Geographic Disadvantage: the Demographics of Social Exclusion in Australia

Geographic disadvantage: the demographics of social exclusion in Australia Paper for the University of Melbourne Social Inclusion Forum 25th to 26th of June 2009 Scott Baum Urban Research Program Griffith University William Mitchell Centre of Full employment and Equity University of Newcastle Abstract The question of disadvantage, deprivation and social exclusion cuts across many layers of society. It clearly impacts on individuals and this is where policy is often directed. However, space and place are also important. Many suburbs bare the negative outcomes of transitional periods of social and economic change. These transitions, that impact on individuals and families, are also reflected in the geographic patterns of disadvantage because of where people live and their interactions within the wider metropolitan systems. Using output an index of relative disadvantage this paper considers how these patterns of disadvantage are a feature of Australian cities and how the spatial patterns of disadvantage might be shifting as a result of the current global economic crisis. About the authors Associate Professor Scott Baum is a Research Fellow in the Urban Research Program, Griffith University. Trained in economics and sociology, he has had a long standing interest in understanding the social conditions that shape local communities and the lives of their residents. His work has appeared in international journals including Urban Studies (Sage Publishers), Papers in Regional Science (Blackwell Publishing) and Regional Studies (Taylor and Francis). He is an editor of Urban Policy and Research (Taylor and Francis) and is the general secretary of the Asia-Pacific Sociological association. Professor William Mitchell is Professor and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity, University of Newcastle. An expert in labour economics he is a regular commentator on labour market issues in the national and international media and has research interests ranging from large scale macro-economic modelling to regional models of unemployment and spatial econometrics. His work has appeared in international journals including Regional Studies, Applied Economics, Rutgers Journal of Law and Urban Policy, Urban Studies and the International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment. His most current book ‘Full Employment Abandoned: Shifting Sands and Policy Failures’ (with J. Muysken) is published by Edward Elgar. Introduction In the face of continued deterioration of the global economic outlook and despite the fact Australia has enjoyed a sustained period of aggregate national prosperity since the early 1990s social disparities have got worse with certain communities appearing to be particularly vulnerable (Baum et al. 2005). Social and economic transitions that have characterised the past three or four decades have left the scars of change across society. For many social scientists and politicians an inclusive nation is one that not only sets in place mechanisms for dynamic economic and social change, but also ensures that all its citizens, living in its disparate cities, towns and regions, can participate in and benefit from this economic development (Stimson 2001, Stillwell 2002). A nation that grows at the expense of inclusiveness risks significant social dysfunction that can in the extreme, challenge all levels of government and bring into question the shape and function of the nation’s social fabric. Stillwell (2002 p. 1) in particular argues inequality has significant consequences for economic efficiency, social justice and environmental sustainability. Its sources are properly a central concern for political economic analysis. Its reduction is properly a concern for public policy. In short, inequality and disadvantage matters. The establishment of a ministerial appointment in charge of social inclusion at the federal level is a sign that the types of issues raised by academics such as Stillwell and others are important in the national policy agenda. Reflecting this renewed policy interest are the comments by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (The Australian 2006) who while in opposition argued There is [a] view… which says that this nation and this people are at their best when we are a people and a nation committed to building a prosperous nation while at the same time not jettisoning our vision for a fair Australia and a fair society. The question of disadvantage and deprivation cuts across many layers of society. It clearly impacts on individuals and this is where policy is often directed. However, space and place are also important. Many suburbs bare the negative outcomes of transitional periods of social and economic change. These transitions that impact on individuals and families are reflected in spatially concentrated disadvantage because of where people live and their interactions within the wider metropolitan systems. Disadvantage is reflected in the distribution of and access to social networks, role models and a range of essential services often necessary for complete inclusion and participation in society. The extent to which this disadvantage is in evidence across cities is not even. Recent research has repeatedly made this point (Baum et al. 2005, Baum et al. 2007). Swan (2005) argues that a consequence of growing spatial inequality in Australian society is a greater separation of rich and poor. In particular he points out As the wealthy take over real estate close to the good jobs, the best schools and hospitals they lift the cost of entry to those areas. On the other hand, as the splintering middle and poorer people move further away they are paying more to get to work, school and see the doctor. If they lose their job, distance compounds their disadvantage (Swan 2005 p.172). Internationally the OECD recognises that ‘[d]eprived areas, which have grown in number in recent years, limit the opportunities and prospects of people who live in them. Without a vision of their potential, a nation [not] only bears the costs but fails to realise the possibilities inherent in these places and their populations’ (OECD 1998, 11). The spatial distribution of disadvantage has, traditionally, been important to an understanding of the way cities were structured, how they operated and how these structures and processes reflected broader social, economic and demographic trends. The identification 2 and interpretation of patterns of deprivation are as important today as they have ever been. This paper focuses on Australia’s metropolitan suburbs and uses the most recent census data. It offers both a critical analysis of contemporary debates on the socio-spatial structure of cities and also develops an index of relative deprivation (the General Deprivation Index). It proposes, in short, both an analytical framework and an empirical base for policy debate regarding a socially inclusive nation. The geography of disadvantage A focus on the geography of disadvantage necessarily rests initially on understanding the transformations that have been part of the post-industrial metropolitan landscape. New national and international socio-economic forces have reshaped national geographies in general and the characteristics of cities in particular, resulting in a range of diverse social and spatial outcomes (O’Connor, Stimson and Daly 2001). Where once socio-spatial outcomes may have been clearly defined in research focusing on cities of the industrial era—here we might refer to the early and subsequent work by social area analysts (Timms 1970; Theodorson 1982)— a new or different set of divisions have been seen to emerge in post- industrial or post-Fordist cities. These new divisions do not necessarily exist in complete isolation from divisions that have appeared in earlier periods, but rather have developed from these existing patterns. Contemporary patterns are therefore reflective of the socio- spatial histories of cities. Nevertheless, what we are now seeing, and have been seeing over the past two or three decades, is a complex and wide ranging set of interlinked factors impacting in new ways on the social and economic fabric of the contemporary city (see Benassi et al 1997; Kesteloot 1998; Mingione 1996). This wider frame of reference takes into account three inter- connected areas of social life that are crucial factors in generating unequal socio-economic outcomes across a range of levels of abstraction–from individuals to aggregate regions and nation states. Internationally, sociologists talk about changes in the economic system and the nature of work, transitions in primary support systems, and a crisis in the welfare state as all being important to understand division occurring in society. With respect to these processes Kesteloot (1998, p.126) points out: … there is a growing consensus about three distinct spheres in which the sources of polarisation originate, namely transformations in the division of labour,…; the restructuring of nation-states and particularly the slow dismantling of the welfare state; and finally the second demographic transition, which results in the appearance of new household forms and the parallel increase of single people and social isolation. This contemporary social structure has resulted in unequal access to resources and life chances for individuals and households. This inequality is expressed in a polarised socio- spatial urban structure of as ‘rich and poor concentrate respectively in rich and poor environments in terms of the resources of collective consumption, housing, mobility and access to jobs’ (Kesteloot

Load more