The Productivity Commission: A Different Engine For Law Reform?

View/ Open
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
Moses, Lyria Bennett
Gollan, Nicola
Tranter, Kieran
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2015
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
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 >
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
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)