Search

Children's poverty has long been a central concern for policy makers and policy researchers. The body of extant research conducted and the range of programmatic interventions undertaken by successive governments in this and other countries is extraordinary. Nevertheless, children remain in poverty. Clearly there are many reasons for this, not least of which is the maintenance and intensification of market capitalism with its attendant blatant inequalities. Even so, the moral, political, social and economic imperatives for developing workable responses to children's poverty remain. This paper argues that we, in Australia, should adopt an approach increasingly taken in the UK. Drawing on, among other things, the new sociology of childhood, this approach begins not with the expertise of adult researchers and policy makers, but with that of children. In doing so, the case is made for why children's perceptions and experiences of poverty are key concerns for policy. The paper outlines in theoretical terms why children's voices matter. Invoking the new sociology of childhood and the sociology of identity, a conceptual framework for understanding why policy scholars and makers should carefully attend to the voices of their subjects is sketched - in this case, the subjects are children. Finally, some methodological implications of this for undertaking policy research informed by this approach are outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concern over the reliability of conventional poverty studies has focused attention on the need to demonstrate that those identified as poor are actually experiencing hardship. This paper takes a step in this direction by examining poverty using a living standards approach derived from the literature on deprivation and social exclusion. Deprivation - defined as an enforced lack of socially perceived necessities - has emerged as a way of identifying who is missing out on what the community regards as the necessities (or essentials) of life. Social exclusion - which exists when individuals do not participate in key activities in society - has opened up new areas of inquiry relating to a lack of connectedness between individuals, the communities in which they live, and key economic and social processes. The findings indicate that many Australians face deprivation and exclusion in numerous aspects of their lives, and that those defined as poor in income terms are different from those who are deprived or excluded. The low overlap between the three indicators implies that they all have a role to play in documenting the extent of social disadvantage and helping to identify the factors that contribute to its various manifestations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social capital and community capacity have become key concepts in social policy responses to marginalised individuals and communities. Policy making has occurred in the context of heated debate about the roles of government and business institutions in strengthening community capacities. In this paper, we wilt explore theoretical positions about the role that these institutions play in building local social capital. We argue that the dominant conceptions of social capital in Australia fail to recognise the potential for non-local institutions to strengthen local community capacity. Drawing on a study of four geographically diverse communities we show that a substantial proportion of community members were disconnected from non-local government and business institutions. We conclude with some initial suggestions for extending the social capital discourse to recognise and build the role of non-local institutions in strengthening local communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explored the issues facing young Vietnamese who have a sibling with an illicit drug addiction and the coping strategies that they and their families employ. This paper concentrated on the results from interviews/focus groups of Vietnamese parents and young people. There were some areas of commonality between the responses of the parent and youth cohorts. Issues of shame, guilt, grief and lack of support were raised by both groups. The reactions of parents and siblings change over time, as the negative impact of the user's behaviour intensified and family systems become strained. There were significant differences in the responses of the two cohorts in relation to parental behaviour. The youth cohort generally was critical of parental behaviour towards both children who are using illicit drugs and their non-using siblings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]