Not my debt: The institutional origins of Robodebt

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Jacob Priergaard
{"title":"Not my debt: The institutional origins of Robodebt","authors":"Jacob Priergaard","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Robodebt was an administratively harmful policy created by bureaucrats incrementally extending existing welfare compliance policies in Australia. This article analyses the long history that created the malign institutional state in which Robodebt was able to occur. It argues the fertile ground for this policy was laid through the historical interplay of three institutional processes: the rules of Commonwealth budget making, the fractured relationship between policy and service delivery in Australian social security, and the structure of the fraud and compliance framework of the Department of Human Services. This created a pattern of institutional change in which compliance policies were added in incremental layers over decades before Robodebt as part of an ongoing drive for savings and operational efficiency. The article concludes by arguing the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which focus on improved legal processes and oversight, are insufficient to resolve the institutional problems at the root of Robodebt.\nRobodebt occurred as a result of bureaucrats incrementally extending existing welfare compliance policies, which was a standard annual practice that had been occurring for about the preceding 30 years.\nThe expansion of compliance programs was one of the only ways for the Department of Human Services, as the service delivery arm of social security, to meet annual demands from central agencies and politicians to cut expenditure and provide offsets for new spending.\nFor long‐term change, the government and the Australian Public Service will need to go further than the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission by addressing the offsetting mechanisms of Commonwealth Budget processes and the structure of the social services portfolio that separates policy and service delivery.\n","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12658","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Robodebt was an administratively harmful policy created by bureaucrats incrementally extending existing welfare compliance policies in Australia. This article analyses the long history that created the malign institutional state in which Robodebt was able to occur. It argues the fertile ground for this policy was laid through the historical interplay of three institutional processes: the rules of Commonwealth budget making, the fractured relationship between policy and service delivery in Australian social security, and the structure of the fraud and compliance framework of the Department of Human Services. This created a pattern of institutional change in which compliance policies were added in incremental layers over decades before Robodebt as part of an ongoing drive for savings and operational efficiency. The article concludes by arguing the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which focus on improved legal processes and oversight, are insufficient to resolve the institutional problems at the root of Robodebt. Robodebt occurred as a result of bureaucrats incrementally extending existing welfare compliance policies, which was a standard annual practice that had been occurring for about the preceding 30 years. The expansion of compliance programs was one of the only ways for the Department of Human Services, as the service delivery arm of social security, to meet annual demands from central agencies and politicians to cut expenditure and provide offsets for new spending. For long‐term change, the government and the Australian Public Service will need to go further than the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission by addressing the offsetting mechanisms of Commonwealth Budget processes and the structure of the social services portfolio that separates policy and service delivery.
不是我的债务机器人债务的制度起源
Robodebt 是一项行政上有害的政策,由官僚们逐步扩展澳大利亚现有的福利合规政策而产生。本文分析了导致 Robodebt 出现的恶性制度状态的悠久历史。文章认为,这一政策的沃土是通过三个制度过程的历史相互作用而奠定的:联邦预算编制规则、澳大利亚社会保障政策与服务提供之间的断裂关系以及人类服务部的欺诈与合规框架结构。这就形成了一种制度变迁模式,在《机器人债务》之前的几十年里,合规政策被层层递进地添加进来,作为持续推动节约和提高运营效率的一部分。文章最后指出,皇家委员会的建议侧重于改进法律程序和监督,但不足以从根本上解决 Robodebt 事件的制度问题。Robodebt 事件的发生是官僚们逐步扩大现有福利合规政策的结果,而这是前 30 年每年都会发生的标准做法。为了实现长期变革,政府和澳大利亚公共服务部需要在皇家委员会建议的基础上更进一步,解决联邦预算过程中的抵消机制问题,以及将政策和服务提供分离开来的社会服务组合结构问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信