MSWPG7210 Social Policy, Development & Impact - Assignment Solution

Introduction

The design of mutual obligation requirements is such that it ensures that unemployed people who have been receiving activity tested income support payments and are actively looking for work along with participation in activities which will help them in in future employment. This particular essay therefore studies the fundamental concept of mutual obligation requirements for job seekers. The essence that the essay holds is that of the neoliberal ideology which has been discussed in great detail in the same.

The Mutual Obligation Requirements Contract vis-à-vis the Neoliberal Ideology

The neoliberal market principles to be disused in the context of the mutual obligation requirements in Australia are underpinned by the control and choice that is related with the provision of hybrid rationalities. For instance, Soldatic (2018) describes how “markets are practically perceived to be a better platform for the organisation of the economic activity due to the reason that these markets are associated with the economic efficiency, intense competition, and choice. The fact of the matter is that the market then makes the provision for a mechanism so as to deliver for the diverse needs and requirements of the people - the citizens of Australia - centred on the individual. For instance, the case of the disability movement may be considered as an example; the disability movement may be considered as a policy actor which has often been critiqued in contemporary research literature and argued for the recognition of the people’s autonomy with any sort of disability and impairment through control, choice and planning of an individualised nature in such as way so as to fit with the neoliberalism emphasis on the market.

The act of positioning of the job seekers as the job consumers in the market fundamentally means that the job seekers are actually empowered in their relationship with the providers of service the latter of which have the choice to withdraw the funding in case, they do not realise the desired outcome. As suggested by Mendes (2017), the active consumer is actually the force which requires the most modern public services to be responsive and adaptive or dynamic, flexible and diverse. At the same time, authors such as Stafford  et al. (2019) have argued that these must bear an entrepreneurial mindset and must be characterised by an innovative and enterprising nature rather than paternalist and operating on a rigid model which, in turn, is characterised by the notion of ‘one size fits all’. This actually puts the job seekers in charge of the support and care system which previously used to control, rather manipulate them, and also determine their livelihoods and life chances.

The second example, in the context of this discussion, is that of the reflection of the experiences of numerous people who have been suffering from a disability under the former care 217 and support system. Wheller (2015), for instance, discusses the testimony of Tofuaipangai & Camilleri (2016) to the productivity commission’s inquiry into disability care and support. In the light of this enquiry, the services of disability through the market are perceived to be provided by those suppliers who are considered to be efficient and are perceived to be disciplined by the competitive market realities. This has resulted into a shift in the provision of disability service from the public to the private industries legitimized in a number of ways. At the same time, the private industries also reflect the criticism the already existing services of disability by the disability movement and also the people who are currently suffering from any sort of disability. For instance, there are many submissions and statements by commentators to the senate community affairs committee enquiry into the NDIS bill of 2012, thereby highlighting the excessive amounts of red tape, waiting list, inadequate provision of service and a complex system. The statement by Deeming (2016) is that at the core an attack on the bureaucratic inertia and the inefficiency, along with the celebration of the dynamic nature of the market and also its innovativeness and flexibility.