Comments on Henry Ergas "Europe's Greek tragedy has a lesson for Aussies", 30/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/europes-greek-tragedy-has-a-lesson-for-aussies/story-e6frg6zo-1225860365007
While the article relates to wider issues, the allocation of the GST revenue to the States by the formula decided by the Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) is one of those.
The article argues an equal per capita allocation is better than the CGC's. Although it has some merits, it over simplified the issue.
The CGC formula does not consider incentives or disincentives and that is both good and bad. There are reasons that the CGC should recommend a non equal per capita allocation of the GST. However, there are also reasons that it should also take incentives into its consideration of the allocation formula, that is to encourage efficiency in cost reduction and provide incentives for revenue retention.
In essence, both Henry Ergas and the CGC are on the extremes. An optimal formula should be somewhere in between.
Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts
2009-08-24
Public services must be services for the public
Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “Not much open justice and even less public service”, 23/08/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/not_much_open_justice_and_even_less_public_service/
That is an awful experience with public services. Was that an encounter with public services at the State level or federal level? What about the freedom of information act? Does that act cover the justice or court system?
It is ironic that the court proceedings are open and its transcripts are not. Also, the public servants whom Janet Albrechtsen described do not serve the public. The story also reveals the serious inefficiency that the public services provide their services.
Both the inefficiency of public services and the non-public access to court transcripts are unacceptable and must be changed or improved. Public services must be efficient and serve the public. The court transcripts should be available for whoever is interested. Only a more open justice system can improve the accountability of justice and justice itself.
Charges may be applied, but they must be reasonable to cover the costs at most and should not be run as a commercial business. And those charges must be openly displayed.
There is a need for public service ombudsman so the public can have a place to complain about inefficient and unfair public services. That will help improve public services and increase accountability of public services.
That is an awful experience with public services. Was that an encounter with public services at the State level or federal level? What about the freedom of information act? Does that act cover the justice or court system?
It is ironic that the court proceedings are open and its transcripts are not. Also, the public servants whom Janet Albrechtsen described do not serve the public. The story also reveals the serious inefficiency that the public services provide their services.
Both the inefficiency of public services and the non-public access to court transcripts are unacceptable and must be changed or improved. Public services must be efficient and serve the public. The court transcripts should be available for whoever is interested. Only a more open justice system can improve the accountability of justice and justice itself.
Charges may be applied, but they must be reasonable to cover the costs at most and should not be run as a commercial business. And those charges must be openly displayed.
There is a need for public service ombudsman so the public can have a place to complain about inefficient and unfair public services. That will help improve public services and increase accountability of public services.
2009-07-03
Rudd and Gillard overdone to industrial relations to be both efficient and fair
Comments on Corin McCarthy “Kev07's scab flick politics”, 3/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25724259-5015664,00.html
It is always easy to attack the deficiencies of known policies and propose an alternative with unknown effects if that alternative can be dressed up as better. That is normally opposition does.
Howard did that before the 1996 election. Rudd did that in the 2007 election. They were both successful, because the public were bored with the incumbent and were looking for alternatives.
In terms of work place relations, the Rudd government had a mandate to reform the Howard unfair system. Howard just went too far. It might have been good for efficiency, but it lost the society’s value of fairness. Efficiency and fairness or equity are the two fundamental issues of the economy. They need to be balanced.
However, Rudd and Gillard do seem to have gone too far in correcting the unfairness of the Howard industrial relations system. There needs to be a place for unions. But there is also a place for individual agreements. In fact, it seems more attractive to have a dual system in the work place, so employees can choose from them, if firms are big enough.
The phasing out in a period of individual agreements can minimise the impact of Rudd / Gillard reforms, although it will not remove all the negative effects on employment as well as productivity.
It seems that the Rudd Labour government cannot see the damages of its overdone reforms to the economy and the society or will not admit them. That is a regrettable and bad for Australians. The earlier the government realise that, and the earlier it take measures to remedy them, the better it is for the economy and for Australians as a whole.
It is always easy to attack the deficiencies of known policies and propose an alternative with unknown effects if that alternative can be dressed up as better. That is normally opposition does.
Howard did that before the 1996 election. Rudd did that in the 2007 election. They were both successful, because the public were bored with the incumbent and were looking for alternatives.
In terms of work place relations, the Rudd government had a mandate to reform the Howard unfair system. Howard just went too far. It might have been good for efficiency, but it lost the society’s value of fairness. Efficiency and fairness or equity are the two fundamental issues of the economy. They need to be balanced.
However, Rudd and Gillard do seem to have gone too far in correcting the unfairness of the Howard industrial relations system. There needs to be a place for unions. But there is also a place for individual agreements. In fact, it seems more attractive to have a dual system in the work place, so employees can choose from them, if firms are big enough.
The phasing out in a period of individual agreements can minimise the impact of Rudd / Gillard reforms, although it will not remove all the negative effects on employment as well as productivity.
It seems that the Rudd Labour government cannot see the damages of its overdone reforms to the economy and the society or will not admit them. That is a regrettable and bad for Australians. The earlier the government realise that, and the earlier it take measures to remedy them, the better it is for the economy and for Australians as a whole.
Effectiveness, efficiency and equity issues in reducing emissions
Comments on Brendan O'Neill “Green-industrial complex gets rich from carbon laws”, 3/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25724257-5013479,00.html
There is a need to combat global warming, if that is achievable by human beings. Although there are some different views on human induced global warming, it seems that the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests the argument that human activity is a cause of the current global warming. Unless there is convincing scientific evidence that can prove the opposite, there is a cause of action that human should take to minimise the adverse effects of global warming.
Of course, there is the issue of how to reduce global warming. The best actions require effectiveness, efficiency and equity among all participants.
Effectiveness means two important things in this particular issue. The first is the global actions in limiting or reducing carbon emissions are effective in reducing global warming. If it can’t be done, there is no point to do it.
The second point of effectiveness requires that the efforts in reducing emissions are effective in achieving the specified targets. Otherwise the efforts cannot be said to be effective.
There is another point in effectiveness in terms of individual country’s efforts in reducing emissions to achieve its targets.
In terms of the issue of efficiency in combat global warming, it requires also efficiency at different levels. The different levels involve individuals, firms, industries, countries, and the world as a whole. Efforts at each level need to be made to make their actions are efficient.
Then the last important issue in combat global warming is equity. There are also multi-levels in terms of equity. O’Neill talked about the equity issue in terms of different industries and different firms in terms of their size. This issue is obviously true and exists. It is the focus of most governments in countries which are having explicit targets of reduction and those countries which are planning to do it.
There is also an important equity issue that is at the international dimension. It is important because it directly involves differential targets and actions by different countries. The most important manifestation of this equity issue in reducing global emissions is how to get developing countries into a global agreement of actions.
This last point is more difficult than the equity issues at the domestic levels. But unless this international equity issue is successfully and fairly addressed, global efforts are likely to fail, given that emissions from developing countries are important at the global scale.
There should be and must be some internationally acceptable framework in addressing the international equity issue, especially the equity issue between developed and developing countries. There are also very diverse income and emission levels among developing countries as well.
There is a need to combat global warming, if that is achievable by human beings. Although there are some different views on human induced global warming, it seems that the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests the argument that human activity is a cause of the current global warming. Unless there is convincing scientific evidence that can prove the opposite, there is a cause of action that human should take to minimise the adverse effects of global warming.
Of course, there is the issue of how to reduce global warming. The best actions require effectiveness, efficiency and equity among all participants.
Effectiveness means two important things in this particular issue. The first is the global actions in limiting or reducing carbon emissions are effective in reducing global warming. If it can’t be done, there is no point to do it.
The second point of effectiveness requires that the efforts in reducing emissions are effective in achieving the specified targets. Otherwise the efforts cannot be said to be effective.
There is another point in effectiveness in terms of individual country’s efforts in reducing emissions to achieve its targets.
In terms of the issue of efficiency in combat global warming, it requires also efficiency at different levels. The different levels involve individuals, firms, industries, countries, and the world as a whole. Efforts at each level need to be made to make their actions are efficient.
Then the last important issue in combat global warming is equity. There are also multi-levels in terms of equity. O’Neill talked about the equity issue in terms of different industries and different firms in terms of their size. This issue is obviously true and exists. It is the focus of most governments in countries which are having explicit targets of reduction and those countries which are planning to do it.
There is also an important equity issue that is at the international dimension. It is important because it directly involves differential targets and actions by different countries. The most important manifestation of this equity issue in reducing global emissions is how to get developing countries into a global agreement of actions.
This last point is more difficult than the equity issues at the domestic levels. But unless this international equity issue is successfully and fairly addressed, global efforts are likely to fail, given that emissions from developing countries are important at the global scale.
There should be and must be some internationally acceptable framework in addressing the international equity issue, especially the equity issue between developed and developing countries. There are also very diverse income and emission levels among developing countries as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
