Welfare dependency? A critical analysis of changes in welfare recipient numbers.

Henman, Paul ; Perry, Julia

When Australia's most recent activity in welfare reform was launched in 1999, two inter-linked ideas summed up the way in which the government perceived the welfare problem and solution: `welfare dependency' and `mutual obligation' (Newman 1999a; 1999b). The subsequent reports of the Welfare Reform Reference Group eschewed the stigmatising language of `welfare dependency', opting for `participation', and sought to make `mutual obligation' more mutual. Despite these differences, they similarly seek to govern `unemployment through the unemployed' while disregarding the importance of structural realities for policy solutions.

As Peter Saunders has reminded us, successful policy making involves diagnosis, design and delivery. Contrary to the requirements of diagnosis, in which `it is necessary to understand the nature of the problem(s) that confront policy, including the causal factors and processes that give rise to them' (Saunders 2001, 100), the ways in which the government and the Reference Group have respectively deployed ideas of welfare dependency and participation have proven analytically inadequate in understanding the processes involved. In turn, this has resulted in policy solutions that are unlikely to produce a significant increase in economic independence.

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the nature of the problem that the Government has sought to address, that of the high proportion of people of workforce age (2) receiving social security payments (3). This proportion has grown from 4 per cent in 1966 to 12 per cent in 1980 to 21 per cent in 2000. This paper begins by examining this growth. It then discusses the major structural reasons for changes in these data, identifying the effects of policy changes and the importance of changes in the labour market and household composition in redistributing employment and earned income. The final section draws out the significance of these analyses for possible policy solutions.

The Welfare Reform Problem

The central reason given by the Government for the need for welfare reform was the increase in welfare dependency as demonstrated by the numbers of workforce age persons receiving social security income support. To illustrate this, a diagram similar to Figure 1 was often produced (Newman 1999b; FaCS 1999).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Notes:

Income support figures here and throughout the paper are drawn from Bond and Whiteford, 2001. Labour force data and civilian population data are from ABS Labour Force Survey time series. Estimated Resident Population data are drawn from ABS estimated Resident Population Time Series.

These income support figures include dependent spouses of beneficiaries, although these were not paid directly before 1994. They also include Student Assistance and Service Pensions.

Not one government document defines `welfare dependency' or provides a framework for understanding how one may become welfare dependent. While one interpretation is simply the state of being financially reliant on welfare payments, the popular use also implies passivity, laziness, `work shyness' and a failure to help oneself (Fraser & Gordon 1994; Mead 2000).

Minister Newman (1999b, p.5) argued that the increasing gap between the unemployment rate and total recipient numbers, meant that increases in unemployment, or lack of jobs, explained only a decreasing part of recipient numbers and were thus evidence of an increase in passive welfare dependency (cf RGWR 2000a, Figure 2.1).

 The graph highlights that most workforce-age people on income support are
 not the unemployed. The number of people on unemployment payments has
 fallen since 1993 in line with the decline in unemployment, but the number
 on other payments has increased. (Newman 1999b, p.5).

Furthermore, this interpretation is reinforced by Government's policy solutions to increase the activity test requirements for income support recipients, to tighten disability and parenting payment regulations and to reinforce penalties for breaching activity requirements. These are responses that aim to increase labour supply by increasing the number and vigour of welfare recipients seeking work.

In contrast to the Government's rhetoric of welfare dependency, the Reference Group interpreted the welfare reform problem primarily in terms of participation and the uneven distribution of employment (RGWR 2000b, 64).

Both of these views problematise working age welfare receipt as somehow illegitimate, undeserved or lacking, while avoiding the critical questions of who should be seeking work, how much employment the Australian economy can provide and who is legitimately outside the labour force. What kinds of social or educational participation other than paid employment are acceptable? How many hours of paid work are reasonable? Are there circumstances in which a person should be entitled to public income support without an obligation to look for work?

While both the Government and the Reference Group avoided these questions, their statistics implicitly embodied particular attitudes about those receiving income support. For example, the formulation of the welfare dependency problem has so far excluded the largest group (40 per cent) of social security recipients, namely age pensioners. It also excludes veterans of active military service and their partners and widows, who are permitted an unconditional service pension five years earlier than their civilian counterparts. The exclusion of these groups from concern suggests that the government regards some people and activities as deserving of income support, especially without the requirement to look for work. Once this is recognised, we are forced to ask whether people incapable of working because of illness or disability, caters of people with disabilities and those undertaking education or training should be entitled to income support without job search requirements. What recognition is given to the caring responsibility for children? How much choice should parents have in combining employment and caring activities (cf Mendes 2000)? How much choice should people have to undertake some other socially useful activity such as volunteering or to combine these with paid work?

Rather than separating deserving income support recipients from the undeserving, in this paper we seek to examine the trends in income support amongst all working age people to identify the factors that have contributed to the changing recipient numbers. In doing so, we exclude those of age pension age, and women aged 60 and over, from our analysis.

Getting the recipient count right

In seeking to understand the changes in the incidence of income support receipt it is necessary to get the recipient count comparable over time. There are several points to note:

* Some payments, such as service pensions, student assistance and training allowances have been made outside the social security system and this can affect the number of people receiving social security payments--service pensions and student assistance have been included in Figure 1, but there is inadequate data on training allowances;

* Some policy changes throughout the period have increased the coverage of people in need, either through introduction of new payments, increased coverage of existing payments or making payments directly to both partners in a couple rather than paying a dependent spouse allowance to the primary pensioner or beneficiary;

* The relaxation of income tests and the growth in the incidence of part-time jobs has enabled far more people to combine part-rate income support with part-time employment.

Certain policy changes in the period examined increased the number of people eligible for benefits or altered the proportions on particular payments. These changes have been made in response to gaps in the system, recognising the labour force barriers for people caring or children or dependent adults, encouraging participation in education, training and part-time work, and increasing gender equity:

1. Supporting Mothers Benefit was introduced in 1974 and was broadened to include male sole parents in 1978. Some sole parents had been eligible for Class A Widow's Pension since 1942 and assistance from the States, but these payments were based on inequitable and antiquated conditions. Carer Pension was introduced in 1984.

2. Wife's Pension was introduced for wives of age or invalid pensioners in 1972 to replace a wives' allowance paid directly to the age or invalid pensioner.

3. The reform of student assistance in 1985-86 when Austudy was introduced provided far more equitable support for students, underpinning the aims of encouraging the dramatic increase in education participation. Student assistance numbers doubled at that point from an estimated 93,600 to 189,000 and redoubled to 360,000 in 2000.

4. Until 1994, dependent partners (usually wives) of unemployment, sickness and special benefit recipients were covered by an additional benefit paid to the principal (male) beneficiary. This was replaced by Partner and Parenting Allowances, paid directly to the dependent partners, in recognition of their workforce disadvantages. From July 1995, dependent partners aged under 40 without children ceased to be eligible for Partner Allowance, as they were no longer regarded as having barriers to work.

5. The 1995 introduction of Parenting Allowance extended eligibility to parents partnered with low-income workers. These new recipients make up nearly 4 per cent of workforce age recipients. Before this, a parent who was caring for children and partnered with a low-wage worker was not eligible for any assistance, while her counterpart whose partner was receiving unemployment benefits was. This arrangement was inequitable and was thought to lead to work disincentives.

6. The increased age of eligibility for Age Pension for women has led to a higher receipt of other payments by women aged 60 to 62, now counted as being of workforce age. These are not included in Figure 1.

7. Increased generosity of the income test withdrawal rates (in 1969, 1987, 1995 and 2000) has allowed more people with some private income to receive a part-rate pension or benefit. While these measures were taken to encourage recipients to take up part-time work, they therefore increased coverage.

8. The reduction of the age of children regarded as dependent and the phasing out of non-work tested payments for widows and wives/partners of social security recipients, seem to have reduced the overall rate of income support among those groups, to have been associated with higher labour force participation and employment for some women but also led to more women claiming unemployment and disability payments.

It is crucial to note that people on payments other than unemployment payments do look for and take up work. Minister Newman's terminology quoted above is both misleading and pejorative. The highest proportion of recipients combining work and income support are sole parents receiving Parenting Payment (single)--23 per cent of whom were reporting earnings in 1999. Full-time students receiving Youth Allowance or Austudy also have high rates of part-time work. The fact that people are eligible for payments that do not require active job search does not prevent them from doing so.

The data show that the largest increases in welfare receipt occurred between 1975 and 1983 and between 1990 and 1993. Since that time the proportion has been fairly stable. Figure 2 gives a breakdown by payment type over time. Payments to the unemployed show the greatest increases, but vary with economic cycles. Payments to partners, carers and parents (predominantly women) have increased steadily, partly due to increases in unemployment among their partners. Payments to sole parents have increased, reflecting an increase in the number of sole parents partly offset by higher employment rates among sole parents. The steady growth in educational allowances reflects the increasing participation in education, particularly among young people, as well as changes in eligibility for student assistance.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Understanding the changes

In developing policy responses to this significant long-term change in recipient numbers, a detailed understanding of the structural factors underlying and contributing towards the changes is needed. We consider the economy and its effect on the labour market, demographic changes and their interaction. (4)

Demand for employment

The use of the unemployment rate in Figure 1 is designed to distinguish between those who are seeking work and those who are not. However it does not provide information about trends in total labour force participation and employment. Nor does it give an idea of the number of people who are not employed and yet not receiving income support. Unlike Figure 1, which showed only the income support numbers and the unemployment rate, Figure 3 shows the `total jobless' that is the percentage of the workforce age population (5) without work; the percentage receiving income support and the percentage categorised as unemployed.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Figure 3 shows that in the long term the rise in income support is not associated with falling employment overall, but that more of the people without employment are receiving income support.

Rather than a decline in the work ethic, over the long term, the percentage of people without jobs has been falling, and the proportion of those who are seeking work has been rising. Thus, in aggregate terms, the increase in income support receipt cannot be explained by a trend towards labour force withdrawal, as the welfare dependency hypothesis would have us believe.

There has however been a major re-distribution of jobs within the population, with some groups losing and others gaining jobs. Within the long-term trend, Figure 3 shows that the proportion of people without jobs increased in the recessions of the 1970s, 1983 and 1993. The corresponding rise in income support receipt at each of those periods did not subside as employment grew. Many of those who lost jobs at these points were not the ones to obtain the new jobs as the labour market recovered.

Despite the job losses that occurred in these recessions, labour force participation rose almost continuously from 68 per cent of people of workforce age in 1966 to 76 per cent by 2002. Figure 4 shows that, by 2000, both labour force participation and employment among people of workforce age had risen almost as high as they had ever been. Seventy-six per cent were in the labour force, and 71 per cent were employed.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

The fact that the proportion of people wanting jobs has risen faster than the number of jobs has resulted in increasing numbers of unemployed, exacerbated in the recession periods.

In addition the official unemployment figure may underestimate the true level. First, the unemployment figure does not include many people who are jobless and want work, such as `discouraged job seekers', and those who wish to work but had not actively sought work in the reference period. If we were to add such `hidden unemployment' to the official unemployment statistics, then our measurement of the number of people who want work, but cannot obtain it, is more than doubled. In September 2000, the Bureau of Statistics found that 631,000 people were `unemployed' while a further 824,000 were `marginally attached' to the labour force (ABS, 2000).

Job vacancy statistics provide an alternative way to assess the extent to which income support receipt is due to a lack of jobs. Clearly, the number of unemployed persons per job vacancy varies in accordance with the economic cycle. Despite this, since the late 1970s there has been no less than five unemployed persons for every job vacancy, with extended periods of about ten unemployed persons per job vacancy and peaks of over thirty unemployed persons for every vacancy (Figure 5). Furthermore, in using these data, we must also be aware that these statistics do not take account of the rise of skill-mismatch--whereby available jobs require skills that unemployed persons do not have--or the existence of jobs in locations where there are no appropriately skilled workers, issues to which we will return in the policy section.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

The rise in the unemployment rate and income support reliance is thus not due primarily to either a fall in the total amount of work available or a decline in the work ethic of the Australian population. As well as the policy changes discussed above, the apparent paradox between the high rates of both employment and income support receipt is explained by a redistribution of employment consequent to changes in the labour market and household composition, topics to which we now turn.

Labour Market Segmentation

The changes in the labour market, as in other OECD countries, include significant declines in manufacturing, agriculture, mining and utilities and low-skilled jobs, and a growth in service sector, professional and high-skilled jobs.

There have been major shifts in the composition of employment. These shifts have been by sex, age, marital status, work intensity, geography, occupation, skill level, industry and wages. The key points are that:

* full-time work has declined, while part-time work has increased;

* male employment has declined, while female employment has increased;

* traditional working class men's jobs have significantly declined;

* there has been a growth in high skilled jobs;

* there has been a significant fall in the employment of mature aged men; and

* full-time job opportunities for young school leavers have fallen steeply, while longer education participation, often in combination with part-time work has become the more dominant pattern.

The proportion of workforce aged men who were employed fell from 90 per cent in 1966 to 77 per cent in 2002, while workforce age female employment rose from 42 per cent to 65 per cent in the same period. Figure 6 shows the trends in men's and women's full-time and part-time employment over that time.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

This shows that male full time employment has fallen from 87 per cent to 66 per cent, with about one-third of that replaced by part-time work, mainly among students and mature aged men. In contrast, women's full time employment has increased very slightly over the period, from 32 per cent to 35 per cent but their rate of part-time employment has tripled from 10 per cent to 30 per cent.

This shift is partly a result of changes in the type of work available. Unskilled jobs have to some degree been replaced by jobs requiring greater skill levels. In the types of full-time work available, there have been big reductions in traditional working class men's jobs--such as manufacturing, mining, primary industries and utilities--while there have been significant increases in the hospitality and tourism industries, property and business services and personal services sectors, areas in which women are often employed (Kryger, 1998). These are also sectors in which considerable part-time work is available. The lower skilled jobs are far more likely to be casual or part-time than they once were.

It is likely that the growth in part-time employment has come about partly because of the demands of the employment market and partly because of the demand from students, women with caring responsibilities and older workers for part-time employment opportunities. The part-time workforce thus comprises both people who wish to work part-time and those who would prefer longer hours but are unable to find suitable full-time employment. Both these groups are disadvantaged by the tendency for much part-time employment to be casual and insecure.

On the basis of ABS Labour force figures and FaCS income support data, it can be assumed that around 58 per cent of women working part-time have an employed husband, while about 15 per cent combine part-rate income support with part-time or intermittent employment (6). On the basis of similar assumptions, around twenty-two per cent of men working part-time have an employed wife, while 22 per cent combine part-time work and part-rate income support.

The employment to population ratio for men has fallen steadily for all age groups. The biggest falls in have been for young (15 to 24) and mature-aged men (55 to 64). Employment has thus become more highly concentrated in the prime age group, that is 25 to 54. The labour force participation rate has fallen most steeply for men aged 55 and over, while the shift from full-time to part-time work has been greatest for men aged 15 to 24, and they have the highest rates of unemployment, participation in education and training among 15 to 24 year olds has increased markedly in this period and much of the employment is part-time employment in combination with full-time education. There is debate in regard to mature aged men about how much of their labour force withdrawal is due to discouragement and how much is voluntary early retirement.

In contrast to men's experience, women's employment to population ratios have risen for all age groups except those aged 15 to 19. The highest rates of growth are between 25 and 54, age groups that formerly had low rates of employment. In 1966, forty per cent of employed women of workforce age were aged 15 to 24: by 2000 that proportion was 21 per cent.

Dawkins, Gregg and Scutella (2002) show that the fall in male employment is associated with early school leaving, while the rise in women's employment occurred at all education levels (Table 1). Their figures do not show changes in the distribution of educational attainment among men and women.

The employment story for women is significantly different for single and partnered women. Figure 7 shows full-time and part-time employment trends over the period for partnered and single women.

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

Partnered women have dramatically increased their employment from a low starting base (from 20 per cent of partnered women of workforce age in full-time work and 11 per cent in part-time work in 1966 to 35 per cent full-time and 32 per cent part-time in 2002).

Employment for single women of workforce age has slightly declined over the period. There was a marked drop in full-time employment from 61 per cent to 34 per cent in 2002 and a substantial rise in part-time employment from 7 per cent in 1966 to 27 per cent in 2002. The proportion of women who are single has grown from 29 per cent in 1966 to 41 per cent in 2000 and their age distribution has changed, with a far higher proportion being sole parents. We will return to this topic in the next section.

Household composition

Over the last three decades there has been a significant growth in households with only one adult. This is partly due to the delay and reduction in marriage and partnering, but also due to the increase in separation and marriage dissolution.

Between 1966 and 2002 the percentage of women aged 20 to 54 who were single increased from 17 per cent to 35 per cent (7). Landt and Pech (2000) report that the proportion of sole parents among single women aged 15 to 64 increased from 14 per cent in 1979 to 20 per cent in 1999. This increase explains some of the labour market changes, especially the reduction in full-time employment, among single women. ABS Australian Families data (ABS, 2000) shows that 49 per cent of sole mothers with dependents are employed, compared with 61 per cent of partnered mothers. This difference is not, however, due to a lack of active job search among sole mothers. The unemployment rate for sole mothers was 13 per cent in 2000, compared with 5 per cent for partnered mothers.

Second, there has been a shift from single income couples to dual income and jobless households. The latter are frequently couples with low skills. As shown above, the highest areas of employment growth have been among partnered women, and these are overwhelmingly partnered with employed men. Ninety-four per cent of employed wives have employed husbands, compared with 51 per cent of jobless wives (including those of pension age) (8). In only 1 in 10 single earner couple households is it the wife who is employed, rather than the husband. For a discussion of the reasons for this gender pattern, see Cass (2002).

To put it simply, while once the great majority of families consisted of an employed man and a non-employed woman, this pattern has largely given way to two income families, no income families and single people, with or without children. In June 2000, 56 per cent of couples had two earners, 24 per cent had one earner and 20 per cent had no earners (included retired households). Twenty-one percent of families with dependents were sole parent families, 51 per cent of whom were employed. Forty-five per cent of dependent children live in double income couple families, 36 per cent live in single income families and 19 per cent live in jobless families (Landt and Pech 2000, Table 2.1).

The effect on income support numbers

As the earlier analysis of unmet demand for employment suggests, structural changes in the labour market and household composition have contributed significantly to the growth in income support numbers. Due to changing patterns in partnering and separation, there are now more households seeking an income--either from the labour market or from the social security system--than 30 years ago.

At the same time, the substantial changes in the nature of employment have seen a net loss of jobs for low-skilled men and increase among women. As employment among partnered women has been greatest in couples where the male partner is also employed, this has led to a greater number of jobless households and a decline in the proportion of couple households with one partner employed.

Although eligibility for payments is now on an individual basis (see above, page 10) the income support income test is still based on the couple, rather than on individual partners. There was some easing of this rule under the Working Nation changes in 1995, in relation to Newstart and related payments, so that a person with no income can still qualify for some income support if his or her partner earns less than $518 a week. In the family type headed by a single earner couple, the dependent partner usually is not entitled to income support because of the breadwinner's income. The polarisation of employment among couples has led to an increase of two income support recipients in most jobless couples and an increase in the proportion of single adult income units who are either unemployed or not in the labour force, most of whom receive income support.

The significant growth in part-time jobs has not resulted in an overall reduction in recipient numbers for three reasons: the growth in part-time work is concurrent with the loss of full-time jobs; some people can combine a part-time wage with a partrate benefit; and many part-time workers are women with full-time employed male partners. The proportion of people receiving income support has grown because of the decline in full-time jobs, because of many couples in which neither partner has work or because of the many who are single and out of work.

Concluding policy reflections

The foregoing analysis of the underlying reasons for the rise in income support recipients provides the basis for the identification and assessment of practical policy responses.

The falls in employment from the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s and again in the early 1990s and the dramatic increases in income support receipt led to a reasonable analysis that the predominant issue was the need to increase employment overall. The debate was whether the falls were due to a failure of demand for labour, that is, not enough jobs, or a failure in supply, that is that those out of work were not trying hard enough to find jobs. Policy solutions proposed from this analysis included the need to restore the economy to provide its former level of jobs or to tighten the availability of income support to those who were not genuinely seeking work.

Since the mid 1990s, however, job growth and employment have been growing strongly, but income support numbers have not fallen substantially. This is because of the higher proportion of jobless people who are either single or whose partners are themselves out of work or in very low paid employment.

The first policy question is how much faster employment can be increased, either by measures to increase labour force participation or by measures to increase the demand for labour. If participation continues to increase faster than the growth in demand, then the result will be higher rates of unemployment, rather than lower income support numbers.

In the last fifteen years, social policy has increasingly focused its attention on welfare recipients as a means to move them from welfare to work and tended to eschew policy approaches to the structural realities described above. (9) Unemployment policy has adopted a two pronged approach.

On the one hand, it seeks to increase the employability and skills (ie competitiveness) of jobless individuals. This is certainly a response to the structural component of unemployment, that is where there is unmet demand for certain types of skilled labour in certain areas. However, unless overall employment is increased, such a strategy could only reduce income support if these people take jobs away from people whose partners are already in full-time employment.

The other strategy is based on the idea that the jobless are not trying hard enough to get work and operates by berating the unemployed, requiring them to be more active in seeking work and providing improved incentives to take up employment. Because such a strategy does not recognise the importance of the structural barriers to employment, it too is ineffective. (10) This becomes particularly evident when we note that the increasing demands on the unemployed are not correlated with improvements in employment outcomes.

Most of the recommendations of the Welfare Reform Reference Group (RGWR 2000b) and the subsequent policies of the Government (Howard & Newman 2000) have followed these strategies, which are likely to be marginally effective at best or counterproductive at worst.

Given the limitations of these policy approaches, what are the other options in distributing work? The foregoing analysis suggests some areas in which policies might be considered.

The overall labour demand could be increased, through re-balancing of employment, economic and investment policies (aimed at job growth not only inflation management). Policies can seek to halt the loss of jobs in industries employing low skilled men. The idea that nothing can be done in a globalised world has led governments to reduce their facilitative role in maintaining or developing jobs in areas typically undertaken by working class men. The failure to invest in public infrastructure projects has also exacerbated this dynamic. Some effect could be achieved by an increase in public sector investment in more labour intensive activities, rather than placing high political emphasis on downsizing in publicly provided or funded services.

Currently available work could be re-distributed in several ways. Excess working hours could be reduced to help generate extra jobs.

Policies that sought to reduce the incidence and attractiveness of dual-income households, would be highly inequitable. To the extent that this would discourage either men or women in couple households from taking up paid employment, such policies would deepen inequality between the sexes, reducing the supply of skilled labour in the workforce and leaving the non-working partner vulnerable to poverty and needing income support in the event of relationship breakdown.

Policies to re-distribute work across the lifecycle are also highly problematic. Encouraging early retirement has had the effect of increasing income support take-up among older men and providing flow on effects to greater expenditure on retirement income support.

Barriers to employment can be reduced, such as discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race and class, a lack of appropriate and affordable child care, and health problems. However, as these options only seek to redistribute the number of jobs, they are unlikely to have a significant effect on income support numbers.

Further attention could be given to structural unemployment issues. Labour market segmentation on gender lines reduces the willingness of men to take up what are seen as traditionally women's jobs. New jobs often arise in areas of low unemployment, areas to which low-income people find it hard to get to due to distance from jobs and poor public transport. Greater effort could be directed to analysing skills mismatch between the skills required and those which the unemployed possess.

In summary, the growth in welfare recipients occurred in the years 1975 to 1983 and in the early 1990s. Apart from policy changes that extended entitlement to redress gaps in the coverage of those in need and reduced work disincentives, the main reasons for this change are structural and involve transformations in the labour market and household composition. These structural realities demonstrate that cultural `welfare dependency' or individual failings are not the source of the increase. Given the significance of these structural changes, the recently promoted policies of welfare reform are unlikely to significantly reduce levels of income support receipt, but could prove counterproductive to the well being of those without independent income.

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

Table 1: Employment to population ratios by sex and education level
--persons of workforce age--1982, 1990, 1997/98

 Males

 university other post no post
 secondary secondary

1982 92.9 87.8 81.6
1990 94.9 87.4 78.6
1997/98 93.2 84.9 76.0

 Females

 university Other post no post
 secondary secondary

1982 79.2 62.4 49.2
1990 82.0 71.8 56.3
1997/98 82.6 72.4 57.0

Source: Dawkins, Gregg and Scutella, Tables A3 and A4,
from ABS, Income Distribution Surveys of Income and Housing Costs

Paul Henman * and Julia Perry ([dagger])

* Department of Sociology, Macquarie University

([dagger]) Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales

Notes

This paper represents a major reworking of two separate papers given individually by the authors at the Mutual Obligation and Welfare States in Transition Workshop at the University of Sydney, 22-23 February 2001.

(Endnotes)

(1) This phrase is used by Patricia Harris (1999).

(2) Age 16 to 64 for men and 16 to 59 for women. The recent increase in pension age for women has not been included to ensure that these age ranges are comparable over time.

(3) Not including family payments or other supplements such as mobility or carer allowance. Social security payments refer to those paid under the Social Security Act 1991 as amended.

(4) Population ageing is another factor often argued to exacerbate income support numbers. However, Jackson (1999) has calculated that cohort effects have only had a significant effect on sole parent pension numbers (a rise of 4% from 1971 to 1997). It is expected that cohorts will increase disability support pension numbers from about now.

(5) The not employed and unemployed groups are shown as a percentage of the civilian population aged 15-64 (men) and 15-59 (women). The income support numbers are percentages of the resident population aged 15-64 (men) and 16-59 (women).

(6) ABS Labour force survey data for June 2000 show 1,749,100 women and 651,200 men working Part time in June 2000 and 1,683,500 women and 660,900 men in part time work I 1999. ABS (2000), shows 1,010,600 women and 142,600 men working part-time with employed partners. FaCS (1999b) data at June 1999 show 259,700 women and 148,600 men receiving income support and declaring earnings. The calculations in the text for the proportions of part-time workers with employed partners at June 2000, and the proportions receiving income support at June 1999. It is assumed that the proportions remain constant between 1999 and the present.

(7) These data are drawn from ABS Labour Force Survey Time Series.

(8) These figures include the pension age population as well as the working age population. Source ABS, 6224.0 Labour Force Status and other Characteristics of Families, Australia, June 2000.

(9) For a detailed description of these policy changes see, for example, Bond and Wang, 2001.

(10) For other analyses of structural barriers to employment see, for example, Argy (1998), Kinnear (2000) and Walker (1999).

References

Argy, F (1998) `Australia at the Crossroads: Radical Free Market or progressive Liberalism? Key Issues and Conclusions', proceedings from a Policy Forum Seminar: Economic and Social Policy in Australia: Is There a Third Way?, Melbourne Institute for Applied Economic and Social Research.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001) Australian Social Trends 2001, Catalogue No. 4102.0

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2000) Labour Force Status and other Characteristics of Families, Australia, Catalogue No. 6224.0

Bond, K and Wang, J (2001) Income Support and Related Statistics: A 10 year compendium, 1989-1999, FACS Occasional Paper No 1

Bond, K and Whiteford, P (2001) Trends in Income Support for People of Workforce Age 1965 to 1999, FACS, unpublished

Cass, B, (2002), "Employment Time and Family Time: The Intersections of Labour Market Transformations and Family Responsibilities in Australia", in R Callus and R Landsbury, eds (2002) Working Futures: The Changing Nature of Work and Employment Relations in Australia, Federation Press, Sydney

Dawkins, P, Gregg P, and Scutella, R (2002) Employment Polarisation in Australia, Melbourne Institute Working Paper No 9/02, Melbourne

Dean, H and Taylor-Gooby, P (1992) Dependency Culture: the explosion of a myth, New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) (1999a) `Trends in pension and benefit receipt', Research FaCS Sheet, Number 2, Canberra.

Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) (1999b) FaCS Clients --Persons by age and payment type--June 1999, unpublished.

Foster, R A (1996), Australian Economic Statistics 1949-50 to 1994-95, Reserve Bank of Australia, Occasional Papers No 8, June 1996.

Fraser, Nancy and Gordon, Linda (1994) `A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the US Welfare State' Signs, 19(2), 309-336.

Freeland, J (1997), "The Anatomy of Vulnerability" in Chris Sheil (ed), Turning point: The State of Australia, Allen and Unwin, Sydney

Harris, Patricia (1999) `From relief to mutual obligation: welfare rationalities and unemployment in 20th-century Australia' Journal of Sociology, 37(1), 5-26.

Henman, Paul (2002a) `Deconstructing Welfare Dependency: the case of Australian welfare reform', Radical Statistics, No. 79, in print.

Henman, Paul (2002b) `The Poverty of Welfare Reform Discourse', in T. Eardley & B. Bradbury (ed.) Competing Visions: Refereed Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001, SPRC Report 1/02, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 180-191.

Howard, John and Newman, Jocelyn (2000) Welfare Reform--A Stronger, Fairer Australia, the Government's Statement on Welfare Reform, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.

Jackson, Natalie (1999) `Understanding population ageing: a background', Australian Social Policy, No. 1, 203-224.

Kinnear, Pamela (2000), Mutual Obligation: Ethical and Social Implications, Australia Institute Discussion Paper No 32, Canberra.

Kryger, Tony (1998) `What is happening to full-time jobs?' Research Note 26 1997-98, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, Canberra.

Landt, John and Pech, Jocelyn (2000) `Work and welfare in Australia: the changing role of income support', Australian Social Policy, 2000/2, 33-54.

Mead, Lawrence (2000) `Welfare Reform and the Family: Lessons from America' in Peter Saunders (ed.) Reforming the Australian Welfare State, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, pp 44-61.

Mendes, Philip (2000) `Eliminating welfare dependency not poverty: a critical analysis of the Howard Government's Welfare Reform Review' Policy, Organisation and Society, 19(2): 23-38.

Newman, Jocelyn (1999a) `The Future of Welfare in the 21st Century', speech given at the National Press Club, Canberra, 29 September.

Newman, Jocelyn (1999b) `The Challenge of Welfare Dependency in the 21st Century', Discussion Paper prepared for Welfare Reform Reference Group, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.

Reference Group on Welfare Reform (RGWR) (2000a) Participation Support for a More Equitable Society, Interim report, Volume 2: Technical and Other Appendices, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.

Reference Group on Welfare Reform (RGWR) (2000b) Participation Support for a more Equitable Society, Final Report, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra

Saunders, Peter (2001) `Reflections on Social Security and the Welfare Review', Th e Australian Economic Review, 34(1), 100-108.

Walker, Robert (1999), "`Welfare to Work' versus Poverty and Family Change: Policy lessons from the USA", Work, Employment and Society, Vol 13, No 3, pp 539-553