BLOGS WEBSITE

Garry Bowditch, Executive Director of the University of Sydney’s Better Infrastructure Initiative, makes the case for reforming our approach to infrastructure investment…

All too often I attend infrastructure forums where policymakers and industry leaders call for the urgent need to fix the infrastructure deficit, by building more assets and deliver more projects. This point of view is understandable when communities in both regional Australia and major cities like Adelaide continue to face escalating congestion with their roads, higher prices for use of infrastructure and increased uncertainty in terms of access and service quality across schools, hospitals, energy and transport. Clearly these problems are persisting and when it comes to spending money on the problem Australia has not been idle to the task.

In fact, many may be surprised to know that Australia has just completed a decade of infrastructure investment that is enormous in magnitude and historical in proportion. Australia has spent in the last decade over half trillion dollars on infrastructure, which is double the size of the previous decade. But increased congestion, emissions and high costs persist, accompanied with declining service standards like uncertainty of access, reliability of outcomes has emerged as the new norm.

It appears Australia has a problem translating big spending on asset building into meaningful benefits that lift competitiveness and improve the lives of its people.

Part of the diagnosis is that too much emphasis is on rushing the engineering blue prints for ‘shovel ready projects’ without proper consideration to setting objectives to measure future success. Compounding the situation further is an absence of problem identification the project is seeking to fix.

Governments must choose their infrastructure well, if it is to live up to the rhetoric of boosting productivity and living standards. The trouble is choosing projects is not easy, in fact it’s very difficult.

Australia’s experience suggests that the best way to deal with this is for Federal and state governments to finish the reform agenda started in the 1980s, and then do some more.

Many sectors in infrastructure have been reformed through corporatisation and privatisation. The big successes like airports and telecommunications has transformed these sectors for the better. We have seen excellent investment in facilities and customer service. Brisbane airport currently looks more like Dubai with its massive new runway excavations is a case in point, and other airports are de-congesting and de-bottlenecking to ensure good customer experiences.

But other sectors like roads and public transport remain largely untouched by reform. As a result an undisciplined investment process has seen taxpayer dollars failing to fix poor service levels, and tardiness with introducing capital saving new technologies. In contrast, telecommunications has had a far more stable investment pathway and has been quick to introduce new technology. Customers have been the winner as they have benefited from markets and competition.

The community and customers want services, not assets. All governments need to adapt by enabling markets to deliver these services where possible.  It is better that infrastructure is provided through businesses to customers, not politicians lobbying voters which can be a recipe for opportunism and waste of taxpayers’ money.

When markets are not possible, then governments must seek to procure service outcomes. This will invite a broader participation in the market, not just those that want to build assets. It should seek to give greater emphasis to using existing infrastructure better, stimulate innovation and reward risk taking.

These issues are the focus of the University of Sydney’s Better Infrastructure Initiative report, Re-establishing Australia’s Global Infrastructure Leadership, (available here), which was released in February.

Garry Bowditch gave a presentation on “Fixing Australia’s Infrastructure Problem” at the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies’ Economic Briefing Luncheon in Adelaide yesterday.

Posted in Business economics, Economic reform, Infrastructure, Public policy, South Australian Centre for Economic Studies
Leave a comment

Hein Roelfsema, a recent visitor to the University of Adelaide and Associate Professor of International Macroeconomics at Utrecht University in The Netherlands, has a unique perspective on the implications of Brexit…

There is no doubt about the significance of the impact of the UK’s choice to exit the EU on its economy. The market’s assessment is in on these effects, with share market falls and a drop in the value of the pound. The UK credit rating has also dropped.

But what about the effect on the EU?  And what will be the EU’s response and how will that feed into UK decision making?  This is a complex situation and the Brexit process is far from over.

The context is that the UK is not alone in being in a state of unhappiness with the EU.  Some of the same forces apply to the same groups in the economy, that is, those displaced by a combination of globalisation and technological change.

There is another element in many European economies which is important to consider.  These are the views of the middle class;  they are relatively highly educated, they are in work, and they hold positive views on globalisation.  But they also hold negative views on the EU – for its intrusiveness, its excessive regulation, and it’s over-the-top approach to international relations, including the way it prods the Russian tiger.

The UK decision legitimises the views of both of these groups in the EU.   They are freed to speak louder, not just mumble among themselves.  More political entrepreneurs will emerge to give them voice.  If a similar vote were held in other EU economies, it would be a ‘line ball’ decision.   This structure is fragile.

The EU is a ‘thinking organisation’, it is smart and it will respond.  Expect to see for example more efforts to decentralise to allow for higher degrees of local autonomy. The EU will start to evolve. In fact, these events may save it!

How then will the UK respond?  What will the UK actually be leaving?  Would these changes assuage some of the UK concerns? Boris Johnson is in a real pickle – he probably wanted to challenge PM Cameron through the vehicle of the referendum, but he did not actually want the proposal to pass. He looked like a tormented person on TV responding to the vote and has been missing in action over the weekend. Does he really want to be a long-term political relationship with the bedfellows of the exit campaign? He needs an out.

The EU knows this.  In this context, it will not actually push for a rapid exit by the UK. Its leadership will want to take time, in order to repair their own house and then make it more difficult for the UK to enact the currently popular choice of exiting.

The EU may also seek to gain from other pressures on the UK. One will be via markets – for example, the relocation of firms to EU economies and the decline in foreign direct investment (which is critical to fund the UK’s deficit and without which we would expect more pressure on the pound).  These will be powerful effects.

Another is via politics, with Northern Ireland and Scotland looking to secede. The EU will entertain this, in a statesperson-like manner. The days of the ‘united’ kingdom could be over; at least, that is the risk the English will perceive, which goes back to the heart of their concern (or at least the concern of older citizens) in the vote to restore what they saw as the glorious days of their independence. What an irony: an attempt to rediscover their past has led to their current dissolution!

As it is up to the UK to trigger the exit clause (the now famous Article 50), the EU could just sit back and watch and wait for these events to unfold. The smart people won’t be pushing for the UK to post the letter on exiting.

The challenge for Boris Johnson (or whomever becomes PM) is how to accept the voice of the referendum but not actually implement the exit. The changing context may provide the way out – it can be imagined with an economic crisis and political crisis alongside a reforming EU that the UK leadership might at least put a stay on proceedings. It might retain the ultimate threat to withdraw (put a time line on it, say 2 years time), but in the meantime the new UK leadership could negotiate a new relationship with the EU. That could be argued to be exiting, but actually leaves them ‘in’, in a manner consistent with the new less-centralised EU.

Brexit?  Its not over.

Posted in Business economics, Economic reform, International trade, Public policy
Leave a comment

New research by University of Adelaide economist Dr Terence Cheng and his collaborators has identified substantial gender differences in earnings in the oldest and most prestigious of professions in Australia: medicine.

The study, published in the international journal Industrial Relations, (and available here), analysed data of over 3,400 Australian general practitioners (GPs) from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey.

It finds that female GPs with children earn $110,000-$120,000 per year less than male GPs with children and $40,000-$50,000 less than their female colleagues without children. Lower working hours arising from family responsibilities is the most important factor explaining thsee differences in earnings. Female GPs with children work fewer hours and are less attached to the labour force compared to male GPs and their female colleagues without children.

Tracking GPs over a four-year period, the study also finds evidence pointing to a “breadwinner effect” among males, and a “carer-effect” among females. For male GPs, having two or more children within four years result in 42% higher earnings. For females, having one child and multiple children over a four-year period result in a reduction in earnings by 72% and 100% respectively – the latter suggesting that female GPs with two or more children stop working almost entirely.

The results of this study highlight the importance of flexible medical training programs and working arrangements for women, especially given the increasing proportion females in the medical workforce.

The research is published as: Schurer S, Kuehnle D, Scott A and TC Cheng (2016). “One man’s blessing, another woman’s curse? Family factors and the gender-earnings gap of doctors” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 55: 385–414. 2016.

Posted in Economic research, Terence Cheng
Leave a comment

In their article in The Weekend Australian, Christopher Findlay and Paul Kerin argue that the Federal Treasurer’s rejection of the sale of the S. Kidman & Co. cattle stations to a consortium 80% backed by private Chinese businesses has not been in Australia’s public interest. As well as forgoing the usual benefits that foreign direct […]

Posted in Business economics, Christopher Findlay, Economic growth, Economic reform, Economic regulation, International trade, Paul Kerin, Public policy
Leave a comment

In an article just published in the East Asia Forum, Christopher Findlay and Chunlai Chen (a PhD graduate of the University of Adelaide, now at ANU) argue that the Chinese economy faces two fundamental challenges. One is the risk of a financial crisis. The other, possibly more difficult to deal with, is resistance by the […]

Posted in Christopher Findlay, Economic reform, Public policy
Leave a comment

An article co-authored by the School of Economics’ latest recruit Benedikt Heid has just been published in the leading economics journal, the Journal of International Economics. The article estimates the gains to countries from trade liberalisation when employment effects are explicitly allowed for. For example, the article estimates that the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) […]

Posted in Business economics, Economic growth, Economic reform, Economic research, International trade, Paul Kerin, Public policy
Leave a comment

In his article in today’s Australian (available here), Paul Kerin argues that governments must be weigh decisions to assist private businesses very carefully. When businesses are about to be sold through a competitive tendering process, governments jumping the gun can simply waste taxpayer dollars for no benefit. Governments must also critically assess claims about the […]

Posted in Business economics, Economic growth, Paul Kerin, Public policy, South Australian economy
Leave a comment

In his article titled “Government resorts to smoke and mirrors” published in today’s Australian (available here), Paul Kerin explains the arcane world of government finances and shows that the Queensland government’s claims the it is reducing debt is really just smoke and mirrors.

Posted in Business economics, Paul Kerin, Public policy
Leave a comment

At last week’s Energy Networks Conference (held in Adelaide), electricity industry leaders were adamant that the future for traditional utility business models was very dim (see, for example, Electricity market smashed by technology). AGL Managing Director Andy Vesey said that business models based on the traditional technology paradigm – large-scale generation, large-scale wires and electricity […]

Posted in Economic reform, Economic regulation, Economic research, Infrastructure, Paul Kerin, Public policy
Leave a comment

Dairy farmer associations are calling on the Federal government to ban sales of $1/litre milk and, in the meantime, urging consumers to boycott $1/litre milk (sold by Coles and Woolworths under their own brands) and instead buy branded milk (see, for example, “Ban cut-price milk”). However, as I showed in an article over 5 years […]

Posted in Business economics, Economic regulation, Paul Kerin, Public policy
Leave a comment