The difference between a developed country and undeveloped country is the size of their economies. The difference between the rich and the poor is the factor of how much each earns and what development one has over the other. What brings about the difference in income between individuals of the same country or different countries is the presence of favorable and unfavorable social, political, and economic conditions. If a country develops unfavorable conditions in the way it conducts trade, chances are that it will be left behind in form of development. The citizens of that country will have imbalanced distribution of resources. One would wonder what brings about unfavorable business conditions. The policies governing business affairs affect the conditions of trade and in the long run end up restraining the country from developing (John, 1998).
Australia is a developed country with a fair political climate. Despite this Australia is in records for drafting and implementing policies to govern trade that have affected the social lives of its citizens negatively. Australia would like to compete fairly with other countries in terms of international trade to promote globalization. Going by the kind of policy that was made to see this through, globalization has been taken aback and inequality has boomed. The Australian Economic Policy pushes for economic liberation rather than economic protection. The negative social impact of this policy is that difference in economic strengths between the rich and those referred as poor has increased.
The predicament of unfavorable social conditions in Australia is brought about by the aim of the economic policy. This paper discusses the negative impacts of the policy in terms of inequality and globalization. It is not clear why a developed country would be faced by this form of economic problem. But going by the rules of engagement in trade and business, when one part of the economy seems too favorable, another gets affected considerably. The Australian Economic Policy aimed at globalizing trade and liberalizing economy is punitive and contributes negatively to the social lives of Australian public.
Is asked, the government of Australia would say that globalization means keeping up with the changing times. In definition, globalization means the mode and rate at which Australia can cop and change favorably with the rest of the world. In answering the question of how the world changes, it is important to relate to business and economic trends of other countries. In the USA, the government’s role in implementing policies that govern trade, the main aim is to protect the public and the private sector. The same applies to Britain while in Japan it aims at innovating and supporting the private sector within limited business processes. A government’s involvement in the private sector can either be neutral which happens to be perfect for conducting business effectively; minimal which results to unfair trade; or extended which demotes investment by the private sector.
By opting to promote globalization and being ready to accommodate the changes that took place across the world, Australia drafted an economic policy whose main and only goal was to make the economy liberal. By making the economy liberal, thepolicy opened doors of investment to all and minimized the government involvement in the private sector. The effect this had on the social lives of the citizens was extended margin of inequality. The rich invested the much they had in all forms of trade. The poor did not have much to do with their limited sources of finance. The least they got in the long run were some low paying jobs working with for the rich. Good investment yield success and opens doors for reinvestment. Poor pay diminishes one’s morale and ability to cope with changing economic climates. With this in mind globalization needs to be approached from a strategic angle to avoid uncertain occurrences.
The relationship between globalization and social outcomes refers those affected to sociology, political economy, political science, and economics. This relationship is empirically formulated and tends to isolate impacts of finance, trade and social outcomes. By isolating finance it does not mean that is has nothing to do with the justification of social inequality. In Australia, globalization is the essential component that would tell the negativity of government role. Globalization and liberation has not led to a decrease in the size of government in terms of, taxation and spending, thus the possibility of increased social spending and associated programs that could result to improvements on social outcomes. Nut the recent approach by the government through the policy; it is possible that the predicaments facing Australia in terms of inequality will not be getting better any time soon .
Inequality is a social branch that is defined by non-equal distribution of resources, appreciation, recognition, and value. Economic inequality is the unfair distribution of economic resources and wealth. In Australia the gap between the poor and the rich is too wide and this has everything to do with the economy policy.
In the year 1990, the Australian Labor government attributed the increased income inequality to the global developments. It claimed that it had done all that was possible to minimize the scope and margin of effects of globalization. During this period, Australia had survived a period of power struggle which would have seen the country result to a Coalition Government. The Labor government admitted that the gap of income inequality had widened. On their defense they argued that it would have been worse if a Coalition government was in place.Comparing the situation to the US and the Britain, it was argued that 25-50% range of income earners had had their incomes increased measurably.
In other words, the Labor government was claiming to have succeeded the government which seemed to have been giving up on the issue of income inequality. This was the situation in the year 1990. Australian government then resulted to the coalition government it had survived in the previous election. These were the developments of 1993 and onwards. The labor government pulled off and the Liberal-Coalition government took over. Many changes took place with the coming in of this coalition government. Mostly, privatization and liberalization of the industries took place and changed the taxation system from direct to indirect. In social and health policies, it seemed that the coalition ggovernment was waiting for the right time to extend their system of reforms .
Given the transition of the government approach to trade and income distribution, it is clear that the Liberal-Coalition Government took away the only hope for the public away. The work of the Labor Government prior to the Liberal-Coalition Government was to lower the real income so that would exchange it with social and taxation advantages. By coming to power of the Liberal-Coalition government, social and taxation advantages that the Labor government was protecting were taken away. By privatization and liberalizing of industries, the Liberal-Coalition Government took away the power of controlling income for the Labor government. This gave way to inequality of income due to the fact that the private sector would hire and pay employees whatever amount they felt like without the social advantages.
When the rich became richer by investing more of their wealth the poor continued to be poor in that they were left by the government at the mercy of their employers. The living standards at this level of the poor worsened while those of the rich got better. The government that is supposed to take care of its people in ensuring that wealth and other resources are distributed fairly did not come to the rescue of the poor. As long as a policy to liberalize and privatize industry existed, investors were not required by the law to protect their employees. Going back to the factor of developed and undeveloped nations; promotion of unfavorable conditions in terms of income, the economy of the country would not develop equitably.
Poor education results to a poor nation. The cause of the poor education is attributed to unfair of unfavorable distribution of resources. Unfavorable distribution of resources contributes to imbalanced ratio of income of a certain group to another. With time if inequality of income prevails, it would come a point where the poor would no longer be able afford the education necessary for better survival and securing of better paying jobs.
Social outcomes associated with government policies are differ in nature form one country to another. It is the work of the governments to check why certain policies seem to work well in another country. After thorough investigation, all weighing factors should be analyzed and then assessed before the policy can be implemented .
Australia is a developed country whose policies on industry and trade have been known to cause negative social outcomes. Inclined towards globalization the Australian Economic Policy that was designed to bring economical liberalization failed to deliver the expected result. Further it worsened the existing gap in income inequality in that the poor continued to get poorer while the rich used their financial abilities to invest and make themselves richer. Labor Government was responsible for protecting people by reducing their salaries equitably and replacing it with social and taxation benefits; a situation that was changed completely and negatively by the Liberal-Coalition Government. The long run effects of this change are undefined development of economy, poor education and unsustainable financial conditions on the poor