IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuel Watch: Evidence-Based-Policy Or Policy-Based-Evidence?




Experience from the United Kingdom and the United States suggests that expert evidence is often reshaped and repackaged by governments so that it supports existing policy rather than informing policy decisions. The Australian government based its decision to introduce FuelWatch on evidence in the form of econometric work by the ACCC. This paper asks two questions about that decision. First, was the policy shaped by the economet- ric evidence or was the government�s presentation of the evidence shaped by the pre-determined policy? Second, is the econometric evidence sufficiently robust as to support the FuelWatch policy? I find that some of the facts suggest that evidence was reshaped and repackaged to support the FuelWatch policy. I also find that the ACCC analysis was not robust. Specifically, they study the nominal retail margin when economic theory suggests that analysis should focus on the real retail margin to producers. Using data digitized from a graph in the ACCC report I redo the econometric analysis and find that the evidence no longer unambiguously supports the FuelWatch policy. The ACCC claim that their analysis is robust because it has been subject to scrutiny within the ACCC and by Treasury but such claims of robustness cannot be verified because they refuse to release the data for public scrutiny. Publication of data and analysis underpinning government decisions and independent review of econometric work provides a more credible evidence base for future policy decisions.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Don Harding, 2008. "Fuel Watch: Evidence-Based-Policy Or Policy-Based-Evidence?," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 27(4), pages 315-328, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:econpa:v:27:y:2008:i:4:p:315-328 DOI: j.1759-3441.2008.tb01046.x

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Harding, Don, 2008. "FoolWatch - Further Discussion of Econometric Analysis Undertaken By ACCC," MPRA Paper 16048, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Harding, Don, 2008. "FoolWatch: A Case study of econometric analysis and evidenced-based-policy making in the Australian Government," MPRA Paper 16041, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:econpa:v:27:y:2008:i:4:p:315-328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.