Closing the gap: the growing divide between poverty research and policy in Australia

Abstract

This paper reviews major developments in Australian poverty research in the 50 years since the Melbourne poverty study established the Henderson measurement framework. It focuses on the limitations of the dominant, but narrow income (poverty line) approach used in Australia, contrasts it with the deprivation approach pioneered and refined in the United Kingdom, and shows how this provides more compelling evidence that poverty exists. Against the background of recent developments in international poverty research, the paper identifies existing gaps in Australia, and explores what needs to be done to address this situation. It then draws on international experience to examine how anti-poverty policy has evolved, focusing on the role of poverty targets in producing better data and promoting debate between policy makers, researchers and community sector practitioners about developing better measures. Australia lags behind these developments: a new approach is needed that engages researchers, policy makers, and other key stakeholders in positive dialogue aimed at setting a new framework for poverty measurement and an achievable anti-poverty policy agenda.

Thinking outside the box: Strategies used by low‐income single mothers to make ends meet

“…Further it adds to the existing feminist debates exploring women's dual position as mothers and workers in the changing welfare landscape. The use of qualitative research adds to the limited research that explores how people cope and adapt in their experiences of poverty (Saunders ). A key finding from this research was the significant impact that this payment change had on low‐income single mothers' already precarious financial situation, leading them to identify and implement strategies in an effort to buffer the impacts of their decreased welfare payments.…”

Multidimensional material deprivation in Poland: a focus on changes in 2015–2017

“…Today, MD indicators are applied in various ways in countries around the world. For example, Saunders (2015) conducted an analysis for Australia, Nájera (2017) for Mexico, and Kim and Nandy (2018) for South Korea. Regardless of the methods used, researchers define MD as lacking items due to the inability to afford them.…”

Towards a phenomenology of poverty: Defining poverty through the lived experiences of the ‘poor’

“…Relative measurements of poverty contain a comparative element, which means they relate to other people in the same society at the same point in time (Lister, 2004). As such, high-income countries, including those in the Irganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and in the European Union, use a measurement of between 50 and 60% of the country’s median income, rather than referring to the IPL (ACOSS and Social Policy Research Centre, 2016; Saunders, 2015b). This approach also means that poverty lines – or who counts as poor – rise and fall with changes in a country’s income (ACOSS and Social Policy Research Centre, 2016).…”

“…This is an argument consistent with Walker (2014), where stigma and shame appear to be prevalent among those experiencing poverty, and also with the findings from the Salvation Army (2010), where respondents felt sorry for those experiencing poverty and thought those experiencing poverty would be stressed or depressed. It is clear, therefore, that there have been ‘far too few qualitative studies that seek to improve understanding of how poverty is experienced, how people cope and adapt, and its consequences’ (Saunders, 2015b: 24).…”