FUELWATCH: EVIDENCE-BASED-POLICY OR POLICY-BASED-EVIDENCE?
Saved in:
| Title: | FUELWATCH: EVIDENCE-BASED-POLICY OR POLICY-BASED-EVIDENCE? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Harding, Don1 |
| Source: | Economic Papers. Dec2008, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p315-328. 14p. 1 Chart. |
| Subject Terms: | *Government policy, *Decision making, Expert evidence, Evidence-based social work, Multiple criteria decision making, Econometric models |
| Company/Entity: | Australian Competition & Consumer Commission |
| Abstract: | Experience from the United Kingdom and the United States suggests that expert evidence is often reshaped and repackaged by governments so that it supports existing policy rather than informing policy decisions. The Australian Government based its decision to introduce FuelWatch on evidence in the form of econometric work by the ACCC. This paper asks two questions about that decision. First, was the policy shaped by the econometric evidence or was the Government's presentation of the evidence shaped by the pre-determined policy? Second, is the econometric evidence sufficiently robust as to support the FuelWatch policy? I find that some of the facts suggest that evidence was reshaped and repackaged to support the FuelWatch policy. I also find that the ACCC analysis was not robust. Specifically, they studied the nominal retail margin when economic theory suggests that analysis should focus on the real retail margin to producers. Using data digitized from a graph in the ACCC Report I redo the econometric analysis and find that the evidence no longer unambiguously supports the FuelWatch policy. The ACCC claim that their analysis is robust because it has been subject to scrutiny within the ACCC and by Treasury but such claims of robustness cannot be verified because they refuse to release the data for public scrutiny. Publication of data and analysis underpinning government decisions and independent review of econometric work provides a more credible evidence base for future policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Economic Papers is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 35780421 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: FUELWATCH: EVIDENCE-BASED-POLICY OR POLICY-BASED-EVIDENCE? – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harding%2C+Don%22">Harding, Don</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Economic+Papers%22">Economic Papers</searchLink>. Dec2008, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p315-328. 14p. 1 Chart. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Government+policy%22">Government policy</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+making%22">Decision making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expert+evidence%22">Expert evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence-based+social+work%22">Evidence-based social work</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+criteria+decision+making%22">Multiple criteria decision making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Econometric+models%22">Econometric models</searchLink> – Name: SubjectCompany Label: Company/Entity Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australian+Competition+%26+Consumer+Commission%22">Australian Competition & Consumer Commission</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Experience from the United Kingdom and the United States suggests that expert evidence is often reshaped and repackaged by governments so that it supports existing policy rather than informing policy decisions. The Australian Government based its decision to introduce FuelWatch on evidence in the form of econometric work by the ACCC. This paper asks two questions about that decision. First, was the policy shaped by the econometric evidence or was the Government's presentation of the evidence shaped by the pre-determined policy? Second, is the econometric evidence sufficiently robust as to support the FuelWatch policy? I find that some of the facts suggest that evidence was reshaped and repackaged to support the FuelWatch policy. I also find that the ACCC analysis was not robust. Specifically, they studied the nominal retail margin when economic theory suggests that analysis should focus on the real retail margin to producers. Using data digitized from a graph in the ACCC Report I redo the econometric analysis and find that the evidence no longer unambiguously supports the FuelWatch policy. The ACCC claim that their analysis is robust because it has been subject to scrutiny within the ACCC and by Treasury but such claims of robustness cannot be verified because they refuse to release the data for public scrutiny. Publication of data and analysis underpinning government decisions and independent review of econometric work provides a more credible evidence base for future policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Economic Papers is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=35780421 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/j.1759-3441.2008.tb01046.x Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 14 StartPage: 315 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Government policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Decision making Type: general – SubjectFull: Expert evidence Type: general – SubjectFull: Evidence-based social work Type: general – SubjectFull: Multiple criteria decision making Type: general – SubjectFull: Econometric models Type: general – SubjectFull: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: FUELWATCH: EVIDENCE-BASED-POLICY OR POLICY-BASED-EVIDENCE? Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Harding, Don IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 12 Text: Dec2008 Type: published Y: 2008 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 08120439 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 27 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Economic Papers Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
