Dear Inkeemagee,

You're right that Tasmania still compares poorly with the rest of Australia on a range of social and health indicators. I believe that much of Tasmania's poor performance on these indicators is a reflection of the relatively greater incidence of poverty in Tasmania than in other States, which is, in turn, both a result of and a contributor to Tasmania's relatively poor economic performance over most of the past three decades.

Interested readers can see a comparison between Tasmania and the rest of Australia on a wide range of social and economic indicators on my website at
http://www.anz.com/business/info_centre/economic_commentary/MC_State_Eco_Focus.asp
(or alternatively, type the url www.anz.com/go/economics and select "State Economic Focus" from the menu bar on the left of the page).

Saul Eslake

I have doubts about the praxis of the creative class idea. I agree with Florida that high growth areas have a propensity to have this creative class. I am yet to be convinced that public policy measures to attract such a class will result in high growth. The creative class is an effect, not a cause, of high growth. It develops in areas that exhibit high growth, but that growth is not necessarily a product of their presence. The creative class is characterised by production of public cultural goods (which is probably necessary for growth in the late stages of the economic boom period), but having a concentration of such a class may not be economically functional. I do not think it is a key driver for early and middle stage growth (such as Tasmania), at least not to the same degree as measures to attract, and improve the productivity of, human and financial capital. A similar argument runs for social capital / community capacity models.

For example, the post WW2 Japanese boom occurred in the stark absence of a creative class. As is the Chinese one. The Irish boom exhibited a creative class, but Ireland has been unable to sustain the growth rates of the 90s. Of course, this illustration by counter example is highly simplistic and does not show that the success or failure of any of these economies was is related to the creative class, but I am yet to see the creative class advocates show a case where economic boom was unambiguously due to the creative class.

Bacon's Government supported the arts and cultural industry through major events and expanded funding to Arts Tasmania. It also created business and investment confidence by sound fiscal policy and showing a willingness to back major infrastructure and development projects to a degree not seen since Electric Eric. Which of these two strategies was more successful at driving growth?

I do not dismiss community development or the creative class as playing a valued role in state development. However, it is the icing on the cake of classical economic growth strategies

I only write this out of concern for my family and any others that may visit Glenorchy's new Big W when it opens. I have heard that the new building has faults in its constuction that could lead to parts of the building possibly collapsing in the future. I have heard that even the engineers have been informed of the possible problems but still say that it is safe . Is this due to the money that this multinational corperation would be pouring into the project with Glenorchy's council's drive for development?

Saul is correct there, particularly with his observation that the benchmark of financial incompetence in Australian Government for our era, and likely for perpetuity, was John Cain, Victorian Premier from the 80's It is documented that his unforgettable series of blunders harmed not only Victoria's assets and prospects, but actually savaged many small businesses, destroying livelihoods at a community level.
John Cain's place in Victorian history is that of the most incompetent Premier on record. Known as 'The Spring St. Stumbler'.