Affective technologies of welfare deterrence in Australia and the United Kingdom

Abstract

Across the political spectrum of different historical periods, welfare deterrence has shaped social security and immigration policy in both Australia and the United Kingdom. Deterrence discourages access to state welfare through the production and mobilization of negative affect to deter specific groups from claiming state support, and by crafting public affect (of fear and disgust) about these target populations in order to garner consent for punitive policies. In this paper, we argue that deterrence works as a human technology where the crafting of negative affect operates as a technology of statecraft. Through critical juxtaposition and multiple genealogies of deterrence, this paper meshes time and space, and colony/colonizer and metropole, to show the historical and contemporary connectivity of the affective nature of deterrence. We identify five main operations that produce the 'feel' of deterrence: stigmatization by design, destitution by design, deterrent architecture, the control of movement, and the centrality of labour; as well as tracing the political economy of deterrence.

An exploratory study examining the changes to Australia’s social security system during COVID‐19 lockdown measures

“…Both mutual obligations and the low social security payment level create “hostile conditions” (Mills and Klein, 2021 ), which act as a deterrent for people seeking social security. For example, in an interview on 2GB, Scott Morrison raised his concern that a Jobseeker Supplement of $550 given to help people on low social security incomes during COVID‐19 lockdowns may be used to refuse work.…”

“…As has been described in the UK, stigma can be weaponised as a political tool (Jensen, 2019 ). Characterising social security recipients’ behaviour as deviant legitimises existing inequalities and justifies punitive treatment (Mills and Klein, 2021 ). Thus, stigma can underpin policy responses where recipients of social security are given inadequate payments to meet basic needs (to avoid unscrupulous expenditure), or have their funds overseen by the state, such as through income management and the Cashless Debit Card.…”

Burden and benefits-related suicides: “misperception” or state crafted reality?

“…The foundations for what has come to be known as “welfare reform” (for example, in the Welfare Reform Acts of 2007 and 2012) were set in the 1980s-early 1990s (Wikeley, 1995) (and can also arguably be seen much further back in England’s punitive Poor Laws of 1834; Mills and Klein, 2021). Yet since 2008 many have argued that the UK has taken a “punitive turn” in welfare provision, marked by an increased level of conditionality, and “surveillance, sanctions and deterrence” (Fletcher and Wright, 2018, p. 323).…”

How child inclusive were Australia's responses to COVID‐19?

“…To address the problem as represented, strict levels of conditionality characterise social security in Australia. The resulting 'hostile conditions' have been well-documented and criticised as a conscious policy decision to deter individuals and families from seeking support (Brady, 2011;Klein et al, 2021;Mills & Klein, 2021). Parenting support is means-tested by both assets and income, and is only available to partnered parents until a child turns 6 years of age and to single parents until the youngest child turns eight.…”