Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-vkn6t Total loading time: 0.26 Render date: 2022-08-17T00:27:59.116Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The Social Division of Welfare Surveillance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

PAUL HENMAN
Affiliation:
Social Policy Unit, School of Social Work and Applied Human Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia email: p.henman@uq.edu.au, g.marston@uq.edu.au
GREG MARSTON
Affiliation:
Social Policy Unit, School of Social Work and Applied Human Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia email: p.henman@uq.edu.au, g.marston@uq.edu.au

Abstract

Electronic surveillance has grown rapidly in recent years. Despite this, surveillance practices and their social products are yet to receive serious attention in the academic field of social policy. Extending Titmuss’ classical articulation of the social division of welfare, this article develops the notion of the social division of welfare surveillance to point to the way in which surveillance, compliance burdens and risk management unevenly operate within society. The implications for reinforcing social divisions and critical social policy analysis are discussed.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

6, P. (2001), Divided by Information?, London: Demos.Google Scholar
Adkins, B., Short, P., Mead, E., Owens, R. and Heffernan, M. (2002), Tenancy Databases in the Context of Tenure Management, Queensland: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.Google Scholar
Adler, M. and Henman, P. (2005), ‘Computerising the welfare state: an international comparison of computerisation in social security’, Information, Communication and Society, 8: 3, 315–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (2005), ATO Annual Report 2004–05, Canberra: ATO.Google Scholar
Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (2006), Making it Easier to Comply, Nat 9497–01.2006, Canberra: ATO.Google Scholar
Ball, K. and Wilson, D. (2000), ‘Power, control and computer based performance monitoring’, Organization Studies, 21: 4, 539–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, A. (2004), ‘Diaries, dunnies and discipline’, Labour and Industry, 14: 3, 127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002), Individualization, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. and Zouridis, S. (2002), ‘From street-level to system-level bureaucracies’, Public Administration Review, 62: 2, 174–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, L. (1992), Welfare and the State, New York: St Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, L. (1994), ‘Data-matching in the social security system’, Social Security Journal, June, 98–108.Google Scholar
Centrelink (2005), Centrelink Annual Report 2004–05, Canberra: Centrelink.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. (1994), ‘Dataveillance: delivering “1984”’, in Green, L. and Guinery, R. (eds), Framing Technology, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. and Sim, J. (2000), ‘You'll never walk alone’, British Journal of Sociology, 51: 4, 623–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Cook, D. (1989), Rich Law, Poor Law, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, D. (1991), ‘Social injustice’, in Adler, M., Bell, C., Clasen, J. and Sinfield, A. (eds), The Sociology of Social Security, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, B. (1999), The Will to Empower, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, M. (2000), The Gender Division of Welfare, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Parle, J. (2004), American Dream, New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. (2003), ‘Levelling the playing field, activating the players’, Policy and Politics, 31: 2, 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. (1998), ‘The politics of fraud’, Editorial, Benefits, 21: 1.Google Scholar
Dean, H. (2005), Social Policy, Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Department of Social Security (DSS) (1987), Annual Report, Canberra: AGPS.Google Scholar
Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) (1998), ‘Job seeker classification instrument’, DEWRSB, Canberra, downloaded from: http://www.workplace.gov.au/jsciGoogle Scholar
Dornan, P. and Hudson, J. (2003), ‘Welfare governance in the surveillance society: a positive-realistic cybercriticalist view’, Social Policy and Administration, 37: 5, 468–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenreich, B. (2001), Nickel and Dimed: Undercover in Low-wage USA, London: Granta.Google Scholar
Elmer, G. (2004), Profiling Machines: Mapping the Personal Information Economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fitton, R. L. (2006), Submission Number 53 to Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, Inquiry Reviewing Certain Taxation Matters in Australia, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jpaa/taxation06/subs/sub53.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2000), ‘Critical cyber policy: network technologies, massless citizens, virtual rights’, Critical Social Policy, 20: 3, 375407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2005), New Theories of Welfare, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish, New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Fox Piven, F. and Cloward, R. A. (1971), Regulating the Poor, London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. and Gordon, L. (1994), ‘A genealogy of dependency: tracing a keyword of the welfare state’, Signs, 19: 309–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandy, O. Jr (1993), The Panoptic Sort, Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Gandy, O. Jr (2006), ‘Data-mining, surveillance, and discrimination in the post-9/11 environment’, in Haggerty, K. D. and Ericson, R. V. (eds), The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2002), Transformation of the Welfare State, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliom, J. (2001), Overseers of the Poor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gittins, R. (2006), ‘Demolishing a few of the super myths’, Sydney Morning Herald, 14 June.Google Scholar
Graham, S. and Wood, D. (2003), ‘Digitizing surveillance’, Critical Social Policy, 23: 2, 227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, J. S. (2002), The Divided Welfare State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggerty, K. D. and Ericson, R. V. (eds) (2006), The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. (2006), Spaces of Global Capitalism, London: Verso.Google Scholar
Henman, P. (2004), ‘Targeted!: population segmentation, electronic surveillance and governing the unemployed in Australia’, International Sociology, 19: 2, 173–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henman, P. (2005), ‘E-government, targeting and data profiling: policy and ethical issues of differential treatment’, Journal of E-government, 2: 1, 7998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henman, P. and Adler, M. (2003), ‘Information technology and the governance of social security’, Critical Social Policy, 23: 2, 139–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P., Pyman, A. and Teicher, J. (2005), ‘Negotiating the contested terrain of drug testing in the Australian workplace’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 47: 3, 326–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, R. (2004), ‘Biomedical surveillance and the working body’, in Grbich, C. (ed.), Health in Australia, 3rd edition, Sydney: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Karger, H. (2005), Shortchanged, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. (1994), The Electronic Eye, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. (2001), Surveillance Society, Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. (ed.) (2003), Surveillance as Social Sorting, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDonald, C., Marston, G. and Buckley, A. (2003), ‘Risk technology in Australia: the role of the job seeker classification instrument in employment services’, Critical Social Policy, 23: 498525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, K. (1992), The Making of an English ‘Underclass’?, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. and Andrews, L. (2003), ‘Surveillance creep in the genetic age’, in Lyon, D. (ed.), Surveillance as Social Sorting, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999), The Maximum Surveillance Society, Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. (1974), Nineteen Eighty-Four, London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
Overington, C. (2007), ‘AWB's golden handshakes’, The Australian, 18 January, 1–2.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (ed.) (2001), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, R. (1998), ‘Putting fraud into perspective’, Benefits, 21: 26.Google Scholar
Poster, M. (1990), The Mode of Information, Cambridge: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Seage, C. (2006), ‘Submission Number 23 to Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts and Audit Inquiry reviewing “Certain Taxation Matters”’, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jpaa/taxation06/subs/sub23.pdfGoogle Scholar
Seelig, T. (2003), ‘Tenant lists, tenant risks’, Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 7: 1, 2739.Google Scholar
Sinfield, A. (2007), ‘Tax welfare’, in Powell, M.. (ed.), Understanding the Mixed Economy of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Smyth, P. (2006), ‘The historical context for action’, in McClelland, A. and Smyth, P. (eds), Social Policy in Australia, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sparke, M. (2006), ‘A neoliberal nexus’, Political Geography, 25: 2, 151–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speak, S. and Graham, S. (1999), ‘Service not included’, Environment and Planning A 31: 19852001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1976 [1955]), Essay on ‘The Welfare State’, 3rd edition, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Toynbee, P. (2003), Hard Work, London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
United Nations (2005), Global E-government Readiness Report 2005, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Webster, F. (2002), Theories of the Information Society, 2nd edition, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, D. M. (2005), ‘Global e-government 2005’, Brown University, Rhode Island, NY.Google Scholar
Williams, F. (1999), ‘Good enough principles for welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, 28: 4, 667–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynhausen, E. (2005), Dirt Cheap, Sydney: MacMillan.Google Scholar
30
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Social Division of Welfare Surveillance
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Social Division of Welfare Surveillance
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Social Division of Welfare Surveillance
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *