Page 1 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

ISSN 1442-9500 (print) ISSN 1442-9519 (online) Print Post Approved PP381667/01204 Issue 36

Melbourne Institute NewsJune 2012

History of the Institute: 1979–1995Page 1

Universitas 21Page 2

Enticing Nurses Back to NursingPage 3

Homelessness in Australia: Wave 1 Findings from Journeys Home

Page 4

Melbourne Institute Awarded HILDA Survey Contract for

Another Four yearsPage 5

Big Tobacco Gives Brand Names a Bad Name

Page 6

Intergen+10: Ten Years of the Intergenerational Reports

Page 7

Forthcoming ConferencesPage 8

Melbourne Institute Working PapersPage 8

www.melbourneinstitute.com

History of the Institute: 1979–1995Ronald Henderson retired from the Institute in September 1979 after 17 years as director. A giant’s boots are difficult to fill and so it proved. Ronald’s loyal lieutenant, Duncan Ironmonger, was appointed acting director. Although not envisaged at the time, Duncan was to remain in that position until the end of 1983. In the interregnum, Peter Sheehan left the Institute to become head of the Cain government’s Department of Management and Budget. A number of other senior staff also joined the Victorian public service.

Much of the work in the Institute in the period 1979 to 1983 was centred around the Institute Multi-Purpose (IMP) Model. This project consumed around one-third of staff time and one-third of the budget. It was an era of large-scale structural econometric models of the economy. Other large-scale models were those of the Commonwealth Treasury, the Reserve Bank and the IMPACT model associated with the Industries Assistance Commission and led by Alan Powell and Peter Dixon. Both IMP and IMPACT used an input–output core that enabled forecasts at the industry level.

Research in social economics had declined in the 1970s, but the appointment of Ian Manning, who worked on the Poverty Inquiry with Ronald Henderson, strengthened the area.

The directorship was advertised in 1980 and Clifford Wymer, a New Zealander then at the IMF, was appointed but ill health prevented him from taking up the position. The University of Melbourne embarked on a major review of organisational structures and the Institute and Faculty were not exempt. This further delayed the appointment of a new director. Not until December 1983 was an appointment made when Peter Dixon accepted the position. By this time the IMPACT project had moved to the Faculty with the appointment of Alan Powell as Ritchie Professor. Attempts to reconcile researchers in the

Page 2 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

director of NILS, was appointed as the new director effective from May 1992. He was keen to reconnect Ronald Henderson with the Institute: the two spent time together discussing research directions. The director’s title was restyled the Ronald F Henderson Chair.

In order to maintain operations with a small staff, Richard Blandy formed a series of alliances, most notably with NILS. A NILS offshoot was opened in Melbourne, with Meredith Baker seconded to head it. Research now swung more towards labour economics. After nearly three decades, econometric forecasting was abandoned as a research area. Richard Blandy restructured the Institute’s Advisory Board, which for the first time was not chaired by the Vice-Chancellor. Peter Jonson became the new chair and was joined on the Advisory Board by heads of government departments and welfare agencies.

Richard Blandy instigated the full employment project that was designed to publicise the undesirable effects of unemployment and put forward policies to alleviate it. The enterprise performance project that used the rich IBIS database began. For a period, the Asian Business Centre was located in the Institute.

Richard Blandy had to contend with a debt incurred through contractual payouts to those staff who went to Monash. Largely as a result of intervention by the Advisory Board, the Vice-Chancellor, David Penington, agreed to wipe off most of the debt, but before the ink was dry on the agreement Richard Blandy announced that he had accepted a position as chief executive of the newly created South Australian Development Council. This time there was a smooth changeover to a new director: Peter Dawkins took up his position at the start of 1996, Peter Lloyd acted as director in 1995.

This year the Melbourne Institute celebrates its Golden Jubilee. If you would like to receive information and updates about forthcoming 50th Anniversary events, please contact us at <melb-conf@unimelb.edu.au> and we will place you on our mailing list.

History of the Institute: 1979–1995(continued)

IMP and IMPACT projects were unsuccessful and most of the staff working on the IMP model left the Institute, taking the project with them.

Under the directorship of Peter Dixon, the Institute became a leading world centre in computable general equilibrium modelling. Econometric forecasting for both the short and medium term continued and new subscribers enlisted. The ORANI general equilibrium model was modified to make it more suitable for medium-term forecasting.

Ern Boehm developed economic indicators from 1985 with sponsorship from the Westpac Bank; from 1990 the bank also sponsored the Index of Consumer Sentiment. In 1992 these activities were combined into the Westpac – Melbourne Institute Centre for Business Cycle Analysis which soon obtained an ARC collaborative research grant.

In 1989 the Institute moved to refurbished accommodation in the Baldwin Spencer Building. But it was to be a short occupancy. Peter Dixon left the Institute at the expiration of his seven-year contract in February 1991 and took most of the staff with him to Monash University. The few remaining staff returned to their old location in the Economics and Commerce Building.

Ian Harper was appointed acting director for 1991. The Institute statute was repealed and the Institute formally became a department within the Faculty. Richard Blandy,

Universitas 21Universitas 21, a group of 25 leading international research universities of which the University of Melbourne is a member, commissioned a team from the Melbourne Institute to develop a ranking of national higher education systems. The rankings were released in May at the annual conference of Universitas 21 held at the University of Lund. The top-ranked countries were the United States, Sweden and Canada; the four Nordic countries were all ranked in the top seven; Australia was eighth. There was widespread international interest in the rankings which engendered around 400 media reports in 25 countries within a fortnight, including op-ed articles in newspapers such as The Times, Financial Times and International Herald Tribune. The researchers involved were Professor Ross Williams, Dr Gaétan de Rassenfosse, Professor Paul Jensen and Professor Simon Marginson (Faculty of Education). Full results of the rankings are available at <www.universitas21.com>.

Professor Peter Dixon Professor Richard Blandy

Page 3 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

A recent Melbourne Institute working paper presents results on the responsiveness of nurses’ labour supply to wage changes. Given that many countries, including Australia, face a continuing shortage in nurses’ labour supply, this remains an important issue.

Previous research suggests that nurses respond only weakly to changes in wages. However, the decision to exit or enter the nursing profession has not been taken into account in these studies. Since a relatively large number of persons with a nursing qualification work outside of nursing, accounting for entry and exit from nursing occupations seems an important extension to make.

A multi-sector model of nursing qualification holders’ labour supply in nursing and non-nursing occupations is estimated, distinguishing three different shift types in the nursing occupations: day, night and irregular shifts. The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey is used to select a sample of nursing qualification holders who can be followed in and out of the labour force, and in and out of nursing occupations.

The elasticity of hours worked in nursing occupations conditional on already working in a nursing occupation (the dark blue bars in the figure) is small. The elasticity of just under 0.25 indicates that if wages in nursing jobs are increased by 1 per cent then hours worked in nursing will increase by 0.25 per cent. The unconditional elasticity of hours worked in nursing of nursing qualification holders with respect to wages in nursing jobs is much higher at an elasticity of 1.37 (the pale orange bars in the second set of results in the figure). The higher elasticity compared to previous studies is mainly due to the effect of wages on the decision to enter or exit nursing, rather than from its

Enticing Nurses Back to Nursing

effect on working hours for those already in nursing. This shows that nursing qualification holders who currently do not work in nursing are an important group to target when wishing to increase nurses’ labour supply.

The highly responsive occupational choice implies that wage rises in nursing is a promising policy to increase labour supply. At the same time, however, wage increases for non-nursing jobs are expected to draw a substantial proportion of individuals out of nursing occupations. Therefore, it is also crucial to ensure that wages in nursing do not fall behind the development of wage levels in the alternative occupations for nursing qualification holders.

Finally, changes in wages for certain shift types are predicted to result in considerable transfers of labour supply between shift types (see the bottom three sets of results in the figure). If wages are increased for a specific shift type only, labour supply in other shift types will decrease substantially. This is because about half of the labour supply response is caused by current nurses changing shift type, rather than by attracting nursing qualification holders outside nursing occupations or by nurses currently working in the shift type increasing their hours.

This research implies that increasing wages in nursing may be a more effective policy to increase supply than previously thought. In addition, policy makers should ensure that nurses’ wages do not lag behind wages in alternative occupations for nursing qualification holders. Finally, unless there is an oversupply in other shift types, increasing wages in one shift type only is not effective in dealing with shortages in a specific shift type.

Working Paper No. 9/12 can be downloaded from our website, <www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/publications/default.html>. For more information contact Associate Professor Guyonne Kalb, email <g.kalb@unimelb.edu.au>.

Elasticities of Hours of Work in Different Occupations and Shift Types to Wages

Increase in gross wage forirregular shifts by 1%

Increase in gross wage fornight shifts by 1%

Increase in gross wage forday shifts by 1%

Increase in gross wage fornon-nursing occupations by 1%

Increase in gross wage fornursing occupations by 1%

Increase in gross wage forall occupations by 1%

-2 -1 0 1 2 3Elasticity of hours worked

Hours in nursing occupationconditional on beingin a nursing occupation

Hours in shift withwage increase

Hours in nursing occupation

Total hours

Page 4 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

Homelessness in Australia: Wave 1 Findings from Journeys HomeDuring 2011 the Melbourne Institute began work on the design and implementation of a major new Government-funded panel study of Australians exposed to high levels of housing insecurity.

In December 2008 the Australian Government released The Road Home, its White Paper on homelessness. A feature of The Road Home was an explicit commitment to the development of a long-term research agenda, leading to the release, in November 2009, of the Government’s National Homeless Research Agenda 2009–2013. The stated aim of this agenda is to ‘improve the evidence base for preventing and responding to homelessness’. A key theme running through both documents is that policy development and service delivery in the area of homelessness are impeded by the absence of high-quality reliable data, and in particular the absence of a large-scale longitudinal study.

In response to this data deficiency, in 2010 the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs called for tenders from research organisations to design and implement a new longitudinal survey — subsequently named ‘Journeys Home’ — tracking a national sample of individuals exposed to high levels of housing insecurity and employing much more rigorous sampling methods than previously used. That tender was subsequently awarded to a team based at the Melbourne Institute.

The survey instrument was designed primarily with a view to identifying the housing circumstances of sample members, measuring other outcomes associated with housing difficulties, and capturing information about factors that influence transitions between different housing situations. It covers a range of topic areas, including: housing and living arrangements; access to support services and networks; employment and voluntary work; health and wellbeing; substance use; family history; exposure to violence; and financial resources.

Critical for the design of the study was the explicit recognition that, in understanding pathways in and out of homelessness, we must be able to identify a sample that includes not just persons currently experiencing homelessness, but also housed persons living in circumstances that suggest they might be vulnerable to experiencing homelessness in the future.

Previous Australian studies of homelessness pathways have typically drawn their samples from small sub-

groups of the homeless populations, often living within a relatively small geographic area. The approach taken for Journeys Home, however, is quite different. Instead, the sample was drawn from the Research Evaluation Database which contains records for all Centrelink income support customers since 1 July 2002. Further, since January 2010, Centrelink staff have been required to flag persons identified as homeless or at risk of homelessness, and it is these flags that were used as the basis for selecting the sample.

A sample of over 4900 persons spread over 36 separate locations across Australia was selected, with 2992 of these cases eventually issued to field. Fieldwork was sub-contracted to Roy Morgan Research, with the principal mode of data collection, at least at the first wave, being computer-assisted personal interviews. A pilot test was conducted in May 2011 with fieldwork for wave 1 conducted over a 12-week period beginning in September 2011. Wave 2 fieldwork occurred between March and May 2012. There will be a further two waves of data collection conducted approximately six months apart.

Of the 2992 cases issued to field for wave 1, 273 were subsequently determined to be out of scope, giving a total in-scope sample of 2719 persons. Usable responses were obtained from 1682 persons, giving a response rate of 61.9 per cent. By almost any yardstick this is a very good outcome, with other Australian studies that sample from disadvantaged populations typically reporting noticeably lower initial response rates. The characteristics of the responding sample also do not seem so different from the selected sample to suggest response bias is a major

Some members of the Journeys Home research team. Standing (from left): Dr Rosanna Scutella, Dr Julie Moschion. Seated (from left): Nicole Watson, Professor Mark Wooden, Abraham Chigavazira.

©Le

s O’R

ourk

e Pho

togra

phy

Page 5 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

problem. Attrition in wave 2 was also very low, with 91 per cent of respondents successfully re-interviewed.

Of course the sample is markedly different from the wider population. Most significantly the vast majority of the sample (over 95 per cent) had experienced homelessness at some point during their lifetime, often for quite long periods. Nevertheless, at the time of the initial survey only 24 per cent of respondents met the cultural definition of homelessness, and most of these were persons who did have a roof over their head. Retrospective data collected about housing histories show that homelessness is a highly fluid state, with persons most vulnerable to homelessness frequently changing housing status over time.

Other notable characteristics of the sample include:• a high incidence of young people (almost 40 per cent

of respondents are under 25 years of age);• relatively low rates of educational attainment (20 per

cent had not completed Year 10 and only 39 per cent had completed Year 12 or equivalent);

• very high rates of childhood abuse and violence (at least two-thirds had experienced some form of violence or abuse in their childhood);

• very high rates of diagnosed mental illness;• a very high incidence of smoking, with over two-

thirds reporting smoking daily; and • relatively high rates of illicit drug use.

By far the most common reason reported for first becoming homeless was family breakdown and/or conflict. The findings also provide early indications that those who first experience homelessness at a young age are more likely to experience persistent homelessness.

Finally, we find strong evidence that common risk factors associated with homelessness (including being placed into State care and child protection systems, experiences of violence or abuse as either a child or an adult, time spent incarcerated, mental illness and substance use) are related in some way to total lifetime durations of homelessness. Further waves of data will shed more light on the direction of these relationships.

Findings from the first wave of data collection were presented at the AHURI Homelessness Research Conference in April 2012.

For more information about the Journeys Home study, visit <melbourneinstitute.com/journeys_home/>.

Melbourne Institute Awarded HILDA Survey Contract for Another Four YearsSince 2000 the Melbourne Institute, under the leadership of Professor Mark Wooden, has been overseeing the design and administration of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey on behalf of the Australian Government. Over that period the HILDA Survey has made the transition into a mature, successful long-running national household panel study, one among only a handful around the world that can make this claim.

The success of the HILDA study is most obviously reflected in its longevity and ongoing Government support and ever-growing community of data users. But critical in achieving these outcomes has been the high annual re-interview rates (now in excess of 96 per cent), the ongoing commitment to the production of user-friendly data and high levels of user support, and highly successful partnerships with both its fieldwork provider (currently Roy Morgan Research) and the Government (through the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, or FaHCSIA).

In 2011, FaHCSIA announced a tender for a further four waves of HILDA, which would cover data collection in the period 2012 to 2016. We are pleased to announce that the contract was again awarded to the Melbourne Institute. “FaHCSIA is very pleased to continue to work with Mark Wooden and his team at the Melbourne Institute on the next waves of the HILDA Survey”, said Judy Schneider, manager of the Research Analysis Branch at FaHCSIA, which has direct oversight of the HILDA Survey. “Mark brings an energetic and rigorous approach to managing the survey and his team’s professionalism and attention to detail have made HILDA’s respected reputation.”

Key challenges over this period will be to consolidate on our reputation as a world-class panel study and to ensure the survey remains relevant to new emerging economic and social priorities while not undermining its potential to study the dynamics of change.

Page 6 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

Big Tobacco Gives Brand Names a Bad Name

Tobacco companies recently took action in the High Court, claiming that they should be compensated for being prohibited to use their tobacco trademarks. This prohibition is part of the Australian Government’s policy to introduce plain packaging.

Debates regarding intellectual property are often dominated by lawyers quoting detailed case law and notions of moral rights. It is easy to forget that the main function of our intellectual property laws is to maximise the wellbeing of Australians. They are not designed to enhance company profits per se.

Trademarks are a privilege granted by governments that enable firms to uniquely identify their products. In this way, trademarks give their owners the ability to exclusively benefit from their investments into brand awareness and reputation. If consumers cannot tell the difference between high and low quality products, they will tend to buy the cheapest product and it then becomes a race to the bottom by producers in terms of quality. Giving businesses the right to be the only one selling products under a given label stops this process happening. Consumers come to recognise that a certain label is associated with a given quality and will therefore be prepared to buy more expensive goods (provided price is matched by quality).

However, the effects of trademarks are not all good. It has long been accepted that there are some situations where trademarks can potentially do more harm than good. In principle, trademarks can be misused to stimulate overconsumption and create distinctions between products where none exists. Economists are aware of these less desirable effects of trademarks and, periodically, the scope of the powers of the trademark system are called into question when it is seen that some products are sailing too close to the wind. As in all matters of policy, governments have a responsibility — they cannot be seen to condone a situation that is to the detriment of a society’s wellbeing.

So, are tobacco trademarks having a good or bad effect on national wellbeing? Trademarks include the colour, shape, logo and overall look of packages or labels. In concert with advertising and clever image development, trademarks can make products more attractive. Plain paper packaging denies companies the right to use their trademarks. Studies by Imperial Cancer Research Fund in the United Kingdom and Oregon Health and Science

University in the United States have found that modern cigarettes are engineered to maximise their addictiveness in order to make it harder for people to give up smoking. If this is one way trademarks are contributing to improvements in cigarette quality, is this a good thing? Given there are solid grounds for believing that consumption of a product is harmful to health, do we really want producers to invest in this type of ‘quality’?

In most cases, the undesirable consequences of trademark protection are hard to identify and even more difficult to agree on. For example, are brand name running shoes really worth the mark-up or does it just represent wasteful marketing? But plain packaging of cigarettes is a rare case of consensus. Big Tobacco is against plain packaging, because they believe it will result in less smoking and less profits. However, Australians overwhelmingly agree that less smoking is exactly what we want to achieve.

While trademarks generally raise society’s wellbeing, this is not always the case. The sale of tobacco is a clear case where it is not. Governments have a duty to only grant privileges when they are in the best interests of a society’s wellbeing. Economic theory would support plain packaging for cigarettes. The ability of Big Tobacco to sell cigarettes in a gold box has as much to do with economic efficiency as did the ‘rights’ of British traders to import opium to China in the early 1800s or Bayer to sell diacetylmorphine under the name of ‘Heroin’. Beware of lawyers arguing in the interests of profits, not wellbeing.

An abridged version of this article by Dr Russell Thomson and Professor Beth Webster (Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia and Melbourne Institute) was printed as an Opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review on 19 April 2012.

Page 7 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

Ten years ago the first Intergenerational Report was published. After two further reports, it is recognised that they were a major effort in shifting to a longer term view of the economy.

The reports have been used to justify a range of government fiscal policies, whilst at the same time generating debate about the sustainability of population growth, immigration and population ageing. The Melbourne Institute convened a conference on 10 May 2012, 10 years since the publication of the first Intergenerational Report. The aim was to take stock of the reports to date, examine whether and how they could be improved, and review several aspects of fiscal policy related to the reports. The conference was held at the Shine Dome in Canberra and was attended by 147 public servants, academics and others.

The conference began with a broad overview by Dr David Gruen (Commonwealth Treasury), setting the scene and outlining a few areas where the reports require further development. Several papers then went on to critique some of the reports’ assumptions and provide some advice for future reports. Professor Adrian Pagan (University of Sydney) raised a number of issues including explicit consideration of the demand side in the modelling, more extensive use of sensitivity analysis, transparency (and replicability), plausibility and credibility. He suggested these aims could be achieved by the use of an independent body to prepare the projections. Professor Peter McDonald (Australian National University) focused on the assumptions used in the population projections, and that migration was particularly difficult to predict, which also influences assumptions about participation. He suggested more careful modelling in the shorter term (10–15 years) and more use of scenario-based analysis in the longer term. Mark Cully (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) focused on immigration, and suggested that immigrants are more than just substitutes for labour, but are more productive, and this needs to be taken into account when examining the fiscal impact of immigration in future reports.

A number of the presentations also reflected on some of the specific policy issues that have arisen as a result of the Intergenerational Reports. Dr Ralph Lattimore (Productivity Commission) provided an overview and discussed how the largest source of fiscal pressure was from health care through technology and ageing. The

productivity of this sector is poorly measured and the fiscal impacts of productivity change in this sector are poorly understood. Professor Philip Clarke (University of Melbourne) focused on one of the largest fiscal pressures within health care: pharmaceuticals. He argued that Australia is paying too much for drugs compared to other countries, and that substantial savings could be made through negotiating better prices in line with those from other countries. Professor Beth Webster (University of Melbourne) highlighted the lack of discussion in the reports about productivity and how best to improve it through innovation. She discussed the Commonwealth government’s role in this through regulation, subsidies, and the design of institutions. Professor John Piggott (University of New South Wales) focused on funding ageing through superannuation. There was little in the reports about policy options in this area, against a context of much policy change that remains to be properly justified and coordinated. Professor Henry Ergas (Deloitte and University of Wollongong) focused on the funding of aged care, and in particular the role of long-term care insurance as a more efficient alternative to current proposals of increasing copayments.

The conference concluded with a panel discussion chaired by Andrew Whitecross (Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs). This focused on priorities that could be addressed in future Intergenerational Reports, including the methodology of the reports, their assumptions, transparency, and more use of scenario analysis to handle uncertainty. Their credibility needs to be improved through better and more transparent modelling with a degree of independent analysis. In terms of using the reports to justify fiscal policy decisions, more coordination is required in the design of superannuation policy. Policies to improve productivity and innovation need to be considered. Regarding health care, the impact of aged care reforms are uncertain and substantial savings could be made through more effective price negotiation of pharmaceuticals. The next Intergenerational Report is eagerly anticipated as an important part of evidence-based policy.

The full text of this article, by Professor Anthony Scott, Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark and Professor Philip Clarke, will appear in the Policy Forum section of the September 2012 issue of the Australian Economic Review, along with five other articles on Intergen+10.

Intergen+10: Ten Years of the Intergenerational Reports

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: r.derham@unimelb.edu.au. Sub-Editor: Nellie Lentini. Contributors: Professor Philip Clarke, Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark, Penny Hope, Associate Professor Guyonne Kalb, Professor Anthony Scott, Dr Rosanna Scutella, Dr Russell Thomson, Professor Beth Webster, Professor Ross Williams, Michelle Wilson, Professor Mark Wooden.

Recent Melbourne Institute Working Papers9/12 ‘Nurses’ Labour Supply Elasticities: The Importance of Accounting for Extensive Margins’ Barbara Hanel, Guyonne

Kalb and Anthony Scott10/12 ‘The Impact of Computer-Assisted Interviewing on Interview Length’ Nicole Watson and Roger Wilkins11/12 ‘Locating and Designing “Journeys Home”: A Literature Review’ Rosanna Scutella and Guy Johnson

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 <melb-inst@unimelb.edu.au>.

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

2012 Economic and Social Outlook Conference: Securing the FutureThe Melbourne Institute and The Australian are pleased to announce their eighth joint Economic and Social Outlook Conference. The conference will be held on Thursday 1 and Friday 2 November 2012 at the University of Melbourne.

Australia has weathered the global shocks of the past decade better than most, but can we build on the model to meet the challenges of the future?

The consistent thread running through all our previous conferences has been that continued policy reform can enrich Australia’s overall wellbeing while providing opportunities for all. The format has established itself as the nation’s premiere economic and social public policy conference, providing a unique forum bringing together leading politicians, bureaucrats, academics and non-government organisation representatives.

Issues to be explored by the two-day conference will include ageing, population, economic growth, health reform, education, the Asian economy, Europe and financial stability, fiscal choices, homelessness, tax, trade and industry policy, and innovation.

Information about the confirmed speakers for the conference and registration information are available from <www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/events/conferences/Outlook_2012/conference_outlook_2012_default.html>.

The Rise of Innovative China: Implications for the Region ConferenceThe Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia will host a conference on the rise of innovative China. The conference will be held on Thursday 19 July 2012 (Aerial Function Centre, University of Technology Sydney) and on Friday 20 July 2012 (Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne).

This conference will address the important issue of how Australia, and the region more broadly, should respond to the emergence of China as an economic superpower. Rather than re-examine IP enforcement problems, the event will focus on China’s rapid emergence as a powerful and innovative nation and the unique opportunity this presents for many innovative Australian companies.

The conference will feature Australian and Chinese speakers drawn from a range of business, law, economics and policy backgrounds and include some of the nation’s most insightful thought-leaders on the issue. Speakers will include The Hon John Brumby (Huawei Technologies), Professor Xiaobo Wu (Zhejiang University, China), Professor Ross Garnaut AO (The University of Melbourne), Professor Bob Gregory (The Australian National University), Professor Peter Yu (Drake University Law School, United States), Dr Michael Wesley (Lowy Institute for International Policy) and Professor Yanrui Wu (The University of Western Australia).

For more information about the conference and to register, please visit the IPRIA website at <www.ipria.org>.