Search

The paper begins with an investigation of two metaphors central to the 'social capital' framework - 'glue' and 'capital'. Both are found to be inappropriate descriptions of the kinds of human relationships supposedly being alluded to by the term 'social capital'. While the inappropriateness of the term 'glue' is not a major threat to the discourse, the case of 'capital' is more serious. The rest of the paper is devoted to unravelling the connotations of 'capital' and the implications of applying it to relationships where the kinds of calculations necessary for sound economic performance have no place. The competitiveness inherent in the functioning of capital belies the cooperation assumed to exist in 'social capital', while the requirement for 'productiveness' has disquieting implications for those who, for whatever reason, cannot be productive in the economic sense. The final section of the paper argues that those who are supposedly the main, if not the only, beneficiaries of 'social capital' - the `disadvantaged' or the 'socially excluded' - do not in fact benefit from whatever is being alluded to by the term `social capital'. The paper concludes by asking, but not answering, the question: Why, if 'social capital' cannot diminish poverty, is it being posited as a substitute for the welfare state, the only institution that does address poverty (if minimally)? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The study on which this paper was based explored parent/professional relationships where disabled children were involved, and the underlying cultures which influence them. The paper seeks in pan to relocate debate about parent/professional relations away from a mere instrumental view to the wider context of advancing understanding of social capital. Interestingly the study highlights some examples of relations consistent with a poststructuralist framework of power which unfolded within broadly patriarchal and capitalist structures more relevant to feminist critiques of human caring and 'caring' systems. Overall it shows the unequal structure of power arrangements in parent/professional relations, and indicates the possible benefits for caring and support systems of an approach which is less technically driven and hierarchical and more 'horizontal', personal and reciprocally based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In common with other advanced market economies, regional and rural communities in Australia have come under increasing economic and social stress. One manifestation of this phenomenon is the growing spatial inequalities in social and economic conditions. This paper briefly reviews the genesis of spatial inequalities and examines their consequences in the contemporary Australian political milieu. The discussion concludes with an analysis of the policy implications of these inequalities for local governments and communities in disadvantaged regional and rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]