Search

Poor safety is a perennial problem for the construction industry worldwide. The concept of safety climate has been strongly linked to safety performance, yet inconsistent methodologies make international comparisons problematic. In addressing this gap in research, a comparative safety climate survey of 515 construction operatives and managers in Australia, Indonesia, and China is presented using a standardized tool. The results highlight interesting similarities and differences between safety climate in each country and question taken–for–granted assumptions that safety climate in countries with relatively mature regulatory structures like Australia are more positive than in less developed countries like Indonesia and China. Results also highlight the intermediating effects of factors such as management commitment and cultural differences in shaping safety climate. Highlighting the potential value of theories of new institutionalism and cultural and ethical relativism, the paper concludes by raising important new practical, theoretical, and methodological questions about the merits and challenges of making international comparisons of safety climate, even when using standardized measurement tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Since 2013, Australian aid has been reduced and increasingly focused on delivering benefits to Australia. Motivated by these changes, this paper fills three gaps in the existing literature on public opinion about aid. It provides the only recent detailed study of Australians' opinions about aid. It studies specific policy questions in addition to the broader questions typical of international research. And it studies views on the purpose of aid, an area not previously researched. Although Australians are generally supportive of aid, most backed major aid cuts in 2015. However, most Australians think the purpose of Australian aid should be helping people in poor countries, not bringing benefits to Australia. There is a clear left–right divide in responses to all questions; however, some variables correlated with support for aid fail to explain variation in views about aid's purpose. The paper concludes by discussing ramifications for those who seek to change aid policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]