Governing in Good Times: Fiscal Policy and Tax Reform in Australia 1996–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the course of a decade in office since 1996, the Howard government has pursued a policy and a politics of fiscal responsibility. Moving the budget out of deficit, retiring the Commonwealth government's accumulated debt and running continued surpluses to hedge against future demands have been the main expressions of this policy. The virtuousness of this has been contrasted with the record of previous governments, in particular with the record of the Keating government, which left office after 4 years of economic sunshine with an undisclosed deficit of $10 billion on top of a greatly swollen public debt. In addition, the Howard government has staked a claim to being a government of tax reform—having reformed the indirect tax system by introducing the GST in 2000, and having reformed the direct tax system by making a number of accompanying and following adjustments to the personal income tax. The economic and financial data suggest, however, that the Coalition's budgetary achievements must be credited much more to good fortune than to good government. The challenge—unprecedented in a generation—has been of governing in good times, indeed of governing in extraordinarily good times. At the same time, tax reform has been much more modest than many of the Howard government's market-oriented supporters would have liked.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".