Jamrozik's Ideas on Social Policy Impact of Unemployment - Case Study Example

Policy Essay Assessment Item 2 Introduction This essay will discuss Unemployment and Unemployed group(s) in Australia with a focus on the effects of Social Policy (SP) debates and outcomes from restructuring of the Australian welfare state. It will provide a timeline on the trend for unemployment in Australia. Three policy domains will be discussed; Income security, Unemployment, and Education and how these domains link and have impacted each other. Jamrozik’s ideas on Social Policy changes from ‘Welfare-state’ to ‘Post-Welfare state’ will be analyzed with a focus on the right of ‘Social Citizenship’ in Australia, as well as State comparison. In addition, Jamrozik’s theoretical model will be briefly analyzed as it relates to the unemployed group and market function of economy. Finally, future implications of current policies on the unemployed group will be reviewed. Unemployment has been a social problem in most developing countries and Australia is no exception. According to Jamrozik (2009, p. 167) “unemployment remained an unresolved social problem” by the end of the 20th century, and has lasted for almost 30 years in most of the industrialised free-market economies of the West. Unemployment has been persistent and devastating but the term ‘unemployment’ has changed in history according to economic circumstances and social interventions (Loundes, 1997, p. 1). Unemployment has been characterized as “rates of over 8 per cent” in most of the recent period (Loundes, 1997, p. 2). However, it is often stated that the unemployment rate is not a true representation of the unemployment problem. This is because the current definition does not consider people who fail the availability for work criteria or job search but will still work if given a chance (Loundes, 1997, p. 5). The unemployed group in Australia include ‘Indigenous Australians’ who experience high unemployment rates (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 91). The latest data recorded in 2002 shows their rate of unemployment as “3.4 times higher than the population as a whole” in addition they are more likely to be employed on a part time basis (Kryger, 2005, Para. 5). Additionally, young people who leave school at age 15 or 16 years and those with low education performances are “predictably condemned to a life of marginality” (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 172). Regional differences affect employment opportunities, as well as lack of skills that are currently demanded in the labour market. Data shows in 2010-2011 there were over 116,700 Australians long-term unemployed (ABS, 2011, p.2). Across Australia, New-South Wales had a higher long-term unemployment rate (1.1%) and ratio (22%); Western Australia with 0.6% and 14%; Northern Territories 0.4% and 15%, and ACT, 0.4% and 11% (ABS, 2011, pp.2-3). 72% of long-term unemployed group lost their last jobs while 27% left as compared to the short-term unemployed where 57% lost their job while 43% left (ABS, 2011, p. 5). Previously the unemployed group did not have income security as part of their programs but are currently able to benefit from unemployment benefits. Income security provides vital dimensions for mitigating impacts of unemployment in Australia and is designed to cushion the unemployed from the effects of unemployment in the economy. Unemployment has developed through history in different ways due to changes in the Australian labour market. During the Colonial period, Australia had unemployed people but lacked unemployment benefits. Initially, the welfare system only provided for particular group(s) of people and included “old age pension, invalid pensions and maternity allowances” (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 79). However, this has grown to cover other social domains such as education, health, social security and community amenities among others. Later Classical liberalism, implemented unemployment benefits through the welfare-system to provide income security. A reason for this change was the continual increase of the Commonwealth powers in social welfare participation. In 1940s, further social legislation was implemented and the Federal role in accepting social policy responsibility was increased. This was to address the effects of the Great Depression and World War II. The Keynesian theoretical underpinning was applied to economic principles. It was expected to countervail the capitalism downturn cycles and provide income support for the unemployed (Jamrozik, p. 168). The Post-War period or the Reconstruction era was marked by activities like mass immigration to “speed economic recovery” (Stilwell, 2000, p. 29). The aim was to create a modern welfare state that would “ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities throughout the community” (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 80). From 1950 to 1972, social legislation featured piecemeal progress as driven by the political expediency necessity, as opposed to the desire to create a more equitable society. A radical departure from selective-residualist social policy was experienced from 1972 as the then Labor government embraced Universalist principles of social democratic-philosophy. Jamrozik (2009, p. 80) quotes Prime Minister Gough Whitlam stating that the “policy aimed to stimulate and promote social consumption and social participation”. More recently, unemployment benefits were seen as a “right through Social Citizenship” although this has not always been the case (Jamrozik (2009, p. 155) and changes have occurred on how social welfare is perceived today. Prior to the end of 20th century, globalisation had an effect on social policies implementation as it increased economic activities, driven by Neo-liberal philosophy and “promoted by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development” (OECD) (Jamrozik 2009, p. 36). The changing state of the global market has led the Australian government to adopt policies of “restricting public expenditure and introduced strict measures of control and review of social security recipients (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 82). In addition to employment, Social Policy has also affected education of Australian citizens. Education is “demonstrably one of the most significant” among the factors associated with unemployment (Jamrozik, 2009 p. 171). Prominent differences exist in the rates of unemployment in regards to the educational qualifications of a person. People with post-school-qualifications such as tertiary degrees have consistently maintained higher participation rates in the labour force as compared to those without the qualifications. The differences are causally related to alterations in the industries’ structures and the corresponding occupational structure of employment (Jamrozik, 2009 p. 165) Education is a universal right and in a democratic society “access to education is taken for granted as a citizen’s birthright,” as Jamrozik states from Marshall’s work (2009, p. 205). Education is considered as a life-long value investment but the change in the Australian society is reflected in the education expenditure university fees. The Education expenditure in Australia caters for between “5.2% and 5.8% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)” (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 211) with Commonwealth giving largest amount of finances aside from the state and private arrangements. Its initial expenditure was on tertiary education but, currently, it has shifted its focus to include private and public schools (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 213). Commonwealth’s support for private schools is higher than public schools thus increasing the attractiveness the former. Education is relevant in the overall productivity of the Australian economy. Education is a vital component when securing employment, “as it has in all industrialised and industrial­ising countries” (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 220). This is seen from the diminishing demand for low-skilled labour by industrialized countries. In the case of equality in wage rates, people are striving to achieve an education that will enhance them to be at equal social class. The reasons for changes to Unemployment and Education are because of the changes of social factors. Generally, the view is changing from a government’s responsibility or citizen’s right, to being seen as not coping well and ‘mutual obligation’ in what Jamrozik refers to as a ‘post-welfare state’. Jamrozik sees a shift from a “strong-welfare state to a residual or post-welfare state” (2009, p. 9). The post-welfare state provides minimal income support and thus hinders income security of the unemployed group, which can have a negative rippling effect on all aspects of the lives of those who are unemployed and their family. Fenna (2004, p. 357) states that the “welfare-state has only been around for half a century and for half of that it has been in a perennial state of crisis” The state’s support on inequality will ensure resources are unequally distributed across the country. The incline towards material incentives-money is aimed at stimulating the efficiency and productivity of managers and will ultimately encourage inequality. The post-welfare state thus becomes increasingly coercive towards the poor who are the losers of the free market economy. The Australian government has been under pressure to reduce expenditure by cutting down on social welfare. Contrary to the welfare-state, where there was acceptance of responsibility by the country on citizen’s welfare as a matter of deliberate policy, post-welfare state requires such acceptance to be “a matter of rather unfortunate necessity” (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 9). In early 1980’s, Australia relied on a welfare-state but as Jamrozik sets out, it currently appears to be practicing a post-welfare state; similar to many other industrialized countries. In the U.K, for example, acceptance of responsibilities by the state on its citizens was undertaken after the 2nd World war. The state administered National Health services and public housing to its citizens. Growth of long-term unemployment in the 1970s to early 80s led to increased dependency on Income supports. The social system ceased to apply with only “8% of males receiving National Insurance” (Spicker, 2011). The Unemployment Benefit was replaced by Jobseekers’ Allowance, a welfare reform based on principles of conditionality, personalization, and contracting out of provision. Conditionality subjects unemployed people to “sanctions for non-compliance with the rules” while contracting out of provisions attempts to “provide services to a large numbers of people” (Spicker, 2011). The emphasis was to engage people in the labour market as the main way out of poverty. Just as in Australia, the government has shifted its responsibility of Job Network programs by contracting them out to both private and non-profit organisations who supervise them. These programs enforce controlled-activity on unemployed, which if not adhered to can result in legal sanction, causing further disadvantage to those less fortunate. The service providers for these programs are quite often social-workers and welfare-workers and due to the nature of their work, imposing such consequences on their clients could produce ethical issues (Jamrozik, 2009, p. 175). According to Jamrozik theoretical model (Jamrozik, 2009, pp. 60-66), Australia’s social policy plays a vital role in the economy as it ensures physical survival of citizens within the economy and enhances the citizen’s social functioning in the market economy. Post-welfare state is more interested in free-market and overseas functioning rather than what happens in the country, yet citizens can benefit from government support. Provision of ‘Priority School Funding’ by the government has enabled some schools to perform extremely well. This is demonstrated by Canley Vale High School. Despite being located in a low socio-economic area and English invariably being the students’ second language, their literacy achievements are exemplary. The 2010’s year 9 students either matched or passed the national average, and overall scored higher that their peers with similar socioeconomic profile(s) (Burke 2011, Para.3-4). The Canley Vale community highly values education and this shows that with increased government funding, many other schools will be able to perform well. However, public’s perception on welfare recipients is becoming negative with some asking for a cut-down on government’s welfare expenditure. According to Middendorp (2011, Para.1), “attacking welfare recipients used to be a right-wing stunt” but now it’s gone mainstream. A leader can even gain easy popularity by denouncing welfare benefits, and also distract the public from real political issues such as tax reforms (Middendorp, 2011, Para. 3). The idea of universal entitlements and social provisions as a matter of deliberate policy is not a solid concept anymore as Australia shifts to a market welfare-state. The new attitude toward social policy is unlikely to bring equality and be more equitable in Australia (Raper, 2011, p.3). Social affects of current social policy may include increased crime rates as the unemployed are unable to meet their basic needs through work. Stress levels and family problems, homelessness may also increase because of financial difficulties. Also as Jamrozik points out, “a two tier system is being accomplished by the states capacity to control the dependent population by overtly non-violent means, surveillance and assistance, provided with attached coercive conditions” (Jamrozik 2009, p. 313). Conclusion This essay has specifically looked at how social policy debates have impacted unemployment linked to income security, and education in Australia. It has been found that low education level is linked to high unemployment rates; hence the need to support education systems. Social Policy has undergone changes because of economic changes and social interventions from the Colonial period to neo-classical liberalism and current global era. Australia appears to have shifted from a strong welfare-state to a residual or post-welfare state that provides minimal income support to the unemployed groups. The continual implementation of the post-welfare state results in inequality as the free-market economy is inclined towards material resources to stimulate the economy. References Australian Bureau of Statistics/ABS. (2011, September). Australian Social Trends. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Fenna, A. (2006). Understanding ideologies. In A. Parkin, J. Summers & D. Woodward, Government, politics, power and policy in Australia (8th ed.) (pp. 25-42). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Retrieved from EBook Library. Jamrozik, A. (2009). Social policy in the post-welfare state, In Australian Society in a Changing World (3rd ed.) (pp. 1-326). New Jersey: Pearson Education. . Retrieved from EBook Library Kryger, T. (2005, October 31). High unemployment at a time of low unemployment. Parliamentary Library. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn15.htm Loundes, J. (1997, October). A brief overview of unemployment in Australia. In Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. Retrieved from EBook Library. Pierson, C. (1998). Capitalism, social democracy and the welfare state II: new social movements and the welfare state. In Beyond the welfare state?: the new political economy of welfare (2nd ed.) (pp. 38-46). Cambridge: Polity Press. . Retrieved from EBook Library Raper, M. (2000). Examining the future of the welfare state and the need for innovative approaches to service delivery. ACOSS INFO 211 : Formulating strategies to drive the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery in government. Retrieved from EBook Library Spicker, P (2011, January). How social security works: An introduction to benefits in Britain. UK: Policy Press. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/socialsecurity.htm Stilwell, F. (2000). Work, wages, welfare. In A. McMahon, J. Thomson & C. Williams (Eds.), In Understanding the Australian welfare state (2nd ed.) (pp. 23-37). Croydon, Vic: Tertiary Press. . Retrieved from EBook Library Ziguras, S. (2006). Australian social security policy: doing more with less? In A. McClelland & P. Smyth (Eds.), Social policy in Australia: understanding for action (pp. 161-177). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. . Retrieved from EBook Library Media Link Burke, K. (2011, March 6). Students defy data in literacy blitz. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/students-defy-data-in- literacy-blitz-20110305-1bipn.html Middendorp, C. (2011, April 18). Avicious war on a soft target. The Age. Retrieved October 8, 2011 from http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-vicious-war-on-a-soft- target- 20110417-1djo1.html Read More