scholarly journals Welfare Surveillance, Income Management and New Paternalism in Australia

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Dee

This article discusses the situation of income support claimants in Australia, constructed as faulty citizens and flawed welfare subjects. Many are on the receiving end of complex, multi-layered forms of surveillance aimed at securing socially responsible and compliant behaviours. In Australia, as in other Western countries, neoliberal economic regimes with their harsh and often repressive treatment of welfare recipients operate in tandem with a burgeoning and costly arsenal of CCTV and other surveillance and governance assemblages. Through a program of ‘Income Management’, initially targeting (mainly) Indigenous welfare recipients in Australia’s Northern Territory, the BasicsCard (administered by Centrelink, on behalf of the Australian Federal Government’s Department of Human Services) is one example of this welfare surveillance. The scheme operates by ‘quarantining’ a percentage of a claimant’s welfare entitlements to be spent by way of the BasicsCard on ‘approved’ items only. The BasicsCard scheme raises significant questions about whether it is possible to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves if they no longer have real control over the most important aspects of their lives. Some Indigenous communities have resisted the BasicsCard, criticising it because the imposition of income management leads to a loss of trust, dignity, and individual agency. Further, income management of individuals by the welfare state contradicts the purported aim that they become less ‘welfare dependent’ and more ‘self-reliant’. In highlighting issues around compulsory income management this paper makes a contribution to the largely under discussed area of income management and the growth of welfare surveillance, with its propensity for function creep, garnering large volumes of data on users approved (and declined) purchasing decisions, complete with dates, amounts, times and locations.

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 749-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelley Bielefeld

Many governments have intensified conditions on social security payments, implementing new paternalist and neoliberal policy ideals that individualise responsibility for overcoming poverty. This article explores how such policy ideals can operate with a racialised impact in the context of income management, a type of welfare conditionality in Australia that delivers cashless welfare transfers. Income management originally applied only to Indigenous welfare recipients, but has since been expanded. The government’s rationale for the scheme is to limit access to alcohol and other drugs, and promote ‘socially responsible behaviour’. However, empirical evidence indicates that income management in the Northern Territory has not been successful in achieving the government’s policy objectives. Income management is built upon a policy narrative of addiction – those subject to it are portrayed as addicted to welfare payments and to alcohol. This article critiques these depictions and outlines a range of pragmatic, political and ethical concerns about income management.


2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Gerrard

Neoliberalism is often represented as a fundamental intrusion of individualism into post-war welfare policy settlements. This article seeks to unpick this understanding through a case study of the intersections between the welfare rights and self-help approaches of the homeless and community sectors in the 1970s and 1980s, and the emergence of social enterprise and The Big Issue in the 1990s. First, I outline the development of a dedicated ‘homeless sector’ in the 1970s. Second, the ways in which this sector developed in relation to challenges to state authority in social welfare is examined. Finally, I explore the discursive intersections between the critiques of the welfare state, and the rise of neoliberalism and social enterprise. I suggest the emergence of social enterprise is emblematic of wider claims to individual agency, while also interwoven with the rise of neoliberalism and the capitalist recuperation of self-help and welfare rights challenges to state strategies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Fletcher

Income support policy was already a contentious issue before the arrival of Covid-19, but it has assumed increased significance as a result of the job losses and disruption to people’s earnings following the border closures, trade disruption and the period of nationwide lockdown. This article documents the government’s income support and social welfare responses to the pandemic and places them in the context of the pre-existing debates around welfare policy. The article finishes with a brief discussion of possible future directions for the welfare state.


1986 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lester M. Salmon

AbstractPrevailing conceptions of the welfare state in the United States have failed to acknowledge the widespread partnership that exists between government and private voluntary organizations in the provision of human services. Thanks in large part to this partnership, voluntary organizations have retained a significant role in the American welfare state, delivering a larger share of government-financed human services than government agencies. By cutting back on government spending, therefore, the Reagan administration has significantly reduced the revenues of the nonprofit sector while calling on this sector to do more. Although nonprofits as a group have overcome the resulting cutbacks, they have done so chiefly by increasing their income from service charges, rather than their private charitable support.


1982 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Goodin

AbstractThis essay critically assesses nine claims concerning freedom and the welfare state, the latter defined narrowly and the former broadly. On balance, the findings favour the welfare state. Allegations concerning its negative impact on freedom, where true, are contingently rather than inherently so. The positive impacts are more clearcut, and work to the benefit of citizens as a whole in addition to welfare recipients themselves.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 162-187
Author(s):  
Katrin Hohmeyer ◽  
Eva Kopf

AbstractIn many countries, population ageing is challenging the viability of the welfare state and generating higher demands for long-term care. At the same time, increasing participation in the labour force is essential to ensuring the sustainability of the welfare state. To address the latter issue, affected countries have adopted measures to increase employment; e.g. welfare recipients in Germany are required to be available for any type of legal work. However, 7 per cent of welfare benefit recipients in Germany provide long-term care for relatives or friends, and this care-giving may interfere with their job search efforts and decrease their employment opportunities. Our paper provides evidence of the relationship between the care responsibilities and employment chances of welfare recipients in Germany. Our analyses are based on survey data obtained from the panel study ‘Labour Market and Social Security’ and on panel regression methods. The results reveal a negative relationship between intensive care-giving (ten or more hours per week) and employment for male and female welfare recipients. However, employment prospects recover when care duties end and are subsequently no longer lower for carers than for non-carers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document