The normalisation of income management in Australia: analysis of the parliamentary debates of 2007 and 2009–10

Initially introduced as part of Australia's Northern Territory Intervention in 2007, Income Management (IM) explicitly targeted inhabitants of remote NT Indigenous communities. IM is a form of welfare conditionality that involves compulsorily ‘quarantining’ at least half of individuals' social security income. It has been heavily criticised for being racist, discriminatory, and a violation of individual rights. The introduction of New Income Management (NIM) in 2010 extended IM beyond Indigenous communities and introduced a new set of eligibility criteria that shifted the focus of IM from Indigenous people to working age recipients of social security income. This in depth study of the early parliamentary debates on the compulsory IM programs traces the patterns of political discourse that led to IM coming to be seen by many policy makers as a normal and legitimate technique within Australian social policy. Situating the IM programs within neoliberal concerns about welfare dependency and active citizenship, this article argues that the introduction of NIM heralded a shift from a conception of IM as part of a focused social experiment targeted at remote Indigenous communities to a potentially mainstream social policy option.     

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

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.     

Seven years of evaluating income management ‐ what have we learnt? Placing the findings of the New Income Management in the Northern Territory evaluation in context

Income management programs ‐ which restrict how some recipients of government transfers can spend these funds ‐ have operated in Australia since 2007. The nature of the programs implemented varies, especially in regard to the combination of voluntary and compulsory elements, and there are also differences in scope and targeting. A number of evaluations and other studies of these programs have been undertaken. These vary in rigour, methodology, and the set of programs considered. This has led to an apparent diversity of findings, which has been exaggerated by selective use in public debate. The largest and most in depth evaluation has been that of ‘New Income Management’ in the Northern Territory. This found that the program had not achieved its objectives and appears to have created dependence. The relative outcomes of the studies are considered.     

Welfare Reform and Asset Accumulation: Asset Limit Changes,Financial Assets,and Vehicle Ownership*

Objective. Over the past decade, federal and state governments have substantially liberalized asset limits in welfare. This article examines whether this policy change promotes asset accumulation among the target population of actual and potential welfare recipients. Methods. Utilizing household data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics as well as state data, this study employs a difference‐in‐difference approach in order to determine whether state asset limits affect the target population's financial and vehicle asset accumulation. This study develops a new policy measure that considers the time period following the adoption of liberalized asset limits. Results. Analysis results suggest that increased asset limits may have successfully encouraged the target population's asset accumulation. The earlier a state raised its asset limit, the more likely welfare recipients were to accumulate financial assets and to possess bank accounts. Conclusion. It is recommended to liberalize asset eligibility rules to promote long‐term economic advancement of poor households.     

Community worker perceptions of the Income Management regime in Shepparton

This paper focuses on how community workers in Shepparton viewed the impact of the Place Based Income Management (PBIM) trial on the lives of their clients, their clients' families, and the broader community. The paper responds to criticism that there has been a lack of community voices in the development of PBIM or of their inclusion in the formal evaluation framework, raised in Philip Mendes's 2013 study of this trial site. A key policy goal underlying Income Management is that the tool assists low income people to become better money managers. Our study found that Shepparton community workers also used the parlance of ‘tool’ to describe the programmatic value of the BasicsCard in their interactions with clients. However, the BasicsCard appeared marginal to their discussions. Three clear themes emerged from the interviews: Shepparton's focus on voluntary clients, and ascertaining why participation in the local trial had dropped; that support for IM centred on the voluntary measure and the extra resources available to assist clients; and pragmatically locating the program in the middle of a welfare continuum that stretched from the voluntary Centrepay at one end to the highly coercive and restrictive paternalism of State Trustees at the other.     

Institutions and the gender wage gap: How production and welfare regime moderates the effect of family policy

The aim of this study was to determine whether the effects of work and family reconciliation policy on the gender wage gap are moderated by institutional contexts of production and welfare regime. Using time‐series analysis for 13 countries from 1981 to 2015, the study revealed a strong association between childcare and a lower gender wage gap in the Coordinated Market Economies (CMEs)/social democratic welfare states but not in Liberal Market Economies (LMEs)/liberal welfare states. The study also found that the impact of leave generosity on the gender wage gap in CMEs/social democratic welfare states is less salient than in CMEs/continental welfare states. This study highlights the extent to which family policy affects the gender wage gap hinges on how each country organises its market coordination and welfare institutions and pushes the current literature forward to a question of ‘what kinds of’ family policy matters in ‘which’ production and welfare regimes.     

Privatisation and Welfare Services

This paper traces some of the persistent criticisms which have attended welfare provision in Australia and many other western industrialised nations over the past twenty years. Clearly, the most concerted attacks on the welfare system have come from the radical Right, who are becoming more adept at manipulating and hijacking the language and sentiments of supporters of welfare. The paper argues that the welfare crisis debate, of which privatisation has become an important component, has deceptively seized upon a particular, and simplistic, interpretation of economics and the economy of welfare, as a means of unfurling a broader ideological position on social and economic policy. The rhetoric of the ‘rational’ Right can have no legitimate place in the restructuring and improvement of welfare provision in Australia. It is essential to the continued development of the welfare system, that the ‘backlash’ proposals of the Right be comprehensively rejected, and exposed for their destructive capacity. Efforts to reverse the ideological shift created by the ‘New Right’, need to consciously reclaim and reinstate concepts of social justice and equity on the social policy agenda.     

Teenage childbearing: young sole mothers challenge the stereotypes

Teenage sole mothers in receipt of welfare benefits are seriously affected by systematic and radical restructuring of Aotearoa/New Zealand’s state welfare system since 2008. With few exceptions, the changes oblige beneficiaries to prioritise obtaining paid work. To address questions of how welfare changes and socio-cultural context in Aotearoa New Zealand are experienced by teenage mothers we conducted a narrative study of 10 young women’s stories of sole mothering as beneficiaries. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit young mothers who were attending, or had recently attended a specialist school for teen parents. Thematic analysis of interview narratives represented experiences of financial and social deprivation, negative stereotyping, stigma and resistance. In contrast to the government’s explicit goal of getting welfare recipients into paid employment, the teenage mothers in our study placed full-time mothering as their principal duty. They also acknowledged the material and social advantages of entering paid employment, and were committed to working but only when their child was ‘settled and ready’ – a decision they understood to be their responsibility.     

THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF ‘WELFARE DEPENDENCY’

‘Welfare dependency’ has become a key term in policy debate in the United States and, more recently, Australia. In this article I explore the intellectual origins of the term, looking specifically at the writings of George Gilder and Charles Murray, two commentators whose (often polemically presented) ideas were influential within the Reagan Administration and have been at the forefront of a conservative renewal in welfare debate generally. Although others have subsequently refined some of their arguments and proposals, the authors' central claim that welfare causes dependency and thus unemployment and poverty – and that welfare reform therefore needs to focus on changing the behaviour of welfare recipients rather than providing employment opportunities – has had a lasting political impact, in Australia as much as in the US.     

Response to: 'New Directions in child protection and family support in Western Australia: a policy initiative to re-focus child welfare practice'

This paper is a response to ‘New Directions in child protection and family support in Western Australia: a policy initiative to re‐focus child welfare practice’, written by Nigel Parton and Richard Mathews and published in Volume 6(2) of Child and Family Social Work. Parton and Mathews’ paper describes the policy and provides an analysis of its impact on child protection practice. They find the policy to have been successful on a number of different dimensions. This paper subjects their findings to a broader lens of analysis and arrives at conclusions somewhat different to those of the authors.     

Child Support: The Limits of Social Policy Based on Assumptions of Knavery Extending the Pillars of Social Policy Financing to Aged Care

Julian Le Grand has argued that a key component of welfare reform involves changes in the assumptions about human behaviour which are embedded in social policies. Policy assumptions have been transformed from espousing a belief that social service providers act as well-intentioned knights and recipients as passive pawns, to a stance in which all participants are regarded as self-seeking knaves. These ideas are particularly pertinent to policy developments concerning financial obligations for children, and this paper examines these issues in relation to child support policy in New Zealand. It highlights the evident and inevitable failure of this policy to meet its primary stated aim of revenue generation. In New Zealand this failure is compounded by the creation of parallel systems for dealing with children and families, one for financial obligations and the other for care and development, which are founded on diametrically opposed assumptions about human behaviour and capabilities. This confusion is symptomatic of a wider failure in government policy towards families in New Zealand.     

‘A Common Sense of the Times’? Neo‐liberalism and Changing Public Opinion in New Zealand and the UK

Neo‐liberalism represents a significant and enduring shift in the politics shaping social policy. Although frequently ascribed a hegemonic, all‐powerful status that focuses our attention on the coherence found in neo‐liberal policies, this article builds on scholarly work highlighting variegation in the neo‐liberal project across different policy areas, national settings and time periods. Specifically, it employs Peck's and Tickell's (2002) view that neo‐liberalism has gone through multiple phases in response to both external and internal crises as an entry point for studying neo‐liberalism's impact on public support for the welfare state. Drawing upon New Zealand and British attitudinal data, the article argues that public reactions to an early period of retrenchment (‘roll‐back’ neo‐liberalism) differ from those reported in the ‘roll‐out’ or embedding phase of neo‐liberalism implemented by Third Way Labour Governments in both countries. Indeed, continuing public support in many policy areas arguably contributed to the internal crisis that provoked an adaptation to the neo‐liberal project. The article further explores public support for the welfare state following the external crisis provoked by the financial meltdown of 2008–09 asking whether New Zealand and British attitudes showed signs of resisting austerity measures or whether they, instead, indicated a third, ‘roll‐over’ period of neo‐liberalism where the public accepted not only a neo‐liberal economic agenda but also the need for further retrenchment of the welfare state. Conclusions about the politics of social policy at the level of public opinion offer both good and bad news for welfare state advocates.     

From Social Instrument to Migration Management Tool: Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes – The Case of Belgium

The return of migrants to their country of origin and the development of efficient return measures have become more prominent on the political agenda of many Western European countries. Since policymakers prefer ‘voluntary’ return, governmental programmes to support the return of migrants – Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programmes – were developed as far back as the 1970s and have played an increasingly important role in migration policy over the last three decades. At the same time, general migration policy and welfare systems have undergone profound change, including in the meanings and connotations attached to social welfare, return support and return policy. This raises questions about the implications of these broader societal and policy changes for the widely implemented AVR programmes. In this article, we discuss the interpretation and evolution of AVR programmes by analyzing how one particular European country, Belgium, has developed its AVR programme over time. We explore the evolution of the programme's content, target group and institutional positioning, which shed light on its changing goals and are closely linked to a broader shift towards a ‘managerial’ approach to migration policy and the welfare state. We argue that return support may become decontextualized when it adopts ‘conditional entitlement’ as a central principle. This leads to strong differentiation, based on personal responsibility, between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ migrants, the levelling down of the support given to returnees, and a more coercive voluntary return policy in which social support is linked to deportation.     

New Labour, Work and the Family

New Labour has put support for the family at the core of its notion of the “strong community”. Across a range of policy areas the Labour government can be seen to be developing a direct and explicit family policy. But what kind of community is the government trying to shape by these policies? On the one hand, Labour appears to support the family as the basis of a more moral, dutiful and cohesive community. On the other hand, the government has given weight to policies that support social inclusion in the community through paid work. This paper examines whether there is a tension in Labour’s social policies between its emphasis on the importance of stable family life and the primacy given to paid work. Are critics like Ruth Levitas right when they argue that the government’s emphasis on paid work devalues, and is unsupportive of, unpaid work, especially caring for children and other family members? Alternatively, can this combination of communitarianisms—community as “stable family” and community as “paid work”—be seen to be marking out some “third way” on the family? We shall show that different aspects of the government’s family policies reflect different perspectives and policy agendas within New Labour and third‐way thinking more broadly. And while recognizing the tensions between work and the family, we shall suggest that they are often overstated and fail to give sufficient weight to the complementary aspects of Labour’s welfare reforms.     

‘Active Families’: Familization,Housing and Welfare across Generations in East Asia

Debates around welfare change have tended to concentrate on the balance between market and state provision. Although there is increasing reference to a mixed economy of welfare, this generally signifies a greater emphasis on a third sector of voluntary/community level provision. However, the family sphere has been, and still remains, an important and dynamic source of welfare provision across changing regimes and between generations. With this as background, the article addresses three particular questions. First, how has the role of families in the welfare mix changed over time? Second, how do family ‘strategies’ adapt to structural changes in order to maximize collective/individual benefits in certain areas and how do these strategies evolve over generations? Third, is such family engagement in welfare influenced by policy shifts appropriately conceptualized as ‘re‐familization’ or ‘de‐familization'? These issues are explored in the comparative socio‐economic and cultural contexts of China and Japan and draw on qualitative research with three generations of families in Shanghai and Tokyo.     

Need and support: determinants of intra‐familial financial transfers in Sweden

Lennartsson C. Need and support: determinants of intra‐familial financial transfers in Sweden Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 66–74 © 2010 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and International Journal of Social Welfare. This study examined downward inter‐generational intra‐family financial transfers in Sweden made in the form of money transactions or gifts. The research questions focus on whether recipients of intra‐family financial transfers are children in ‘need’ of such support, and whether early family environment has any consequences for later financial transfers. Using data from a nationally representative survey, the results suggest that childhood disadvantages have long‐term consequences in connection with intra‐family financial transfers. Disadvantages and inequalities in childhood are likely to remain into adulthood, and children who experience adverse childhood conditions are less often recipients of later intra‐family financial support. Intra‐family transfers are also related to the ‘needs’ of the younger generation. Single parents and students from higher social class families are more often beneficiaries of financial support. In contrast, family support was no higher for unemployed children, for children lacking financial security in the form of a cash margin or for children reporting poor health.     

Psychosocial and relationship-based theories for child and family social work: political philosophy, psychology and welfare practice

Psychosocial perspectives on children’s development are allied to theories that recognize the ‘self’ as essentially a social entity. The quality of relationships that children experience in their social environment have a profound effect on their socio-emotional development, personality formation and social competence. To this extent, psychosocial theories of children’s development and wellbeing can provide child and family social workers with a powerful framework within which to analyse, assess and practise. However, it is also recognized that the character of child welfare practices and policies are influenced by prevailing political climates. A simple dichotomy is described between political philosophies of the right and left; libertarianism and communitarianism; individual freedom and collective action. It is argued that the present swing to libertarian individualism has brought about major changes in the policy and practice of much child and family social work, including a preference for theories that emphasize people’s psychological independence, rationality and personal responsibility. In such a climate, child and family social work becomes more legalistic, orientated towards principles of justice rather than welfare, and towards rights and responsibilities rather than personal relationships and social competence. Psychosocial developmental theories, with their emphasis on the importance of social relationships and the emotional interconnectedness of people in community, fare less well under the rigours of psychological individualism and free-market economics. The paper concludes that if children’s psychosocial development and competence are a product of their social history, practices that psychologically ‘disembed’ people from their relationship environment are unable to consider children’s needs within a coherent, well-grounded theoretical framework. If child and family social work is premised on helping children develop social understanding and emotional wellbeing, theory and practice are best served by taking a psychosocial perspective.     

Third Way Social Governance: Where is the State?

The ‘Third Way’ politics of Blair's New Labour government of the United Kingdom has popularised a number of policy reforms centred on a supposedly new discourse of ‘devolution’, ‘inclusion’, ‘partnerships’ and ‘community’. These notions reflect a re‐emergence of the ideas and values of civil society, participation and localism. Key drivers of this discourse are: new conceptions of citizenship; a retreat from the social state to a politics of community; and a questioning of both ‘big‐state’ interventionist and competitive market approaches to public policy. These trends have resonance in the Australian context. The welfare reform agenda of the Australian Commonwealth government together with community building and engagement initiatives of State governments have been sites for these policy directions. Much of the debate surrounding these policies excludes or minimises the fundamental role of an active state by focusing on an uncritical conception of community. Drawing on the notion of network governance, an alternative framework for re‐conceptualising state‐community relations and delivering improved community outcomes is posited. The paper concludes by suggesting possible social governance methodologies for actioning this framework.     

Economic well‐being of low‐income single‐mother families following welfare reform in the USA

This study explored changes in net disposable income for low‐income single‐mother families before and after the 1996 welfare reform in the USA. Although many studies on welfare reform have focused on employment or total family income as a way to measure low‐income single‐mother families’ economic well‐being, little is known about their net income after expenses related to entering the workforce. This study analyzed net disposable income after tax deductions and childcare costs to provide a more accurate understanding of income changes using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the US Census Bureau. The results revealed that while low‐income single mothers were working more after welfare reform, their net disposable income decreased during this time because their earnings were low and offset by an increase in childcare costs and a decline in means‐tested benefits, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. Key Practitioner Message: ● To understand effects of the 1996 welfare reform on low‐income families’ economic well‐being; ● To understand comprehensive income sources and work related expenses of low‐income families; ● To provide policy suggestions for comprehensive childcare subsidies to support low‐income single mothers’ employment.     

Blind‐sided by Basics: three perspectives on income management in an Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory

Income management was introduced into the Northern Territory in 2007. Despite much rhetoric around evidence based policy making and constant reviewing of income management, there has been little grounded research about Aboriginal responses at the community level to this new institution. In this article I report on the operations of income management from a longer term perspective, working with Kuninjku people and retail outlets in the Maningrida region in Arnhem Land. My argument is that from a local perspective income management is just one of a suite of new measures that have been introduced to alter the norms and values of people to correlate more closely with Australian mainstream norms. This view is based on participant observation rather than direct questioning. Income management is a low priority issue for the Kuninjku people in the current policy maelstrom that seeks to shift policy from ‘self determination’ back to a form of assimilation now heavily influenced by a neoliberal ideological agenda. Local responses vary from indifferent acceptance to resistance. I ponder the crucial policy question, how can we allow substantial financial resources to be squandered in unhelpful income management when they could be deployed productively to enhance wellbeing for Indigenous Australians?