- Government Failure
The logical starting point of the analytical framework of this evaluation is government failure. Here government failure exists through inadequate collection of vital statistical data. Government failure also exists in regards to the education of the public in understanding the issues faced in the collection of such data. Both of these failures impact heavily on the ability to collect the statistically consistent data needed for accurate policy implementation and resource distribution.
Primarily it is necessary to look at coordination issues in and between government departments and key social sectors in regards to statistical consistency. Without basic institutional coordination in this regard there is little chance of achieving any long term positive outcomes. Secondarily it is also of great importance to promote education on the issue. This will likely only effectively occur should the primary issue of institutional coordination be resolved.
The use of this framework also allows for the implementation of a complementary framework[1]. A comparative institutional analysis will be used in order to look at foreign alternatives for the redesign ofNew Zealand’s current ethnic data collection systems.
- Comparative institutional Analysis
In order to provide the best possible outcomes in regards to a potential policy transfer to aNew Zealandsetting it is deemed prudent to use a comparative institutional analysis approach.
A most similar design will be used to choose the relevant institutions to implement this framework.[2] The national statistical organizations ofCanada andAustralia have been chosen based on similarities in their history, culture, political institutions and their experiences with contemporary ethnicity issues much like those thatNew Zealand faces.
Canadawas chosen as a comparative example due to it having previously faced similar ‘Nationality’ ethnicity issues as New Zealand. In 2001, twenty three percent of Canadian nationals were reported to have listed ‘Canadian’ as their only ethnicity, whilst another sixteen percent listed ‘Canadian’ and ‘other’ as their ethnicities.[3][4]
Australiawas chosen as a comparative example due to it being the New Zealand’s closest neighbour and thus experiencing somewhat parallel problems due to a relatively similar ethnic make up.[5]
Ultimately, I believe that a most similar design is the most relevant form of selecting compatible institutions and a qualitative focused comparison approach is most effective method of finding any suitable policy transfers for this policy issue.[6] This methodology allows for the chance of a workable policy transfer[7] which is a desired outcome of this policy analysis.
[1]Mintrom, Michael. (2011) Contemporary Policy Analysis. New York: OxfordUniversity Press 189-208
[2] Hague, Rod, and Martin Harrop, eds. Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction.New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
[3]Harder, Lois. “‘In Canada of All Places’: National Belonging and the Lost Canadians.” Citizenship Studies 14, no. 2 (2010): 203-20.
[4] Thomas, Derrick. (2005) “I am Canadian.” Canadian Social Trends 11, no.008 (2005)1-7 Ontario; Statistics Canada
[5]Treliving, Victoria. (2001). Comparison of the measurement of ethnicity in Australia and New Zealand : Review of the Measurement of Ethnicity: main paper. Wellington: StatisticsNew Zealand.
[6] Hague, Rod, and Martin Harrop, eds. Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction.New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
[7]Dolowitz, David and Marsh D. “Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making.” Governance 13, No. 1(2000); 5