Social Impacts of Mining – balancing social & economic

sustainability?

Dr Shane HopkinsonProgram Director: Psych &

SociologyCentral Queensland University

Mackay

Outline

Economic and the social Make econ picture more 3 dimensional Benefits poorly distributed Need to trap them for future

Economic [gains] versus social [costs]

Not of balancing them but re-thinking them as types of investment

Post-boom regional sustainability and 'knowledge village'

2 Sides?

Forum wanted to deal with social and the economic

Often seemed that we speak different languages – even if the words are same

'We deal with people & They deal with numbers'

Economist see social scientists as ‘vague’ ‘touchy feely’

Value of Queensland exports

0

2, 000

4, 000

6, 000

8, 000

10, 000

12, 000

14, 000

16, 000

18, 000

20, 000

2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06

Val

ue o

f ex

port

s ($

M)

C oki ng Ther m al A l l coal s

Where does the money go? Different stakeholders

Where does the money go?In the community

An additional 10,000 directly employed since 2000

Estimate this is $1.06 B in extra wages in central Qld ($125K average wage)

Negative/Nil incom e553 54 67 67 64 86 19 17 3 930$1-$149 575 47 38 35 43 84 58 39 18 937

$150-$249 238 96 133 150 201 404 589 439 74 2,324

$250-$399 423 168 130 149 199 284 491 307 66 2,217

$400-$599 307 507 459 367 407 417 276 151 29 2,920

$600-$799 92 445 631 674 604 475 122 41 7 3,091

$800-$999 40 302 675 702 581 362 59 22 6 2,749

$1,000-$1,299 13 225 778 920 870 360 65 10 0 3,241

$1,300-$1,599 4 140 577 662 616 253 26 10 0 2,288

$1,600-$1,999 6 121 520 617 534 192 20 9 4 2,023

$2,000 or m ore 0 82 494 671 604 270 34 9 0 2,164 3.80%

Individual incom e not stated370 295 653 737 659 410 225 209 59 3,617

Economic benefits not distributedBetween sexes

Gender:Women 2x likely to have y<$400.

0.12% in mining range

Race: 85% Anglo, about 3.5% Indigenous – no specific data

Men WomenNil income 930 2,275 2.45$1-$149 937 2,760 2.95$150-$249 2,324 4,106 1.77$250-$399 2,217 4,594 2.07$400-$599 2,920 4,833 1.66$600-$799 3,091 2,946 0.95$800-$999 2,749 1,622 0.59$1,000-$1,299 3,241 1,426 0.44$1,300-$1,599 2,288 533 0.23$1,600-$1,999 2,023 238 0.12$2,000 or more 2,164 267 0.12

Where does the money go? Other costs

Where does the money go?

The State collects 7% royalties to the tune of $1153 million

Profit – BHP & Rio Tinto around 7-10 billion each year

Returns to shareholders 40-50% mainly big institutional investors ie outside the region

Make picture less 'flat' by adding in social actors & non-economic values

Adding dimensions

Economic discourse is quantitative, a 'flatland' perspective to which social variables give a new dimension

Workcamps are a gendered issue alcohol traditional roles social isolation

Health, policing Effect on families

Social costs

Seen news reports housing affordability health of families eg divorce rosters driver fatigue These costs are borne by community

as a whole, while benefits narrower BUT

Language means we think in terms of econ benefits vs social costs – hence need for balance

Not balance but non-econ. 'value'

Dominance of econ. discourse means non-econ values are marginalised

Access Economics study of DV gave cost 8.1 billion

Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul destroying or a degradation of Man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it be be 'uneconomic' you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper (Schumacher 1973, p. 34)

So how did these things get separated?

Why do we think this way?

History Econ/Social sciences started life as

‘moral’ sciences Part of analysing best way to govern

society Economics focused on market values,

and prices which measured growth & progress

Social science dealt with other non-mkt institutions and thus seen as issues, problems, barriers

Problems with social science

Talked about prob. of economics Ignores the market (or sees it as the

cause of all problems) not just another social institution

One-sided focus on culture, ideas and experience

Fails to develop ways to measure non-economic values (some papers that follow address this)

Not balance but rethink...

We all know that social & econ not separate but we talk as if they are

We need socio-economic analysis one recognises values beyond economic

ones one that treats things with a qualitative

dimension (but is still rigorous) Some work already but need a better

awareness of it

Thinking in terms of 'capital'

Economic sociology Work in business – Jim Collins Money capital, physical capital,

human capital Idea of 'natural' capital Aspects of social capital literature

treats humans as source of value (an asset) not an expense or 'problem'

recognises social networks and trust as more important eg Putnam

Competing 'capitals'

But also that capitals COMPETE – eg Economic capital create value but undermines it: Destroy natural capital by treating non-

renewables as 'income' Undermine social capital – creating

inequity, family stress, Damage human capital –

overexploitation, health issues, fatigue, MVA

Level of investment in each type that should be balanced

Rethinking...

Instead of seeing social costs as side-effects we can see them as effects of unbalanced investment in a single form of (community) capital

Instead of seeing Austudy or money spend on health care as a 'cost' to the taxpayer we can think of it as an investment in the region

Most of these inputs are spent here

CQU as 'knowledge village'

Public money spent on CQU is not a ‘drain’ but an investment in intellectual capital in the region

In econo-speak we are expected to be vocationally relevant, service the needs of industry – all to the good

Looking to the future CQU is one way we can trap wealth here by creating intellectual capital for the future

CQU as 'knowledge village'

Get beyond 'rocks and crops' economy Region's future lies in balanced investment

in social and intellectual capital. Wollongong Uni generates $13 million a DAY for its region

Already CQU generates income and employment in the region via teaching, research and administration – trad economic terms

It is also an investment in human capital – most graduates stay or return to the region

CQU as 'knowledge village'

But if better networks could be built with business, state and local government – around research and training the synergies would create more social capital

Currently it is estimated that our Noosa hub – portal for BLM and BNM- in coop with local councils, hospitals and schools create synergies worth $15 million to their local economy

A sustainable future?

Find ways to redistribute the gains and trap benefits in the region

Part of that is not balancing social and economic but rethinking them BOTH as part of post-boom regional sustainability

Like Noosa we could create a 'lifestyle' region with a 'creative class' of scientists, engineers, teachers and artists centred on university as a knowledge village as the centre of a globalised economy based on local community

Lunchtime meeting

Develop plans for new Bachelor of Social science degree at CQU

12.30 Rm G.09 Or speak to me, Shane Hopkinson,

directly