a b s t r a c tWe study the portfolio allocation decisions of Australian households using the relatively new Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. We focus on household allocations to risky financial assets. Our empirical analysis considers a range of hypothesised determinants of these allocations. We find background risk factors posed by labor income uncertainty and health risk are important. Credit constraints and observed risk preferences play the expected role. A positive age gradient is identified for risky asset holdings and home-ownership is associated with greater risky asset holdings. A unifying theme for many of our empirical findings is the important role played by financial awareness and knowledge in determining risky asset holdings. Many non-stockholding households appear to lack the experience and financial literacy that might enable them to benefit from direct investment in stocks.

Underemployment is generally conceived as excess labour supply associated with employed persons — that is, as a situation where employed persons would like to work more hours at prevailing wage rates. Using information collected by the 2001 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey, this study examines the effects of underemployment on outcomes such as income, welfare dependence and subjective well-being. Results obtained imply that, while unemployment clearly has greater adverse consequences, underemployment is nonetheless associated with significant detrimental effects on the outcomes examined. Negative effects are found for both part-time employed and full-time employed workers who would prefer to work more hours, but effects are greater for underemployed part-time workers, and are particularly large for part-time workers who would like to work full-time. Indeed, for part-time workers seeking full-time employment, adverse effects attributable to underemployment are, for some outcomes, not far short of those attributable to unemployment.

No abstract

We propose a framework for measuring social exclusion in Australia and discuss a number of issues that need to be resolved in order to arrive at valid and useful indicators or measures. To do this we first provide a general overview of international developments in the measurement of poverty and social disadvantage, examine the meaning of the concept of social exclusion and summarise the various approaches taken by international and Australian studies to measuring social exclusion and identifying the socially excluded. We then outline our proposed framework for the measurement of social exclusion in Australia, identifying and discussing some of the issues that arise in moving from this framework to actual measures, including discussing the limitations imposed by the data currently available in Australia.

Published ABS data from the Survey of Income and Housing (SIH) show a substantial increase in income inequality between 2001 and 2010. However, almost all of the increase occurred over a period when changes in survey methodology and income concept were occurring. I present results of analysis of the SIH unit record data, as well as independent evidence provided by the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. On the basis of this analysis, I conclude that the SIH overstates the growth in income inequality, even when the income variable examined is notionally consistently defined across surveys. The extent of overstatement is, however, uncertain. Furthermore, it is likely that the picture provided by the SIH data in 2010 is more accurate than the picture provided by the SIH data in 2001 – that is, the ABS is now better measuring income in its household income surveys. Therefore, measured inequality at the start of the decade was too low, rather than measured inequality at the end of the decade being too high.