000			01926nam a22002057a 4500
999			_c2601 _d2601
005			20220629150633.0
008			220629b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020			_a9781108748001
082			_a302.35 _bCOR
245			_aInstitutional memory as storytelling
260			_bCambridge University Press _aNew York _c2020
300			_a68 p.
365			_aGBP _b15.00
504			_aTable of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Whole of government processes and the creation of collective memories: the case of the Tasmanian Family Violence Action Plan 3. What happens with iterative conversations in cases of policy failure: the State of Victoria's smart metering program, Australia 4. Differentiated memories: the case of the UK's Zero Carbon Hub 5. Living Memories: the case of the New Zealand justice sector 6. Conclusion.
520			_aHow do bureaucracies remember? The conventional view is that institutional memory is static and singular, the sum of recorded files and learned procedures. There is a growing body of scholarship that suggests contemporary bureaucracies are failing at this core task. This Element argues that this diagnosis misses that memories are essentially dynamic stories. They reside with people and are thus dispersed across the array of actors that make up the differentiated polity. Drawing on four policy examples from four sectors (housing, energy, family violence and justice) in three countries (the UK, Australia and New Zealand), this Element argues that treating the way institutions remember as storytelling is both empirically salient and normatively desirable. It is concluded that the current conceptualisation of institutional memory needs to be recalibrated to fit the types of policy learning practices required by modern collaborative governance.
700			_aCorbett, Jack _97079
700			_aGrube, Dennis Christian _97080
700			_aLovell, Heather _97081
942			_2ddc _cBK