Accountability and Joined‐up Government
Abstract
The Coombs Royal Commission identified a range of issues relating to the coordination of services. While there has been renewed interest over the last five years in the UK, Canada and Australia in initiatives that support joined‐up and cross‐cutting government, there has been only limited work to address the potential recognised by the Commission for these initiatives to result in unclear accountabilities. This paper reviews accountability approaches to joined‐up government and identifies that while the sharing of accountability for outcomes has emerged quietly over the past 25 years, joining‐up initiatives are demanding a clearer articulation of causal relationships regarding the sharing of outcomes and a fuller consideration of the multiple relationships in the partnership arrangements involved.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The collaborative whole-of-government approach incorporated health considerations into the decision-making process across all sectors.
“This collaborative approach minimised conflicting departmental objectives, enhanced policy coherence and accountability (Greer & Lillvis, 2014), and incorporated health considerations into the decision-making process across all sectors (Wilkins, 2002).”
From Advancing progressive health policy to reduce NCDs amidst international commercial opposition: Tobacco standardised packaging in Australia (2018) · cites this paper as Wilkins, 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Crosbie, E., Thomson, G., Freeman, B., & Bialous, S. (2018) · Global Public Health · doi:10.1080/17441692.2018.1443485 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wilkins, P.
- Affiliations
- Government of Western Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Wilkins, Peter
- ORCID
- Wilkins, Peter
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Public Administration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 114-119
- ISSN
- 0313-6647 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8500
- OpenAlex
- W2034473648
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 10.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australian Journal of Public Administration (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration in Developing Nations
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- whole-of-government approach, accountability, service coordination, outcome accountability, partnership arrangements, causal relationship, public sector coordination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
