Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T20:45:27.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Street-level Interpellation: How Government Addresses Mothers Claiming Income Support

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2013

MEGAN BLAXLAND
MEGAN BLAXLAND*
Affiliation:
Social Policy Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia email: m.blaxland@unsw.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Meetings between advisers and claimants are central to many welfare-to-work programmes. These ‘street-level’ exchanges between clients and staff are critical to the implementation of policy. When talking to welfare claimants, it becomes clear that contact with welfare bureaucrats is constitutive of their experience of policy and it is not until parent and adviser meet and negotiate that the policy is truly enacted. The policy comes into being through an exchange between advisers and parents, who interact, albeit unequally, to shape the proceedings. This paper examines the experience of parents claiming income support who faced compulsory employment measures. Drawing on research with claimants of teenage children, I examine the adviser meeting as an interpellative interaction. The state addresses mothers as workers and welfare claimants in an interpellation which is mediated by the adviser in dialogue with the mother. This analysis demonstrates how the notion of interpellation can inform research on street-level interactions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 783 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, M., Baxter, J., Hughes, J. and Renda, J. (2005), Evaluation of the Impact of Activity Requirements for Parenting Payment Customers on their Children Aged 13–15 Years, Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar
Althusser, L. (2001), ‘Ideology and ideological state apparatuses: notes towards an investigation’, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 85–126.Google Scholar
Australia, House of Representatives (2002), ‘Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and Other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 Second Reading Speech’, Debates (Larry Anthony, MP, Minister for Children and Youth Affairs), 16 May, 2309–11.Google Scholar
Blaxland, M. (2008), ‘Everyday negotiations for care and autonomy in the world of welfare-to-work: the policy experience of Australian mothers, 2003–2006’, Unpublished thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Blaxland, M. (2010), ‘Mothers and mutual obligation: policy reforming the good mother’, in Goodwin, S. and Huppatz, K. (ed.), The Good Mother: Contemporary Motherhoods in Australia, Sydney: University of Sydney Press.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1997), Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Centrelink (2002), Mutual Obligation Requirements, www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/newstart_mutual_obligation.htm, Centrelink (last modified 21 August; accessed 20 October 2002).Google Scholar
Centrelink (2005), Annual Report 2004–05, Canberra: Centrelink.Google Scholar
Cleaveland, C. (2005), ‘A desperate means to dignity: work refusal amongst Philadelphia welfare recipients’, Ethnography, 6: 1, 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Considine, M. (2001), Enterprising States: The Public Management of Welfare-to-Work, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DEWR (Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations), (2005), Australians Working Together Report, Canberra: DEWR.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. and Rosalind, E. (1999), Lone Mothers, Paid Work and Gendered Moral Rationalities, Houndsmill: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M., Eyre, J., Millar, J. and Sarre, S. (2003), New Deal for Lone Parents: Second Synthesis Report of the National Evaluation, Bath: Centre for Analysis of Social Policy, University of Bath.Google Scholar
FACSIA (Commonwealth Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (2006), Income Support Customers: A Statistical Overview 2003, Statistical paper no. 2, Canberra: FACSIA.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. and Gordon, L. (1994) ‘“Dependency” demystified: inscriptions of power in a keyword of the welfare state’, Social Politics, Spring: 4–31.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Howard, C. (2006), ‘The new governance of Australian welfare: street-level contingencies’, in Henman, P. and Fenger, M. (ed.), Administering Welfare Reform: International Transformations in Welfare Governance, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 137–59.Google Scholar
Howard, J. (1997), Address at the Official Launch of Centrelink (Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency), 24 September, Parliament House, Canberra.Google Scholar
Karagiannaki, E. (2007), ‘Exploring the effects of integrated benefit systems and active labour market policies: evidence from JobCentre Plus in the UK’, Journal of Social Policy, 36: 2, 177–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karvelas, P. (2004), ‘Centrelink rejects 45,000 sick forms’, The Australian, 28 April, 1.Google Scholar
Korteweg, A. C. (2003), ‘Welfare reform and the subject of the working mother: “get a job, a better job, then a career”’, Theory and Society 32: 445–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J., Mitchell, L., Sanderson, T., O'Connor, W. and Clayden, M. (2000), Lone Parents and Personal Advisors: Roles and Relationships – a Followup Study of the New Deal for Lone Parents Phase One Prototype, Report no. 122, Leeds: National Centre for Social Research on behalf of the Department of Social Security.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-Level Bureaucrats: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Naples, N. A. (1998), ‘Bringing everyday life to policy analysis: the case of white rural women negotiating college and welfare’, Journal of Poverty, 2: 1, 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Welfare Rights Network (2004), Penalties and Non-Payment Periods, Sydney: National Welfare Rights Network.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (1999), The Future of Welfare in the 21st Century, 29 September, Canberra: National Press Club.Google Scholar
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1994), The OECD Jobs Study: Facts, Analysis and Strategy, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2006), Boosting Jobs and Incomes: Policy Lessons from Reassessing the OECD Job Strategy, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
Pearce, D., Disney, J. and Ridout, H. (2002), Report of the Independent Review of Breaches and Penalties in the Social Security System, Canberra: Law Faculty, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Roy, K. M., Tubbs, C. Y. and Burton, L. M. (2004), ‘Don't have no time: daily rhythms and the organization of time for low-income families’, Family Relations, 53: 2, 169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaver, S. (2001), ‘Australian welfare reform: from citizenship to social engineering’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 36: 4, 277–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. (1987), The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology, Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Social Research Centre (2005a), Personal Adviser Evaluation Research: Customer Survey Wave 1, Research Report Final, North Melbourne: Social Research Centre.Google Scholar
Social Research Centre (2005b), Personal Adviser Evaluation Research: Personal Adviser/JET Adviser Survey, Research Report Final, North Melbourne: Social Research Centre.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011), ‘Opportunity and solidarity’, Journal of Social Policy, 40: 3, 374–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R. (2010), ‘The provision of income protection and activation services for the unemployed in “active” welfare states: an international comparison’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 1, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R. (2011), ‘The local- and street-level production of social citizenship: the case of Dutch social assistance’, in Betzelt, S. and Bothfeld, S. (eds.), Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Europe: Challenges to Social Citizenship, Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (2002), ‘Activating the unemployed: the street-level implementation of UK policy’, in Clasen, J. (ed.), What Future for Social Security?, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 235–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (2011), ‘Relinquishing rights? The impact of activation on citizenship for lone parents in the UK’, in Betzelt, S. and , S. (eds.), Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Europe: Challenges to Social Citizenship, Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar