This essay will examine the influence of neoliberalism on social security policy in Australia. It will discuss the changes that neoliberalism has motivated in terms of social security policy and the welfare state. Further explanation will be given of the meaning and concepts of neoliberalism as well as the definition of the two-tier welfare state. The viewpoint in this essay is influenced by the interpretation and theories of Adam Jamrozik (2009). This essay will refer to policies such as ‘Work for the Dole’, ‘Income Management’, ‘Schoolkids Bonus’, dental-health benefits and other changes made to the welfare criteria that have been influenced by neoliberal ideology. I will use these examples to demonstrate how neoliberalism has impacted upon …show more content…
social security policy in Australia. Neoliberalism is an economical philosophy that originated in the 1930’s from economists Friedrich Hayak, Walter Eucken and Wilhelm Ropke (Hartwich 2009), focusing on economic and social concepts.
Neoliberalism focuses on the privatisation of economic factors, thus shifting the control of the economy from state and Government to private (Hartwich,2009). The goal behind privatising businesses is to increase the growth of the economy, therefore removing regulations and obstacles (Smith 2017). Neoliberalism according to Davies (2014) is the ideology and concept that the responsibility should be place with the individual to be responsible for their own actions, welfare and wellbeing. Davies (2014) also expresses that state intervention is not always needed because it is the production, distribution and consumption of goods that support the state to understand the individual’s …show more content…
actions. The term ‘Welfare State’ is used to describe a body of controlled interventions with the responsibility to provide only a basic amount of support to its citizens. Jamrozik (2009) proposes that Australia has a two-tier welfare system consisting of upper or middle class and working or lower-class Australians. He expands by explaining that the influence behind the two-tier welfare state is the amalgamation of political, economic, social and behavioural factors. The fact that there are now two tiers has changed the way that Australian society accesses and utilizes welfare (Jamrozik 2009). Government began to focus more on the production of goods and services as well as globalization and capitalism. Government then adjusted their policies accordingly to keep up with the rest of the world (Jamrozik 2009). The welfare state and social security policy in Australia is entirely funded by the Government (Australian Government 2016).
The welfare system is solely dependent upon the revenue raised from taxes to cover the cost of welfare payments. Although Australia currently has a stable welfare state, neoliberal ideology and concepts have begun to influence a shift towards a post welfare state (Australian Government 2016). For example, recipients who are determined as inadequately able to support themselves or provide for their families entirely may receive support payments subject to means testing. There are many other ways the welfare state can support the recipients; such as providing health care and concession cards, employment services, job training, education and housing and utility support (Australian Government
2016). There have been major reforms over the past 20 years to the Australian welfare system as well as many minor alterations. Some were designed to increase welfare payment levels and eligibility while others focused on restricting the eligibility criteria and cutting back on spending (Whiteford 2016). There were significant reforms to the Australian welfare system in 1996 by the Liberal Howard Government that were influenced by neoliberal ideologies (Martin 2006). From the late 1970’s the neoliberal movement attained important political and policy changes and achievements. Over the next 30 years these concepts were distributed to many other countries around the world (Davies 2014, p. 2). To support the neoliberal theory, Jamrozik (2009) proposed that human services could be constructed to be more productive by state and private organisations participating equally in methods to improve the system, thus enabling sole reliance on Government funded welfare. To demonstrate this concept, in1999 there was a controversial push by Senator Jocelyn Newman (the Minister for Family and Community Services), for the Federal Government to start reshaping the welfare system in Australia. She argued that the Government was becoming burdened with the increase in the number of Australians receiving support from the welfare state (Saunders 2000). Newman also argued that this was detrimental long term to the recipient’s self-esteem and lifetime opportunities. She advocated for the Government’s commitment in encouraging Australians to become more self-reliant by decreasing welfare dependency through changes to welfare policies (Saunders 2000). One example of neoliberal influence on social security policy is the ‘Work for the Dole’ scheme which was introduced in 1997. The scheme was a component of the ‘Mutual Obligation’ policy placed onto a portion of unemployed people. The aim of the policy initially was to motivate young people to take responsibility for their engagement with the workforce and contribute to society in exchange for receiving welfare benefits. Similar criteria were later placed on older Australians and those receiving parenting payments (Parliament of Australia 2004). The 2017 ‘Work for the Dole’ policy reform now means that it is compulsory for unemployed people receiving benefits such as Newstart and Youth Allowance to meet minimum fortnightly job search requirements. It is also compulsory for selected welfare recipients to join up and regularly engage with job network providers. If minimum job requirements are not met the recipient faces losing their welfare payments (Australian Government 2016). They could also achieve their requirements by participating in other Government approved activities such as volunteering, studying, work experience or job training programs (Australian Government 2016). Jamrozik (2001) promoted this idea when he explained that the emphasis is on the individual to use the opportunities provided to them and to be responsible for earning their own income. Jamrozik (2009) also stated that if a person is to exert their rights of social citizenship than it is essential for them to have a secure income so they do not face economic and social exclusion. The ‘Work for the Dole’ program is also designed to help communities by providing activities and projects that they can benefit from without taking away existing jobs (Australian Government 2016). Although the Government delivered tougher restrictions and policies to welfare recipients, incentives for participating in job search were also offered. Some of these included subsidized childcare, study and training payments and other Government support services (Australian Government 2016). The concept of this policy is to get jobseekers to contribute to the system and community that assists them and to help them gain the skills and confidence to re-enter the workforce (Yeend 2000). As Jamrozik (2001) states, it should be up to each individual to be responsible in determining their own social, moral and economic status within society. The main objective in the current social security policy is focused on mutual obligation by the recipients actively contributing back to the welfare state in exchange for support and services funded by taxpayers. These changes appear to be encouraging a shift from the societal belief that welfare recipients are entitled and too dependent on social security and the welfare state (Yeatman 2000). The shift towards neoliberalism in Australian society has been motivated by the belief that the obligation of the Government to support the recipient is often taken for granted. The latest changes made during the 2017 welfare reform appear to adopt the neoliberal concept that the responsibility and obligation should be placed with the welfare recipient, not the Government (Australian Government 2017). It is expected that the recipient should only receive support on the condition that they contribute for their welfare or actively look for paid work (Yeatman 2000). Another shift towards neoliberalism influence on social security policy was the introduction of ‘Income Management’ in 2007 by the Howard Liberal Government. The management of a recipient’s income by Government was a controversial reform that is also known as ‘welfare quarantining’. This was first implemented in some parts of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. It has since been expanded across other states in Australia. The concept of this model is to assist recipients of welfare payments to better manage their expenditure and prioritise spending towards essentials. The aim was to make sure that basic needs such as food, clothing, child care, housing, education, health and electricity were being met first (Australian Government 2017). The policy works by allocating a percentage of the recipient’s welfare to only be spent on ‘priority goods and services’. Although it was a Liberal policy, it was later embraced and subsequently increased by the Rudd and Gillard Labor Government. The policy also placed a ban on certain items so that they could no longer be bought with welfare payments that were managed or restricted. This included a ban on goods and services such as gambling, pornographic material, tobacco and alcohol related effects or substances (Australian Government 2017). By implementing the ‘Income management’ policy in selected areas the Government’s aim was to improve the lives and wellbeing of the welfare recipients who have been targeted. The goal is to reduce the amount of welfare income being spent on restricted or prohibited goods, reduce hardship by allocating welfare and spending towards priority needs and encourage responsible behaviour and actions (Buckmaster 2012). Recently budget and policy reforms saw many changes to the welfare eligibility criteria frame work. Changes were put in place to encourage people out of the welfare system and into the work force and to become more self-reliant, taking pressure of the welfare system (Australian Government 2017). The government also implemented strict regulations and policies that will see selected recipients subjected to random drug testing and an increase in their community participation hours. The reforms have also put penalties in place for recipients who do not meet these compulsory requirements (Australian Government 2017). Further controversial changes to the 2017 Federal Budget saw the ‘Schoolkids Bonus’ axed as part of the overhaul. In addition, dental-health benefits for the public were reduced, meaning less Australians now qualify for free or subsidized dental care (Federal Budget 2017). The Budget overhaul was designed to take some of the strain off the Government and put the onus back onto individuals to take responsibility for their own social and wellbeing outcomes (Australian Government 2017). In conclusion, neoliberal ideology has influenced Australia’s social security policy through numerous Government and welfare reforms, by both Liberal and Labor Governments. In addition, it has contributed to Australia’s two-tier welfare state. This was demonstrated in the changes made by the Howard Liberal Government with the ‘Income Management’ policy which was later embraced by the Rudd and Gillard Labor Government. The Australian Government has continued to display this approach with changes to social security policy. These reforms include frequently modifying welfare criteria restrictions as well as the ‘Work for the Dole’ and ‘Mutual Obligation’ polices. Neoliberalism embodies the belief that individuals should be responsible for their own financial and wellbeing outcomes. However, if they are dependent upon the Government welfare system, they should then be required to contribute back to the society that supports them.
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
This essay will attempt to assess the impact of the 1942 Beveridge Report on the post 1945 UK welfare state. A welfare state is essentially ‘policy intervention through the state [to provide] forms of support and protection’ for all its citizens. (Alcock: 1998: 4) This means that the state will fund or provide provisions for services which are of need to its citizens. This is funded through citizens who pay taxes or National Insurance when they have active work, which in turn helps out the vulnerable members within a society. This concept is in essence designed to maintain the welfare of citizens from birth to the grave.
Topic and Specific Case: The topic that I have chosen is the impact that the shift to neoliberal government policies has had on workers in Canada. I have chosen to explore this topic through looking at the restructuring of unemployment insurance in the 1990’s neoliberal era when it came to be called employment insurance (McBride, 2005, pg. 90).
Shadowing World War II, there was an amplified fear of communism in Australia. The influence of the threat of Communism in Australian local politics from 1945 to the 1950’s was very strong as you can see through Robert Menzies, the Petrov Affair, The fear of Ussr spies, the royal commission and the Alp split show relevant threats to the Australian Domestic politics by saying they are spies, traitors and liars.
O?Beirne, Kate. ?The State of Welfare: An old and tricky question resurfaces.? National Review 54.2 (February 11, 2002): 1--2. Online. Information Access Expanded
What is defined as a global citizen? They’re considered to be people or countries who understand their obligations at a global level. Over the past 50 years the countries of the world have become increasingly interconnected. With this, there has been an increasing awareness that only global cooperation can solve problems including poverty and epidemics, stop wars, and reverse environmental degradation and climate change. As the globe battles with these underlying problems, Australia’s partake, even the smallest amount, is fundamentally important, especially with its stance currently as being the 15th richest country in the world. However, in recent years Australia hasn’t demonstrated, in a few of these global issues, the true values and morals of being a good global citizen.
Welfare is a federally funded program that provides health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing that is under the umbrella of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Per Welfare Information, eligibility is determined by net income, family size, and any crisis situation such as: pregnancy, homelessness, and unemployment. TANF also requires the recipient to obtain employment within two years of receiving help (2014). A majority of the monies that support Welfare come from taxes paid by the working class and donations from private companie...
The United States is often referred to as a ‘reluctant welfare state.’ There are various reasons for this description. One of the primary reasons for this is the differences and diversity of the political parties which are the motivating forces that control government. The Liberal Party, for instance supports government safety nets and social service programs for those in need. “Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.” ("Studentnews," 2006) They believe it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the needs of all citizens are met, and to intervene to solve problems. The responsibility of government is to alleviate social ills, to protect civil liberties and sustain individual and human rights. Liberals support most social and human service programs; such as TANF, including long-term welfare, housing programs, government regulated health care, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and educational funding. Their goal is to create programs that promote equal opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion, along with many others. Liberals believe that government participation is essential and a means to bring about fairness and justice to the American way of life.
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
It is a commonly known fact that a large percentage of Americans are living on and relying on welfare, which is a government program that provides financial aid to individuals or groups of people who cannot support themselves. Welfare began in the 1930’s during the Great Depression. There are several types of assistance offered by the government, which include healthcare, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. The type of welfare and amounts given depend on the individual, and how many children they have. There are many people who honestly need the government assistance, but there are also many who abuse the privilege.
In an article entitled “Resisting and reshaping destructive development: social movements and globalizing networks”, P. Routledge describes neoliberal development, “Contemporary economic development is guided by the economic principles of neoliberalism and popularly termed ‘globalization’. The fundamental principal of this doctrine is ‘economic liberty’ for the powerful, that is that an economy must be free from the social and political ‘impediments,’ ‘fetters’, and ‘restrictions’ placed upon it by states trying to regulate in the name of the public interest. These ‘impediments’ - which include national economic regulations, social programs, and class compromises (i.e. national bargaining agreements between employers and trade unions, assuming these are allowed) - are considered barriers to the free flow of trade and capital, and the freedom of transnational corporations to exploit labor and the environment in their best interests. Hence, the doctrine argues that national economies should be deregulated (e.g. through the privatization of state enterprises) in order to promote the allocation of resources by “the market” which, in practice, means by the most powerful.” (Routledge)
Neoliberalism, also called free market economy, is a set of economic policies that became widespread in the last 25 years. The concept neoliberalism, have been imposed by financial institutions that fall under the Bretton Woods such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). One of the famous economists published a book called “The Wealth of Nations” in which he said in it that free trade is the best way to develop nations economies (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). He and other economists also encouraged the removal of government intervention in economic matters, no restrictions on manufacturing, removing borders and barriers between nations, and no taxes (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). The main goal of the economic globalization was to reduce poverty and inequality in the poorest regions. However, the effects of the neoliberal policies on people all over the world has been devastating (MIT, 2000).
The idea of the globalisation of Australian businesses, the process where businesses develop themselves internationally is one of the main issues in our current society. The concept of globalisation has occurred due to many factors, such as reduced trade barriers, a reduction in tariffs and quotas, new developments in technology and also new innovations in transportation technology. These factors that have caused globalisation can result in many consequences, both positive and negative. These consequences are free trade caused by a reduction in tariffs and environmental costs such as pollution caused by factories and greenhouse gasses causing global warming.
Our lives are greatly affected by our culture, ecological environment, political environment and our economic structure. The overarching method of organizing a complex modern society relies heavily on the founding economic theories regarding method of production, method of organization, and the distribution of wealth among the members of. This paper, specifically deals with the views and theoretical backgrounds of two dominant theories of the past century, Keynesianism and Neo-liberalism. Our social economic order is product of the two theories and has evolved through many stages to come to where it is today. The two ideologies rely on different foundations for their economic outcomes but both encourage capitalism and claim it to be the superior form of economic organization. Within the last quarter of the 20th century, neo-liberalism has become the dominant ideology driving political and economic decisions of most developed nations. This dominant ideology creates disparities in wealth and creates inequality through the promotion of competitive markets free from regulation. Neo-liberal’s ability to reduce national government’s size limits the powers and capabilities of elected representatives and allows corporations to become much larger and exert far greater force on national and provincial governments to act in their favour. Hence, it is extremely important at this time to learn about the underlying power relations in our economy and how the two ideologies compare on important aspects of political economy. In comparing the two theories with respect to managing the level of unemployment, funding the welfare sates, and pursuing national or international objectives, I will argue that Keynesianism provides far greater stability, equ...
Social welfare dates back almost 50 years, but through those years the real question is, what is social welfare? The interesting part of social welfare is that one persons definition or belief may be different from another’s belief. The truth is, not one person is right about the definition or ideology of social welfare. Social welfare programs have grown, shrunk, stabilized, and declined over the years, and today many believe that we are in a period of decline. The text “Ideology and Social Welfare” states that there are four different views to social welfare, all having their unique attributes. Personally, my view is a combination of the reluctant collectivists, the anti-collectivist, and the Fabian socialists view. I strongly believe that government intervention is necessary in order to control and regulate social welfare while keeping ethics in mind, but at the same time, it is not necessary for everyone. People have the ability to change their lives for the better with hard work and dedication. My opinion is just one of the hundreds that exist today, but as proven throughout history, not one person is necessarily right. The three approaches towards social welfare, the reluctant collectivist approach, the Fabian socialist approach, and the anti-collectivist approach, encompass critical points on social welfare and what can be done to avoid inequality.