Notes: Bureaucratic process as morris dance
Page 1
Title and scope: Patrick Sullivan’s ethnographic study of Aboriginal affairs administration in Australia, framed as “Bureaucratic process as morris dance.” The aim is to understand why development in Aboriginal communities, especially remote areas, remains difficult despite formal equality and welfare programs.
Methodology: Ethnographic approach based on participant observation as a public service employee (APS), observations of other APS staff during fieldwork with Aboriginal communities and organisations, and ethnographic reading of APS documents.
Core finding 1: Bureaucratic culture and Aboriginal culture are not overlapping but separate domains. Both operate in the same social field, where Aboriginal people become symbolic capital shaped by the bureaucratic imagination.
Core finding 2: The public sector has consistent procedures for internal/external performance assessment, but there is substantial interpretive space to reinterpret information so that formal requirements appear to be met.
Core finding 3: In the post-2004 policy environment for Aboriginal affairs, the path to effective implementation is less clear than the path to policy creation, which fosters bureaucratic involution.
Key metaphor: The morris dance is used to illustrate how policy is produced and monitored within a cultural field, where symbolic acts, meetings, plans, reports, and media statements shape reality more than direct engagement with Aboriginal communities.
Originality and contribution: The paper fills a gap by offering ethnographic insight into public administration and Aboriginal affairs administration, illuminating how functionaries interact and how their culture conditions development outcomes.
Contextual hooks: Mentions on governance, policy cycles, and the nexus of culture, politics, and policy in Aboriginal affairs.
Key terms to note for later pages: Aboriginal affairs administration, bureaucratic culture, symbolic capital, bureaucratic imagination, policy implementation, morris dance metaphor.
Page 2
Research framing: Intercultural field where Aboriginal communities and public administration interact not by overlapping domains but through a shared intercultural field (Sullivan, 2005; Merlan, 2006; Weiner, 2006). Aboriginal life is sustained through grants and welfare administered by the public sector and community service delivery.
Ethnographic stance: To analyze bureaucratic activity as culturally meaningful, not purely practical; policy has other motivations beyond its ostensible object of good development practice.
Mosse’s influence: The paper follows development anthropologist Mosse (2004) who is skeptical of policy claims yet emphasizes policy’s reach in power relations; five propositions are summarized (see notes):
Policy functions to mobilize political support and legitimate practice; development interventions are driven by organizational relationships.
Development workers respond to local demands; policymakers focus on political alliances; local reinterpretation can make policy appear successful.
Maintaining a system of representation is essential in development work.
When projects fail, externally imposed policy definitions can redefine success/failure even if ground realities stay the same.
Success/failure are measured against policy, often obscuring real project effects. Policy itself can be more central than implementation.
Metaphor and critique: The morris dance metaphor illustrates how policy-making operates within its own culture, with symbols and myths (the Aborigines as representation) central to policy production and monitoring.
Policy context introduction: The National Commitment (National Commitment to Improved Outcomes in the Delivery of Programs and Services for Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders) endorsed by COAG on 7\ December\ 1992, marks the start of whole-of-government approaches; progress has been slow.
Early COAG trajectory: By the Nov 2000 COAG meeting, shared responsibility and inter-governmental cooperation were reaffirmed; in April\ 2002, COAG announced ten whole-of-government trial sites; in November\ 2002/2003, National Framework of Principles for Delivering Services to Indigenous Australians (Humpage, 2005) emerged; progress remained sluggish.
Institutional shifts: In 2004, whole-of-government service delivery was formalized across departments, ATSIC’s representative structure was abolished, and the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination took up coordination duties. The governance chain moves from a Ministerial Task Force to a Secretaries Group, then to SES management and Indigenous Coordination Centres.
Critical assessment: The literature on whole-of-government in Australia is underdeveloped; evaluation challenges and cross-departmental coordination issues are highlighted (Wilkins, Hunt, MAC, ANAO, Shergold).
The tension noted: Whole-of-government versus mainstreaming—two contradictory policy modes with different implications for Aboriginal groups (mainstreaming often fragments delivery across departments; whole-of-government seeks cross-cutting coordination).
This page foregrounds the policy ecosystem in which the ethnography is situated and introduces Mosse’s framework as a lens for understanding policy as institutional practice rather than purely technical activity.
Page 3
Deepening Mosse’s propositions: The paper reiterates that policy often aligns with political alliances and the needs of organisations rather than purely technical objectives. Local actors reinterpret practical actions as policy successes, enabling sanctioned acts to appear legitimate.
Third to fifth propositions (summarised):
An essential part of development work is maintaining the overall system of representation; technical/operational matters are embedded within broader discourses.
When projects fail, policy definitions change; ground realities can persist but be recast as failures.
Policy outcomes are measured against policy rather than actual project efficacy; accountability for policy is elusive.
The morris dance as self-reference: Policy-making operates with its own rules and conventions, extending its influence beyond its immediate field, and sometimes pursuing tangential aims.
The policy apparatus and representation: The policy context relies on symbols and myths—chief among them, the construct of “the Aborigines”—and primarily concerns the representation of Aborigines in meetings, plans, reports, and media rather than direct engagement.
The narrative shift: The author argues for studying the cultures of administration as a crucial partner in Aboriginal development, not merely studying Aborigines as the target of policy.
The section ends by setting up the policy environment as a living field where intercultural interaction occurs among actors with different provenance and aims.
Page 4
The policy architecture after 2004: The text traces the evolution from COAG trials to a nationwide whole-of-government service delivery model. The author notes a tension between mainstreaming and whole-of-government approaches and highlights slow progress.
Governance and accountability apparatus: The Connecting Government report explored potential, but no firm consensus emerged about how to implement whole-of-government in practice.
Scholarly and policy commentary: A spectrum of sources is cited on evaluation, inter-departmental collaboration, and the emergence of a culture of collegiality as a catalyst for change (Shergold 2004, 2005).
The paradox of structure versus culture: While the hierarchy and formal processes are designed to streamline policy delivery, actual outcomes are shaped by cultural practices and informal networks within the bureaucracy.
The morris dance within a larger system: The new hierarchical administration (Ministerial Task Force, Secretaries Group, SES, Indigenous Coordination Centres) is intended to be a mechanism to coordinate across agencies, but without corresponding cultural and procedural changes, it may still devolve into ritualistic performance rather than effective action.
Critique of evidence: The author emphasizes the lack of robust evidence for the efficacy of whole-of-government approaches in Indigenous policy and calls for attention to cultural and processual barriers to implementation.
Takeaway: The paper argues for a critical stance toward policy as a lived practice, not merely a set of formal declarations, and calls for attention to the cultural dynamics that shape policy execution.
Page 5
Two contradictory policy elements: Mainstreaming versus whole-of-government. Aboriginal groups tend to support whole-of-government even though its delivery has been incomplete, while they resist mainstreaming because it fragments service delivery across departments.
Potential advantage of mainstreaming: It brings program delivery into a single department with specialized expertise, potentially improving program discipline. The disadvantage is the lack of Aboriginal issue-specific background in many mainstream agencies.
Public service reforms: The late 20th century reforms (1980s–1990s) increased ministerial control and reliance on external advice, as part of the broader public-service modernization (e.g., APS Act 1999). This era saw greater centralization of policy power in ministers, more ministerial staff, and increased use of external expertise.
Salary and classification dynamics: The Public Service has a formal hierarchy (SES, executive, APS classifications), yet actual remuneration and work-level standards vary across agencies. Examples illustrate substantial pay differences for similar classifications between agencies, reflecting discretion in compensation and the pervasiveness of non-uniform standards.
Mobility and career dynamics: Senior officers’ mobility shapes organizational structure and culture; restructuring often reflects personal strategic considerations and prejudices, not only functional needs. Mobility and generalist expertise can trump field-specific expertise in Aboriginal issues.
The field matrix (preview): The author introduces a three-part field matrix for ethnography of bureaucracy to describe how hierarchy, information control, and accountability mediate policy implementation.
Implications: The interplay between structure and culture creates a backdrop in which Aboriginal development is continually mediated by bureaucratic processes and the broader political economy of public administration.
Page 6
Organizational culture and collegiality: Shergold’s notion of a culture of collegiality is examined as a potential fix for bureaucratic silos, but Sullivan argues that existing collegialities are problematic because they are inward-looking rather than outward-facing.
Cultural change vs. structural change: The author calls for cultural change in which bureaucrats see themselves as embedded within their field of endeavour rather than external administrators; the aim is to reduce inward-looking dynamics and foster outward engagement with communities.
Mobility and restructuring: The mobility of senior staff brings diverse experiences but also reinforces re-structuring to suit personal trajectories and internal politics; this can undermine continuity and focus on Aboriginal development.
The subject position of Aboriginal people: Aboriginal individuals are treated as variables in equations of bureaucratic decision-making, often displaced from direct influence over outcomes.
Methodology: The author proposes a field-matrix approach to ethnography of bureaucracy, focusing on three interdependent practice sets:
1) hierarchy and distribution of authority
2) control and dissemination of information
3) regimes and rituals of accountabilityThe page closes with a shift to an in-depth look at hierarchy, aiming to unpack how authority and personhood are constructed within the APS.
Page 7
Induction into organizational culture: New employees are socialized into the adage “the way we do things here”; career progression depends heavily on absorbing and reflecting the prevailing culture.
Mobility and cross-agency alignment: When staff move to different agencies, they must either jettison or re-create their old culture; senior staff often shape restructures around their own experiences and prejudices.
The tension of rationality: The rationality of bureaucratic process can conflict with cultural dynamics, especially during restructures and greater cross-agency cooperation in the pursuit of whole-of-government policy.
Employment precarity: Contemporary public service employment is marked by flexibility (or insecurity) that interacts with mobility, influencing how individuals shape and respond to policy directions.
The field-matrix (reintroduction): Reiterates the three significant practices (hierarchy, information flow, accountability) as the analytic lens; these practices are interdependent and condition how policy is implemented on the ground.
Rule of thumb: Mobility, career incentives, and cross-agency collaboration can either enable or obstruct effective Aboriginal development depending on how cultures align and how information is shared.
Page 8
Hierarchy, authority, and personhood: The APS remains highly hierarchical despite rhetoric about market-like efficiency (
Three levels: SES (senior executive service), executive, and APS classifications (six levels)). Directors must classify personnel along these lines and define competencies.
Competencies and classifications: While classifications are standardized in theory, in practice they reflect status and personhood, not uniform skills or pay across agencies. Agencies set their own competencies, pay scales, and standards; cross-agency equivalence is not guaranteed.
Salary examples show wide variation across agencies for similar classifications, illustrating de facto non-uniformity. Example figures (illustrative, not exhaustive):
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR): APS6 about 114{,}920 pa, EL1 about 137{,}800 pa, EL2 about 159{,}470 pa.
Other agencies: top rate for APS6 around 74{,}214, EL1 89{,}321, EL2 108{,}125.
Work level standards: Standards are broken into categories such as knowledge/skills, tasks, managing interaction/communication, information/decision making, self-management, and educational/specialist requirements. These become more abstract at higher levels.
Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework: The SES framework has five criteria that cluster into a “jigsaw puzzle” of the ideal senior functionary: strategic thinking, results, relationships, influence, personal drive/integrity. The framework is portrayed visually (Figure 1) and is used as a selection/promotion code, shaping who is deemed the “right sort.”
Critical observation: The classifications serve to disguise diversity and to confine information and status to particular groups, effectively tying a person’s “worth” to their classification rather than uniform operational capability.
Notion of social status: The connection between inherent capability and job capacity is reinforced through language such as “Three,” “Six,” or “EL1/EL2” – signaling social status within and across agencies.
The cognitive load of HR policy is highlighted: while frameworks attempt to standardize, the lived reality is substantial heterogeneity in remuneration, expectations, and advancement criteria across agencies.
Page 9
Continuation of the SES framework: Examines the practical use of the Senior Executive Leadership Capability framework in recruitment and promotion decisions, reinforcing how “right sort” criteria are formalized and manipulated in bureaucratic cultures.
Implications for Aboriginal development: The hierarchy and person-centred classifications influence who gets opportunities to influence policy, who receives resources, and how communities are engaged in development processes.
The role of “soft” criteria: The framework emphasizes qualities like communication with influence, personal integrity, and strategic thinking, which can overshadow field-specific expertise in Aboriginal issues.
Overall takeaway: The hierarchy and classification system both organize authority and conceal variation in actual capabilities and cross-agency consistency of practice.
Page 10
Information flows and power: Information travels best laterally; upward sharing is constrained by forms (reports) and fear of reprisal. Downward sharing is limited to morale-boosting messages rather than substantive technical content.
Why information is often not shared downwards: Downward information can be destabilizing if junior staff misinterpret nuance; upper ranks fear loss of control if technical content is widely disseminated.
Lateral sharing drives group identity: SES-to-SES and EL1-to-EL1 communication reinforces group cohesion but reduces cross-pollination of knowledge across ranks.
Information as power and risk: The act of sharing information undermines authority because the holder gains leverage; the possession and control of information becomes a core part of group identity.
Information misinterpretation and decay: When information passes through multiple hands, it degrades (like “Chinese whispers”) and is reframed to fit local purposes, creating multiple reinterpretations of the facts.
Policy information as context: As it filters down and back up, policy information becomes contextualized; its quality depends on interpretation, not just on “the facts.” This allows for maneuvering and reinterpretation at all levels.
Consequence: The system enables extensive discretionary reinterpretation, reducing the reliability of information as a basis for accountability or evaluation.
Lipsky’s street-level bureaucrats: The concept is invoked to explain how frontline actors cope with unlimited demand and finite resources, shaping how policy is implemented in practice.
Page 11
Accountability as a two-way process: Accountability is defined as rendering and taking account within and between groups, negotiating identity and obligations. In the APS, accountability is often linear (upward reporting) and formal, rather than reciprocal.
Reflexive accountability: The act of taking account and rendering account creates a reflexive loop where cultures of the public service interact with external organisations (e.g., Aboriginal community sector).
Imbalance of power: The relationship with community organisations is asymmetrical; the bureaucracy tends to inwardly focus on reports and internal matrices of accountability, rather than intimate engagement with communities.
Nature of reporting: Much of community activity is reported by the public service, not directly experienced; agencies depend on reports to demonstrate outcomes, which can sideline on-ground impact.
The audit-as-myth-and-ritual idea: Audit practices function as mythic/ritualized manifestations of accountability (reference Strathern), shaping organizational self-perception and legitimacy.
Tension with NGOs: Development NGOs face internal audit/reporting demands that can overwhelm actual community engagement and program delivery, leaving implementers to fail on behalf of a policy-centric system.
Page 12
Cross-agency accountability complexity: When multiple agencies collaborate, power dynamics intensify; resources and responsibilities can be misaligned, creating conflicts and resistance to shared goals.
Street-level reinterpretation reemerges: Frontline implementers reinterpret goals to fit local contingencies; the client (Aboriginal communities) is often the least powerful in this exchange.
Policy vagueness: Mosse’s insight about policy being vaguely formulated helps explain why lower levels reinterpret aims to align with practical constraints and local realities.
The audit as cultural mechanism: Audit intensifies internal cultures and social reproduction within the bureaucracy; it becomes a central ritual that defines what counts as achievement and what is peripheral.
The burden on community implementers: Internal audit and reporting requirements divert time and energy away from direct service delivery, contributing to project failure or perceived ineffectiveness.
Page 13
Conclusion: Bureaucrats share a common culture born of structural and procedural organization, rooted in Weberian practical rationality and the belief that hierarchical intervention is most effective.
Cultural reach of audit society: The paper aligns with Power’s concept of the Audit Society, where verification and accountability become pervasive across life and governance.
Interagency collaboration as a necessity: Development, to be effective, requires cooperation among politicians, government agencies, Aboriginal NGOs, and communities; but cross-cultural frictions—especially in how hierarchy, information flows, and accountability interact—pose significant barriers.
Intercultural field rather than interculturality: Development is not merely an interaction “between cultures” but among actors of different provenance embedded in a shared field.
Proposed solutions: The author critiques Shergold’s call for a broader culture of collegiality and argues for regionalisation to shorten the chain of command, align local actors, and reduce the distance between ground realities and policy makers. The aim is to foster practical linkages at the local level rather than rely solely on top-down or “silo-crossing” approaches.
Regionalisation vs. whole-of-government: Regionalised policy would shorten the chain of command and enable more grounded, place-based collaboration, potentially reducing bureaucratic involution.
Page 14
Notes (selected):
Mosse’s propositions are abbreviated here; the full discussion appears in Mosse (2004), and the book Cultivating Development (2005).
Terminology shifts in Indigenous policy reflect political nuance (e.g., “Aboriginal peoples” vs. “Indigenous Australians”).
Public Service Classification Rules (2000) under Subsection 23(1) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Salary figures cited as package figures, including superannuation and performance bonuses; pay bands vary across agencies for the same classifications.
The cross-agency example in the Northern Territory shows pay rate disparities for similar roles across departments.
Anonymity in reporting standards is sometimes preserved by not identifying the agency applying certain work level standards.
The “SES breakfast” anecdote illustrates the dissonance between hierarchical labels and actual practice.
References and citations: The page lists extensive sources including ANAO, Barker, du Gay, Hill, Lipsky, Merlan, Mosse, Strathern, Sullivan, Shergold, and others, spanning anthropology, public administration, and governance.
Author note: Patrick Sullivan identifies as a political anthropologist with long-term fieldwork with Aboriginal organisations; contact information provided.
Page 15
References (selected):
ANAO (2003), Cross-agency governance, Guidance Paper No. 7.
Barker (2007), The public service (in Silencing Dissent).
Canberra Times (2008) salary data.
du Gay (2007), Organizing Identity.
Gray & Sanders (2006), Views from the top of the “quiet revolution.”
Head (2005), Governance in public policy.
Hill (2003), Understanding implementation (street-level bureaucrats).
Hunt (2005), Whole of government: does working together work?
Lipsky (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy.
Merlan (2005, 2006), Explorations towards intercultural accounts; Beyond tradition.
Mosse (2004, 2005), Is good policy unimplementable?; Cultivating Development.
Mulgan (2002), Accountability issues in governance.
Potter (2002), Financial accounting reforms in the Australian public sector.
Power (1997), The Audit Society.
Rowe (1999), Joined up accountability.
Shergold (2004, 2005), Connecting Government; Bringing government together.
Strathern (2000), Audit Cultures.
Sullivan (1996a, 1996b, 2005, 2008), All Free Man Now; ATSIC and self-determination; In search of the intercultural; Reciprocal accountability.
Weiner (2006), Eliciting customary law.
Whitmster (2004), The Essential Weber.
This reference list situates Sullivan’s argument within a broader scholarly conversation about policy, anthropology, governance, and accountability.
About the author
Patrick Sullivan is described as a political anthropologist with long-standing fieldwork with Aboriginal organisations in Western Australia since 1983.
Notes for exam preparation from this page-by-page synthesis:
Understand the morris dance metaphor as a lens for seeing how policy is produced and monitored within bureaucratic culture, rather than as a light-hearted metaphor.
Remember Mosse’s five propositions and how they frame the gap between policy rhetoric and ground-level implementation.
Distinguish between the two policy trajectories discussed: whole-of-government versus mainstreaming, and the implications for Aboriginal communities.
Be able to articulate the field-matrix triad (hierarchy, information control, accountability) and how these interact to shape development outcomes.
Recognize the tension between formal structures (classification, pay scales, governance hierarchies) and informal practices (culture, mobility, reinterpretation of information).
Understand the critique of accountability and audit practices as culturally embedded rituals that influence practice and-perhaps more importantly—self-perception within the bureaucracy.
Note the policy history timeline (COAG National Commitment, 1992; 2000 COAG expectations; 2002 trial sites; 2004 whole-of-government; abolition of ATSIC) and the relevance to current Aboriginal affairs administration.
Be prepared to discuss regionalisation as a proposed solution to bureaucratic involution and to articulate criticisms of “culture of collegiality” as a sole fix.
Formulas and numbers appear in the text as policy dates, salary figures, and organisational scales; be ready to reference them with approximate values and exact years when needed, and use LaTeX for numeric expressions if you quote them in exams.
a) At its core, Patrick Sullivan's ethnographic study, "Bureaucratic process as morris dance," argues that the persistent difficulties in Aboriginal community development, particularly in remote areas, stem not from a lack of formal equality or welfare programs, but from a fundamental disconnect between internal bureaucratic culture and the realities of Aboriginal life. The central point is that policy-making and implementation within public administration often become a self-referential ritual (the "morris dance"), where symbolic acts, internal reports, and political legitimation take precedence over direct, effective engagement with Aboriginal communities. This leads to "bureaucratic involution," where the policy creation path is clearer than its implementation, effectively transforming Aboriginal people into "symbolic capital" for the bureaucratic imagination rather than agents in their own development. Sullivan identifies the interlocking dynamics of hierarchy, information control, and accountability rituals within the public service as key drivers of this phenomenon.
b) My reaction to reading Sullivan's paper is one of deep resonance and critical appreciation. The "morris dance" metaphor is incredibly powerful and insightful, vividly capturing the often-perverse realities of how policies are processed and reinterpreted within large, complex organizations. It's sobering to consider how much effort and resources can be absorbed by internal symbolic work, diverting attention and capacity from the ostensible goals of development. The detailed breakdown of hierarchy, information flow, and accountability as a mutually reinforcing "field matrix" provides a compelling analytical lens, demonstrating how these bureaucratic structures can actively impede effective outcomes regardless of initial policy intentions. The paper effectively challenges a purely technocratic view of policy, highlighting the crucial, often unacknowledged, role of organizational culture and internal political economy. It underscored for me the importance of understanding the 'implementers' just as much as the 'targets' of development.
c) Linking Sullivan's work to the course learning outcomes:
LO1. Identify Indigenous and predominant western approaches to politics at play in political relations, in policy frameworks and strategies, and in contested or conflictual political debates.
Sullivan's study meticulously identifies and deconstructs a "predominant western approach to politics"—specifically, the bureaucratic culture within Australian public administration. He shows how this culture, with its emphasis on formal procedures, internal metrics, and symbolic representation, shapes policy frameworks (e.g., whole-of-government, mainstreaming) and political relations with Aboriginal communities. The paper highlights how Aboriginal people are framed and re-imagined within this western bureaucratic worldview, often displacing their direct influence. This analysis illuminates a key source of "contested or conflictual political debates" by exposing the systemic disjuncture between policy intent and lived realities.
LO2. Understand key historical dynamics and relations between Indigenous peoples and states/mainstream populations.
The paper grounds its analysis in contemporary historical dynamics, particularly the post-2004 policy environment, including the abolition of ATSIC and the formalization of whole-of-government approaches. This period is a direct outcome of historical negotiations and shifts in the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Australian state (e.g., COAG National Commitment from 1992). Sullivan's core finding that bureaucratic and Aboriginal cultures are "separate domains" operating in a shared field directly addresses the nature of these enduring relations, showing how state mechanisms for administering grants and welfare perpetuate certain dependencies and interpretations of Indigenous life. The historical sluggishness of progress noted in earlier COAG initiatives (e.g., 2000, 2002 trials) further illustrates the entrenched challenges in these relations.
LO3. Identify possible pathways and practices for improving political relations and policy-making between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
Though critically diagnostic, Sullivan's work implicitly suggests pathways for improvement by highlighting where current practices fail. By meticulously detailing the cultural and structural barriers within the bureaucracy (e.g., inward-looking collegialities, information control, ritualized accountability), the paper provides a roadmap for what not to do and what needs to change internally. Explicitly, Sullivan proposes "regionalisation" as a key "pathway and practice." This approach aims to shorten hierarchical chains, align local actors, and reduce the distance between on-ground realities and policy-makers, thereby fostering "practical linkages at the local level." This stands as a direct recommendation for improving both policy-making (making it more grounded) and political relations (by fostering more direct and less ritualized engagement than top-down or silo-crossing approaches).