家长式福利还是与当地社区共同设计的伙伴关系?社区团体提交给澳大利亚议会对2015-2020年无现金借记卡调查的分析

Philip Mendes, Steven Roche, T. Edwards
{"title":"家长式福利还是与当地社区共同设计的伙伴关系?社区团体提交给澳大利亚议会对2015-2020年无现金借记卡调查的分析","authors":"Philip Mendes, Steven Roche, T. Edwards","doi":"10.1177/25166026231151618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prior to the election of the Labor Government in May 2022, consecutive Australian Liberal–National Coalition Governments argued that local community leaders and organisations endorsed the introduction of the restrictive cashless debit card (CDC) in multiple trial sites. As a result, the CDC policy was presented as a meritorious example of a co-designed policy model based on collaboration with local communities. This article explores this assertion by examining the views presented by local community groups via written and oral submissions to six parliamentary inquiries into the CDC from 2015 to 2020. Our findings suggest major divisions across community groups within the CDC locations. In four of the six inquiries, most community group submissions opposed the introduction or expansion of the CDC. However, these views received cursory recognition in the inquiry reports, with little influence on policy. This article concludes that the CDC policy is more accurately conceptualised as a centralised policy imposed by the government on local communities without considering local views.","PeriodicalId":179996,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Community and Social Development","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paternalistic Welfare or Co-designed Partnerships with Local Communities? Analysis of Community Group Submissions to Six Australian Parliamentary Inquiries into the Cashless Debit Card from 2015–2020\",\"authors\":\"Philip Mendes, Steven Roche, T. Edwards\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/25166026231151618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prior to the election of the Labor Government in May 2022, consecutive Australian Liberal–National Coalition Governments argued that local community leaders and organisations endorsed the introduction of the restrictive cashless debit card (CDC) in multiple trial sites. As a result, the CDC policy was presented as a meritorious example of a co-designed policy model based on collaboration with local communities. This article explores this assertion by examining the views presented by local community groups via written and oral submissions to six parliamentary inquiries into the CDC from 2015 to 2020. Our findings suggest major divisions across community groups within the CDC locations. In four of the six inquiries, most community group submissions opposed the introduction or expansion of the CDC. However, these views received cursory recognition in the inquiry reports, with little influence on policy. This article concludes that the CDC policy is more accurately conceptualised as a centralised policy imposed by the government on local communities without considering local views.\",\"PeriodicalId\":179996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Journal of Community and Social Development\",\"volume\":\"95 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Journal of Community and Social Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/25166026231151618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Community and Social Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25166026231151618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在工党政府于2022年5月当选之前,连续的澳大利亚自由党-国家联盟政府认为,当地社区领导人和组织支持在多个试验地点引入限制性无现金借记卡(CDC)。因此,疾病预防控制中心的政策被认为是基于与当地社区合作的共同设计的政策模式的一个值得称道的例子。本文通过研究当地社区团体在2015年至2020年期间通过书面和口头提交给六次议会调查CDC的意见来探讨这一断言。我们的研究结果表明,在疾病预防控制中心所在地的社区群体之间存在重大分歧。在六项调查中的四项中,大多数社区团体的意见反对引入或扩大疾病预防控制中心。然而,这些观点在调查报告中得到了粗略的认可,对政策几乎没有影响。本文的结论是,更准确地说,CDC政策是政府在不考虑当地意见的情况下强加给当地社区的一项中央政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Paternalistic Welfare or Co-designed Partnerships with Local Communities? Analysis of Community Group Submissions to Six Australian Parliamentary Inquiries into the Cashless Debit Card from 2015–2020
Prior to the election of the Labor Government in May 2022, consecutive Australian Liberal–National Coalition Governments argued that local community leaders and organisations endorsed the introduction of the restrictive cashless debit card (CDC) in multiple trial sites. As a result, the CDC policy was presented as a meritorious example of a co-designed policy model based on collaboration with local communities. This article explores this assertion by examining the views presented by local community groups via written and oral submissions to six parliamentary inquiries into the CDC from 2015 to 2020. Our findings suggest major divisions across community groups within the CDC locations. In four of the six inquiries, most community group submissions opposed the introduction or expansion of the CDC. However, these views received cursory recognition in the inquiry reports, with little influence on policy. This article concludes that the CDC policy is more accurately conceptualised as a centralised policy imposed by the government on local communities without considering local views.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信