“Explain the relationship between structural inequality and poverty, providing an example of a social policy that has successfully addressed that link.”
Structural inequality and poverty are linked extensively, the prevalence of poverty demographics being personified by a specific group, be it by race, gender, religion or through a class system, is high and can be found throughout the world. This essay will explain and explore the relationship between structural inequality and poverty with specific reference to Indigenous Australians. First, this essay will offer a definition of structural inequality and poverty and present a brief outline of current theories and idea’s, showing that there is a wide range of understandings of these concepts. Second, this essay will further explore the relationship between structural inequality and poverty using specific examples of Australian Social policy against Indigenous Australians. Finally, this essay will provide an example of a successful social policy which is addressing this link within indigenous communities.
Firstly, there are divergences in the definitions of structural inequality, Rousseau discusses two types of inequality, natural inequality and ethical inequality (Hall 1973), Marx focuses on the severe structural inequalities of the class system in 19thC Europe and argues that this inequality is firmly based on economic reasons (Elster 1985). Max Weber contends this argument and points towards a variety of factors including belief, family and culture (Schroeder 1992). Durkheim and Giddens will also give you their own ideas (Grabb 1984, Dingley 2008). The wide range of understandings means a clear definition must preclude any discussion of the topic. This essay will treat structural inequality as something which presents as a heavily rooted system of unequal living standards, treatment and income in a society on a long term or generational basis. Often it can arise from social or cultural factors such as demonstrated throughout Marx’s critique of the class system, but it can also be in the form of social marginalisation from factors such as geographic isolation, like those living in remote communities, or societal separation, like those living with disabilities.
Poverty has traditionally been used to describe persons who are lacking wealth relative to their needs (Saunders 2003). Jenkins and Micklewright (2007) remark that the common use of indices such as the Gini Coefficient to summarise poverty in terms of the proportion of population who are poor is an inadequate set of data to correctly measure poverty. Similarly, the World Bank defines poverty as when a person’s standard of living falls below the poverty line (World Bank 2011). However, there is an active community of theorists who are developing this understanding of poverty. Rufus Akindola (2009) states that this economic understanding misses a large portion of contributing factors such as vulnerability, physical and social isolation, insecurity, lack of self-respect, and powerlessness. The Human Development Report explains that while economic well being is certainly an important factor, education, healthcare and participation are also integral to poverty alleviation (UNDP 1997). This essay takes this wider understanding of poverty as including economic and social factors in its definition.
When dealing solely with income inequality in contrast to the Gini Coefficient, the correlation between structural inequality and poverty is directly visible; it can be seen that as your income drops relative to societal norms (income inequality), you also approach or drop below the ‘poverty line’. But education is also key to understanding this relationship. Differences in education have major impacts on poverty levels and income inequalities. Additionally, inequalities in education help foster a range of other disparities, such as health, employment and the ability to perceive and take opportunities (Micklewright & Schnepf 2007). It therefore stands to reason that if inequalities in education foster inconsistency in employment, health and opportunity, poverty due to low income is going to be not just present, but cyclical. Noland and Whelan (2007) support this, highlighting the European Union’s adopted indicators to include education, health, unemployment and worklessness in addition to income inequality and poverty. They provide the definition that poverty is when a person’s resources are seriously below sufficient levels that they become excluded from ordinary activities, customs and living patterns. This definition not only shows the link between poverty and structural inequality but includes social exclusion as a central determinant.
Australia, specifically the treatment of the Indigenous people since British colonisation, is a particular case which will now be discussed. Engerman and Sokoloff (2006) argue that the extreme initial inequality throughout the colonies of Europe led to the innate structuralisation of inequality built into institutions as they evolved. He shows that those colonisers who suffered from rampant inequality in their home nation passed this on to their colonies. This inequality in turn became institutionalised leading to long-term structural inequality issues as evident in the former colonies of South and Central America. In contrast, those colonies that were established at a later time when a colonisers domestic inequality was less of a factor, such as those in North America and Australia, have grown tremendously and have quite developed social and economic societies. However that is not to say inequality in these societies is nonexistent. This is particularly demonstrated in Australia through the Indigenous population.
Throughout Australian history, inequality has been institutionalised, socialised and legitimised. It was not until the 1960’s that the Indigenous Peoples of Australia began gaining formal rights and equalities (Chesterman 2005). The policies for Indigenous assimilation from the 1930’s to the 1960’s legitimised efforts to ‘breed out’ and remove Indigenous people and culture from Australia. Perhaps one of these policies which has had some of the greatest repercussions is what is known as the ‘Stolen Generation’. During this time, indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and placed in the care of white families or organisations with the goal of ‘civilizing’ them (Briskman 2003). Officially, this policy had ceased by the 1970’s but the generational inequalities it has contributed continue today.
Due to the destruction of their cultural ties, many of these indigenous persons speak of feeling like they do not belong to either the Indigenous community or the non-indigenous community, they have become socially outcast (Healey 1998). The implications of this are easily found; in2006, literacy and numeracy levels were significantly lower, with as few as 21.7% being over the minimum standard in some areas (relative to year level), and only 45.3% of indigenous Australians attained a Year 12 certificate (compared to 86.3% of non-indigenous) (Department of Families, Housing, Community Services, and Indigenous Affairs 2006). Indigenous policy is particularly difficult due to changes in the way the Government deals with indigenous affairs, structural barriers, and a general misunderstanding of indigenous communities and culture (Brady 2007). These inequalities highlight the inherent marginalisation of indigenous persons, and thus the immersion of a large of proportion of indigenous persons into poverty.
However, there are indigenous social policies making ground in the area, and whilst it is too early to declare them 'successful', they are certainly promoting positive outcomes. For example, the Cape York Welfare Reform Program(2006) addresses four areas: social responsibility, economic opportunity, housing and education. Steps are being taken to promote business, tenancy responsibilities and there are a large variety of steps being taken in education. The project embodies three phases: engaging with the community to recognise issues, development of a community led vision for the future and finally, seek formal support from the community. These phases recognise a key area which has been neglected by previous policies; It is a community centred project, engaged and developed with community members allowing them to recognise the issues, understand them, and then work together to combat them (Cape York Institute 2007). This approach aims directly at removing the social stratification of indigenous peoples, a factor which has been identified as a key determinant in structural inequality.
At this point, there have already been noticeable improvements in education, alcohol abuse and housing arrangements. The Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Report (2011) from the Productivity Commission notes that retention rates throughout secondary school have increased from 32% to 47% and year 12 attainment rates have increased by 20% Australia wide between 2001 and 2006. The report specifically notes the Cape York Institute's efforts in providing indigenous children with access to Queensland's most academically successful boarding schools. In post-secondary education, the report notes that the proportion of indigenous 20 - 64 year olds working towards higher education increased from 26% to 34% and higher education success rates increased from 65% to 70%. The report particularly notes the Cape York Institute again for its Higher Expectations Program - Tertiary (HEPT) for its efforts in targeting talented indigenous individuals and provides them with long-term support to undertake further studies. In regards to income, the report commends the Cape York Family Income Management project designed to build financial literacy, improve living standards and stabilise family functioning in a culturally sensitive way. Finally, while the report marks no significant improvement on alcohol related issues, it does note specifically that the Alcohol Management Plans in Cape York have led to reductions in the number of people seeking treatment for alcohol related injuries, alcohol related violence and anti-social behaviour. Still very early days, however these improvements and commendations are encouraging and point towards a successful, community led indigenous social policy.
To conclude, there are a wide variety of understandings of structural inequality and poverty. But it is certainly clear that the two concepts relate and effect each other directly. It has been suggested that the traditional understanding of poverty as being directly related to income is a superficial understanding, and that education and societal values play a large roll also. It has also been seen that structural inequality and poverty are very present in Australia, particularly in Indigenous communities. There have been a wide range of social policies aimed at indigenous Australians, some largely negative, some positive, but a highly positive policy which is making ground in the area is the Cape York Welfare Reform Program. Through community led projects, the program has made progress in education, alcohol usage and housing arrangements. So clearly it can be seen that whilst it is a challenging area of social policy, there are programs being implemented making positive changes.
References
Akindola, R 2009, ‘Towards a Definition of Poverty: Poor People’s Perspectives and Implications for Poverty Reduction’, Journal of Developing Societies, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 121-150.
Brady, M 2007, ‘Equality and difference: persisting historical themes in health and alcohol policies affecting Indigenous Australian’, Public Health Past and Present, Journal of Epidemiology Community Health 2007, vol. 61, pp. 759–763.
Briskman, L 2003, The Black Grapevine: Aboriginal Activism and the Stolen Generations, The Federation Press, Sydney, Australia.
Cape York Institute 2007, From Hand Out to Hand Up, Volume 2, Cape York Welfare Reform Project, viewed 15/09/2011, http://www.cyi.org.au/WEBSITE%20uploads/Welfare%20Reform%20Attachments/Cape%20York%20Welfare%20Reform%20Project%20-%20From%20Hand%20Out%20to%20Hand%20Up%20Volume%202.pdf
Cape York Institute 2007, Cape York, Queensland, viewed 15/09/2011, http://www.cyi.org.au/
Chesterman, J 2005, Civil Rights: how indigenous Australians won formal equality, University of Queensland Press, Queensland, Australia.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services, and Indigenous Affairs 2006, Closing The Gap on Indigenous disadvantage: the challenge for Australia, Viewed 15/09/2011, http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/pubs/general/Documents/closing_the_gap/p2.htm
Dingley, J 2008, Nationalism, Social Theory and Durkheim, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NY.
Engerman, S and Sokoloff, K 2006, ‘Colonialism, Inequality, and Long-Run Paths of Development’, in Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak, Dilip Mookherjee, and Roland Bénabou, Understanding Poverty, Oxford Scholarship Online, http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/private/content/economicsfinance/9780195305197/p060.html#acprof-9780195305197-chapter-3
Elster, J 1985, Making Sense of Marx; Part II: Theory of History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Grabb, E 1984, Social Inequalities: Classical and Contemporary Theorists, Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Toronto, Canada.
Hall, J.C 1973, Rousseau, The Macmillan Press, London, UK.
Healey, K 1998, Issues for the 90’s: The Stolen Generation, vol. 91, The Spinney Press, Balmain, Australia.
Jenkins, S and Micklewright, J 2007, ‘Inequality and Poverty: New Directions’, in Jenkins, S and Micklewiright, J (eds.) Inequality and Poverty re-examined, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Micklewright, J and Schnepf, S 2007, ‘Inequality of Learning in industrialized countries’, in Jenkins, S and Micklewiright, J (eds.) Inequality and Poverty re-examined, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nolan, B and Whelan, C 2007, ‘On the multidimensionality of poverty and social exclusion’, in Jenkins, S and Micklewiright, J (eds.) Inequality and Poverty re-examined, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Productivity Commission 2011, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2011, viewed 15/09/2011 http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/indigenous/key-indicators-2011
Saunders, P 2003, ‘Can Social Exclusion Provide a New Framework for Measuring Poverty?’, The Social Policy Research Centre, no. 127, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney, NSW.
Schroeder, R 1992, Max Weber and the Sociology of Culture, Sage Publications, London, UK.
United Nations Development Programme 1997, Human Development Report 1997: Human Development to Eradicate Poverty, UNDP, accessed 8/9/2011, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1997/
Word Limit: 2,000
Grade Awarded: High Distinction (85%)
Markers Comments: -
No comments:
Post a Comment