Myths of welfare reform

In Australian welfare reform debate, a range of approaches and policies has been advocated. Regardless of their diversity, I argue that the debate has an unnecessarily narrow framework resulting from the widespread acceptance of at least three welfare reform myths. First, is the idea that the current system is anachronistic and in disrepair. lnstead of this narrowfocus on welfare policy, I argue that the welfare reform debate must be widened to include other domains of public policy to involve a 'joined up' approach to addressing poverty and disadvantage. The second myth is that welfare recipients need to be the focus of policy attention. Policy reforms focus on changing the behaviour of recipients and their communities. Because structural changes underlie increased benefit receipt, such reforms will only have minimal consequences. The third welfare reform myth is the false notion that the current welfare system lacks obligation

Leveraged superannuation

Rules governing superannuation investments are made with respect to investment-specific risks, rather than overall portfolio risks. In particular, legislation prohibits borrowing except in specific circumstances and on a non-recourse basis. We model the distribution of leveraged portfolio outcomes for a representative investor, accounting for their age-earnings profile, differing taxation of dividends, capital gains and franking credits, and the volatility of equity returns and interest rates. With explicit portfolio modelling, there is no need to categorize specific investments as 'too risky' on a stand-alone basis. We show that leverage is likely to enhance retirement outcomes for investors with low risk aversion

Occupational health and safety management in organizations: A review

In examining the research literature on occupational health and safety (OHS), this paper argues that the growth in the number of specialists in OHS has resulted in an emphasis on policy and practice away from more scholastic concerns previously addressed by academics in the disciplines of psychology and sociology. A hiatus has occurred, and this is evidenced by the general absence of studies in management, even though OHS is increasingly seen as a key operational and strategic concern of business organizations. The authors call for OHS to be placed firmly on the research agenda of management scholars, and advocate the need for greater conceptual development, empirical study and theoretical reflection to complement existing pragmatic concerns of OHS specialists. In this review, the contributions of psychology, sociology, industrial relations and management studies are assessed, and five categories of specialist OHS literature are analysed, namely: prescriptive; systematic OHS management; success based; error and disaster based; and culture, climate and high-reliability studies. The conceptual and methodological limitations of this specialist focus are discussed, and future research opportunities are highlighted, for which the authors argue that management scholars embrace a range of methodological approaches. The authors advocate the value of extended case studies which examine OHS in context and over time in particular workplace settings. There remains considerable scope to develop this field further and, in conclusion, particular attention is drawn to the value of processoriented contextual approaches for understanding OHS management in organizations