#34 December 2011 - Melbourne Institute News

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 1

ISSN 1442-9500 (print) ISSN 1442-9519 (online) Print Post Approved PP381667/01204 Issue 34

Melbourne Institute NewsDecember 2011

New Measure of Social Exclusion in Australia

Page 1

PwC Melbourne Institute Asialink Index 2011

Page 3

The CASiE Survey and Reports about the Macroeconomy

Page 4

Melbourne Institute Economics Forums

Page 5

MABEL Longitudinal Survey of Doctors Extended Five Years

Page 6

Australian Economic ReviewPage 7

Significant Cost Savings by Abolishing Rebates

Page 8

www.melbourneinstitute.com

New Measure of Social Exclusion in AustraliaThe wellbeing of citizens, in particular those suffering disadvantage, is a fundamental measure of society. However, traditional methods used to gauge disadvantage in Australia have involved the examination of income, specifically analysing the number of people living below the ‘poverty line’. This has changed with a partnership between the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Melbourne Institute utilising a new approach to assessing the proliferation of disadvantage, a measure of social exclusion in Australia.

Social exclusion arises when individuals experience multiple, intersecting problems, such as poor health, unemployment and inadequate education. These multiple problems prevent them from full participation in society. This phenomenon is now being measured via the Social Exclusion Monitor, a new study that has been developed by the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Melbourne Institute using data from the annual Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey.

Dr Rosanna Scutella, a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Institute, has stated that while it is clear that having a gauge for the wellbeing of citizens is important for governments, common aggregate measures of living standards, such as Gross Domestic Product per capita, provide only partial information.

According to Dr Scutella these measures need to be supplemented with indicators examining the distribution of resources and the opportunities associated with that distribution. “In any discussion about social disadvantage, or in this case social exclusion, it is therefore essential to know how many people are disadvantaged, or excluded, who these people are, and the nature of their disadvantage,” she said.

Measuring social exclusion provides a robust tool to evaluate the effectiveness of policy and performance both

©iS

tockp

hoto.

com/B

EA

NS-

Page 2 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

provides a comparative rich source: “Its annual frequency and its longitudinal structure, suggest that it is the best available source for individual-level measures of social exclusion, enabling multidimensional measures as well as consideration of the causes and persistence of exclusion.”

The Social Exclusion Monitor examines characteristics such as gender, age, country of birth, ethnicity, health, education, family structure and living conditions which contribute to social exclusion. Recent findings, which examined HILDA data from 2001 to 2008, indicate that more than one million Australians experienced what is known as ‘deep social exclusion’.

Other findings of the Social Exclusion Monitor include:

twenty-eight per cent of women experience social • exclusion compared to 22 per cent of men;

half of Australians aged over 65 years experience • social exclusion;

social exclusion is experienced by 30 per cent of • immigrants;

social exclusion is experienced by 42 per cent of • Indigenous Australians; and

one in two Australians who have a long-term health • condition or disability experiences social exclusion.

The Social Exclusion Monitor sees the continuation of a strong association between the Melbourne Institute and the Brotherhood of St Laurence that traces back to the days of Professor Ronald Henderson and his seminal research on poverty in Australia. It is a relationship that was formalised with the creation of a jointly funded position of Ronald Henderson Research Fellow.

According to Dr Scutella, “This project to develop a new way of measuring social exclusion is a recent example of the collaborative work of the Melbourne Institute and the Brotherhood of St Laurence that was facilitated by the Ronald Henderson Research Fellowship.”

The Social Exclusion Monitor will be updated with 2009 data later this year. It is planned that this analysis of the HILDA Survey data will allow findings to be reported on the Social Exclusion Monitor on an annual basis thereafter. “We will also report on emerging themes from the analysis such as trends over time and particular clusters of barriers faced by specific groups at different stages over the life course,” said Dr Scutella.

For more information on the Social Exclusion Monitor, visit <www.bsl.org.au/Social-exclusion-monitor>.

New Measure of Social Exclusion in Australia(continued)

for government and associated organisations. According to Dr Scutella, “It provides a baseline from which to identify whether governments’ social exclusion policies are working and enables stakeholders to benchmark and monitor performance. It also enables governments to monitor developments across countries.”

Dr Scutella pointed out that until recently, the standard indicator used to measure disadvantage in Australia has been the level of income poverty: “The Henderson poverty line has traditionally been the most widely used indicator, measuring the disposable income required to support the needs of a family comprising two adults and two children. Other measures have been developed both here and overseas, typically based on the lack of financial resources as the key indication of persistent poverty.”

Examining social exclusion contributes to the construction of a more complete picture of the underlying causes of disadvantage: “The concept of social exclusion takes the measurement of disadvantage a step further by considering the numerous, overlapping factors that may exclude a person from society,” said Dr Scutella.

“In this way a social exclusion approach provides a more satisfactory basis for identifying disadvantage than traditional income poverty measurement. Socio-economic disadvantage is by its nature multidimensional and its extent, nature, causes and consequences cannot be understood merely by looking to the cash incomes of individuals’ households.”

Robust monitoring provides numerous practical benefits according to Dr Scutella: “The regular reporting of the prevalence of social exclusion will provide an independent monitor of the progress achieved by Australian governments to build social inclusion over the coming years.”

The Social Exclusion Monitor uses datasets from the HILDA Survey. It is an Australian Government funded household-based panel study conducted by staff from the Melbourne Institute which collects information about economic and subjective wellbeing, labour market dynamics and family dynamics. The first survey was conducted in 2011 and consisted of 7,682 households and 19,914 individuals. Interviews have been conducted with all adult members of each household on an annual basis since then.

Dr Scutella stated that while no single Australian data source currently available comprehensively meets the needs to measure social exclusion, the HILDA Survey


The 2011 edition of the PwC Melbourne Institute Asialink Index was launched at the annual Asialink Chairman’s Dinner in Melbourne in late November.

The Index is Australia’s only comprehensive broad-based measure of our engagement in Asia. It includes elements of engagement such as trade, investment, research and business development, as well as the less often focused upon sectors of education, tourism, migration and humanitarian assistance. It has become an important resource for policy makers, business leaders and the academic community.

The picture that emerges from the fourth edition of the PwC Melbourne Institute Asialink Index report is consistent with other broad-based indicators of economic activity around the world. Specifically, Australia and Asia have continued to outperform much of the rest of the world since the onset of the global financial crisis. Thus, while Australia’s engagement with Asia recorded a small fall of 2.9 per cent in 2010, there was a much bigger fall of 18.3 per cent in engagement with the rest of the world.

The Index clearly demonstrates the importance of Australia’s relationships in Asia. China’s recent ascendance to become Australia’s largest trading partner, with Japan a close second, underlines the significance of the Australia–Asia relationship.

Australia still has a long way to go to unlock the potential of our Asian relationships, particularly in regard to India and Indonesia. Yet the future is promising following the Federal Government’s announcement of a white paper on ‘Australia in the Asian Century’, due for release in mid 2012. There is also evidence that Australian states and cities are forging their own paths, building new business, political and cultural links with counterparts in Asia.

Index in Brief

Australia’s trade engagement with Asia made a • strong contribution to overall engagement in 2010. In particular, trade in goods and services with China grew by 18.3 per cent, reflecting export growth of 19.2 per cent, which exceeded imports growth of 16.9 per cent.

In keeping with this, overall engagement with China • grew by an impressive 16 per cent in 2010, driven largely by a surge in two-way trade, education and tourism engagement.

PwC Melbourne Institute Asialink Index 2011

Asia’s net investment in Australia declined sharply • in 2010, while growth in Australia’s net investment in Asia picked up to 6.4 per cent. There was a sharp decline in the net investment inflow from and outflow to the rest of the world.

While China now dominates Australia’s trade in Asia • (and the world), Japan comes a close second and is also Australia’s preeminent investment partner. Japan accounts for more than half of the net inward investment to Australia from Asia and around 15 per cent of total inward investment.

The growth in international students coming from • Asia and elsewhere to study in Australia slowed further in 2010. However, the number of Australians travelling overseas to study, especially to Asia, jumped strongly such that overall engagement rose. There was a 29.1 per cent increase in Australian students travelling to Asia in 2010, and a 12.8 per cent increase in students travelling to the rest of the world; the strength of the Australian dollar would have made studying abroad more affordable for Australian students.

While engagement with China, Japan, Indonesia and • South Korea grew strongly in 2010, engagement with India suffered, reflecting the decline in Indian education and migration engagement.

The PwC Melbourne Institute Asialink Index is available from the Melbourne Institute website at <www.melbourneinstitute.com>. For further information please contact Dr Russell Thomson (email <[email protected]>) or Anne Leahy (email <[email protected]>), who prepared the 2011 report update.

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Inde

xYear

Asia25

Rest of the world

PwC Melbourne Institute Asialink Engagement Index


The CASiE Survey and Reports about the MacroeconomyThe Melbourne Institute’s Applied Macroeconomics team (Professor Guay Lim, Dr Michael Chua, Dr Edda Claus and Dr Viet Nguyen) produces monthly and quarterly reports covering various aspects of the economy.

The CASiE Survey

Five reports are based on a survey of households in Australia, also known as the CASiE (Consumer Attitudes, Sentiments and Expectations) Survey. Conducted since 1974, the CASiE Survey involves contacting 1,200 households, each month, for their views about their financial situation, the state of the economy and whether unemployment and prices would rise or fall. Each quarter, the households are also asked about their savings, debts and investments. The survey also contains information about the householders’ occupations, the state they reside in and their ages and income groups, as these factors have a bearing on the responses.

Reports Produced from the CASiE Survey

The Westpac – Melbourne Institute Survey of Consumer Sentiment reports on the confidence of Australians. The Consumer Sentiment Index is an average of five component indexes which reflect consumers’ evaluations of their financial situation over the past year and the coming year, their anticipated economic conditions over the coming year and the next five years, and whether it is a good or bad time to buy major household items.

The Westpac – Melbourne Institute Survey of Consumer Unemployment Expectations report is concerned with consumers’ views about whether unemployment will be more, the same or less in the coming 12 months.

The Melbourne Institute Survey of Consumer Inflationary Expectations report includes a direct measure of inflationary expectations as consumers are asked whether, and by how much, they believe prices will change over the coming 12 months. Once a quarter it also includes information about wage changes.

The Melbourne Institute Household Saving and Investment Report is produced quarterly and contains information about households’ current and future saving behaviour, their reasons for saving (for example, is it for a holiday or to pay off bills?), and the structure of household assets and debts (for example, mortgages, credit cards).

It also includes information about how savings should be invested (for example, bank deposits, shares, properties).

Other Reports about the Macroeconomy

The TD Securities – Melbourne Institute Monthly Inflation Gauge is based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ methodology for calculating the quarterly consumer price index. This report estimates month-to-month price movements for a wide-ranging basket of goods and services (for example, petrol, grocery items, tobacco and alcohol, travel).

The Westpac – Melbourne Institute Indexes of Economic Activity combines information from a number of variables to provide an indicator of the current and future state of the Australian economy.

The Global Proxy – Melbourne Institute Shareholder Confidence IndexTM is based on a survey of shareholders who directly own shares in companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. The survey canvasses their views about returns, volatility and intentions to buy or sell.

The Melbourne Institute Monthly Bulletin of Economic Trends provides a monthly review of the state of the Australian economy as well as forecasts for four quarters ahead.

Media Coverage

These reports provide valuable leading information about the state of the economy and they are regularly reported on by the media. The headlines listed below illustrate their relevance to understanding current business conditions.‘Home rates are on hold and consumers display a positive sentiment’, The Age, 15 September 2011‘Bit of cheer for consumers’, Australian Financial Review, 15 September 2011‘Consumer comeback’, Adelaide Advertiser, 15 September 2011

©iS

tockp

hoto.

com/i

cyman


‘Indicators point in every direction’, Courier Mail, 15 September 2011‘Stable rate increases consumer confidence’, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 September 2011‘Australian inflation expectations subdued’, Dow Jones Newswires, 15 September 2011‘Consumers shocked by volatility hoard hard-earned cash in the bank’, Courier Mail, 15 September 2011‘Consumers relaxed about inflation rate’, Canberra Times, 16 September 2011‘Labour market policy failure will hurt the weakest parts of the economy’, The Australian, 17–18 September 2011‘Guarantee is in the bank: The reduced government backing for term deposits won’t make them less popular’, The Age, 21 September 2011‘Property appetite hits two-year high’, Australian Broker, 1 October 2011‘Inflation up as alcohol offsets cheaper vegies’, Canberra Times, 4 October 2011‘Food, rents keep down inflation’, Canberra Times, 1 November 2011‘Investors strike as consumers cash in’, Adelaide Advertiser, 10 November 2011

‘Confidence, lending up as sales slide’, Australian Financial Review, 10 November 2011‘Economic mood swing sees consumers confident again’, Sydney Morning Herald, 10 November 2011 ‘Happy days as rates cut lifts hopes’, Courier Mail, 10 November 2011‘Investors regain an appetite for risk’, The Australian, 10 November 2011‘Home stretch – Mortgages on the up, but less being borrowed’, Herald Sun, 10 November 2011‘Retail giants still cautious’, Courier Mail, 10 November 2011‘The economy’s confidence trick’, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 November 2011‘Australia’s Leading Economic Index moderates in September’, Dow Jones Newswires, 16 November 2011‘Low-key view on pay rises’, Australian Financial Review, 16 November 2011

Further Information

For more information about these reports, contact Michelle Best: email <[email protected]>, telephone (03) 8344 2196.

Melbourne Institute Economics ForumsThe Melbourne Institute recently hosted attendees from industry and academia at the regular Economics Forums held in both Melbourne and Canberra. Chaired by Phil Ruthven (Chairman of IBISWorld) in Melbourne and by Gary Banks (Chairman of the Productivity Commission) in Canberra, the lunchtime Melbourne Institute Economics Forums were entitled ‘Structural Changes and the Australian Economy’ and explored a wide range of issues and opportunities currently facing the Australian economy. Held on 29 November (Grand Hyatt, Melbourne) and 1 December (Hyatt Hotel, Canberra) the forums attracted representatives from across the corporate, industry, government and university sectors.

Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark (Melbourne Institute Director and Ronald Henderson Professor) provided attendees with an overview of the latest developments at the Melbourne Institute. Professor Cobb-Clark outlined a range of recent working papers and highlighted the success of Professor Tony Scott and the MABEL research team in securing $2.5 million over the next five years to establish a MABEL NHMRC Centre of Excellence. Professor Cobb-Clark also drew attention to the 50-year anniversary celebrations for the Melbourne Institute that will take place in 2012.

This was followed by a presentation by Professor Guay Lim (Professorial Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Melbourne Institute) on the international influences on the Australian economy. Professor Lim provided a detailed snapshot of the Australian economy and some implications of the resources boom and the Eurozone crisis. Mark Thirlwell (Program Director – International Economy at the Lowy Institute for International Policy) then provided a wide-ranging and engaging overview of the structural and political issues facing developed and emerging economies.

Phillip Chindamo (Chief Economist for the Australian Industry Group) then provided a detailed analysis of the current state of the Australian manufacturing industry. Dr Sze-Young Lim (Senior Economist) represented the Australian Industry Group in Canberra. The forum concluded with the panel of speakers responding to questions.

Melbourne Institute Economics Forums are held quarterly in Melbourne and Canberra. For more details visit <www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/events/economic_forums/economic_forum_details.html>.


MABEL Longitudinal Survey of Doctors Extended Five Years The Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey of doctors has been funded for another five years, further developing its capacity to provide evidence on the factors that influence doctors’ decisions on how many hours they work, where they work, and when they will retire.

The Centre for Research Excellence on Medical Workforce Dynamics has been awarded $2.5 million over the next five years by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The Centre will be led by Professor Anthony Scott from the Melbourne Institute, along with Associate Professor Catherine Joyce and Professor John Humphreys from Monash University, and Associate Professor Guyonne Kalb from the Melbourne Institute.

The Centre will grow new capacity that will provide much needed evidence on the factors that influence doctors’ decisions on how many hours to work, their location of work, including working in rural and remote areas, and decisions to leave the medical workforce and retire, according to Professor Scott.

“These decisions have important effects on the population’s access to health care, costs, and health outcomes. The Centre will play a vital role, both

nationally and internationally, in generating new knowledge with high potential for policy impact through strong and already successful links with government and professional bodies,” said Professor Scott.

The Centre will leverage from the MABEL longitudinal survey of 10,500 doctors, and further develop this key national resource for those conducting research on the medical workforce. The funding will allow much needed new research capacity to be developed in the Centre around the MABEL survey which will have an enduring impact on health policy and practice, and conduct research of the highest international quality.

“The Centre will evaluate and simulate policy changes and provide important evidence to support future policy developments. This will provide a rigorous analysis of medical workforce decisions that underpin workforce distribution and the working patterns of doctors, leading to a more motivated and productive medical workforce providing high quality and cost-effective health care,” said Professor Scott.

“This is a fantastic achievement for the MABEL research team who has worked hard over the past five years to establish a high quality major research resource. I would also like to thank the doctors who complete the survey each year, our 40 endorsing organisations, and members of the MABEL Policy Reference Group for their continuing support,” added Professor Scott.

For more information about MABEL, visit the MABEL website at <www.mabel.org.au>.

MABEL Chief InvestigatorsFrom left: Professor Anthony Scott, Professor John Humphreys, Associate Professor Catherine Joyce and Associate Professor Guyonne Kalb

©Le

s O’R

ourk

e Pho

togra

phy


The Melbourne Institute has recently released the December edition of the Australian Economic Review, the peak economic policy journal in the country.

Edited by Professor Ross Williams AM, Associate Professor Paul Jensen and Professor Ian McDonald the highlight of this issue is a number of articles in a Policy Forum dealing with Australia’s economic links with Asia. Dr Lei Lei Song of the Asian Development Bank and Sui-Lay Tan of the Melbourne Institute measure the extent to which fluctuations in business conditions in Australia are increasingly being synchronised with those in East Asia. This changes the risk profile facing the Australian economy. The authors conclude on the need for Australia to engage in more macroeconomic policy dialogues with its neighbouring economies. Anne Leahy and Associate Professor Paul Jensen from the Melbourne Institute also examine the dynamics of Australian–Asian relations using a unique multi-indicator index of engagement.

The Policy Forum includes three country-specific articles. Professor Ross Garnaut argues that the profound structural changes now taking place in the Chinese economy change the nature of Australian opportunities in China. Professor Sisira Jayasuriya and Laura Panza from La Trobe University examine recent developments in the Indian economy and look at the opportunities for significant growth in Australian–Indian economic links, including the possible role of a free trade agreement. Professor Prema-chandra Athukorala from the Australian National University and Dr Archanun Kohpaiboon from Thammasat University examine the impact of the Thailand–Australia Free Trade Agreement. They conclude that it has expanded trade, but the impact is heavily concentrated in a few product lines in Australian imports from Thailand.

In other articles, Professor Paul Miller and Derby Voon from Curtin University analyse National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) data. They conclude that performance is most highly correlated with the index of community socio-educational advantage, but performance is also better in non-government schools. Professor John Quiggin of the University of Queensland (and author of Zombie Economics) looks at what lessons the economics profession should have learned from the global financial crisis. His

conclusion is that while there were many lessons, there has been little change in thinking.

Jamie Hall and Dr Jarkko Jääskelä from the Reserve Bank of Australia compare the ability to forecast inflation in inflation-targeting and non-inflation-targeting countries. Assistant Professor James Fogarty from the University of Western Australia and Guy Jakeman from ACIL Tasman quantify the effects of the Henry tax review’s recommendations for the taxation of alcohol in Australia.

In the Data Survey section, Professor Mardi Dungey, Associate Professor Graeme Wells and Sam Thompson from the University of Tasmania present a new time series of data for grants and duty concessions for first home buyers. In the For the Student section, Dr Russell Thomson of the Melbourne Institute provides economic perspectives on innovation.

The December edition of the Australian Economic Review is available from <www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aere>. For more information, contact Professor Ross Williams AM: telephone (03) 8344 2125, email <[email protected]>.

Australian Economic Review

The

AustralianEconomic ReviewVolume 44 Number 4 December 2011

What Have We Learned from the Global Financial Crisis?John Quiggin

Contributed Articles

Lessons from My SchoolPaul W. Miller and Derby Voon

Wine Tax Reform: The Impact of Introducing a Volumetric Excise Tax for WineJames J. Fogarty and Guy Jakeman

Inflation Volatility and Forecast AccuracyJamie Hall and Jarkko P. Jääskelä

Policy Forum: Australia’s Economic Links with AsiaAnne Leahy and Paul H. JensenLei Lei Song and Sui-Lay TanRoss GarnautSisira Jayasuriya and Laura PanzaPrema-chandra Athukorala and Archanun Kohpaiboon

Data SurveyFirst Home Buyers’ Support Schemes in AustraliaMardi Dungey, Graeme Wells and Sam Thompson

For the StudentEconomic Perspectives on InnovationRussell Thomson

Melbourne Institute NewsViews expressed by the contributors to Melbourne Institute News are not necessarily endorsed or approved by the Melbourne Institute. Neither the Melbourne Institute nor the Editor of Melbourne Institute News accepts any responsibility for the content or accuracy of information contained in this publication. Editor: Rachel Derham tel: (03) 8344 2158, fax: (03) 8344 2111, email: [email protected]. Sub-Editor: Nellie Lentini. Contributors: Michelle Best, Dr Terence Cheng, Anne Leahy, Professor Guay Lim, Rees Quilford, Professor Tony Scott, Dr Rosanna Scutella, Professor Ross Williams AM.

Recent Melbourne Institute Working Papers23/11 ‘Fathers and Youth’s Delinquent Behavior’ Deborah A. Cobb-Clark and Erdal Tekin

24/11 ‘The Design of R&D Support Schemes for Industry’ Russell Thomson and Elizabeth Webster

25/11 ‘Migrant Youths’ Educational Achievement: The Role of Institutions’ Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, Mathias Sinning and Steven Stillman

26/11 ‘Measuring the Effects of Removing Subsidies for Private Insurance on Public Expenditure for Health Care’ Terence Chai Cheng

Working Papers can be downloaded for free from <www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/publications/default.html>. If you would like to receive an email notification when new Working Papers become available, contact the Melbourne Institute at <[email protected]>.

Level 7, Alan Gilbert Building, The University of Melbourne P: +61 3 8344 2100 F: +61 3 8344 2111 www.melbourneinstitute.com

Significant Cost Savings by Abolishing RebatesNew research has shown that abolishing the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance could potentially yield significant cost savings to the Federal Government.

This is the conclusion of a recent Melbourne Institute working paper by Dr Terence Cheng, who predicts that an extra $1.38 billion a year is needed to cover the shift of patients from private to public hospitals, a fraction of the $3 billion the government spent on subsidising private health insurance in 2004–05.

This finding is based on a simulation analysis using a microeconometric model that considers how removing the rebates would influence individuals’ decisions on whether to purchase private health insurance, and consequently how changes in insurance status influence the decision between public or private sector care and the intensity of hospital care use. The simulation analysis shows that insurance coverage among the population aged 25 years and over would fall from 50 per cent to about 44 per cent. This results in an 11.1 per cent and 7.8 per cent drop in the number of private admissions for day and overnight hospital care respectively.

This research comes as the government tries to introduce means-testing for private health insurance rebates, having failed in its previous two attempts to push the legislation through parliament. Under the new laws, singles earning more than $80,000 and couples earning more than $160,000 will receive lower rebates. No rebates will apply to singles on income exceeding $120,000 and couples exceeding $240,000. The Medicare Levy Surcharge will also be increased for singles earning more than $93,000 ($186,000 for couples).

Dr Cheng said his research suggests that means-testing of private health insurance rebates is expected to result in only a small number of individuals dropping cover. This is because the Medicare Levy Surcharge provides a strong incentive for high-income individuals to buy private health insurance to avoid paying more in taxes. In addition, there is evidence internationally of persistent behaviour in the decision to purchase health insurance in that people who are insured are likely to choose to remain insured.

Working Paper 26/11 can be downloaded from the Melbourne Institute website, <www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/publications/default.html>. For more information, contact Dr Terence Cheng on (03) 8344 2124 or by email <[email protected]>.

Documents

#34 December 2011 - Melbourne Institute News