FURTHER EXPOSITION OF THE VALUE OF RELIABILITY

As the demands placed on transport systems have increased relative to extensions in supply, problems of network unreliability have become ever more prevalent. The response of some transport users has been to accommodate expectations of unreliability in their decision-making, particularly through their trip scheduling. In the analysis of trip scheduling, Small’s (1982) approach has received considerable support. Small extends the microeconomic theory of time allocation (e.g. Becker, 1965; De Serpa, 1971), accounting for scheduling constraints in the specification of both utility and its associated constraints. Small makes operational the theory by means of the random utility model (RUM). This involves a process of converting the continuous departure time variable into discrete departure time segments, specifying the utility of each departure time segment as a function of several components (specifically journey time, schedule delay and the penalty of late arrival), and adopting particular distributional assumptions concerning the random error terms of contiguous departure time segments (whilst his 1982 paper assumes IID, Small’s 1987 paper considers a more complex pattern of covariance). A fundamental limitation of Small’s approach is that individuals make choices under certainty, an assumption that is clearly unrealistic in the context of urban travel choice. The response of microeconomic theory to such challenge is to reformulate the objective problem from the maximisation of utility, to one of maximising expected utility, with particular reference to the works of von Neumann & Morgenstern (1947) and Savage (1954). Bates et al. (2001) apply this extension to departure time choice, but specify choice as being over continuous time; the latter carries the advantage of simplifying some of the calculations of optimal departure time. Moreover Bates et al. offer account of departure time choice under uncertainty, but retain a deterministic representation. Batley & Daly (2004) develop ideas further by reconciling the analyses of Small (1982) and Bates et al. Drawing on early contributions to the RUM literature by Marschak et al. (1963), Batley and Daly propose a probabilistic model of departure time choice under uncertainty, based on an objective function of random expected utility maximisation. Despite this progression in the generality and sophistication of methods, significant challenges to the normative validity of RUM and transport network models remain. Of increasing prominence in transport research, is the conjecture that expected utility maximisation may represent an inappropriate objective of choice under uncertainty. Significant evidence for this conjecture exists, and a variety of alternative objectives proposed instead; Kahneman & Tversky (2000) offer a useful compendium of such papers. With regards to these alternatives, Kahneman & Tversky’s (1979) own Prospect Theory commands considerable support as a theoretical panacea for choice under uncertainty. This theory distinguishes between two phases in the choice process - editing and evaluation. Editing may involve several stages, so-called ‘coding’, ‘combination’, ‘cancellation’, ‘simplification’ and ‘rejection of dominated alternatives’. Evaluation involves a value function that is defined on deviations from some reference point, and is characterised by concavity for gains and convexity for losses, with the function being steeper for gains than for losses. The present paper begins by formalising the earlier ideas of Batley and Daly (2004); the paper thus presents a theoretical exposition of a random expected utility model of departure time choice. The workings of the model are then illustrated by means of numerical example. The scope of the analysis is subsequently widened to consider the possibility of divergence from the objective of expected utility maximisation. An interesting feature of this discussion is consideration of the relationship between Prospect Theory and a generalised representation of the random expected utility model. In considering this relationship, the paper draws on Batley & Daly’s (2003) investigation of the equivalence between RUM and elimination-by-aspects (Tversky, 1972); the latter representing one example of a possible ‘editing’ model within Prospect Theory. Again, the extended model is illustrated by example.

State Capacity and Non-state Service Provision in Fragile and Conflict-affected States

How can governments effectively engage with non-state providers (NSPs) of basic services where capacity is weak? This paper examines whether and how fragile and conflict affected states can co-ordinate, finance, and set and apply standards for the provision of basic services by NSPs. It explores ways of incrementally engaging the state, beginning with activities that are least likely to do harm to non-state provision. Through the ‘indirect’ roles of setting the policy environment and engaging in policy dialogue, regulating and facilitating, contracting, and entering into mutual and informal agreements with NSPs, the state can in principle assume responsibility for the provision of basic services without necessarily being involved in direct provision. But government capacity to perform these roles is constrained by the state’s weak legitimacy, coverage and competence, lack of basic information about the non-state sector, and lack of basic organisational capacity to form and maintain relationships with NSPs. The experience of the exercise of the indirect roles in fragile settings suggests: * Governments may be more willing to engage with NSPs where there is recognition that government cannot alone deliver all services, where public and private services are not in competition, and where there is evidence that successful collaboration is possible (demonstrated through small-scale pilots). * The extent to which engagements are ‘pro-service’may be influenced by government motives for engagement and the extent to which the providers that are most important to poor people are engaged. * Formal policy dialogue between government and NSPs may be imperfect, unrepresentative and at times unhelpful in fragile settings. Informal dialogue - at the operational level - could more likely be where synergies can be found. * Regulation is more likely to be ‘pro-service’ where it offers incentives for compliance, and where it focuses on standards in terms of outputs and outcomes rather than inputs and entry controls. * Wide scale, performance-based contracting has been successful in delivering services in some cases, but the sustainability of this approach is often questioned. Some successful contractual agreements have a strong informal, relational element and grow out of earlier informal connections. * Informal and mutual agreements can avoid the capacity problems and tensions implicit in formal contracting but may present problems of non-transparency and exclusion of competition. Paradoxically, the need for large-scale approaches and quick co-ordination of services in fragile and conflict-affected settings may require ‘prematurely high’ levels of state-NSP engagement, before the development of the underlying institutional structures that would support them. When considering strategies to support the capacity of government to engagement with NSPs, donors should: * Recognise non-state service provision and adopt the ‘do no harm’ principle: It would be wrong to set the ambition of 'managing ‘ non-state provision in its entirety, and it can be very harmful for low-capacity states to seek to regulate all NSP or to draw it into clumsy contracts. * Beware of generalisation: Non-state provision takes many forms in response to different histories and to political and economic change. The possibilities and case for state engagement have to be assessed not assumed. The particular identities of NGOs and enterprises should be considered. * Recognise that state building can occur through any of the types of engagement with NSPs: Types of engagement should therefore be selected on the basis of their likely effectiveness in improving service delivery. * Begin with less risky/small scale forms of engagement where possible: State interventions that imply a direct controlling role for the state and which impose obligations on NSPs (i.e. contracting and regulation) require greater capacity (on both sides) and present greater risk of harm if performed badly than the roles of policy dialogue and entering into mutual agreements. * Adopt mixed approaches: The choice between forms of engagement does not have to be absolute. Rather than adopting a uniform plan of engagement in a particular country, it may be better to try different approaches in different regions or sectors

The politics of what works in service delivery:\ud An evidence-based review

This paper examines the evidence on the forms of politics likely to promote inclusive social provisioning and enable, as opposed to constrain, improvements in service outcomes. It focuses on eight relatively successful cases of delivery in a range of country contexts and sectors (roads, agriculture, health, education) where independent evaluations demonstrate improved outcomes. The paper traces the main characteristics of the political environment for these cases, from the national political context, to the politics of sector policymaking, to the micro politics of implementation. The findings indicate that it is possible to identify connections between good performance and better outcomes at the point of delivery and the main forms of politics operating at local, sector and national levels.\ud \ud A number of common factors underpinning successful delivery emerge strongly but need to be tested through further research. In particular, the paper highlights the relationship between inclusive delivery and periods of crisis and transition;the nature of the political settlement;the types of calculations of political returns being made by political actors at all levels, and; the extent to which the state derives or seeks to enhance its legitimacy through the provision of a particular service

CPV tests with rare kaon decays

The K_S \to pi+/- e+ e- decay mode has been investigated using the data collected in 2002 by the NA48/1 collaboration. With about 23k signal events and 59k K_L \to pi+ pi- pi0_D normalization decays, the K_S \to pi+ pi- e+ e- branching ratio was determined. This result is also used to set an upper limit on the presence of E1 direct emission in the decay amplitude. The CP-violating asymmetry has been also measured. We report on measurements of the rare decays K +/- \to pi+/- e+ e- and K+/- \to pi+/- mu+ mu- . The full NA48/2 data set was analyzed, leading to more than 7200 reconstructed events in the electronic and more than 3000 events in the muonic channel, the latter exceeding the total existing statistics by a factor of four. For both channels the selected events are almost background-free. From these events, we have determined the branching fraction and form factors of K+/- \to pi+/- e+ e- using different theoretical models. Our results improve the existing world averages significantly. In addition, we measured the CP violating asymmetry between K+ and K- in this channel to be less than a few percent.Comment: 4 pages, 1 figure, To appear in the proceedings of IX International Conference on Hyperons, Charm and Beauty Hadrons (BEACH2010), Perugia, Italy, 21-26 June 201

Recent results from the NA48 experiment at CERN: CP violation and CKM parameter Vus

Several recent results from the NA48 experiment are presented: a measurement $|\eta_{+-}|$, search for CP violating phenomena in $K^\pm\to3\pi$ decays, and a measurement of $|V_{us}|$.Comment: A talk given at the 2007 Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics. 3 page

Marginal valuations of travel time and scheduling, and the reliability premium

Previous works have established synonymity between the notions of uncertainty and unreliability, exploiting this in deriving marginal valuations of travel time and scheduling under uncertainty. Whilst valid for forecasting demand, such valuations fail to illuminate the costs of bearing unreliability - herein referred to as the ‘reliability premium’. The paper derives marginal valuations of travel time and scheduling at the certainty equivalent, showing these to diverge from those under uncertainty. That divergence, which represents the marginal valuation of reliability, raises the possibility of bias should the costs of unreliability not be included in appraisal

Papua New Guinea's Aid Program in the Region

Although it is not large by global standards, Papua New Guinea’s provision of aid to other Pacific island countries has become a significant part of its regional diplomacy. This In Brief draws on available open sources to provide a necessarily preliminary outline of Papua New Guinea’s aid program in the region.AusAI

Kaon experiments at CERN: NA48 and NA62

Searches for violation of lepton flavour universality and lepton number conservation in kaon decays by the NA62 and NA48/2 experiments at CERN, status and future plans of the CERN kaon programme are presented. A precision measurement of the helicity-suppressed ratio $R_K$ of the $K^\pm\to e^\pm\nu$ and $K^\pm\to\mu^\pm\nu$ decay rates has been performed using the full data set collected by the NA62 experiment in 2007--2008. The result is $R_K=(2.488\pm0.010)\times10^{-5}$, in agreement with the Standard Model expectation. An improved upper limit on the rate of the lepton number violating $K^\pm\to\pi^\mp\mu^\pm\mu^\pm$ decay from the NA48/2 experiment (2003--2004 data set) is presented. Finally, the NA62 project aiming at a measurement of the branching ratio of the ultra-rare decay $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ at 10% precision is discussed.Comment: Talk given at PhiPsi 2011 conference (Novosibirsk, Russia, September 2011). To be published in Nucl.Phys.B Proc.Sup

Measuring Attendence Patterns at Pacific Island Forum Leaders Meetings

Much of the domestic commentary surrounding the 2018 Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting (the Forum) in Nauru centered on the new Australian prime minister’s decision not to attend in person. This is by no means unusual, either for Australia or indeed for other forum members. Since the Forum’s foundation, member countries have often been represented by deputy prime ministers, foreign ministers, other ministers or special envoys when leaders have been unable, or unwilling, to attend. This In Brief looks at patterns of attendance by heads of government at Forum meetings since the organisation’s establishment in 1971. It considers only full members of the Forum (not associate members). Data is drawn largely from communiques issued at the conclusion of the Forum’s regular meetings.AusAI