No abstract

No abstract

Public welfare programs have played a central role in providing support for the disabled in Australia since the early twentieth century. This study examines the role that discursive regimes of accounting and accountability played in such programs between 1909 and 1961, focusing on the Means Tests employed. The study reveals the array of implications of the accounting techniques that governed the identification of the disabled and often overrode a duty and ethic of care. Applying a Foucauldian perspective, the study explores how accounting practices associated with the disability support program were instrumental in identifying desired targets for austerity and the refusal of care. The findings review how accountability assisted the government to construct identities that facilitate the ability of the State to subject the disabled to continuous monitoring and observation. Further, the article reveals how techniques of accounting functioned as a “technology of the self” and facilitated the process of transforming individuals into subjugated citizens.

PurposeThe paper aims to investigate how accounting techniques, when embedded within data-driven public-sector management systems, mask and intensify the neoliberal ideological commitments of powerful state and corporate actors. The authors explore the role of accounting in the operationalisation of “instrumentarian power” (Zuboff, 2019) – a new form of power that mobilises ubiquitous digital instrumentation to ensure that algorithmic architectures can tune, herd and modify behaviour.Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ a qualitative archival analysis of publicly available data related to the automation of welfare-policing systems to explore the role of accounting in advancing instrumentarian power.FindingsIn exploring the automation of Australia's welfare debt recovery system (Robodebt), this paper examines a new algorithmic accountability that has emerged at the interface of government, technology and accounting. The authors show that accounting supports both the rise of instrumentarian power and the intensification of neoliberal ideals when buried within algorithms. In focusing on Robodebt, the authors show how the algorithmic reconfiguration of accountability within the welfare system intensified the inequalities that welfare recipients experienced. Furthermore, the authors show that, despite its apparent failure, it worked to modify welfare recipients' behaviour to align with the neoliberal ideals of “self-management” and “individual responsibility”.Originality/valueThis paper addresses Agostino, Saliterer and Steccolini's (2021) call to investigate the relationship between accounting, digital innovations and the lived experience of vulnerable people. To anchor this, the authors show how algorithms work to mask the accounting assumptions that underpin them and assert that this, in turn, recasts accountability relationships. When accounting is embedded in algorithms, the ideological potency of calculations can be obscured, and when applied within technologies that affect vulnerable people, they can intensify already substantial inequalities.

In this paper, we critically reflect on the methodological challenges encountered during a qualitative research project that examined the effectiveness of the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). We draw on Lewis and Mehmet’s (2021) approach that combines aspects of autoethnography and reflexivity to focus on three key areas, inclusive research, informed consent, and recruitment, which we have considered in terms of mistrust and the roles of the gatekeeper. This paper contributes to our understanding of researching vulnerable and marginalised populations and highlights learnings for marketers as they seek to identify how to adequately capture the voices of the often voiceless. Key implications include acknowledging vulnerability as a multi-dimensional concept, adopting a continual reflective approach, selecting appropriate channels of communication, and considering team dynamics before and during research implementation. By showcasing our learning experiences, we guide other market researchers who are interested in exploring similarly marginalised or vulnerable groups.