Pub Date : 2019-09-06DOI: 10.22459/AG.26.01.2019.01
J. Creedy, N. Gemmell
Considerable attention is currently being paid to establishing the extent of inequality in New Zealand and whether it has risen in recent years. This paper offers some insights into the inequality measures and interpretations that commonly feature in those debates. These typically relate to cross-sectional inequality, such as annual Gini coefficients for various income definitions, or comparisons of income growth rates across income deciles. But failure to take into account the longitudinal dimension of inequality can lead to misinterpretations of inequality data and measures. The paper shows that examining longitudinal income data for the same individuals over time strongly contradicts cross-sectional inequality evidence. For example, some recent cross-sectional inequality measures suggest that the incomes of initially low-income households grew at slower rates than those with initially higher-incomes. This has been interpreted as the poorest earners being ‘left behind’. But recent longitudinal data, at least for individuals, reveals evidence of much faster-than-average growth among initially lower, compared to higher, income earners. Thus, ‘regression to the mean’ is a dominant feature of the longitudinal data.
{"title":"Income inequality in New Zealand: Why conventional estimates are misleading","authors":"J. Creedy, N. Gemmell","doi":"10.22459/AG.26.01.2019.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.26.01.2019.01","url":null,"abstract":"Considerable attention is currently being paid to establishing the extent of inequality in New Zealand and whether it has risen in recent years. This paper offers some insights into the inequality measures and interpretations that commonly feature in those debates. These typically relate to cross-sectional inequality, such as annual Gini coefficients for various income definitions, or comparisons of income growth rates across income deciles. But failure to take into account the longitudinal dimension of inequality can lead to misinterpretations of inequality data and measures. The paper shows that examining longitudinal income data for the same individuals over time strongly contradicts cross-sectional inequality evidence. For example, some recent cross-sectional inequality measures suggest that the incomes of initially low-income households grew at slower rates than those with initially higher-incomes. This has been interpreted as the poorest earners being ‘left behind’. But recent longitudinal data, at least for individuals, reveals evidence of much faster-than-average growth among initially lower, compared to higher, income earners. Thus, ‘regression to the mean’ is a dominant feature of the longitudinal data.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46901984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.22459/ag.26.01.2019.02
J. Au, A. Coleman, T. Sullivan
It is difficult to choose policies when people have diverse preferences over outcomes and many alternative policy settings are available. To do this well, policymakers must understand underlying preferences and rank policies according to these preferences. In this paper, we use multi‐criteria decision analysis techniques to understand the relative attractiveness of retirement policy reforms in New Zealand. Using a nationally representative sample, we estimate individual preferences over seven aspects of retirement policy, characterise the diversity of these preferences, and rank three different policy options. We find that a policy which raises taxes to prefund the government retirement income scheme would be supported by a majority of people of all ages and income groups, and would be much more popular than a policy that 1 andrew.coleman@otago.ac.nz, The Department of Economics, University of Otago; joey.au@mbie.govt.nz, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand; Trudy.Sullivan@otago.ac.nz, The Department of Preventative and Social Medicine, University of Otago. We would like to thank Diane Maxwell, Malcolm Menzies, Richard Thompson, Kathryn Maloney and Tania Werder at the Commission for Financial Capability for their advice and support while the project was undertaken. Several staff at the New Zealand Treasury assisted in the project. We would particularly like to thank Girol Karacaoglu, Gabriel Makhlouf, Chris Ball, Matthew Bell, Deborah Cuzens, Margaret Galt, Bryan McDaniel and Paul Rodway. We are indebted for the assistance provided by the staff of 1000Minds, Paul Hansen and Franz Ombler, throughout the project and for comments on the paper. We also wish to thank the staff of Colmar Brunton, particularly Leilani Liew, for their help in fine‐tuning and implementing the questionnaire. We are grateful for the time the members of focus groups in Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland spent with us discussing their views, including Atene Andrews and the Hikoikoi Kaumātua group in Petone. Lastly, we wish to thank seminar participants and discussants at the University of Otago, the University of Auckland and the Western International Economics Conference, with particular thanks to Arthur Grimes from Motu. We also wish to thank Matt Benge, Norman Gemmell, Nicola Kirkup, David Law, Trinh Le and Jacques Poot for their helpful comments and suggestions. This project received financial support from the New Zealand Treasury, Wellington, and the Commission for Financial Capability, Auckland, New Zealand. AgendA, Volume 26, number 1, 2019 24 raises the age of eligibility. The results suggest multi‐criteria decision analysis has considerable potential to help policymakers develop policies that are aligned with people’s preferences.
{"title":"When I’m 64: What do New Zealanders want in a retirement income policy?","authors":"J. Au, A. Coleman, T. Sullivan","doi":"10.22459/ag.26.01.2019.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/ag.26.01.2019.02","url":null,"abstract":"It is difficult to choose policies when people have diverse preferences over outcomes and many alternative policy settings are available. To do this well, policymakers must understand underlying preferences and rank policies according to these preferences. In this paper, we use multi‐criteria decision analysis techniques to understand the relative attractiveness of retirement policy reforms in New Zealand. Using a nationally representative sample, we estimate individual preferences over seven aspects of retirement policy, characterise the diversity of these preferences, and rank three different policy options. We find that a policy which raises taxes to prefund the government retirement income scheme would be supported by a majority of people of all ages and income groups, and would be much more popular than a policy that 1 andrew.coleman@otago.ac.nz, The Department of Economics, University of Otago; joey.au@mbie.govt.nz, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand; Trudy.Sullivan@otago.ac.nz, The Department of Preventative and Social Medicine, University of Otago. We would like to thank Diane Maxwell, Malcolm Menzies, Richard Thompson, Kathryn Maloney and Tania Werder at the Commission for Financial Capability for their advice and support while the project was undertaken. Several staff at the New Zealand Treasury assisted in the project. We would particularly like to thank Girol Karacaoglu, Gabriel Makhlouf, Chris Ball, Matthew Bell, Deborah Cuzens, Margaret Galt, Bryan McDaniel and Paul Rodway. We are indebted for the assistance provided by the staff of 1000Minds, Paul Hansen and Franz Ombler, throughout the project and for comments on the paper. We also wish to thank the staff of Colmar Brunton, particularly Leilani Liew, for their help in fine‐tuning and implementing the questionnaire. We are grateful for the time the members of focus groups in Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland spent with us discussing their views, including Atene Andrews and the Hikoikoi Kaumātua group in Petone. Lastly, we wish to thank seminar participants and discussants at the University of Otago, the University of Auckland and the Western International Economics Conference, with particular thanks to Arthur Grimes from Motu. We also wish to thank Matt Benge, Norman Gemmell, Nicola Kirkup, David Law, Trinh Le and Jacques Poot for their helpful comments and suggestions. This project received financial support from the New Zealand Treasury, Wellington, and the Commission for Financial Capability, Auckland, New Zealand. AgendA, Volume 26, number 1, 2019 24 raises the age of eligibility. The results suggest multi‐criteria decision analysis has considerable potential to help policymakers develop policies that are aligned with people’s preferences.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68727574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-05-22DOI: 10.22459/ag.25.01.2018.01
Jennifer Day, W. Han, A. Wu, Jiarui Zheng
This study evaluates Melbourne’s longstanding ‘activity centres’ (AC) policies—the first study to do so. It strongly suggests that, across the Melbourne metropolitan area, AC policies have had no effect on the propensity of people to work near their homes. The findings are robust to a number of validity hazards. The study does not warrant a wholesale abandonment of AC planning, but does signal that we may wish to question how we are currently going about transforming ‘places’ into ‘centres’. For AC policies to be successful, designation as a ‘centre’ may be necessary, but is not sufficient.
{"title":"Has Sub-centre Policy Produced Sub-centres? An Evaluation of Melbourne’s Urban Spatial Planning since 1996","authors":"Jennifer Day, W. Han, A. Wu, Jiarui Zheng","doi":"10.22459/ag.25.01.2018.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/ag.25.01.2018.01","url":null,"abstract":"This study evaluates Melbourne’s longstanding ‘activity centres’ (AC) policies—the first study to do so. It strongly suggests that, across the Melbourne metropolitan area, AC policies have had no effect on the propensity of people to work near their homes. The findings are robust to a number of validity hazards. The study does not warrant a wholesale abandonment of AC planning, but does signal that we may wish to question how we are currently going about transforming ‘places’ into ‘centres’. For AC policies to be successful, designation as a ‘centre’ may be necessary, but is not sufficient.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"22 1","pages":"5-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2018-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89248138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.03
Kerry Liu
Chinese outward direct investment (ODI) in Australia has been debated for many years. Different data sources provide quite different indications of how much Chinese investors have actually invested in Australia. This study analyses each data source’s application and limitations, and provides some guidelines on how to interpret and use these data. The findings include: first, although the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Chinese official data measure direct Chinese ODI in Australia, the real value of Chinese capital flow into Australia is greater than these measures. Second, KPMG/University of Sydney and American Enterprise Institute/Heritage Fund data measure contracted value, which may be expected to be higher than the true value of capital flow given the uncertainty of the business environment. Third, as Foreign Investment Review Board data is the value of proposed investment, using this data to measure Chinese ODI in Australia is misleading.
中国在澳大利亚的对外直接投资(ODI)已经争论多年。关于中国投资者在澳大利亚的实际投资规模，不同的数据来源提供了截然不同的数据。本研究分析了每个数据源的应用和限制，并提供了一些如何解释和使用这些数据的指导方针。研究结果包括:首先，尽管澳大利亚统计局和中国官方数据衡量的是中国在澳大利亚的直接对外直接投资，但中国资本流入澳大利亚的实际价值大于这些衡量标准。其次，KPMG/University of Sydney和American Enterprise Institute/Heritage Fund的数据衡量的是签约价值，考虑到商业环境的不确定性，签约价值可能会高于资本流动的真实价值。第三，由于外国投资审查委员会的数据是拟议投资的价值，用这些数据来衡量中国在澳大利亚的直接投资是误导的。
{"title":"How Much Have Chinese Investors Invested in Australia","authors":"Kerry Liu","doi":"10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.03","url":null,"abstract":"Chinese outward direct investment (ODI) in Australia has been debated for many years. Different data sources provide quite different indications of how much Chinese investors have actually invested in Australia. This study analyses each data source’s application and limitations, and provides some guidelines on how to interpret and use these data. The findings include: first, although the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Chinese official data measure direct Chinese ODI in Australia, the real value of Chinese capital flow into Australia is greater than these measures. Second, KPMG/University of Sydney and American Enterprise Institute/Heritage Fund data measure contracted value, which may be expected to be higher than the true value of capital flow given the uncertainty of the business environment. Third, as Foreign Investment Review Board data is the value of proposed investment, using this data to measure Chinese ODI in Australia is misleading.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"1 1","pages":"49-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91334523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.04
Gigi Foster
This paper presents a slightly modified version of a speech given to the Economic Society of Australia’s ACT branch in Canberra in November 2017, as a keynote address at the organisation’s annual general meeting. It considers the relationship between economics as a science, and ethical principles both as they guide the actions of practising economists and as they arise in the surrounding social and political context in which economists ply
本文是对2017年11月在堪培拉澳大利亚经济学会(Economic Society of Australia) ACT分会发表的演讲进行略微修改后的版本，作为该组织年度大会的主题演讲。它考虑了经济学作为一门科学和道德原则之间的关系，因为它们指导实践经济学家的行为，因为它们出现在经济学家所从事的周围社会和政治背景中
{"title":"Ethics in Economics","authors":"Gigi Foster","doi":"10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.04","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a slightly modified version of a speech given to the Economic Society of Australia’s ACT branch in Canberra in November 2017, as a keynote address at the organisation’s annual general meeting. It considers the relationship between economics as a science, and ethical principles both as they guide the actions of practising economists and as they arise in the surrounding social and political context in which economists ply","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"25 1","pages":"61-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85196422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.02
R. Buckle, J. Creedy
This paper discusses the impact on research quality of New Zealand universities of the Performance-Based Research Fund from 2003 to 2012. This is a peer-review process involving assessment of individual researchers. The contribution to improvement in research quality of transitions among research quality categories and entrants and exits of individuals are identified. A substantial component of change has been the removal of non-research active staff. There has been population ageing due to retention of older and higher-quality researchers and a large reduction in the number of younger researchers. Significant differences among universities are evident in the patterns of transformation. The paper also critically considers the PBRF assessment process and characteristics of the metrics used, suggesting scope for improvement in the assessment of researchers and the way in which universities are ranked.
{"title":"The Impact on Research Quality of Performance-Based Funding: The Case of New Zealand's PBRF Scheme","authors":"R. Buckle, J. Creedy","doi":"10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.25.01.2018.02","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the impact on research quality of New Zealand universities of the Performance-Based Research Fund from 2003 to 2012. This is a peer-review process involving assessment of individual researchers. The contribution to improvement in research quality of transitions among research quality categories and entrants and exits of individuals are identified. A substantial component of change has been the removal of non-research active staff. There has been population ageing due to retention of older and higher-quality researchers and a large reduction in the number of younger researchers. Significant differences among universities are evident in the patterns of transformation. The paper also critically considers the PBRF assessment process and characteristics of the metrics used, suggesting scope for improvement in the assessment of researchers and the way in which universities are ranked.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"4 1","pages":"25-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89444247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-01DOI: 10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.01
M. McLure
{"title":"Ricardian Equivalence, the Italian Fiscal Tradition and Western Australia’s Government Net Debt","authors":"M. McLure","doi":"10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"33 1","pages":"5-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73044601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-01DOI: 10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.03
W. Coleman
Since at least the time of Adam Smith, economists have been alive to the vision of a relatively small number of ‘special interests’ benefiting themselves at the expense of the public weal. But distortions are today so endemic, it is tempting to say that every interest manages to secure that status of special interest, and receives some ‘distortion’ in its favour. But, however credible this scenario of ‘universal distortions’ may be, can it be provided a rigorous and well‐articulated modelling in terms of maximising choices, under a specified institutional structure? Can Public Choice suggest such a modelling? Can, in particular, the Public Choice theorising of ‘log rolling’ do so?
{"title":"Log Rolling as an Explanation of Distortions All Round: A Model à la Buchanan and Tullock","authors":"W. Coleman","doi":"10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.03","url":null,"abstract":"Since at least the time of Adam Smith, economists have been alive to the vision of a relatively small number of ‘special interests’ benefiting themselves at the expense of the public weal. But distortions are today so endemic, it is tempting to say that every interest manages to secure that status of special interest, and receives some ‘distortion’ in its favour. But, however credible this scenario of ‘universal distortions’ may be, can it be provided a rigorous and well‐articulated modelling in terms of maximising choices, under a specified institutional structure? Can Public Choice suggest such a modelling? Can, in particular, the Public Choice theorising of ‘log rolling’ do so?","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"12 1","pages":"31-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76370711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-01DOI: 10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.04
Greg Clydesdale
This paper considers the significance of the growth of knowledge for the efficacy of paternalistic intervention. Three cases are examined. The first is government intervention in the consumption of fatty food. Second is the evolution of knowledge that occurred after a law mandated the use of cycle helmets. The third examines information flows that characterised the smoking debate. This paper argues that although knowledge continues to evolve, inertia, path dependency and expert bias can impede the removal of paternalistic laws that do not raise welfare but continue to restrict individual agency.
{"title":"The growth of knowledge as grounds against paternalism","authors":"Greg Clydesdale","doi":"10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.04","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers the significance of the growth of knowledge for the efficacy of paternalistic intervention. Three cases are examined. The first is government intervention in the consumption of fatty food. Second is the evolution of knowledge that occurred after a law mandated the use of cycle helmets. The third examines information flows that characterised the smoking debate. This paper argues that although knowledge continues to evolve, inertia, path dependency and expert bias can impede the removal of paternalistic laws that do not raise welfare but continue to restrict individual agency.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"50 1","pages":"49-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88707063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-01DOI: 10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.02
Brad R. Taylor
Regional Australia faces many and diverse challenges and opportunities. Given that one-size-fits-all policy solutions are not appropriate for these diverse conditions, I argue that increasing interjurisdictional competition can foster regional development and resilience. If individuals and businesses are able to ‘vote with their feet’ for the local jurisdictions they prefer, market-like incentives are brought to bear on government. This would limit government power, enable lower-risk policy experimentation, make government more responsive to citizen needs and allow for policy more suited to local circumstances.
{"title":"The lack of competition in governance as an impediment to regional development in Australia","authors":"Brad R. Taylor","doi":"10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.24.01.2017.02","url":null,"abstract":"Regional Australia faces many and diverse challenges and opportunities. Given that one-size-fits-all policy solutions are not appropriate for these diverse conditions, I argue that increasing interjurisdictional competition can foster regional development and resilience. If individuals and businesses are able to ‘vote with their feet’ for the local jurisdictions they prefer, market-like incentives are brought to bear on government. This would limit government power, enable lower-risk policy experimentation, make government more responsive to citizen needs and allow for policy more suited to local circumstances.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"99 1","pages":"21-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81005788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：