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]

Recent developments in the environment surrounding the nonprofit human services sector in Australia have been viewed with some concern, especially given the role of the sector within the Australian welfare state. This paper reviews these developments, noting that some are less visible than others, and that the process of change is more widespread than often perceived. By explicitly employing a theoretical framework derived from organisational theory the paper argues that the contemporary experience of the sector, characterised as the existing institutional order of the field, is set to undergo substantial revision as it is incorporated within an emerging new institutional order of the market and the state as market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Young people's declining electoral participation has been considered a problem in a range of democracies, including Australia. In this paper I examine youth electoral participation through the eyes and voices of young marginalised Australians. In the policy arena young people's electoral participation is usually considered a subject for education policy. Here I make the case for considering it as an issue for social policy, and as a welfare issue. In this context I examine the effects of neoliberalism and Australia's shrinking welfare state on young people's citizenship and ability to access the franchise. Whilst acknowledging the liberal roots of neoliberalism I argue that whereas the neoliberal state identifies young people's political disengagement as a problem, and constructs participation using the language of 'choice', that its own social policies act to create barriers to the franchise for young people and thus effectively disenfranchise them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health policy was an integral component of the post-war welfare state, which represented a nationally based class compromise providing concessions in the form of income support and service provision outside the ambit of the market. In Australia, development of a universal health system was delayed until the introduction of Medibank, and subsequently Medicare. Since its inception, Medicare has been subjected to retrenchment pressures that have dominated welfare state developments since the mid 1970s. This paper traces developments in the Australian health system, revealing that the major trends, privatisation and the transfer of responsibility from the collective to the private sphere, represent a movement towards a more residual system that threatens the Medicare goal of equitable access to quality medical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "wage-earners' welfare state" model has gained wide acceptance as a framework explaining the evolution of Australian and New Zealand social protection. Despite its important contribution to Australasian and comparative policy analysis, however, the model does not adequately highlight the importance of the labour market to social protection. This is because it treats the industrial relations system as largely static. This paper considers debates within both the industrial relations and social policy literatures and analyses the interplay between state welfare and protective labour mechanisms in Australia and New Zealand. Focusing on the period since the early 1980s, the principal argument is that updating and understanding the comparative evolution of the two regimes requires a dynamic and historically nuanced explanation of the nexus between social policy and industrial relations. Viewing social protection in this way reveals more subtle characteristics of contemporary neo-liberalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, drawing on in-depth interviews, we illustrate that despite the significant overall increase in the wealth of older Australians over the last two decades, a sizeable proportion of older Australians (65 and over) are in a vulnerable accommodation situation and many face the possibility of finding themselves homeless. This is especially so for those older Australians who are dependent on government for their income and are living in private rented accommodation. We show that the changing nature of the housing market means that often our informants were not able to find affordable, adequate and secure accommodation. The death of a spouse, rent increases and eviction are common precipitators of a slide into a situation of imminent homelessness. The restructuring of the welfare state and the virtual freeze on the building of social housing means that older private renters who face eviction often have nowhere to turn. Besides not being able to rely on the market or government, many have minimal or no family and social networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of calls for a 'third way' which proposes the abandonment of many of the social democratic and statist commitments of the postwar era, this paper reviews both the responsibilities accepted by peak bodies such as ACOSS and those that ought to be retained by government. It is sceptical of claims that social policy debates in Australia lead to the conclusion that welfare state development here has been satisfactory. Social democratic objectives (derived from intellectual contributions in the 1940s and 1950s as well as from the comparative political economy of the 1980s and 1990s) emphasize more decommodified provision of services than can be readily admitted in Australia. If the demand for social welfare and social policy continues to increase to the extent suggested by past and present circumstances, serious implications emerge for both public and private providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines recent debates relating to the provision of welfare in Australia. It starts with an assessment of the trend towards the acceptance of the philosophy of 'mutual obligation' by governments, commentators and lobby groups, traces the process of the movement of welfare from 'entitlement' to 'obligation' and argues that this is being used to justify a reworking of the relationship between citizen and state. The paper argues that a 'genuine' mutual obligation has always been pan of the Australian welfare system and that, in contrast to the current rhetoric of individual responsibility, it should rather be seen as a community based obligation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]