Regional development processes and policies in Australia: a review of research 1990–2002

Abstract

This article offers a selective review of Australian research on regional development. The themes reviewed include divergence and convergence, resource dependent regional growth, the spatial centralization of the economy, spatial divisions, the social construction of regional identity and regional problems, differentiation between the capital cities and between rural areas, indigenous issues, the suburbanization versus centralization debate, the regional effects of economic reform, regional policy debates, and industry clusters. Australia illustrates regional development processes in a low population density, resource dependent, medium sized economy, managed by neo‐liberal economic policies and with limited government intervention in regional policy.

Notes

Alaric Maude, Associate Professor of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. E‐mail: [email protected]

For earlier reviews see Berry and Rees (1994), Davison and Fincher (1998) and Jensen and West (1995).

Sustaining Regions can be accessed at http://www.flinders.edu.au/anzrsai .

Beer et al. (2003, chapter 6).

The national government is generally referred to as the Federal Government or the Commonwealth Government (i.e. the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia).

See Pickernell and McGovern (2002), and Review of Commonwealth‐State Funding (2002).

See also O'Hagan (2001).

Australia contains six States and two Territories (the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory). Much of the regional econometric modelling undertaken in Australia has been at this scale.

See also Debelle and Vickery (1998).

Beer et al. (1994, p. 54). See also McGuire (2001). Note that the Australian population appears to have a much higher level of mobility than the populations of Europe (Bell & Hugo, 2000, pp. 26–27).

The barriers to mobility are well known, and include lack of information, social and personal ties to localities, housing constraints, the role of informal job placement networks, and the psychological and economic costs of movement.

In Europe, Dunford and Smith (2000) also identify “processes that suggest both convergence and divergence at different geographic scales … ”.

For a review of explanations of regional economic growth and their application to South Australia see Coombs (2001).

See also O'Connor and Stimson (1997), O'Connor et al. (1998), and O'Connor et al. (2001). For a detailed analysis of internal migration between 1991 and 1996 see Bell and Hugo (2000).

The location of advanced services and producer services has been a strong research theme in Australian economic geography, and examples include Daniels and Langdale (1995), O'Connor and Daniels (2001), O'Connor and Edgington (1991), and Searle (1998).

See also Castleman and Coulthard (2001).

On the extent of and trends in the concentration and dispersal of economic sectors in the US and Europe, see Andaluz et al.(2002).

An illustration of the relative weakness of decentralizing forces in Australia comes from the example of call centres, which are strongly concentrated in Sydney and Melbourne. See Beer et al. (2003, chapter 6).

Beer et al. (2003, chapter 6).

These are the capital cities of each of the States. Curiously, the national capital of Canberra, with a population of about 350,000 if the neighbouring city of Queanbeyan is included, is usually excluded from this group. Australians do not yet accept it as a genuine city, and it has long been referred to as the bush capital.

Bureaucrats, with their passion for acronyms, call it RaRA.

In the Australian context ‘regional’ refers to areas outside the State capital cities, and is preferred to ‘non‐metropolitan’, which defines these regions in terms of what they are not, and ‘country’, which suggests rural areas only.

Gray and Lawrence (2001), Lockie and Bourke (2001), Pritchard and McManus (2000).

See Argent (2000).

See chapter 9 in Beer et al. (2003).

Collits and Gastin (1997), Forth (2000), Haslam McKenzie (2000), Rogers and Collins (2001), Smailes (1995), Tonts (2000).

See also McGuirk et al. (1996).

See also Higgins (2001).

See Forster (1999, chapter 2), Murphy (1999), O'Connor et al. (2001, pp. 117–124). For an account of Sydney's role as Australia's financial and corporate capital see Daly and Pritchard (2000). The global role of Melbourne is examined in O'Connor (2003). For a comparison of trends in Sydney and Melbourne see Jureidini and Healy (1998).

The average contribution of social security transfer payments to total disposable income in local government areas in these regions ranges from 25 to 37% (Bray & Mudd, 1998).

See also Beer (1999), and Walmsley and Weinand (1997).

See also Bradley and Gans (1998).

See also Crough (1993).

See Gray and Thacker (2000–2001) and Altman (2000–2001).

See also Beer et al. (2003, chapter 8).

The arguments are set out in various sections of Forster (1999).

See also Moriarty (2002).

See also O'Connor (1999) and Pfister et al. (2000).

Studies of the impact of neo‐liberalism on urban planning include Gleeson and Low (2000a, 2000b), Searle and Cardew (2000).

Examples include Fagan and Webber (1999), Haughton (1990), Murphy and Watson (1995), Paris (1994), Stilwell (1991).

See also Giesecke (1999).

For reviews of several of the issues outlined in this section see Beer (2000), Beer et al. (2003), Monday et al. (1994), Tonts (1999), and the paper by Collits in this special issue.

For the reaction to a suggestion that not all small towns could be saved, see Forth (2000).

See also Spiller and Budge (2000).

See Marceau et al. (1997), Wanna and Withers (2000), Withers and Mead (1998).

See also Giesecke and Madden (1997).

The structure and activities of these agencies are reviewed in Allison and Kwitko (1998), Fulop and Brennan (2000), Maude and Beer (2000), Beer et al. (2003, chapters 2 and 7).

For an example of the complex relationships between local, regional, national and global see McGuirk (1997).

See also Spiller and Budge (2000). In 1994 the Australian Geographer devoted most of one issue (vol. 25, no. 2) to critiques of the regional and labour market policies of the then Labour Party national government. Some of this critique is still relevant at present, and some of the main arguments are outlined in O'Neill and Fagan (1995).

But see Marceau (1998).

But see Joseph (1994).

But see Hodgkinson (1999).

But see Martinez‐Fernandez (1999).

But see Keane and Allison (1999).

But see Low (1995), Maude and Beer (2000).

There is a strong feeling, but little hard evidence, that financial resources have become increasingly concentrated in Sydney and Melbourne, and that a highly centralized private financial system and the National Superannuation Scheme are draining capital from regional areas (National Economics, 2000, p. 230).

A sign that Australian regional specialists are well aware (but sceptical) of European ideas is a conference on “The ‘new regionalism’ in Australia”, held in late 2002, which was generally critical of the utility of the concept to Australia.

See Beer et al. (2003, chapter 10).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alaric Maude

Alaric Maude, Associate Professor of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. E‐mail: [email protected]