Search results

Singapore does not have a welfare State. Instead it has full employment, rapid growth, affordable education and equality of opportunity. It also has the Housing Development Board and the Central Provident Fund. Public housing and compulsory savings are the subject of this paper. The purpose of the study is to investigate the nature of the symbiosis and the strategy.

The paper collects evidence on housing and superannuation to establish the precise link between them.

It is established that a great deal of Singaporeans' savings and wealth is locked up in their flats and houses. It shows that the relationship is risky in view of a rapidly ageing population and an increasing life‐expectancy in the post‐earning years.

Singapore is used as a case study to derive lessons for other countries wishing to combine good housing with adequate retirement provisions.

The paper seeks to show that housing and superannuation are both valuable elements in responsible public policy, but that, when combined, it is possible to have too much of a good thing.

Singapore's rapid economic progress has been accompanied by a series of experiments in medical savings and health insurance. This paper aims to examine the “three Ms” – Medisave, MediShield, and Medifund – in order to establish the way in which the policy‐instruments are expected to deliver the status required.

The paper collects evidence on both outcomes and payments.

Results show that a nation in which the median citizen is under 40 is in a strong position to rely principally on individual medical savings accounts. The paper predicts that Singapore, as its population ages, will probably rely more heavily on risk pooling and insurance.

The practical implications are that an extension of insurance is inevitable, but that earmarked savings will probably remain the first line of defence.

The paper is the first to document the Singapore experience of payment for health. It draws inferences and makes recommendations that will be of interest to policy makers both in poorer and in richer countries.

Discusses James Buchanan′s contribution to the important topic of cost‐containment in the area of health care. Historical and ideational in its thrust, it seeks also to make a more general contribution by showing how the methodology of public choice can be applied to a specific issue in economic and social policy. Examines the precise body of theory which Buchanan brings to bear when attempting a politico‐economic calculus of consent. Considers the causes of the rise in the cost of health and assesses Buchanan′s anxieties in respect of the burden. Discusses Buchanan′s solutions and explores alternatives to the options he endorses. Concludes that Buchanan′s answers may not appeal to all readers, but they are a fruitful area of research and speculation.

Economists usually shy away from talking about power. They assume an economy comprised of many small and medium-sized firms, each competing for consumer dollars. This circumvents the problem of economic power. John Kenneth Galbraith, however, refused to ignore power. It stood at the center of his economics, and he saw it as a key reason the US economy thrived in the years following World War II (WWII). This chapter examines Galbraith’s changing views regarding economic power. American Capitalism explains how countervailing power, or power on the other side of the market, solves the problem of economic power. In The New Industrial State, scientists and educated managers within the firm (the technostructure) mitigate the negative consequences of economic power wielded by large firms. The Affluent Society and Economics and the Public Purpose look to the government as the main check on corporate power. It does this through labor legislation or programs such as the New Deal and Fair Deal. This chapter then evaluates the different solutions Galbraith proffered to the problem of economic power. It contends that Galbraith got three things right when analyzing economic power. First, we no longer live in a world of scarcity due to oligopolistic firms. Second, capitalism was different in the post-WWII era because the US economy thrived and gains were shared widely. Third, Galbraith understood that power was unequally distributed – both between the public and private sectors and within the private sector itself. On the other hand, Galbraith was overly optimistic in believing the market economy or the public sector could counter corporate power.

Arnold Heertje's short book on Schumpeter is made up of 11 essays. Three of them are published here for the first time while others date back to 1977. Heertje says that he first discovered the relevance of Schumpeter's economics as a student of Pieter Hennipman at the University of Amsterdam in the early 1950s. Understanding Schumpeter's work has for him been a lifetime quest.

Reflecting on the contingencies and felicitous moments of life and career, a senior scholar celebrates the intellectual community and friends that inspired and sustained his efforts.