Search results

The Australian system has managed to provide remarkably high real returns to many contributors which is, after all, the bottom line in assessing the results of such a system. It has done this despite imposing administrative costs which appear to be rather high, even by the standards of other countries imposing mandatory private superannuation savings. To this extent, the system must be assessed as a resounding success. Nonetheless, feasible reductions in administrative and investment costs, currently running at about 1.3% of total assets under management, could see final benefits for many members raised by as much as a quarter or even one-third. This paper outlines several options for reform ranging from the relatively small to full government organisation through a new Office of Superannuation. In all case however it is envisaged that opting out of the SG tier will continue to be possible for schemes paying superior benefits. The option of full government organisation of the system would require much consideration as to governance provisions which would minimise political interference in the running of the fund. Those who do not believe that such interference is avoidable will not, of course, support such a plan, although they might support some of the less drastic options considered. By the same token that scheme holds out the potential to maximise the cost savings potentially available.

We examine the diversification of administrative and procedural costs on patent stockusing a large dataset from the European Patent Office with 15,000firms for the periodbetween 1995 and 2015. The results reveal that administrative and procedural costs aresignificant forfirm-level patenting activity. However, not all administrative and proceduralcosts have equal effects. Higher administrative costs often encourage patent applicationand validation by solving the adverse selection problem and short-run opportunism, aswell as other sources of asymmetric information. The effective administration of intel-lectual property law and low-cost enforcement are found to considerably foster patentingactivity. The effects are robust for various mis-specification checks and do not disappearonce country-level research and development infrastructure proxies are controlled for. Theextreme bounds of administrative and procedural costs are computed across more than 5billion regressions, and the sizeable impact of administration on patent application andvalidation outcomes is confirmed.

"January 1992"--Cover. ; Shipping list no.: 92-141-P. ; Item 1005-C. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

As government financing of nonprofit organizations to deliver services and implement policies has become a common practice in the public administration landscape, the question of what factors affect government's source selection has emerged as a significant one. Within this strand of research, how nonprofits' administrative costs affect their receipt of government contracts is still not fully understood. This article explores that relationship using a large panel data set of U.S.-based international development nonprofits from 1967 to 2014. Different model specifications consistently demonstrate an inverted U-shaped relationship between a nonprofit's level of administrative costs and its amount of government contracts. In particular, as a nonprofit's level of administrative costs increases, its amount of government contracts will initially increase, but after its level of administrative costs reaches approximately 16% to 18% of total expenses, further increases in the nonprofit's level of administrative costs will reduce its amount of government contracts. These findings have implications for both public and nonprofit management.

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) efforts to reduce future federal reimbursements of states' administrative costs for the Food Stamp Program, focusing on: (1) HHS' administrative cost determinations, related estimates provided by the states to HHS, and the reasons for any differences between HHS' determinations and the states' estimates; (2) the reliability of HHS' determinations; and (3) what portion of common administrative costs could have been charged to the Food Stamp Program."