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.

Farming under constrained budgets: Practices of agricultural credit users in central Lombok, Indonesia

There has been a long dependency on credit by Indonesian farmers as a result of the lack of capital to apply proper farming practices. This paper describes the farming activities applied by agricultural credit users in Central Lombok, Indonesia. A survey was conducted during July 2001- March 2002 of 65 farmers making use of government or private credit in three villages within the Regency. Data from the farmers were collected using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. Survey results indicated that on average, farmers had some 20 years experience of farming, were aged 40 years, but lacked of formal education. Their main asset was cropping land with average landholding of 0.69 ha. As a consequence of their capital constraints, farmers were commonly making use of credit to finance their farming activities, including both production of rice as the main crop and secondary crops. Farmers generally applied less than recommended amount of inputs in their farming practices, since the amount of credit they obtained was limited. As a result, their farms become less productive and their repayment capability of loans diminished. Of 65 farmers interviewed, 54 could earn extra income by engaging in a variety of non-farm activities, which contributed on average some 36% to family incomes of over Rp 5 million (A$ 1 thousand). The average credit repayment rate made by agricultural producers was 60%. The repayment made did not always reflect farm production capacity, being sometimes supported by other borrowings. The greater role of credit is not in increasing agricultural production or improving farmers’ income, but in helping them to sustain farm production and their living. Farmers need a bigger amount of credit to make an impact on their livelihood. This should be accompanied by extension services for farmers to enable better use of credit and to change their attitude towards it. As well, farmers require to be equipped with technical and market skills to run a business. Interdisciplinarity, holistic analysis, and an expansion of traditional ‘agricultural’ interests to embrace the span of interests included in rural livelihood, are each critical features of revision of the existing system.