Why should market stewardship draw on lived experience evidence?

Author: Ariella Meltzer, Helen Dickinson, Eleanor Malbon and Gemma Carey

This post was originally published by the Evidence & Policy blog on 23 June, 2021.

We have re-issued the article that has already been published by the Evidence & Policy blog. We would like to express gratitude to the kind offer of the editorial board of the Evidence & Policy blog.

Original article URL: https://bit.ly/366ABNJ

Ariella Meltzer, Helen Dickinson, Eleanor Malbon and Gemma Carey

This blog post is part of a series linked to the Evidence & Policy Special Issue (Volume 17, Issue 2): The many faces of disability in evidence for policy and practice. Guest Edited by Carol Rivas, Ikuko Tomomatsu and David Gough. This post is based on the Special Issue article, ‘Why is lived experience important for market stewardship? A proposed framework for why and how lived experience should be included in stewarding disability markets‘.

Many countries are moving towards market-based provision of human services, with ‘quasi-markets’ in place. Quasi-markets are different to the conventional markets we are used to within our daily lives, as they require governments to play a role in helping to steer them to success. This is known as ‘market stewardship’. In our Evidence & Policy article, we explore the types of evidence that government uses to make decisions about how quasi-markets should run.

Our case study

We considered this question of evidence use and decision-making in a quasi-market currently operating for people with disability within Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The NDIS is an individualised funding scheme for people with disability, where they purchase supports from a government-run marketplace using their personal budget. The Scheme was designed to increase the choice and control of people with disability over their services.

The government has a key role in stewarding solutions to perceived problems in the NDIS market, such as by introducing new providers into the market in areas where they judge there may not be enough to meet demand. So far, it makes these decisions using economic models and actuarial calculations based on information about inputs a