Research on neo liberalism with mutual obligation requirement and an overview of the neo liberalism

Introduction:

Mutual Obligations requirement is a systematic social policy introduced by the Australian Government to ensure that the income support provided to the unemployed individuals are seeking for paid work or they are just wasting the cost of the program. There are multiple requirements upon which a candidate can be eligible for an income support program and this policy ensures that. The query arises to critically analyze the mutual obligations on neo liberalism context, many authors and scholars have done this in their respective papers. These authors have given reference to different studies and experiments on how this obligation is on neo liberal ideology that will be explained in detail in the paper. This paper briefly explains both the notions of different examples by different researchers. The paper describes the notion of neo liberalism with mutual obligation requirement through three examples that are taken from authentic sources. This paper also provides an overview of the neo liberalism concept that gave rise to different social policies in this era and the most important the mutual obligation requirement.

Mutual Obligation Requirements for Job Seekers:

Mutual obligation is built on the context of expanding and extending market ethics to intrapersonal entities; the objective of this social policy is to motivate the person to administer themselves as a coherent tactical player. Mutual obligation is also a mixture of neo liberal and interpersonal intrusion (Green,2002; Brown 2003 as cited in Wagner, Bargh & Jimenez, 2006).

The concept of mutual obligation is to keep a check on those who are getting income support from the government that are they looking for jobs or not. There are multiple requirements for a job seeker to be eligible for an income support that is mentioned in the mutual obligation, some of them are: (i) signifying that the job seekers are vigorously searching for an appropriate job (ii) appear in all of the employment interviews (iii) appear in the meeting with their paid-work facilitator and (iv) not to resign or quit from a paid-work, trainee program or any other course without a sound cause (Australian Government, 2020). However, many authors regard this scheme as a neo-liberal project by the governments (for example, Wagner, Bargh and Jimenez, 2006; Carney, 2006; Harris, 2014). The concept of neo liberalism provides an insight into politics, it proposes that political thought isn’t found in today’s political debates and policy-making. Moreover, liberalism as a concept has gone through a procedure that is a preliminary growth, a transitional decline and a current transformation (Thorsen & Lie, n.d.). Venugopal (2015) in his paper criticizes this concept and says that neoliberalism is a disjointed, disputed and provocative term. Neoliberalism was not defined as a variable in many of the research papers relating to Human Geography, Development Studies and Comparative Politics (Morse, 2009 as cited in Venugopal 2015). This paper will demonstrate a critical analysis of the given policy in the context of neo liberalism concept. The essay will constitute three examples that include a phrase, statement and how this policy affects the disabled individuals.

Neo liberalism as a concept has greatly evolved in the 21st century however, the mutual obligation presented by the Australian government is eligible for only those who meet the requirements. Many of the authors have critically analyzed the obligations, Grahame and Marston (2012) have criticized the obligations as ‘welfare dependency’. People that are receiving income support are dependent on the government for their welfare. Welfare dependency is the first example of the analysis, the concept of mutual obligations has been accepted and adopted by the Australian, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canadian and the European governments. From a neoliberalism context, welfare dependency is the main issue that can produce intrapersonal and economic danger that can limit economic development and dismantle traditional morals and intrapersonal order (Graham and Marston, 2012). In other words, mutual obligation is an intrusion by the neo liberalism concept to permeate the welfare beneficiaries a supposed active work ethos through which the recipients can meet their apparent ‘responsibilities’ of hard work, pay their dues hence, participate in the society (Holdsworth, 2016). According to Forrest (2014), the welfare receivers have understood to abide by the obligations in order to be recognized as a citizen. A social norm has been established through the mutual obligation, that it is expected from the receivers that they will exercise attitudes, morals, and trust which will support this mutual obligations’ ideology (as cited in Holdsworth, 2016). Both the authors mentioned above have written their papers on single parents and have discussed the impact of mutual obligation on single parents. Holdsworth (2016) have mentioned three studies in his paper about the impact of mutual obligations, for instance, the study conducted in the year 2000 showed that due to the obligation requirements there have been a significant increase the anxiety and stress levels as before the introduction of the mutual obligation every sole parent has some activity outside of their homes.

The second example of the analyses is the impact of mutual obligations requirements on people with any sort of disability. The main reason for the government to adopt the mutual obligation was to reduce the disable people from the income support program and motivate them to get paid work in the labour market with the help of service providers (Wagner, Bargh & Jimenez, 2006). According to Harris (2014), the concept of neo liberalism has had a great impact on the income supporting programs and on the disable people. These individuals are motivated to get employment in labour market rather than to sit at home receiving money from the income support programs. However, many of the companies won’t consider these individuals if developments are not made to expand the work environment and making it friendly for the disabled. According to Carney and Ramia (2002), those individuals who are unemployed for a longer period or are disabled have to face huge restrictions to re-enter into the work force, these reforms are not beneficial for these individuals (as cited in Carney, 2006). According to Humpage (2007), disabled people are more interested in getting paid work but the government is not playing their role towards these individuals. Establishing any social policy doesn’t just finish the job of the state, regularly monitoring it is the actual responsibility of the state. The individuals with disabilities were either discriminated against or were not contacted, moreover, the reduction in the number of people with disabilities in income support programs restrained their financial needs (Lunt, 2006 as cited in Humpage, 2007). Humpage (2007) also signifies that doable individuals were irritated because the unpaid or social work was not counted as employed in the mutual obligation requirements and these individuals pointed out that the social sector of the society was more friendly than the traditional labour market. Carney (2006) proposes that governments should remove all the environmental restrictions or the disabled to contribute in the labour market as well as the state should establish the policies that will regard the individuals’ multiple needs and that they should be treated differently. From all of the authors, I accumulate that the mutual obligations were directed to help the disabled by motivating them to get paid work rather than receiving any revenue through income support programs however, it resulted in limiting these people to get paid work because of a non-friendly environment of the workplace. They were more interested in getting employment but were restricted due to multiple barriers.

The third example is the, not an actual experiment or study but it is the word ‘fatongia’ that means obligation in Moanan-Tongan culture. In this tradition, the word fatongia discovers intrapersonal notions and policies that are radical. The concept of fatongia includes gifting something that is relished and forces mutual obligations. Fatongia is different from mutual obligation in a way that focuses on reviving the relationship among people and societies. It transforms multiple rights into responsibilities and presents. Fantogia as a concept is nothing without mutual obligation but it is a burden (Tofuaipangai and Camilleri, 2016). Marshall’s (1950) book delivered an overview of how social duties, obligations, and rights came into being in the world, he said that in the 18th century there was a rise of secular rights whereas in the following century there was an introduction of the political and radical rights that were accepted entirely by the societies in the first half of 20th century. Moreover, after World War Two people were made aware of the social rights, they became the essence of a welfare nation. Words like responsibilities and obligations were not used with social rights whereas communities thought that as a citizen they had free basic human and social rights i.e. right to health, education and receiving revenue through income support programs if someone is unwell. However, in the latter part of the 20th century it was seen that these rights were not for free and people needed to work extra hard to attain them (Donnelly, 2003 as cited in Tofuaipangai and Camilleri, 2016). During the period of Reagan government, a new concept was evolved that was the neoliberal ideology in which people were given hope of a welfare nation where taxes were reduced on the active citizens of the community and a small government. The neo liberal concept changed the idea of conventional responsibilities of the nation and introduced a new mutual obligation where those individuals will receive some social rights if they meet the requirements. From the above example, I came to an opinion that before the introduction of the neo liberal mutual obligation individuals received social rights as a free basic right but now the same rights are to be met by certain requirements, people who cannot meet the eligibility criteria can get themselves in financial jeopardy which can lead them to enter in the lower class (Holdsworth, 2016).

Conclusion:

The whole essay is a detailed explanation of mutual obligations requirements and a critical analysis of it through neo liberalism context. Mutual obligation is adopted by the developed countries of the world that are Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and European countries. This is adopted to keep a check and balance on those people that are receiving some amount from income support programs that either they are looking for paid work or not, this obligation is a requirement for an individual to receive payments from income support programs. To critically analyze the mutual obligation, I have given three examples that help to analyze the social policy more accurately. First is the welfare dependency, people were dependant on the government for welfare through different programs, however, after evolution of the neo liberal concept the government is now aiming to reduce the beneficiaries in the programs and motivating them to depend on themselves, however, those with disability are not able to secure a good job and are in financial crises. Second example is about the disable individuals who are receiving the payment through different disable income support programs whereas, the main reason for the establishment of the social policy was to reduce these individuals because a good amount of money is spent when providing them with welfare and all the money paid to them through these programs are saved that are not contributing in the well being of the society. Although, the government is motivating these individuals but there hasn’t been much success because disable people are either discriminated against or are not hired because the company doesn’t require the correct means to train them. Third, is an example of a word that is fatongia that means obligation Tongan concept and is highly different from the mutual obligation that is applied today, the former has deep-rooted values that includes to transform the duties into gifts whereas the latter is a neo liberal social policy that allows only those to receive payments if they meet the requirements. The essay is an overview of the requirement and tries to investigate whether mutual obligation is helpful or not.

References:

Australian Government (2020), ‘Guides to Social Policy Law Social Security Guide’, Report, Retrieved on 14 January, 2020, Retrieved from https://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/3/2/8/10

Carney, T. (2006), ‘Neoliberal Welfare Reform And ‘Rights’ Compliance Under Australian Social Security Law, Neoliberal welfare reform and rights compliance, 12(1), 223-254, Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/2006/11.pdf

Grahame, T., & Marston, G. (2012), ‘Welfare to work policies and the experience of employed single mothers on income support in Australia: where are the benefits?’, Australian Social Work, 65(1), 73-86, doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2011.604093

Harris, P. (2014), ‘Human Rights and Neoliberalism in Australian Welfare to Work Policy: Experiences and Perceptions of People with Disabilities and Disability Stakeholders’, 34(4), Retrieved on 14 January 2020, Retrieved from https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3992/3800

Holdsworth, L. (2016), ‘The Impact of Mutual Obligation for Sole Parents’, Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 607-621, doi: 10.1177/1440783316667639

Humpage, L. (2007), ‘Models of Disability, Work and Welfare in Australia’, Social Policy Administration, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00549.x

Marshall, TH. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class and other essays, Cambridge University Press, Retrieved from http://www.jura.uni-bielefeld.de/lehrstuehle/davy/wustldata/1950_Marshall_Citzenship_and_Social_Class_OCR.pdf

Thorsen, D., & Lie, A. (n.d.), ‘What is Neoliberalism?’, 1-21, Retrieved on 13 January, 2020, Retrieved from https://folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism.pdf

Tofuaipangai, S., & Camilleri, P. (2016), ‘Social policy, social work and fatongia91: Implication of the concept of obligation’, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(1), 60-67, Retrieved on 14 January 2020. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303395101_Social_policy_social_work_and_fatongia_Implications_of_the_Tongan_concept_of_obligation

Venugopal, R. (2015), ‘Neoliberalism as Concept’, Economy and Society, 44(2), 1-22, Retrieved on 13 January, 2020, Retrieved from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/venugopr/venugopal2014augneoliberalism.pdf

Wagner, D., Bargh, M., & Jimenez, I. (2006), ‘The Neoliberal State, Recognition And Indigenous Rights New Paternalism To New Imaginings’, 1-352, Retrieved On 14 January, 2020, Retrieved from https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n4300/pdf/book.pdf