• Part of
    Ubiquity Network logo
    Submit a journal article Submit a book proposal

    Read Chapter
  • No readable formats available
  • Comparisons are odious: a practitioner’s view of why comparing councils is a flawed concept

    Fran Flavel

    Chapter from the book: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, . 2013. 3rd National Local Government Research Forum.

     Download

    Recent literature related to aspects of local government has referred extensively to various examples across all states of Australia as well as the United Kingdom and New Zealand, as well as others. Such exploration of ideas (working or not working) elsewhere in the world is to be commended, provided it remains just that – a search for innovation to inform the enhancement of local government. However if it moves into attempts to identify best practice or into benchmarking best practice, such exercises become problematic, principally because of jurisdictional differences, which themselves have been born of a different culture in a different time and with different political and social agenda. This paper demonstrates how benchmarking should be used only in specific cases. The paper also explores the practice of comparing councils and uses a case study to affirm the proposition that comparisons are ‘odious’.

    Chapter Metrics:

    How to cite this chapter
    Flavel, F. 2013. Comparisons are odious: a practitioner’s view of why comparing councils is a flawed concept. In: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, (ed.), 3rd National Local Government Research Forum. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney ePress. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/aac.d
    License

    This is an Open Access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (unless stated otherwise), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Copyright is retained by the author(s).

    Peer Review Information

    This book has been peer reviewed. See our Peer Review Policies for more information.

    Additional Information

    Published on Jan. 1, 2013

    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.5130/aac.d


    comments powered by Disqus