Branding and Franchising a Public Policy: The Case of the Gateway Review Process 2001-2010

David Marsh, Paul FAWCETT

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    6 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    One of the more interesting features of contemporary policy-making is the way in which certain policies and administrative processes have been branded. While this is not yet a common feature, it does appear to be one that is increasing in importance. This article looks at the phenomenon through a consideration of one particularly interesting case; the Gateway Review Process (subsequently Gateway), a policy with a related set of administrative processes which is both branded and franchised. Gateway also seems a successful example of a much more common feature of contemporary policy making: policy transfer. It has been transferred from the UK to five Australian jurisdictions, New Zealand and Holland. This article examines the extent to which the branding, and indeed the franchising, of Gateway is responsible for the putative success of that transfer. We begin with a very brief consideration of the literature on branding and franchising to situate our discussion, before outlining the ways in which branding and politics intersect. In the main part of the article we focus on the branding of public policy and on the Gateway case
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)246-258
    Number of pages13
    JournalAustralian Journal of Public Administration
    Volume70
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2011

    Fingerprint

    franchising
    public policy
    jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    politics

    Cite this

    @article{aeeab6a0127e49fda98028dbc8749592,
    title = "Branding and Franchising a Public Policy: The Case of the Gateway Review Process 2001-2010",
    abstract = "One of the more interesting features of contemporary policy-making is the way in which certain policies and administrative processes have been branded. While this is not yet a common feature, it does appear to be one that is increasing in importance. This article looks at the phenomenon through a consideration of one particularly interesting case; the Gateway Review Process (subsequently Gateway), a policy with a related set of administrative processes which is both branded and franchised. Gateway also seems a successful example of a much more common feature of contemporary policy making: policy transfer. It has been transferred from the UK to five Australian jurisdictions, New Zealand and Holland. This article examines the extent to which the branding, and indeed the franchising, of Gateway is responsible for the putative success of that transfer. We begin with a very brief consideration of the literature on branding and franchising to situate our discussion, before outlining the ways in which branding and politics intersect. In the main part of the article we focus on the branding of public policy and on the Gateway case",
    keywords = "branding, franchising, policy transfer",
    author = "David Marsh and Paul FAWCETT",
    year = "2011",
    doi = "10.1111/J.1467-8500.2011.00729.X",
    language = "English",
    volume = "70",
    pages = "246--258",
    journal = "Australian Journal of Public Administration",
    issn = "0313-6647",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "3",

    }

    Branding and Franchising a Public Policy: The Case of the Gateway Review Process 2001-2010. / Marsh, David; FAWCETT, Paul.

    In: Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2011, p. 246-258.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Branding and Franchising a Public Policy: The Case of the Gateway Review Process 2001-2010

    AU - Marsh, David

    AU - FAWCETT, Paul

    PY - 2011

    Y1 - 2011

    N2 - One of the more interesting features of contemporary policy-making is the way in which certain policies and administrative processes have been branded. While this is not yet a common feature, it does appear to be one that is increasing in importance. This article looks at the phenomenon through a consideration of one particularly interesting case; the Gateway Review Process (subsequently Gateway), a policy with a related set of administrative processes which is both branded and franchised. Gateway also seems a successful example of a much more common feature of contemporary policy making: policy transfer. It has been transferred from the UK to five Australian jurisdictions, New Zealand and Holland. This article examines the extent to which the branding, and indeed the franchising, of Gateway is responsible for the putative success of that transfer. We begin with a very brief consideration of the literature on branding and franchising to situate our discussion, before outlining the ways in which branding and politics intersect. In the main part of the article we focus on the branding of public policy and on the Gateway case

    AB - One of the more interesting features of contemporary policy-making is the way in which certain policies and administrative processes have been branded. While this is not yet a common feature, it does appear to be one that is increasing in importance. This article looks at the phenomenon through a consideration of one particularly interesting case; the Gateway Review Process (subsequently Gateway), a policy with a related set of administrative processes which is both branded and franchised. Gateway also seems a successful example of a much more common feature of contemporary policy making: policy transfer. It has been transferred from the UK to five Australian jurisdictions, New Zealand and Holland. This article examines the extent to which the branding, and indeed the franchising, of Gateway is responsible for the putative success of that transfer. We begin with a very brief consideration of the literature on branding and franchising to situate our discussion, before outlining the ways in which branding and politics intersect. In the main part of the article we focus on the branding of public policy and on the Gateway case

    KW - branding

    KW - franchising

    KW - policy transfer

    U2 - 10.1111/J.1467-8500.2011.00729.X

    DO - 10.1111/J.1467-8500.2011.00729.X

    M3 - Article

    VL - 70

    SP - 246

    EP - 258

    JO - Australian Journal of Public Administration

    JF - Australian Journal of Public Administration

    SN - 0313-6647

    IS - 3

    ER -