IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Potential Benefits of the National Reform Agenda


  • Productivity Commission



This research paper which investigated the potential economic and revenue impacts of a National Reform Agenda (NRA) found that the NRA has the potential to significantly raise national output and incomes in Australia. The main purpose of the study was to help governments better understand the scale and distribution of the reforms’ anticipated broad economic and fiscal impacts. There are three streams to the National Reform Agenda: human capital, competition and regulatory reform. The Commission was asked to provide estimates of: the economic benefits potentially available from implementing proposed reforms and outcome objectives; and the total revenue benefits expected to accrue to the Australian Government and each of the State and Territory governments from the potential economic benefits generated by the NRA. The Commission found that reforms aimed at improving productivity and efficiency in energy, transport and related infrastructure and reducing the regulatory burden on business, if fully implemented, could increase GDP in time by up to around $17 billion or nearly 2 per cent. If the potential for a 5 per cent improvement in the productivity of health service delivery was realised, this would result in resource savings of around $3 billion and increase GDP by some 0.4 per cent. Human capital reforms targeting health promotion and disease prevention, education and training, and work incentives could potentially yield even larger gains. The Commission found that all jurisdictions would receive increased tax revenues flowing from reform induced growth. For the competition and regulatory reform streams, Governments’ combined net revenues could rise by as much as $5 billion. Potential net revenue outcomes are more speculative for the ‘human capital’ reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Productivity Commission, 2007. "Potential Benefits of the National Reform Agenda," Research Papers 0701, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:prodrp:0701

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Eliana Garces & Duncan Thomas & Janet Currie, 2002. "Longer-Term Effects of Head Start," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 999-1012, September.
    2. James B. Bushnell & Erin T. Mansur & Celeste Saravia, 2008. "Vertical Arrangements, Market Structure, and Competition: An Analysis of Restructured US Electricity Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 237-266, March.
    3. António Afonso & Miguel St. Aubyn, 2005. "Non-parametric approaches to education and health efficiency in OECD countries," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 8, pages 227-246, November.
    4. Paul Frijters & Robert Gregory, 2006. "From Golden Age to Golden Age: Australia's 'Great Leap Forward'?," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(257), pages 207-224, June.
    5. Lixin Cai & Bob Gregory, 2005. "Unemployment Duration and Inflows onto the Disability Support Pension Program: Evidence from FaCS LDS Data," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 38(3), pages 233-252, September.
    6. Jacobsen, Joyce P., 1999. "Labor force participation," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 597-610.
    7. John Bryant & Veronica Jacobsen & Matthew Bell & Daniel Garrett, 2004. "Labour Force Participation and GDP in New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 04/07, New Zealand Treasury.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Kym Anderson & Peter Lloyd & Donald Maclaren, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Australia Since World War II," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(263), pages 461-482, December.

    More about this item


    Competition; Disease prevention; Education; Electricity; Gas; Health promotion; Health services; Human capital; Ports; Railways; Regulatory reform; Roads; Training; Workforce participation;

    JEL classification:

    • O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth


    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:ris:prodrp:0701. 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: (MAPS). 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.