Home » 2015 » March

Monthly Archives: March 2015

Sign up to the Barefoot Economist’s Newsletter

© Barefoot Economic Services

All content on this website (unless otherwise specified) is copyright of Barefoot Economic Services. Please acknowledge any content used in your work appropriately. Thank you for your consideration.

Does Tough on Crime Actually Reduce Crime?

 

Introduction

“Do the crime, do the time”, is the common attitude towards criminals. Surely it is reasonable to expect convicted criminals to be punished? Yes, that is certainly a reasonable assumption to show society is serious in punishing anti-social behaviour such as assault, rape, murder and corruption (to name a few). But many of these criminals will be released back into society after “doing the time”. I went to a one-day conference organised by the Lentara UnitingCare to learn about these issues. What struck me was how much resources are being wasted by a reactive approach to crime. In today’s post, I want to explore the economics of a tough on crime policy. What are the benefits and costs on tough on crime? Is there an alternative? If so, is it a more efficient approach to being tough on crime?

(more…)

Was it Worth It? The Benefit-Cost of Air Pollution in China

 

Introduction

My brother sent me a link for Under the Dome and asked me what I thought of it. Under the Dome is a brave documentary on how China’s policy of develop at any cost is costing the people it is meant to benefit. It is made by Chai Jing, a former investigative journalist of CCTV (the State-owned TV network), and was originally hosted on the People Daily’s (another State-owned media organ) website until the Chinese Government ordered its removal. What I find most interesting about the documentary is how personal it is: this documentary rams home the point that the cost of environmental pollution is deeply personal, not an ideological preoccupation of the rich, Western global elite.

Environmental impacts have been depicted as a rich world obsession. But we can see in China that the people most affected are ordinary people, not the elite of the business and political cadres. Ultimately, people will suffer the costs of pollution. The costs to people are the result of environmental degradation and should be weighed against the economic benefits of development in public policy analysis. This blog post will ask the question, was all the air pollution worth it?

(more…)

Does it Make Sense to Increase Labour Supply to Stimulate Economic Growth?

 

Introduction

The Australian Government recently released the 2015 Intergenerational Report in an effort to educate the Australian public on the challenges facing the government and society by 2055. According to Treasury’s modelling, net debt would increase from 15.2% of GDP to 60% by 2055. Per capita income growth would increase from 1.7% per year to 1.5%. What does the Australian Government propose to do about it? Their answer is to increase participation and productivity – i.e. increase the quantity and quality of inputs used in economic growth. The government seems to mean increasing labour supply and improving labour productivity. But does this policy prescription actually make sense?

(more…)

Red Tape and Social Impact

 

Summary

Red tape (i.e. regulatory burden) reduction has been a focus for governments in recent years. However, the focus has been on the private commercial sector and has largely ignored other sectors. In this post I will discuss the red tape imposed on social service organisations. The red tape has implications beyond increasing costs for social service organisations. At worst, it could provide perverse incentives for social service organisations to focus on process and outputs rather than producing and measuring genuine social impact.

(more…)