To move or not to move: mobility decision-making in the context of welfare conditionality and paid employment

Conditionality in Australia’s welfare state has sustained a significant academic critique, including the critique published in this journal. In this Special Issue of the Australian Journal of Social Issues, we contribute to the existing critical literature on welfare conditionality. This Special Issue aimed to provide empirical scrutiny into welfare reform and conditionality in Australia. The articles extend our understanding of welfare conditionality’s underpinnings and its lived effects. These case studies illuminate the aspects of welfare conditionality that have not received enough attention: the role of technology, the question of mobility, the relationship with housing and the little thought given to the state’s role in mutual obligation. What is clear is that the individualisation of structural problems is not just a theoretical and political misstep ripe for critique, but leads to the formulation of policies that impact marginalised people’s capacity to shape life on their own terms. Through different empirical foci, all papers in this Special Issue demonstrate how welfare conditionality is put forward as a solution to address the consequences of structural disadvantage.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the special issue on welfare conditionality in Australia

Parsell

Vincent

Klein

et al. 2020

“…Indeed, conditional welfare policies including CIM see issues such as unemployment, poverty and homelessness discursively transformed from government responsibilities to evidence of individual failure and moral deficiency (Marston et al. ; Immervoll & Scarpetta ). Considering CIM through the lens of the previously discussed homelessness scholarship, this article will demonstrate that CIM's individualised approach threatens to compromise its aims vis‐à‐vis housing security.…”

Section: The Causes Of Homelessnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conditional welfare policies are premised on the belief that benefit recipients could “contribute to society” through paid work if they wished to but they choose not to (Marston et al. ; Fletcher et al. ).…”

Section: Conditional Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite this reality, conditional welfare approaches have seen the circulation and valorisation of pervasive stereotypes, which represent benefit recipients as lazy, morally deficient and ultimately responsible for their own disadvantage (Marston et al. ; Peterie et al ; Immervoll & Scarpetta ).…”

Section: Conditional Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the stigma that surrounds so‐called “welfare dependency” in Australia (Marston et al. ; Peterie et al. ), feelings of “stigma, shame and embarrassment” are thus unsurprising (Mavromaras et al.…”

Section: Cim and The Causes Of Homelessnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compulsory income management: Combatting or compounding the underlying causes of homelessness?

Peterie

Bielefeld

Marston

et al. 2019

Self Cite

Compulsory Income Management (CIM) is a form of conditional welfare that involves the mandatory quarantining of a portion of welfare recipients’ social security payments. Quarantined funds are accessible via a government‐issued debit card, with restrictions surrounding where and on what funds can be spent. Official justifications of CIM have framed these policies as attempts to combat substance abuse and gambling problems, and to thus secure better outcomes for welfare recipients and their families. Central to this narrative has been the argument that welfare quarantining will ensure more money is spent on ‘essentials’, including accommodation. No existing studies, however, have specifically interrogated the impacts of CIM on housing security. This article responds to this gap in the literature by reviewing existing research concerning CIM's impacts and locating this research within broader debates regarding the causes of homelessness and the efficacy of individualised policy interventions. In doing so, it highlights CIM's potential to exacerbate housing insecurity not only through technical issues such as rental transfer failures, but also by contributing to underlying stressors such as economic disadvantage; relationship difficulties, poor health and addiction; and social stigma. The article concludes that – far from addressing the structural causes of homelessness – CIM has enflamed them.

Australian employment services: Help or hindrance in the achievement of mutual obligation?

O’Halloran

Farnworth

Thomacos

2019

The concept of mutual obligation underpins Australian employment services. In return for receiving income support, there are three elements of mutual obligation: to actively seek work; to improve one’s competitiveness in the labour market; and to contribute to the community. Failing to undertake mutual obligation activities results in sanctions, usually unemployment benefit suspension or cancellation. In the year 2017/18, one mutual obligation activity, compulsory employment service provider appointments, accounted for more than 93 per cent of sanctions. The study reported here explores unemployed and recently employed workers’ experiences of appointments and their attitudes to the concept of mutual obligation. The findings are that unemployed workers say appointments have little utility for advancing elements of mutual obligation and are psychologically harmful. Non‐attendance may be a form of self‐protection although seeking a medical exemption or dropping out of the system altogether also appears to be a common self‐protection strategy. We also find that non‐attendance at appointments cannot be conflated with a negative attitude to mutual obligation and that unemployed workers want services that are effective and psychologically positive to help them to fulfil their mutual obligations.