The Governance of World Trade focuses on the roles, influence and impacts of the so-called 'GATT operatives' or WTO practitioners. It is widely assumed that they have little influence on decisions and policies made, but, according to the authors, the GATT/WTO Secretariat has played an active role in promoting multilateral cooperation.This unique study of the internal operation of the GATT/WTO argues that the invisible yet indispensable international civil servants are the permanent machinery within the institution. They have, the authors ascertain, an important coordinating function and act according to a specific scale of values that transcend those of individual states, providing the continuity and the cement, the credibility and the connection among self-interest-driven states. The book concludes that as one of the most 'democratic' international organizations, operating on the principle of consensus, the WTO needs a creative Secretariat as a necessary condition for multilateral cooperation to work. Using case studies to analyse the workings of Secretariat officials in trade negotiations, and the influence and role of international civil servants, this book will be a fascinating read for a wide ranging audience including: political scientists and economists, international civil servants, think tanks, NGOs, and government agencies.

The first volume in a series of comparative studies within the ESRC's Whitehall Programme focuses on core executives in five parliamentary democracies comparing the Westminster model as in Australia, Canada and Britain with the continental democracies of Germany and the Netherlands showing how political leadership is shackled by a vast array of constraints, from globalisation to internal fragmentation and rationalisation, making a heroic model of decisive political leadership hard to sustain.

International Organizations (IOs) are vital institutions in world politics in which cross-border issues can be discussed and global problems managed. This path-breaking book shows the efforts that small states have made to participate more fully in IO activities. It draws attention to the challenges created by widened participation in IOs and develops an original model of the dilemmas that both IOs and small states face as the norms of sovereign equality and the right to develop coincide. Drawing on extensive qualitative data, including more than 80 interviews conducted for this book, the authors find that the strategies which both IOs and small states adopt to balance their respective dilemmas can explain both continuity and change in their interactions with institutions ranging from UN agencies to the World Trade Organization.

International Organizations (IOs) are vital institutions in world politics in which cross-border issues can be discussed and global problems managed. This path-breaking book shows the efforts that small states have made to participate more fully in IO activities. It draws attention to the challenges created by widened participation in IOs and develops an original model of the dilemmas that both IOs and small states face as the norms of sovereign equality and the right to develop coincide. Drawing on extensive qualitative data, including more than 80 interviews conducted for this book, the authors find that the strategies which both IOs and small states adopt to balance their respective dilemmas can explain both continuity and change in their interactions with institutions ranging from UN agencies to the World Trade Organization.

International organisations (IOs) often receive a bad press, seen as intrusive, domineering and unresponsive to the needs of the people and countries they are meant to serve. The best way to understand the operation of these international organisations is to bring together those who represent their countries at IOs and those who have been working at IOs at various capacities and then to listen to their experiences. This book develops an alternative approach to the analysis of IOs that takes account of all those involved, whether state representatives, IO leaders and members of the secretariat. Experts with long experience in the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, WIPO, the FAO and the WHO at senior level consider the workings of the IOs, and a conclusion that explicitly draws out the comparative lessons and contrasts the insights of practitioners from those of external observers. This book takes an alternative approach to the analysis of IOs that takes account of all those involved, whether state representatives, IO leaders and members of the secretariat. Providing a well-informed, innovative and consistently structured analysis of IOs this work will be of interest to students and scholars of international relations, international organizations and global governance.

International organisations (IOs) often receive a bad press, seen as intrusive, domineering and unresponsive to the needs of the people and countries they are meant to serve. They are also seen as sclerotic bureaucracies, unable to move fast or to solve the intractable problems of the countries that need their assistance. The best way to understand the operation of these international organisations is to bring together those who represent their countries at IOs and those who have been working at IOs at various capacities and then to listen to their experiences.

The book will set the scene through a theoretical introduction to ask the questions, and then features chapters on each IO from experts, with comments and additional insights from experienced practitioners or observers, and a conclusion that explicitly draws out the comparative lessons and contrasts the insights of practitioners from those of external observers. It seeks to develop an alternative approach to the analysis of IOs that takes account of all those involved, whether state representatives, IO leaders and members of the secretariat. .

Providing a well informed, innovative and consistently structured analysis of IOs this work will be of interest to students and scholars of international relations, international organizations and global governance.

Australia faces major challenges to its forms of governance. Changing expectations from its citizens, global pressures on the economy and technological innovation are impacting on government operations. Yet most of its institutions were designed a hundred years ago. Cabinet government was inherited. Parliament was already established in its forms and procedures. The federal structure, the High Court and the federal public service were created as a consequence. The party structure has been effectively frozen since the 1920s and a tradition of handing some responsibilities to arms-length organisations was well established. So how have these institutions changed over the last hundred years and how well will they adapt to the demands of the modern world? Do they have the capacity to adapt appropriately and enable governments to achieve their preferred outcomes? In this book experienced academics and practitioners explore these questions. They examine each of the institutions in terms of their ability to meet new challenges and provide some hope that Australia's institutions, even if at times slow to move and dominated by internal interests, have a capacity to adapt and govern effectively. The book shows our political institutions in a new light, as dynamic, often flexible organisms; it provides important new insights into the way we are governed and how our system of governance might develop in the future.

Australia faces major challenges to its forms of governance. Changing expectations from its citizens, global pressures on the economy and technological innovation are impacting on government operations. Yet most of its institutions were designed a hundred years ago. Cabinet government was inherited. Parliament was already established in its forms and procedures. The federal structure, the High Court and the federal public service were created as a consequence. The party structure has been effectively frozen since the 1920s and a tradition of handing some responsibilities to arms-length organisations was well established.So how have these institutions changed over the last hundred years and how well will they adapt to the demands of the modern world? Do they have the capacity to adapt appropriately and enable governments to achieve their preferred outcomes? In this book experienced academics and practitioners explore these questions. They examine each of the institutions in terms of their ability to meet new challenges and provide some hope that Australia's institutions, even if at times slow to move and dominated by internal interests, have a capacity to adapt and govern effectively. The book shows our political institutions in a new light, as dynamic, often flexible organisms; it provides important new insights into the way we are governed and how our system of governance might develop in the future.

Comparing Westminster explores how the governmental elites in Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa understand their Westminster system. It examines in detail four interrelated features of Westminster systems. Firstly, the increasing centralization in collective, responsible cabinet government. Second, the constitutional convention of ministerial and collective responsibility. Third, the role of a professional, non-partisan public service. And finally, parliament's relationship to the executive. The authors explain the changes that have occured in the Westminster model by analyzing four traditions: royal prerogative, responsible government, constitutional bureaucracy, and representative government. They suggest that each tradition has a recurring dilemma, between centralization and decentralization, party government and ministerial responsibility, professionalization and politicization, and finally elitism and participation. They gone on to argue that these dilemmas recur in four present-day debates: the growth of prime ministerial power, the decline in individual and collective ministerial accountability, politicisation of the public service, and executive dominance of the legislature.
Comparing Westminster concludes by identifying five meanings of--or narratives about--Westminster. Firstly, 'Westminster as heritage'--elite actors' shared governmental narrative understood as both precedents and nostalgia. Second, 'Westminster as political tool'--the expedient cloak worn by governments and politicians to defend themselves and criticize opponents. Third, 'Westminster as legitimising tradition'--providing legitimacy and a context for elite actions, serving as a point of reference to navigate this uncertain world. Fourth, 'Westminster as institutional category'--it remains a useful descriptor of a loose family of governments with shared origins and characteristics. Finally, 'Westminster as an effective political system'--it is a more effective and efficient political system than consensual parliamentary governments. Westminster is a flexible family of ideas that is useful for many purposes and survives, even thrives, because of its meaning in use to elite actors."

The first volume in a series of comparative studies within the ESRC's Whitehall Programme focuses on core executives in five parliamentary democracies comparing the Westminster model as in Australia, Canada and Britain with the continental democracies of Germany and the Netherlands showing how political leadership is shackled by a vast array of constraints, from globalisation to internal fragmentation and rationalisation, making a heroic model of decisive political leadership hard to sustain.

Prime ministers are presented as ever-more powerful figures; at the same time they seem to fail more regularly. How can the public image be so different from the apparent experience? This book seeks to answer this conundrum. It examines the myth that prime ministers are growing more powerful or that prime ministerial government has replaced cabinet government, and explores the way that prime ministers work and how they use the available levers of power to build support across the political system. Prime ministers have the potential to exercise extensive power; to do so they need to exercise the skills and opportunities available: that is, they need to develop the prime ministers' craft. Using evidence from four countries with similar Westminster systems, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand, the analysis starts at the centre by examining how prime ministers reach office and how they understand their new job - those who win elections see it differently from those who replace leaders from the same party. The book then analyses the support prime ministers have from their Prime Ministers Offices and the Cabinet Offices, exploring their relations with ministers and the way they run and use their cabinet, and explains how governments work and why prime ministers are so central to their success. The book then explores their role as public figures selling the government to the parliament and the electorate and to the international community beyond. The Prime Ministers' Craft concludes by assessing how success can be judged and identifies how the different institutional arrangements have an impact on the way prime ministers work and the degree to which they are accountable.

Why is cabinet government so resilient? Despite many obituaries, why does it continue to be the vehicle for governing across most parliamentary systems? Comparing Cabinets answers these questions by examining the structure and performance of cabinet government in five democracies: the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Australia. The book is organised around the dilemmas that cabinet governments must solve: how to develop the formal rules and practices that can bring predictability and consistency to decision making; how to balance good policy with good politics; how to ensure cohesion between the factions and parties that constitute the cabinet while allowing levels of self-interest to be advanced; how leaders can balance persuasion and command; and how to maintain support through accountability at the same time as being able to make unpopular decisions. All these dilemmas are continuing challenges to cabinet government, never solvable, and constantly reappearing in different forms. Comparing distinct parliamentary systems reveals how traditions, beliefs, and practices shape the answers. There is no single definition of cabinet government, but rather arenas and shared practices that provide some cohesion. Such a comparative approach allows greater insight into the process of cabinet government that cannot be achieved in the study of any single political system, and an understanding of the pressures on each system by appreciating the options that are elsewhere accepted as common beliefs.

Drawing on extensive interviews with current and former ministers, ministerial staffers, and senior officials, this in-depth examination offers insight into the Australian political and democratic processes. Exploring the lives of Australia’s federal ministers at work, this revealing account investigates how a new ministry learns and adapts to the responsibilities of governing as well as the means by which ministers learn to juggle time and other resources in their simultaneous, and sometimes conflicting, roles—as members of Parliament and Cabinet, as local constituency representatives, and as media spokespersons.

Comparing Westminster explores how the governmental elites in Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa understand their Westminster system. It examines in detail four interrelated features of Westminster systems. Firstly, the increasing centralization in collective, responsible cabinet government. Second, the constitutional convention of ministerial and collective responsibility. Third, the role of a professional, non-partisan public service. And finally, parliament's relationship to the executive. The authors explain the changes that have occured in the Westminster model by analyzing four traditions: royal prerogative, responsible government, constitutional bureaucracy, and representative government. They suggest that each tradition has a recurring dilemma, between centralization and decentralization, party government and ministerial responsibility, professionalization and politicization, and finally elitism and participation. They gone on to argue that these dilemmas recur in four present-day debates: the growth of prime ministerial power, the decline in individual and collective ministerial accountability, politicisation of the public service, and executive dominance of the legislature.
Comparing Westminster concludes by identifying five meanings of--or narratives about--Westminster. Firstly, 'Westminster as heritage'--elite actors' shared governmental narrative understood as both precedents and nostalgia. Second, 'Westminster as political tool'--the expedient cloak worn by governments and politicians to defend themselves and criticize opponents. Third, 'Westminster as legitimising tradition'--providing legitimacy and a context for elite actions, serving as a point of reference to navigate this uncertain world. Fourth, 'Westminster as institutional category'--it remains a useful descriptor of a loose family of governments with shared origins and characteristics. Finally, 'Westminster as an effective political system'--it is a more effective and efficient political system than consensual parliamentary governments. Westminster is a flexible family of ideas that is useful for many purposes and survives, even thrives, because of its meaning in use to elite actors."