Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

neo-liberalism + welfare « Previous | |Next »
October 18, 2010

I've always been troubled by the neo-liberalism's approach to welfare especially in the context of poverty and the working poor resulting from the global financial crisis. The neo-liberal mode of governance is characterized by paternalism, the close supervision of the poor, mutual obligation and viewing people ''doing it tough'' as examples of moral failure. Behind it sits the idea of the minimalist state and the social structure of the free market.

Behind this mode of governance is the idea that welfare, although designed to prevent poverty (by protecting individuals from the vagaries of the market) actually discourages work. Neo-liberalism aims to counter this trend by promising opportunity and success to all those willing to work hard and play by the rules: the deserving poor. This mode of governance is structured around greater marketisation, privatisation, and contracting out of social services; plus seeing welfare recipients as passive, and therefore less worthy, citizens.

Under this mode of governance the unemployed need to prove themselves deserving by acquiring a work ethic that offers them pathways to employment. Economic growth is deemed to be the best means to counter unemployment. It provides limited training and education since it is the personal characteristics of the unemployed, rather than general labour market imbalances, that are held to be the source of the continuing unemployment problem.

My unease with neo-liberalism's central focus on personal responsibility and stigmatising the individual unemployed person as ‘at fault’, is that it detracts from the underlying structural causes of the problem. In the 1980s the underlying structural causes were de-industrialisation and globalisation; since 2009 it is the deflationary consequences of the global financial crisis.

The lack of good skills training to enable the unemployed to find work in structurally changing markets implies that government's fail to uphold their end of mutual obligation. How then are the unemployed to acquire the skills to gain employment in the market?

Neo-liberalism as a mode of governance requires a particular form of subjectivity; one in which self-sufficient or independent individuals are deemed to be the centre of morality, agency, and intentionality. The nonworking poor lack rationality in that they do not not work when there are opportunities to do so; and they suffer from, or are afflicted by, a mentality of defeatism and helplessness. They require norms to be enforced and control in order to reform their subjectivity so they participate in the marketplace. Under this neo-liberal regime of self the unemployed are then deemed to be free, and so have self-respect and independence.

So the problem under a neo-liberal mode of governance is not capitalism, but the way we govern ourselves; and so policies are directed at the reformation of individuals rather than structural relations.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:54 AM | | Comments (5)


it troubles me that the ALP, which designed the welfare state, has embraced neo-liberalism's approach to welfare.

So... I take it that subsidies, home-buyers grants, negative-gearing and other tax "incentives" don't count as welfare?

Well, capitalism itself is based on the atomised individual and bugger you jack.
The Hobbessian jungle helps the elite divide and conquer and even tho countries like Australia do have a form of civil society in tact, the essence of our civilisation is still based on theft and deception.
While the cult of individuality and self is often based on a misconception of what real individuality is, the consequence is, that individuals are not encouraged in their individuality tot he extent that they become self reflexive and empathic.
And culture reproduces the mode from childhood.
The middle classes thus remain insecure and grasping, alibiing this thru adoption of ideologies and doctrines that remove from those with some sense of proportion, a sense of the "other" and of the alternative of cooperation, that seems baffling to our mentality.
We have Huntingdon's apology for imperialism and neoliberalism to operate on the anxieties of the public closer to home, as the bosses respond to urgings from investors to maximise profits further.
People never get the sense of an alternative from these workings out, all that is reinforced is habituation, a bit like the metaphor of Plato's cave.
What do we break out for, when we can have no real concept, therefore, of what the alternative could be?

I notice that the US blog "Economist's View" has posted along similar lines recently. The author (Mark Thoma) notes (like Paul Walter above) that there is as much a culture of wealth as there is a "culture of poverty" and asks whether it's time to devote some study to that, too. Worth reading.

The Falzon/Cowling piece in the SMH (link in post) asks why we don't spend money on job creation. This is a very good question, which gets some in-depth treatment by Bill Mitchell at his blog Billy Blog here. Also worth reading.

Finally, readers with time on their hands might like to look at L. Randall Wray's (US) proposal for a Job Guarantee

Silly me. I forgot to give a link to our own Bill Mitchell's page on the Job Guarantee: