Abstract:In this paper I argue that we have been amiss in diagnosing the role played by government, which has exacerbated the housing problems afflicting low‐income households in Australia. However, I argue further we have placed too much faith in the capacity of managerial interventions to ameliorate what are far more deep‐rooted and systemic challenges. It is suggested that researchers need to adopt a more critical account of the conduct of contemporary government policy making, one that casts aside a view of the Sta… Show more
“…Using homelessness research as their example, Farrugia and Gerrard () argue that the focus on the discrete needs and vulnerabilities of people experiencing poverty is actually a function of neoliberalism, as it separates the consequences of systemic inequalities from their structural causes and instead constitutes them as products of “problem subjects” who require discrete, tailored interventions. A similar point is made by Jacobs (, p. 63), who criticizes what he calls “Managerial ‘solutions’ in the provision of housing”:Attention is focused on individual shortcomings and the recommendations that are often proffered are to provide forms of bespoke assistance for those in distress. Such interventions not only fail to ameliorate the housing crisis, but they also reinforce the hegemonic status of neoliberal discourses within the realm of government.…”
Section: After Neoliberalism As a Theoretical Lensmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…This latter point reflects previous research showing that some disadvantaged clients endorse interventions that augment their capacity for self‐governance, particularly when they are accompanied with support (Flint, ; Parsell & Clarke, ). As we discuss in the conclusion, this complicates claims that initiatives foregrounding client vulnerability are a neoliberal ruse that perpetuate broader inequalities (Farrugia & Gerrard, ; Jacobs, ).…”
Section: The Supportive Turn As “After Neoliberal” Governancementioning
confidence: 89%
“…In interpreting this partial rupture with neoliberal governmentality, we challenge accounts that argue that supportive responses to vulnerable populations function to maintain the wider inequalities engendered by neoliberalism (Farrugia & Gerrard, 2016;Jacobs, 2015). Instead, following Larner (Larner & Craig, 2005;Larner, Heron, & Lewis, 2007), we conceptualize this shift in bureaucratic encounters as an instance of "after neoliberalism": a governmental formation wherein non-neoliberal practices emerge as a contingent response to the failures of neoliberal governmentality at the street level of bureaucratic operations, without yet challenging broader neoliberal settings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Whilst this shift in bureaucratic engagements has demonstrably benefited these clients, questions exist over whether or not it constitutes a true departure from neoliberalism. Indeed, some argue that it actually bolsters the broader operations of neoliberal governmentality by ameliorating its worst effects and by focusing on client vulnerabilities in isolation from the structural processes that produce them (Farrugia & Gerrard, ; Jacobs, ).…”
It is well established that encounters between welfare bureaucracies and their clients have been reconfigured under neoliberalism to address the problem of “welfare dependency.” Contemporary bureaucratic encounters therefore entail measures to activate clients’ entrepreneurial/self‐governing capacities, and conditionality/sanctioning practices to deal with clients who behave “irresponsibly.” Despite the dominance of the neoliberal model, recent research has identified a counter‐trend in the practices of housing services away from entrepreneurializing and punitive strategies and towards a more supportive approach. This paper examines this counter‐trend and its implications for neoliberal welfare governance. To do this, it presents findings from research into social housing governance in Queensland, Australia, where the neoliberal focus on welfare independence, conditionality and sanctioning has been tempered by a new supportive approach focused on assisting vulnerable clients to maintain and benefit from access to welfare/housing support. Following Larner, we argue that this shift signals the emergence of an “after neoliberal” governmental formation, wherein key features of neoliberal governmentality are replaced by, or redeployed in the service of, progressive initiatives that address neoliberalism’s failings at the street level, but leave broader neoliberal policy settings undisturbed. We also challenge recent sociological accounts that construe supportive welfare practices as a function of an all‐encompassing neoliberal project, arguing instead for appreciation of the contingency of these developments and the progressive political affordances that they entail.
“…Using homelessness research as their example, Farrugia and Gerrard () argue that the focus on the discrete needs and vulnerabilities of people experiencing poverty is actually a function of neoliberalism, as it separates the consequences of systemic inequalities from their structural causes and instead constitutes them as products of “problem subjects” who require discrete, tailored interventions. A similar point is made by Jacobs (, p. 63), who criticizes what he calls “Managerial ‘solutions’ in the provision of housing”:Attention is focused on individual shortcomings and the recommendations that are often proffered are to provide forms of bespoke assistance for those in distress. Such interventions not only fail to ameliorate the housing crisis, but they also reinforce the hegemonic status of neoliberal discourses within the realm of government.…”
Section: After Neoliberalism As a Theoretical Lensmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…This latter point reflects previous research showing that some disadvantaged clients endorse interventions that augment their capacity for self‐governance, particularly when they are accompanied with support (Flint, ; Parsell & Clarke, ). As we discuss in the conclusion, this complicates claims that initiatives foregrounding client vulnerability are a neoliberal ruse that perpetuate broader inequalities (Farrugia & Gerrard, ; Jacobs, ).…”
Section: The Supportive Turn As “After Neoliberal” Governancementioning
confidence: 89%
“…In interpreting this partial rupture with neoliberal governmentality, we challenge accounts that argue that supportive responses to vulnerable populations function to maintain the wider inequalities engendered by neoliberalism (Farrugia & Gerrard, 2016;Jacobs, 2015). Instead, following Larner (Larner & Craig, 2005;Larner, Heron, & Lewis, 2007), we conceptualize this shift in bureaucratic encounters as an instance of "after neoliberalism": a governmental formation wherein non-neoliberal practices emerge as a contingent response to the failures of neoliberal governmentality at the street level of bureaucratic operations, without yet challenging broader neoliberal settings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Whilst this shift in bureaucratic engagements has demonstrably benefited these clients, questions exist over whether or not it constitutes a true departure from neoliberalism. Indeed, some argue that it actually bolsters the broader operations of neoliberal governmentality by ameliorating its worst effects and by focusing on client vulnerabilities in isolation from the structural processes that produce them (Farrugia & Gerrard, ; Jacobs, ).…”
It is well established that encounters between welfare bureaucracies and their clients have been reconfigured under neoliberalism to address the problem of “welfare dependency.” Contemporary bureaucratic encounters therefore entail measures to activate clients’ entrepreneurial/self‐governing capacities, and conditionality/sanctioning practices to deal with clients who behave “irresponsibly.” Despite the dominance of the neoliberal model, recent research has identified a counter‐trend in the practices of housing services away from entrepreneurializing and punitive strategies and towards a more supportive approach. This paper examines this counter‐trend and its implications for neoliberal welfare governance. To do this, it presents findings from research into social housing governance in Queensland, Australia, where the neoliberal focus on welfare independence, conditionality and sanctioning has been tempered by a new supportive approach focused on assisting vulnerable clients to maintain and benefit from access to welfare/housing support. Following Larner, we argue that this shift signals the emergence of an “after neoliberal” governmental formation, wherein key features of neoliberal governmentality are replaced by, or redeployed in the service of, progressive initiatives that address neoliberalism’s failings at the street level, but leave broader neoliberal policy settings undisturbed. We also challenge recent sociological accounts that construe supportive welfare practices as a function of an all‐encompassing neoliberal project, arguing instead for appreciation of the contingency of these developments and the progressive political affordances that they entail.
“…These countries traditionally rely on what can be slow and wait-listed processes to access social housing (the length of wait and eligibility criteria for accessing social housing varies significantly across Australia, the United Kingdom, and Europe). In addition to system challenges, relying on housing from the market, rather than social housing, is criticized outside of the United States as the state transferring public money to private landlords (Jacobs 2015).…”
Various forms of housing exclusion are a reality for millions of people across the globe. For people who are homeless in advanced industrialized economies, housing exclusion often co-exists with social service engagement. This essay reviews three books about how homelessness is conceptualized and caused, and how we, as social service providers and social scientists, respond to homelessness:
A major obstacle in the political work of housing the homeless is convincing voters and lawmakers that housing is a right and should be available to all without conditions. This paper seeks to assist that project by showing that the tension between rights and conditions has a history. It focusses on the pivotal 1940s, which saw the first major investment in public housing and the first surveys of two relevant problem populations-"the problem family" and "the homeless". Those surveys used the language of eugenics, psychology and moral censure to perpetuate conditionality, while the call for housing as a right invested in the agency of "the people". And the people wanted to be heard. Analysing the complex ways in which conditions on housing operated at this turning point enlarges and variegates the canvas on which contemporary understandings draw. It not only offers sobering insight into how the entrenching of marginalisation occurred but also informs the sense of contingency that might nourish serious reform. How to cite this article: O'Brien, A. (2022) Housing the homeless: How revisiting the 1940s assists the struggle.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
