2019•Unpublished venueRequires access

Income Support and Housing

Brian Cheers

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This chapter discusses problems and issues involved in providing rural people with basic safety net provisions concerning income support and housing, and suggest potentially useful policy and program guidelines. Australia’s income security system provides an impressive array of pensions, allowances and other benefits for people who are unable to earn a basic income either permanently or because of temporary circumstances such as illness or unemployment. From a rural perspective, Australia’s income security system reflects urbo-centric, reactive, residualist and, in relation to primary industries, developmental policy frameworks. Because Australia’s income security net was designed primarily for wage earners, it has a number of gaps and inconsistencies in relation to farmers and other rural self-employed people. Rural social care housing issues are different to urban because low-income residents are usually confined to a single locality and cannot easily move to more affordable or suitable accommodation in other places.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This chapter discusses problems and issues involved in providing rural people with basic safety net provisions concerning income support and housing, and suggest potentially useful policy and program guidelines. Australia’s income security system provides an impressive array of pensions, allowances and other benefits for people who are unable to earn a basic income either permanently or because of temporary circumstances such as illness or unemployment. From a rural perspective, Australia’s income security system reflects urbo-centric, reactive, residualist and, in relation to primary industries, developmental policy frameworks. Because Australia’s income security net was designed primarily for wage earners, it has a number of gaps and inconsistencies in relation to farmers and other rural self-employed people. Rural social care housing issues are different to urban because low-income residents are usually confined to a single locality and cannot easily move to more affordable or suitable accommodation in other places.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This chapter discusses problems and issues involved in providing rural people with basic safety net provisions concerning income support and housing, and suggest potentially useful policy and program guidelines. Australia’s income security system provides an impressive array of pensions, allowances and other benefits for people who are unable to earn a basic income either permanently or because of temporary circumstances such as illness or unemployment. From a rural perspective, Australia’s income security system reflects urbo-centric, reactive, residualist and, in relation to primary industries, developmental policy frameworks. Because Australia’s income security net was designed primarily for wage earners, it has a number of gaps and inconsistencies in relation to farmers and other rural self-employed people. Rural social care housing issues are different to urban because low-income residents are usually confined to a single locality and cannot easily move to more affordable or suitable accommodation in other places.

Key concepts: Business, Low income housing, Economics, Economic growth

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Income Support and Housing — Research Paper | ScholarLens