Home  About us  Contact
 

Alternative Policy Options (alternative + policy_option)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting75%

Selected Abstracts

Water rights: a comparison of the impacts of urban and irrigation reforms in Australia

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, Issue 3 2006
Lin Crase
Although there has been a policy thrust towards making all Australians more cognisant of the relative scarcity of water resources, the approach adopted for urban dwellers differs markedly from that applied to irrigators. These differences are examined from a property-rights perspective focussing primarily on the institutional hierarchies in the Victorian water sector. The analysis reveals significant attenuation of urban dwellers' rights, presumably on the basis of the information deficiencies that circumscribe urban water use. Alternative policy options are then proposed, which might alleviate some of these information deficiencies and simultaneously address the efficiency losses that attend the present arrangements. [source]

Commodity price stabilisation: macroeconomic impacts and policy options

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Issue 1 2000
Chinna A. Kannapiran
Abstract A macroeconometric simulation study is undertaken to evaluate the impact of commodity price stabilisation (CPS) schemes for the export tree crop industry in Papua New Guinea. The findings suggest that there is a negligible level of favourable macroeconomic impacts of CPS. Contrary to the expectation, CPS adversely affects the stability of monetary and external sectors (BOP). CPS policy has failed to stabilise the macroeconomy. The price stabilisation policies are no longer appropriate from the macroeconomic point of view. Technical change, futures market and rural savings are the possible alternative policy options to manage the price risk. [source]

Evaluation of Policy Options to Encourage Welfare to Work

THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, Issue 3 2006
Hielke Buddelmeyer
This article compares five alternative policy options with the January 2006 tax and social security system. Each option is designed to cost a similar amount of approximately $5 billion per year to the government at the observed level of labour supply. The five options include reducing the lowest income tax rate, increasing the tax-free threshold, increasing the low income tax offset, decreasing all taper rates on own and partner's incomes for a number of allowances, and introducing an earned income tax credit. The criteria for comparison are the labour supply responses, the expected budgetary cost to the government after taking into account labour supply responses, the number of winners and losers from the policy change, the effects on the distribution of effective marginal tax rates, and the effects on the number of jobless households. From the results, it is clear that the option to reduce taper rates is dominated by the other options on all criteria. The other four options each have their advantages and disadvantages; no option scores best on all criteria. [source]

Moving Kidney Allocation Forward: The ASTS Perspective

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 7 2009
R. B. Freeman
In 2008, the United Network for Organ Sharing issued a request for information regarding a proposed revision to kidney allocation policy. This plan described combining dialysis time, donor characteristics and the estimated life years from transplant (LYFT) each candidate would gain in an allocation score that would rank waiting candidates. Though there were some advantages of this plan, the inclusion of LYFT raised many questions. Foremost, there was no clear agreement that LYFT should be the main criterion by which patients should be ranked. Moreover, to rank waiting candidates with this metric, long-term survival models were required in which there was no incorporation of patient preference or discounting for long survival times and for which the predictive accuracy did not achieve accepted standards. The American Society of Transplant Surgeons was pleased to participate in the evaluation of the proposal. Ultimately, the membership did not favor this proposal, because we felt that it was too complicated and that the projected slight increase in overall utility was not justified by the compromise in individual justice that was required. We offer alternative policy options to address some of the unmet needs and issues that were brought to light during this interesting process. [source]