Federalism Paper Review

Wanna, J 2007, ‘Improving Federalism: Drivers for Change, Repair Options and Reform Scenarios’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 275 – 279. | Purpose The author aims to present an overview of the proceedings from a roundtable discussion on federalism. The paper aims to inform readers of the views of participants by reporting on discussion points on the subject of improving federalism, through consideration of issues and challenges and options for reform.
The author contrasts the different federalism characteristics discussed. Confused and competitive interactions occur between federal, state and local government with attendant impacts on service delivery. In particular much of the dysfunction in the current system stems from uncertainty around roles and an argumentative approach to dividing resources and defining responsibility. Federalism was in long term decline and a product of changing market forces from national and international pressure and global communication reducing regional identify.
Overlapping policy interaction and involvement of the tiers of government was presented as an impediment to effective delineation of roles. Federalism provided greater accountability through increased scrutiny by multiple government and review of achievements particularly in contentious areas. Participants agreed federalism would be improved by gradual change. The author discussed the idea change should focus on advancing the current situation rather than whole-scale reform through a new paradigm of strategic pragmatism. The group considered that fiscal issues drive a shift to centralism.Improving federalism requires better relations, through increased clarity of roles and responsibilities and levels of trust, possibly formalised through agreements and structural rationalisation. Evidence The paper presents findings as observations from discussions initially. The author introduces uncited references and discusses external and personal views. The discussion of participants views are not quantified specifically and references are made to ‘most’, ‘many thought’, ‘those who believed’. The origin of sources is unclear.
For example ‘some commentators’ is unclear as to whether these were participants or external views. Summarised statements appeared to be discussions of the participants merged with personal opinion. | Page 275, 276 and 277. Page 276Pages 275 – 277Page 276Page 278| Observations The author initially expresses an observational account of the proceedings of the meeting in a neutral manner. This approach gradually transitions into an academic piece that draws on the author’s extensive understanding of the field and his personal views together with unreferenced discussion of academic positions.
The paper is confusing at times and apparently aims to presents the outcomes and discussion points of a meeting initially but soon changes to uncited external examples, statements and personal opinion. Whilst the author references the panel’s deliberations and discussions, these are unquantified references to participant’s opinions and refer simply to ‘many’ or ‘most participants’. The author seems to have a bias toward a principled view of federalism with support for a fusion of pragmatic and principled approaches.
The paper appears contradictory in parts. For example, an observation was made that there was a widely held view that roles and responsibilities needed to be specified. It was later stated that the ‘jury was still out’ on whether this was a worthwhile goal, which appeared to be a personal view rather than reporting on discussions. In concluding the author draws on a range of options for specific reform that were not introduced earlier in the paper.
Approximate price: $22
We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..

With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.