Conclusion

These findings suggest that the application of a discursive institutionalist framework provides a useful addition to earlier functionalist explanations of federalism, illuminating the ‘creative relationship with an institutional envi­ronment' (Hay and Wincott 1998, p.

My research suggests that the practices of intergovernmental management are neither frozen into stasis by path dependency, nor are they rendered irrel­evant and ineffective by exogenous interest equilibria. Rather, new avenues for change may be opened up by making the practice of intergovernmental man­agement conscious and reflective (Schon 1983) and by changing the discourses themselves; for example, by opening up new strategic possibilities through deliberately fashioning new narratives around the importance of interper­sonal networks and information exchange.

Finally, this research suggests intergovernmental management should become a focus for research and teaching in public policy, as a distinct class of important and influential bureaucratic work that is learned and practised over many years. Such longevity contributes to the relationships between officials, the depth of their technical expertise and their capacity for innovation. It is only appropriate that we foster that commitment, and recognize the contribu­tion of those officials who are, indeed, ‘swimming outside the flags'.

References

Abbott, A. (2014). Sir Henry Parkes commemorative dinner, Tenterfield, October..

Beland, D. and A. Lecours (2011). The ideational dimension of federalism: the ‘Australian model' and the politics of equalisation in Canada. Australian Journal of Political Science 46(2):1gg-212.

Borriello, A. and A. Crespy (2015). How to not speak the ‘F-word': federalism between mirage and imperative in the euro crisis. European Journal of Political Research 543:502-524.

Botterill, L. C. (2007). Managing intergovernmental relations in Australia: the case of agricultural policy cooperation. Australian Journal of Public Administration 662:186-197.

Benz, A. and J. Broschek (eds) (2013). Federal Dynamics: Continuity, Change, and the Varieties of Federalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Broschek,J. (2011). Conceptualizing and theorizing constitutional change in federal systems: insights from historical institutionalism. Regional and Federal Studies 21(4-5):539-559.

Broschek, J. (2013). Between path dependence and gradual change: historical insti­tutionalism and the study of federal dynamics, in A. Benz and J. Broschek (eds), FederalDynamics: Continuity, Change, and the Varieties of Federalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, A. J. (2014). Australian Constitutional Values Survey 2014. Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University.

Burgess, M. (1993) ‘Federalism as Political Ideology: Interests, Benefits and Beneficiaries in Federalism and Federation’ in M. Burgess & A. Gagnon (Eds.), in Comparative Federalism and Federation: Competing traditions and future directions. Hemel Hempstead:Harvester Wheatsheaf:102-114.

Burgess, M. (2012). In Search of the Federal Spirit: New Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives in Comparative Federalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cappocia, G. and R. Kelemen. (2007). The study of critical junctures: narrative and counterfactuals in institutionalism. World Politics 59:341-369.

Cho, C.-L.

Conlan, T. J. and P. L. Posner (2008). Introduction: intergovernmental management and the challenges ahead, in T. J. Conlan and P. L. Posner (eds), Intergovernmental Management for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press:1-10.

De Ville, F. and J. Orbie (2014), The European commission’s neoliberal trade discourse since the crisis: legitimizing continuity through subtle discursive change. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 161:149-167.

DiIulio, J. D. (1994). Principled agents: the cultural bases of behavior in a federal government bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4(3^277-318.

Hardy, C. and S. Maguire (2010). Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention. Academy of Management Journal 536:1365-1392.

Harwood, J. and J. Phillimore (2012). The Effects of coag’s National Reform Agenda on Central Agencies, ANZSOG research report. Melbourne: anzsog.

Hay, C. (2011). Ideas and the construction of interests, in D. Beland and R. Cox (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 65-82.

Hay, C. and Wincott, D. (1998) ‘Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism'. Political Studies, 46:(5):95i-957.

Hays, S. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociological Theory 12(1):57-72.

Hollander, R. and H. Patapan (2007). Pragmatic federalism: Australian federalism from Hawke to Howard. Australian Journal of Public Administration 663:280-297.

Hood, C. and M. Lodge (2006). The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward, Competency, Loyalty and Blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Inwood, G. J., C. Johns and P. L. O'Reilly (2011). Intergovernmental Policy Capacity in Canada: Inside the Worlds of Finance, Environment, Trade, and Health. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Jabko, N. and A. Sheingate (2018). Practices of dynamic order. Perspectives on Politics 162:312-327.

Jackson, G. (2010). ‘Actors and institutions', in G. Morgan, JL. Campbell, C. Crouch, O.K. Pedersen, and R. Whitley (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis Oxford: Oxford University Press: 63:86.

Lowndes, V. and L. Pratchett (2005). How ‘rules-in-use' enable, or constrain, local polit­ical participation. Paper presented at Workshop 19, ecpr Joint Sessions, Granada.

Marando, V. and P. Florestano (1990). Intergovernmental management: the state of the discipline, in N. Lynn and A. Wildavsky (eds), Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers: 287-317.

Mason, C. and M. Moran (2018). Social enterprise and policy discourse: a comparative analysis of the United Kingdom and Australia. Policy and Politics, 46 (4): 607-626.

O'Toole, L. J. (1988). Strategies for intergovernmental management: implement­ing programs in interorganizational networks. International Journal of Public Administration 114:417-441.

Phillimore,J. and A. Fenna (2017). Intergovernmental councils and centralization in Australian federalism. Regional and Federal Studies 27(5^597-621.

Phillimore, J. and J. Harwood (2015). Intergovernmental relations in australia: increasing engagement within a centralizing dynamic, in J. Poirier, C. Saunders and J. Kincaid (eds), Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Systems: Comparative Structures and Dynamics. Forum of Federations/Forum des federations, International Association of Centers for Federal Studies, Don Mills Ontario: Oxford University Press: 42-80.

Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 111:303-326.

Schmidt, V. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism'. European Political Science Review 21:1-25.

Schmidt, V. (2011). Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation. Critical Policy Studies 52:106-126.

Schmidt, V. (2017). Arguing about the Eurozone crisis: a discursive institutionalist analysis. Critical Policy Studies 74:455-462.

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Selsky, J. W., A. Spicer and J. Teicher (2003) ‘Totally un-Australian!’: discursive and insti­tutional interplay in the Melbourne port dispute of 1997-98. Journal of Management Studies 407:1729-1760.

Smith, R. and A. Brown (2017). Beyond ‘sovereign spheres’: public officials’ views on allo­cating policy responsibilities in the Australian federation, in M. Bruerton, T. Arklay, R. Hollander and R. Levy (eds), A People's Federation. Sydney: Federation Press.

Thelen, K. and S. Karcher (2013). Resilience and change in federal institutions: the case of the German Federal Council, in A. Benz and J. Broschek (eds), Federal Dynamics: Continuity, Change, and the Varieties of Federalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, D. and D. Krane (1998) Intergovernmental management, inJ. Shafritz (ed.), The International Enclopedia ofPublic Policy and Administration. Boulder: Westview Press:1162-1168.

Yeatman, A. (1991). Tasks for intergovernmental management, in J. Uhr (ed.), Program Evaluation. Canberra: Federalism Research Centre, anu.