Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/3809
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDollery, Brian Edwarden
dc.date.accessioned2009-12-14T09:16:00Z
dc.date.issued2006en
dc.identifier.citationEconomic Papers, 25(4), p. 358-361en
dc.identifier.issn0812-0439en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/3809en
dc.description.abstractMurray and Dollery (2005) developed a statistical model that sought to determine whether the key performance indicators (KPIs) published by the NSW Department of Local Government (DLG) could adequately predict the 'at risk' status of local councils that had partly been assigned to councils on the basis of these KPIs. Walker and Jones (2006) contend that Murray and Dollery (2005) were (i) attacking a 'straw man' by erroneously misinterpreting DLG procedures and (ii) their model exhibited various econometric problems. In addition, Walker and Jones (2006) developed an alternative model that defined municipal sustainability as the ability to maintain service provision at pre-existing levels. This Rejoinder addresses the criticisms raised by Walker and Jones (2006) and assesses their alternative model. It is argued that such a concept is more relevant to the public sector than conventional 'financial distress' prediction models. The estimates provided by NSW local councils of the cost of upgrading infrastructure to a satisfactory condition were used as a proxy for levels of distress. Independent variables were selected from a range of KPIs published by the DLG. While MD found that most of the DLG performance indicators were not statistically significant in their model (and therefore not useful discriminators of council distress), this study reaches different conclusions using a different selection of indicators, and a distress variable construct more appropriately linked to service delivery.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherEconomics Society of Australiaen
dc.relation.ispartofEconomic Papersen
dc.titleAn Alternative Approach To Identifying Councils 'At Risk': A Rejoinder To Bob Walker And Stewart Jonesen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.subject.keywordsSpecialist Studies in Educationen
local.contributor.firstnameBrian Edwarden
local.subject.for2008130399 Specialist Studies in Education not elsewhere classifieden
local.subject.seo2008930299 Teaching and Instruction not elsewhere classifieden
local.profile.schoolUNE Business Schoolen
local.profile.emailbdollery@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.identifier.epublicationsrecordpes:4481en
local.publisher.placeST Ives, NSW, Australiaen
local.format.startpage358en
local.format.endpage361en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume25en
local.identifier.issue4en
local.title.subtitleA Rejoinder To Bob Walker And Stewart Jonesen
local.contributor.lastnameDolleryen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:bdolleryen
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:3903en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleAn Alternative Approach To Identifying Councils 'At Risk'en
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.relation.urlhttp://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=307741560513596;res=IELHSSen
local.description.statisticsepubsVisitors: 120<br />Views: 120<br />Downloads: 0en
local.search.authorDollery, Brian Edwarden
local.uneassociationUnknownen
local.year.published2006en
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
UNE Business School
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

116
checked on Dec 29, 2018
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.