Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:51:48.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare Reform, Work and the Labour Market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Peter Saunders
Peter Saunders*
Affiliation:
Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The welfare reform debate is proceeding against a background of high unemployment and rising inequality. In Australia, the blueprint for reform of the social security system developed by the McClure Report is built around the notion of mutual obligation — the idea that those who receive support from government should be required to ‘give something back’. Public opinion is supportive of requiring mutual obligation of some groups of the unemployed, but it also supports the view that solving unemployment generally is the government’s responsibility. Although welfare reforms introduced in the US and UK have reduced the welfare rolls, their impact on wages and the labour market must also be considered. If welfare reform in Australia is to avoid the low wages and extreme poverty that are features of the US, welfare reform will need to be accompanied by reform of the labour market.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Economic and Labour Relations Review , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , June 2001 , pp. 151 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2001

References

Castles, F.G. (1985) The Working Class and Welfare. Reflections on the Political Development of the Welfare State in Australia and New Zealand, 1890–1980, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.Google Scholar
Danziger, S. (1999) ‘Introduction. What Are the Early Lessons?’ in Danziger, S. (Ed) Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Michigan, pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eardley, T., Saunders, P., Evans, K. (2000) ‘Community Attitudes Towards Unemployment, Activity Testing and Mutual Obligation’, Australian Bulletin of Labour, Vol. 26 (3), pp. 211–35.Google Scholar
Easton, B. (2000) ‘What has Happened in New Zealand to Income Distribution and Poverty Levels’, in Shaver, S. and Saunders, P. (Eds.) Social Policy for the 21st Century: Justice and Responsibility. Volume 2, reports and Proceedings No. 142, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, pp. 55–66.Google Scholar
Ellwood, D. (2000) ‘The Impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Other Social Policy Changes on Work and Marriage in the United States’, Australian Social Policy, 1999/1, pp. 75–113.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (2000) The Third Way and Its Critics, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Graver, C., Stewart, J. (2000) ‘Modernizing Social Security? Labour and its Welfare-to-Work Strategy’, Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 235–52.Google Scholar
Mead, L. (2000) ‘Welfare Reform and the Family: Lessons for America’, in Saunders, P. (Ed.), Reforming the Australian Welfare State, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, pp. 44–61.Google Scholar
Millar, J. (2001) ‘Lone Parents, Employment and Welfare Reform in the UK’, mimeo, Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy, University of Bath.Google Scholar
Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., Schmitt, J. (1999) The State of Working America, 1998–99, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (1999) The Future of Welfare in the 21st Century, Telstra Address to the National Press Club, Canberra, 29 September.Google Scholar
Nickell, S. (1997) Unemployment and Labour Market Rigidities: Europe versus North America’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer, pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
Nickell, S., Bell, B. (1996) ‘Changes in the Distribution of Wages and Unemployment in OECD Countries’, American Economic Review, Vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 302–8.Google Scholar
OECD (2000) OECD Economic Outlook No. 67, June 2000, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, W. (2000) ‘Who Should Get What and why?’ On Deservingness Criteria and Conditionality of Solidarity Among the Public’, Policy and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. (2000) ‘One Language, Three Accents. Welfare Reform in the US, UK and Australia’, presented to the Australian Institute of Family Studies Research Conference, Sydney, July.Google Scholar
Reference Group on Welfare Reform (2000) Participation Support for a More Equitable Society. Full Report, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.Google Scholar
Saunders, P., Thomson, C., Evans, C. (2000) ‘Social Change and Social Policy: Results from a National Survey of Public Opinion’, Discussion Paper No. 106, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (2000) Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, New York.Google Scholar
Smeeding, T.M. (2000) ‘Changing Income Inequality in OECD Countries: Updated Results from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS)’, in Hauser, R. and Becker, I. (Eds), The Personal Distribution of Income in an International Perspective, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Wolfe, B.L. (2000) ‘Incentives, Challenges and Dilemmas of TANF’, presented to the Seventh International Research Seminar on ‘Issues in Social Security’, Sigtuna, Sweden, June 17–20.Google Scholar