Checking Activation at the Door: Rethinking the Welfare-Work Nexus in Light of Australia’s Covid-19 Response

Abstract

Public health measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic have disrupted welfare regimes around the world. The Australian government suspended activation requirements for millions of social security clients and substantially increased payment levels. Both measures go against the dominant policy logic over the past several decades in Australian social policy. When these changes were made, many advocates and academics called for a permanent increase in the rate of payment and a relaxation of activations requirements. The Australian Government insisted the stimulus package was temporary and that there would be a gradual return to the pre-pandemic policy settings. In this article, we examine what was learned during this natural experiment of unconditional higher payments, which temporarily lifted millions of households out of poverty. We argue that a return to pre-pandemic policy settings should not go unchecked as there remains an opportunity to consider alternative approaches to the welfare-work nexus in Australia.

Shame, Anger and Hope: The Messy Relations of Charitable Help within the Welfare State

“…Without this, programmes of hope as a form of charitable care remain deeply entrenched within the telos and machinations of the neoliberal society that valorise charity and the ideal ‘ethical citizen’ (Parsell et al, 2021), punish and sustain poverty through insufficient allocation of resources and punitive welfare policy (Parsell et al, 2021; Stambe, 2022) and utilise emotions like shame and disgust to reinscribe self-responsibilised subjectivities (Tyler, 2018). In the context of the ‘post-pandemic’ where rapid and generous policy changes lifted people temporarily out of poverty and into housing (Parsell et al, 2023; Stambe and Marston, 2022), the use of emotional programmes like hope to undo ‘negative feelings’ like shame or even anger is akin to admitting that the state and society are not willing to provide anything other than hope.…”

“…Anger can be 'triggered' by shame-inducing situations, but unlike shame, anger is a 'deviant' emotion that is an inappropriate response to charity or welfare practices (Redman, 2023; see also Power et al, 2011). In Australia, unemployed people expressed anger that welfare agents positioned them as 'dole bludgers' (Peterie et al, 2019b), even though it could result in sanctions for acting inappropriately (Stambe, 2022). Peterie et al reframed unemployed anger from 'deviant' to 'defendable', an understandable resistance to the welfare 'feeling rules' about maintaining a positive attitude despite labour market conditions.…”

Navigating the Australian Welfare System for Those Relying on Emergency and Community Food Assistance

“…The Australian welfare system aims to support people who cannot fully support themselves through the provision of income support payments (AIHW, 2021). The system is premised on liberal principles, encouraging recipients into the workforce and off government support (Herscovitch and Stanton, 2008;Stambe and Marston, 2022); as such, payments are modest with strict requirements (Carney, 2007). While there are a range of payments for different life experiences, all provided through Centrelinkthe government welfare agencythe main payments are: support for employment seeking, the JobSeeker payment (previously Newstart Allowance); support for students while they are engaged in education; aged and disability support pension; and a number of family support payments and tax benefits.…”

Activation through welfare conditionality and marketisation in active labour market policies: Evidence from Indonesia

“…Unlike passive labour market policies (PLMPs) that prioritise the provision of income support to unemployed people (Daniels & Trebilcock, 2005; Thuy et al., 2001), ALMPs focus on promoting employment by intervening in different aspects of the labour market (Bird & Silva, 2020). Specifically, with demand‐side policies, governments emphasise the creation of jobs and the increase in job demand, and even seek to change the structure of demand via measures such as wage subsidies, public works, and enterprise creation (Mitchell, 2008; Stambe & Marston, 2023). Interventions targeting the supply side of the labour market centre more on improving employability and jobseeker motivation (Stambe & Marston, 2023; Thuy et al., 2001) and on the capacity of individual to find work in an economy of greater job scarcity or of labour market change (Dacre Pool & Sewell, 2007; Esping‐Andersen, 1990).…”

“…Specifically, with demand‐side policies, governments emphasise the creation of jobs and the increase in job demand, and even seek to change the structure of demand via measures such as wage subsidies, public works, and enterprise creation (Mitchell, 2008; Stambe & Marston, 2023). Interventions targeting the supply side of the labour market centre more on improving employability and jobseeker motivation (Stambe & Marston, 2023; Thuy et al., 2001) and on the capacity of individual to find work in an economy of greater job scarcity or of labour market change (Dacre Pool & Sewell, 2007; Esping‐Andersen, 1990). Examples of this group of interventions include various training schemes to increase workforce skills.…”