|
|
About the Author
Josh Fear
Josh Fear is a research fellow at the Australia Institute, an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. He is a social researcher with an interest in consumer psychology and behaviour, public perceptions of government policy and political communication. Prior to working at the Institute, he was a consultant in the private sector conducting policy and evaluation research for public and community sector clients. Josh holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Sydney and a Master of Policy Studies from the University of New South Wales.
Articles Published
Showing results 1 to 2 of 2
The Case for a Universal Default Superannuation Fund
The existing superannuation system is built on a contradictory notion of the way people make financial decisions. On the one hand, the concept of compulsory superannuation suggests that Australians are ... Read moreThe existing superannuation system is built on a contradictory notion of the way people make financial decisions. On the one hand, the concept of compulsory superannuation suggests that Australians are myopic, irrational and have to be forced to save. On the other hand, when forced into the system, fund members are assumed to be informed and discerning investors, able to make rational decisions about how to allocate their retirement savings among a host of competing alternatives. Only one of these opposing views can be correct and it is the responsibility of policymakers to design systems that accommodate real-world human behaviour.
The Case for a Universal Default Superannuation Fund
The existing superannuation system is built on a contradictory notion of the way people make financial decisions. On the one hand, the concept of compulsory superannuation suggests that Australians are ... Read moreThe existing superannuation system is built on a contradictory notion of the way people make financial decisions. On the one hand, the concept of compulsory superannuation suggests that Australians are myopic, irrational and have to be forced to save. On the other hand, when forced into the system, fund members are assumed to be informed and discerning investors, able to make rational decisions about how to allocate their retirement savings among a host of competing alternatives. Only one of these opposing views can be correct and it is the responsibility of policymakers to design systems that accommodate real-world human behaviour.
|
