Which ideological perspective is most influential in Australian policy making today?
Major Essay
Which ideological perspective is most influential in Australian policy making today?
Words: 2.445
This paper will examine several aspects of past and contemporary Australian politics to determine which ideological perspective is most influential in Australian policymaking today. The paper will start by discussing the definitions of ideology and policymaking. The dominant three ideologies in Australian politics across time, Liberalism, Socialism and Conservatism, will then be discussed. This paper aims to show that while distinct ideologies have often been associated with political parties, ideological influences differ depending on the policy being made and the political climate. The fact that policymaking includes an array of disciplines such as health, education, security and the environment, means a range of ideological influences may surface within any given party. For this reason, along with obvious restrictions, this paper will target policy relating to economics. The two primary political parties, the Liberal/ National Coalition Party (Liberal) and the Australian Labor Party (Labor), will be used as comparisons. As many economic policies have been at the centre of political debate over time, the subject of taxation during the 2019 Federal election will be examined to determine the most influential ideological perspective.
This paper will start by discussing the definitions of ideology and policymaking. It is useful to understand these definitions to gauge their influence on, and relationship to, one another. The Oxford Dictionary simply defines ideology as a set of ideas that an economic or political system is based on (2020). Maddison and Denniss (2009, p. 39) agree with this but expand the definition to suggest that ideology is a worldview that allows us to interpret the way things are and the way they ought to be. Adams adds, ideologies are a guide to political action (1993, p. 6 cited in Maddison & Denniss, 2009, p. 39).
Freeden (2003, p. 32) suggests ideologies have common traits. These include exhibiting a recurring pattern, they are used by significant groups, they compete over providing and controlling plans for public policy and they possess the aim of justifying, contesting or changing the social and political arrangements and processes of a political community.
Maddison & Denniss (2009) contend that groups differ on policy prescriptions due to ideology, such as on issues like the place of the individual, the relevance of the market economy and public ownership, the rights of groups and individuals, the relevance of the family, faith and the environment. In this sense, ideologies are said to offer contrasting interpretations of essentially contested concepts, where an essentially contested concept is one which does not, and could not, have an agreed meaning (MacKenzie, 2003, p. 7). This suggests an actors ideology directly correlates with their policy goals. Although as this paper will show, disparate ideologies become apparent within the same political group, depending on the issue at hand and the wider political climate.
The Oxford Dictionary (2020) defines policymaking as the process of developing plans of action for a political party. This course of action is usually chosen by public authorities and developed in the presence of alternatives with the aim of targeting an issue or interrelated set of issues (Pal, 2014). Policies are chosen as they possess the most desired outcome in the circumstances and target a relevant and/or key problem (Brewer and de Leon, 1983). These commonly include laws, legislation, regulations, taxation, climate change, health, income levels and security.
Head & Crowley (2015) suggest the most powerful policymaking actor is the ruling parliamentary party. This is despite varied sources of legitimate policy advice from officials, other jurisdictions, advocates, think tanks, academics, commissions, committees and inquiries (Head & Crowley, 2015, p. 9). Critical of the effectiveness of governments, the two authors blame struggles over, ideas, values and interests of self-interested political parties. Moreover, policy is shaped by individuals with ideas in action within institutions (Hawker, Smith & Weller 1979, 13). This shaping concerns the ideology of the party.
To determine which ideology is most influential on our political parties and therefore on Australian policymaking today, a short discussion of the three dominant ideologies is useful.
According to Freeden (2003, p. 81), Liberalism is made up of several core assumptions. These are that humans are rational thinkers, individuals are the prime social unit and should be free to make their own choices, subscribers have reservations about unconstrained and unaccountable power with an overall goal of human and social progress. Liberals believe this is only possible in a democracy. The ideology champions human rights and condemns the unnecessary interference of states. Tolerance is another component, with equal rights and opportunities in terms of gender, race, religion and class. International cooperation such as through the United Nations is encouraged. The idea of providing welfare to the less privileged is also claimed by the ideology. Somewhat contradictorily, the ideology eventually embraced the idea of free markets.
Socialism, in contrast to Liberalism, sees the group as more important than the individual. A large influence is placed on equality. Employment is central, where an emphasis is placed on the importance of the working class. Furthermore, welfare should be provided by the state as part of a wider economic model which rejects the notion of free markets, and increases government control and ownership in relation to production, distribution and exchange of goods and services. The redistribution of wealth across society, usually through taxation, is also an assumption. Freeden (2003, p. 83) suggests that while Socialism claims the construction of the welfare state and continues to implement it, the concept was in fact a Liberal product. The political outcome of Socialism in countries such as Australia was a vigorous class agenda, where the rights of the worker are paramount. This laid the foundation for trade unions, improved working conditions and minimum wage agreements.
Conservatism is the third ideology, and according to Freeden (2003) the most dynamic and difficult to define of the three. As the name suggests, one proponent of Conservatism is an anxiety relating to unnatural change. Moreover, it supports the benefits of those already in positions of political, economic, and social power (2003, p. 89). Thus, fear is often used as a tool to maintain the status quo or invoke natural change. Unlike the other two ideologies, it has not developed a normative guideline, but rather, is reactive to the current threat and adapts accordingly. For example, members were paternalist and interventionist in the nineteenth century, assuming the vocation of protectors and governors of social order, whereas in the late twentieth century (in opposition to Socialism) they aligned themselves with advocates of the free market and minimum state intervention (Freeden, 2003, p. 87). The role of religion, the family unit and the rule of law are also often associated with the approach.
Most modern ideologies have boarded an institutional platform in the form of a political party. This is not surprising considering that ideologies are in competition over providing plans for public policy. Still, it would be problematic to assume that Conservatism or Liberalism are truly reflective of what conservative or liberal parties represent (Freeden, 2003, p. 78).
The Liberal Party of Australia is often labelled a Conservative group. The mission statement located on the partys website emphasises the family unit, the role of law, and freedom of thought, worship, speech and association (Liberal Party of Australia, 2020). However, it is also liberal, in the importance it places on the freedom of individuals, minimal interference from a smaller government and the free market with decreased taxation.
The Australian Labor Partys mission statement is more ambiguous. It highlights the Socialist concept of equality. It states, fairness at work, healthcare for everyone and access to quality education for everyone irrespective of class and background, is essential.
As mentioned by Freeden (2003), neither party is pure in the sense of a distinct ideology. While it appears more conservative, the Liberal party may also exhibit signs of the Liberalist ideology. Similarly, the Labor party is aligned with Socialism but also shows signs of Liberalism.
Regardless of who the ruling party is, Australia, along with most of the Western world, is considered a liberal democracy. Liberal democracies are defined by equal rights and liberties to individuals, including within law, property ownership (market economy), freedom of speech, free press, right to assembly and choice of faith. Individuals are said to freely determine the course of their own lives. The state only becomes involved when these freedoms are challenged. Where the Liberal and Labor parties disagree most is, when and to what extent the state should intervene. It is considered a democracy because every citizen has the right to vote and these votes will determine the ruling government (Persson and Savulescu, 2012, p.2).
Today, Maddison & Denniss (2009, pp. 41-42) suggest previous ideologies, such as the three discussed, have been boiled down to two competing approaches to policymaking. The first is market-focused (Neoliberalism), which may be linked to Conservativism and Liberalism. It advocates for a free market with minimal state interference in all areas of life. The Liberal Party is aligned with this approach. The second is state-focused, which may be linked to Socialism and Liberalism. It advocates for equality and collectivism where the state is needed to intervene to challenge the inequality of the market economy. The Labor Party is aligned with this approach.
Although the two main parties may be aligned with the two very different approaches, we have seen evidence of each party modifying their approaches based on the contemporary political climate. For example, during the Menzies era (1949-1966) the Liberal party was more interventionist in its economic policy and maintained Australia's high tarriff levels. Today Labor embraces more free market principles since the beginning of the 1980s. For example, Labor supported and implemented the dismantling of trade barriers and deregulation of industry. The Hawke and Keating governments are often cited as leading the country through Neoliberal (market-focused) reforms (Australian Labor Party, 2018; Badham, 2017). Furthermore, Labor has resolved to review their socialist objective, setting up a National Conference that will modernise existing language to adapt to contemporary politics (Australian Labor Party, 2018).
Dialogue is useful here to link an ideology to each party. The Economic Plan published on the Liberal Partys website portrays the market-focused approach often associated with the party. The Party boasts that over one and a half million new jobs have been created since 2013, the lowest level of welfare dependency in thirty years and lowered taxes for ten million Australians, including three million small businesses. The mission statement of the party attributes this success to lower taxes, reduced bureaucracy, and less state interference than their counterparts.
Labors National Platform from 2018 is evidence of the partys market-focused approach while maintaining its roots of state-control and Socialism. Labor acknowledges the need to encourage investment across the entire economy, including internationally, to increase productivity. It suggests government should actively shape and complement markets and address market failure through policy instruments such as expenditure, taxation, regulation and the provision of goods and services. This will lead to wealth being shared by the whole of society. Improving equity, reducing inequality, increasing housing affordability and making the tax system fairer are examples of the partys Socialist roots. Further, the Party suggests government should intervene to address market failures and the extremes of capitalism (Australian Labor Party, 2018).
This paper will now assess each partys respective policy response to a contemporary economic issue to determine which ideology has had most influence on their political stance. Taxation has always been a point of disagreement between the two parties thus it is a useful policy topic for comparison (SBS, 2019; Sydney Morning Herald, 2019). The federal election of 2019 saw a clash of taxation policies between the two parties, within an overarching argument of superior economic-management (Johnson, 2020). Their election campaigns and the contained policy plans provide good examples of their ideological influences.
Labor leader, Bill Shorten, in a Socialist fashion, argued that the taxation system under the Liberal government would benefit large companies and the wealthy. Thus, Labor promised to generate increased taxation revenue through targeting these companies. Labor would remove tax concessions in areas including share dividend imputation and negative gearing of investment properties. Labor also pledged to increase capital gains tax on investment properties (Johnson, 2020). Again, in Socialist and state-centred fashion, the party claimed to represent the working and middle-class, improving industrial relations, as opposed to the higher income earners.
The Liberals originally planned to cut corporate taxes but reneged. The party, illustrating the market-focus, claimed they represented an Australia where, if you have a go, you get a go. Where youre rewarded and respected for your efforts and contribution (Johnson, 2020, p. 41). In a display of the market-focused approach, Scott Morrison rhetorically asked at a pre-election rally in Northern Tasmania in 2019, Do you think your money is better off in your pocket or Bill Shortens pocket? (Nine News, 2019).
Labor was depicted by Liberal as being unfair in two ways, funding people who did not deserve it through welfare, whether real or perceived, and taking money from taxpayers who deserved to keep it (Johnson, 2020). There were clear Liberal, Neoliberal and market-focused influences in Morrisons arguments against increased taxing and big spending governments allegedly ripping off ordinary taxpayers for the sake of increased benefits and services (Johnson, 2020, p. 41).
Johnson supports the idea that a Conservative element also exists within the Liberal Party, stating, Morrisons belief in the fair go for those who have a go also reflected his Pentecostal religious belief(s) namely that the faithful who had wealth were being divinely rewarded while those who were poor similarly deserved it (2020, p. 41). Both Morrison and Shorten mentioned their would-be governments contributing state funding to hospitals and education, an example of the Liberalist and Neoliberalist notion that governments will intervene when it is necessary.
This paper has explored past and contemporary Australian politics to determine which ideological perspective is most influential in Australian policymaking today. The paper discussed the definitions of ideology and policymaking. During this discussion it was mentioned that political parties have the most power when it comes to policymaking. These parties are influenced by ideology. That ideology is then reflected in their policymaking arrangements. It was also demonstrated that although a specific ideology, such as Liberalism, Socialism and Conservatism, are often associated with a party, sometimes, due to the political climate, parties will implement policies that align with a competing ideology. The Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party were used to show that they have ideological roots, but in certain circumstances have implemented policymaking decisions outside of those ideologies. With the economic arguments of the 2019 Federal Election used as case study, it is evident that Neoliberalism and the market-focused approach are most influential on Australian policymaking today.
References
Adams, I 1993, State or market I: Ideology and public policy, in R Denniss & S Maddison (ed.), An Introduction to Australian Public Policy: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 39.
Australian Labor Party 2018, National Platform, viewed 23 April 2020, https://www.alp.org.au/media/1539/2018_alp_national_platform_constitution.pdf
Badham, V 2017, Australian Labor led centre-left parties into neoliberalism. Can they lead it out? The Guardian, viewed 20 April 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/06/australian-labor-led-centre-left-parties-into-neoliberalism-can-they-lead-it-outBrewer, G D & De Leon, P 1983, The Foundations of Policy Analysis, Brooks/Cole Publishing, California.
Freeden, M 2003, Ideology: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hawker, G, Smith, R and Weller, P 1979, 'The politics of advice and the making of the 1974 budget', Politics and Policy in Australia, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane.
Head, B & Crowley, K 2015, Police Analysis in Australia, Policy Press, Bristol.
Johnson, C 2020, The 2019 Australian Election, Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 38-51.
Liberal Party of Australia 2020 Our Beliefs, viewed 20 April 2020, https://www.liberal.org.au/our-beliefs
MacKenzie, I 2003, The idea of Ideology, in R Eccleshall, A Finlayson, V Geoghegan, M Kenny, M Lloyd, I MacKenzie & R Wilford (ed.), Political Ideologies, Routledge, London, p. 7.
Maddison, S & Denniss, R 2009, State or market I: Ideology and public policy, An Introduction to Australian Public Policy: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 39-56.
Maddison, S & Denniss, R 2009, State or market II: The economics of public policy, An Introduction to Australian Public Policy: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-81.
Oxford University Press 2020, ideology, Oxford Learners Dictionary, viewed 6 April 2020, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/ideology?q=ideology
Oxford University Press 2020, policymaking, Oxford Learners Dictionary, viewed 6 April 2020, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/policymaking?q=policymaking
Pal, L 2014, Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times, 5th edn, Nelson Education, Toronto.
Persson, I & Savulescu, J 2012, Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
SBS News 2019, Federal Election, viewed 10 April 2020, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/topic/2019-federal-electionSydney Morning Herald, Australia Votes, viewed 10 April 2020, https://www.smh.com.au/topic/australia-votes-1lyo
Is the media the most significant policy actor in Australian policymaking today?
This essay will critically evaluate the significance of the media in influencing contemporary Australian policymaking. An analytical framework of agenda-setting theory will foreground an understanding of media influence in the policymaking process. Agenda-setting theory allows for a discussion that assesses the role of the media exercising democratic values within and shaping public opinion in Australia. This essay will outline the Australian political media landscape and assess the significance of each media entity in influencing Australian contemporary policymaking. The digitization of media in Australia and the emergence of the 24-hour news cycle, changes the role in which each media entity plays in contemporary policymaking. The significance of the media as an actor in Australian policymaking is further assessed by the emergence of spin doctors which have been institutionalized into an Australian PR State (Ward, 2003; Watts, 2014). This essay will use several contemporary examples to demonstrate the medias influence in policymaking.
Analytical Framework
Agenda Setting TheoryThis essay will define an agenda as a a collection of problems, understandings of causes, symbols, solution and elements of public problems that come to the attention of members of the public and their government officials (Birkland, 2007). Birkland (2007) defines agenda-setting as the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose public and elite attention. This process finds actors to be competitive with one another in setting a particular agenda and stopping other actors agendas from interfering in a policy debate (Birkland, 2007; Ward 2015)
Agenda setting is broken down into four distinct layers that represent different levels of influence that actors have within the decision-making process for constructing policy (See Appendix A- Figure 1). The agenda universe captures all ideas and issues that are within the political system (Birkland, 2007). Systemic agenda encompasses those issues that are perceived as meriting public attention and is legitimized by existing government authority (Birkland, 2007). Institutional agenda subsets the decision-making process by identifying the key items that are for active and serious consideration for decision makers (Birkland, 2007). The decision agenda is the final point where political issues are included in policy formulation (Birkland 2007).
Agenda-setting theory provides a plausible understanding of the functions of media within the policymaking process. Maxwell McCombs (1981) identifies that the media is a platform of political education for the wider public as the content of media entities and public perception of issues often correlate (Birkland, 2007). The media cannot directly tell the broader public about how to perceive a political issue, but instead casts a light on what political issues to think about (Dennis & Maddison 2012; Garber, 2004). The media, as an actor, will use their political coverage of issues to make advances towards the decision agenda (Birkland, 2007).
Defining Media
The definition of media is academically contested, with some scholars claiming it to mean literally anything that communicates may count as media. This essay will adopt a general definition of mass media as widely accessible institutions with the main means of mass communication, such as television, radio and newspapers (University of Chicago, 2020).
The Australian Political Media Landscape
The Australian political media landscape has varying degrees of influence and significance in the policymaking process. Australia as a functioning democracy, values the role of media in promoting a sense of national identity and a consensus about major public actions, framing news through key political events, mobilizing citizen action for agendas that benefit the public good or when government officials misbehave (Garber, 2004). In Australia, approximately 57% people believe the media is doing a good job to help them understand the world (News & Media Research Centre, 2019). However, 62% of Australia are avoiding the news, with 88% worn out by the amount of news they consume (News & Media Research Centre, 2019. This trend can be linked to digitization and 24-hour media cycle where a wide array of media outlets have emerged, inundating the public with a plethora of information. Amongst these news stories are political agendas set by the media, interest groups, and governments to work closers to the decision agenda.
24-hour media cycle
The impact of the 24-hour media cycle has seen the Australian public exhausted with news coverage, with many turning to singular source of truth for political news. For Australia, only a third of news consumers use four or more sources to find the news, often more likely than most other countries to use just one channel to consume news (News and Media Research Centre, 2019). As Australians are prone to using a few news sources, this presents an opportunity for media conglomerates to set a specific political agenda to its audiences. The 24-hour news cycle sees the pattern of news agendas set in the morning, and unless there are significant developments in the story, the story will mostly run its course within 24 hours (Dennis & Maddison, 2012). The introduction of the 24-hour news cycle, which broadcast political press conferences on television, disintegrated the professionalism of political journalism and tabloidized political issues, impacting their ability to set agendas for mass audiences (Flew et al. 2017a; Dennis & Maddison, 2012; Garber 2004; Watts, 2014). Commercial interest in free-to-air television has seen a decline in political coverage and analysis, notably seen in the cancellation of political show Sunday from Channel Nine due to poor ratings (Flew et al. 2017b). For televised political coverage in Australia, the key agenda-setters have become the 24-hour news providers, Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) and Sky News. The agenda-setting ability of the publicly funded ABC is bound by legislation that enforce neutral coverage of political news through programs like Q&A, Four Corners and 7.30 (Flew et al. 2017b). Q&A, demonstrates the ABC steering away from personal opinion of the editors, encouraging real-time, publicized participatory engagement of citizens in critical policy debates, using Twitter and Skype (Flew et al. 2017b). Contrastingly, Sky News, a subset of News Corp, is not bound by legislation to impose neutral news coverage, instead adopting a qualitative approach in agenda-setting (Young, 2009). Sky News is watched closely by Australias political elite, as it is one of only places in television where tabloid ideological agenda is aired (Flew et al. 2017; Young 2009). This gives Sky News the leverage to push an agenda from systemic agendas towards the decision agenda (Birkland 2007). Sky News 24-hour news coverage is similarly neutral to that of the ABC, however the commercial freedom of Sky News has allowed its evening political coverage to have, controversially, a partisan ideological agenda, particularly right-wing (Flew et al., 2017b; Young 2009). Other tabloid-style television shows like The Bolt Report on Channel 10, demonstrate how free-to-air networks are willing to engage in controversialist discourse for better ratings (Flew et al. 2017b). The 24 hour-news cycle has hastened the output of news stories, shifting a focus for sharing news that is important, to sharing news that is new, reinforcing tabloidization of politics (Watts, 2014). Agenda-setting of political news is most impactful for news that has not yet been widely discussed, so political journalists face a strategic disadvantage in setting up a public debate with the emergence of social media (Garber, 2004).
Digitization of Australian media
Before digitization, political media coverage in Australia was centralized by media conglomerates that were the megaphones to engage the public with policy debate. Political journalists had exclusive coverage of political events, as government engagement with the media was controlled through the press gallery (Ward, 2003). Restricted access to the press gallery created a slower news cycle, where political journalists directly engaged with politicians at press releases, media conferences and question sitting, and report on issues the following day (Flew et al., 2017a). A slower news cycle allowed political coverage to be semi-permeable in nature, where media outlets used traditional newspapers and television to communicate political agendas to a wider audience with limited options for these audience to publicly engage in the debate (Flew et al., 2017a, Macnamara 2012). Radio-talkback shows like 2GB and inclusion of reader letters in newspapers were the only mediums that allowed for limited public engagement in policy debate (Flew et al. 2017b). The readership of newspapers in Australia has declined with the technological disruption of online media outlets that find a subset of the population to engage with political news coverage (Dennis & Maddison, 2012). Tiffen (2015) identifies that newspapers in Australia have traditionally been centralized by two competing and commercially driven conglomerates, News Corp and Fairfax Media (Flew et al. 2017a). In Australia, News Corp controls the only national editorial print, The Australian, whilst regional tabloid prints are dominated by Fairfax Media. The Australian aims to be a thought leader in national political debate, perceived to have great influence upon politicians and opinion leaders (Anderson et al. 2018; Flew et al. 2017a). The centralization of a national newspaper and 24-hour news coverage demonstrates News Corps degree of influence on the decision agenda in Australia. Other regional print media provide less information-dense coverage of political issues that is more digestible to a wider audience (Anderson et al. 2018; Flew et al. 2017a). The 24-hour news cycle and digitization saw many newspapers unable to meet costs to authenticate, or attract an audience for complex stories (Ward, 2015). The decline of regional print media including Fairfax Cooma-Morning Express in 2016 further sees a centralization of newspaper political discussion and an inability to access democratic resources (Flew et al. 2017b). Furthermore, opinion pieces in newspapers began to grow due to their marketability rather than quantitative reports of news (Flew et al. 2017b; Watts, 2014). The newspaper political coverage of Black Saturday Fires demonstrated the power of opinion pieces as News Corp publications were articles about fuel reduction burning to stop the fires became a contentious topic in the Royal Commission Hearings, many witnesses crediting fuel build-up with causing fires (Anderson et al., 2018). The News Corp publications during this time and beyond, were fiercely antagonistic in shaping the public discourse towards climate change theory, resulting in the removal of three Prime Ministers (Anderson et al. 2018).
The emergence of online news outlets and social media began to break down traditional media outlets as gatekeepers of agenda-setting, with those who consumed news also being able to conversate about social and political issues (Garber, 2004; Ward ). The emergence of digital and social media fastened the news cycle, allowing any user to break stories on the Internet, making political journalism far more competitive (Flew et al. 2017a). Interest groups, particularly of vulnerable communities, that before had difficulty setting an agenda, now had more power for advocacy (Dreher et al., 2016a; Dreher et al., 2016b). The Recognise campaign showcases the utilization of social media websites to enable Australian Indigenous communities to participate in the policy discussion of constitutional recognition, with communities expressing a desire for genuine consultation in planning a referendum (Dreher et al. 2016b). An IndigenousXPoll survey found that just 25% of respondents supported Recognise, with 67% rejected the referendum with pollsters feeling more strongly about sovereignty and parliamentary representation (Dreher et al., 2016b). Mediatisation has helped to break down formal political communication for complex issues like Indigenous sovereignties and rights (Dreher et al. 2016b). It can be suggested that platforms like Twitter and Facebook should no longer be considered just technology companies but media outlets as they have permeated the Australian media ecosystem (Ball, 2017). Interestingly, digital media has seen a growth of niche political journalism whose ideologies which sit on the fringes of the agenda universe, may appeal to a smaller group of biases (Flew et al. 2017a; Birkland, 2007). This can see a rise in the legitimation of unconventional political views that may surface into policy debate (Amarasekara et al., 2016). Despite this, the value of this participatory media is uneven, as actors contributing to the decision agenda, particularly senior political leaders, continue to follow mainstream media (Dreher et al., 2016a).
There is an ultimate paradox that is presented in Australias media landscape- whilst digitization has seen a greater participatory media that influences the general public discourse, traditional media conglomerates still have the greater power in influencing the politically elite. As Australias political media diversifies through 24-hour news coverage and digitization, the bond of shared information that brought democratic societies together is weakened, with audiences turning to communication ghettoes that appeal to a more niche debates (Garber, 2004). Furthermore, online news coverage and social media allows other interest groups to set up agendas and advocate their causes (Dennis & Maddison, 2012; Ward 2015).
The Australian PR State (Ward, 2003)
Politicians growing sensitivity of the media cycle amplifies the importance of media actors in Australian policymaking (McKnight 2015). Government investment in media resources indicates the value placed on the media to secure the public acceptance of policy (Ward, 2015). Media conglomerates have power over politicians in negotiating preferred timing, formats, languages and alter their political content, seeing a mediatized politics becoming crucial in modern statecraft (McKnight, 2016; Ward, 2015). Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbulls resistance to appear on popular 2GB radio show with radio host, Alan Jones, is an example of mediatization of politics, for no one has even won an election by not appearing on my program (Flew et al., 2017b). This phenomenon is demonstrated in Australias increasing institutionalization of public relations (PR) and media advisers, colloquially termed as spin doctors to manage the agendas of the media (Dennis & Maddison, 2012 These spin doctors, whose purpose is to tell a political message through maximum management and manipulation of the media, allows elected governments to maintain control over the decision agenda (Ward, 2003). However, the art of spin is not always successful, seen in the case of former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudds political media strategy (McKnight, 2016). In Canberra, Rudds spin doctors had unrelenting efforts to control the flow of information and to manage the media messagenot seen before, where the obsession with the daily news cycle was counterintuitive (McKnight, 2016). The Rudd governments effort to be perceived as doing something was unable to clarify long term strategies of Coalition when scrutinized by journalists, ultimately damaging his reputation (McKnight, 2016). An awareness of PR for governments can be critical to a successful term; an inability for government officials to balance their relationship with the media leads to detriment.
Conclusion
This essay outlined the traditional news cycle of media which enforced media conglomerates to be a centralized gatekeeper for agenda-setting in Australian policymaking. An analysis of the digitization of media and the expansion of 24-hour news coverage, sees a greater segmentation of media entities, and decentralization of agenda-setting, causing differing levels of influence in policymaking. Whilst social media engages citizens in participatory policymaking discussion, the politically-elite have established a PR state to meet the sensitivities of traditional media. Ultimately, the media is a significant actor to policymaking. This argument could have been elevated by a discussion in how popular digital media, like Netflix and Stan, can also have an impact in the way citizens perceive agendas and influence policymakers.
Appendix A
3048005766435Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 1- Levels of the Agenda (Birkland, 2007)
Figure 1- Levels of the Agenda (Birkland, 2007)
30480016510000
References
Amarasekara, L, Bolliet, L, McKinnon, M, Moon, B & Semmens, D 2016, Science, Twitter and election campaigns: Tracking #auspol in the Australian federal elections, Journal of Science Communication, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1-22.
Anderson, D, Chubb, P & Djerf-Pierre, M 2018, Fanning the blame: Media accountability, climate and crisis on the Australian Fire Continent, Environmental Communication, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 928- 941.
Birkland, T.A 2007, Agenda setting in public policy in F Fischer, GJ Miller and MS Sidney (eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, Routledge, New York, NY.
Dennis, R & Maddison, S 2012, The role of the media in setting the policy agenda, in R Dennis and S Maddison (ed.), An Introduction to Australian Public Policy: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dreher, T, McCallum, K & Waller, L 2016a, Indigenous voices and mediatized policy-making in the digital age, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 23-39.
Dreher, T, McCallum, K & Waller, L 2016b, Mediatisation, marginalisation and disruption in Australian indigenous affairs, Media and Communication, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 30-42.
Flew, T, Harrington, S, McNair, B & Swift, A 2017a, Mapping the Australian political public sphere: The press, in T Flew, S Harrington, B McNair and A Swift (eds.), Political Media and Democracy in Australia: Public and Producer Perception of the Political Public Sphere, Routledge, New York, NY.
Flew, T, Harrington, S, McNair, B & Swift, A 2017b, The Audio-visual public sphere, in T Flew, S Harrington, B McNair and A Swift (eds.), Political Media and Democracy in Australia: Public and Producer Perception of the Political Public Sphere, Routledge, New York, NY.
Graber, D 2004, Mediated politics and citizenship in the twenty-first century, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 545-571.
Grattan, M 1998, The politics of spin, Australian Studies in Journalism, vol. 7, no.1, pp. 32-45.
Macnamara, J 2012,Journalism and public relations: Unpacking myths and stereotypes, Australian Journalism Review, vol. 34, no. 1, pp 33-50.
McCallum, M, Meadows, M & Waller, L 2012, Raising the volume: Indigenous voices in news media and policy, Media International Australia, vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 101- 111.
McCallum, M & Waller, L 2013, The intervention of media power in indigenous policy-making, Media International Australia, vol. 149, no. 1, pp. 139-149.
McKnight, D 2015, The rise of the spin doctor: From personal briefings to news management, Media International Australia, vol. 157, no. 1, pp. 114-123.
McKnight, D 2016, The Rudd Labor government and the limitations of spin, Medial International Australia, vol. 159, no. 1, pp. 108-117.
News & Media Research Centre 2019, Digital News Report: Australia 2019, prepared by News & Media Research Centre for the University of Canberra, Canberra.
University of Chicago, Mass Media, University of Chicago, Chicago, viewed 17 May 2020, https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/mass-media/Ward, I 2003, An Australian PR state?, Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 30, no. 1 pp. 25-42.
Ward, I 2015, Media influence in public policy in K Crowley and B Head (eds.), Policy Analysis in Australia, Policy Press, Bristol, UK.
Watts, R 2014, Truth and politics: Thinking about evidence-based policy in the age of spin, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 34-46.
Young, S 2009, SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA, Journalism Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 401-416.
Unit name: Governance, Power and Public Policy
Unit code: POIR2070
Word count: 2569
Neoliberalism entails a set of policies such as deregulation, privatisation and free trade that provides incentive opportunities for individuals in hopes that they pursue personal desires in an economic realm (Beeson and Firth 1998). Following this notion, the premise of this essay will argue that neoliberalism has been the most influential ideological perspective in Australian policy making in recent times. While this has been a success venturing towards extensive economic growth, it also presents limitations to individuals who are lacking behind market trends or to the whole state when it experiences financial shocks. Nevertheless, Australia has seen a shift from government to governance where the neoliberal regime dominates policy-making decisions.
Since the late 1980s, Australian policy making has held strongly to fundamentalisms of neoliberal ideology. Its transition from Keynesianism to neoliberal thought was most apparent in the implementation of macroeconomic reforms under the Hawke-Keating Labour government, which are still practiced and preserved today. The deregulation of the financial system by floating the Australian dollar for example, has allowed for its value to be determined by foreign exchange markets rather than render it fixed by the Reserve Bank of Australia (Bora and Lewis 1996). Not only was it imperative to finally integrate the Australian economy into an increasingly globalised world, but this also provided incentive for individuals to be driven by competitive forces in international markets and act on their own self-interest. This in turn leads to what Adam Smith (Smith 2010) coins as the invisible hand whereby fluctuating supply and demand in a free market will eventually stabilise and reach an equilibrium of efficiently allocated sources. In other words, for this to actually occur, the perfect market environment would instil little to no government interference so that individuals who are considered autonomous creatures could practice their economic freedom (Western et al 2007).
Now free of obligation to defend a fixed value, The Reserve Bank of Australia focuses on setting interest rates as a measure to keep consumer behaviours and economic activity under control. In times of inflation, high unemployment rates and low demands, cash rates would most likely be lowered in an attempt to stimulate the economy and encourage individuals to make more or larger purchasing choices (Bora and Lewis 1996). Vice versa, rising interest rates are often implemented to moderate consumers spending and borrowing. Fiscal policies on the other hand, concentrate on the adjustments to government spending, borrowing and taxation to suit the conditions of an accelerated economy and regulate aggregate demands of tradable goods and services (Maddison and Denniss 2009). The 2019-2020 half yearly budget review (NSW government 2019) for example, outlined various goals such as providing tax relief on around 40,000 businesses and moving an additional 3000 businesses to pay no payroll tax. In effect, this would maximise employee flexibility and freedom as they retain a larger portion of their disposable income. Albeit these fiscal and monetary policies resonate more closely to Keynesian belief, they are necessary domestic measures in that it sets a stable arena for individuals to compete on a global scale. Hence in the grand scheme of things, they work towards enforcing a broader neoliberal regime.
From a neoliberal perspective, competition is a major driving force for the success of domestic industries to capitalise on its strength in a market free of government intervention (Beeson and Firth 1998). One would view that this is especially true in Australian politics considering that our current leading government body is the Liberal-National Party Coalition who are advocates of this notion. Prime Minister Scott Morrisons administration of international relations in particular, demonstrates a decentralised state of power where government bodies merely act as a supervising agent in a market that relies on the pressures of a supply-demand framework. These market behaviours have been seen to flourish in their natural state and occur more freely since the establishment of free trade agreements. Its conditions are in alignment with the prominent neoliberal perspective as it seeks to reduce government imposed trade barriers such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies and embargoes on imported and exported goods (Western et al 2007). Exposing domestic industries to market forces is key to what neoliberalists refer to as marketisation (Western et al 2007).
For many years, Australian governments have implemented, enforced and adjusted free trade policies to promote economic growth, trade, competition, innovation, efficiency. Following a series of the Prime Minister's visits to Indonesia in August 2018 and March 2019, this concluded in the signages of the Comprehensive strategic partnership and Comprehensive economic partnership bilateral agreement (Australian government 2019). As a result, Australian exports now enter Indonesian borders duty-free, conditions for Australian service providers have now been improved and two-way investments between states are heavily encouraged. Similarly, the Korea-Australia free trade agreement recently underwent a sixth round of tariff cuts in January (Crump and Moon 2017). Over 99% of Australian exports are now eligible for duty-free or preferential access trade. These are examples of new policies that have been implemented since the election of our current Prime Minister. Scott Morrison has also played a role in maintaining commercial relationships and agreements that have been previously established by former neoliberal-driven policy-makers. Australian steel and aluminium exports to The US for example, has been secured of ongoing tariff exemptions which have first taken effect in 2005 (Australian government 2019). Not only do these policies force domestic industries to keep up with international trends, but they also encourage trade between states by allowing high quality products to be traded at a cheaper price. In this case, producers are also more willing to trade as government regulation on imposed tariffs have significantly decreased over the past years. Based on these reforms, it is evident that the desire to achieve national prosperity and the pressures of the market greatly informs public policy decisions. That being so, free trade agreements demonstrate that neoliberalism is the most influential ideology in Australian policy-making.
In addition to marketisation, privatisation is also a crucial policy element to the neoliberal regime. They are similar in that privatisation incentivises profit making desires which essentially contributes to the overall growth of the economy. Like free trade agreements, it is neoliberal in nature because it seeks to lessen government interference by moving traditional public sector assets to privately owned businesses (King and Pitchford 1998). In essence, this transition occurs to the belief that functions are more efficient in the hands of private ownership. Australian neoliberal reforms have seen a shift to this new approach occur in most areas of the economy including prisons, gas and water distribution and ambulance services (King and Pitchford 1998). More significantly, the privatisation of Australian airports has resulted in not only yielding benefits for the economy, but also freed governments of financial and managerial burden. Prior to the 1980s the governmental department was directly responsible for administration of airport operations and subsidising capital investment as it competed with other forms of public expenditure, namely defence, health and education (Freestone, Williams and Bowden 2006). Freeing themselves of these obligations has shown that they have taken a neoliberal path to prosperity. Moreover, this public policy reform has proven to be a cost-effective measure that is inclusive of society and leads towards revenue maximisation. This has mainly been achieved through the expansion of non-aeronautical commercial and business development such as fast food outlets, hotels and retail stores (Freestone, Williams and Bowden 2006). The airport in itself has been reconstructed to reflect the dynamics of a market and thus, to also reflect the principles of neoliberalism.
Inadvertently, while such market-based reforms of deregulation, marketisation and privatisation generates great wealth for those that remain competitive in the market sphere, it is often at the expense of others who fall behind (Spies-butcher 2014). Although unfortunate, it has long been accepted that this uneven distribution of goods, wealth and material happiness and the rising gap between the two types of players are inevitable repercussions of neoliberalism. The case of Australian airports is an exemplar of this phenomenon. Diverse interest groups ranging from state government and local councils to environmental groups express their concerns about non-aeronautical commercial development. First and foremost, privatisation ignores urban issues by facilitating land exploitation in order to expand its business activities (Freestone, Williams and Bowden 2006). Considering that this decision occurred with the exclusion of local and state authorities raises questions about the government's ability to cater to public interests. Furthermore, many have disputed how airport privatisations have led to unfair competition due to the fact that they are exempt from protocols that would apply to regular businesses (Freestone, Williams and Bowden 2006). Despite their general functions to be similar to that of a shopping centre, not being classified as such has enabled them to avoid planning concerns such as access to public transportation (Freestone, Williams and Bowden 2006). These are only some of the limitations that arise on one sector affected by neoliberal reforms that we see prevalent today. What these implications entail on a national scale reveals issues that are much broader and complex on individual lives.
Based on previous examples presented in this essay, we can presume that today's leading Australian political party relies on a neoliberal rationale to inform public policy-making decisions. With its emphasis on achieving economic growth and ultimate efficiency, these policies generally fall short on considering social issues as equally precedent. As globalization becomes more prominent and states increase their interdependence, a universal standardized system is utilised for functions to operate efficiently. Consequently, market-based reforms tend to turn a blind eye on factors such as gender, class, ethnicity and socioeconomic differences as the ability to perform a task holds higher priority in a state that focuses on achieving economic greatness (Western et al 2007). To tackle this problem in a neoliberal context, current and previous governments uphold necessary strains of social democracy that aim to protect the welfare of the targeted individuals who experience inequality in market incomes. While this may seem contradictory to the neoliberal ideology, it is vital to the broader regime as individual wellbeing affects the overall performance of the economy (Beeson and Firth 1998). One of the ways in which governments attempt to offset inequality is through the redistributive model of taxation. As previously mentioned, taxing has been used in Australian public policy as a tool to regulate consumption behaviours of individuals in an economy. It also promotes equality in market incomes through progressive taxation where higher income earners pay a higher rate of tax (Eccleston 2012). Specific programs include the Family Tax Benefit, initiated under the Howard government, which sought to increase the tax-free threshold for families with dependent children or single income (Australian Government 2019). Other support services such as Medicare and Centrelink provide subsidies and financial assistance to further ensure the wellbeing of individuals as it is synonymous to economic growth (Australian government 2019).
Because of our current systems, which seem to serve public and private domains, there are contested views about which political ideology is the most influential and which ideology should be the most influential in Australian policy-making. Over the past years, the Australian Labour Party and the Liberal-National Party Coalition have persistently struggled for political dominance and disputed whether the focus of political rationality should remain on the welfare of the state or on market practices (Mendes 2017). Mendes (2017) describes an Australian welfare state where social democratic policies such as social spending has allowed citizens of the country, especially those considered relatively poor, access to minimum entitlements based on the notion of rights rather than charity. Some of these rights mentioned include education, health, housing and social services (Mendes 2017). Spies-Butcher (2014) on the other hand, asserts Australia as a dual welfare state. This alternative perception of reality states social provisions as mechanisms that merely avoid damaging aspects of radical economic restructuring while catering to the interests of the more affluent. Moreover, even with the provisions of financial and other forms of assistance, established political systems require a level of self-management, relying on individuals to take it upon themselves to seek such help and keep up with (Brijnath and Antoniades 2016). Further evidence in this study undertaken by Brijnath and Antoniades (2016) demonstrates that in some instances, social democratic values are not effective or successful, especially with the ideological clash in public and private domains. There have also been occasions where governments completely moved away from free market ideas and referred to necessary yet short-term Keynesianism solutions. In 2008 for example, governments were forced to intervene during the Global Financial Crisis, as it was a period of extreme stress on markets and banking systems (Maddison and Denniss 2009). The Rudd government, which was the leading government at the time, introduced a Keysian stimulus package consisting of cash grants and investments as a countermeasure against the severity of market recession (Maddison and Denniss 2009. More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has forced governments to inject subsidies into the economy to ward off the effects of high unemployment and financial insecurity (Australian Government 2020). On this very day, this Interventionist model of public policy is highly relevant to the continuity of stability so that Australia can return to its neoliberal state
The distinction between parties and applied ideologies is not as clear as it used to be. Neoliberalism, from a holistic approach tends to be the most influential political perspective in Australian policy-making. However at this very moment in time, there are limitations when bringing the state up as a whole towards economic greatness. Nevertheless, neoliberalism dominates Australian public policy rationale.
Reference list
Australian Government, 2019. Annual Report 2018-19. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. [online] Available at: https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-01/dfat-annual-report-2018-19.pdf
Australian Government, 2019. Annual Report 2018-19. Services Australia. [online] Available at: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/annual-report-191019-v2.pdfAustralian Government, 2020. Economic response to the Coronavirus. The Treasury. [online] Available at: https://treasury.gov.au/coronavirus/businessesBeeson, M. and Firth, A., 1998. Neoliberalism as a political rationality: Australian public policy since the 1980s. Journal of sociology, 34(3), pp.215-231
Bora, B. and Lewis, M.K., 1996. The Australian financial system: evolution, regulation, and globalization. Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus., 28, p.787.
Brijnath, B. & Antoniades, J., 2016. I'm running my depression: Self-management of depression in neoliberal Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 152, pp.18.
Crump, L. & Moon, D., 2017. Precedents in Negotiated Decisions: KoreaAustralia Free Trade Agreement Negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 33(2), pp.101127.
Eccleston, R, 2012. The politics of Australian tax reform beyond the national tax forum: Context and challenges. AUSTRALIAN TAX FORUM, 27(2), pp.227239.
Freestone, R., Williams, P. and Bowden, A., 2006. Fly buy cities: Some planning aspects of airport privatisation in Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), pp.491-508.
King, S. and Pitchford, R., 1998. Privatisation in Australia: Understanding the incentives in public and private firms. Australian Economic Review, 31(4), pp.313-328.
Maddison, S. & Denniss, R., 2009. An Introduction to Australian Public Policy: Theory and Practice
Mendes, P. & EBSCO Publishing, 2017. Australia's welfare wars : the players, the politics and the ideologies / Philip Mendes. 3rd ed.,
NSW government. 2019. 2019-2020 Half Yearly Review. NSW Budget [online] Available at: https://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/budget-2019-12/1109-07_Half%20Yearly%20Budget%202019-20%20brochure_v20-Online.pdf
Smith, A., 2010. The Wealth of Nations: An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations. Harriman House Limited.
Spies-Butcher, B., 2014. Marketisation and the dual welfare state: Neoliberalism and inequality in Australia. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 25(2), pp. 185201
Western, M. et al., 2007. Neoliberalism, Inequality and Politics: The Changing Face of Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 42(3), pp. 401418.
EssayThe essay, 2500 words in length (excluding references; NB references means bibliography), provides students with the opportunity to explore a topic of interest in depth. Students should develop a considered answer to ONE of the two questions below based on reading a range of sources wider than simply the key readings. Note: students MUST read and refer to a minimum of 10 academic sources: journal articles, books, book chapters, working papers. Please check we me if you have doubts about a specific source being academic or not.
The 10 academic sources must refer to the theories/concepts and not to the description of the policies. This is because the essay is meant to assess your understanding of the theories and concepts discussed in the unit and your ability to apply them to a concrete case.
Evidence regarding the case can be drawn from non-academic sources (e.g. news articles, policy reports) as well as from academic ones (the academic ones used for the evidence on the case do not count for the 10 academic sources minimum above).
A high standard essay would draw upon a wide range of resources to support a well-organised argument in response to the set question. Remember, there is no correct answer to each question: rather, there are arguments that are better expressed, more persuasively made, intelligently constructed, supported with evidence, and with substantial analytical depth. Consider whether the arguments you read are logical and provide convincing evidence. The same criteria should apply to your own work.
The Harvard referencing system is required.
The essay questions are as follows (choose ONE):
Consider a case of policy failure or policy success in Australia and discuss
Whether the policy was a failure or success (motivating your assessment)
The features of the Australian institutional context that contributed to making that policy a failure or a success
DUE April 9, 2023, at 23:59
Consider a case of major policy change in Australia and discuss:
Which policy, politics and problem streams merged in order for the policy change to occur
Whether specific entrepreneurs can be identified and if so what strategies they used
DUE May 7, 2023, at 23:59
NB: The cases must refer to the period January 2021-present. You can use earlier material if the policy started before this date, but you must follow the policy past January 2021.
Assessment Rubric for Essay and Final Examination
Criterion < 50% Fail 51-64% Pass 65-74% Credit 75-84% Distinction 85% + High Distinction
Argument Does not answer the question asked and/or provides an inadequate answer in terms of relevance, logic and consistency.
Some argument presented, but with weaknesses in relation to relevance, logic, consistency, coherence and sustainability. Puts forward a competent argument which clearly answers the question asked logical, consistent, coherent and sustained throughout the essay. Some attempt to use relevant theoretical concepts. Strong argument in terms of complexity, logic, consistency and coherence that clearly addresses the question and which makes good use of relevant theoretical concepts.
Argument which is highly complex, logical, consist, and engaging. Shows a strong development of conceptual/ theoretical points.
Critical Analysis No real attempt at critical analysis of opposing viewpoints. Highly descriptive.
Analysis at a largely descriptive level. Does makes some attempts at critical analysis of opposing viewpoints but with deficiencies in terms of logic, rigor and fairness. Good analysis of opposing views - logical, consistent and fair evaluation of opposing arguments. Attempts to provide some original and creative contribution to debate.
Strong critical analysis, well evaluated in terms of logic, rigor and fairness. Attempts to get behind the evidence via engagement with underlying assumptions. Develops an original and creative contribution to debate. Sharp and insightful critical analysis, excellent interrogation of underlying assumptions and contested concepts. Highly original and creative contribution to debate.
Knowledge & UnderstandingContent based on shallow reading, demonstrates poor understanding of topic, substantial inaccuracies in knowledge. May paraphrase to an unacceptable level.
Work demonstrating a largely broad and descriptive knowledge of the relevant subject matter but with overall accuracy. Tendency to over-paraphrase in parts. Highly competent work showing a deep and accurate understanding of relevant theories, concepts. Makes a good attempt to explain using own words. Evidence of relatively wide reading. Also attempts to apply theoretical knowledge. Superior work showing in-depth and highly accurate knowledge of relevant subject matter. Evidence of wide reading and understanding of theoretical concepts and a good attempt to apply this knowledge. Exceptional in-depth knowledge of the relevant subject matter. Provides a clear and complex explanation of theories and concepts using own understanding with a sophisticated attempt to apply this knowledge. Evidence of very wide reading and insightful interpretation of evidence.
Evidence/ Resources Evidence used is largely irrelevant, arguments not supported by evidence, use of non-academic sources to an unacceptable level.
Evidence used is relevant to the question asked, on the whole, and provides support for the arguments made, but with some weaknesses. Some use of relevant examples. Use of scholarly sources most of the time. Arguments supported by solid range of relevant academic/scholarly sources. Good use of relevant examples. Use of a wide range of highly relevant academic sources. Insightful use of relevant examples. Evidence clearly supports the arguments presented. Use of a very wide range of highly relevant academic sources which clearly support the arguments presented. Insightful and creative use of relevant examples.
Structure/ Organisation Inconsistent and illogical essay structure, purpose of large sections is unclear. Poor use of sign-posting making the argument very difficult to follow. Ineffective use of introduction and conclusion. May be over or under the required word length.
Essay structure is generally logical and consistent but with some weaknesses with coherence and clarity. Attempt made to use introduction and conclusion to structure ideas raised but with deficiencies. May be over or under required word length. Majority of the essay organised with logic and coherence, evidence of linkages/signposting of arguments. Good use of introduction and conclusion as structuring tools. Keeps within required word length. Logical, coherent and consistent essay structure throughout, supportive of main arguments presented. Purpose of paragraphs/subsections clear through good use of signposting. Developed use of introduction and conclusion to structure argument made. Keeps within required word-length. Highly logical and consistent structure throughout which strongly supports the arguments presented. Content highly purposeful with excellent use of sign-posting. Excellent use of introduction and conclusion as structuring tools. Keeps within the required word length.
Style & Presentation Serious problems with grammar and expression making the argument very difficult or impossible to be understood.
Correct English grammar and expression used on the whole. Meaning of expressions used is generally clear, but with some minor problems. Low level of spelling and typographical errors. Correct English Grammar and expression throughout. Meaning of language used clear. Rare spelling and typographical errors. Correct use of English grammar and expression. Language used is clearly understandable, with evidence of creativity and flair. Correct use of English grammar, clear expression, shows high level of creativity and flair in the use of language.
Referencing Significant levels of incorrect academic referencing and/or plagiarism. Fair use of sources, most of the time. Correct use of referencing styles in general, but with some small errors. Fair use of sources throughout, referencing styles used correctly with rare errors. Fair use of sources, no evidence of plagiarism, correct use of referencing styles throughout. Fair use of sources with no evidence of plagiarism, correct use of referencing styles throughout.
