Resistance or resignation to welfare reform? The activist politics for and against social citizenship

Abstract

Since 2008, mature welfare states have, to varying degrees, pursued a strategy of welfare reform that has reconfigured the dominant praxis of social citizenship. Drawing on qualitative data from two studies, this article explores what bearing this has had on the political subjectivity of welfare claimants in the New Zealand context. The findings suggest welfare claimants engage in diverse political struggles for and against social citizenship to resist, reconfigure and resign themselves to the prevailing socio-political settlement. In light of this, conclusions are drawn about the insurgent politics of low-income social security claimants as political agents in the citizenshipmaking process.

Everyday Resistance to Workfare: Welfare Beneficiary Advocacy in Auckland, New Zealand

“…While street-level practitioners may act in a way that supports beneficiaries, they may also ‘go to great lengths to discourage voice, claims making, and the assertion of rights, avoiding – even suppressing – efforts by individuals to discuss their needs and life circumstances’ (Brodkin, 2013: 29). In response, claimants have been shown to ‘actively defend and contest the ideals, operation and outcomes of social citizenship through their everyday attitudes and engagements’ (Edmiston and Humpage, 2016: 7). The apparent significance of street-level interactions between beneficiaries and state-authorised agents has led for calls to examine the ‘operational core’ (Brodkin, 2013: 10) of contemporary workfare.…”

“…For example, focusing on the ‘everyday relations of power’ in street-level welfare organisations, McDonald and Marston (2005: 397) frame instances where beneficiaries ‘refuse to act as a ‘recipient’, a ‘dependant’ or a ‘jobseeker’’ as a form of resistance to workfare. Likewise, Edmiston and Humpage (2016: 10) highlight ‘subversive strategies’ of resistance practiced by beneficiaries, including half-hearted compliance and false reporting. In a similar vein, we claim that beneficiary advocacy services enable everyday resistance insofar as they equip beneficiaries to resist, through defiant acts of perseverance, the operational logic of dissuasion that has come to define contemporary welfare systems.…”

“…As the explanatory notes for a recent reform bill make plain, the ‘main objective of the changes is to ensure a fairer system of social assistance with an unrelenting focus on work’ (New Zealand Parliament, 2010: n.p.). This period of reform has seen the state reduce its responsibilities for the provision of financial assistance to those in need, while increasing its focus on ‘enforcement and oversight’ (O'Brien, 2013: 731, see also Edmiston, 2016; Edmiston and Humpage, 2016) through a complex suite of eligibility and compliance conditions related to income-support payments and several supplementary support payments. As the Benefit Impact event mentioned at the beginning of the article suggests, these conditions – and the seemingly opaque processes of street-level deliberation involved in their enforcement – have made it challenging for many claimants to effectively claim and maintain their benefits.…”

Conceptualising dignity in the context of social security: Bottom‐up and top‐down perspectives

“…Ultimately, these aspects of dignity can be closely linked: Perceptions that recipients or applicants are largely undeserving can influence both interactions and decisions on eligibility (Altreiter & Leibetseder, ; Caswell & Høybye‐Mortensen, ). Conversely, when “simply providing for yourself” becomes a “luxury” (Edmiston & Humpage, : 474), the indignity is not merely in the material deprivation experienced but in the feeling of not being “entitled to a quality of life” (Edmiston, : 322).…”

‘How the Other Half Live’: Poor and Rich Citizenship in Austere Welfare Regimes

“…In recent years, New Zealand and UK political administrations have advanced a similar ideal of neoliberal paternalism to justify welfare reforms that seek to re-craft unemployed individuals into ‘active welfare subjects’ (Edmiston and Humpage, 2016; Wright, 2016). To reform the ‘citizen character’ of low-income benefit recipients, policy agendas have focused on cultivating capabilities and orientations contributing towards market assimilation.…”