:47Z

Abstract

In public administration circles there are two widely accepted stylised facts about New Zealand. First, New Zealand implemented sweeping public sector reforms and was at the forefront of the New Public Management movement. Second, New Zealand scores very well on several international league tables measuring the quality of government. This paper considers possible connections between these stylised facts by looking at reforms of financial management, institutional structures, information management and appointment processes in New Zealand. Recent data from the government-commissioned “Kiwis Count” surveys is used to identify which aspects of government performance are most important to New Zealanders. It seems that though most commentators have focused on finance and institutional reforms, earlier reforms involving open information, non-political appointments and public accountability are more significant to New Zealanders.