Melbourne Institute News June 2013
ISSN 1442-9500 (print)
ISSN 1442-9519 (online)
Print Post Approved PP381667/01204
Issue 40
HILDA Survey Statistical Report Volume 8 Released
HILDA Survey Statistical Report Volume 8 Released Page 1
Report from the Inaugural MABEL Research Forum Page 3
Trust: Culture or Nurture? Page 4
Journeys Home Funding Extended Page 5
The Melbourne Institute at 50 Page 6
U21 Rankings of National Higher Education Systems Page 7
The New Model for Chinese Economic Growth Page 7
Inclusive Growth in Australia
Page 8
The eighth volume of the annual Statistical Report of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey was released on 12 June. Edited by Associate Professor Roger Wilkins, and with contributions by Professor Richard Burkhauser, Yin-King Fok, Markus Hahn, Dr Milica Kecmanovic and Professor Mark Wooden, the report presents analyses of data from the first 10 waves of the HILDA Survey, which were conducted from 2001 to 2010. 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. Part A of the report focuses on the core aspects of life in Australia covered by the HILDA Survey every wave, presenting findings on households and family life; incomes and economic wellbeing; labour market outcomes; and life satisfaction, health and wellbeing. Part B contains six feature articles, four of which focus on the distribution and dynamics of household wealth and components of household wealth. In Wave 10, detailed information on household wealth was collected for the third time, having been previously collected in 2002 and 2006. This provides the first and only nationally representative longitudinal data on household wealth in Australia, creating new opportunities to understand its dynamics and determinants. A further article in Part B of the report examines smoking behaviour between 2001 and 2010, while Professor Mark Wooden and Yin-King Fok examine changes in the extent and nature of working at home. Families, Incomes and Jobs, Volume 8: A Statistical Report on Waves 1 to 10 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey is available from <www. melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/Reports/statreport.html>.
www.melbourneinstitute.com Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 1
HILDA Survey Statistical Report Volume 8 Released (continued) of households holding investment properties has grown significantly, from 16.1 per cent in 2002 to 20.1 per cent in 2010. This has been offset by a flight away from equity investments, with the proportion of households directly owning shares declining from 39 per cent in 2002 to 34 per cent in 2010. Correspondingly, in 2002 equity investments represented 4.1 per cent of Australian households’ wealth portfolios; by 2010 this was down to just 2.7 per cent.
This year, the 13th wave of the HILDA Survey is being conducted, while data from the first 11 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>. A Decade of Growth in Wealth The HILDA Survey data show that, while the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) slowed the pace of household wealth growth, over the eight years to 2010, real mean household wealth (expressed at December 2010 prices) increased from $495,000 to $684,000. The data also reveal that inequality in the distribution of wealth decreased, evidenced by a drop in the Gini coefficient. The decrease occurred between 2006 and 2010, and is therefore likely to reflect the effects of the GFC.
The attractive nature of property as an asset class is also revealed in the Statistical Report, which shows that in a decade the median home value increased in real terms (at December 2010 prices) from $259,000 in 2001 to $482,000 in 2010, an 86 per cent increase. The Northern Territory experienced the largest percentage growth in home values of all states and territories, the mean rising 135 per cent to $593,000 in 2010, although Western Australia had the highest mean value in 2010 at $669,000. Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania also witnessed sustained home value growth over the same 2001–2010 period. The report also shows that there has been considerable growth in household debt between 2002 and 2010, with much of this debt attributable to growth in loans for housing. However, it appears that the debt burden is mostly within income-earning capacity: only 6 per cent of households have ‘dangerous’ debt levels, as indicated by debt-to-income ratios in excess of 6.
While average wealth increased over the period, significant numbers of people experienced declines in household wealth, particularly in the second half of the decade to 2010, when 39 per cent of individuals saw their wealth decline. An analysis of the wealthiest 10 per cent of Australians highlighted that high wealth was persistent among this group over an eight-year period, and that it was not just income but also home, property and business ownership that were key determinants of entry or exit into the top wealth decile. The lowest average household wealth in 2010 was found in Tasmania—$277,115—with the highest being found in the Australian Capital Territory at $668,126, followed by Western Australia at $531,815. Households in New South Wales experienced the lowest growth in wealth over a decade, followed by the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria. Bricks and Mortar over Bulls and Bears Australians have fled the turbulence of the stock market and instead chosen property as the investment asset class of choice, the HILDA Survey data reveal. The proportion
Big Life Events Only Affect Your Life Satisfaction for a Couple of Years The ‘happiness levels’ of Australians who suffer a serious trauma (like getting sacked) or an extremely positive experience (such as having a baby) generally stabilise within two years. But the HILDA data throw up some interesting contrasts, exposing the different ways that men and women react to changes in their lives:
Page 2 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
life satisfaction, and in fact leads to a reduction in life satisfaction two to three years later, perhaps because the same problems that caused the split in the first place reemerge.
Associate Professor Roger Wilkins, Editor of Families, Incomes and Jobs, Volume 8: A Statistical Report on Waves 1 to 10 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey
Fewer Young People Taking Up Smoking Australia has experienced a substantial decline in smoking rates in a decade, with the decline being primarily due to young people refusing to take up the habit. The HILDA Survey data show that from 2001 to 2010 the biggest decline in smoking rates has been among those aged 15 to 19 years. However, smoking rates among those aged 40 and over have shown little decrease over this period.
• The birth of a child makes women significantly happier for about 12 months, but only for about six months for men.
The decline in smoking has been greater among males than females: the proportion of males who are daily smokers dropped by 4.6 percentage points from 2002 to 2010, while the proportion of females who are daily smokers dropped by 3 percentage points over the same period. The report also highlights that in a decade there has been no increase in the proportion of people quitting smoking, with all of the decrease in smoking rates coming from a reduction in the take-up of smoking.
• Being a victim of a violent crime affects men’s life satisfaction for up to two years. Women are affected more deeply, but only for about three months. The report also found that marriage increases life satisfaction for no more than one year, while separation decreases life satisfaction for up to two years. Getting back with your ex produces no significant increase in
Report from the Inaugural MABEL Research Forum Our first Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) Research Forum was held on 12 April at the University of Melbourne in the Melbourne Business School. The aim of the Forum was to disseminate results from research using MABEL data, but to do so in the context of key medical and health workforce policy issues. Eighty participants from medical colleges, postgraduate education councils, rural workforce agencies, Health Workforce Australia, the Department of Health and Ageing, State health departments, as well as academic researchers contributed to a day of discussion around a number of research projects. The Forum was opened by Penny Shakespeare, First Assistant Secretary of the Health Workforce Division of the Department of Health and Ageing. Researchers from the MABEL team, as well as other researchers using de-identified MABEL data, presented findings on a range of topics broadly aligned with our three research themes (medical workforce participation, career transitions, and rural workforce supply and distribution). Each of these sessions was chaired by a decision-maker who provided an overview of policy issues in that area: Dan Jefferson from the Victorian Department of Health, Jane Austin from Health Workforce Australia, and Lou Andreatta
Penny Shakespeare opened the Inaugural MABEL Research Forum
from the Department of Health and Ageing. The final session of the day was on the future role of longitudinal surveys of the medical workforce. This session was chaired by Ian Crettenden from Health Workforce Australia, with presentations by Professor Anthony Scott who leads the Centre for Research Excellence in Medical Workforce Dynamics and MABEL, Professor Don Roberton from the Medical Schools Outcomes Database, and Dr Adrian Webster from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. We extend our warm thanks to all participants.
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 3
Trust: Culture or Nurture? A recent study by Melbourne Institute researchers Dr Julie Moschion and Dr Domenico Tabasso provides evidence on the respective influences of intergenerational transmission and the environment in shaping individual trust.
happiness and economic success. Therefore, differences in trust between countries or between individuals partly explain differences in their respective outcomes. This suggests that increases in trust can have positive economic effects. Investigating the origins of trust is thus relevant to identifying potential ways of enhancing trust. The Melbourne Institute researchers employed data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey and the American General Social Survey. Their study investigates the respective importance of cultural background and the environment in shaping the trust of second generation immigrants in the United States and Australia. Second generation immigrants represent an ideal group of individuals for this study. While they all share the same institutional and social environment, the differences in their cultural background can be exploited to identify the role of the intergenerational transmission of values in shaping trust.
Theoretical and empirical research in economics has shown that trust has important macroeconomic and microeconomic implications. Early research has emphasised the importance of trust in the development of market economies, since it facilitates cooperation and exchanges among anonymous individuals. More recently, empirical research on the impact of trust has identified large positive causal effects on countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; economic performance (growth, income, employment, financial development, and entrepreneurship). At the individual level, trust is associated with positive outcomes such as
Trust Levels of Second Generation Immigrants and Trust in Their Home Country Second Generation Immigrants Residing in the United States
Individual level of trust
0.7
Norway
F
0.6
Czech Republic
F
0.5
Austria
F
F
Italy
0.4
Russia Ireland
F
F
F
F
Canada
Poland
F
Hungary
F
Sweden
F Great Britain
F
0.3
Mexico
Germany
F
0.2 Puerto Rico
0.1
F
0 0
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 Country of origin level of trust
0.5
0.6
0.7
Second Generation Immigrants Residing in Australia
0.8
Ireland Individual level of trust
F
0.7 South Africa
Greece
F
0.6
Italy
F
Philippines F
0.5
Malaysia
F F
Croatia
Germany
F
Former Yugoslavia
F
Malta
F
0.1
0.2 0.3 Country of origin level of trust
Great Britain
India
F
F
Egypt
F Hungary F Poland
F
Canada
F
F
Vietnam Netherlands
F F
United States
F
F
New Zealand
Austria
F
0.4 0
Sources: General Social Survey 1978â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2010 (for United States); and HILDA 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010 (for Australia). Page 4 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
0.4
0.5
Furthermore, by focusing on two different countries, the authors were able to examine which characteristics of the socio-economic environment influence trust. Descriptive statistics indicate that second generation immigrants in the two countries differ in their level of trust: while 61 per cent of Australian immigrants believe that most people can be trusted, only 41 per cent of US immigrants do so. Interestingly, in both the United States and Australia, trust of second generation immigrants is highly and positively correlated with trust in their home country (see the figure). The correlation coefficients are 0.83 in the United States and 0.60 in Australia, suggesting a larger effect of culture in the United States. The econometric analysis confirms that the trust level of second generation immigrants is significantly related to trust in their home country for both host countries and the link is much stronger in the United States. A 10 percentage point shift in trust in the home country implies a 7.1 percentage point increase in the probability that US second generation immigrants are trusting. Conversely, the comparable increase is only 1.7 percentage points in Australia. There is also a large difference in the level of trust between the United States and Australia, a finding that is also in line with the descriptive statistics. These results remain fairly stable even when a large set of additional variables are included in the regressions to control for socio-economic conditions in the home countries. The study further explores how differences in the economic and social environments of the United States and Australia could explain the differentials in trust levels of second generation immigrants. In particular, the analysis focuses on the effects of current and past values of unemployment, segregation by country of origin, crime, economic inequality, perceived racial inequality, growth, female labour force participation, and population density. An important result is that in all specifications, trust in the home country remains an important determinant of individual trust. Another result is that the environment in the host country affects trust and this effect can appear after a delay of several years. A number of host country characteristics have effects on trust that become larger with time and start to become significant after around a 10-year lag: crime rate, economic inequality, and perceived racial inequality. In Australia, trust has increased with distant past reductions in crime and economic inequality, and recent past decreases in segregation by home country and unemployment. In the United States, trust has increased over time with reductions in the perceived level of racial inequality.
The results clearly indicate that both the home country and the host country matter. Specifically, cultural transmission is particularly important in explaining trust levels in the United States, although a positive relationship between trust in the home country and individual trust can also be detected in Australia. Further, large differences appear in trust levels between the two host countries, thus suggesting that the environment matters as well. The evidence provided in the study showing that culture seems to matter more in the United States than in Australia opens interesting perspectives for future research. Notably, the question of whether the findings are valid for other behavioural traits may provide the researchers with a better understanding of how migrants build a mixed identity between the host country and the home country. Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 2/13, ‘Trust of Second Generation Immigrants: Intergenerational Transmission or Cultural Assimilation?’, can be downloaded from our website. For more information about this study, contact Dr Domenico Tabasso at <dtabasso@unimelb.edu.au>.
Journeys Home Funding Extended In April, speaking at the National Homelessness Services Achievements Awards, Minister Mark Butler and Parliamentary Secretary Melissa Parke announced that additional funding for the Journeys Home study would be provided to enable a further two survey waves to be conducted. “Extending Journeys Home for another year will further develop our understanding of what differentiates people who have been able to move out of homelessness from those who have not,” Ms Parke stated. Led by staff at the Melbourne Institute, Journeys Home is a longitudinal study that is following a sample of Centrelink customers who have faced, or are facing, serious housing difficulties. The fourth wave of fieldwork has recently been completed, with over 86 per cent of the original sample successfully re-interviewed. These high re-interview rates are one reason for the Government’s renewed commitment to the study. The study is now set to continue until at least the end of 2014, and will provide a detailed picture of the housing circumstances of this sample of disadvantaged people over a three-year period.
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 5
The Melbourne Institute at 50 The June issue of the Australian Economic Review contains revised versions of the papers presented at the Melbourne Institute’s 50th Anniversary Conference which was held on 6 December 2012. The conference papers surveyed aspects of applied economic research in Australia over the last half-century with an emphasis on the contributions of the Institute. The two Institute projects of the 1960s that captured the interests of social scientists, politicians and the general public were the pioneering work in health economics and the Melbourne Poverty Study. Professor John Deeble and Professor Richard Scotton put forward a model of universal health insurance for Australia which was soon implemented and as Medicare remains today. These early developments are spelled out by Professor Deeble in ‘A Healthy Beginning: The Origins of Medicare’. This article provides an insider’s account of what motivated the research, how it was carried out and the politics behind the quick implementation of the scheme. Professor Jane Hall takes up more recent developments in health economics in her article ‘The Development of Health Economics in Australia and Its Contribution to Policy’. The Melbourne Poverty Survey led by the Institute’s foundation director, Professor Ronald Henderson, alerted the nation to significant pockets of poverty in a seemingly affluent society. Several of Professor Henderson’s suggestions for increasing allowances were taken up by government. Professor Bob Gregory in an article entitled ‘The Henderson Question? The Melbourne Institute and 50 Years of Welfare Policy’ notes that in the first half of the 1970s unemployment allowances were doubled in real terms and pensions increased by about 40 per cent. Professor Gregory argues that government subsequently abandoned the Henderson recommendations: allowances for those expected to be in the workforce have fallen markedly relative to community living standards as governments have turned to policies that ‘make work pay’. The Melbourne Poverty Survey provided a snapshot of income needs at a point in time. In contrast, the Institute’s Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey is a longitudinal survey of households, collecting data on a range of attributes including income, wealth, labour market status and health. The nature and influence of this ongoing project is evaluated in the article by Professor Sue Richardson (‘A Reflection on the HILDA Survey’), who documents the extensive use of
Current and past directors of the Institute (from left): Professors Stephen Sedgwick, Richard Blandy, Deborah Cobb-Clark and Peter Dawkins
the HILDA Survey data by researchers and the range of policy issues that the data can throw light on. A perspective from the Reserve Bank of Australia on the work of the Institute is given in the article by Dr Guy Debelle, Assistant Governor (Financial Markets), entitled ‘Macroeconomics at the Melbourne Institute’. He singles out leading indicators and business cycle analysis, modelling and forecasting, and surveys as being particularly useful to the Bank. The Institute’s price expectations data have long been used by the Reserve Bank and were improved by joint work between the Institute and the Bank in the 1990s. Dr Debelle also comments that “Quite a sizeable share of the recent research paper output of the Bank’s Research Department has involved analysis of the HILDA data”. In recent years the Melbourne Institute, with the support of the Victorian government, has established a fully fledged program in the economics of education. The article in this area is by federal parliamentarian Dr Andrew Leigh entitled ‘The Revenge of the Nerds: The Economics of Education Reform’. Dr Leigh argues strongly for the importance of education in a world of fast technological change. He argues that the best preparation we can give to students is the skills to adapt to the jobs of tomorrow. He goes on to outline government reasoning behind recent federal initiatives in education and suggests reasons why school test scores have not increased. The articles in the Australian Economic Review provide a useful complement to the material in The Policy Providers, the history of the Institute, written by Professor Ross Williams. The June issue of the Australian Economic Review is available from <wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aere>.
Page 6 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
U21 Rankings of National Higher Education Systems
Ireland
weight
GDP
academics population private Australia funding good indicator students environment government resources UK
Chile
USA
sector
world
regulatory
institution
connectivity
New Zealand
Singapore nation
Canada
national
Sweden
broad
quality China
performance nations Netherlands India variable international
U21
systems
output
ranking
expenditure
There has also been a shift in the methodology between the universities funding 2012 and 2013 rankings. In a higherdata rank research world with greater emphasis on countries Universitas 21 communication technologies, international measure connectivity between individuals and institutions is heavily based on online interactions. In recognition of this, two new web-based measures have been included in the 2013 connectivity variables.
education
highest
Prepared by members of the Melbourne Institute and the Centre for the Study of Higher Education, the ranking report has been developed as a benchmark for governments, education institutions and individuals. The project aims to highlight the importance of creating a strong environment for higher education institutions to contribute to economic and cultural development, provide a high-quality experience for students and help institutions compete for overseas applicants.
and Malaysia, there has been a marked improvement in the quality and timeliness of data.
U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems 2013 Professor
Now in its second year, the U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems gives an overview of higher education systems across the world. The results were released at the Annual President’s Conference of Universitas 21 in Vancouver on 9 May.
The first U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems was published in May 2012. Some 48 countries were ranked separately in four areas (resources, environment, connectivity and output) and overall. The rankings met a long-standing need to shift discussion from the existing rankings of the world’s best universities to the standing of the whole higher education system in each country.
Overall, in the 2013 U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems, the top five countries were found to be the United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Denmark. Australia ranked 8th overall. It ranked 17th for resources (but 42nd for government expenditure), 8th for a favourable policy environment, 2nd for connectivity and 7th for output. The countries which showed the most improvement in output from the 2012 rankings to the 2013 rankings were France and Singapore, two countries where government has been important in the reorganisation of higher education.
In the 2013 report the four broad measures remain the same, but the country coverage has been extended to include Serbia and Saudi Arabia, bringing the total number of countries in this year’s report to 50. For several other countries, particularly India, Indonesia
More information, including the 2012 and 2013 reports, is available at <www.universitas21.com>.
The researchers involved were Professor Ross Williams, Dr Gaétan de Rassenfosse, Professor Paul Jensen and Professor Simon Marginson (Faculty of Education).
The New Model for Chinese Economic Growth Presented by the Melbourne Institute and the Centre for Contemporary Chinese Studies at the University of Melbourne, this panel discussion will take place on Tuesday 9 July from 4pm in the Copland Theatre at the University of Melbourne. China’s economy, the world’s second largest, is in the middle of transitioning to a new development stage. The Melbourne Institute and the Centre for Contemporary Chinese Studies, the University of Melbourne, bring together six leading specialists on the Chinese economy to discuss where China’s economy is heading, in which way it will develop, and how China’s economy will affect other economies in the years to come. Panellists Professor Ross Garnaut AO, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow and Professorial Fellow, The University of Melbourne Dr Xiaolu Wang, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, National Economic Research Institute, China Reform Foundation, Beijing Professor Yiping Huang, Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University Professor Christine Wong, Director, Centre for Contemporary Chinese Studies, The University of Melbourne Professor Dwight H. Perkins, Harold Hitchings Burbank Research Professor of Political Economy, Department of Economics, Harvard University Dr Ligang Song, Associate Professor and Director, China Economy Program, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University
Professor Ross Garnaut AO
Attendance is free of charge, but registration is essential. Register online at <www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/events/china_updates/china_ Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 7 newmodel_July2013_default.html>.
Recent Melbourne Institute Working Papers 16/13 ‘The Marginal Income Effect of Education on Happiness: Estimating the Direct and Indirect Effects of Compulsory Schooling on Well-Being in Australia’ Nattavudh Powdthavee, Warn N. Lekfuangfu and Mark Wooden 17/13 ‘Reading to Young Children: A Head-Start in Life?’ Guyonne Kalb and Jan C. van Ours 18/13 ‘The Effectiveness of R&D Tax Credits: Cross-Industry Evidence’ Russell Thomson 19/13 ‘The Influence of Decision Costs on Investments in Individual Savings Accounts’ Justin van de Ven 20/13 ‘Modelling the Dynamic Effects of Transfer Policy: The LINDA Policy Analysis Tool’ Paolo Lucchino and Justin van de Ven 21/13 ‘Empirical Analysis of Household Savings Decisions in Context of Uncertainty: A Cross-Sectional Approach’ Paolo Lucchino and Justin van de Ven
Recent Melbourne Institute Policy Briefs 1/13 ‘The Case for Making Public Policy Evaluations Public’ Deborah A. Cobb-Clark 2/13 ‘What’s Wrong with the Gonski Report: Funding Reform and Student Achievement?’ Moshe Justman and Chris Ryan Working Papers and Policy Briefs 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>.
Inclusive Growth in Australia: New Book Released
Edited by Paul Smyth and John Buchanan
INCLUSIVE
GROWTH
Inclusive Growth in Australia overturns two decades of assumptions that social policy is wasteful and a source of dependency. It reflects a global resurgence of the understanding that an active and effective social policy regime is vital not only for a flourishing society, but also for a strong economy. It explains this new paradigm of inclusive growth and shows how it can be implemented in Australia.
IN AUSTRALIA
Inclusive growth dismantles the idea that social development will automatically trickle down from untrammelled market-based growth. Rather, growth must be managed so that it is employment centred, broad based across sectors and with a social security system promoting sustainability and equality of opportunity. The editors argue that productivity is “nearly everything” when it comes to raising living standards. So while social policies will be about goals other than the economy, they must demonstrate their compatibility with an economic growth strategy. Social policy as economic investment
With contributions from leading national and international experts in the field including Professor Marian Baird, Grant Belchamber, Professor Gerald Burke, Saul Eslake, Professor Roy Green and Professor Peter Whiteford, Inclusive Growth in Australia shows that ‘welfare state’ spending is as much an economic investment as a measure of social protection. This new publication includes two chapters by Melbourne Institute researchers: ‘Was Economic Growth in Australia Pro-Poor?’ by Dr Francisco Azpitarte; and ‘Social Inclusion, Growth and Education’ by Dr Hielke Buddelmeyer. Written for policy makers, industry and non-government organisations as well as students, Inclusive Growth in Australia locates Australian economic and social policy within the most important emergent themes shaping international debate. Purchase a copy online at <www.allenandunwin.com> and use Promo Code: GROWTH15 and get 15 per cent off plus free delivery in Australia and New Zealand from now until the end of August.
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: Penelope Hope, Professor Paul Jensen, Tiffany Rae, Professor Tony Scott, Dr Domenico Tabasso, Associate Professor Roger Wilkins, Professor Ross Williams and Professor Mark Wooden. Photos: www.istockphoto.com, Coombs Photography and Les O’Rourke Photography.
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