Social democracy and market reform in Australia and New Zealand

Social democratic governments in Australia and New Zealand adopted policies of radical free-market reform, including financial deregulation, privatization, and public-sector reform in the 1980s. Because of the absence of institutional obstacles to government action, reform was faster and more comprehensive in New Zealand than in Australia. The New Zealand reforms were associated with increasing inequality and generally poor economic outcomes. There is nothing in the New Zealand experience to support the view that radical free-market economic policies are consistent with social democratic welfare policies or with social democratic values of concern for the disadvantaged, The Australian reforms were less radical, and were accompanied by some refurbishment of the welfare state. Economic performance did nor improve, as anticipated by advocates of reform, but was considerably better than that of New Zealand.

State sector reform and agriculture in China

China's state sector reform process is examined through the key sector of agriculture. A preview of aggregate statistics and broader reform measures indicate the declining role of the state. However, a systematic analysis of administrative, service and enterprise structures reveal the nuances of how the state has retained strong capacity to guide development of the agricultural sector. State and Party policy makers aim not only to support the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of farmers, but also to pursue agricultural modernization in the context of rapid industrialization. These goals are unlikely to be achieved through a wholesale transfer of functions to the private sector, so the state has maintained or developed new mechanisms of influence, particularly in the areas of service provision and enterprise development.

Civil-Military Relations in Croatia: Politicisation and Politics of Reform.

This article argues that since 2000 successive Croatian governments have shown themselves increasingly dedicated to reforming civil-military relations. However, their efforts have been hampered by four key obstacles. First, the need to implement defence reforms in the context of an unwieldy set of civil-military relationships, political and institutional rivalries, a lack of civil and military defence expertise and a continuing legacy of politicisation. Second, the need to cut defence spending as a proportion of the overall budget whilst taking on new military roles and improving the capability of the armed forces. Third, the need to balance the demands of the NATO accession process while implementing a balanced and fundamental reform of the armed forces as a whole. Finally, the need to implement root and branch personnel reforms and downsizing in the OSRH while simultaneously recruiting and retaining quality personnel and addressing the wider social issue of unemployment.

Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: Opportunities and challenges in the early stages

Genetic discrimination, defined as the differential treatment of individuals or their relatives on the basis of actual or presumed genetic differences, is an emerging issue of interest in academic, clinical, social and legal contexts. While its potential significance has been discussed widely, verified empirical data are scarce. Genetic discrimination is a complex phenomenon to describe and investigate, as evidenced by the recent Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry in Australia. The authors research project, which commenced in 2002, aims to document the multiple perspectives and experiences regarding genetic discrimination in Australia and inform future policy development and law reform. Data are being collected from consumers, employers, insurers and the legal system. Attempted verification of alleged accounts of genetic discrimination will be a novel feature of the research. This paper overviews the early stages of the research, including conceptual challenges and their methodological implications.

Cost-benefit analysis of alternative forms of hedgerow intercropping in the Philippine uplands

Considerable resources have been expended promoting hedgerow intercropping with shrub legumes to farmers in the Philippine uplands. Despite the resources committed to research and extension, persistent adoption by farmers has been limited to low cost versions of the technology including natural vegetation and grass strips. In this paper, cost-benefit analysis is used to compare the economic returns from traditional open-field maize farming with returns from intercropping maize between leguminous shrub hedgerows, natural vegetation strips and grass strips. An erosion/productivity model, Soil Changes Under Agroforestry, was used to predict the effect of erosion on maize yields. Key informant surveys with experienced maize farmers were used to derive production budgets for the alternative farming methods. The economic incentives revealed by the cost-benefit analysis help to explain the adoption of maize farming methods in the Philippine uplands. Open-field farming without hedgerows has been by far the most popular method of maize production, often with two or more fields cropped in rotation. There is little persistent adoption of hedgerow intercropping with shrub legumes because sustained maize yields are not realised rapidly enough to compensate farmers for establishment and maintenance costs. Natural vegetation and grass strips are more attractive to farmers because of lower establishment costs, and provide intermediate steps to adoption. Rural finance, commodity pricing and agrarian reform policies influence the incentives for maize farmers in the Philippine uplands to adopt and maintain hedgerow intercropping.