Transcript Slide 1

Building More Effective Links Between
Academic Researchers and Regulators
Dr Michael Schaper
Deputy Chairman
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
[email protected] or [email protected]
SEAANZ “SME Policy Forum”
31 January 2012
University of Notre Dame, Fremantle
Overview
1. The ACCC’s Role
2. What Do We Both Want?
3. What Are the Problems?
4. Moving Forward: A Possible Future Research Agenda
The ACCC’s Role
Education, information, outreach and consultation targeting:
• potential business operators
• existing business community
• business & legal advisers
Enforcement of the Act, industry codes and related matters
Referrals to other agencies/dispute settlement bodies (i.e. consumer
protection bodies, OFMA, Victorian Small Business Commissioner)
No policy/legislative role
Some limited research engagement (research network, working
papers, regulatory conference, postgraduate students, ARC
partnerships, specific projects)
In A Perfect World….
“Good theory, policy, laws, administration and
regulation are derived from vigorous research”
Professor Robert Blackburn, Kingston University; editor, International
Small Business Journal (2010)
“There’s nothing as practical as a good theory”
Professor Charles Matthews, ICSB President (2010)
The Ideal: What Do We Both Want?
Relevance
Recognition
Use of one’s own skills
Research outputs
Funding
Academia
Govt
Information, analysis
Better decisions
External validation
Evidence-based policy options
Developing Practical, Effective Policy
“I have come across many academics who tell me that they are
working in areas of public policy of the utmost importance – health
care, housing need, workforce participation, early childhood
development – yet shuffle uncomfortably when I ask exactly what
policy changes they would introduce to address the problems which
they have so carefully analysed.”
Peter Shergold (2011)
Chancellor, University of Western Sydney
Former head, Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet
Source: Shergold, P. (2011) “Seen But Not Heard” Australian Literary Review (in The Australian newspaper), vol.6 no. 4, May, pp.3-4.
What Is Government Seeking From Researchers and
Academics?
• Existing knowledge: Ability to summarise/explain
existing body of data
• Extending knowledge: new research that sheds more
light
• Programme and policy ideas: Generation of new policy
options
• Programme and policy assessment: Independent
critical analysis of existing programs, approaches,
intervention tools
Problems, Pitfalls and Perils
•
•
•
•
•
•
Timelines
Methodology
Usage of data
Understanding agency needs and drivers
Client-driven research
Transaction or relationship?
Timelines
• Academic years versus bureaucratic years
• The three-year PhD: timely or too long?
• The challenge posed by corporate researchers
Methodological Issues
• Evidence-based research can help drive enforcement, policy,
regulation
Nature of data collection
• Often requires systemic, large-scale quantitative data
• Longitudinal data often preferred
• Sampling frames an ongoing issue
• Case studies have limited value
Theory- or practice-driven results?
• Theory development useful in developing conceptual models which
can be subsequently applied in the field by agencies
• However, important to also generate practical research outcomes
(such as problem identification, generation of possible solutions)
Data Usage
Intellectual property of research outputs
• Who owns the outcomes of research? How is it to be
shared between agency needs and researcher desires?
Access to in-house data sources
• Confidentiality often an issue
Published or private?
• How will the research be utilised and disseminated?
Understanding Agency Needs
Researchers need to understand the differences within government:
• Policy and regulatory/enforcement bodies
• Statutory agencies and departments
• State, federal and local
• Jurisdictional boundaries
Working out who makes the decisions:
• Ministers & ministerial offices
• Parliament
• Intra-agency decision-making
…and who they are accountable to
…and don’t forget…
• Bounded rationality of decision-makers
• Ideological biases affect receptivity to research
findings
• “Common knowledge” is often built from many
influences
(Lomas 2000)
The Great Trap for Academics:
Self-Driven, Not Client-Focused, Research
Traditional researcher’s approach:
“…so you should fund this idea”
Researcher
unilaterally wishes
to explore particular
issue
Govt seen only as
repository of grants
and other funding
Do you have a transactional or relationship-building focus?
A More Effective Govt-Academia Research Agenda
Evidence-based research critical
…although original new ideas sometimes also needed
Need to partner with government/regulators
…and some fundamental questions need to be asked:
- What are we seeking to accomplish? (eg reduce
disputes between consumers and businesses)
- Who will this research benefit, and how? (eg
regulators, new business operators, consumers,
industry advocates?)
- What do we need to do to turn research evidence or
ideas into tangible practices?
Compliance & Regulatory
Issues
Long-term
Evolution
•Levels of knowledge
•Compliance rates
•Use of legal rights
•Life cycles
•Growth
Sectoral
Demography
•Size
•Scope
•Industry
•Performance
benchmarks
•Comparators to SME
population
Disputation
•Types of dispute
•Resolution tools
Legal Trends
An Example: Extending
Franchising
Knowledge
Franchisees &
Franchisors
• Demographic,
psychographic & other
profiles
•Perceptions, attitudes &
motivations
•Life pre- and postfranchising
• Applications of new
powers
•Judicial interpretation
•Other jurisdictions
New & Emerging
Models
•Social franchising
•Micro-franchises
•Professions
Building Better Relationships With Public Agencies
Substantial capacity exists to improve linkages between public sector
and research community
However, greater understanding needed of public sector requirements
and attitudes
Some key issues to look at:
- Practicality v. theory development
- Timeframes
- Customer (client) – driven research
- Publication & usage of data
- Moving beyond a transactional relationship to embedded, long-term
mutual assistance: the Griffith-ACCC and Melbourne Uni examples
Further Reading
Amara, N.; Ouimet, N. & Landry, R. (2004) “New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual,
and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies” Science
Communication, Vol.26 No.1, pp.75-106.
Landry, R.; Lamari, M. & Amara, N. (2003) “The Extent and Determinants of the
Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies” Public Administration
Review, Vol.63 No.2 (March), pp.192-205.
Lomas, J. (2000) “Connecting Research and Policy” Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy
Research, Spring, pp.140-144.
Shergold, P. (2011) “Seen But Not Heard” Australian Literary Review (supplment to The
Australian newspaper) vol.6 no. 4, May, pp.3-4.
Webber, D.J. (1987) “Legislator’s Use of Policy Information” American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol.30 No.6, pp.612-631.