On democracy

If one clear argument emerged from my doctoral thesis in political science, it is that there is no agreement as to what democracy is. There are over 40 different varieties of democracy ranging from those in the mainstream with subtle or minute differences to those playing by themselves in the corner. And many of these various types of democracy are very well argued, empirically supported, and highly relevant to certain polities. The irony is that the thing which all of these democratic varieties or the ‘basic democracy’ that all other forms of democracy stem from, is elusive. There is no international agreement in the literature or in political practice as to what ‘basic democracy’ is and that is problematic as many of us use the word ‘democracy’ every day and it is a concept of tremendous importance internationally. I am still uncertain as to why this problem has not been resolved before by far greater minds than my own, and it may have something to do with the recent growth in democratic theory this past decade and the innovative areas of thought my thesis required, but I think I’ve got the answer. By listing each type of democracy and filling the column next to this list with the literature associated with these various styles of democracy, I amassed a large and comprehensive body of textual data. My research intended to find out what these various styles of democracy had in common and to create a taxonomy (like the ‘tree of life’ in biology) of democracy to attempt at showing how various styles of democracy have ‘evolved’ over the past 5000 years.ii I then ran a word frequency analysis program or a piece of software that counts the 100 most commonly used words in the texts. This is where my logic came in as I had to make sense of these words. How did they answer what the most fundamental commonalities are between 40 different styles of democracy? I used a grounded theory analysis which required that I argue my way through these words to form a ‘theory’ or plausible explanation as to why these particular words and not others are the important ones for answering the question. It came down to the argument that all 40 styles of democracy analysed have the following in common 1) A concept of a citizenry. 2) A concept of sovereignty. 3) A concept of equality. 4) A concept of law. 5) A concept of communication. 6) And a concept of selecting officials. Thus, democracy is a defined citizenry with its own concept of sovereignty which it exercises through the institutions which support the citizenry’s understandings of equality, law, communication, and the selection of officials. Once any of these 6 concepts are defined in a particular way it creates a style of democracy. From this, we can also see that there can be more than one style of democracy active in a particular government as a citizenry is composed of many different aggregates with their own understandings of the six concepts.

Disability, deinstitutionalisation and discourse : an analysis of institutional reform policies in Queensland, 1994-1996

The closure of large institutions for people with intellectual disability and the subsequent shift to community living has been a feature of social policies in most western democracies for more than two decades. While the move from congregated settings to homes in the community has been heralded as a positive and desirable strategy, deinstitutionalisation has continued to be a controversial policy and practice. This research critically analyses the implementation of a deinstitutionalisation policy called Institutional Reform in the state of Queensland from May 1994 until it was dismantled under a new government in the middle of 1996. A trajectory study of the policy from early conceptualisation through its development, implementation and final extinction was undertaken. Several methods were utilised in the research including the textual analyis of policy documents, discussion papers and newspaper articles, interviews with stakeholders and participant observation. The research draws on theories of discourse and focuses on how discourses of disability shape policy and practice. The thesis outlines a number of implications for policy implementation more generally as well as for disability services. In particular, the theoretical framework builds on Fulcher's (1989) disabling discourses - medical, charity, lay and rights - and identifies two additional discourses of economics and inclusion. The thesis argues that competing disability discourses operated in powerful ways to shape the implementation of the policy and illustrates how older discourses based on fear and prejudice were promoted to positions of dominance and power.

Innovative and entrepreneurial activity in the public sector : the changing face of public sector institutions

This paper investigates the elements which support innovative and entrepreneurial activity in New Zealand’s state owned enterprises (SOEs). An inductive case study design, involving interview data, textual analysis, and observation, was applied to three SOEs. Findings reveal that those aspects typically associated with entrepreneurship, such as innovation, risk acceptance, pro-activeness and growth, are often supported by a number of unexpected elements within the public sector. These elements include culture, branding, operational excellence, cost efficiency, and knowledge transfer. The implications are twofold. First, that innovative and entrepreneurial activity in the public sector can go beyond policy-making, with SOEs representing an important policy decision and sector of the New Zealand Government. And second, that the impact of several SOEs on international markets suggests competition on the global stage will increasingly come from both public and private sector organizations.