Moral framings in the Australian parliamentary debate on drug testing of welfare recipients

Curchin, Katherine; Weight, Thomas; Ritter, Alison

doi:10.1111/spol.12774

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stepping back from these impassioned and antagonistic, positions, and inspired by Deacon's (2004) normative analysis of anti-social behaviour interventions, we now map the contours of six key perspectives which our review of the international evidence indicates are the primary ethical lenses through which welfare conditionality has been debated to date (Watts and Fitzpatrick, 2018; see also Curchin et al, 2021). While some of these perspectives have historical roots and specific points of substance in common, they are distinct in foregrounding particular rationales via which to defend or object to conditionality.…”

Section: Value Pluralism and Social Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Value Pluralist Approaches to Social Policy Controversies: A Case Study of Welfare Conditionality

Watts-Cobbe

Fitzpatrick

2023

J. Soc. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Value pluralism’ is a strand of analytical philosophy that posits the plurality of morally significant values. By enabling systematic mapping of the diversity of moral registers within which social policy concerns might legitimately be considered, we contend that value pluralist-inspired analysis can aid constructive policy dialogue. Our argument is founded on four claims: first, as a matter of normative principle, value pluralism represents a defensible ethical standpoint; second, as a matter of fact, people are attracted to a plurality of moral values; third, as a matter of democratic legitimacy, pluralism offers a means of (partially) reconciling rival moral claims; fourth, as a matter of political strategy, pluralism offers a pragmatic approach that can engage protagonists on their own terms. To demonstrate its efficacy, we apply this pluralist approach to the vexed question of welfare conditionality, which we interrogate via six normative perspectives (rights, utilitarianism, contractualism, communitarianism, paternalism and social justice).

show abstract

Section: Value Pluralism and Social Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Value Pluralist Approaches to Social Policy Controversies: A Case Study of Welfare Conditionality

Watts-Cobbe

Fitzpatrick

2023

J. Soc. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drug policy debates occur in various forums, particularly in political or parliamentary debates (e.g., Curchin et al, 2022; Eriksson & Edman, 2017; Tieberghien & Decorte, 2013) and in the media (e.g., Månsson, 2016; Ritter, 2020; Tieberghien, 2014). Previous research shows that media has often represented drug-related issues in an exaggerated and sensationalized way (e.g., Coomber et al, 2000; Taylor, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research on morality and stakeholders in drug policy debates has often focused on moral framings of drug policy in different countries (e.g., Curchin et al, 2022; Euchner et al, 2013; Ferraiolo, 2014). Euchner et al (2013) examined the morality framing of gambling and drug policies in Germany and the Netherlands and whether shifts in morality framing have consequences for regulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, Ritter refers to the theoretical orientation that challenges the dichotomy between evidence and values, that “[…] all evidence, facts and knowledge are ethically, socially and politically situated” (Ritter, 2020, p. 19). In other words, drug policy debates involve values even when discussing evidence; making these value positions more explicit may encourage more effective policy dialogue (Ritter, 2020; see also Buchanan et al, 2003; Curchin et al, 2022; Zampini, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the study by Curchin et al (2022), the authors analyzed the moral framings of Australian parliamentary debates on drug testing of welfare recipients. In this analysis, the authors adapted six normative lenses from Watts and Fitzpatrick’s framework for ethical analysis: communitarianism, consequentialism, contractualism, rights, paternalism and social justice (Watts & Fitzpatrick, 2018, cited in Curchin et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Debating the Drug Policy in Sweden: Stakeholders’ Moral Justifications in Media 2015–2021

Lerkkanen

Storbjörk

2023

Contemporary Drug Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug-related harms continue to increase globally and governments struggle in search of effective and legitimate countermeasures. The choice between policy options is intertwined with the arguments that dominate drug policy discussions, which in turn are closely related to who has access to the policy debate. In this study, we examine stakeholders’ visibility and moral justifications of argumentation in the Swedish drug policy debate in the media (2015–2021). Justification analysis (JA) is used as a methodological and theoretical tool to illustrate the moral principles behind the claims by the stakeholders. The results show that the most visible stakeholders were politicians, government agencies and molders of public opinion. Furthermore, the stakeholders with successful active attempts to participate in the debate were molders of public opinion, NGOs, and politicians. The silent stakeholders in the media were people who use drugs and significant others. Stakeholders generally revolve around a dividing line regarding the restrictive features of Swedish drug policy, and were divided into proponents, opponents and neutral ones. All stakeholder groups included all three sides, hence reflecting the ingroup dissonance that may explain the continuing deadlock in Swedish drug policy. Justifications that value evidence-based policymaking ( industrial worth) was used in the argumentation by the majority of the stakeholder groups, often combined with other moral justifications. This notion challenges the dichotomy of evidence and values in drug policy debates. Proponents relied more on the justifications that value paternalism ( domestic worth), while opponents leaned toward the justifications valuing civil rights and social justice ( civic worth). The development of Swedish drug policy may depend on the relative strength of these two value positions ( domestic versus civic worth) in society and among stakeholders in power. This study continues the discussion of making contesting values explicit in the drug policy, serving a riveting case for international comparison.

show abstract

Poverty and Punishment in Australian Welfare Policy: From the Cashless Debit Card to ParentsNext

O’Keeffe

2024

Power, Privilege and Place in Australian Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral framings in the Australian parliamentary debate on drug testing of welfare recipients

Cited by 8 publications

References 46 publications

Advancing Value Pluralist Approaches to Social Policy Controversies: A Case Study of Welfare Conditionality

Advancing Value Pluralist Approaches to Social Policy Controversies: A Case Study of Welfare Conditionality

Debating the Drug Policy in Sweden: Stakeholders’ Moral Justifications in Media 2015–2021

Poverty and Punishment in Australian Welfare Policy: From the Cashless Debit Card to ParentsNext

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About