Compare and contrast
Different nations have different ways in which they approach the aspect of public welfare. The aspects of public welfare in Australia and United States of America (USA) have both similarities and differences as discussed below.
Firstly, both countries have similar approaches on the issue of homelessness. The issues of homelessness, who are responsible for it and the kind of policy responses towards it, are similar in both Australia and US. The issue has been an ongoing debate in the two nations as individual governments try coming into terms on how to develop a concrete solution. The US federal legislation has developed policies towards an approach to homelessness and causes. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act passed in 2001 sees that the rights of homeless youth and children are protected. The country has employed an educational coordinator in every state and school district who ensure homeless children and youths have access to education (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2001). Similarly, the Australian government has introduced a program referred to Supported Accommodation Assistance Program National Data Collection (NDC) that provides the federal government with statistics of homeless youths and children. The reports by NDC enable the government respond fully to the issue of homelessness. Like US, Australia also has a team that ensures the rights of homeless children and youths are protection including rights to education, food, accommodation, and security (Australian Department of Family and Community Services, 2000).
Secondly, there occurs a similarity in the manner that Australia and US impalement development policies on unemployment. The two nations lay more emphasis on employment in order to make people self-sufficiency and reduce poverty. The Australia government has developed several reforms since 1990s that ensure lone parents are provided with social assistance. The reforms have led into reduction of the number of lone-mother families in Australia receiving welfare payments and in return, recorded an increase in employment rates. The same reforms are practices in US where the number of lone-parents has decreased drastically over the period of 10 years with an increase in employment rates. The bottom line on the issue of social welfare in both countries is that the nature of policies employed is more effective in increasing the social wellbeing of lone-families. In addition, both countries borrow advices from one another on how to put up policies that reduce unemployment rates and increase the welfare of citizens (Moffit, 2002).
The third similarity occurs on the way Australia and US approaches the issue of social protection. The two nations have similar approaches to individuals who interrupt the peace of people in one way or another. In both nations, social protection is delivered by the state, and a combination of the government, independent bodies, and civil society groups. The social protection aspect terms these countries as ‘welfare states’. The main aim of undertaking these approaches in the two nations is to increase security and eradicate poverty. Social protection is offered in all institutions and offenders face the full hand of the law without fear or favor. For instance, the Australian social policy has dramatically changed in order to accommodate all departments. These policies cover the industrial protection, residual state welfare, and mixed economy of welfare. The policies have led into a rise of professional social workers in both the private and the public sectors (Australia Government, 2012). Similarly, the US government policies takes care of people who need income security assistance like the unemployed, single parents, and people with disabilities. All these have one goal of increasing the security of the nation (McDonald & Marston, 2005).
Differences between aspects of public welfare between Australia and USA
There are several differences between how Australia and US governments approaches the issue of public welfare. Firstly, the Australian welfare state is characterized as ‘wage earners’. The following phrase shows that the Australian welfare approaches functions as a way of rewarding citizens for their participation in labor force. The Australian government regulates wages of its workers in order to act as a social-economic guarantee that prevents workers from seeking employment from other places. This welfare approach limits the Australians from seeking employment from other areas once they are employed in government sectors. In addition, these welfare policies are seen to abuse human rights especially with high cost of living experienced in Australia today (Angloinfo, 2013). On the contrary, the US government does not limit their workers from other income generating outputs apart from their own places of work. The government of US has introduced social insurance schemes that caters for employees’ welfares and do not limit them from moving into high income generating organizations. In addition, the US government offers social democracy whose policies provide citizens with freedom of work. Moreover, the US government introduced a social security act that is now considered the modern American Welfare State. The social security insurance is a mandatory for all employees in USA because it caters for their living once a person leaves their places of work (Welfare Information, 2013).
Secondly, the Australian welfare is influenced by the district colonial history. Australia was forced to have more interventions and promote direct economic development due to circumstances brought about by the colonial era. The colonial era has created major building blocks in Australian welfare that have not been moved to date. Unlike US, Australia as a wide spread unemployment rates and the government has shown little intervention on the matter. The US government promotes social welfare through promotion of market-conforming policies. Unlike Australia where the approach on market policies has not been fully developed, US ensure her citizens pull out of depression and unemployment and create business opportunities. Moreover, the colonial era had no significant effect on the US economy since it had little impact on their economy. In order to champion economic growth and counter unemployment, Australia passed the Work-for-the-Dole Act that gave mandate to all unemployed youth to seek employment opportunities. However, the act limits the unemployed from using labor social security unions to seek employment assistance (Australian Government, 2012).
The other difference on the approach of public welfare in Australia and US is on the public health care. The two governments have varying responses to public health issues. In Australia, the healthcare reforms focuses on both private and public sectors while in US, they focus more of public sectors. In addition, Australia has a tax-funded public insurance program covering most medical care for all hospital attendants. The federal government is responsible for most health services. In US, private and public institutions who offer programs that regulate, deliver and finance health delivery care regulate health services. Health insurance is available is not available to all whereby only a quarter is covered by public programs. In addition, most people pay for their own insurance covers and majority are not covered (OECD Health Data, 2013).
References
Angloinfo. (2013). Social Security and Welfare Benefits in Australia. Retrieved from:
http://australia.angloinfo.com/money/social-security/
Australian Department of Family and Community Services. (2000). National homelessness
strategy: A discussion paper. Retrieved from: http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/AboutFaCS/Programs/house-homelessnessstrategy.htm
Australian Government. (2012). Australia’s social security framework: Law and Policy.
Retrieved from:
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/5-social-security%E2%80%94overview-and-overarching-issues/australia%E2%80%99s-social-security-framework
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2009). Towards National Indicators of Safety and
Quality in Health Care, Canberra. Retrieved from:
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442452909
McDonald, C. & Marston, G. (2005). Workfare as welfare: Governing unemployment in the
advanced liberal state. Critical Social Policy, 25(3), 374–401.
Moffitt, R. (2002), “From welfare to work: What the evidence shows”, Welfare Reform and
Beyond, Policy Brief No. 13, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.
National Coalition for the Homeless. (2001). Educating children and youth in homeless
situations McKinney-Vento 2001: Law into Practice Issue Brief V1-1/02 ‘Who is Homeless?’ NCH. Retrieved from:
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/Whoishomeless.pdf
OECD. (2013). OECD Health Data 2013. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/oecdhealthdata.htm
Welfare Information. (2013). The History of Welfare. Retrieved from:
http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/
