Socio-Economic Differences Between Suburbs

This assignment analyzes the socio-economic disparities between Arncliffe and Fairfield, two suburbs in Sydney. The research explores factors contributing to these differences, including occupation rates, employment levels, housing costs (rent/mortgage), and cultural diversity. The text highlights how location, job opportunities, access to education, and societal perceptions influence the socio-economic landscape of each suburb.

Social Science 1
Social Science
Name
Course
Professor
School
City
Date

Social Science 2
Explanation of reasons for socio-economic differences
The inner city versus the outer suburbs has been the perennial Australian divide. But the lifestyle
differences of individuals who are living near the CBDs and those who are located towards the
urban fringe has been growing (Balia and Jones, 2008). The host of the international indexes
highlights that Australia has excellent liveable suburb. Individuals living in these parts have been
diverging in numerous ways (Contoyannis and Jones, 2004). In this research it will explore some
reasons as to why there is socio-economic differences in suburb. Arncliffe is the suburb which I
resides in and the suburb which I will do the comparison with is Fairfield.
The first reason for the socio-economic difference between these two suburb is the on the
occupation rate. According to the research the central city of Sydney it has been restricted and
there are development of the specialized producer services for example the office, hotel,
convention, building apartment, as well as the entertainment cultural facilities (Hulse, Pawson,
Reynolds and Herath, 2014). Based on the report on the table 9 Arncliffe suburb has been able to
attain a higher professional workers as comparison to Fairfield which has a higher rate of the
labourers which has caused a negative consequences to the historical sectoral and dismantled on
the spatial redistribution mechanism (Occupation, 2011 Census). Additionally, the higher rate of
the labourers has resulted to the lack of the educational qualification particularly to the areas
which are away from the CBD.
Another reason which could cause the socio-economic difference is the rate of the employment.
Based on the research it is evident that Arncliffe has a higher percentage of the workers who
work full time and there is a small amount of individuals who are unemployed (Hulse, Pawson,
Reynolds and Herath, 2014). Arncliffe is situated in the inner part of Sydney and the suburb
provides an easy access to the high level of the job creation. In comparison to Fairfield it is

Social Science 3
evident that it is located in an area which is far, where the opportunity for the jobs is slightly
efficient as a result of the small rate of the creation of jobs, making the rate of unemployment to
be high.
Another reason of the socio-economic difference is that of the dwelling on the mortgage and
rent. According to the census data it highlights that the rent payment for the Arncliffe is much
higher than Fairfield that relate to many aspects. The first factor to the high rent rate has been
associated to the issue of location. Arncliffe is located in the inner parts of the Sydney where the
jobs are paid better and the rate of population is higher. When compared to Fairfield it has been
located away from the CBD.
The next reason for the socio-economic difference is cultural and the language diversity. Based
on the census, Arncliffe a higher percentage of 51.8% against that of Fairfield which is 32.7%.
According to social scientist they have suggested that the cultural diversity in a nation could lead
to the societal instability (McKenzie, Pizzica, Gosper, Malfroy and Ashford-Rowe, 2014). The
cultural diversity and the language could be said to result to the outcome which can less likely be
defined in terms of the social aspects. The benefits of the aspects are disrupted by the aspect of
discrimination and the racism, which has been a challenge to the social cohesion particularly in
the Australian society.

Social Science 4
References
Balia, S. and Jones, A.M., 2008. Mortality, lifestyle and socio-economic status. Journal of health
economics, 27(1), pp.1-26.
Contoyannis, P. and Jones, A.M., 2004. Socio-economic status, health and lifestyle. Journal of
health economics, 23(5), pp.965-995.
Hulse, K., Pawson, H., Reynolds, M. and Herath, S.K., 2014. Disadvantaged places in urban
Australia: analysing socio-economic diversity and housing market performance.
McKenzie, J., Pizzica, J., Gosper, M., Malfroy, J. and Ashford-Rowe, K., 2014. Socio-economic
status and students’ experiences of technologies: Is there a digital divide?. ASCILITE2014.