Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:11:03.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federalism Versus Centralisation: Organizational Design and Public Broadcasting in America and Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Glyn Davis
Glyn Davis
Affiliation:
Commerce and Administration, Griffith University, Brisbane
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following Wildavsky's argument that a federal bias is often the best principle for organising public policy, this study compares two national public broadcasting systems: the diffuse pattern of multiple agencies used in the United States of America and the highly centralized design employed in Australia. The paper examines whether each structure can respond to an audience while resisting the partisan demands of politicians. Significant advantages are found in the American model, though the question arises of whether participation and editorial independence in public broadcasting are bought at the cost of efficiency and effectiveness.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 195 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (1985), The Role of a National Broadcaster in Contemporary Australia, Sydney: ABC.Google Scholar
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (1987), Annual Report 1986/7, Sydney: ABC.Google Scholar
Barnouw, E., (1966),A Tower In Babel, (A History of Broadcasting in the United States, Volume I–to 1933), New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnouw, E., (1970), The Image Empire, (A History of Broadcasting in the United States, Volume III – from 1953), New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnouw, E., (1975), Tube of Plenty, The Evolution of American Television, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, A., (1961), The Birth of Broadcasting, ‘The History of Broadcasting In the United Kingdom, Volume I’, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cater, D., (1976), ‘The Haphazard Business of Institution Building’, in Cater, D., and M.J., Nyhan, (eds), The Future of Public Broadcasting, New York: Praeger, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, (1967), Public Television: a program for action, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, (1987), Public Broadcasting Statistics In Brief, Washington: CPB.Google Scholar
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, (1988), Report to the People, ‘1987 Annual Report’, Washington: CPB.Google Scholar
Davis, G., (1987), ‘Aaron Wildavsky, Public Policy and the Problem of State Action’, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 52, pp. 90–96.Google Scholar
Davis, G. (1988), Breaking Up the ABC, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Dix, A. et al. , (1981), The ABC In Review: National Broadcasting in the 1980s, ‘Report by the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’, five volumes, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
Freeman, G. P., (1985), ‘National Styles and Policy Sectors: explaining structured variation’, Journal of Public Policy, 5, 4, pp. 467–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, G. H., (1977), Public Broadcasting: the role of the federal government 1912–76, New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Harding, R., (1985), ‘Australia: broadcasting in the political battle’, in Kuhn, R., (ed.), The Politics of Broadcasting, New York: St Martin's Press, pp. 233–263.Google Scholar
Head, S. W., (1976), Broadcasting In America, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, third edition.Google Scholar
Heidenheimer, A. J., (1985), ‘Comparative Public Policy at the Crossroads’, Journal of Public Policy, 5,4, pp. 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglis, K., (1983), This is the ABC, Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, R. S., (1940), Ariel and all his Quality – An Impression of the BBC From Within, London: Gollancz.Google Scholar
McKay, R. B., (1976), ‘Financing: problem or symptom?’, in Cater, D., and Nyhan, M.J., (eds), The Future of Public Broadcasting, New York: Praeger, pp. 141–159.Google Scholar
Mayntz, R. and Scharpf, F. W., (1975), Policy-Making in the German Federal Bureaucracy, New York: Elsener.Google Scholar
Moe, T. H., (1988), ‘The Politics of Structural Choice: toward a theory of public bureaucracy’, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Mundy, G., (1982), “Free-Enterprises” or “Public Service”? The origins of broadcasting in the U.S., U.K., and Australia’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 18, 3, pp. 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurick, J., (1987), Mandate To Govern, Perth: Australian Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Pressman, J. L. and Wildavsky, A., (1984), Implementation, Berkeley: University of California Press, third edition.Google Scholar
Rowland, W. D., (1976), ‘Public Involvement: the anatomy of a myth’, in Cater, D. and Nyhan, M. J., (eds), The Future of Public Broadcasting, New York: Praeger, pp. 109–139.Google Scholar
Sterling, C. H., (1984), Electronic Media, ‘A Guide to Trends in Broadcasting and Newer Technologies 1920–1983’, New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Thomas, A., (1980), Broadcast and Be Damned, Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
WGBH, (1988), Annual Report 1987–1388, WGBH: Boston.Google Scholar
White, S., (1987), ‘Our Public Television Experiment’, The Public Interest, 88, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A., (1979), ‘A Bias Toward Federalism’, in Speaking Truth To Power: The art and craft of policy analysis, Boston: Little Brown, pp. 142–154.Google Scholar