A Valuable Contribution to Research and Policy: Reviewing Four Decades of Australian Poverty Research

Saunders, Peter

doi:10.1002/j.1839-4655.2005.tb00956.x

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Social exclusion has also featured prominently in Britain, through the work and influence of the Social Exclusion Unit (for example, 2003) and the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (Hills et al, 2002). In Australia, the emphasis given to encouraging economic and social participation in the McClure Report on welfare reform (Reference Group on Welfare Reform, 2000) reflects an interest in the notion of social exclusion, although it was only briefly mentioned in the government's response to welfare reform (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002), and the concept of social exclusion remains on the fringes of both the research effort and the policy debate (Bradshaw, 2004;Saunders, 2005a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income Poverty, Deprivation and Exclusion: A Comparative Study of Australia and Britain

Saunders

Adelman

2006

J. Soc. Pol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poverty research has a long history in both Australia and Britain, but its influence on policy remains subject to political priorities and ideology. This can partly be explained by the limitations of defining poverty as low income and measuring it using an income poverty line. This article examines two national data sets that allow the income poverty profile to be compared with, and enriched by, the incidence of deprivation and social exclusion, measured using data that directly reflect experience. Although a degree of care must be applied when interpreting these new indicators within and between countries, a validated poverty measure is developed that reflects both low income and the experience of deprivation and exclusion. When results for the two countries are compared, they reveal stark differences between the alternative indicators. Britain has the higher income poverty rate and, although the incidence of both deprivation and exclusion are higher in Australia, Britain still has more validated poverty. The distributional profiles of deprivation and exclusion are shown to be very different in the two countries. These differences are explained by the very low incomes of low-income households in Britain, relative to other British households and relative to their Australian counterparts. Despite these differences, the results indicate that the same three groups face the greatest risk in both countries: lone parents, single working-age people and large (couple) families.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income Poverty, Deprivation and Exclusion: A Comparative Study of Australia and Britain

Saunders

Adelman

2006

J. Soc. Pol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although economic inequality is an issue in most nations, it is a relative problem (Sali-i-Martin, 2006;Saunders, 2005); hence the poor in developed nations such as Australia are rich compared to the middle class of a developing nation such as Indonesia. There are some exceptions to this within Australia, primarily some Australian Indigenous peoples who experience extreme deprivation and resulting associated health and social issues (Paradies, Harris, & Anderson, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking cause and solution: Predicting support for poverty alleviation proposals

Hastie

2010

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are multiple alternative proposals for alleviating poverty, but unless these receive public support they are unlikely to be implemented. Drawing on Feagin's work, this research predicted support for different poverty alleviation proposals among Australians based on individual characteristics and attitudes, including explanations for poverty. Overall, participants (N ¼ 526) favoured the minimum income proposal (traditional welfare) significantly more than the guaranteed jobs or equal income proposals. The results indicated differences in predictors of support for each proposal, but structural causes of poverty had the most consistent effect across all three. Other variables included gender, age, having received welfare, selfreported social class, self-reported financial situation, egalitarianism, conservatism, and support for individualistic explanations for poverty. The results suggested that Australians prefer traditional welfare-style measures to alleviate poverty, compared to the other proposals examined here. Support for all proposals, however, was predicated on people's beliefs being consistent with those underlying the proposal. Those interested in implementing more radical solutions to address poverty need to emphasise the relations between the causes of poverty and the solutions to it in order to increase public support.

show abstract

“…66 An historical overview of AJSI notes in particular that the journal published a number of pioneering research studies on poverty from the late 1960s onwards utilizing the Henderson poverty framework that proved so influential in shaping poverty-related advocacy work. 67 The first annual pre-Budget statement of the EFSW Committee was confidentially submitted to the Minister for Social Services in June 1968 drawing on the research of social security academic Thomas Henry Kewley who had a long association with ACOSS. Indeed, Kewley had presented a paper to the 1967 ACOSS Annual General meeting recommending targeted increases to particularly vulnerable groups such as single aged persons and deserted wives with children whose income fell below the poverty line utilized in Professor Henderson's research study.…”

Section: Other Advocacy Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Welfarist Support for Vulnerable Groups to a Social Justice Perspective: The Australian Council of Social Service and the Construction of Poverty, 1956–75

Mendes

2023

Aus J of Politics History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has often been suggested that poor Australians were a forgotten cohort during the long period of post‐World War Two prosperity. Yet the peak non‐government welfare body, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), aimed from its establishment in 1956 to publicise concerns about poverty, and stimulate policy responses to relieve the disadvantage of those living in poverty. Using a range of primary sources including ACOSS annual reports, policy statements, committee meeting minutes and newsletters, this paper examines the key manifestations of ACOSS advocacy for low‐income Australians including research reports, budget submissions and public forums. It is argued that ACOSS gradually shifted from a welfarist approach based on lifting the incomes of specific vulnerable groups in isolation to a social justice approach that linked poverty to wider societal inequities.

show abstract

A Valuable Contribution to Research and Policy: Reviewing Four Decades of Australian Poverty Research

Cited by 6 publications

References 33 publications

Income Poverty, Deprivation and Exclusion: A Comparative Study of Australia and Britain

Income Poverty, Deprivation and Exclusion: A Comparative Study of Australia and Britain

Linking cause and solution: Predicting support for poverty alleviation proposals

From Welfarist Support for Vulnerable Groups to a Social Justice Perspective: The Australian Council of Social Service and the Construction of Poverty, 1956–75

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About