Search results

In March 2020, the Australian Government restricted the entry of travelers into Australia by closing its international borders in an effort to contain the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19). While Australian citizens who were resident overseas could return to Australia under certain conditions, the border closures significantly affected their ability to return to Australia and as a consequence had a dramatic impact on their lives and the lives of their families. This chapter explores the effects of the Australian government’s decision to close the national border by presenting the lived experiences of Australian citizens adversely affected by the government’s decision. The research is based on an online survey conducted in late 2021 and early 2022. Based on the findings, this chapter explores notions of Australian citizenship rights and privileges in the context of the pandemic, and the profound impacts the national lockout had on Australians as individuals, family members and on their sense of national identity. A central finding of this research reveals how citizens’ separation from family during the lockout placed considerable stress on the family as a social institution and caused significant impacts on Australians’ physical and mental health.

In Chapter 1, we critically reviewed the foundations of the free enterprise capital system (FECS), which has been successful primarily because of its wealth and asset accumulation potentiality and actuality. In this chapter, we critically argue that this capacity has been grounded upon the profit maximization (PM) theories, models, and paradigms of FECS. The intent of this chapter is not anti-PM. The PM models of FECS have worked and performed well for more than 200 years of the economic history of the United States and other developed countries, and this phenomenon is celebrated and featured as “market performativity.” However, market performativity has not truly benefitted the poor and the marginalized; on the contrary, market performativity has wittingly or unwittingly created gaping inequalities of wealth, income, opportunity, and prosperity. Critical thinking does not combat PM but challenges it with alternative models of profit sharing that promote social wealth, social welfare, social progress, and opportunity for all, which we explore here. Economic development without social progress breeds economic inequality and social injustice. Economic development alone is not enough; we should create a new paradigm in which economic development is the servant of social progress, not vice versa. Such a paradigm shift involves integrating the creativity and innovativity of market performativity and the goals and drives of social performativity together with PM, that is, from market performativity to social performativity.