The Elite Paradigm Driving Australian Aid Policy: Learning to Live With the ‘Cautious Consensus’

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
Benjamin Day, Tamas Wells
{"title":"The Elite Paradigm Driving Australian Aid Policy: Learning to Live With the ‘Cautious Consensus’","authors":"Benjamin Day,&nbsp;Tamas Wells","doi":"10.1002/app5.70009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article explores the underlying reasons for why the Albanese Labor Governmentʼs stated policy ambition to ‘rebuild Australiaʼs international development program’ has not yet been accomplished and is unlikely to be realised, at least in the near-to-medium term. Based on interviews conducted with 21 Australian Members of Parliament, we find that the ‘cautious consensus’—a collection of ideas guiding elite perspectives on Australian aid policy that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic—has rapidly consolidated, to the point where it can now be considered a paradigm. We identify three main factors that have led to this consolidation: the declining salience of aid; growing elite scepticism about the usefulness of aid; and a combination of political challenges that are difficult for Labor to navigate, as it seeks to become a long-term Government. Given the prospects of shifting the unambitious status quo are unlikely in the in the near-to-medium term, we examine what ‘living with the cautious consensus’ means for the Australian development sector.</p>","PeriodicalId":45839,"journal":{"name":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/app5.70009","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app5.70009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores the underlying reasons for why the Albanese Labor Governmentʼs stated policy ambition to ‘rebuild Australiaʼs international development program’ has not yet been accomplished and is unlikely to be realised, at least in the near-to-medium term. Based on interviews conducted with 21 Australian Members of Parliament, we find that the ‘cautious consensus’—a collection of ideas guiding elite perspectives on Australian aid policy that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic—has rapidly consolidated, to the point where it can now be considered a paradigm. We identify three main factors that have led to this consolidation: the declining salience of aid; growing elite scepticism about the usefulness of aid; and a combination of political challenges that are difficult for Labor to navigate, as it seeks to become a long-term Government. Given the prospects of shifting the unambitious status quo are unlikely in the in the near-to-medium term, we examine what ‘living with the cautious consensus’ means for the Australian development sector.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies is the flagship journal of the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University. It is a peer-reviewed journal that targets research in policy studies in Australia, Asia and the Pacific, across a discipline focus that includes economics, political science, governance, development and the environment. Specific themes of recent interest include health and education, aid, migration, inequality, poverty reduction, energy, climate and the environment, food policy, public administration, the role of the private sector in public policy, trade, foreign policy, natural resource management and development policy. Papers on a range of topics that speak to various disciplines, the region and policy makers are encouraged. The goal of the journal is to break down barriers across disciplines, and generate policy impact. Submissions will be reviewed on the basis of content, policy relevance and readability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信