ELECTRICITY TARIFFS: SOCIAL POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Abstract: The issue of equity in the provision of public utilities is one which has been the subject of a number of Australian studies over the past ten years. In particular, the obvious inequities in pricing between different classes of electricity consumers have attracted attention. Evidence that these inequities exist not only between, but also within, consumer classes was found in a survey of Brisbane residential electricity consumers. Significantly higher rates per kilowatt hour are paid by lower income consumers and the proportion of income spent on electricity is higher than that spent by the upper income households surveyed.
These inequities have important implications in the development of social policies, particularly those directed at the aged who, in many cases, rely on a low fixed income in the form of the old age pension. So far, in Australia, only the Victorian state government has approached this issue in any detail as a part of its Social Justice Strategy despite the fact that similar inequities in the provision of electricity to household consumers exist in all states.     

Perceived Social Environment and Adolescents’ Well-Being and Adjustment: Comparing a Foster Care Sample With a Matched Sample

Previous research has demonstrated that former foster care youth are at risk for poor outcomes (e.g., more problem behaviors, more depression, lower self-esteem, and poor social relationships). It is not clear, however, whether these findings reflect preemancipation developmental deficits. This study used 163 preemancipation foster care youth and a matched sample of 163 comparison youth. Results showed that foster-care youth did not differ from the comparison sample on measures of well-being, including depressed mood, problem behavior, and self-esteem. Foster care youth reported higher levels of work orientation, but lower levels of academic achievement, aspirations, and expectations. In addition, compared to the matched sample, foster care youth perceived better social environments with respect to their important nonparental adults (VIPs) and peers, but poorer social environments relating to their parents. These differences in social environments may have offset each other and resulted in similar levels of psychological well-being for the two groups of youth. Regression analyses further showed that social environments were linked to selected adolescent outcomes, and nonparental VIPs were especially important for the foster care sample.Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine. Current interests: Cross-cultural study of adolescent well-being, at-risk youth.Received PhD in clinical psychology from Radcliffe College, Harvard University. Current interests: Role of culture, family, peers, and nonparental adults in adolescent developmentReceived PhD in developmental psychology from University of Michigan. Current interests: Cross-cultural human development; neural bases of language and mathematical learningReceived PhD in developmental psychology from University of Strathclyde. Current interests: Life-span development, motivation and developmental regulation, control and health     

The United States Supreme Court and the death penalty since Furman: The settlement of basic issues

In 1972 the United States Supreme Court in Furman V. Georgia found that the death penalty as it was then being applied was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Furman provided few constitutional guidelines, but states reinacted their death penalty statutes.In 1976 the Court began to receive appeals from death sentences imposed under the reinacted statutes. In its decisions the Court began to establish guidelines. It found the death penalty was not per se cruel and unusual punishment. Before the death penalty can be imposed the court must take into consideration any mitigating circumstances and the case must be reviewed by the state supreme court. A mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional.Other issues including proportionality, due process and finality of judgment will be examined in the next segment of this study.