Why Have the Returns to Microeconomic Reform been so Disappointing?

  • John Quiggin
Part of the Studies in Productivity and Efficiency book series (SIPE, volume 1)


For at least a decade, microeconomic reform has been the dominant concern in economic policy in Australia (and also in New Zealand). Although policies of microeconomic reform have affected all sectors of the economy, policies aimed at improving the efficiency of the public sector have been particularly important. The view that an inefficient, oversized and excessively interventionist public sector represents a crucial obstacle to economic growth has been a central element of the case for microeconomic reform. Numerous official and unofficial studies have suggested that substantial improvements in living standards could be achieved through microeconomic reform and particularly through reform of the public sector.


Public Sector Data Envelopment Analysis Productivity Growth Refuse Collection Total Factor Productivity Growth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Afriat, S. (1967), “The construction of utility functions from expenditure data”, International Economic Review 8(1), 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aigner, D., Lovell, C. A. K. and Schmidt, P. (1977), “Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models”, Journal of Econometrics 6(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K., (1953), Le rôle des valeurs boursiers pour la repartition la meillure des risques, Cahiers du Seminair d’Economie CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
  4. Averch, H. and Johnson, L. L. (1962), “Behavior of the firm under regulatory constraint”, American Economic Review 52, 1052–69.Google Scholar
  5. Baumol, W., Panzar, J. and Willig, R. (1982), Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Brash, D. (1997), “How fast can the New Zealand economy grow?”, Address by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to the Auckland Rotary Club, October.Google Scholar
  7. Bureau of Industry Economics, (1994), International Performance Indicators: Electricity, Research Report 54, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of Industry Economics, (1990), Microeconomic reform and the structure of industry, Discussion Paper No. 9, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  9. Business Council of Australia, (1994), Business Council Bulletin No. 4, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, R. G. and Quiggin, J. (2000), Production under Uncertainty: The State-Contingent Approach, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units”, European Journal of Operational Research (2), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dao, D. and Filmer, R. (1994), Economic effects of microeconomic reform, EPAC Background Paper No. 38, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  13. Dao, D., and Jowett, T., (1994), Economic effects of microeconomic reform — supplementary paper, EPAC Working Paper.Google Scholar
  14. Debreu, G. (1952), “A social equilibrium existence theorem”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 38, 886–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diewert, W.E. (1973), “Afriat and revealed preference theory”, Review of Economic Studies 40(4), 419–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diewert, W.E. and Lawrence, D., (1994), The marginal costs of taxation in New Zealand, paper prepared by Swan Consultants for New Zealand Business Roundtable, Canberra.Google Scholar
  17. Domberger, S., Meadowcroft, S. and Thompson, D. (1988), “Competitive tendering and efficiency in refuse collection: a reply”, Fiscal Studies 9(1), 80–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dowrick, S., (1990), Australian labour productivity growth, Report commissioned by the Bureau of Industry Economics, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  19. Dowrick, S. and Quiggin, J. (1997), “Convergence in GDP and living standards: a revealed preference approach”, American Economic Review 67(1), 41–64.Google Scholar
  20. Färe, R. and Primont, D. (1995), Multi-Output Production and Duality: Theory and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farrell, M. (1957), “The measurement of productive efficiency”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (120).Google Scholar
  22. Ganley, J. and Grahl, J. (1988), “Competitive tendering and efficiency in refuse collection: a critical comment”, Fiscal Studies 9(1), 80–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene, W. H. (1982), “Maximum likelihood estimation of stochastic frontier production models”, Journal of Econometrics 18(2), 285–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Higgins, C. (1991), “Opening address to the Australian Economic Policy Conference”, in Gruen, F. H.(ed.), Australian Economic Policy (Conference Proceedings), Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra, pp x–xii.Google Scholar
  25. Industries Assistance Commission, (1989), Annual Report 1988–89, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  26. Industry Commission, (1990), Annual Report, 1989–90, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  27. Industry Commission, (1995), The growth and revenue implications of Hilmer and related reforms, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  28. Industry Commission, (1997), Assessing Australia’s productivity performance, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  29. Kasper, W., Blandy, R., Freebairn, J., Hocking, D. and O’Neill, R. (1980), Australia at the Crossroads: Our Choices to the Year 2000, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Sydney.Google Scholar
  30. Leibenstein, H. (1966), “Allocative efficiency vs X-efficiency”, American Economic Review 56, 392–45.Google Scholar
  31. Productivity Commission, (1999), “Microeconomic reforms and Australian productivity: Exploring the links”, Commission Research Paper, AGPS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  32. Quiggin, J. (1994), “The fiscal gains from contracting out: transfers or efficiency improvements?”, Australian Economic Review September, 97–102.Google Scholar
  33. Quiggin, J. (1996), Great expectations: Microeconomic reform and Australia, Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW.Google Scholar
  34. Quiggin, J. (1997), “Estimating the benefits of Hilmer and related reforms”, Australian Economic Review 30(3), 256–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Quiggin, J. and Chambers, R. G. (1998), “A state-contingent production approach to principal-agent problems with an application to point-source pollution control”, Journal of Public Economics 70, 441–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stigler, G. J. (1976), “The Xistence of X-Efficiency”, American Economic Review 66(1), 213–16.Google Scholar
  37. Symonds Travers Morgan, (1995), Australian Rail Freight Performance Measured against Best Practice, 1993–94 Update, Report prepared for the Bureau of Industry Economics.Google Scholar
  38. Varian, H. R. (1984), “The nonparametric approach to production analysis”, Econometrica 52(3), 579–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Varian, H. R. (1988), “Revealed preference with a subset of goods”, Journal of Economic Theory 46(1), 179–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Quiggin
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Research Council Senior Fellow, School of EconomicsAustralian National UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations