#44 June 2014 - Melbourne Institute News

Melbourne Institute News June 2014

ISSN 1442-9500 (print)

ISSN 1442-9519 (online)

Print Post Approved PP381667/01204

Issue 44

HILDA Survey Statistical Report Volume 9 Released

HILDA Survey Statistical Report Volume 9 Released Page 1

Can the GP Co-payment Debacle Be Fixed?

Page 4

U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems Page 5

Australian Economic Review

Page 6

Boom in Readership of the Australian Economic Review Page 6

Policy Changes Improve Educational Achievement Page 7

Best Paper Prize Page 7

Is Science-Based Innovation More Productive?

Page 8

The ninth volume of the annual Statistical Report of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey was released on 16 June.

Edited by Associate Professor Roger Wilkins, and with contributions from Melbourne Institute researchers Professor Mark Wooden, Professor Richard Burkhauser, Dr Hielke Buddelmeyer, Markus Hahn and Nicole Watson, the report presents analyses of data from the first 11 waves of the HILDA Survey, which were conducted from 2001 to 2011.

As in previous volumes, the report examines a wide range of topics, providing an overview of the rich array of information collected by the HILDA Survey each year. The report is divided into five parts: households and family life; incomes and economic wellbeing; labour market outcomes; life satisfaction, health and wellbeing; and other topics. Each part contains several chapters that are a mixture of updates on regularly collected data, new analyses of annually collected data, and analyses largely drawing on wave-specific questions included in the survey.

In Wave 11, the ‘rotating’ topics included non-co-resident partners, retirement plans and experiences, and employment, educational and housing plans, each of which is the focus of a chapter in part 5 of the report. Also included in part 5 are chapters on immigrants to Australia, emigrants from Australia, and time spent in paid Associate Professor Roger Wilkins, Editor of the report and unpaid work.

Families, Incomes and Jobs, Volume 9: A Statistical Report on Waves 1 to 11 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey is available from <www.

www.melbourneinstitute.com Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 1

HILDA Survey Statistical Report Volume 9 Released (continued) melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/Reports/statreport. html>. HILDA is Australia’s only large-scale nationally representative longitudinal household survey. It uses annual interviews with more than 17,000 Australians to create a detailed picture of how their lives are changing over time. It provides a ‘moving picture’ of emerging issues and trends in Australia. The HILDA Survey was initiated, and is funded, by the Australian Government Department of Social Services. This year, the 14th wave of the survey is being conducted, while data from the first 12 waves are now available to approved researchers. For more information about the study and to obtain access to the data, see <www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda>.

for whom government benefits are the main source of income declined from 65.8 per cent to 63.5 per cent, while government benefits as a share of household income of retirees also fell from an average of 64.3 per cent in 2003 to an average of 61.1 per cent in 2011.

However government benefits still remain the dominant source of income for retired people, representing 61.1 per cent of their total income in 2011.

Overall, the HILDA research revealed that Australians approaching retirement underestimate how reliant they will be on government benefits. Associate Professor Wilkins believes this is a cause of concern for policy makers.

“A significant proportion of Australians are incorrectly forecasting their future retirement age and reliance on government benefits. Many people retire earlier than expected, and a considerable number of people reliant on the Age Pension did not expect to be prior to retirement.”

The (Small) Rise of the ‘Female Breadwinner’

Selected Highlights from the Report Government Handouts Still Funding Most Retirees’ Twilight Years

Australia has experienced a slight rise in the proportion of married couples where the female earns substantially more than the male. But the ‘male breadwinner’ model remains the dominant arrangement across most households, according to research reported in chapter 8 of the Statistical Report.

Australians are working longer and becoming less dependent on government handouts when they retire, but these benefits are still the major source of income for retirees, according to research reported in chapter 17 of the Statistical Report.

Most men now retire in their early 60s while women commonly stop working in their late 50s. The average age at retirement of men who retired in the eight years up to 2003 was 59.8 years. This figure rose to 62.6 years for men who gave up work in the eight years to 2011. For women the average age at retirement jumped from 57.7 to 59.7 years over the same period.

Associate Professor Roger Wilkins said the HILDA data also show that fewer people are retiring while middle aged, despite heated political debate about raising the pension age.

“In the eight-year period to 2011, 9 per cent of men who retired were less than 55 years of age, compared with 20 per cent for the eight years to 2003. The proportion of women in this category also dropped sharply,” he said.

The HILDA Survey also shows that retirees are becoming slightly less dependent on government benefits, such as the Age Pension. The proportion of retired people

The HILDA data show that between 2001 and 2011 the proportion of partnered women who took home the bulkier pay packet increased from 23.5 per cent to 24.5 per cent. Men still earned the larger salary in about 69 per cent of households. Members of ‘female b ­ readwinner’ couples tend to be older, in longer relationships, and are more likely to have a university education and work in a managerial or professional position. They are less likely to have any dependent children.

The HILDA data also reinforce the increasing prevalence of dual-­earner families. Both males and females are employed full-time in one-third of all Australian couple households.

The key difference between ‘male breadwinner’ and ‘female breadwinner’ households is that women tend

Page 2 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

to work fewer hours than men in ‘male breadwinner’ households (in particular, they often work part-­time), whereas men tend to work as many hours as their partner (or even more hours) in ‘female breadwinner’ households.

Professor Mark Wooden, author of the chapter, said the findings are significant because Australia’s economy was built on the assumption that males earn more.

spend working (paid and unpaid) meant they were “Australia’s economic powerhouses”.

The HILDA research also shows that both men and women are spending more time caring for the elderly, potentially reflecting the impact of Australia’s ageing population.

“Key planks of the nation’s social and labour market policies that were developed in the 20th century were predicated on a ‘male breadwinner’ model,” he said.

Women Still Keep The Home Fires Burning Chapter 15 of the Statistical Report analysed the amount of time people spend on both paid and unpaid work.

Among the findings was that Australian women are still doing dramatically more housework than their boyfriends and husbands.

The data show that women averaged roughly 16 hours of housework per week, more than double the amount performed by men. They also spent more time caring for children, running domestic errands and babysitting.

Men were more likely to be found toiling outdoors, and still spent substantially more time in paid employment.

Associate Professor Wilkins said the results show clear differences persisted between men and women in paid and unpaid work.

Since 2006 the HILDA Survey has collected the height and weight of respondents each year. Researchers analysed the data to assess how social and economic factors affect a person’s weight. (See chapter 11 in the Statistical Report.) The research showed that ageing remained the single biggest factor determining weight.

“These figures show that while women are doing less housework over time and men are doing more, the gap is still substantial ... Women continue to be the unheralded workers of the Australian economy,” he said.

However, Associate Professor Wilkins said the amount of time both men and women with dependent children

Age Is the Most Significant Factor in Weight Gain

“A person’s weight almost invariably increases over time, and rarely decreases ... That is, once you put on weight, it is hard to take it off again,” Associate Professor Wilkins said.

The data also show that highly educated people are less likely to be overweight; higher-­income women are no more likely to be overweight; a major worsening of finances (such as bankruptcy) leads both men and women to shed weight; and men and women also put on weight if they lose their job.

Time Spent in Paid and Unpaid Work, by Family Situation, 2002 to 2011 Pooled 80

Males

Females Paid work

70

Household errands

50

Housework

40 Outdoor tasks 30 Caring for own children

20

Other caring and voluntary work

10

un Chi de ld, r3 5 un Sin g de le r6 , 5 Co un u de ple r , w Co 65 ith u ch ple ild , re Lo n ne pa re nt 65 Co u an p d le, ov 65 S er in an gl d e, ov er

0 un Chi de ld, r3 5 un Sin de gle r6 , 5 Co un u de ple r , w Co 65 ith u ch ple ild , re Lo n ne pa re nt 65 Co u an p d le, ov 65 S er in an gl d e, ov er

Hours per week

60

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 3

Can the GP Co-payment Debacle Be Fixed?

The GP co-payment would appear to be one of the most unpopular of the 2014 Budget proposals, amongst both the public and those working in health. Professor Tony Scott proposes a potential fix. The real question, however, is whether it is worth fixing.

The proposed co-payment is deeply unpopular and is likely to make the health system less efficient and less equitable. Its impact will be felt hardest by people on low incomes with the highest need for health care. The federal government has passed onto GPs the decision of how to respond to the $5 reduction in the Medicare rebate. It has suggested that GPs maintain their income by raising prices by $7. This will be easiest for GPs who practise in affluent areas. Indeed there is already some evidence that GPs in more affluent areas are able to charge higher prices. The richer you are, the less you are affected by the extra $7.

What Can GPs Do? GPs in poorer areas are unlikely to be able to raise prices much without causing a fall in demand.

People on low incomes are more sensitive to price and $7 could represent a tough choice for them, such as a meal for the children.

Whatever GPs in poorer areas do will leave patients worse off and increase costs to Medicare. If GPs do nothing, patients face a price hike of $5 because of the lower rebate. This will reduce demand and GPs’ incomes.

Another issue is that some people will visit the emergency department (ED) rather than their GP when they are ill.

The national price for the least costly ED visit for illness of the eyes, ears, nose and throat is $210, almost six times the cost of a bulk-billed GP visit. This will increase costs to the States and the Commonwealth since hospital costs are shared, and thus will reduce the expected $750 million budgeted savings.

If GPs in poorer areas feel they cannot raise prices to compensate for lower revenue, they have several difficult decisions to make. They could reduce costs to maintain profits. Small practices may be forced to sell up or merge to form larger practices, resulting in fewer practices and reduced competition, making it easier for these larger

practices to increase their prices. Fewer practices would also mean that patients need to travel further, and this could lead to further reductions in demand.

Next, GPs could provide longer consultations or increased care to existing patients, which could help maintain earnings through additional follow-up visits, tests, prescriptions or scheduling more health checks.

These additional activities are likely to be of relatively low value with little effect on patients’ health, and they would increase the costs to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

The potential flow-on effects of the policy are considerable and mean that the estimated savings would be much lower than the budgeted $750 million.

A Solution?

If the government wishes to persist with the co-payment, it could make some compromises to achieve the Senate’s support. The only way to minimise both harm and increased costs is to properly means-test the co-payment.

GPs with more affluent patients should comfortably be able to charge more without seeing a major reduction in demand and their incomes. Neither patients nor GPs would be greatly affected, and the government would save some money.

How could means-testing work? The reduced rebate of $5 could be applied to patients visiting GPs in more affluent postcode areas only. Tax office data on the average taxable income of residents by postcode could be used to identify those with average individual earnings of greater than say $100,000. GPs in these areas could more readily increase their prices without a substantial reduction in demand.

Applying different Medicare rebates to different postcode areas would have the additional benefit of encouraging GPs to locate to poorer areas which attract an ‘additional’ $5 Medicare rebate. Those who live in less affluent areas would not be affected by the co-payment. Of course, these proposed changes mean that the government would not save as much as the budgeted $750 million, but then neither will the current policy, which ignores the cost increases to EDs, Medicare and the PBS. This begs the question of whether all this tinkering is worth it to help save face and a little money, when other policies which would not risk harming people are being ignored.

An unedited version of this article by Professor Tony Scott was originally published on croakey, the Crikey health blog at <blogs.crikey. com.au/croakey/2014/06/16/can-the-gp-co-payment-debacle-befixed/>.

Page 4 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems The results of the U21 annual ranking of higher education systems in 50 countries were released at the Annual President’s Conference of Universitas 21 (U21) in Glasgow on 16 May.

U21 Ranking of National Systems of Higher Education, 2014: Top 20

The rankings are compiled by researchers at the Melbourne Institute under contract to U21, a group of leading researchintensive universities from quality educationperformance U21 17 countries. The rankings universities funding higherdata rank provide benchmarks for research governments, educational countries government Universitas 21 institutions and researchers. international measure The U21 rankings are designed to move discussion away from the ranking of elite institutions, such as those provided by the Shanghai and Times rankings, to tertiary education systems as a whole. international

USA

national

Ireland

Korea

weight

Chile

GDP

UK

highest

Japan

broad

academics population Australia good indicator environment resources

New Zealand

regulatory

institution

Hong Kong SAR

connectivity

sector

world

Mexico

South Africa

nations Netherlands India

Singapore nation

systems

Professor

output

China

ranking

Sweden variable Canada

expenditure

U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems 2014

private funding students

Countries are ranked on each of 24 indicators which are then combined into rankings for Resources, Environment, Connectivity and Output. This year the Connectivity module has been extended by the inclusion of measures of interaction with business and industry in addition to numbers of international students, research articles written with international collaborators and webbased connectivity. An overall ranking is obtained using a weight of 40 per cent for Output and 20 per cent for each of the other three modules. The top two countries for each module are Denmark and Canada for Resources, the Netherlands and New Zealand for Environment, Switzerland and Sweden for Connectivity, and the United States and the United Kingdom for Output. Overall, the top three countries are the United States, Sweden and Canada; Australia is ranked ninth.

The largest changes from the 2013 rankings are an improvement of eight places by China, a rise of five places by Hungary and a fall of seven places by Ukraine.

Relationships between the various measures suggest ways of improving performance. There is, for example, a relatively strong positive relationship between expenditure and many of the nine Output variables. The strongest relationship is between expenditure by tertiary institutions on R&D (which is largely financed by governments) and quality research output. Participation rates and education levels of the workforce are positively related to expenditure levels, but it does not matter whether the expenditure is financed from government or the private sector.

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Main Ranking United States Sweden Canada Denmark Finland Switzerland Netherlands United Kingdom Australia Singapore Norway Austria Belgium Germany Hong Kong SAR New Zealand Ireland France Israel Japan

Relative to GDP per Capita Sweden Finland Denmark Serbia New Zealand United Kingdom Canada Portugal China Netherlands Switzerland Australia Israel Belgium United States Hungary South Africa Brazil Austria Germany

The measures are adjusted for population but this year an auxiliary ranking was produced that allows for differences in GDP per capita. This new ranking recognises that for developing countries it is not economically desirable to invest, say, as much per student in higher education as does the United States because returns may be higher in other areas such as schooling and health. Allowing for income levels produces marked changes in ranking.

China (now 9th), India (23rd) and South Africa (17th) all improve their overall ranking by at least 25 places, although the three top-ranked countries are Sweden, Finland and Denmark. A noticeable feature is that when adjustment is made for income levels several lower income countries show very marked improvements in the Connectivity ranking (the top two are now South Africa and Thailand, Indonesia is seventh), an activity that is likely to be beneficial to economic growth.

The researchers involved were Professor Ross Williams, Dr Gaétan de Rassenfosse and Professor Paul Jensen.

The methodology is discussed in R. Williams, G. de Rassenfosse, P. Jensen and S. Marginson (2013), ‘The Determinants of Quality National Higher Education Systems’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 599–611.

The detailed empirical results may be found at <www.universitas21. com>.

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 5

Australian Economic Review The March and June 2014 issues of the Australian Economic Review contain interesting articles on a wide variety of economic and social topics.

The March issue of the journal featured the annual review of the Australian economy by Melbourne Institute researchers Professor Guay Lim, Dr Viet Nguyen and Dr Chew Lian Chua. The article reviews the impact of public and private sector austerity on the Australian economy, the differential effects of low interest rates on lenders and borrowers, and the varying job opportunities for different age groups.

The Policy Forum was on the topic of youth transitions post schooling. Five articles are based on papers presented at the research forum on Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth which was held in Sydney in April 2013. The articles are summarised in the introductory article by Dr Tom Karmel, who at the time of the conference was Managing Director at the National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

The contributed articles in the March issue covered economic hardship flowing from retail electricity price rises (authored by Professor Paul Simshauser and Tim Nelson), the contribution of occupational differences to the gender wage gap in Australia (Dr Michael Coelli) and the performance of superannuation funds (Dr Anup Basu and Stephanie Andrews). For the student, Professor Harry Clarke provides an article on evaluating infrastructure projects. The data survey by Assistant Professor Jesper Bagger and Professor Andrew Seltzer examines the manner in which firm records and

employee–employer records have been used empirically in personnel economics.

The June 2014 issue of the Australian Economic Review contains a number of articles on the economic effects of immigration. David Smith and Therese Smith from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection use the recently released Australian Census and Migrants Integrated Dataset (ACMID) to analyse migrant census data by visa category. The authors document how the contribution of immigrants to the economy differs markedly across the different immigration schemes.

Professor Glenn Withers examines immigration in the context of population policy, Professor Paul Jensen examines the links between migration and innovation and Professor Pookong Kee discusses the influence of diasporas. The saving behaviour of immigrants is analysed by Dr Liliya Gatina.

The June issue also contains articles on labour market dynamics in Australia by Dennis Wesselbaum, on Aboriginal disadvantage by Dr Rebecca Reeve and Dr Wylie Bradford, and on cross-market linkages between commodities, bonds, inflation and production by Professor Julien Chevallier and Dr Florian Ielpo. The data survey

by Kevin Pugh and Dr Gigi Foster reviews the national school data. For the student, Dr Lawrence Uren outlines some of the key contributions that search theory has made in improving our understanding of labour markets.

In a new development for the Australian Economic Review, a virtual issue that contains a selection of previously published articles on social security payments in Australia is available free of charge. This may be accessed at <onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)14678462/homepage/social_security.htm>.

Boom in Readership of the Australian Economic Review In 2013, full text downloads of the Australian Economic Review increased to over 85,000, an increase of 21 per cent over the previous year. Some 56 per cent of the downloads were by readers outside Australia, the top two countries being the United States and China.

The most downloaded article was ‘Women in the Workforce’ by Elizabeth Broderick, which was published in the June 2012 issue. The three most downloaded articles from those published in 2013 were: 1. the Melbourne Institute’s review of the Australian economy by Professor Guay Lim, Dr Chew Lian Chua and Dr Viet Nguyen (March 2013); 2. Professor Paul Jensen’s article on choosing your PhD topic (December 2013); and 3. an article by Assistant Professor Ian Li and the late Professor Paul Miller looking at initial employment rates of graduates by university attended (March 2013).

Page 6 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

Policy Changes Improve Educational Achievement The introduction of the preparatory schoolyear together with the increase in school entry age has positive effects.

Not surprisingly, the provision of the preparatory year of schooling in conjunction with the increase in the school entry age has improved academic achievement, according to a recent Melbourne Institute study. Yet for students starting school during the policy change period the gains, if any, were substantially smaller.

The study—‘Late Start with Extra Schooling: The Effect of School Entry-Age Increase and the Introduction of Preparatory Year’—examined the effect of the provision of the preparatory year and the increase in school entry age on NAPLAN scores in Western Australia and Queensland. The study used the ‘My School’ data on the grade-level performance of schools in Queensland and Western Australia that have, respectively, the third and the fourth largest student populations in Australia.

Overall the study found that these policy changes led to significant gains in both states across a range of subjects.

The study examined the NAPLAN scores before and after the policy changes which were implemented in Queensland in 2007 and in Western Australia in 2001. In addition to similar educational structures across the two states, the similar policy implementation across different years meant that the policy effects could be examined for cohorts that were in different NAPLAN-tested grades— grade 3 and grade 7.

As the provision of the preparatory year and increasing school-entry age entail costs, it is important to know the extent and the magnitude of the benefits. The effect of these policies on achievement was examined for numeracy, reading, writing, spelling and grammar.

In comparison to the students starting school before the policy changes, students starting school a year after the policy changes experienced a significant increase in achievement. Across both grades, the gains were of a

similar magnitude, ranging from one-quarter up to onehalf of a year of learning.

For public schools, in almost all subjects for either grade, the gains were higher for those schools that had a poorer performance in the period prior to the policy changes. It is likely that high-performing schools also benefited from the policy changes, but the grade-level standardised test scores may be limited in distinguishing different degrees of high achievement.

The study raises a potential concern. For the cohort starting school when the policy was being rolled out, the gains were limited to only a few subjects and were smaller by a magnitude of at least one-half across either state. For some subjects, their performance was adversely affected.

These policies that were implemented to align the schooling structure across states would generally be anticipated to improve academic performances as well.

Indeed, they had this desired effect. Nonetheless, for those students who started school during the transition of the policy regime, it seems that the effects were not as beneficial, or even entirely innocuous.

The results of this study by Dr Nikhil Jha are available in Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 10/14. For more information contact Dr Jha, <nikhil.jha@unimelb.edu.au>.

Best Paper Prize The Melbourne Institute is delighted to announce that a paper by Melbourne Institute researchers Dr Yi-Ping Tseng and Associate Professor Roger Wilkins with Professor Jeff Borland of the Department of Economics has been selected as the winner of the Economic Record Best Paper Prize for 2013.

The paper is entitled ‘Does Coordination of Welfare Services Delivery Make a Difference for Extremely Disadvantaged Jobseekers? Evidence from the “YP4” Trial’. Conducted from 2005 to 2009, the YP4 trial sought to evaluate, by randomised control method, an integrated approach to the delivery of employment, housing, health and other services for young homeless jobseekers. It was found that the program did not have a significant effect on economic or psychological wellbeing, a finding that was robust to the application of experimental and quasi-experimental methods.

The paper, which was published in the December 2013 issue of the Economic Record (vol. 89, no. 287, pp. 469–89), will be Institute of Appliedin Economic and Social Research - Page 7 officially announced as the Best Paper Prize winner at theMelbourne ESAM/ACE Conference Hobart in July.

Recent Melbourne Institute Working Papers 10/14 ‘Late Start with Extra Schooling: The Effect of School Entry-Age Increase and the Introduction of Preparatory Year’ Nikhil Jha 11/14 To be released 12/14 ‘Uncertainty Shocks and Unemployment Dynamics in U.S. Recessions’ Giovanni Caggiano, Efrem Castelnuovo and Nicolas Groshenny 13/14 ‘The Effect of Shocks to Labour Market Flows on Unemployment and Participation Rates’ Robert Dixon, Guay C. Lim and Jan C. van Ours 14/14 ‘Attrition Bias in Panel Data: A Sheep in Wolf ’s Clothing? A Case Study Based on the MABEL Survey’ Terence C. Cheng and Pravin K. Trivedi 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 issues become available, contact the Melbourne Institute at <melb-inst@unimelb.edu.au>.

Is Science-Based Innovation More Productive?

A Firm-Level Study Innovation raises the subsequent productivity of small and medium sized firms by 21 per cent, a Melbourne Institute study has found.

The study used a panel of about 8,000 Australian companies to test for the effect of innovation on subsequent firm-level productivity. It found that the strongest effects are derived from organisational and managerial innovations and innovations sourced from science.

If the firm had also collaborated, productivity rose by an additional 6 per cent. For large firms, only innovation that was accompanied by verified ‘good management’ practices raised productivity. In both models, the measure of productivity is estimated from firms’ financial records while the innovation data are drawn from survey material.

Although there is considerable overseas firm-level evidence that R&D or innovation makes firms more productive, there have been, until now, no comparable Australian studies. What Australian studies exist have either been crosssectional or involved small, unrepresentative samples of firms.

The study was conducted by Dr Alfons Palangkaraya and Professor Beth Webster of the Melbourne Institute and Professor Tom Spurling of Swinburne University of Technology.

The report can be downloaded from <www.acolasecretariat.org.au/acola/PDF/SAF04Reports/Effect%20of%20innovation%20on%20 firm%20performance%2029May2014.pdf>. For more information about this study, contact Professor Beth Webster, <e.webster@unimelb. edu.au>.

Melbourne Institute News Views 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: Eoin Hahessy, Dr Nikhil Jha, Professor Tony Scott, Professor Beth Webster, Associate Professor Roger Wilkins, Professor Ross Williams, Professor Mark Wooden.

Photos: page 1 ©www.istockphoto.com/shells1 and ©Victoria Lane; page 2 ©www.istockphoto.com/monkeybusinessimages and ©www.istockphoto. com/Geber86; page 3 ©www.istockphoto.com/idrutu; page 4 ©www.istockphoto.com/AlexRaths; page 7 ©www.istockphoto.com/debreny; page 8 ©www.istockphoto.com/endopack.

Level 5, Faculty of Business and Economics Building, The University of Melbourne T: +61 3 8344 2100 F: +61 3 8344 2111 www.melbourneinstitute.com