Abstract Governments are seeking innovative ways to address complex policy issues in increasingly fragmented and fiscally constrained service contexts. Co‐governance is a relatively new mechanism for facilitating collective decision‐making between government and other stakeholders. Effective co‐governance can be difficult to establish and resource‐ and time‐intensive to implement. This article presents findings from a study that aimed to develop a model for implementing effective co‐governance—relevant to both government and non‐government stakeholders. First, we developed a conceptual model of the co‐governance process based on a review of the literature. We then tested it in three very different co‐governance arrangements in Australia. Cross‐case analysis identified the drivers and process of co‐governance, components within each stage of the process, and factors that enabled its implementation. The model of co‐governance developed has practical application by guiding the implementation and evaluation of co‐governance and serving as a platform for future research. Points for practitioners Co‐governance—government and community sharing decision‐making—is being used to respond to complex issues but is not well understood. We develop an evidence‐based model of co‐governance using three Australian case studies. The model describes when to consider co‐governance, such as addressing complex, long‐term issues, where there are fragmented responsibilities, and where there is low trust. The model sets out the process to establish, implement, and monitor co‐governance and the factors that support this process. The model can be used by government and community organisations to consider whether co‐governance is appropriate and, if so, how to implement it. The model can also be a platform for future research.

Abstract The adoption of a blended workforce model, comprising both ongoing and non‐ongoing employees, has become increasingly common in public sector organisations. Despite known challenges, including high turnover and knowledge gaps, its impact on middle managers’ well‐being remains understudied. The study addresses this by exploring how the blended workforce model affects middle manager well‐being within the Australian Public Service (APS). Using qualitative interviews with 46 middle managers across five locations in Australia within one of the largest Departments in the APS, we reveal that adopting the blended workforce model created unintended consequences, including work intensification and stress among middle managers, adversely affecting both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well‐being. Our findings provide insights for organisations adopting similar workforce models and contribute to understanding the well‐being impacts of public sector workforce reforms on middle managers. Points for practitioners Targeted support mechanisms for middle managers, including mentoring, HR support, training on managing diverse workforce compositions, and creating channels for feedback, should be developed. Comprehensive transition and integration strategies with clear role definitions and expectations for both ongoing and non‐ongoing employees should be created. Middle managers should be involved in planning and decision‐making in people‐related changes. The unintended consequences of blended workforce models, particularly impacts on middle manager well‐being, should be considered.

Abstract This study explores the relationship between public sector reform (PSR) and the reduction of administrative burdens (ABs), expanding the focus from government–citizen to government–business interactions. It introduces a framework aimed at reducing ABs in business settings, linking PSR to improvements in the business ecosystem. Using enterprise survey data, the study's multivariable regression models demonstrate that government reforms significantly enhance the business ecosystem. Recognising potential endogeneity, the study employs the historical timing of port openings in the ancient China as an instrumental variable. The instrumental variable regression analysis confirms the positive impact of PSRs, even after accounting for endogeneity. This research extends administrative burden theory and offers valuable insights for developing countries like China, suggesting that targeted government reforms can foster economic growth.Points for practitioners This paper introduces a new approach for developing countries like China to enhance the business ecosystem through public sector reform. Reducing administrative burdens is crucial for improving the business ecosystem and guiding targeted policy reforms. Utilising technologies like AI and 5G to reduce administrative burdens is effective, but reforms should be tailored to specific country contexts.

Abstract This study examines the role of nonprofit organisations established and operated by Arab citizens of Israel that work with youth in government policies aimed at integrating the Arab population and addressing community violence. Using content analysis of government documents and interviews, we investigate how this co‐production is evident in financial support, regulation, monitoring, and inclusive governance. Our findings highlight cultural differences affecting the relationship between the third sector and the government, as well as challenges in top‐down policy implementation and co‐production with Arab local governments in Israel. This paper's findings reveal a paradox in co‐production within Israeli local governance. Arab non‐profit employees, despite dissatisfaction with top‐down policies, see state‐mandated co‐production as necessary due to local government failures. The unitary nature of Israel's government limits local autonomy and non‐profit effectiveness, constraining them to service delivery roles. This centralised neo‐Weberian model restricts non‐profits from participating in policy design, highlighting contradictions in the co‐production process and reflecting broader challenges in public administration and third‐sector collaboration.Points for practitioners More inclusive and participatory policy frameworks should be advocated to accommodate the unique characteristics and needs of the specific population. Joint resource mobilisation efforts should be encouraged to help non‐profit managers reduce dependency on state funding and enhance financial sustainability. The challenges and cultural disparities between the state and minority groups that impact co‐production between non‐profits and government, particularly in regulatory procedures and policy implementation, should be understood.

Abstract This article analyses the trajectory and reform model in the integration of all Indonesian government R&D institutions into a single agency, the National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BRIN). Based on the two ideal types of Weberian–entrepreneurial bureaucracy models, the BRIN case shows a ‘maintain’ trajectory in the aspects of formal structure and Weberian organisational model and a ‘modernise’ trajectory in the aspects of administrative procedures and processes. This hybrid approach fits the Neo‐Weberian State (NWS) model. However, merging all research organisations into a single agency contradicts current literature on innovation in bureaucracies, which defines NWS as a configuration of multiple organisations fostering agile stability. By integrating five types of innovation in bureaucracy, the reform reverts to a stability‐focused Weber I model. Efforts to create an agile bureaucracy are confined to internal procedures and services. To align with the NWS definition in the literature, BRIN's public managers play a key role as public value carriers, devising strategies for thematic‐led missions and building charismatic networks to promote the agencification of other innovation bureaucracies. This aims to fulfil BRIN's mission as an enabler of Indonesia's research and innovation ecosystem.Points for practitioners The Neo Weberian State (NWS) is a post‐New Public Management (NPM) reform model, evolving from the Weberian bureaucratic model and the entrepreneurial bureaucracy model. Public sector management reforms adhere to two ideal bureaucratic types, focusing on formal structures, civil service organisation, and internal procedures and processes. Reform trajectories can hybridise due to ideological influences, politico‐administrative systems, and practical contingencies, influencing the choice of mechanisms tailored to specific conditions. In the science, technology, and innovation sectors, NWS is perceived as a configuration of multiple organisations with differing bureaucratic characteristics (creators, doers, funders, facilitators, and regulators), aiming for agile stability. The integration of all Indonesian government research and development agencies into a single entity highlights the dominant role of public sector reformers or managers as public value carriers in the NWS reform model. Policy innovations in internal procedures and functions serve as breakthroughs used by public managers to address structural rigidity in the reform agenda. The integration of five types of bureaucratic innovation in the merger of all Indonesian government research agencies into a single entity connotes the need for BRIN public managers to adopt a ‘Moore’ style, employing more thematic‐led missions that foster broader growth and development of innovative bureaucratic agencies. This approach builds charismatic networks with other innovation ecosystem elements to fulfil BRIN's mission as an enabler of Indonesia's research and innovation ecosystem.

Abstract Remarkably little is known about what factors drive success or failure in foreign policy. In part, this is because there is little fundamental agreement on what constitutes success or failure in this domain in the first place. This article engages with these shortcomings by comparing two similar regional order‐building initiatives overseen by Australian leaders: Bob Hawke's establishment of APEC (Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation) in 1989, which is routinely celebrated as a success, and Kevin Rudd's Asia Pacific Community (APC) project, launched in 2008 and generally considered a failure. Despite their respective reputations, the reasons for the contrary outcomes in these cases are not as straightforward as might be assumed. Factors cited as chief reasons for the successful establishment of APEC—the creative middle power diplomacy embraced by Hawke's government and the diplomatic skill of envoy Richard Woolcott—were also present in the APC case. Meanwhile, the reasons typically offered for the failure of the APC initiative—that it had not been properly thought through when announced and hence surprised regional partners—are similarly true of the APEC example. Juxtaposing these cases reveals the highly contingent nature of success and failure in foreign policy while also calling attention to the influence of leadership, timing, and strategic narrative in determining these outcomes.Points for practitioners Foreign policy, as a domain of public policy domain, is distinguished by three mutually reinforcing qualities: the extreme dominance of the executive and especially the leader; its low salience; and low domestic political contestation. These ‘special’ characteristics of foreign policy amplify the challenges of assessing success and failure in this domain. When making foreign policy, states and their leaders seek to exert influence outside their domestic jurisdiction, beyond where they enjoy exclusive decision‐making authority. This elevates the degree of complexity and contingency potentially involved in achieving and attributing foreign policy ‘success’. Leadership, timing, and the ability to develop strategic narratives are especially important in determining foreign policy success and failure.

Abstract Citizen satisfaction with public services is an increasingly important governance concern. However, research on the sources of citizen satisfaction remains conceptually under‐developed. Moreover, there is an absence of clarity over expectations’ position in the satisfaction process. This paper, using the case of land administration in Vietnam, proceeds to improve the status quo. In particular, it introduces a more robust predictive model, based on latest cognitive and attitudinal theory, and evaluates key mediatory effects. Subsequently, regression analysis reveals (1) satisfaction is associated with one internal (i.e. expectations) and five external (i.e. socio‐demographic, structural, sociological, and performance) predictors; and (2) expectations are both a significant satisfaction predictor and a mediator of multiple satisfaction relationships. These findings, then, (1) suggest expectations play a more comprehensive and multi‐dimensional role vis‐à‐vis satisfaction than previously thought; and (2) underscore the value of interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks to citizen satisfaction research.Points for practitioners Holistic approaches addressing both internal and external satisfaction predictors should be considered. Governments and public service providers should actively manage citizen expectations. Robust feedback systems and transparent public service messaging can help foster long‐term satisfaction. Improving citizens' general perceptions of government should receive attention. Interventions should be tailored to the unique needs and characteristics of each jurisdiction or population group.

Abstract It is not uncommon that original aspirations of social policy go astray during implementation. Issues that are the focus of social policy are often tied to various competing social, political, and value positions, making them unfailingly ‘wicked’ and rendering the design and implementation of solutions inherently challenging. Such is the case with Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), which has been plagued by implementation problems and criticised for straying from its original objectives and principles. In this article, interview data from 31 stakeholders identify perceptions of congruence of the NDIS with its original objectives and values during the decade since inception, particularly focused on decision‐making of reasonable and necessary supports. The perceived shift from disability rights to fights for entitlements and changing narrative of cost containment is indicative not only of implementation challenges but the inevitability of ongoing value disputes that often plague complex social issues. At a time of major NDIS reform amid ongoing tensions and debates, goal clarity and better decision guidance remain critical for future policy design and implementation.Points for practitioners Perspectives from diverse stakeholders across Australia explore where and why the NDIS may have drifted away from its original values, especially pertaining to reasonable and necessary supports. While stakeholders identified cost, sustainability, and consistency as increasingly significant issues in NDIS implementation, initial rights‐based and person‐centred objectives envisioned during policy design were seen as retreating. The inherent value tensions and contestations within the reasonable and necessary criteria have been under‐recognised and inevitably persist in NDIS implementation. Critical insights for future policy reform can be gained from thinking about implementation issues and understanding when and why good intentions wander off course.

Abstract The ‘policy–implementation’ framework emerged in the 1970s to provide an academic and professional description of decisions and actions in public affairs, compatible with more open democracies with broader and more social agendas. It saw policies as designed and approved by governments with public services responsible for their implementation. This hierarchical simplicity was later softened by the introduction of the street‐level agenda and discussions of governance, but, in the administrative imaginary, policy and implementation continue to flow outwards and downwards. Whilst this may remain a plausible description of some public service settings, there are a growing number of others in which the everyday experience is radically different. Amongst these are services that require cross‐sector actions in complex and vulnerable settings and where policy is neither implemented nor translated but fragmented and rebuilt on a case‐by‐case basis. Is it sufficient to treat such cases as outliers, or is it time to rethink the curve? Could a public action framework provide a better option? The empirical focus of the article is on the policy–implementation framework for probation services for young people in São Paulo, Brazil, but similar challenges can be found in other areas in developing and developed countries.Points for practitioners For practitioners in street‐level organisations: remember that policies, directives, and other instructions need to be translated and sometimes they do not apply. For policy advisors: is the policy you are proposing capable of being translated into daily action? Does it converse with practice? For policymakers: take time out to meet with people who are trying to apply your policies in their day‐to‐day work.