I see the framework as a way of trying to clarify equity-efficiency trade-offs – which is really what policy advice should be doing, and what public conversations should be about. Which is great!

I find the willingness to obfuscate either efficiency or equity costs an irritating (although also likely accidental) trait of politicians and pundits – and a clear framework makes that a bit harder to do that!

It is interesting, turns out frameworks may be useful, sometimes.

I suspect the other reason for the framework is the rising economic literacy of other government departments. It is now expected that policy analysts across government understand key economic concepts. This does undermine the policy side of Treasury a bit. The framework is perhaps their attempt to stay relevant.

Haha, excellent.

It is amazing how much a framework can in turn influence the way “good” policy is viewed!

I may be able to help there. I went to a talk by two senior officials from the Treasury recently. They said it was all Treasury’s idea. Treasury wanted to counteract the idea that all they focused on was economic growth. Their Minister Bill English was lukewarm on the framework, but did not oppose it. According to the officials his comments on the framework included: ‘you’re not going soft are you’ and ‘I know you geeky types need things like this’.

Indeed, however there is always a question of whether analysts are given the time to research things – and where there research efforts are pointed. The fact that work on this was underway during National’s first term may suggest it is an issue they came with – or it could be an issue departments felt strongly about. I do not know!

Ahhh the best start policy – that had slipped my mind as they hadn’t linked to it in their alternative budget. My workplace discussed it (http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2014/02/28/does-the-best-start-policy-make-sense/) – but their criticisms apply equally to what National has done.

Social issues are “economic issues” in terms of their impact on the distribution of income. Even with the “best start programme” I’d argue that the complete package of policies by National (the progressive changes to the tax system, the focus on education and the bottom 20% of outcomes, and now spending on vulnerable families) represents a more consistent focus on capabilities – and they focused on it at “Budget” time, when the opposition parties thought it was important to ignore said issues.

It is in that context my post came from I suspect.

The opposition talk about ‘economic’ issues around the budget because that’s what people are focused upon.