Introduction
An egalitarian society is subject to equality laws regardless of human characteristics such as gender, race, age, or religion. Such a society has almost equal access to income and wealth for the entire population. Australians believe that a distinct class system does not exist for them and that the level of wealth depends directly on the individual’s efforts to achieve it. Research is critical because there is conflict about income distribution in the Australian community. Understanding the prospects for Australia’s movement along the income and wealth curve will help establish political and economic strategies to overcome inequality and class discrimination. Despite the signs of an egalitarian community, Australia is not fully egalitarian. It is justified by the presence of a continuing patriarchal family structure, educational tendencies, and pronounced disparities in income and wealth. Australia’s egalitarianism may only be a mask from behind which the state of affairs is not visible.
Background
First, the theory of egalitarianism is based on treating each other equally regardless of their characteristics. Providing everyone with equal rights and opportunities is the primary goal of egalitarianism, which Australia seeks to achieve at this time through the development of social elevators and economic structures (UNSW Media, 2020). This theory is relevant because it allows for correspondence between claims of equality and objective indicators of wealth. Second, the social capital theory describes social ties that act as a resource for benefits (Claridge, 2018). Concerning Australia, It can be applied to the conditions for women in wealth accumulation and the accumulation of individuals who wish to pursue higher education. This theory is relevant to Australia because it testing how having socioeconomic status affects other levels of income. The essay will not discuss features of historical linguistic adherence and cultural habits because they fully reflect the distribution of income and wealth.
Egalitarianism and Women in Australia
Egalitarianism in Australia is positioned as the equal status of all people with sufficient resources to achieve a certain level of wealth. Although the role of women is gradually moving away from the typical housewife and childminder to strong leader, it cannot be entirely said that Australian women are equalized in rights. Women, like men, almost immediately gained the right to vote after leaving the British colonial system, but at the moment, patriarchal beliefs continue to dominate the Australian community (Perales and Bouma, 2018). This is mainly due to multiple faiths in which a woman’s role and value are reduced to bearing children, which contradicts notions of equality. Although patriarchal attitudes are gradually declining, Perales and Bouma (2018) found that Christianity and Islam continue to perpetuate sexist stereotypes about women. In addition, religions establish order in relationships, prohibiting or restricting women’s access to employment and, consequently, wealth accumulation. According to Kulik (2021), gender inequality continues to exist as part of the problem of achieving full equality in the Australian community. Kulik found that the country is moving slowly toward equalizing women’s financial performance and social freedom. The proportion of women as leaders is increasing, but Kulik (2021) suggests this is due to pressure from critics rather than a genuine desire for equality. It leads to the problem that the egalitarianism dictated by Australia can be a facade for creating almost favorable relationships (UNSW Media, 2020). It is also worth critically examining how women move up the social ladder. Classes continue to exist in Australia, and income and wealth distribution equality between women and men is illusory (Davidson et al., 2020). The absence of women in leadership positions means their experience and expertise continue to be sidelined as men are unwilling to provide this niche for them. Gilbert, O’Shea, and Duffy (2021) suggest that this reinforces the gender gap in academia: women are underrepresented in many competitive fields that correspond to prestigious financial positions. Gender continues to matter in the distribution of workloads, research budgets, and inequalities. As a result, egalitarianism toward Australian women remains unstable and weak to claim equality.
Egalitarianism and Education
Women are less able to pursue their desires in academia partly because they lack social capital. The academic environment requires savings and investments that low-income women cannot access (Gilbert, O’Shea, and Duffy, 2021). The situation in higher education in Australia is an example how egalitarian ideas avoid the actual prerequisites of income opportunity. According to Chesters (2018), social capital theory is the basis for higher education. It defines, in particular, the pool of resources available to individuals from lower-class backgrounds. Furthermore, according to estimates of economic resources, students with low levels of social well-being do not have access to favorable experiences and cannot adequately represent successful graduation (Chesters, 2018). Consequently, education is a privilege that is not available due to the prevailing limitations of thinking and lack of a basis for paying tuition. Little social capital limits students to institutional resources and support, preventing them from progressing toward a degree (Chesters, 2018). Perry reports that low opportunities, experiences, and outcomes are guiding criteria for inequality (2018). Perry looks at indigenous populations with the lowest access to secondary and higher education and students in remote areas who lack opportunities for offline learning. For children, getting an education is directly tied to their parent’s ability to sponsor and travel to school and additional electives. Perry reports that this even translates into the problem of poor writing and reading quality (Perry, 2018). According to social capital theory, this is an inequality based on a lack of resources that cannot be obtained because of low socioeconomic status. Moreover, the availability of achievements should correlate with the gender gap in the community (Eriksson, Bjornstjerna, and Vartnova, 2020). Angelico (2020) reports that this gap became especially pronounced during the pandemic because distance education became inaccessible to many children. Families’ social and psychological capital was significantly affected, and the lack of opportunities for regular work and help for children drew attention to the lack of well-being. It can be assumed that the criterion of egalitarianism (access to education and subsequent welfare) is not met in Australia for women or on the day of primary and higher education.
Differences in the Distribution of Income and Wealth
The patriarchy in Australia, reinforced by limited educational opportunities, is a factor that affects the distribution of income and wealth. It is possible to judge whether Australia meets the principles of egalitarianism or not. According to The Productivity Commission (2021), data on how wealth is distributed is quite scarce due to imperfect government reporting. Administrative and survey data are currently the primary sources of information about the distribution of income. Before 1982, Australia had an inheritance tax, which allowed some control over wealth and tracked the facts of its transfer. The value of inheritance as a part of wealth has recently been $125,000. The inheritance cases given out have resulted in absolute wealth inequality (The Productivity Commission 2021). It has resulted in the wealthy accumulating wealth much faster than the poor. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019-20, the Gini coefficient is 0.436 for gross income; for wealth indicators, the inequality is in the middle range at 0.611 (no date). The low-income with low wealth accounts for 32.3%, while the high-income with low wealth accounts for only 6.6% (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019-20, no date). These data indicate that the gap between rich and poor in 2019-2020 is justified by sources of income and capital investment opportunities. For the high-income, most of the income comes from employees (83.7%), and the lowest income from government benefits (68.5%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019-20, no date). This situation is a reflection of established patriarchal principles: the low-income is either single or poor married couples with dependent children with whom it is impossible to employ both parents. The lack of opportunities to provide for the family in full generates additional poverty, as the children of such parents cannot escape from the class niche. The unequal distribution of earnings in families (part-time work for women) worsens the income distribution (Davidson et al. 2020). Consequently, the population is left out of privilege or any opportunity to accumulate wealth because most of the assets go to support the family. Australian society does not fall into the egalitarian group countries in terms of income and income distribution.
Conclusion
Australian egalitarianism is not an established concept for distributing resources, income, and wealth. Based on religious or other motives, existing patriarchal attitudes and beliefs prevent women from accessing opportunities to accumulate capital. In addition, they cannot access jobs or education because of the constraints imposed by social roles, among which childcare is a significant concern. The educational segment is also subject to inequality: not only do women not have access to higher education, but the general level of socio-economic well-being directly affects the receipt of a degree. Lack of experience, perceptions of higher education, and economic opportunity lead to a gap between the poor and the rich. The actual distribution of income and wealth does not meet egalitarianism: at the moment, government payments are the primary source of income for the low-income population. For the wealthy stratum, it is wage labor and full-time work compared to low-income families with children.
Reference List
Angelico, T. (2020) ‘Educational inequality and the pandemic in Australia: Time to shift the educational paradigm’, International Studies in Educational Administration, 48(1), pp. 46-54.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019-20 (no date) Household Income and Wealth, Australia.
Chesters, J. (2018) ‘Egalitarian Australia? Associations between family wealth and outcomes in young adulthood’, Journal of Sociology, 55(1). doi: 10.1177/1440783318777293
Claridge, T. (2018) Introduction to capital theory. Dunedlin: Social Capital Research.
Davidson, P. et al. (2020) Inequality in Australia, 2020 Part 2: Who is affected and why. Sydney: The Australian Council of Social Service.
Eriksson, K., Bjornstjerna, M. and Vartanova, N. (2020) ‘The relation between gender egalitarian values and gender differences in academic achievement’, Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00236
Gilbert, E., O’Shea, M. and Duffy, S. (2021) ‘Gender equality mainstreaming and the Australian academy: paradoxical effects?’, Discover Psychology, 1(7). doi: 10.1007/s44202-021-00008-0
Kulik, C. (2021) ‘Gender (in)equality in Australia: good intentions and unintended consequences’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60(2). doi: 10.1111/1744-7941.12312
Perales, F. and Bouma, G. (2018) ‘ Religion, religiosity and patriarchal gender beliefs: Understanding the Australian experience’, Journal of Sociology, 55(2). doi: 0.1177/1440783318791755
Perry, L. B. (2018) ‘Educational inequality in Australia’, in How unequal? Insight on inequality. Melbourne: CEDA.
The Productivity Commission (2021) Wealth transfers and their economic effects. Canberra: Coat of Arms.
UNSW Media (2022) New report: wealth inequality in Australia and the rapid use in house prices.