Community mix, affordable housing and metropolitan planning strategy in Melbourne

Income segregation across Melbourne’s residential communities is widening, and at a pace faster than in some other Australian cities. The widening gap between Melbourne’s rich and poor communities raises fears about concentrations of poverty and social exclusion, particularly if the geography of these communities is such that they and their residents are increasingly isolated from urban services and employment centres. Social exclusion in our metropolitan areas and the government responses to it are commonly thought to be the proper domain of social and economic policy. The role of urban planning is typically neglected, yet it helps shape the economic opportunities available to communities in its attempts to influence the geographical location of urban services, infrastructure and jobs. Under the current metropolitan strategy ‘Melbourne 2030’ urban services and transport infrastructure are to be concentrated within Principal Activity Centres spread throughout the metropolitan area and it is the intention that lower-income households should have ready access to these activity centres. However, the Victorian state government has few housing policy instruments to achieve this goal and there are fears that community mix may suffer as house prices and rents are bid up in the vicinity of Principal Activity Centres, and lower-income households are displaced. But are these fears justified by the changing geography of house prices in the metropolitan region? This is the key research question addressed in this paper which examines whether the Victorian practice of placing reliance on the market to deliver affordable housing, while intervening to promote a more compact pattern of urban settlement, is effective.

Can company-fund manager meetings convey informational benefits? Exploring the rationalisation of equity investment decision making by UK fund managers

Conventional economic theory, applied to information released by listed companies, equates ‘useful’ with ‘price-sensitive’. Stock exchange rules accordingly prohibit the selec- tive, private communication of price-sensitive information. Yet, even in the absence of such communication, UK equity fund managers routinely meet privately with the senior execu- tives of the companies in which they invest. Moreover, they consider these brief, formal and formulaic meetings to be their most important sources of investment information. In this paper we ask how that can be. Drawing on interview and observation data with fund managers and CFOs, we find evidence for three, non-mutually exclusive explanations: that the characterisation of information in conventional economic theory is too restricted, that fund managers fail to act with the rationality that conventional economic theory assumes, and/or that the primary value of the meetings for fund managers is not related to their investment decision making but to the claims of superior knowledge made to clients in marketing their active fund management expertise. Our findings suggest a disconnect between economic theory and economic policy based on that theory, as well as a corre- sponding limitation in research studies that test information-usefulness by assuming it to be synonymous with price-sensitivity. We draw implications for further research into the role of tacit knowledge in equity investment decision-making, and also into the effects of the principal–agent relationship between fund managers and their clients.

Productivity and the international firm: dissecting heterogeneity

Higher productivity of multinational firms and exporters has been widely documented in the literature, but the sources of this heterogeneity are still a black box. Using an original dataset on Italian firms, we show that higher total factor productivity of international firms can be to some extent explained by higher R&D intensity and managerial capabilities. However, our results suggest that heterogeneity is more in the slope than in the constant of the production function. In particular, allowing international firms to have different return to labour and capital inputs, we are able to account for their entire productivity premium. This has implications for both labour and capital market reforms.