NATIONAL RESULTS - ADDITIONAL INCOME FROM THE WORKING ON COUNTRY PROGRAM Direct Additional Income Type I Additional Income Type II Additional Income ($m) ($m) ($m) 8 14.8 27.4 Source: Allen Consulting Group, 2011 The national results in Table 4.3 indicate that there is a significant increase in income attributable to labour that arises from the Working on Country program. In the Type I case income rises in aggregate terms by $14.8 million throughout the economy. In the Type II case, the aggregate impact is $27.4 million. State and Territory Results The state benefits are a more complex matter. To determine these impacts, effectively the multipliers benefit is to be pro-rated across states. To do this, we need to consider the impacts of where the increased income generated by the Working on Country program spurs production. There are three key issues that are involved in this analysis. A proportion of the income in the first round will be spent Although the locally. areas concerned for the Working on Country programs do not have a large industrial base, there are some multiplier benefits that arise from spending on local industry particularly service industries like retail. – are pronounced Whilst production of goods is concentrated in state effects. the larger economies of New South Wales and Victoria, there are home state biases in expenditure regional areas tend to import from closer to home where – possible. There are The industrial base is not spread national production effects. uniformly. So although New South Wales and Victoria have a limited involvement in the Working on Country program, these states still see a disproportionally large share of the overall benefit. Table 4.4 show the benefits of the Working on Country program by State and Territory, and further classifies these benefits into Type I or Type II effects. Intuitively, direct benefits and Type I effects could be expected to be strongly linked to the geographic region where the program is located, whereas Type II effects are concentrated in the larger centres of industrial production. AGGREGATE BENEFITS BY STATE AND TERRITORY 2009-10 Type I Type II Direct % Benefit % of Benefit % share State Benefit of Direct (includes Type I (includes of Type II ($’000s) benefit direct) ($ aggregate direct) ($ aggregate ‘000s) ‘000s)
NATIONAL RESULTS - ADDITIONAL INCOME FROM THE WORKING ON COUNTRY PROGRAM Direct Additional Income ($m) Type I Additional Income ($m) Type II Additional Income ($m) 8 14.8 27.4 Source: Allen Consulting Group, 2011 The national results in Table 4.3 indicate that there is a significant increase in income attributable to labour that arises from the Working on Country program. In the Type I case income rises in aggregate terms by $14.8 million throughout the economy. In the Type II case, the aggregate impact is $27.4 million. State and Territory Results The state benefits are a more complex matter. To determine these impacts, effectively the multipliers benefit is to be pro-rated across states. To do this, we need to consider the impacts of where the increased income generated by the Working on Country program spurs production. There are three key issues that are involved in this analysis. A proportion of the income in the first round will be spent locally. Although the areas concerned for the Working on Country programs do not have a large industrial base, there are some multiplier benefits that arise from spending on local industry – particularly service industries like retail. are pronounced state effects. Whilst production of goods is concentrated in the larger economies of New South Wales and Victoria, there are home state biases in expenditure – regional areas tend to import from closer to home where possible. There are national production effects. The industrial base is not spread uniformly. So although New South Wales and Victoria have a limited involvement in the Working on Country program, these states still see a disproportionally large share of the overall benefit. Table 4.4 show the benefits of the Working on Country program by State and Territory, and further classifies these benefits into Type I or Type II effects. Intuitively, direct benefits and Type I effects could be expected to be strongly linked to the geographic region where the program is located, whereas Type II effects are concentrated in the larger centres of industrial production. AGGREGATE BENEFITS BY STATE AND TERRITORY 2009-10 State Direct Benefit ($’000s) % of Direct benefit Type I Benefit (includes direct) ($ ‘000s) % of Type I aggregate Type II Benefit (includes direct) ($ ‘000s) % share of Type II aggregate
woc-economics.docx