Search

It is well established that encounters between welfare bureaucracies and their clients have been reconfigured under neoliberalism to address the problem of "welfare dependency." Contemporary bureaucratic encounters therefore entail measures to activate clients' entrepreneurial/self-governing capacities, and conditionality/sanctioning practices to deal with clients who behave "irresponsibly." Despite the dominance of the neoliberal model, recent research has identified a counter-trend in the practices of housing services away from entrepreneurializing and punitive strategies and towards a more supportive approach. This paper examines this counter-trend and its implications for neoliberal welfare governance. To do this, it presents findings from research into social housing governance in Queensland, Australia, where the neoliberal focus on welfare independence, conditionality and sanctioning has been tempered by a new supportive approach focused on assisting vulnerable clients to maintain and benefit from access to welfare/housing support. Following Larner, we argue that this shift signals the emergence of an "after neoliberal" governmental formation, wherein key features of neoliberal governmentality are replaced by, or redeployed in the service of, progressive initiatives that address neoliberalism's failings at the street level, but leave broader neoliberal policy settings undisturbed. We also challenge recent sociological accounts that construe supportive welfare practices as a function of an all-encompassing neoliberal project, arguing instead for appreciation of the contingency of these developments and the progressive political affordances that they entail., (© 2020 London School of Economics and Political Science.)

This paper examines the response of a regional body, the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health (IUIH), coordinating Aboriginal community controlled health organisations (ACCHOs) in south-east Queensland, to research evidence as they prioritise and plan services in response to internal economic and organisational factors, as well as external policy change. An event-based analysis of a quarterly management meeting of the IUIH allowed an exploration of how the IUIH uses a range of evidence to respond to the challenges faced within the Aboriginal community controlled health sector. The study identified three distinct but interconnected processes: (1) identifying evidence for change; (2) exploring and reframing this evidence; and (3) the application of this evidence at different levels of policy and practice. These processes were evident in each of the three major agendas addressed during the meeting, namely navigating current political change, reforming the ACCHO business model and reframing the available evidence for advocacy. The result has been the emergence of a new service delivery model, in which evidence supports accountability, change management, self-sufficiency and attempts to redefine community control.