Crossing the Rubicon. The Cabinetisation of the Minister’s Court in Australia and Canada. Has the Die Been Cast?

In the present paper we argue that the emergence of political advisers in the Westminster (and not only) administrative tradition can be understood as part of a process of ‘cabinetisation’, which started in the 1980s and continues till today. Given the lack of theory on this concept the main aim of the present paper is to develop cabinetisation from a background concept to a systematized one, which can then be used for systematic comparative research. Thus, the main question driving the present paper is: what is cabinetisation? The fundamental challenge is the delimitation of the concept in order to avoid the risk of conceptual stretching. Once the scope of the concept has been settled, cabinetisation is illustrated by using two examples of Westminster tradition systems, Australia and Canada, where the phenomenon has arguably advanced more than in others. An interesting question here is the following. Does the organisation and logic of advisory work around the minister in those countries belong to the ministerial cabinet species? Did Australia and Canada cross the Rubicon, thus passing the point of no return, or do ministerial offices in these systems can still be classified as falling within the Westminster tradition? We suggest that on the basis of what we know from the literature, Australian ministerial offices can be classified as variants of the ministerial cabinet species, while Canadian ones are heading there but did not yet pass the point of no return.status: publishe