The social inclusion policy agenda in Australia: a case of old wine,new bottles?

The election of an Australian Labor Government in Australia in 2007 saw ‘social inclusion’ emerge as the official and overarching social policy agenda. Being ‘included’ was subsequently defined by the ALP Government as being able to ‘have the resources, opportunities and capabilities needed to learn, work, engage and have a voice‘. Various researchers in Australia demonstrated an interest in social inclusion, as it enabled them to construct a multi‐dimensional framework for measuring disadvantage. This research program resulted in various forms of statistical modelling based on some agreement about what it means to be included in society. The multi‐dimensional approach taken by academic researchers, however, did not necessarily translate to a new model of social policy development or implementation. We argue that, similar to the experience of the UK, Australia's social inclusion policy agenda was for the most part narrowly and individually defined by politicians and policy makers, particularly in terms of equating being employed with being included. We conclude with discussion about the need to strengthen the social inclusion framework by adopting an understanding of social inequality and social justice that is more relational and less categorical.     

What might Normalisation Process Theory bring to policy implementation studies? Learning lessons and uncovering questions through a case study of the profound implementation failure of a new policing policy

Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), used nationally and internationally to explore implementation within health services research, is used for the first time within policing to understand profound policy implementation failure and to generate broader discussion of policy implementation theory. The policy in question (Police to Primary Care [P2PC]) was an intervention designed to notify GPs when women are assessed by police as at high risk of future domestic abuse. Designed to improve interagency communication, it took place amidst radical organisational change. Using qualitative interviews with domestic abuse specialist and frontline officers, this paper addresses how NPT helps to explain the (non)implementation of P2PC, how such an analysis differs from other policy implementation approaches, and what this means for our understandings of policy implementation more broadly. NPT proved useful in understanding mechanisms leading to (non)implementation of the intervention: fuzzy alignment with existing practice, faulty communication of purpose, and inattention to discretionary implementation spaces. It helped us understand why the intervention came to be invisible. Dwarfed by its organisational context, made institutionally hard to read by a lack of formal protocols, and given restricted view to police officers, it was compromised by a failure to instigate systems of organisational learning. More broadly, NPT helped reveal practices intersecting top‐down and bottom‐up implementation theory. The paper concludes by asking how NPT and theories of street‐level bureaucracy might be better used in tandem and, particularly, how this might help explorations of policy implementation where human actors are joined by technological actors in interpreting and making policy in vivo.