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]

The subject of gender and health inequalities is contested territory in health policy, research and practice. Yet there is a dominant approach which I describe as a form of technocratic rationality. Its application imposes significant limitations because it represents the problem of gender and health in terms of measurable sex differences in relation to health service access and health outcomes. In doing so, it fails to address and explain the social dynamics that generate the problem. I propose an alternative approach that originates in Australian women's health policies of the 1980s. These emphasised the inequalities between men's and women's participation in mainstream health policy, planning, management and delivery of services, and women's concomitant marginalisation. Recent sociological study offers support for this perspective suggesting that the endogenous organisational dynamics (or logics) within public health institutions provide a better way of understanding what the problem of gender inequalities in health is, and how we might fix it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of how we live among strangers in daily life is an established concern in contemporary social analysis. A key topic has been the achievements of the individual in rendering daily life among unknown others possible. Yet, questions of residual failure await full development. The study aims to describe the results of an Australian study that examined the significance and meaning of interactional breakdown with strangers in everyday life for the contemporary individual. Focus group methodology is used to describe common threads of understanding that ordinary people have developed around such events in terms of prevalence, reasons and remedies. Noteworthy findings are (i) the use of period and generational kinds of historical thinking in lay reflections on the state of everyday incivility (ii) the materialization of excessive individualism, runaway capitalist values and diminished community as key ideas within lay talk about the generators of everyday incivility, and (iii) the articulation of communitarianism as a preferred panacea to everyday incivility for lay actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents four decades of research on social capital, community and evidence based policy in the forty years of publication of the "Australian Journal of Social Issues (AJSI)." Social capital is represented as readily quantifiable, on the basis of local participation. Concept essentially provides for the operationalisation of community, giving this alluring concept its latest lease on life. Various Australian governments now warmly embrace Howard Professor Robert Putnam's work and draw on it for evidence that legitimates their policy development. Before Putnam, social capital had relatively minor status in sociology. The many advantages claimed for higher levels of social capital, as Putnam has promoted the concept, range through greater happiness, better health, higher income and levels of educational achievement, and lower rates of child abuse and other crimes against the person, as well as lower transaction costs. Falling levels of participation and civic engagement are attributed by Putnam to abstract and depoliticised factors like pressures of time and money, urban sprawl, electronic entertainment, especially television, and generational change with the advent of postcivic generations.

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]

The article explores the origins of the concept of social capital especially within rational choice debates over the role in Australia. Social capital has developed after the publication of "Making Democracy Work" by Robert Putnam in 1993 which has been taken up by several academics, policy makers and activists in the state. Its theory has been link to the developments of rational choice theory since it has taken the role of sociology and political economy in defining the importance of social relations to economic and political issues. Meanwhile, the famous 1993 account of Putnam has been used as the basis of the social capital lineage investigation,as well as the development of game theory and experimental economics.

Welfare schemes which require recipients of benefits to 'give something back' are often justified in terms of 'fairness' or fulfilling the 'social contract'. The Australian Government's recent and proposed changes to unemployment benefits through the Mutual Obligation Scheme appeal to both justifications. However, insufficient attention has been paid the underlying ethical and political assumptions — a serious deficiency, given their role in legitimating harsh new penalties. There are two broad reasons the current trend to tie benefits to obligations is inappropriate. First, the unemployed have little choice about their contract. And second, there is insufficient mutuality shown towards the unemployed for the Scheme to be obligation-generating. Rather than being a means of encouraging participation or mutuality, the Scheme is essentially punitive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article lists several publications about social issues in Australia. Included are: "In Search of Sustainability," edited by Jenny Goldie, Bob Douglas and Bryan Furnass; "Perspectives in Human Sexuality," by Gail Hawkes and John Scott; "Education and Society: Issues and Explanations in the Sociology of Education," by Rob Moore; "Crime and Society," by Rob White and Daphne Habibis; and "A Changing People: Contributions to the State of Western Australia," edited by Raelene Wilding and Farida Tilbury.