Australian Economic Review最新文献

Cigdem-Bayram, M. 2025. “Introduction.” Australian Economic Review 58: S8–S9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.70022.

In paragraph 2, line 3 of the Introduction, the author incorrectly stated that the Brotherhood of St Laurence commissioned the project. The corrected text should read: “The project was undertaken at the Melbourne Institute under Professor Ronald Henderson's direction.”

We apologize for this error.

That poverty is multidimensional is now well established. Multidimensional assessment of poverty provides the opportunity to measure poverty in ways that inform policy and reflect what matters most to people experiencing it. However, challenges remain both in determining the dimensions of poverty that should be assessed and in ensuring relevant data are available to reliably measure across multiple dimensions. These challenges are particularly acute in regard to child poverty, and too often, child poverty is measured using proxies that are not appropriate or in ways that are not child-centred. Fifty years on from the Henderson Inquiry, Australia does not currently have an agreed-upon definition or measure of poverty (for children or adults). This creates an opportunity to develop a multidimensional measure of poverty that is child-centred and able to provide information to inform policies and services. In considering child poverty, we define a child as under the age of fifteen years. This article explores why it is important to measure the multidimensional nature of child poverty and considers the data that are currently available. This study has been conducted by the Children's Policy Centre at the Australian National University. All authors were employed by the Children's Policy Centre while undertaking this study.

Australia's 2024 poverty rate is the highest it has been since 2001. Despite a lack of official poverty measures, recent data has shown that poverty affects 14.4% of the population including one in six children. These rates are higher than when Australia became a signatory of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in 2015, steering it further off course from the goal of halving the proportion of the population living below the national poverty line by 2030. Without an agreed-upon national definition and measures of poverty, it is also hard to meaningfully track progress. Marking the 50th anniversary of the Henderson Inquiry First Main Report, which first called for a national poverty measure, this paper revisits that call with new urgency. Drawing on Australia's current context and international examples, it proposes a dual approach to poverty measurement – monetary and multidimensional – and presents empirical findings from an illustrative model applying both. The paper examines the relationship between monetary and multidimensional poverty and the insights gained by measuring the two side-by-side that neither can yield in isolation. It concludes with recommendations for a legislated national poverty measure, informed by lessons from Canada and New Zealand, which implemented similar frameworks in recent years.

This article examines poverty through a material deprivation lens, drawing on three waves (2014, 2018 and 2022) of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. It presents a detailed analysis of items considered essential and compares deprivation rates for these items among the general population and working-age income support recipient households. The findings show that income support recipient households experience deprivation rates approximately four times higher across most essential items compared to the general population. Analysis of the incidence of multiple deprivation alongside income-based poverty reveals that income support recipient households not classified as living in income poverty experience higher material deprivation rates than the general population classified as living in income poverty. The low overlap between income poverty and material deprivation underscores the need for a multidimensional approach to poverty measurement in Australia, particularly in the context of a prolonged cost-of-living crisis. By capturing those who are missing out despite not necessarily being classified as living in income poverty, material deprivation research deepens understanding of social and economic disadvantage and offers valuable guidance for targeted policy intervention. The findings of significant deprivation among households reliant on income support provide further evidence that Australian income support payments are abysmally inadequate.

Despite Australia's long history of independent poverty research, successive governments have failed to adopt official poverty measures. There is broad agreement among poverty researchers and advocates that at least two types of poverty measures should be adopted: income-based measures and direct or multidimensional measures of living standards. This article focusses on income-based measures. It outlines key methodological choices faced by researchers including income definitions, the treatment of housing and other assets, and optimal poverty thresholds. To assess the validity of a poverty line set at 50% of median equivalent household disposable income, we compare the profile of people in households with incomes below this level and those experiencing multiple deprivation of essentials. The article concludes with broad guidance on the development of optimal income-based poverty measures for Australia.

Policy analysts and academics play a critical role in informing policy design, implementation and evaluation. They apply their understanding of current social and economic issues, test theoretical frameworks and present new ideas that are a part of the ecosystem for promoting and sustaining efficient and equitable delivery of government programs. Enabling these roles through access, curation and analysis of data from multiple sources is a critical component of a well-developed analytic framework. This is particularly imperative as it relates to sensitive and proprietary data. Making these data more widely available unlocks many public benefits, but only if the risks associated with sharing data are properly managed. We introduce the Melbourne Institute Data Lab (the MIDL), a secure access environment that supports customisation of information security controls to balance between privacy and security, and user experience to support data-driven research for informing policy. MIDL is based in a university setting, which is an important feature given that universities are long-standing institutions that are independent and trusted for their endeavour to undertake non-biased research.

It is widely acknowledged that disability is both a cause and effect of poverty in Australia, yet there are significant gaps in evidence to frame relevant policy solutions. In particular, income-only measures of poverty fail to capture the financial impact on households of direct and indirect costs associated with living with disability, or policy drivers keeping people with disability and their families on low incomes. Understanding the difference in incomes required by households with and without people with disability to obtain equivalent standards of living, variations in nondiscretionary expenses incurred by people with disability with different needs and circumstances, and the financial effects of nonmonetary inequality, requires a multidimensional lens. Addressing governance risks associated with economic inactivity and pressure on government services linked to the growing number of Australians with disability calls for nuanced poverty metrics to identify leverage points for change.

Using longitudinal data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, this study examines the extent, incidence and drivers of persistent poverty. Results show that poverty is, in many cases, not a temporary condition. Women, single-parent families, Indigenous Australians, older individuals, people with long-term disabilities and residents of disadvantaged regions are disproportionately affected by persistent poverty. Major triggers for poverty entry include a decline in household labour earnings and household composition changes, such as transitioning to a single-parent family. We also find that individuals in deep poverty face the highest likelihood of remaining poor over the long term. Our analysis demonstrates the limitations of a one-size-fits-all labour market-focused approach to poverty reduction. Many persistently poor individuals face structural barriers to employment, such as caregiving responsibilities, health conditions, or age-related constraints. Effective poverty alleviation strategies therefore need to incorporate broader social policy interventions, including increased income support adequacy, access to affordable child care and policies aimed at reducing poverty re-entry rates.