无现金福利转移和澳大利亚的原住民:救赎还是镇压暴力?

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
S. Bielefeld
{"title":"无现金福利转移和澳大利亚的原住民:救赎还是镇压暴力?","authors":"S. Bielefeld","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2021.1996891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Australian Federal Government claims that the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) is a necessary ‘support’ that generates positive outcomes. Despite contrary evidence revealed through independent research and problems with the scheme also apparent in government-commissioned research, the dominant political narrative accompanying the CDC remains intractable. The CDC has been characterised by elites as helpful ‘practical love’ for those in need of government income support. However, many of those with lived experience of the CDC report that the scheme imposes difficulties with basic bill payment, undermines sound financial management, and stigmatises cardholders. The majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations who have gone on the public record strongly condemn the scheme in its compulsory iteration, as do prominent First Nations Senators. Taking these issues into consideration, this article examines whether the CDC is best characterised as ‘redemptive’ or ‘repressive violence’. In doing so, it reflects on colonial conceptions of ‘care’, which are deeply paternalistic, and contrasts this with an approach that promotes self-determination and autonomy. This analysis is situated in the context of neoliberal marketisation of welfare state practices, where heavy handed regulatory frameworks have proven lucrative for industry interests.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cashless welfare transfers and Australia’s First Nations: redemptive or repressive violence?\",\"authors\":\"S. Bielefeld\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10383441.2021.1996891\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The Australian Federal Government claims that the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) is a necessary ‘support’ that generates positive outcomes. Despite contrary evidence revealed through independent research and problems with the scheme also apparent in government-commissioned research, the dominant political narrative accompanying the CDC remains intractable. The CDC has been characterised by elites as helpful ‘practical love’ for those in need of government income support. However, many of those with lived experience of the CDC report that the scheme imposes difficulties with basic bill payment, undermines sound financial management, and stigmatises cardholders. The majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations who have gone on the public record strongly condemn the scheme in its compulsory iteration, as do prominent First Nations Senators. Taking these issues into consideration, this article examines whether the CDC is best characterised as ‘redemptive’ or ‘repressive violence’. In doing so, it reflects on colonial conceptions of ‘care’, which are deeply paternalistic, and contrasts this with an approach that promotes self-determination and autonomy. This analysis is situated in the context of neoliberal marketisation of welfare state practices, where heavy handed regulatory frameworks have proven lucrative for industry interests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2021.1996891\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2021.1996891","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要澳大利亚联邦政府声称,无现金借记卡(CDC)是产生积极成果的必要“支持”。尽管独立研究揭示了相反的证据,该计划的问题在政府委托的研究中也很明显,但伴随疾病控制与预防中心的主导政治叙事仍然难以解决。美国疾病控制与预防中心的精英们将其描述为对那些需要政府收入支持的人有益的“实际爱”。然而,许多有美国疾病控制与预防中心工作经验的人报告说,该计划给基本账单支付带来了困难,破坏了健全的财务管理,并使持卡人蒙羞。大多数公开记录在案的原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民组织强烈谴责该计划的强制性迭代,著名的原住民参议员也是如此。考虑到这些问题,本文探讨了疾病预防控制中心的最佳特征是“救赎性”还是“镇压性暴力”。在这样做的过程中,它反思了殖民地的“关怀”概念,这些概念具有深刻的家长式作风,并将其与促进自决和自治的方法进行了对比。这一分析是在福利国家实践的新自由主义市场化背景下进行的,在这种背景下,严厉的监管框架已被证明对行业利益有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cashless welfare transfers and Australia’s First Nations: redemptive or repressive violence?
ABSTRACT The Australian Federal Government claims that the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) is a necessary ‘support’ that generates positive outcomes. Despite contrary evidence revealed through independent research and problems with the scheme also apparent in government-commissioned research, the dominant political narrative accompanying the CDC remains intractable. The CDC has been characterised by elites as helpful ‘practical love’ for those in need of government income support. However, many of those with lived experience of the CDC report that the scheme imposes difficulties with basic bill payment, undermines sound financial management, and stigmatises cardholders. The majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations who have gone on the public record strongly condemn the scheme in its compulsory iteration, as do prominent First Nations Senators. Taking these issues into consideration, this article examines whether the CDC is best characterised as ‘redemptive’ or ‘repressive violence’. In doing so, it reflects on colonial conceptions of ‘care’, which are deeply paternalistic, and contrasts this with an approach that promotes self-determination and autonomy. This analysis is situated in the context of neoliberal marketisation of welfare state practices, where heavy handed regulatory frameworks have proven lucrative for industry interests.
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
×
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