Suchergebnisse

This paper illustrates the use of a quality assessment tool for regression analysis. It is designed for non-specialist 'consumers' of evidence, such as policy makers. The tool provides a series of questions such consumers of evidence can ask to interrogate regression analysis, and is illustrated with reference to a recent study published in a peer-reviewed journal. The application of the tool highlights the need for non-specialists to develop their critical skills to ensure regression analysis meets methodological norms. They cannot rely on the fact that it has undergone a peer-review process to assume that the evidence is credible.

This article provides a practical guide for improving the quality of evidence‐based policy. Rather than adopting an approach that gives priority to particular types of research methodologies, this paper argues that evidence drawn from any methodology will improve if standards of transparency and accountability are followed in the process of gathering, analysing, interpreting, and presenting evidence for policy. The papers details what these standards of transparency and accountability mean in practice, how these standards can be achieved, and possible limits to their adoption.

Australian governments since the late 1970s have attempted to eliminate the fiscal deficit through reductions in expenditure. These efforts have failed. With each successive business cycle the federal government's budget outcome has been an ever-growing deficit. This paper explains the failure of the government to achieve its balanced budget objective through expenditure reductions. It argues that the impact of these expenditure reductions on the course of the business cycle and the long-term development of the economy has actually fed back onto the budget outcome in a negative way. These feedbacks have rendered the instruments for achieving the government's objective self-defeating. The paper explores the compositional changes in government outlays, away from capital to current outlays, that have resulted from this policy and which may have a detrimental effect on long-run growth.

All is not well with the evaluation of government programs and projects. Resources available to any society are limited. If governments are to increase the well-being of their citizens, they must be able to select and implement the socially most beneficial projects and policies. But many government agencies lack the expertise to carry out a cost-benefit analysis, or even to commission one. Commercial consultants, on the other hand, often have some analytical expertise, but are not immune from adopting approaches that accommodate the proclivities of their client agencies. In order to increase analytical rigour and methodological consistency, this publication urges the adoption of a 'belts and braces' set of protocols for use in project evaluation.