Incentivizing innovation: A review of the Brazilian federal innovation support programs

Innovation is the transformation of knowledge of any kind into new products or services in the market. Its importance as a production factor is widely acknowledged. In the age of the knowledge-based economy innovation became critical for any company or even country to compete globally. Many countries are encouraging innovation through various mechanisms, and one of the most widely used is the provision of special incentives for innovation. This paper investigates incentive systems for the growth of technology companies as a strategy to promote knowledge-based economic development. As for the case investigations the study focuses on an emerging economy, Brazil. The research is based upon the available literature, best practices, government policy and review of incentive systems. The findings provide insights from the case study in a country context and some lessons learned for other countries using incentive systems to boost the innovation capabilities of their technology companies.

Elections 2.0 : reflections on the 2010 federal election and the future of Australian electoral law

This article analyses the 2010 federal election and the impact the internet and social media had on electoral law, and what this may mean for electoral law in the future. Four electoral law issues arising out of the 2010 election as a result of the internet are considered, including online enrolment, regulation of online advertising and comment, fundraising and the role of lobby groups, especially when it comes to crowdsourcing court challenges. Finally, the article offers some suggestions as to how the parliament and the courts should respond to these challenges.

Mandated literacy assessment and the reorganisation of teachers’ work : federal policy, local effects

This paper explores how mandated literacy assessment is reorganising teachers’ work in the context of Australia’s National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), which was implemented in 2008. Students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 are tested annually, with school results publicly available. The wider policy context and the emergence of different forms of interconnected educational work associated with the testing phenomenon are described. Taking an Institutional Ethnography approach, the local effects of the federal policy regime are examined through a case study of one school. What mandated literacy assessment does to educators’ work in a culturally diverse low socioeconomic school community is discussed. Key themes include strategic exclusions of students from the testing process, appropriations and adaptations of literacy theory, work intensification, and ethical mediation of results. Questions concerning equity are raised about the differential effects of policy in different school contexts.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.