The Centre for Independent Studies Research Collection

The Rise of Activist Corporations: How activism agendas subsumed shareholder primacy by Peter Swan

The Rise of Activist Corporations: How activism agendas subsumed shareholder primacy
by Peter Swan AO
September 26, 2024
Australian companies have been shifting from a purely shareholder focus to a much vaguer, less accountable, and damaging stakeholder focus for many years. One important byproduct of this decline in shareholder focus has been former shareholder resources moving into ‘social responsibility’, corporate activism, and promotion of political and popular causes that are often antithetical to the interests of corporations’ own shareholders. This has resulted in many corporations becoming ‘woke’.Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-rise-of-activist-corporations-how-activism-agendas-subsumed-shareholder-primacy/
 
#auspol #woke

Government spending and inflation by Robert Carling

Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/government-spending-and-inflation/That government expenditure in Australia has grown apace in recent years is well-known. The growth became gargantuan during the coronavirus pandemic. However, to a less dramatic extent, it was happening before the pandemic — and has continued since it ended.
Some observers welcome this growth to the extent it is a reflection of new spending programs and expansion of existing programs perceived to meet legitimate needs. But it is also a matter of serious concern for reasons that include the implications for higher taxation and public debt, the effect on incentives and the diversion of scarce resources away from alternative and higher productivity activities.
Recently, attention has turned to the impact of higher public spending on inflation as monetary policy struggles to restore inflation to its target. Specifically, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has spoken of the high level of aggregate demand relative to the economy’s potential output. The RBA has drawn attention to the relatively rapid growth of public final demand as a contributor to excessive aggregate demand —­ although the Governor has also stated that public sector demand “is not the main game” in the policy response to persistent inflation.
This policy paper presents the key facts about public expenditure growth in recent years and discusses its contribution to inflation.

All Things Considered. Making Moral Sense of the Wars in Ukraine and Gaza by Nigel Biggar

All our links: https://linktr.ee/centreforindependentstudies All Things Considered. Making Moral Sense of the Wars in Ukraine and Gaza by Nigel Biggar.Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/all-things-considered-making-moral-sense-of-the-wars-in-ukraine-and-gaza/ 
The pacifist answer to the problem of #war is straightforward. Any use of violent force by anybody in any circumstances is immoral and should cease. War is always worse than its alternatives; peace is always preferable. This is not a view to which I subscribe. We all want peace, but at what cost and to whom? If those who believe in the possibility of morally justified war have to reckon with the dreadful consequences of their position, so do pacifists. Not going to war in 1994 was good for Britons and Australians, but not so good for the Tutsi in Rwanda: our staying at peace left the Hutu at peace to slaughter 800,000 of them. Peace, like war, is morally complicated.
The war in #Ukraine has resulted in the widespread devastation of the country. Russian president Vladimir Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons hangs over it, and it seems unlikely that the Ukrainians can triumph over Russia. So, surely it would have been better, if Kyiv had not resisted in the first place. And would it not be best, if it were to stop resisting now?
Meanwhile in #Gaza the civilian casualties of the war between Israel and Hamas continue to mount. South Africa has accused Israel of genocide, and the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has applied for a warrant to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister. And yet, it was Hamas that began the current phase of the conflict with the horrendously deliberate and indiscriminate massacre of #Israeli civilians on October 7 last year. And it is Hamas that planned to make a battlefield out of a dense urban environment, building tunnels for its gunmen but no shelters for non-combatants. And it is Hamas that is constitutionally committed to eradicating #Israel. So how are we to make coherent moral sense of the situation?

Counting the Cost: Subsidies For Renewable Energy

Counting the Cost: Subsidies For Renewable Energy By Michael Wu.For all references and graphs, please download the publication at the centre for independent studies website where you can also become a member of CIS. As this paper is graph and data-heavy, it’s a good idea to have the paper open as you listen along. Download here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/counting-the-cost-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/CIS Membership - https://www.cis.org.au/membership-2-step-1/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@CISAus Twitter - https://twitter.com/CISOZFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/CentreIndependentStudies/Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-centre-for-independent-studies/Telegram - https://t.me/centreforindependentstudiesCIS - https://www.cis.org.au/ 

How to Build Low-Cost Nuclear: Lessons from the world

How to Build Low-Cost Nuclear: Lessons from the world by Aidan Morrision. First published on April 11, 2024.
For all references and graphs, please download the publication at the centre for independent studies website where you can also become a member of CIS. As this paper is graph and data-heavy, it’s a good idea to have the paper open as you listen along. The paper can be downloaded from here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/how-to-build-low-cost-nuclear-lessons-from-the-world/

Mind over matter. The philosophical arguments around AI, natural intelligence and memory

Mind over matter. The philosophical arguments around AI, natural intelligence and memory.
In this intriguing research paper by Professor John Sweller, he deftly navigates the complex intricacies surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), natural intelligence, and memory. The entry in the research series of the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), he challenges traditional perspectives as he critically examines both artificial and natural systems and what denotes them as intelligent. Professor Sweller employs metaphor and insights from evolutionary biology to provide an innovative understanding of intelligence’s foundation.
Professor Sweller underscored the essential role of knowledge, especially in educational contexts focusing on students' learning process. He posited that human cognition, an intelligent system itself, largely depends on our existing knowledge. Furthermore, he emphasized that the importance of knowledge in human cognition has been often downplayed both in educational research and AI development. This subtle observation explains AI's remarkable growth in recent times.
In a remarkable comparison, he explored the idea that like humans who struggle with limited intelligence due to insufficient knowledge, AI applications too have limitations in their utility without considerable accessible knowledge and information, the recent proliferation of which has been facilitated by the massive storage of data.
He delves deeper into the potential limitations of AI and the inefficiency of discovery learning for both humans and artificial intelligence systems. This becomes particularly relevant when false or implausible conclusions, known as AI hallucinations, are generated due to insufficient or low-quality data available to an algorithm.
Sweller stimulatively invites us to grapple with the concept of intelligence, its interplay with our knowledge and the foundations of intelligent systems. By reflecting on these foundations, we can better navigate the opportunities, challenges, and limitations of today’s AI and its potential implications for future educational systems and wider societal dimensions.

What is the Science of Learning? By Trisha Jha.

What is the Science of Learning? By Trisha Jha.Listen to all our research here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/Despite billions of additional experts and concerted efforts at reforming several pillars of the Australian education ecosystem, students’ results continue to plateau. While the focus on teaching quality and effective, evidence-based practices is welcome, it is incomplete. Australian education needs to position the science of learning as the foundation for policy and practice.
The establishment of the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) — in particular its recent work How students learn best — and the Strong Beginnings report into initial teacher education reforms are important because they create space for shifting focus towards the science of learning.
Unfortunately, key pillars of Australian education policy do not reflect the science of learning, due to the far-reaching impacts of progressive educational beliefs dating back to the 18th century.
These beliefs include that:
Students learn best when they themselves guide their learning and it aligns with their interest;
Rote learning is harmful;
Learning should be based on projects or experiences, and that doing this will result in critical and creative thinkers.
But these beliefs are contradicted by the science of learning, which is the connection between: 1) insights from cognitive science and educational psychology; and 2) the teaching practices  supported (and not supported) by those insights. Key concepts include:
Biologically primary knowledge (BPK) and biologically secondary knowledge (BSK): These concepts are not about stages of schooling. Rather, BPK includes things like basic social relations and problem-solving skills we have evolved to learn and do not need to be taught. In contrast, BSK includes foundational skills — like reading, writing, maths as well as coding, Cubism and how to kick a football (what schools are for) — we can only learn through instruction;
Domain-specific and domain-general skills: domain-general skills overlap with biologically-primary knowledge but critical thinking and analysis are specific to domains such as maths, history etc;
Working memory and long-term memory: working memory is severely limited and can only handle small amounts of new information; making it a funnel to long-term memory. A strong long-term memory can help strengthen working memory; and
Cognitive load theory: given these models of human cognition, teachers should design instruction to optimise the burden on working memory in a way that best helps learning.
The teaching approach best supported by the evidence is explicit instruction of a well-sequenced, knowledge-focused curriculum. Some key features of explicit instruction include:
Careful ordering of curriculum content so that new information and concepts are built sequentially;
Explanation of new information in small steps, taught through modelling and worked examples, with student practice after each step;
Asking questions and checking for all students’ understanding of what has been taught before gradual release of students for independent work and more complex tasks; and
Regular review of previous content to ensure retention.
There are many implications for the science of learning:
For teachers, it is an opportunity to design instruction in a way that is likely to lead to most students’ success with learning;
Parents can become more informed about how their child will learn best and more empowered when selecting or having conversations with their child’s school; and
For policymakers, it provides a foundation for future reform of policy at all levels.Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/what-is-the-science-of-learning/

Housing is becoming a pipe dream for young Australians - Emilie Dye

Read the paper here. In a comprehensive exploration of the Australian housing market, Emily Dye uncovers the stark reality of home ownership for young Australians. Homeownership has sharply declined over the past 20 years with the younger generations especially hit hard. Emily breaks down the complex terms such as 'housing affordability' and 'affordable housing', churning out an incisive analysis of the intergenerational struggle for home ownership.
When taking a closer look at the regulations presently stifling the housing market, it reveals a grim picture where tax concessions and local goverments' influence play a significant role. Emily Dye exposes how perceived views, heritage protections and desire for preservation overrule the need for more housing, leading to an unreasonably high ration of median house prices to incomes.
Dye spotlights the need for a shift in housing preference. As younger generations are drawn towards environment-friendly, high-density housing, the bureaucratic regulations continue to favor single-family sites. The zoning tax—a housing constraint resulting from bureaucratic interventions—is dissected in the publication, revealing its heavy contribution to the high home prices in major Australian cities.
While high immigration is frequently blamed for the surge in home prices, Emily argues that restrictive supply is, in fact, the culpit. She asserts that demand only becomes a problem when supply is handicapped. Dye concludes with a compelling argument for increased housing stock through strategic state interventions, arguing that this is the only path to make housing affordable for Australia’s future generations.

A Better Future With a Future Fund by David Murray

A Crucial Asset in the Economic LandscapeIn this comprehensive review, David Murray brings into focus the pivotal role played by Australia's Future Fund in cementing the country's long-term financial stability. Established in 2006, the Future Fund was devised to shift Australia's budget surpluses and asset sales into an investment aimed to counter the financial strain from the nation's unfunded superannuation liabilities and an aging demographic. Ranked the 19th largest among the world's leading 100 funds, the Fund currently holds assets worth $205 billion, or a whopping $255 billion inclusive of the ancillary funds.
Amidst its successes and mounting contributions, the Future Fund has faced criticisms. Despite this, Mr. Murray underscores the Fund's adherence to the Santiago Principles and reflects on its function, investment horizon, withdrawal model, and outstanding return on investment. Mr. Murray signifies in his analysis that the Future Fund has been instrumental in contributing to Australia's credit standing, producing wealth for future generations, and checks on the government's expenditure.
The analysis extends into issues surrounding leveraged investment vehicles operated by the government and their associated risks. Perspectives are also lent to various Future Funds carrying such debt, questioning their necessity. On a different note, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund is highlighted for its distinctive social, economic, and cultural designation.
While the Future Fund has showcased transparency, accountability, and autonomy from political sway, Mr. Murray suggests continued scrutiny of its operation. Despite the challenges presented, the study concludes, retaining the Future Fund offers key advantages. These range from managing resource dependency to enhancing foreign investor confidence and promoting critical policy re-evaluation.
In conclusion, Mr. Murray affirms the Future Fund's invaluable role as an institutional asset in Australia's financial roadmap, urging for a balanced dialog on its future and warning against the risk of modifying its mandate or liquidation that could jeopardize $200 billion in likely returns.#auspol

Bungles, Blowouts and Boondoggles: why Australia’s infrastructure projects cost more than they should

Bungles, Blowouts and Boondoggles: why Australia’s infrastructure projects cost more than they should. By Grahame CampbellA large amount of taxpayers’ money, state and federal, is expended on large scale infrastructure that is intended to play a crucial part in Australia’s growth and prosperity — although some of it is arguably wasteful or perhaps even pork-barrelling. And as the recent federal government Infrastructure Investment Review found in axing around 50 planned projects, some “do not demonstrate merit, lack any national strategic rationale and do not meet the Australian Government’s national investment priorities. In many cases these projects are also at high risk of further cost pressures and/or delays.”
But major infrastructure projects in Australia are often also more expensive than comparable projects in other countries, even after even after adjusting for differences in currencies and purchasing power.
While a 2014 Productivity Commission Inquiry report on public infrastructure argued that there were examples where Australia was competitive internationally, and that the systematic evidence was missing or incomplete, it noted that several commentators argued Australia performed worse than other countries. The PC, while arguing for substantial reform to our infrastructure processes, also noted there was “considerable uncertainty about many facets of construction costs. There are sometimes large and inexplicable variations in the construction costs for what appear to be similar activities, such as the cost per kilometre of rail projects.”
It is unlikely that much has improved since 2014, especially given the findings of the recent review and estimates that construction costs increased more than 25% over the five years to mid-2022.
There are several factors that contribute to the higher costs of major infrastructure in Australia. The available evidence on major infrastructure construction costs shows that there have been some recent significant increases in input costs. This particularly applies to labour and project management costs, plus contract design, complexity and poor management leading to risk offloading, cost over-runs and costly schedule over-runs. However, it is important to note that the cost of projects can also vary based on specific circumstances, project scope, and other factors.
As listed below, and explained in more detail in the subsequent sections related to costs, factors that can contribute to higher costs for Australian infrastructure projects include:
Labour and Industrial Relations: Australia generally has higher labour costs compared with many other countries. Wages, benefits, and labour regulations can contribute to higher project costs.
Lower Productivity: Productivity is hampered by the lack of a sufficiently educated, skilled and engaged workforce, an efficient work environment, innovation, efficient procurement models and ultimately trust between industry stakeholders.
Regulations and Standards: Australia has strict regulations and standards when it comes to construction, safety, and environmental considerations. Compliance with these regulations often adds to the complexity and cost of infrastructure projects.
Design Complexity: Infrastructure projects in Australia often involve complex engineering and design requirements. This can include considerations such as environmental impact, sustainability, and resilience, which may contribute to increased costs.
Project Management: Effective project management is crucial for successful infrastructure projects. Factors like inefficient planning, delays, and changes in scope can contribute to cost overruns.
Risk Offloading: Project cost is often inflated in Australia by a misguided focus on unloading risk in the early stages of a project’s development. This is often driven by the type of contract that is presented to the industry by lawyers, with the objective of minimising up-front costs and putting most of the risks on the contractors. This practice is not generally followed in other countries, which look at ‘whole of Life’ costs and benefits, resulting in a more cooperative and cheaper outcome.Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/bungles-blowouts-and-boondoggles-why-australias-infrastructure-projects-cost-more-than-they-should/