The influence of economic rationalism upon policy development-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

The influence of economic rationalism upon policy development

Published:2009-09-25 Issue:2 Volume:1 Page:89-108
ISSN:1757-4323
Container-title:Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Gates Donald K.,Steane Peter

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine how economic rationalism in policy development affects incomes and social cohesion within the communities in which businesses operate. Inequality of income occurs in most, if not all, countries. Historically, economic statisticians established various means of measuring levels of inequality within a country. Measuring inequality between countries, however, is a complex procedure because of differences in money exchange rates and standards of living. Poverty exists in most countries but it is particularly extreme in the Asia‐Pacific Region and in Africa. Economic rationalistic policies that depend on the supremacy of the market are developed mostly without regard for their impact upon income share, fairness and social justice concerns. Some other economic rationalistic policy outcomes are detrimental to social cohesion within communities.Design/methodology/approachThis paper draws upon earlier research undertaken by the author as well as upon published works of other researchers.FindingsThe analysis of this paper indicates that there are great income inequalities not only within nations but also between nations in the Asia‐Pacific Region.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is limited by the ability to examine all the research literature in the field in greater depth. However, the examination that has been possible indicates that where economic rationalism has a significant input in policymaking wide disparities in the distribution of incomes become apparent.Practical implicationsThis paper provides government and corporate executives with an understanding that the policies they develop could advantage one section of the community over another. This could have a detrimental affect on the social cohesion of the communities they administer or in which their businesses operate.Originality/valueThis paper fulfils an identified need and supports policymakers seeking to achieve just outcomes in the communities in which they operate.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Public Administration,General Business, Management and Accounting

Reference99 articles.

1. ABS (2001), Australia Now: Income and Welfare; Household Income, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, available at: www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/346 (accessed 12 February 2001).

2. ABS (2005a), “Appendix 1 analysing income distribution”, Household Income and Distribution, Australia, 2003‐04, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Catalogue No. 6523.0.

3. ABS (2005b), Household Income and Income Distribution in Australia, 2003‐04, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Catalogue 6523.0.

4. ABS (2006), “Explanatory notes: Appendix 3 Gini coefficient and other single statistic summaries of income distribution: household expenditure survey and survey of income and housing: user guide”, in Australian Bureau of Statistics, C. (Ed.) Vol. 2003‐2004, Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Catalogue 6503.0.

5. Anup, S. (2007), “Structural adjustment – a major cause of poverty”, Global Issues, Vol. 2, available at: www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural‐adjustment‐a‐major‐cause‐of‐poverty (accessed 20 October 2008).