No more free beer tomorrow? Economic policy and outcomes in Australia and New Zealand since 1984

There are no controlled experiments in macroeconomic policy, nor in systematic programs of microeconomic reform, but a comparison between New Zealand and Australia over the period since 1984 provides as close an approach to such an experiment as is ever likely to be possible. From quite similar starting points the two countries pursued liberal reform programs that differed sharply, mainly as a result of exogenous differences in constitutional structures and the personal styles of the central actors. Australia followed a more cautious, piecemeal, consensus-based approach, whereas New Zealand, in contrast, adopted a radical, rapid, 'purist' platform. The NZ reform package was generally seen by contemporary commentators as representing a 'textbook' model for best practice reform. However, Australia since 1984 has performed much better than New Zealand, whose per capita GDP growth indeed ranked at or near the bottom of the OECD. In this paper, we assess a variety of explanations for the divergences in policies and outcomes.

The changing public-private infrastructure mix: Economy-wide implications

This article provides an economy-wide perspective on the changing role of the public sector in developing economic and social infrastructure in Australia. It analyses the scale and macroeconomic significance of the key economic and social infrastructure sectors - communication services, electricity, gas and water supply, transport, education, health and community services, government administration and defence. It then canvasses the major policy issues that have arisen in the progression from public to private infrastructure provision and considers why concerns about the trend fall in traditional public works spending may be misplaced in light of recent economic and institutional changes.

Social inclusion, new regionalism and associational governance: The Queensland experience

In recent years there has been a resurgence of decentralized social governance concerned with the spatial dimensions of disadvantage. This article examines aspects of this resurgence in the Australian state of Queensland where, after the hasty birth of 'place management' in response to the rise of 'Hansonism', a plethora of 'joined-up' policy initiatives were undertaken in relation to the regional dimensions of poverty. We propose that these trends reflect in part new ways of thinking about the spatial aspects of disadvantage which have emerged in recent years and which have the potential to take regional policy beyond the narrow confines imposed by neoliberal economic orthodoxy. These new ways of thinking have arisen in social policy through the refraining of disadvantage in terms of social exclusion and in regional economic policy through the influence of the so-called 'new regionalism'. The article shows how together these bodies of theory point us towards a new model of 'associational governance'. The article reviews recent Queensland experience and indicates those features of 'associational governance' which have become characteristic of locality-based social policy ideas in Queensland. 'Joined-up' and regional policy aspirations of the Queensland State government have shown the influence of these new approaches. The political and policy sustainability of these trends, however, is uncertain. The lingering shadow of managerialism and neoliberal policy frameworks remains a significant barrier to the innovation and viability of these approaches. More directly, the inherent limits of the 'local' or 'regional' initiatives in the face of broader national and global factors will significantly constrain the capacity of associational governance systems to deliver positive democratic, social and economic outcomes. The article examines recent Queensland policy refors in light of this complex set of factors and concludes by offering directions for future research and policy development.

Running on empty

After nine years spent in opposition, it's still hard to know what Federal Labor intends by way of an economic policy platform. Kim Beazley still seems to believe that the prime purpose of opposition is to oppose. John Quiggin disagrees. Without a coherent and well-understood economic direction, he argues, Labor's sniping will continue to look like unfocussed opportunism.