• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • The Productivity Commission: A Different Engine For Law Reform?

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    TranterPUB1925.pdf (653.2Kb)
    File version
    Version of Record (VoR)
    Author(s)
    Moses, Lyria Bennett
    Gollan, Nicola
    Tranter, Kieran
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Tranter, Kieran M.
    Year published
    2015
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This empirical study analyses the extent to which the Productivity Commission (Commission) relies on different types of evidence in formulating recommendations in a sample of reports. It goes deeper than traditional citation analysis; rather than classifying and counting all material cited in each sample report, it includes only citations that influenced the final recommendations. The findings, which run counter to the rhetoric employed in relation to the Commission's work, reveal the extent to which the Commission relies on non-quantitative forms of evidence, including bare assertions, personal experience, and logical and ...
    View more >
    This empirical study analyses the extent to which the Productivity Commission (Commission) relies on different types of evidence in formulating recommendations in a sample of reports. It goes deeper than traditional citation analysis; rather than classifying and counting all material cited in each sample report, it includes only citations that influenced the final recommendations. The findings, which run counter to the rhetoric employed in relation to the Commission's work, reveal the extent to which the Commission relies on non-quantitative forms of evidence, including bare assertions, personal experience, and logical and legal arguments, particularly in reports addressing broader questions of social policy. It concludes with a discussion of the significance of these findings, linking them to Graycar's critique of law reform commissions. As such, it provides a more accurate, but still preliminary, basis for understanding the Commission's methods than that otherwise appearing in the discourse surrounding the Commission's work.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Griffith Law Review
    Volume
    24
    Issue
    4
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2015.1099178
    Copyright Statement
    © 2015 Griffith Law School. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.
    Subject
    Legal institutions (incl. courts and justice systems)
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/141522
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander