#39 March 2013 – Melbourne Institute News

Melbourne Institute News March 2013 ISSN 1442-9500 (print)

ISSN 1442-9519 (online)

Print Post Approved PP381667/01204

Issue 39

©istockphoto/Bluberries

Job Discrimination Cuts Deep Approximately 854,000 employees feel their boss has discriminated against them over recent years, a new Melbourne Institute study of perceived job discrimination in Australia has found.

Job Discrimination Cuts Deep

Page 1

Australian Economic Review Released Page 2

Re-examining the Evidence on Top Incomes in Australia Page 3

Reading to Children: A Head-Start in Life Page 4

Inaugural MABEL Research Forum Page 5

Melbourne Institute and St.George Join Forces Page 6

Innovation and Export: The Case of Australian Small and Medium Enterprises Page 7

16th Labour Econometrics Workshop Page 7

The representative survey of Australian households has revealed that 7.5 per cent of employees feel they have been discriminated against by their employer in the last two years because of their gender, age, ethnicity, religion or parenting responsibilities. Approximately 4.2 per cent of Australian workers suspected their employer had discriminated against them in the past two years because of their age, while 2.4 per cent of workers felt they had been discriminated against on the basis of their gender.

Age discrimination was also widely reported among job seekers, with 8.5 per cent of people who had applied for a job in the last two years reporting they had been unfairly judged when applying for a position.

These are among the findings of a recent Working Paper, ‘Perceived Job Discrimination in Australia: Its Correlates and Consequences’, by Markus Hahn and Associate Professor Roger Wilkins. The study draws on data from Waves 8 and 10 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The two waves, conducted in 2008 and 2010, collected information from employees and job applicants on whether they believed they had experienced employment-related discrimination.

The study also found that perceived employer discrimination is associated with adverse outcomes for workers. Employees who reported being discriminated against by their employer were found to be significantly more likely to report low satisfaction with both their job and life in general. Moreover, these employees were more likely to be underemployed, and on average thought it

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

Job Discrimination Cuts Deep (continued)

Perceived Discrimination in Australia Job Hunting, 2010 %

While Employed, 2010 Total

%

Total

Gender

1.4

65,520

2.3

269,100

Age

6.4

299,520

4.1

479,700

Ethnicity

1.7

79,560

1.4

163,800

Religion

0.5

23,400

0.5

58,500

Parenting

1.1

51,480

1.8

210,600

Any of the above

8.6

402,480

7.3

854,100

Notes: Population-weighted estimates. Sample size is 13,445. Total figures based using the percentage data and the latest data for the Australian population aged 15 years and over (approximately 18 million).

than 70 per cent of employees in their industry are of the opposite sex.

more likely that their employer would fire them within the next 12 months.

Other Key Facts • Perceived discrimination is higher among older labour market participants, women, Indigenous Australians, immigrants (especially those from non-Asian, nonEnglish speaking countries), and followers of nonChristian religions.

• However, controlling for differences in characteristics such as educational attainment and household income, ethnic and religious minorities are found to have similar rates of perceived discrimination as other members of the community.

• Both men and women are more likely to believe they have been discriminated against in their job if more

• Women with young children are more likely to report discrimination in the workplace, but not when applying for jobs.

• While ‘subjective’ outcomes such as job satisfaction are lower for workers who report being discriminated against, there is no evidence of adverse effects of perceived discrimination on wages or the likelihood of promotion.

Melbourne Institute Working Paper 9/13 can be downloaded from the Melbourne Institute website at <www.melbourneinstitute.com>.

For more information about this Working Paper or the HILDA Survey, contact Associate Professor Roger Wilkins, <r.wilkins@ unimelb.edu.au>.

Australian Economic Review Released The March 2013 (vol. 46, no. 1) issue of the Australian Economic Review was recently released. It contains the following articles.

Review of the Australian Economy 2012–13: A Tale of Two Relativities Guay C. Lim, Chew Lian Chua and Viet H. Nguyen The Absorption of Recent Graduates into the Australian Labour Market: Variations by University Attended and Field of Study Ian W. Li and Paul W. Miller How Well Do Australian HomeOwners Know the Value of Their Home?

Daniel Melser The Costs of Keeping Cool for

Australians with Multiple Sclerosis George Verikios, Michael P. Summers and Rex D. Simmons Policy Forum: The Measurement of Well-Being The Measurement of Well-Being: Introduction Ian M. McDonald The Foundations of Well-Being Jeremy Moss The Race to Be the Perfect Nation Juhi Sonrexa and Rob Moodie Measuring the Kind of Australia We Want: The Australian National Development Index, the Gross Domestic Product and the Global Movement to Redefine Progress Mike Salvaris

Page 2 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

Constructing the Herald/Age – Lateral Economics Index of Australia’s Wellbeing Annette Lancy and Nicholas Gruen Data Survey: Adult Literacy Surveys in Australia Bruce Caldwell and Andrew Webster For the Student: Offshoring and Wages Reshad N. Ahsan Editors’ Report 2012 The March issue of the Australian Economic Review is available from <wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aere>.

Re-examining the Evidence on Top Incomes in Australia

In January 2013, Melbourne Institute Associate Professor Roger Wilkins presented his paper (co-authored with Professor Richard V. Burkhauser and Markus Hahn) ‘Recent Trends in Top Incomes Share in Australia: Why Separating Capital Gains in Tax Records Matters’ at the Annual Allied Social Sciences Association Meetings in San Diego, California. Associate Professor Wilkins and his coauthors first replicate the original work of Sir Atkinson and Dr Leigh as well as Dr Leigh’s updates. They then disentangle taxable realised capital gains (that is, capital gains on assets sold in the tax year) from all other taxable income. Doing so they show that, like the case for the United States, the rise in the share of income held by top income groups in Australia is substantially greater when taxable realised capital gains are included than when they are excluded. (See the figure.)

Hence the decision to include or exclude capital gains is an important one. Some argue that it should not be included—most of the 22 country studies do not do so—and Sir Atkinson and Dr Leigh did so only because they were not able to separate it in their data. But in the case of Australia, Associate Professor Wilkins and his co-authors argue that it must be done. This is because much of the increase in top income captured in the series

Atkinson and Leigh

10

Excluding capital gains

9 8 7 6 5

2009

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

1979

1977

1975

1973

4 1971

Each of these 22 country studies, that include Australia, uses income tax data to measure the share of taxable income captured by the top part of the income distribution. In their seminal article, Sir Tony Atkinson and Dr Andrew Leigh use tax record data to show that the share of taxable income held by the top 1 per cent of Australians declined through to the mid-1980s but increased substantially through to 2003. Each year, Dr Leigh updates these numbers and continues to find such increases. This has led some to conclude that the last three decades of Australian economic growth has not been fairly shared. However, given the importance of income statistics in such debates, there is a surprising lack of consensus over what should be counted as income in these distributional analyses.

11

Alternative Estimates from Tax Records of the Income Share of the Top 1 Per Cent

%

Most of the empirical evidence underpinning the rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street protestors on behalf of the 99 per cent against the 1 per cent in the United States, and more globally, is found in the new top incomes literature reviewed by Sir Tony Atkinson and Professors Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez in the Journal of Economic Literature.

Year ended June

that includes taxable realised capital gains is caused not by an increase in the yearly accrued value of capital gains, or even in realised capital gains, but by the share of realised capital gains that have been taxed.

A major change in Australian tax laws in 1985 dramatically changed the way capital gains in Australia were taxed. In addition to taxing short-term capital gains (on property held for less than one year), capital gains would also be taxed on property purchased after 19 September 1985, regardless of how long it was held. This set off a gradual increase in the share of the capital stock subject to capital gains taxed at sale that Sir Atkinson and Dr Leigh conflate with actual increases in realised capital gains. Hence Associate Professor Wilkins and his coauthors argue that their series excluding taxable realised capital gains is a more consistent way of measuring levels and trends in top income groups in Australia over the entire period and is more consistent with the treatment of income based on income tax records, that in most countries excludes realised capital gains.

They use HILDA data to make a general point: even a consistent measure of taxable realised capital gains will not necessarily result in a trend that captures the yearly accrued value of all capital gains—a concept of income more consistent with the Haig–Simon principle that a household’s income over an interval of time (such as a year) is equal to its consumption in that interval plus the change in its net wealth over that interval. This is because realised capital gains differ from accrued capital gains and because not all assets are subject to capital gains tax, even if acquired after 1985. The HILDA data show that the single biggest component of capital gains is for owneroccupied housing, which is not taxable in Australia.

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 3

Reading to Children: A Head-Start in Life Professors Guyonne Kalb and Jan van Ours recently examined the effect of parental reading to children early in life on the child’s own reading skills, using the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC).

An improved understanding of why some children might read better than other children or learn to read more quickly than other children is of interest given the importance of reading skills in building other cognitive skills. Their research focuses on parents’ reading to children early on in life (at around 4 years of age) as one of the potential factors. It aims to study the development of very early reading skills (at age 4 or 5). Reading skills at later ages (up to age 10 or 11) are also examined.

The results from the education literature on the association between reading to children and developmental outcomes indicate that there is a strong association between reading to children and developmental outcomes. However, there is only scant evidence on whether this can be interpreted as a causal effect. The raw data used in this study also show a clear association between reading to children more frequently and higher early reading scores. The figure below shows that children who are read to more often are more likely to get a higher score for reading skill (the lighter coloured parts of the bars).

Early Reading Skills by the Frequency of Reading to Children 100 90 80 70

%

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0–2

3–5 6–7 0–2 3–5 Boys Girls Number of times per week read to child Score of 0

Score of 2

Score of 1

Score of 3

6–7

The regression results for the child cohort, controlling for a broad range of background characteristics, indicate that, if anything, the causal effects of reading to children appear larger than the observed associations in the raw data, which show a difference of 0.26 standard deviations of the skill measure between a child who is read to 6–7 times per week and a child who is read to 0–2 times per week.1 A series of robustness tests confirm the significance and direction of such effects, which range between 0.25 and just over 1 standard deviation.

Checks included, for example, examining the effect of reading to children at an earlier age; using outcomes at a later age and for different skills; and using alternative methodologies, such as the propensity score matching approach. In addition, alternative specifications included: adding other parental activities with the child to allow for the effect of time spent with the child through other activities rather than reading from a book; adding birth characteristics to check for the effect of being the oldest child working through biological differences rather than the extra time spent with parents; and replacing the number of siblings at ages 4–5 with the number of siblings as measured at a later point in time to check whether the effect might work through identifying the socio-economic status of the family rather than time constraints. These alternative explanations were rejected.

The main message is that in all approaches and specifications the ‘effect’ of reading to children remains over time and spills over into other cognitive skills, particularly those skills more closely related to reading.

This consistent effect on cognitive skills indicates that it is not just that well-off, well-educated parents read to their children more, generating an association and making it appear as if reading to your child leads to better outcomes for the child. There indeed appears to be evidence for a causal effect. However, it does not spill over to non-cognitive skills; there the correlation with parental reading is indeed just an association.

What are the implications of these findings? The main finding is that it seems important that young children are being read to. This is an early-life intervention that is beneficial for their early learning outcomes. An interesting question, which is relevant to policy-makers but which cannot be answered with the current data, is whether reading to children at a childcare centre or at school has similar effects.

1. A standard deviation is the average deviation from the mean value, indicating how much variation there is in individual outcomes. Using this approach enables a comparison of effects across skill measures with different measurement units.

Page 4 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

Inaugural MABEL Research Forum The Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) dataset is a longitudinal survey with responses from over 10,000 doctors each year which is forming an increasingly valuable resource for medical workforce research.

The Melbourne Institute will be hosting the inaugural MABEL Research Forum on Friday 12 April. The Forum will be focused on a discussion of research using the MABEL data in a form that is accessible to academics, policy-makers and other stakeholders. It will include presentations from researchers using the MABEL data, and introductions in the form of policy overviews provided by policy-makers. We hope the Forum will provide a unique and valuable fusion of academic research and policy discussion of health workforce issues.

The Forum will highlight the growing impact of the MABEL data in both of these spheres.

We expect the attendance of 50 to 80 people, including researchers using MABEL data, policy-makers from commonwealth and state government departments and agencies, and representatives of doctors’ organisations (Royal Colleges and Associations). The Forum is sponsored by Health Workforce Australia, a Commonwealth Statutory Authority established by the Council of Australian Governments to deliver a national, coordinated approach to health workforce reform.

The Forum will be opened by Penny Shakespeare, the First Assistant Secretary in charge of the Health Workforce Division of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. A session on medical workforce participation will follow, featuring research on how much doctors work, at what time of day, and in what sector of the health system. The session will include research on out-of-hours care by Dr Mai Pham and Dr Ian McRae of the Australian National University, followed by two papers on dual practice (public/private) by Julia Ellershaw of the Australian Catholic University (ACU) and Dr Terence Cheng of the Melbourne Institute. This session will be introduced by Dan Jefferson of the Victorian Department of Health.

The second session on medical organisations and career transitions will look at how doctors organise and progress through the healthcare system. The session will be introduced by Jane Austin, the Program Manager of Clinical Training Reform at Health Workforce Australia.

This session will start with a presentation of research by

MABEL Chief Investigators (from left): Associate Professor Catherine Joyce, Professor Anthony Scott, Professor Guyonne Kalb and Professor John Humphreys

Professor John Rodwell, Andre Gulyas and Defne Demir of ACU on classifying primary care organisations. There will then be a paper on doctors’ retirement transitions

by Associate Professor Catherine Joyce of Monash University and finally some research on the specialty choices of junior doctors by Dr Peter Sivey of the Melbourne Institute.

Rural workforce supply and distribution, the focus of the third session of the Forum, is one of the most uniquely challenging aspects of health workforce policy in Australia. In this session we will hear first from Professor John Humphreys of Monash University, one of the founders of MABEL, who will share his experiences using the MABEL data to directly inform new policy developments in the area of rural workforce incentives.

Following Professor Humphreys, the session will include presentations from Dr Matthew McGrail of Monash University and Dr Jinhu Li of the Melbourne Institute.

These presentations will include results of research on the dynamics of rural GP mobility and results from a stated preference study of rural GP incentives.

The Forum will close with a panel discussion of the future of longitudinal data on the health workforce. The aim of this session is to allow senior researchers and data providers to reflect on the ‘big issues’ of health workforce data in general. How can data access be improved for researchers? How can research using longitudinal data be used better to inform policy-making? How can existing longitudinal datasets on the health workforce be better integrated and complement each other?

If you are interested in the MABEL data or the Research Forum, visit the MABEL website at <https://mabel.org.au/>.

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 5

Melbourne Institute and St.George Join Forces In 2013 the Melbourne Institute joined forces with St.George Bank to produce the St.George – Melbourne Institute Household Financial Conditions Report.

90

The first report found that despite an overall decline in conditions, close to 70 per cent of Australian households have started 2013 in a stable financial position or with savings in hand. The contribution to the overall decline came from two key age groups feeling the pinch of economic uncertainty. The St.George – Melbourne Institute Household Financial Conditions Index fell 4.8 per cent since December 2011. Respondents aged 18–24 years experienced the largest decline (13.1 per cent) followed by those aged 65 years and over (7.4 per cent).

St.George – Melbourne Institute Household Financial Conditions Index

% of households

80

This report is a quarterly publication based on a representative survey of 1,200 households from all over Australia. Data from this survey provide up-to-date measures of household saving performance and asset choice. Further quarterly results will be released in March, June and September in 2013.

70

60

50 March 2007

March 2008

March 2009

March 2010

March 2011

March 2012

March 2013

• 53.4 per cent of respondents were motivated to save for precautionary or rainy day purposes (up from 43.6 per cent in December 2011).

• 83.6 per cent of respondents chose deposits with banks and similar institutions as their preferred method to save.

• Paraprofessionals/trades and sales/clerical occupations saw an 11.2 per cent decline in their financial conditions compared to the same time last year.

150

140

Index

Current Pattern of Savings: Superannuation

• Home renovation was a motivation to save for 31.8 per cent of respondents in December 2012 (up from 21.9 per cent at the same time in 2011).

130

120

• 76.8 per cent of respondents used superannuation as a savings vehicle, making it the second most popular form of investment asset.

110

• The number of households who would put hypothetical savings into a bank stood at 34.9 per cent, (up from 30.1 per cent in December 2011).

March 2003

March 2005

March 2007

March 2009

March 2011

March 2013

Additional key findings include: • Close to 70 per cent of households maintained stable financial conditions for the year.

• The financial conditions of respondents aged 18–24 years decreased 13.1 per cent from December 2011 to December 2012.

• Respondents aged 65 years and over showed a decline in financial conditions of 7.4 per cent from December 2011.

• 42.7 per cent of Australians surveyed at December 2012 indicated that they were living debt free.

• 12.1 per cent of households used between 11 and 25 per cent of their income to repay debt.

When the St.George – Melbourne Institute Household Financial Conditions Report was released earlier this year it received substantial media coverage. See the media section of <benews.unimelb.edu.au> for more details of this coverage and for future reports.

For more information on this report, contact Professor Guay Lim, <g.lim@unimelb.edu.au>.

Page 6 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

Innovation and Export: The Case of Australian Small and Medium Enterprises Why do some firms in the same industry export while others don’t? Why don’t all firms innovate? Is there any relationship between exporting and innovating?

Furthermore, economic theories also argue that investment in innovative activities can increase the returns from engaging in the global market and, as a result, increase the propensity to export. This paper also confirms this prediction: innovative firms (particularly in terms of process innovation) are more likely to become exporters.

These are the questions that a recent Melbourne Institute Working Paper aims to answer by looking at firm-level data of Australian businesses with less than 200 employees. In essence, economic theories argue that not all firms enter the export market and not all of them innovate because doing so requires them to commit some (sunk) fixed investments.

Finally, economic theories also argue for the existence of positive externalities from being exposed to global market competition and being able to access the global pool of knowledge. This paper finds slightly weaker evidence that being in the export market predicts the firms’ future (process) innovative performance.

Think about the overseas distribution channels that need to be set up, the product modifications to conform to foreign tastes that need to be introduced, the research laboratories that need to be set up, or research and development workers that need to be hired. As a result, only those firms which are productive or profitable enough will have the capacity and willingness to do so. This is why in many different countries, exporting firms and innovative firms tend to be better (they are bigger in terms of sales and employment and they have higher performance in terms of productivity and profitability). This paper confirms this stylised fact for the case of Australian small and medium enterprises.

All in all, the findings of this paper point to the need for coordinated policies to provide incentives to export and to innovate. Providing incentives to innovative firms which have never entered the global market ©istockphoto/choicegraphx and providing incentives to innovate to exporting firms with lower innovative performance may yield better outcomes than untargeted export or innovation promotion policies.

Melbourne Institute Working Paper 4/13, ‘On the Relationship between Innovation and Export: The Case of Australian SMEs’,

by Alfons Palangkaraya (<alfonsp@unimelb.edu.au>) can be downloaded from the Melbourne Institute website at <www. melbourneinstitute.com>.

16th Labour Econometrics Workshop (LEW2013) The Melbourne Institute and the Department of Economics will be co-hosting the 16th Labour Econometrics Workshop (LEW2013) on Friday 9 and Saturday 10 August 2013 at the University of Melbourne.

The Labour Econometrics Workshop is an annual meeting hosted by a different university in Australasia each year. This year marks the 16th consecutive meeting. The objective of the workshop is to provide an opportunity for researchers in applied microeconometrics to share and discuss their latest research, and to receive constructive feedback. A very broad definition of the field of ‘labour econometrics’ is applied — and submissions in the areas of public, health and development economics are encouraged. Sufficient time is allocated for each paper to enable serious discussion of methodological and technical issues. The organisers strive to include a blend of papers by established researchers and junior scholars.

Submissions of extended abstracts or full papers can now be made and registration for the Workshop is also now open.

Information is available from <www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/events/workshops/workshop_LEW_2013/workshop_ LEW_2013_default.html> or contact Penelope Hope, <p.hope@unimelb.edu.au> or (03) 8344 2151.

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 7

Recent Melbourne Institute Working Papers 1/13 ‘How Windfall Income Increases Gambling at Poker Machines’ Hielke Buddelmeyer and Kyle Peyton 2/13 ‘Trust of Second Generation Immigrants: Intergenerational Transmission or Cultural Assimilation?’ Julie Moschion and Domenico Tabasso 3/13 ‘Trust, Incomplete Contracts and the Market for Technology’ Paul H. Jensen, Alfons Palangkaraya and Elizabeth Webster 4/13 ‘On the Relationship between Innovation and Export: The Case of Australian SMEs’ Alfons Palangkaraya 5/13 ‘Do Patents Shield Disclosure or Assure Exclusivity When Transacting Technology?’ Gaétan de Rassenfosse, Alfons Palangkaraya and Elizabeth Webster 6/13 ‘Do Firms Face a Trade-Off between the Quantity and the Quality of Their Inventions?’ Gaétan de Rassenfosse 7/13 ‘Comparing Least-Squares Value-Added Analysis and Student Growth Percentile Analysis for Evaluating Student Progress and Estimating School Effects’ Brendan Houng and Moshe Justman 8/13 ‘Selection Bias in Innovation Studies: A Simple Test’ Gaétan de Rassenfosse, Anja Schoen and Annelies Wastyn 9/13 ‘Perceived Job Discrimination in Australia: Its Correlates and Consequences’ Markus Hahn and Roger Wilkins 10/13 ‘Is Leaving Home a Hardship?’ David C. Ribar 11/13 ‘Family Socio-Economic Status, Childhood Life-Events and the Dynamics of Depression from Adolescence to Early Adulthood’ Paul Contoyannis and Jinhu Li 12/13 ‘Does Coordination of Welfare Services’ Delivery Make a Difference for Extremely Disadvantaged Jobseekers?

Evidence from the ‘YP4’ Trial’ Jeff Borland, Yi-Ping Tseng and Roger Wilkins 13/13 ‘The Causal Effect of Family Income on Child Health: A Re-examination Using an Instrumental Variables Approach’ Daniel Kuehnle 14/13 ‘The Imprinting of Founders’ Human Capital on Entrepreneurial Venture Growth: Evidence from New Technology-Based Firms’ Luca Grilli, Paul H. Jensen and Samuele Murtinu 15/13 ‘On the Origins of the Worldwide Surge in Patenting: An Industry Perspective on the R&D-Patent Relationship’ Jérôme Danguy, Gaétan de Rassenfosse and Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie

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>.

Promotions for Melbourne Institute Staff Dr Guyonne Kalb has been promoted to Professor, effective January 2013. Professor Kalb joined the Melbourne Institute in January 2001 and currently is Director of the Melbourne Institute’s Labour Economics and Social Policy Research Program.

Dr Duncan McVicar has been promoted to Professor, effective March 2013. Professor McVicar joined the Melbourne Institute in July 2010 from Queen’s University Belfast, and works with the Labour Economics and Social Policy Research Program.

Professor John Haisken-DeNew is Deputy Director (Research) of the Melbourne Institute, having commenced in 2011. From March 2013, Professor Haisken-DeNew has also been appointed as the Associate Dean (Research) for the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Melbourne.

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: Professor Richard Burkhauser, Dr Edda Claus, Eoin Hahessy, Professor Guyonne Kalb, Professor Guay Lim, Dr Alfons Palangkaraya, Ryan Sheales, Dr Peter Sivey, Associate Professor Roger Wilkins

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