‘Housing risk’ and the neoliberal discourse of responsibilisation in Victoria

Abstract

The article examines the representation of housing risk in contemporary Australian policy discourse through a critical analysis of two policy texts from the recent Victorian Coalition government (2010–2014). Drawing on governmentality theory and contemporary debates on neoliberalism, it examines how these policy texts perpetuate a discourse in which ‘housing risk’ is primarily understood as an issue for individuals to manage, rather than as an issue with predominantly structural roots. It then explores how this particular neoliberal representation of ‘housing risk’ supports policy solutions that ultimately responsibilise individuals through a narrow focus on education and employment as the pathways to independence in the private housing market. The article argues that this situation is problematic in a context of increasing rates of homelessness and diminished access to affordable housing across Australia.

Agency and clientship in public encounters: co‐constructing ‘neediness’ and ‘worthiness’ in shelter placement meetings

“…Social workers who give aid to homeless persons often work with highly ambiguous goals (Ravenhill ; Smith‐Carrier and Lawlor ; Stonehouse, Threlkeld and Farmer ) as they must sort out the complex troubles of the homeless persons’ situation as well as negotiate with them what a better life might entail (Dwyer, Bowpitt, Sundin and Weinstein ). This moral enterprise is about deciding the ‘moral culpability or pathology of homeless individuals’, which then becomes the centre of the explanation (Farrugia and Gerrard : 260, 270).…”

The impact of the direct payment of housing benefit: evidence from Great Britain

“…Their introduction is consistent with neoliberal thinking, a philosophy which became increasingly popular with Western governments from the late twentieth century (Stonehouse, 2015).…”

“…However, it has (legitimately) been problematised for being imprecise and for over-reaching itself; for misusing the term 'neoliberal'; and, for providing an over-simplified and (sometimes) biased interpretation of the behaviour of the state (Storper, 2016). Notwithstanding this, and accepting that the term is, to some degree, contested, there is widespread agreement that neoliberalism has three key features: extending market relationships and reducing state intervention; welfare state roll-back; and, an emphasis on the responsibilities of citizens to maximise their opportunities within markets, thereby reducing the level of risk to the state, a concept which is known as 'responsibilisation' (Peck & Theodore, 2012;Stonehouse, 2015;Trnka & Trundle, 2014). DP is a prime example of responsibilisation policy in practice.…”

“…To some extent, responsibilisation is a fuzzy concept: it has taken on many meanings and, to an extent, has been 'colonised' (Trnka & Trundle, 2014;Lemke, 2001). Furthermore, its form may vary (Stonehouse, 2015). However, there is agreement that at its heart lies the notion of emphasising the role of citizens as agents while down-playing the role of structure (the state), an emphasis that has been criticised within Foucouldian critiques of neoliberalism (Stonehouse, 2015) In the UK, the notion of responsibilisation has gained considerable traction and has driven housing and welfare policy since the turn of the century; and particularly since 2010 when the Conservative-Liberal Coalition came to power and subsequently under the 2015 Conservative Government.…”

Organizational Professionalism: Social Workers Negotiating Tools of NPM

“…This branch of research also claims that NPM values create many dilemmas for professionals. For instance, social workers who give aid to homeless persons often work with highly ambiguous goals (Smith-Carrier & Lawlor, 2017;Stonehouse, Threlkeld, & Farmer, 2015) as they must sort out the complex troubles of the homeless individuals' situation as well as negotiate with them what a better life entails for them (Dwyer, Bowpitt, Sundin, & Weinstein, 2015). This relational work must hereafter be translated and documented into scoring schemas (Farrell & Morris, 2003;McDonald et al, 2008;Shanks et al, 2015).…”