Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T15:00:26.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Getting By: Neoliberal Governmentality and the Lack of Success in Instilling Financial Self-Reliance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2021

YEN KIAT CHONG Open the ORCID record for YEN KIAT CHONG [Opens in a new window]
YEN KIAT CHONG*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
*
*Corresponding author: Email yen.kiat@nus.edu.sg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Short-To-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) is a state programme in Singapore providing financial, employment and other assistance to individuals in financial need. SMTA frames the resources that it provides as a temporary form of support that applicants should use to regain their financial self-reliance through employment. Drawing on eleven months of ethnographic fieldwork, this article identifies two forms of self-reliance which differ from the objective of the programme. First, informants worked to receive assistance by convincing Social Service Office (SSO) officers of their financial need; they further approached their Members of Parliament (MPs) to enhance the approval of their assistance. Second, informants worked to find jobs on their own rather than accept job recommendations from SSO officers and career consultants. The different forms of self-reliance illustrate the agency of informants to get by, which contrasts with the agency resource embedded in the neoliberal governmentality of SMTA. These ethnographic insights indicate that SMTA was unsuccessful in directing informants to work and achieve financial self-reliance.

Keywords

GovernmentalityNeoliberalismSelf-relianceSingaporeWelfare-to-work
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 358 - 375
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Ayres, L. (2012), ‘Semi-Structured Interview’, in Given, L. M. (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 811.Google Scholar
Blaxland, M. (2013), ‘Street-level interpellation: how government addresses mothers claiming income support’, Journal of Social Policy, 42, 783–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, M. (2014), ‘Ethnographies of neoliberal governmentalities: from the neoliberal apparatus to neoliberalism and governmental assemblages’, Foucault Studies, 18, 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, M. and Lippert, R.K. (2016), Governing Practices: Neoliberalism, Governmentality, and the Ethnographic Imaginary. London;Toronto;Buffalo;: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2013), ‘Street-level organizations and the welfare state’, in Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State: Street-level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington: Georgetown University Press, 17–34.Google Scholar
Brown, W. (2015), Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dall, T. and Danneris, S. (2019), ‘Reconsidering “what works” in welfare-to-work with the vulnerable unemployed: the potential of relational causality as an alternative approach’, Social Policy & Society, 18, 4, 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, M. (1999), Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Dubois, V. (2009), ‘Towards a critical policy ethnography: lessons from fieldwork on welfare control in France’, Critical Policy Studies, 3, 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Early Childhood Development Agency (2020), ‘Subsidies and Financial Assistance’, Singapore: Early Childhood Development Agency, https://www.ecda.gov.sg/Pages/Subsidies-and-Financial-Assistance.aspx [accessed 1.11.2020].Google Scholar
Edmiston, D., Patrick, R. & Garthwaite, K. (2017), ‘Introduction: austerity, welfare and social citizenship’, Social Policy and Society, 16, 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) (2016), ‘WDA and e2i consolidate network of career centres for enhanced career services and job matching assistance’, Singapore: Employment and Employability Institute, https://e2i.com.sg/wda-e2i-consolidate-network-career-centres-enhanced-career-services-job-matching-assistance/# [accessed 27.08.2020].Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1991), ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 87–104.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (2008), The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College De France, 1978-1979. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Garrett, P.M. (2019), ‘Revisiting “The Birth of Biopolitics”: Foucault’s account of neoliberalism and the remaking of social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 469–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of Singapore. (2017), ‘What are the Reasons Behind the Increase in ComCare Numbers?’, Singapore: Government of Singapore, Retrieved June 30, 2019 https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/what-are-the-reasons-behind-the-increase-in-comcare-numbers [accessed 30.06.2019].Google Scholar
Haikkola, L. (2019), ‘Shaping activation policy at the street level: governing inactivity in youth employment services’, Acta Sociologica, 62, 334–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housing Development Board (HDB) (n.d.), ‘Eligibility’, Singapore: HDB, https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/renting-a-flat/renting-from-hdb/public-rental-scheme/eligibility [accessed 16.07.2020].Google Scholar
Jordan, J.D. (2018), ‘Evidence from the “Frontline”? An ethnographic problematisation of welfare-to-work administrator opinions’, Work, Employment and Society, 32, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K. Y. (2000), From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000. Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings.Google Scholar
Lim, X. (2007), ‘Security with self-reliance: The argument for the Singapore model’, Ethos, 3, 35–39.Google Scholar
Mcintosh, I. and Wright, S. (2019), ‘Exploring what the notion of “Lived Experience” offers for social policy analysis’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Manpower (MOM) (n.d.), ‘Childcare leave eligibility and entitlement’, Singapore: MOM, https://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/leave/childcare-leave/eligibility-and-entitlement [accessed 1.11.2020].Google Scholar
Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) (2018), ‘Improving the lives of low-income and vulnerable families in Singapore’, Singapore: MSF, https://www.msf.gov.sg/publications/Pages/Improving-the-Lives-of-Low-Income-and-Vulnerable-Families-in-Singapore.aspx [accessed 12.5.2020].Google Scholar
Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) (2020), ‘Community Care Endowment Fund: Annual Report for Financial Year 2019’, Singapore: MSF, https://www.msf.gov.sg/publications/Pages/ComCare-Annual-Reports.aspx [accessed 30.12.2020].Google Scholar
Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) (n.d.), ‘Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA)’, Singapore: MSF, https://www.msf.gov.sg/Comcare/Pages/ComCare-Student-Care-Subsidies.aspx [accessed 1.11.2020].Google Scholar
Ng, I. Y.H. (2015), ‘Being poor in a rich “Nanny State”: developments in Singapore social welfare’, The Singapore Economic Review, 60, 3, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, I. Y.H., Ng, Y. Y. and Lee, P. C. (2018), ‘Singapore’s restructuring of low-wage work: have cleaning job conditions improved?’, The Economic and Labor Relations Review 29, 3, 308–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, A. (2003), Buddha is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Patrick, R. (2014), ‘Working on welfare: findings from a qualitative longitudinal study into the lived experiences of welfare reform in the UK’, Journal of Social Policy, 43, 705–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffass, T. (2016), ‘Work enforcement in liberal democracies’, Journal of Social Policy, 45, 3, 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, D., Fuertes, V. and Monticelli, L. (2018), ‘Does individualized employment support deliver what is promised? Findings from three European cities’, International Social Security Review, 71, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulet, T. J., Gill, M. J., Stenger, S. and Gill, D. J. (2017), ‘Reconsidering the value of covert research: the role of ambiguous consent in participant observation’, Organizational Research Methods, 20, 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shachar, I. Y. and Hustinx, L. (2019), ‘Modalities of agency in a corporate volunteering program: cultivating a resource of neoliberal governmentality’, Ethnography, 20, 2, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, S. (2018), ‘Neoliberalizing the welfare state: marketizing social policy/disciplining clients’, in Cahill, D., Cooper, M., Konings, M. and Primrose, D. (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Neoliberalism, SAGE Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, 308–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R.C. and Schram, S. (2011), Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. London;Chicago;: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teo, Y. (2016), ‘Not everyone has “Maids”: class differentials in the elusive quest for work-life balance’, Gender, Place & Culture, 23, 8, 1164–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teo, Y. (2017), ‘The Singaporean welfare state system: with special reference to public housing and the Central Provident Fund’, in Aspalter, C. (ed.), The Routledge International Handbook to Welfare State Systems, London: Routledge, 383–397.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P. and Larsen, F. (2017), Frontline Delivery of Welfare-To-Work Policies in Europe: Activating the Unemployed. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oort, M. (2015), ‘Making the neoliberal precariat: two faces of job searching in Minneapolis’, Ethnography, 16, 1, 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, B. and Fitzpatrick, S. (2018), Welfare Conditionality. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitworth, A. and Carter, E. (2014), ‘Welfare-to-work reform, power and inequality: from governance to governmentalities’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 22, 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Workforce Singapore (WSG) (2017), ‘Careers Connect provides customised career matching services to help more Singaporeans find employment’, https://www.ssg-wsg.gov.sg/news-and-announcements/19_Jul_2017.html [accessed 15.7. 2020].Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2012), ‘Welfare-to-work, agency and personal responsibility’, Journal of Social Policy, 41, 2, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (2016), ‘Conceptualising the active welfare subject: welfare reform in discourse, policy and lived experience’, Policy & Politics, 44, 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. and Dwyer, P. (2020), ‘In-work Universal Credit: claimant experiences of conditionality mismatches and counterproductive benefit sanctions’, Journal of Social Policy, 1-19. doi: 10.1017/S0047279420000562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar