Centre for Independent Studies

Six ways to Debunk Degrowth

Increasingly there are calls for degrowth, not just to abandon the pursuit of economic growth, but to shrink economies. The call for degrowth comes from environmentalists, including activists in groups such as Extinction Rebellion, and some economists, particularly in the field of ecological economics.  It is related to concerns about climate change, pollution, species extinction, and resource exhaustion. Economic growth is to blame, proponents say, and the proposed solution is degrowth, an aggressive contraction of economic activity that requires an acceptance of significantly lower living standards.
Listen as Gene Tunny and Karla Pincott discuss six things you need to know about degrowth. 

Young voters deserting the right

There is growing evidence across the Anglosphere that Millennials and Generation Z are not showing the same propensity as earlier generations to vote centre-right as they age. Centre for Independent Studies research, drawing on data from the Australian Election Studies, suggests this is increasingly true in Australia. Learn what you need to know about this issues with Karla Pincott and Matt Taylor.
#auspol 5YSGGR2Q2GNZSKOF

Teaching Behaviour: How Classroom Conduct Can Unlock Better Learning, by Doctor Tim McDonald

Introduction
In Australia, and in education settings across the world, student behaviour and levels of student engagement are significant issues for teachers, school leaders, system administrators and the public. Student behaviour affects community perception, teacher efficacy and wellbeing, and the academic achievement of all students. When students are engaged, they learn more.
This paper uses the current attention on student disruptive behaviour in Australian classrooms to offer policy makers, and educational jurisdiction and school leaders an insight into how to shift the paradigm, policy and practice towards student behaviour in Australian schools.
The solution to disruptive behaviour in Australian classrooms will be achieved if three key ideas gain mainstream recognition. These will be discussed in full later in the paper, but they are:
Managing student behaviour is about learning. Learning is the result of good management. To maximise learning in the classroom, it is necessary to teach the students how to behave.
Behaviour needs to be taught explicitly to all students. Instruction in behaviour is central to effective classroom management. The teaching of behaviour needs to be planned, resourced and rehearsed just like any academic content.
Behaviour as a curriculum needs to be the norm across Australian schools.  If behaviour is incorporated in the national curriculum, it would lift standards of behaviour and learning productivity in classrooms. The teaching of behaviour to students would also to help lessen the disadvantage gap in Australian schools.
Read the paper at www.cis.org.au 

Reforms to teacher education

Hosted by Karla Pincott, What You Need to Know About is the podcast that covers exactly that. Hear from CIS' experts on the key points of their research, providing you with concise and insightful overviews of complex topics. In each episode, we break down intricate policy issues, economic trends, social challenges, and more, delivering the essential information you need to stay informed in today's fast-paced world.
 
Join us as we cut through the noise and dive straight into the heart of matters that shape our society. Whether you're a policy enthusiast, a curious mind, or just someone looking to grasp the essentials without getting lost in the details, What You Need to Know About is your go-to source for bite-sized yet comprehensive insights.
 
Karla Pincott
Karla Pincott is the Director of Communications at the Centre for Independent Studies, and the Managing Editor at BusinessWoman Media.
 
#auspol 5YSGGR2Q2GNZSKOF

The Voice to Parliament with Professor Duncan Ivison

In a wide ranging and nuanced discussion Rob Forsyth questions Duncan Ivison, Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Sydney, on his claim that the granting of indigenous rights is compatible with liberalism rather than its repudiation. They agree that the constitutional Voice cannot be justified simply on terms of closing the gap and explore how and if this particular form of recognition could be justified in liberal democratic values.
https://linktr.ee/centreforindependentstudies

Debunking De-growth by Gene Tunny.

Published on 3rd of September 2023.
Increasingly there are calls for de-growth, not just to abandon the pursuit of economic growth, but to shrink economies. The call for de-growth comes from environmentalists, including activists in groups such as Extinction Rebellion, and some economists, particularly in the field of ecological economics. It is related to concerns about climate change, pollution, species extinction, and resource exhaustion. Economic growth is to blame, proponents say, and the proposed solution is de-growth, an aggressive contraction of economic activity that requires an acceptance of significantly lower living standards.
The de-growth movement is not just a fringe movement. It is gaining attention worldwide, has international conferences dedicated to it, and tenured academics are supporting or contemplating de-growth. For example, the University of Sydney’s Professor Manfred Lenzen has modelled de-growth as a climate change mitigation strategy, and, along with co-author Lorenz T. Keyßer has concluded “de-growth pathways should be thoroughly considered.” Furthermore, books preaching de-growth are gaining widespread attention. The Financial Times’ Martin Wolf selected Jason Hickel’s Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World as one of the newspaper’s “Best Books of 2020: Economics” — although Wolf at least observed “this programme is neither a plausible nor an effective way to respond to the imminent climate crisis.” More recently, in August 2023, the New York Times profiled so-called ‘de-growth communism’ proponent Kohei Saito, a University of Tokyo philosophy professor and author of Capital in the Anthropocene. 
While its origins may have been altruistic, its impact on society would be devastating.    It would require restrictions on personal freedoms, as well as the aforementioned lower living standards. These could only be enforced by an authoritarian government — a serious curtailment of the principles of capitalism, free markets, and a liberal democracy.
This paper first reviews the arguments for de-growth and then dissects them, addressing several myths which appear to drive this call. The paper then considers what would likely happen if a de-growth agenda were adopted. Finally, the paper considers how policy advisers and policy makers should think about economic growth and whether the calls for de-growth should be heeded.

Politicisation – the attack on merit and our way of life

Hosted by Karla Pincott, What You Need to Know About is the podcast that covers exactly that. Hear from CIS' experts on the key points of their research, providing you with concise and insightful overviews of complex topics. In each episode, we break down intricate policy issues, economic trends, social challenges, and more, delivering the essential information you need to stay informed in today's fast-paced world.
 
Join us as we cut through the noise and dive straight into the heart of matters that shape our society. Whether you're a policy enthusiast, a curious mind, or just someone looking to grasp the essentials without getting lost in the details, What You Need to Know About is your go-to source for bite-sized yet comprehensive insights.
 
Karla Pincott
Karla Pincott is the Director of Communications at the Centre for Independent Studies, and the Managing Editor at BusinessWoman Media.
 
#auspol 5YSGGR2Q2GNZSKOF
Below is an excerpt from Scott Prasser paper, which can be read here. 
 
Types of politicisation in government
Making senior appointments based on partisanship, personal relationships, loyalty;
Political patronage — rewarding personal and political loyalty in appointments to government advisory boards and committees;
Allocating public finds for political advantage;
Public servants’ direct political involvement in campaigning and party activity;
Appointments of those politically aligned but based on merit selection criteria (“meritorious mates”);
Appointments on grounds of equity or ‘representativeness’ in addition to/or even instead of narrow position ‘merit’ criteria;
Public servants serving in ‘political’ roles in developing policy (as distinct from sharing work with ministers);
Development of a ‘responsive’ public service through contractual employment (giving ministers what they want as distinct from what they need);
Expansion of ministerial roles and offices into more and more areas of administration through expansion of ministers’ offices and powers to oversee and supplant public service functions (giving directions, preparation of cabinet submissions, co-ordination).

Authority, Expertise And Democracy. Should those who know best rule the rest of us? By Peter Kurti

What you are about to hear is a CIS research paper. If you’re somebody who loves audiobooks, you can find all our research papers on audible, spotify, apple and every other podcasting app by clicking here: https://cisresearch.podbean.com/
Authority, Expertise And Democracy. Should those who know best rule the rest of us?
By Peter Kurti. Published on July 27, 2023.Read the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/authority-expertise-and-democracy-should-we-trust-the-experts/
For all references and graphs, please download the publication at the centre for independent studies website where you can also become a member of the CIS. You’ll be part of Australia’s growing movement towards free markets, individual liberty, cultural freedom, and a limited government. Join today at www.cis.org.au/membership.
On Heeding Expert Advice.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, state and territory leaders afforded great responsibility for decisions about managing both the impact of the virus and the expectations of a fearful public to unelected public health experts. Severe restrictions imposed on movement and association at the behest of these experts — Chief Medical Officers — lasted for many months.
The exceptional circumstances of the pandemic hardly formed part of the regular routine of government. Indeed, so exceptional was the pandemic that dependence on advisors with medical and public health expertise might well have been unavoidable if government was to be effective.
Faced with the need to assuage public fears, there was also a need for the public to hear what medical experts made of the pandemic and the dangers it posed. Most Australians readily complied with state-imposed edicts, apparently confident that governments were acting only in the best interests of citizens.
However, many expressed concern that as the pandemic ran its course, political leaders appeared to be doing one of two things. Either they followed the advice of medical experts blindly and without regard to the social, economic and community impact of the imposed measures; or they ignored expert medical advice because of concerns about its likely impact would fuel worries that they were not doing enough to keep citizens ‘safe’.
These concerns only compounded as, during the course of the pandemic, medical experts began to fall out with one another, thereby dissolving any notion of universal medical consensus about how best to manage contagion. As the pandemic ran its course, populations bowed to the dictates of chief medical officers. The will and wishes of the demos were subordinated to the opinions and directions of the knowledgeable few.
While the Covid-19 pandemic provides a rare, if egregious, example, of their doing so, the ceding by elected representatives of decision-making to health bureaucrats is just one example of the problem that Adrian Pabst, a political scientist, has described as double delegation — “whereby representatives elected by citizens delegate power to unelected officials who are part of a professional political class.”Read the whole paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/authority-expertise-and-democracy-should-we-trust-the-experts/

Rental and Housing Affordability with Peter Tulip

We need to relax zoning restrictions to allow more housing. At a society level, this requires more acceptance of higher density and less opposition to new development. We need to put more weight on the interests of renters and future home buyers andless weight on the interests of nearby residents. This rebalancing will shift the incentives for elected governments to act.
Societal pressure over the issue of housing affordability is growing, but needs to be encouraged. Were the Victorian government inclined to do something to improve housing affordability, there areseveral measures it could take.
One increasingly popular and effective approach is for the state government to set conditions that apply across local plans. For example, NSW removed limits on the construction of granny flats. New Zealand’s ‘Medium Density Residential Standard’ requires large cities to permit up to three storeys and three dwellings on all existing residential parcels of land. California’s AB 2011 allowed medium-density residential development to proceed by right in commercial zones. American research lists dozens of similar reforms.
Minimum standards can prevent the worst restrictions. However, their uniformity is a limitation: different levels and forms of density are appropriate in different areas.
Granny flats are not efficient in the inner suburbs, while high-rises are not efficient on the outskirts. In practice, blanket over-rides such as Auckland’s Unitary Plan have tended to increase density most on the outskirts; whereas Melbourne arguably most needs development in inner suburbs.
A more flexible approach is for the state government to set and enforce construction targets for local councils, allowing each council to decide how the target should be met. Councils could choose a small number of high-density developments or a larger number of medium density developments.
Either choice improves housing affordability. The important thing is that councils need to allow more housing. The quantity should be decided centrally; the type can be decentralised. An approach like this is followed in NSW and many foreign jurisdictions, including England, California and some Canadian provinces. However, most of those targets are too low and inadequately enforced.
The rationale for the state government over-riding local councils is that the councils are biased against development. They represent nearby residents, not the direct beneficiaries — thenewcomers moving into the area – nor the indirect beneficiaries, the renters and future home buyers who pay lower housing costs. Local governments will act like a cartel, restricting supply and driving up the price of housing. That benefits local property owners, but this is more than outweighed by the harm done to potential residents from outside the area and future generations.
- Peter TulipRead the rest of the paper here:https://www.cis.org.au/publication/rental-and-housing-affordability-submission-to-the-victorian-legislative-councils-legal-and-social-issues-committee/
 
5YSGGR2Q2GNZSKOF

Heeding expert advice

During the Covid-19 pandemic, state and territory leaders afforded great responsibility for decisions about managing both the impact of the virus and the expectations of a fearful public to unelected public health experts. Severe restrictions imposed on movement and association at the behest of these experts — Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) — lasted for many months.
The exceptional circumstances of the pandemic hardly formed part of the regular routine of government. Indeed, so exceptional was the pandemic that dependence on advisors with medical and public health expertise might well have been unavoidable if government was to be effective.
Faced with the need to assuage public fears, there was also a need for the public to hear what medical experts made of the pandemic and the dangers it posed. Most Australians readily complied with state-imposed edicts, apparently confident that governments were acting only in the best interests of citizens.
However, many expressed concern that as the pandemic ran its course, political leaders appeared to be doing one of two things. Either they followed the advice of medical experts blindly and without regard to the social, economic and community impact of the imposed measures; or they ignored expert medical advice because of concerns about its likely impact would fuel worries that they were not doing enough to keep citizens ‘safe’.[1]
These concerns only compounded as, during the course of the pandemic, medical experts began to fall out with one another, thereby dissolving any notion of universal medical consensus about how best to manage contagion.[2] As the pandemic ran its course, populations bowed to the dictates of chief medical officers. The will and wishes of the demos were subordinated to the opinions and directions of the knowledgeable few.
While the Covid-19 pandemic provides a rare, if egregious, example, of their doing so, the ceding by elected representatives of decision-making to health bureaucrats is just one example of the problem that Adrian Pabst, a political scientist, has described as double delegation — “whereby representatives elected by citizens delegate power to unelected officials who are part of a professional political class.”
Read the rest of the paper here: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/authority-expertise-and-democracy-should-we-trust-the-experts/
5YSGGR2Q2GNZSKOF