Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T17:41:47.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Everyday Resistance to Workfare: Welfare Beneficiary Advocacy in Auckland, New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2017

Tom Baker
Affiliation:
School of Environment, University of Auckland, New Zealand E-mail: t.baker@auckland.ac.nz
Courtney Davis
Affiliation:
School of Environment, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

Beneficiary advocacy organisations, which provide advice to individual claimants about how best to navigate the welfare system, exist in the context of complex and opaque benefit-claiming processes that have resulted from workfare policies. Drawing on a case study of Auckland Action Against Poverty, an organisation specialising in poverty activism and services for welfare beneficiaries, this article examines the provision of beneficiary advocacy services as a form of everyday resistance to workfare policies. Everyday resistance is less overtly political, less confrontational, and more ordinary than spectacular acts of resistance such as protests, but one that should not be seen as accommodating workfare policies and the market-based reform projects to which they are connected. By supporting individuals to defiantly persevere with their benefit claims, beneficiary advocates help to actively resist the operational logic of dissuasion that defines contemporary workfare.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Auckland Action Against Poverty (AAAP) (2016) Welfare Group Occupies Manpower Office to Protest Illegal Contracts [press release], 3 November, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1611/S00043/welfare-group-occupies-manpower-office.htm [accessed 17.01.2017].Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. (2013) ‘Work and the welfare state’, in Brodkin, E. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organisations and Workfare Politics, Washington: Georgetown University Press, 316.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. and Marston, G. (eds.) (2013) Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organisations and Workfare Politics, Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Child Poverty Action Group (2016) Baffling Benefit System Makes Families Worse Off [press release], 11 April, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1604/S00127/baffling-benefit-system-makes-families-worse-off.htm [accessed 17.01.2017].Google Scholar
Clasen, J. and Clegg, D. (2007) ‘Levels and levers of conditionality: measuring change within welfare states’, in Clasen, J. and Siegel, N. (eds.), Investigating Welfare State Change: The ‘Dependent Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 166–97.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2004) ‘Creeping conditionality in the UK: from welfare rights to conditional entitlements?’, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29, 2, 265–87.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. and Wright, S. (2014) ‘Universal credit, ubiquitous conditionality and its implications for social citizenship’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 22, 1, 2735.Google Scholar
Edmiston, D. (2016) ‘‘How the other half live’: poor and rich citizenship in austere welfare regimes’, Social Policy and Society, 16, 2, 315–25.Google Scholar
Edmiston, D. and Humpage, L. (2016) ‘Resistance or resignation to welfare reform? The activist politics for and against social citizenship’, Policy and Politics. Early View.Google Scholar
Ezell, M. (2001) Advocacy in the Human Services, Brooks/Cole: Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
Herd, D., Mitchell, A. and Lightman, E. (2005) ‘Rituals of degradation: administration as policy in the Ontario Works programme’, Social Policy and Administration, 39, 1, 6579.Google Scholar
Humpage, L. (2015) Policy Change, Public Attitudes and Social Citizenship: Does Neoliberalism Matter? Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Humpage, L. and Baillie, S. (2016) ‘Workfare: conditioning the attitudes of benefit recipients towards social security?’, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 32,1, 1735.Google Scholar
Johansson, A. and Vinthagen, S. (2016) ‘Dimensions of everyday resistance: an analytical framework’, Critical Sociology, 42, 3, 417–35.Google Scholar
Kelsey, J. (1995) The New Zealand Experiment: A World Model for Structural Adjustment? Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
MacLeavy, J. (2015) ‘Workfare and resistance in the US: the quietude and ineffectiveness of progressive welfare politics post 1996’, The Geographical Journal, 181, 3, 259–67.Google Scholar
Marston, G. (2008) ‘A war on the poor: constructing welfare and work in the twenty-first century’, Critical Discourse Studies, 5, 4, 359–70.Google Scholar
McDonald, C. and Marston, G. (2005) ‘Workfare as welfare: governing unemployment in the advanced liberal state’, Critical Social Policy, 25, 3, 374401.Google Scholar
McGowan, B. (1987) ‘Advocacy’, in Minahan, A. (ed.-in-chief), Encyclopedia of Social Work, 18th edn, Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers, 8995.Google Scholar
Midgley, J. (2001) ‘Issues in international social work: resolving critical debates in the profession’, Journal of Social Work, 1, 1, 2135.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. (2016) ‘Protest in Auckland against precarious work’, Radio NZ, 3 November, http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/317216/protest-in-auckland-against-precarious-work [accessed 17.01.2017].Google Scholar
New Zealand Parliament (2010) Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0125/9.0/DLM2827301.html [accessed 17.01.2017].Google Scholar
O'Brien, M. (2013) ‘Welfare reform in Aotearoa/New Zealand: from citizen to managed worker’, Social Policy and Administration, 47, 6, 729–48.Google Scholar
Peck, J. (2001) Workfare States, New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Reese, E. (2011) They Say Cutback, We Say Fight Back! Welfare Activism in an Era of Retrenchment, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Richan, W. (1973) ‘Dilemmas of the social work advocate’, Child Welfare, 52, 4, 220–26.Google Scholar
Russell, A. (2015) ‘Radical community development: we do talk politics here’, Whanake: The Pacific Journal of Community Development, 1, 1, 5864.Google Scholar
Scott, J. (1985) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, J. (1989) ‘Everyday forms of resistance’, The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 4, 3362.Google Scholar
Smith, L. (2016) ‘‘Impact’ highlights strategies for getting the most from Work and Income’, Stuff.co.nz., 7 April, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/78615122/Impact-highlights-strategies-for-getting-the-most-from-Work-and-Income [accessed 17.01.2017].Google Scholar
Stock, R. (2016) ‘Bradford leads three-day action for beneficiaries’, The Dominion Post, 6 April, http://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-dominion-post/20160406/282063391115362 [accessed 17.01.2017].Google Scholar
Swannix, J.-M. (2016) ‘Beneficiaries overwhelm support event in Mangere’, Newshub, 5 April, http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2016/04/beneficiaries-overwhelm-support-event-in-mangere.html [accessed 17.01.2017].Google Scholar
Watts, B., Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G. and Watkins, D. (2014) Welfare Sanctions and Conditionality in the UK, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. and Swyngedouw, E. (eds.) (2014) The Post-Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, S., Spies-Butcher, B., Stebbing, A. and (2013) ‘Wage-earners’ welfare after economic reform: refurbishing, retrenching or hollowing out social protection in Australia and New Zealand’, Social Policy and Administration, 47, 6, 623–46.Google Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2006) ‘Partisanship and protest: the politics of workfare distribution in Argentina’, Latin American Research Review, 41, 3, 122–47.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2012) ‘Welfare-to-work, agency and personal responsibility’, Journal of Social Policy, 41, 2, 309–28.Google Scholar