Introduction for special issue on income management

Philip Mendes, Ilan Barry Katz, Greg Marston

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialOther

Abstract

The introduction of IM has provoked considerable political, legal and empirical contention. Much of this debate has concerned differing philosophical approaches, particularly individual versus structural, to addressing chronic disadvantage. Additional matters raised include the high cost of administering programs, the potential for racial discrimination and a revival of colonialist approaches given the disproportionate number of Indigenous Australians subject to IM measures the lack of reliable evidence as to their effectiveness in meeting the stated policy aims (Bray et al, 2015), and the absence of consultations with representatives of local communities to discuss how and in what way IM measures might benefit their community (Mendes, Waugh and Flynn, 2014).

The papers which follow (with one exception) were presented at an Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Workshop held in July 2015 which critically examined these competing perspectives.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)393-97
Number of pages5
JournalAustralian Journal of Social Issues
Volume51
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 10 Dec 2016

Cite this

Mendes, Philip ; Katz, Ilan Barry ; Marston, Greg. / Introduction for special issue on income management. In: Australian Journal of Social Issues. 2016 ; Vol. 51, No. 4. pp. 393-97.
@article{2b86c09f7d99452bb436d89a3189c5e5,
title = "Introduction for special issue on income management",
abstract = "The introduction of IM has provoked considerable political, legal and empirical contention. Much of this debate has concerned differing philosophical approaches, particularly individual versus structural, to addressing chronic disadvantage. Additional matters raised include the high cost of administering programs, the potential for racial discrimination and a revival of colonialist approaches given the disproportionate number of Indigenous Australians subject to IM measures the lack of reliable evidence as to their effectiveness in meeting the stated policy aims (Bray et al, 2015), and the absence of consultations with representatives of local communities to discuss how and in what way IM measures might benefit their community (Mendes, Waugh and Flynn, 2014).The papers which follow (with one exception) were presented at an Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Workshop held in July 2015 which critically examined these competing perspectives.",
author = "Philip Mendes and Katz, {Ilan Barry} and Greg Marston",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "393--97",
journal = "Australian Journal of Social Issues",
issn = "0157-6321",
number = "4",

}

Introduction for special issue on income management. / Mendes, Philip; Katz, Ilan Barry; Marston, Greg.

In: Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 51, No. 4, 10.12.2016, p. 393-97.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialOther

TY - JOUR

T1 - Introduction for special issue on income management

AU - Mendes, Philip

AU - Katz, Ilan Barry

AU - Marston, Greg

PY - 2016/12/10

Y1 - 2016/12/10

N2 - The introduction of IM has provoked considerable political, legal and empirical contention. Much of this debate has concerned differing philosophical approaches, particularly individual versus structural, to addressing chronic disadvantage. Additional matters raised include the high cost of administering programs, the potential for racial discrimination and a revival of colonialist approaches given the disproportionate number of Indigenous Australians subject to IM measures the lack of reliable evidence as to their effectiveness in meeting the stated policy aims (Bray et al, 2015), and the absence of consultations with representatives of local communities to discuss how and in what way IM measures might benefit their community (Mendes, Waugh and Flynn, 2014).The papers which follow (with one exception) were presented at an Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Workshop held in July 2015 which critically examined these competing perspectives.

AB - The introduction of IM has provoked considerable political, legal and empirical contention. Much of this debate has concerned differing philosophical approaches, particularly individual versus structural, to addressing chronic disadvantage. Additional matters raised include the high cost of administering programs, the potential for racial discrimination and a revival of colonialist approaches given the disproportionate number of Indigenous Australians subject to IM measures the lack of reliable evidence as to their effectiveness in meeting the stated policy aims (Bray et al, 2015), and the absence of consultations with representatives of local communities to discuss how and in what way IM measures might benefit their community (Mendes, Waugh and Flynn, 2014).The papers which follow (with one exception) were presented at an Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Workshop held in July 2015 which critically examined these competing perspectives.

M3 - Editorial

VL - 51

SP - 393

EP - 397

JO - Australian Journal of Social Issues

JF - Australian Journal of Social Issues

SN - 0157-6321

IS - 4

ER -