Journal Article

Introduction for Special Issue on Income Management

Mendes, Philip, Marston, Greg, Katz, Ilan

2016

Overview

A number of governments around the globe have introduced conditional welfare programs tied to work and personal responsibility in an attempt to pressure the unemployed into labour market participation. This development is part of a broader move towards the reconceptualisation of the social contract from welfare being seen as a collective right towards welfare payments being used as a mechanism for changing the behaviour of disadvantaged sectors of the population (Deeming 2014; Dwyer & Bright 2016; Taylor, Gray & Stanton 2016; Social Policy Research Centre 2010; Standing 2014). Australia arguably took conditionality further than other countries through the introduction of Income Management (IM), which quarantines a set percentage of income security payments - usually somewhere between 50 and 80 per cent - into a special account which cannot be used to purchase proscribed goods - including drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling and pornography - with the expectation that essential household items such as food, rent, clothing, health care, education and training, child care, public transport, and energy bills are prioritised. The remaining proportion of the payment is paid directly to the recipient to use at their discretion. The aims of the range of IM programmes vary from the specific to the highly general. The original aim of IM within the NTER was argued to be to protect children from abuse or neglect, and women from financial harassment and violence. An associated aim was to focus funds on essential household items such as food and clothing, and reduce or eliminate spending on substance use, gambling and pornography, which was seen to be associated with child sexual abuse. IM has also been described as a budgeting tool to assist families - particularly those with alcohol abuse or mental health concerns - to manage their finances. But governments have also suggested some much broader objectives of IM involving behavioural change, such as reducing welfare dependency, promoting self-reliance and responsibility, improving parenting skills, and increasing the capacity to learn work skills and potentially attain employment. The introduction of IM has provoked considerable political, legal and empirical contention. Much of this debate has concerned differing philosophical approaches, particularly individual versus structural, to addressing chronic disadvantage. Additional matters raised include the high cost of administering programs, the potential for racial discrimination, a revival of colonialist approaches given the disproportionate number of Indigenous Australians subject to IM measures (Bielefeld 2016), the lack of reliable evidence as to their effectiveness in meeting the stated policy aims (Bray et al. 2015), and the absence of consultations with representatives of local communities to discuss how and in what way IM measures might benefit their community (Mendes et al. 2014).

• Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• Subject: Aboriginal Australians / Abused women / Alcohol / Alcohol abuse / Behavior change / Behavior modification / Bills of exchange / Bills of lading / Budgets / Child abuse & neglect / Child care / Child sexual abuse / Childrearing practices / Children / Cigarettes / Community / Disability / Disadvantaged / Drugs / Employment / Expenditures / Food / Gambling / Harassment / Health education / Health problems / Households / Income / Indigenous peoples / Labor force participation / Labor market / Mental health / Mental health services / Native peoples / Neoliberalism / Parenting skills / Parents & parenting / Paternalism / Payments / Policy analysis / Political parties / Population policy / Pornography / Pornography & obscenity / Public transportation / Racial discrimination / Racism / Research centers / Responsibility / Social contract / Social policy / Social workers / Substance abuse / Welfare / Welfare dependency / Welfare services / Women / Work / Work skills