John Quiggin Research Articles

Environmental economics and the Murray–Darling: comment

In an excellent and interesting article, John Quiggin surveys the environmental issues of the Murray–Darling basin and, citing the relevant economic literature, proposes an eclectic approach to their solution. Quiggin’s preferred policy framework involves three elements: taxing the polluter; creation of new forms of communal property rights (to encourage Coasian bargaining or internalisation); and regulation (also to assist in achieving sustainability). I make three connected comments. Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962) showed that the combination of Pigovian taxation and Coasian bargaining, of the kind that Quiggin wishes to encourage, can be inconsistent in that bargaining can move the economy away from the Pareto efficient allocation that would be achievable by taxation alone. My second comment revolves around the dual meanings of the words ‘unilateral’ and ‘reciprocal’. Quiggin concentrates on externalities that are unilateral in a physical sense. In contrast, Coase (1960) assumes as a practical matter that externalities are reciprocal in an economic sense. If so, it tells against many strong claims in favour of specific forms of public intervention – Coase claimed regulating the polluter, or awarding damages against the polluter, or taxing the polluter will not necessarily improve the efficiency of the allocation of resources. My final remarks relate to the concept of efficiency used by Quiggin and Coase, and how Quiggin’s economics leads him to what I take to be the central message in Coase (1960). My comments relate only to efficiency and not directly to equity considerations; 1 nor to Quiggin’s argument concerning the value of notions of sustainability.

Chambers, Robert G., and John Quiggin. Uncertainty, Production, Choice, and Agency: The State‐Contingent Approach. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 373 pp

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 84, Issue 3 p. 872-874 Books Reviewed Chambers, Robert G., and John Quiggin. Uncertainty, Production, Choice, and Agency: The State-Contingent Approach. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 373 pp Jean-Paul Chavas, Jean-Paul Chavas University of Wisconsin, MadisonSearch for more papers by this author Jean-Paul Chavas, Jean-Paul Chavas University of Wisconsin, MadisonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 August 2002 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/84.3.872AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume84, Issue3August 2002Pages 872-874 RelatedInformation

The Risk Premium for Equity: Implications for the Proposed Diversification of the Social Security Fund

The Risk Premium for Equity: Implications for the Proposed Diversification of the Social Security Fund by Simon Grant and John Quiggin. Published in volume 92, issue 4, pages 1104-1115 of American Economic Review, September 2002

Book reviews

Robert G. Chambers and John Quiggin, Uncertainty, Production, Choice, and Agency: The State‐Contingent ApproachJames D. Gaisford and William A. Kerr, Economic Analysis for International Trade Negotiations: The WTO and Agricultural TradeJulian M. Alston, Philip G. Pardey and Michael J.Taylor, (eds.) Agricultural Science Policy: Changing Global AgendasJerry Ellig, (ed.) Dynamic Competition and Public Policy:Technology,Innovation,and Anti‐trust Issues

Globalization and Economic Sovereignty

Journal of Political PhilosophyVolume 9, Issue 1 p. 56-80 Globalization and Economic Sovereignty† John Quiggin, John Quiggin Economics, Australian National University, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author John Quiggin, John Quiggin Economics, Australian National University, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 December 2002 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00118Citations: 11Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume9, Issue1March 2001Pages 56-80 RelatedInformation

The Unemployment Crisis in Australia: Which Way Out?

Introduction: the unemployment crisis and economic policy Stephen Bell 1. The dimensions and costs of unemployment in Australia Martin Watts 2. The causes of unemployment, William F. Mitchell 3. Are wage cuts the answer? P. N. Junankar 4. Labour market outcomes in the UK, New Zealand, Australia and the US R. G. Gregory 5. Is growth the answer? John Burgess and Roy Green 6. Can Keynesian policies stimulate growth in output and employment? J. W. Nevile 7. Economic speed limits on growth II Stephen Bell, Roy Green and John Burgess 8. Economic speed limits to growth Anis Chowdhury 9. The public sector as a job engine John Quiggin 10. What role for labour market programs? Elizabeth Webster 11. Unemployment, inequality and the political economy of redistribution Stephen Bell.

Neo-liberal Globalization and the Scope for Employment Policy

John Quiggin examines the options for employment policy in a global economy of unconstrained capital flows. He argues that, as is commonly discussed, globalization is simply the international component of the neo-liberal attack on social development, represented at the national level by policies of free-market reform. An alternative global policy framework, based on international cooperation and active national economic and social policy, is urgently needed.

The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: Comment

The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: Comment by John Quiggin and John K. Horowitz. Published in volume 89, issue 4, pages 1044-1045 of American Economic Review, September 1999

The Premature Burial of Telecommunications Reform: A Response to John Quiggin

The Premature Burial of Telecommunications Reform: A Response to John Quiggin

RECENT AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS CYCLES

Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policyVolume 17, Issue 2 p. 1-12 RECENT AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS CYCLES CLAIRE VAN WEL, CLAIRE VAN WEL Department of Economics, James Cook University. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conference of Economists, Perth 1993. I am grateful to Professors Kenneth Clements and John Quiggin for discussion and help.Search for more papers by this author CLAIRE VAN WEL, CLAIRE VAN WEL Department of Economics, James Cook University. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conference of Economists, Perth 1993. I am grateful to Professors Kenneth Clements and John Quiggin for discussion and help.Search for more papers by this author First published: 13 April 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-3441.1998.tb00177.x AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume17, Issue2June 1998Pages 1-12 RelatedInformation

John Quiggin, Great Expectations: Microeconomic Reform and Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1996, x + 251pp.

John Quiggin, <b>Great Expectations: Microeconomic Reform and Australia</b>, Allen &amp; Unwin, Sydney, 1996, x + 251pp.

ECONOMIC POLICY FOR THE ELECTION AND BEYOND

Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policyVolume 14, Issue 4 p. 51-63 ECONOMIC POLICY FOR THE ELECTION AND BEYOND JOHN QUIGGIN, JOHN QUIGGIN Department of Economics, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811.Search for more papers by this author JOHN QUIGGIN, JOHN QUIGGIN Department of Economics, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811.Search for more papers by this author First published: December 1995 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-3441.1995.tb00107.xCitations: 1 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume14, Issue4December 1995Pages 51-63 RelatedInformation

What Does Privatisation Achieve?—A Comment on Quiggin

Abstract John Quiggin's ‘Does Privatisation Pay?’ is critically assessed in this short article. The following issues are specifically addressed: un‐derpricing, sovereign risk, the equity premium, fiscal illusion, welfare considerations, and the efficiency of private and public enterprises. The article concludes that privatisation need not be a poor economic bargain for the community and that it ought to be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.

RISK‐REDUCING AND RISK‐INCREASING EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES

Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 45, Issue 1 p. 82-89 RISK-REDUCING AND RISK-INCREASING EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES J. K. Horowitz, J. K. HorowitzSearch for more papers by this authorE. Lichtenberg, E. Lichtenberg *John K. Horowitz is an Assistant Professor and Erik Lichtenberg an Associate Protessor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA. The authors would like to thank Bob Chambers, Guillermo Donoso, Len Gianessi, Richard Just, Howard Leathers, John Quiggin and David Zilberman for helpful comments. This research was supported in part by the Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, under Co-operative Agreement 58–3 AEK-080018A1, and by the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station.Search for more papers by this author J. K. Horowitz, J. K. HorowitzSearch for more papers by this authorE. Lichtenberg, E. Lichtenberg *John K. Horowitz is an Assistant Professor and Erik Lichtenberg an Associate Protessor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA. The authors would like to thank Bob Chambers, Guillermo Donoso, Len Gianessi, Richard Just, Howard Leathers, John Quiggin and David Zilberman for helpful comments. This research was supported in part by the Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, under Co-operative Agreement 58–3 AEK-080018A1, and by the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station.Search for more papers by this author First published: January 1994 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1994.tb00379.xCitations: 55 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume45, Issue1January 1994Pages 82-89 RelatedInformation

Rational Actor Theory in Politics: A Critical Review of John Quiggin*

John Quiggin's paper attacks public‐choice theory. among other things, for its us? of the assumption of ‘rational egoism’. The object of our response is twofold. First. to distinguish egoism from rationality, and to indicate that rationality postulates, when faithfully applied, provide reasons for believing that political behaviour and market behaviour will be systematically different, and specifically that the former will be less egoistic than the latter. Second, to indicate that comparative static propasitions in public‐choice theory (and in economics more generally) can be sustained on rather weaker behavioural assumptions than homo economicus embodies, and that consequently some of the public‐choice orthodoxy would survive any attack on the egoism assumption.

The Economies of Scale

THE theory of the economies of scale is the theory of the relationship between the scale of use of a properly chosen combination of all productive services and the rate of output of the enterprise. In its broadest formulation this theory is a crucial element of the economic theory of social organization, for it underlies every question of market organization and the role (and locus) of governmental control over economic life. Let one ask himself how an economy would be organized if every economic activity were prohibitively inefficient upon alternately a small scale and a large scale, and the answer will convince him that here lies a basic element of the theory of economic organization. The theory has limped along for a century, collecting large pieces of good reasoning and small chunks of empirical evidence but never achieving scientific prosperity. A large cause of its poverty is that the central concept of the theory-the firm of optimum size-has eluded confident measurement. We have been dangerously close to denying Lincoln, for all economists have been ignorant of the optimum size of firm in almost every industry all of the time, and this ignorance has been an insurmountable barrier between us and the understanding of the forces which govern optimum size. It is almost as if one were trying to measure the nutritive values of goods without knowing whether the consumers who ate them continued to live.