IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v40y2010i1p136-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking Overlap and Duplication: Federalism and Environmental Assessment in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Robyn Hollander

Abstract

Critics of federalism have long pointed to overlap and duplication as evidence of a system under pressure. This article challenges their critique through an examination of Australia's environmental assessment and approval regime. It finds that, in their quest to eliminate duplication and overlap, policy makers have imposed artificial divisions on a complex policy domain. By limiting the opportunities for political engagement, they have also surrendered some of the strengths of a federal system of government and removed important failsafe mechanisms which provide valuable insurance against policy failure. While the empirical argument is based on the Australian experience, the analysis has more general implications for federations characterized by concurrency. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Robyn Hollander, 2010. "Rethinking Overlap and Duplication: Federalism and Environmental Assessment in Australia," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 40(1), pages 136-170, Winter.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:40:y:2010:i:1:p:136-170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjp028
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:40:y:2010:i:1:p:136-170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.