background preloader

Think Tanks

Facebook Twitter

Auckland Co-Design Lab. About Us. Giving What We Can is a community of effective givers.

About Us

We inspire people to donate significantly and as effectively as possible. Forming a community allows us to share information on how and where to give, helps us stick to our commitment and lets us stand together to create a culture of giving more, and more effectively. Our Vision A world in which giving 10% of our income to the most effective organisations is the norm Our Mission Inspire donations to the world’s most effective organisations We believe that charitable donations can do an incredible amount of good.

If you're not sure where to start in your own charity research, we recommend a few avenues here. Our Values We are a welcoming community, sharing our passion and energy to improve the lives of others. We care We have a deep commitment to helping others.We are dedicated to helping other members of our community give more and better. We take action based on evidence. News & Updates. What does The Treasury want to know? Not about productivity apparently. Last week I joined 80 or 90 other economists and people from related disciplines, drawn from the public sector, universities, consultancies, and think tanks, together with a few commentators, at an event organised by The Treasury.

What does The Treasury want to know? Not about productivity apparently

It was billed as “Wealth and wellbeing: High quality economics in the twenty-first century”. They were looking for input. The symposium began with a presentation by The Treasury’s chief economist, Tim Ng, based around a paper he and a couple of colleagues had written, “Improving economic policy advice”. That paper, in turn, built on the Living Standards Framework that Treasury has devoted a lot of effort to building and promoting over the last half dozen years or so (and which you can read all about here). The Living Standards Framework has troubled me from the first, and despite the numerous refinements, and attempts to articulate how it is used, and how government policymaking benefits, I remain sceptical.

Lifting productivity (and fixing housing, etc): what I’d do. When, a week or so ago, I wrote about how our political (and bureaucratic) leaders appeared to have given up hope, and to have lost any serious interest in turning around New Zealand’s dismal long-term productivity performance (and even worse short-term performance), and linked to my recent speech on such themes, a few commenters asked what policies I would implement, given the option.

Lifting productivity (and fixing housing, etc): what I’d do

One was specific enough to invite a “top 10 policies” list. In what follows, I’m not suggesting that all these proposals are equally important. It is also worth recogising that some are designed to directly improve economic performance, at least one is primarily about compensating some potential losers who might otherwise be a roadblock in the way of overdue reform, and some at improving confidence in our political system and associated institutions. There are all sorts of other policy changes I’d no doubt be happy with, and whole areas I haven’t even touched on. One is infrastructure finance. Like this: Are things better or worse than 50 years ago? I saw reference the other day to a new(ish) multi-country survey conducted by the Pew Research Center last year, asking people in 38 countries whether life in their country was better, worse, or not much different for people like them than it had been 50 years previously.

Are things better or worse than 50 years ago?

Among the people I saw tweeting a link to the survey results, there seemed to be general incredulity that anyone could not think things were better now than they had been 50 years previously. The focus of those comments was particularly on the US results, where 41 per cent of respondents thought things were worse, and 37 per cent though things were better. But, as it happens, the US results were close to the middle of the field. At the extremes, the results are not remotely surprising. In 1967 Vietnam had been in the midst of a longrunning war, and now is relatively prosperous and stable, even if not free. New Zealand wasn’t covered by the survey, but Australia, the UK, and the US were. Like this: Like Loading...

NZ Initiative Go Swiss Learnings. The New Zealand Initiative. Institute for Governance and Policy Studies. Policy Quarterly. Institute for Governance and Policy Studies. About FHI - Future of Humanity Institute. FHI is a multidisciplinary research institute at the University of Oxford.

About FHI - Future of Humanity Institute

Academics at FHI bring the tools of mathematics, philosophy, social sciences, and science to bear on big-picture questions about humanity and its prospects. The Institute is led by founding Director Professor Nick Bostrom. Humanity has the potential for a long and flourishing future. Our mission is to shed light on crucial considerations that might shape our future. Excellence Researchers at the Future of Humanity Institute have originated or played a pioneering role in developing many of the concepts that shape current thinking about humanity’s deep future.

Partnerships. A New Generational Contract: The final report of the Intergenerational Commission - Resolution Foundation. The Millennium Project – TMP. About the Institute. Club of Rome. Global Happiness Policy Report. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Home - Resolution Foundation.