Suchergebnisse

AbstractAlthough Western nations have long placed conditions on access to social security payments, many of the more recent conditions utilising technological tools have intensified surveillance and control of the poor and imposed weighty administrative burdens on social security recipients as they attempt to navigate these systems. The Cashless Debit Card (CDC) imposes additional administrative burdens – learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs – on people in receipt of social security as part of an overall welfare conditionality project that structures in disincentives to claim government income support. Cardholders experience heavy administrative burdens in securing essentials and managing their social security income via the CDC, seeking a reduction of their restricted payment portion, and seeking a well‐being exemption or a financial responsibility exit to regain their budgetary autonomy. Evidence suggests that numerous people in need of social security who have been forced on to the CDC could do with a reduction in burdensome processes – which would be facilitated by designing systems that are autonomy enhancing, respectful of the human dignity of claimants, and fairly easy to navigate.

Many governments have intensified conditions on social security payments, implementing new paternalist and neoliberal policy ideals that individualise responsibility for overcoming poverty. This article explores how such policy ideals can operate with a racialised impact in the context of income management, a type of welfare conditionality in Australia that delivers cashless welfare transfers. Income management originally applied only to Indigenous welfare recipients, but has since been expanded. The government's rationale for the scheme is to limit access to alcohol and other drugs, and promote 'socially responsible behaviour'. However, empirical evidence indicates that income management in the Northern Territory has not been successful in achieving the government's policy objectives. Income management is built upon a policy narrative of addiction – those subject to it are portrayed as addicted to welfare payments and to alcohol. This article critiques these depictions and outlines a range of pragmatic, political and ethical concerns about income management.