“Expensive” people: Consumer citizenship and the limits of choice in neoliberal publics

Abstract

In a context of neoliberalism, decisions made for a “public” good are often articulated as what makes the most financial sense, and citizenship is exercised as a matter of consumer choice. Neoliberal theory positions choice as an unmitigated good, and as universally available when markets are deregulated and goods and services are privatized. Examining rhetorics of choice, however, illuminates the often-invisible power relations that shape choice, and makes visible the ways in which choice is conditioned by inequality. This essay attends to the cost–benefit analysis used to promote the spread of Housing First, an approach to addressing chronic homelessness in the United States. It argues that a neoliberal discourse of choice reconfigures possibilities for rhetorical citizenship by constructing “good” and “bad” consumer citizen subjectivities, constraining agency for “expensive” people while concentrating responsibility for public decision-making among “taxpayers.” These discourses thus limit membership to neoliberal publics to people with access to private resources.

Demonstrating Value for Human and Social Services Investment

“…Due to the gradual encroachment of neoliberal thinking into social policies, service provision is driven by market forces and consumer consumption rather than being based on citizen rights and equity (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012; Chenoweth, 2008). When the market mechanism is seen as the main vehicle to address social issues, citizenship rights are seen to be exercised through consumer choice (Gent, 2018). Reinders (2008) argues 'neoliberalism does not recognise "need" because it aims at transforming "need" into "choice"' (p. 566).…”

“…On the supply side, it assumes that there is a range of suppliers able to provide the service through a competitive process based on demand. The discourse of choice masks that exercise of choice is often determined by power relations and inequality (Fotaki, 2013;Gent, 2018;Reinders, 2008).…”

“…However, what is hidden is that choice is determined by power relations and structural inequality. Choice is often used as a justification for marketisation of the social sphere (Gent, 2018).…”

“…The notion that private troubles are linked to public concerns is negated and the burden of key social concerns are relegated to be borne by individuals. Overall, the result is de-politicisation and a move away from addressing the structural and political nature of social issues (Gent, 2018;Keevers et al, 2012;Maier et al, 2016).…”

“…As argued by Wallace and Pease (2011), the functional emphasis on service delivery, tightened client eligibility criteria, talk of defraying costs to customers, the exclusion of workers from policy deliberations and the undermining of advocacy have significantly impacted the client-worker relationships. The restriction of service focus has been accompanied by a discourse of consumer choice which have served to entrench market principles while masking key inequalities in people making choices (Fotaki, 2013;Gent, 2018).…”