Resource entitlements of indigenous minorities, their poverty and conservation of nature: Status of Australian Aborigines, comparisons with India's tribals, theory and changing policies globally

Considers the relevance of A.K. Sen’s theory of entitlements to the situation facing indigenous tribal people, its relationship to institutionalism, and to theories of property rights. Changing world views about the resource entitlements that should be given to local communities are outlined concentrating on the views expressed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). These changing views have relevance for the resource entitlements of indigenous tribal communities and are reflected in differences in the policy approaches inherent in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the more recent Convention on Biological Diversity. The latter embodies the view that provision of greater resource entitlements to local communities can provide economic incentives for nature conservation. There is a case for Indigenous Australians to be given greater rights to market the natural produce from their lands. Despite progress with land rights, they are not entitled to market much of the natural produce from their land. The socioeconomic status of Australian Aborigines is outlined. Their standard of living and their life expectancy are low by world standards and in comparison to other Australians. This is partly a result of historical events that have restricted their rights. These events are outlined briefly. Views differ about the appropriate development paths for Indigenous Australians and these are assessed. Concern on environmental and economic grounds is expressed about the view that the economic development of Australian Aboriginal communities would be accelerated by replacing their communal land titles by private land titles and encouraging Western-style agriculture and commercial development of their lands. Some comparisons are also made with the situation of India’s Tribals.

Modelling basin level allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin in a world of uncertainty, Murray-Darling Program Working Papers WPM05-1, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, 8 February 2005

Abstract: The Murray-Darling Basin comprises over 1 million km2; it lies within four states and one territory; and over 12, 800 GL of irrigation water is used to produce over 40% of the nation's gross value of agricultural production. This production is used by a diverse collection of some-times mutually exclusive commodities (e.g. pasture; stone fruit; grapes; cotton and field crops). The supply of water for irrigation is subject to climatic and policy uncertainty. Variable inflows mean that water property rights do not provide a guaranteed supply. With increasing public scrutiny and environmental issues facing irrigators, greater pressure is being placed on this finite resource. The uncertainty of the water supply, water quality (salinity), combined with where water is utilised, while attempting to maximising return for investment makes for an interesting research field. The utilisation and comparison of a GAMS and Excel based modelling approach has been used to ask: where should we allocate water?; amongst what commodities?; and how does this affect both the quantity of water and the quality of water along the Murray-Darling river system?

Enhancing research-policy linkages in Australian housing: an options paper

A key ingredient in the successful delivery of a policy relevant research program is a process of engagement between the research and policy communities, centred on the conduct, dissemination and use of research. The research recommends that AHURI continue to build and extend its 'engagement strategy' to further realise the benefits of a research program relevant to policy.

A sociolinguistic approach to applied epistemology: Examining technocratic values in global 'knowledge' policy

This special issue presents an excellent opportunity to study applied epistemology in public policy. This is an important task because the arena of public policy is the social domain in which macro conditions for ‘knowledge work’ and ‘knowledge industries’ are defined and created. We argue that knowledge-related public policy has become overly concerned with creating the politico-economic parameters for the commodification of knowledge. Our policy scope is broader than that of Fuller (1988), who emphasizes the need for a social epistemology of science policy. We extend our focus to a range of policy documents that include communications, science, education and innovation policy (collectively called knowledge-related public policy in acknowledgement of the fact that there is no defined policy silo called ‘knowledge policy’), all of which are central to policy concerned with the ‘knowledge economy’ (Rooney and Mandeville, 1998). However, what we will show here is that, as Fuller (1995) argues, ‘knowledge societies’ are not industrial societies permeated by knowledge, but that knowledge societies are permeated by industrial values. Our analysis is informed by an autopoietic perspective. Methodologically, we approach it from a sociolinguistic position that acknowledges the centrality of language to human societies (Graham, 2000). Here, what we call ‘knowledge’ is posited as a social and cognitive relationship between persons operating on and within multiple social and non-social (or, crudely, ‘physical’) environments. Moreover, knowing, we argue, is a sociolinguistically constituted process. Further, we emphasize that the evaluative dimension of language is most salient for analysing contemporary policy discourses about the commercialization of epistemology (Graham, in press). Finally, we provide a discourse analysis of a sample of exemplary texts drawn from a 1.3 million-word corpus of knowledge-related public policy documents that we compiled from local, state, national and supranational legislatures throughout the industrialized world. Our analysis exemplifies a propensity in policy for resorting to technocratic, instrumentalist and anti-intellectual views of knowledge in policy. We argue that what underpins these patterns is a commodity-based conceptualization of knowledge, which is underpinned by an axiology of narrowly economic imperatives at odds with the very nature of knowledge. The commodity view of knowledge, therefore, is flawed in its ignorance of the social systemic properties of ��knowing’.

Scientists as policy-makers: Towards a new partnership

There is an urgent need to link social science research with policy making to address many key issues confronting countries across the globe. Policy makers need the benefit of social science research which is relevant, timely, transdisciplinary, methodologically capable of capturing global and local trends, swift to respond to fundamental issues, and offering findings which are clearly articulated, effectively disseminated, and oriented to outcomes. For this a new partnership is needed between social scientists and policy makers. We can gain a clearer picture of the nature of this desired partnership by probing the dichotomy between the world of science and the world of policy making. The experience of UNESCO and its programme Management of Social Transformations provides some valuable lessons.

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2001

The first half of 2001 saw traditional issues dominating the foreign policy agenda, with both Australia's relationship with the United States and the policy of Asian engagement still holding centre stage. But those old issues generated fresh anxieties. In the United States, the incoming Bush administration displayed a genuine radicalism in its approach to foreign policy, and that raised concerns in many Western capitals — including Canberra — about a new mood of unilateralism in Washington. At the same time, the emergence of the thesis that Australia was becoming a "branch office economy", where key decisions were taken in the capital markets of New York and London, made the government noticeably more cautious and selective in its endorsement of globalisation. Further, the issue of Asian engagement grew steadily more complex: Australian policy-makers searched unsuccessfully for a new focus for the policy of Asian engagement, as Japan's economy wallowed and Indonesia's democratic government tottered.