The many disciples of John Kingdon would point to Australia's handling of the asylum seeker/ people smuggling issue as a validation of their espoused "garbage can" theory. According to them, the rational-legal process known as the public policy cycle is a myth, and most government policies are recycled out of the dust bin and given new life via the "policy primeval soup" consisting of problems, policy proposals and political events.
In this case, border protection is the problem (or "the product", depending on how you view things), the "worrying" increase of boat people arrivals and the registered concern within marginal electorates the event, and the discarded Pacific solution of the previous government the policy that has been revived through the collusion of policy entrepreneurs and clever politicians. Mix these ingredients together, and voila! You get a newly minted policy prescription consisting of a regional centre based in the nearby developing nation of Timor-Leste (or Indonesia) to process asylum seekers under the UNHCR's supervision.
The problem is getting one of these nations to accept the responsibility given the image of being branded a "dumping ground" as an unwanted part of the package. Everyone in the region seems to be crying "NIMBY!" (not in my back yard) including New Zealand, which does not really have an incentive to get involved with the issue. This means that whatever solution finally gets hammered out will be a very costly one given that the only consensus of being humane but tough taken by both the ruling Labor party and the opposing Coalition led by the Liberals is a reflection of the community.
If the irrationality at the core of Kingdon's philosophy is the basis for these types of decisions on the part of policy actors (in the garbage can model), it could perhaps spring from some deep seeded evolutionary response to the need for survival. This would explain a lot about the way policy takes shape under these circumstances.
The problem is getting one of these nations to accept the responsibility given the image of being branded a "dumping ground" as an unwanted part of the package. Everyone in the region seems to be crying "NIMBY!" (not in my back yard) including New Zealand, which does not really have an incentive to get involved with the issue. This means that whatever solution finally gets hammered out will be a very costly one given that the only consensus of being humane but tough taken by both the ruling Labor party and the opposing Coalition led by the Liberals is a reflection of the community.
If the irrationality at the core of Kingdon's philosophy is the basis for these types of decisions on the part of policy actors (in the garbage can model), it could perhaps spring from some deep seeded evolutionary response to the need for survival. This would explain a lot about the way policy takes shape under these circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment