Muslims and the Australian labour market, 1980-2001

The unemployment of Muslims in Australia was 28 and 25 per cent compared to the national total of around nine per cent in 1986 and 1996 respectively (Australian Bureau of Statistics). This article conceptually analyses the disadvantaged position of the Muslims in the Australian labour market from 1980 to 2001 within a framework of 'structural racism'. It studies the Muslims from three perspectives: first, a comparative study of the qualifications and unemployment of the Muslim labour force in relation to the dominant population. Secondly, it examines the extent of this disadvantaged position in comparison with other ethnic minorities within an historical context. Finally, the basis of structural racism is explored to demonstrate how the Muslims have become systematically victimized. The analysis concludes that Muslims are significantly disadvantaged in Australia on the basis of their ethnicity and religion.

Spatial inequality in the Australian youth labour market: The role of neighbourhood composition

Australia has experienced a polarization of income and labour market outcomes over the past 20 years (GREGORY and HUNTER, 1995; HARDING, 1996). This has taken an increasingly spatial dimension (HUNTER. 1995a, 1995b), giving rise to concerns that the spatial pooling of disadvantage may hamper the labour market outcomes of youth growing up in poorer residential areas. This paper explores the role that the differential neighbourhood 'quality' of an individual's residential area at age 16 has on their labour market outcomes at age 18 and age 21. Evidence is found that youth who live in poorer quality neighbourhoods face an increased likelihood of being unemployed at both the age of 18 and 21, even after controlling for personal and family characteristics.

On labour market dualism in the Lewis model: A comment

In a special issue of this journal commemorating the 50th anniversary of W. Arthur Lewis's (The Manchester School, Vol. 28 (1954), No. 2, pp. 139-191) seminal paper, the Lewis model is treated as a model of labour market dualism (Fields, The Manchester School, Vol. 72 (2004), No. 6, pp. 724-735). This interpretation is flawed for a number of reasons. First, it overemphasizes the role ascribed by Lewis to intersectoral earnings differentials in his original model. Second, it fails to acknowledge that a major shortcoming of the model was its inability to account for the widening intersectoral earnings differential observed across a wide range of developing economies. For Lewis himself this was one of the 'major theoretical puzzles of the period' (1979, p. 150). Third, it ignores Lewis's subsequent revision of the model (Lewis, The Manchester School, Vol. 47 (1979), No. 3, pp. 211-229) that, ironically, incorporates a dual labour market to resolve this puzzle. However, for Lewis the critical issue was dualism within the modern sector, not, as Fields understands it, labour market dualism between the modern and traditional sectors. Fields's appreciation of the contribution of the Lewis model to understanding the process of wage determination in developing economies is therefore misplaced.

Neoliberalism, Gender Inequality and the Australian Labour Market

Over the past 25 years neoliberal philosophies have increasingly informed labour market policies in Australia that have led to increasing levels of wage decentralization. The most recent industrial relations changes aim to decentralize wage setting significantly further than has previously been the case. We argue that this is problematic for gender equity as wage decentralization will entrench rather than challenge the undervaluation of feminized work. In this article we provide an overview of key neoliberal industrial relations policy changes pertinent to gender equity and examine the current state of gender equity in the labour market. Results show that women's labour force participation has steadily increased over time but that a number of negative trends exclude women with substantial caring responsibilities from pursuing a career track. The implications of increasing levels of wage deregulation are that gender wage inequality and the potential for discrimination will grow.