Making space for social inclusion.

Baum, Scott

INTRODUCTION

Social inclusion is now on the federal political agenda in a big way. And so it should be. In spite of the economic boom and in the face of a looming global economic slowdown, the incidence of social disadvantage across our cities, towns and regions is increasing, not reducing. As interest rates and the costs of living continue to rise, and the housing crisis worsens, we can expect to see continued growth in the numbers of deprived and excluded Australians.

It is within our large cities that the extremes of disadvantage are often most apparent. Our suburban heartlands reflect the scars of rounds of social and economic restructuring and the impacts of demographic and other changes. The recent closure of Adelaide's Mitsubishi facility continues the suburban social scarring in that city. The other cities have their fair share of suburban socio-economic scars as well. Visually, the distribution of disadvantage across our cities is distinctive. All the cities can be represented by a series of disadvantage hotspots (high relative disadvantage) and disadvantage cold spots (low relative disadvantage).

New national and international socioeconomic forces have reshaped national geographies in general and the characteristics of cities in particular, resulting in a range of diverse social and spatial outcomes. The cities of old may have had more clearly defined socio-economic divisions. The contemporary city, on the other hand, is characterised by a new or different set of divisions. These new divisions do not necessarily exist in complete isolation from divisions that have appeared in earlier periods, but rather have developed from these existing patterns. Contemporary patterns therefore reflect the socio-spatial histories of cities. What is different about the contemporary socio-economic patterns are the factors and conditions leading to particular outcomes and the often long drawn out nature of the existence of these factors and conditions.

What we are now seeing, and have been seeing over the past two or three decades, is a complex set of interlinked factors impacting on the social and economic processes underway in cities. Academics have talked about the 'geography and the worried country' and considered the uneven spatial outcomes that have come to be reflected in the daily lives of people and across space in competing places. (1) Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan (2) has talked about the splintering of the nation along spatial lines. Advantage and disadvantage at the level of the individual gets reflected in local communities, neighbourhoods and towns through the uneven spatial impact of advantage and disadvantage on local labour markets, and through the operation of housing markets. In short, changes in social and economic life that have included shifts in economic process and fortunes, changes to the demographic structure and shifts in the welfare state, are linked to the circumstances in local communities, neighbourhoods and towns because of where particular people live and the nature of their roles in society and the economy. For example, some groups are able to exercise a broader choice, across a wide range and diversity of living environments within Australia's cities because their economic advantage provides them with the wealth and/or capacity to borrow, enabling them to choose to live in high-cost housing market areas. Others do not possess these economic means and have marginal residential choices that are constrained within low-cost housing market locations.

But it is not only this differentiation between individuals and households, in the relative constraints within which their housing choices are exercised, that is a significant issue in the social and spatial differentiation that is readily discernable across our cities. Rather, this differentiation in housing choices is in addition to the differences in the potential of people to engage in the labour market. This potential is influenced by, among other things, the supply of jobs and the ability of people to tap into new opportunities, and this potential becomes crucial in that social and spatial differentiation. The patterns of variation in advantage and disadvantage across communities and neighbourhoods will therefore reflect a complex set of both individual and societal-scale issues, and in addition will reflect the stages of communities in the transformation from the past to the contemporary economic, social and demographic era.

CURRENT PATTERNS OF SUBURBAN SCARRING

Elsewhere I have discussed the wide ranging spatial patterns of disadvantage or suburban scarring that characterise our metropolitan cities (3) and it is this empirical work that is the basis of this current paper. The empirical investigation uses an index of socio-economic deprivation for Australian metropolitan suburbs. (4) The index is developed using a range of socio-economic indicators that have been drawn from the 2006 census (see Table 1) using a methodology first developed by Langlois and Kitchen (5) for Montreal, Canada and subsequently used by Baum (6) in an analysis of Sydney. The index provides a single number for each suburb and using this data I have ranked all the suburbs across the Australian cities into six bands or clusters based on a score calculated using a range of census variables (Figure 1). Band 1 suburbs--those with highest relative deprivation--have a score more than two standard deviations above the mean, while band 2 suburbs have a score between one and two standard deviations above the mean. Conversely, band 6 suburbs have scores more than two standard deviations below the mean, while band 5 suburbs have a score between one and two standard deviations below the mean. (7) Some cities have suburbs in both the most deprived and the least deprived groups while other have distributions that skew towards one end or the other. (8) The patterns can often be confronting to those living in these areas, but they do reflect an uneasy reality.

Table 1: Variables included in the analysis

Demographic/household

* indigenous population (per cent)

* persons aged older than 64 years of age (per cent)

* persons requiring assistance with daily activities (per cent)

* recent immigrants to Australia--arrived between 2001 and 2006 (per cent)

* population who do not speak English well (per cent)

* single parent families (per cent)

Income

* median family income ($)

* families with low incomes--bottom 10 per cent of the distribution (per cent)

* median individual income ($)

* individuals with low incomes--bottom 10 per cent of the distribution (per cent)

Housing

* households in public housing (per cent)

Engagement with work

* youth unemployment rate--persons aged 15 to 24 (per cent)

* male unemployment rate (per cent)

* male labour force participation rate (per cent)

* female unemployment rate (per cent)

* female labour force participation rate (per cent)

Figure 1: Continuum of relative deprivation, Australia suburbs

Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Band 5 Band 6
highest lowest
relative relative
deprivation deprivation

Suburbs Suburbs Suburbs Suburbs Suburbs Suburbs
with with a with a with a with a with
a score 2 score score score score a score 2
standard between less less between standard
deviations 1&2 than 1 than 1 1 & 2 deviations
above the standard standard standard standard below the
mean deviations deviation deviation deviations mean
 above the above the below the below the
 mean mean mean mean

 Australian suburbs

Take Sydney for example. Australia's largest city is also perhaps the most polarised. What I found in Sydney was that Australia's most deprived and the least deprived suburbs were found in Australia's global city (Table 2, Figure 2). Milsons Point on the city's north shore was the least deprived, while only a short distance away Claymore in the city's west held the prize for being the country's most deprived. Although geographically close in proximity (about 40 minutes by car), the socioeconomic reality couldn't be more stark. At the 2006 census unemployment in Claymore stood at 31.8 per cent, while in Milsons Point it was just 2.1 per cent. Residents of Claymore (on average) had considerable lower incomes (median individual income $237pw; median family income $530pw) than Milsons point (median individual income $1311pw; median family income $2766pw).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Table 2: High and low relative deprivation, Sydney

Highest relative Lowest relative deprivation
deprivation (band 6)
(band 1)

Airds Alexandria
Ashcroft Annandale
Auburn Balmain
Bankstown Balmain East
Bidwill Bellevue Hill
Bonnyrigg Birchgrove
Busby Bondi Beach
Cabramatta Breakfast Point/Mortlake
Cabramatta West Cammeray
Campsie Centennial Park
Canley Heights Chiswick
Canley Vale Coogee
Carramar Cremorne
Cartwright Cremorne Point
Claymore Crows Nest
Emerton Darling Point
Fairfield Darlinghurst
Fairfield East Dawes Point/The Rocks/
Fairfield Heights Double Bay
Heckenberg Edgecliff
Lakemba Elizabeth Bay
Lethbridge Park Erskineville
Miller Fairlight
Old Guildford Homebush Bay
Punchbowl Kirribuilli
Sadleir Lavender Bay
South Granville Manly
St Johns Park McMahons Point
Tregear Milsons Point
Villawood Mosman
Warwick Farm Naremburn
Wiley Park Neutral Bay
Willmot North Sydney
Yennora Northwood
Canton Beach Paddington
The Entrance Point Piper
 Potts Point
 Pyrmont
 Queenscliff
 Rozelle
 Rushcutters Bay
 St Leonards
 Surry Hills
 Tamarama
 Waverton
 Wollstonecraft
 Wollahra
 Woolwich

Besides these extremes other suburbs with the greatest socio-economic scars are well known, with some being the focus of media attention for all of the wrong reasons. They have been widely commented on by academics in terms of the suburbanisation of disadvantage in the Sydney region, (9) with the suburbs of Western Sydney conjuring up symbols of an undifferentiated urban bad land. (10) The suburbs of Airds, Cabramatta, Auburn and Fairfield in Sydney's western suburbs all score highly on the general deprivation index. So do some localities on the city's far north coast including The Entrance and Canton Beach. In contrast to these places, the north shore is where Sydney's wealth belt reside. (11) The suburbs of Kirribilli and Double Bay are included in the Sydney suburbs with lowest relative deprivation.

The other cities have there share of what Brendan Gleeson (12) has referred to (perhaps unkindly) as suburban sinkholes. In Melbourne the suburbs that have been most scarred (those with highest relative deprivation) include those in city's post-war industrial growth heartlands including Broadmeadows and Sunshine (Table 3). Some of these suburbs are among Australia's places that have been forgotten in recent economic advancements. Others represent residential localities that offer cheap accommodation options and attract low-income low-skilled often marginalised workers who are unable to compete for the types of local jobs that have developed in the area. The Melbourne suburbs at the positive end of the deprivation continuum include East Melbourne, Docklands and Burnley, suburbs associated with Melbourne's new economy activities and the gentrification that has occurred in the inner city. The spatial pattern of deprivation in Melbourne reflects long established trends with extreme relative deprivation located further out and lower deprivation closer to the central business district (Figure 3).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Table 3: High and low relative deprivation, Melbourne

Highest relative Lowest relative
deprivation deprivation
(band 1) (band 6)

Albanvale Burnley
Ardeer Docklands
Bangholme East Melbourne
Braybrook St Kilda West
Broadmeadows
Campbellfield
Carlton
Coolaroo
Dallas
Dandenong South
Fawkner
Frankston North
Heidelberg West
Kings Park
Lalor
Maidstone
Meadow Heights
Springvale
Springvale South
St Albans
Sunshine North
Sunshine West
Thomastown

The picture of relative deprivation across Adelaide's suburbs represents the long standing outcomes of earlier periods of economic, social and demographic change (Table 4, Figure 4). Adelaide has no suburbs in band 6 (lowest relative deprivation), but it does have Eastwood and Toorak Gardens in band 5. Adelaide does, consequently, have a much higher relative proportion of suburbs in band 1 (highest relative deprivation). Suburbs with highest relative derivation are located in the city's north and include Athol Park, Mansfield Park and Elizabeth Park and are those places that others have referred to when discussing the results of socio-economic transitions within the city. (13)

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Table 4: Band 1 and Band 5 suburbs, Adelaide

Highest relative Lowest relative
deprivation deprivation
(band 1) (band 5)

Regency Park College Park
Angle Park Dulwich
Athol Park Eastwood
Davoren Park Gilberton
Dudley Park Millswood
Elizabeth Mount George
Elizabeth Downs Northgate
Elizabeth North Springfield
Elizabeth Park Toorak Gardens
Elizabeth South Unley Park
Kilburn Walkerville
Mansfield Park
Ottoway
Smithfield Plains
Woodville Gardens

Hobart, like Adelaide, has for some time been home to a relatively large socio-economically disadvantaged community (Table 5). Hobart has no suburbs in band 6 (lowest relative deprivation) or band 5. Band 4 suburbs include Bellerive and Geilston Bay. Hobart has more than its fair share of suburbs in band 1. Band 1 suburbs include Gagebrook, Clarendon Vale and Bridgewater. Spatially there is no distinct pattern of relative deprivation. The distribution of Hobart deprivation may be seen in Figure 5.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Table 5: Band 1 and Band 4 suburbs, Hobart

Highest Lowest relative
relative deprivation
deprivation (band 4)
(band 1)

Bridgewater Acton Park
Clarendon Vale Austins Ferry
Gagebrook Battery Point
 Bellerive
 Bonnet Hill
 Cambridge
 Cremorne
 Dynnyrne
 Fern Tree
 Geilston Bay
 Glebe
 Granton
 Hobart
 Honeywood
 Howden
 Lenah Valley
 Leslie Vale
 Lindisfarne
 Mount Nelson
 Mount Stuart
 Orielton
 Otago
 Ridgeway
 Sandford
 Seven Mile Beach
 Taroona
 Tinderbox
 Tolmans Hill
 Tranmere
 West Hobart

Australia's two sun-belt capitals (Brisbane and Perth) have substantively different levels of relative deprivation when compared to the other main capitals. Both cities are considered to be presiding over states which are on the up-side of Australia's two-speed economy. Brisbane has no band 1 (highest relative) deprivation suburb. The floor of Brisbane deprivation is band 2 (high relative deprivation) (Table 6). The suburbs of Inala and Logan Central have the highest levels of relative deprivation in the Queensland capital, together with localities on the northern extremes of the Brisbane region such as Caboolture south, and other places such as Nathan and Robertson, located adjacent to the Griffith University campus. (14) Two suburbs are included in the band 6 suburbs--Newstead located on the northern bank of the Brisbane river and adjacent the CBD and Brookwater in Brisbane's west. The spatial distribution of relative deprivation in Brisbane shows concentrations of higher deprivation in the southern suburbs and lower relative deprivation north of the river and closer to the city centre (Figure 6).

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Table 6: Band 2 and Band 6 suburbs, Brisbane

Highest relative Lowest relative
deprivation deprivation
(band 2) (band 6)

Beachmere Brookwater
Caboolture South Newstead
Carole Park
Churchill
Dinmore
Donnybrook
Gailes
Goodna
Inala
Karawatha
Kingston
Leichhardt
Logan Central
Loganlea
Macgregor
Nathan
Redbank
Richlands
Riverview
Robertson
Sandstone Point
Stretton
Sunnybank
Wacol
Woodridge

The other sun-belt capital, Perth, has been at the heart of the mining boom that has driven the Western Australian economy in recent times. The distribution of relative deprivation across the city is similar to Brisbane with less extreme deprivation than would be statistically expected. Perth has no suburbs in band 1 (Table 7). It does have suburbs in band 2 including Karawara and Bently, together with Crawley (adjacent to the University of Western Australia). The suburbs with lower deprivation include Subiaco and Dalkeith (band 6) and Cottesloe and Leederville (band 5). Spatially, higher relative deprivation tends to be located further from the central city (Figure 7).

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

Table 7: Band 2 and Band 6 suburbs, Perth

Highest Lowest relative
relative deprivation
deprivation (band 6)
(band 2)

Armadale Dalkeith
Balga Subiaco
Bentley
Calista
Crawley
Girrawheen
Karawara
Koondools
Kwinana Beach
Medina
Midvale
Mirrabooka
Murdoch
Parmelia
Two Rocks

HEALING THE SUBURBAN SCARS?

This suburban scarring is an unnecessary blight on our society and flies in the face of Australia's notion of a fair go. It's also wasteful. There can be little debate that the social and human capital endowed to individuals within these disadvantaged communities represents a significant waste of resources.

To address our suburban socio-economic scars we need to make space for social inclusion. We need to make space in our mindset for a more socially inclusive society. This must then be a high priority for society and for government. And we need to manage our space more carefully so that we can reduce the socio-economic scars that blight our metropolitan landscapes.

We can no longer rely on policy that only focuses on the individual or the family. People-based policies, while necessary components, are not in themselves sufficient. It is important that we pay attention to the health of places, the homes of communities and individuals. Policies that attempt to build a more socially inclusive society must account for where people live and their connections with (or exclusions from) the wider city. Socially inclusive policies need to also be space-or place-based.

Place-based policies can include the much debated social mix programs which aim to overcome the concentration effects that arise when significant numbers of disadvantaged individuals reside in any one area. (15) But they also can include local job creation schemes in areas where employment, at a suitable skill level, is the missing link in the inclusion/exclusion debate (16) or some mixture of local community and job creation. Here the solution is in the complex links between housing availability and job location in the wider metropolitan development process. (17) As an example Healy and O'Connor have argued that:

 ... in the long term it is likely that more sustainable and
 equitable outcomes in terms of economic development in the
 metropolitan area will involve attention to job growth and
 community facilities in the middle and outer suburbs. (18)

It is of course difficult to precisely differentiate between polices that might be people related and those that might be place related. It is, for example, not entirely clear-cut that factors such as being able to access appropriate suitable employment or suffering a housing affordability problem is a product of an individual's personal situation or the place or community they reside in. Chances are it will be a mixture. Making sure we have the mixture right is therefore an important issue confronting those who enter the social inclusion debate.

Regardless of what the right mix might be--and it will differ from place to place and by circumstance--we need to realise that Australia is far too prosperous to continue failing its most deprived citizens and that real and sustainable action is required to address the unequal and deprived conditions that exist in our metropolitan cities. We need to understand that a focus on space and place is indeed an important component of developing sustainable social inclusion. We need to make space for social inclusion both in our policies and in our minds.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP0879382) A society divided: A multilevel approach for understanding socio-economic opportunity and vulnerability. The author would like to thank William Mitchell, Brendan Gleeson and the referees from People and Place for comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

(1) K. O'Connor, R. Stimson, and M. Daly, Australia's Changing Economic Geography: A Society Dividing, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 2001

(2) W. Swan, Postcode: the Splintering of a Nation, Pluto Press, North Melbourne, 2005

(3) S. Baum, Suburban Scars: Australian Cities and Socio-economic Deprivation, Urban Research Program, Research Paper, Griffith University, Brisbane, 2008; see also S. Baum, P. Mullins, R. Stimson, and K. O'Connor, 'Communities of the post-industrial city', Urban Affairs Review, vol. 37, no. 2, 2002, pp. 322--357; S. Baum, K. O'Connor, and R. Stimson, Fault Lines Exposed: Advantage and Disadvantage across Australia's Settlement System. Monash University ePress, Clayton, 2005; S. Baum, M. Haynes, J.H. Han and Y. van Gellecum, 'Advantage and disadvantage across Australia's extended metropolitan regions: a typology of socio-economic outcomes', Urban Studies, vol. 43, no. 9, 2006, pp. 1549--1579.

(4) The analysis uses Australian Bureau of Statistics defined states suburbs. These consist of aggregations of census collection districts to localities gazetted by the geographic place name authority of each state/territory. The boundary for metropolitan regions is the statistical division.

(5) A. Langlois and P. Kitchen, 'Identifying and measuring dimensions of urban deprivation in Montreal: an analysis of the 1996 census data', Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 1, 2001, pp. 119--139

(6) S. Baum, 'Measuring socio-economic outcomes in Sydney: an analysis of census data using a general deprivation index', Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, vol. 10, 2004, pp. 105--133.

(7) Due to space considerations, I do not consider the entire distribution of suburbs in this paper, but rather concentrate only on the extremes. Readers interested in placing the discussion presented here in the broader context should consult S. Baum, Suburban Scars: Australian Cities and Socio-economic Deprivation, Urban Research Program, Research Paper, Griffith University, Brisbane, 2008.

(8) It is important to note that we are not comparing disadvantaged suburbs with advantaged suburbs but rather considering how suburbs are placed along a continuum from most deprived to least deprived.

(9) D. Burchell, The western Sydney factor, Australian Policy Online <http://www.apo.org.au> 2002, accessed 11 March 2004; B. Randolph and D. Holloway, 'The suburbanisation of disadvantage in Sydney: new problems, new policies', Opolis, vol. 1, no. 1, 2005, pp. 49--65.

(10) ibid.

(11) Baum, O'Connor and Stimson, 2005, op. cit.

(12) B. Gleeson, Australian Heartlands: Making Space for Hope in the Suburbs, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 2006

(13) M. Peel, Good Times, Hard Times: The Past and the Future in Elizabeth, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1995; S. Baum and R. Hassan, 'Economic restructuring and spatial equity: a case study of Adelaide', The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, vol. 29, no. 2, 1993, pp. 151--172, 1993; Baum et al., 2005, op. cit.

(14) The fact that Brisbane and Perth have no suburbs in the most deprived category does not mean that there are no deprived suburbs in these cities. Rather it means that when compared to other places the deprived places in Brisbane and Perth are not as far along the continuum of deprivation.

(15) K. Arthurson, 'Creating inclusive communities through balancing social mix: a critical relationship or tenuous link?', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 20, 2002, pp. 245--261.

(16) S. Baum, A. Bill and W. Mitchell, 'Labour underutilisation in metropolitan labour markets: individual characteristics, personal circumstances and local labour markets', Urban Studies, vol. 45, nos. 5 and 6, 2008, pp. 1193--1216.

(17) W. Randolph, 'Housing labour markets and discontinuity theory', in J. Allen, C. Hamnett, (Eds), Housing and Labour Markets: Building up Connections, London, Unwin Hyman, 2001, pp. 16--51; K. O'Connor, and E. Healy, 'Rethinking suburban development in Australia: a Melbourne case study', European Planning Studies, vol. 12, 2004, pp. 27--40

(18) ibid., p. 15.

Scott Baum

This paper considers the issue of the spatial patterns of socio-economic exclusion across Australia's metropolitan suburbs. Using an index of relative deprivation based on 2006 census data the paper argues that policies aimed at addressing issues of social exclusion must take more consideration of the links between people and place.