Suchergebnisse

Governments in many countries today find themselves in unchartered waters as they attempt to redefine their role, including how they relate to the business and community sectors and to citizens more broadly. There is currently a serious questioning of what are the appropriate structures, institutions, processes and organisational relationships required in an environment placing much more emphasis on collaboration with partners within the public sector and also outside it. Globalisation and the increased importance placed on competition, increased use and variety of information technologies and changes in values and political beliefs have contributed to this new environment (for example, see Davis and Keating 2000; Edwards 2001). Alongside this, and particularly noticeable in Australia, is a public sector facing uncertainties as it attempts to adopt private sector governance practices in the belief that this will lead to greater efficiency in achieving outcomes.

A paradigm shift is occurring in the way in which the government, business and community sectors relate to each other, challenging each to redefine their respective roles and responsibilities. This paper explores those changing relationships, focussing on how the community sector in particular may move beyond delivering services to be given a greater voice in the government's policy development process. Overseas, especially Canadian experience is drawn upon to suggest a possible participatory framework for progressing collaborative arrangements. Challenges the sectors need to confront are discussed before possible future roles and responsibilities are suggested.

Australia's income support arrangements have come under increasing scrutiny lately reflecting a growing concern about high levels of youth unemployment and about low levels of full‐time education participation.This paper aims to explore the relationship between education participation and financial incentives and to assess as a possible direction for future reform, the concept of a single and universal youth allowance.The paper begins by outlining the major forms of income support available to young people and illustrates some of the complexities in the youth income support structure.The evidence on the importance of financial factors conflicts, particularly between economists and non‐economists. This is in part explained by the different conceptual frameworks used. Other possible reasons are canvassed as to why studies have so far not thrown much light on the role of financial factors in the education participation decision. The paper also outlines specific directions of distortion contained in current payment relativities.Several difficulties with the proposal for a single youth allowance as a means of increasing education participation are discussed and alternatives briefly outlined. The concluding section of the paper summarises the issues relevant to the future debate on youth income support and identifies areas for further research.

Notes for Talk at Conference on Women and Taxation Organised by United Nations Association of Australia Melbourne 12-14 June 1981Last year, on behalf of the National Women's Advisory Council, I undertook an exploratory survey to obtain information on the ways in which married couples arrange their financial affairs. Much of social policy is based on the assumption that husband and wife pool their income and that the welfare of an individual family member can be determined by reference to total family income irrespective of its source. This assumption is convenient to policy makers and social analysts which is a probable reason for its perpetuation. But this does not justify its continued use in the absence of supporting evidence. The survey was motivated by a concern that social policy decisions, which at present are made on largely intuitive grounds, should, rather, be based on facts about the extent to which families pooled income and shared in its benefits.