IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

FuelWatch: evidence-based-policy or policy based evidence?

Listed author(s):
  • Harding, Don

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 16049.

in new window

Date of creation: Dec 2008
Publication status: Published in Economic Papers 4.27(2008): pp. 315-328
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:16049
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  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)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:16049. 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: (Joachim Winter)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.