The paper explores recent developments in Australian and Danish unemployment policies with a special focus on the technologies used to classify and categorize unemployed people on government benefits. Using governmentality as our theoretical framework, we consider the implications of reducing complex social problems to statistical scores and differentiated categories — forms of knowledge that diminish the capacity to think about unemployment as a collective problem requiring collective solutions. What we argue is that classification systems, which are part and parcel of welfare state administration, are becoming more technocratic in the way in which they divide the population into different categories of risk.

No abstract

The objective of the article is twofold: 1) to give an empirical picture of the state of affairs with regard to socio-economic and wider socio-cultural and political inclusion of immigrants in the Danish welfare society; 2) to discuss and theorise over the links and possible dilemmas posed by the politics of redistribution and the politics of recognition with the Danish case as a point of departure.In a comparative perspective, the Danish welfare state and the 'Nordic Welfare model' are in many aspects -redistribution, unemployment, poverty reduction, gender equality and economic competitiveness -regarded, if not as an ideal, then at least as a practical example of a society in which a comparatively (e.g. compared to the US and UK) high socio-economic equality and social citizenship standard is successfully combined with high market economic efficiency.However, with regard to the political discourse (right-wing anti-immigration populism has emerged since the nineties), legal rights and wider socio-cultural and socioeconomic inclusion capacity of immigrants and refugees, the 'rosy' picture of the inclusive character of the Danish welfare society has been seriously challenged in recent years. Stricter policies on immigration have been implemented, and the Danish social security and employment policy measures in relation to immigrants and refugees have been changed. On the one hand, these changes have been driven by a strong 'work first' and 'dependency culture/incentive' discourse which has led to a reduction of the duration and level of social benefits and increased poverty among immigrants. On the other hand, other policy changes have pointed towards a more inclusive direction in such fields as education policy, active labour market policy measures and in innovative empowerment programmes in deprived urban districts.

No abstract

No abstract