This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Harris, P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

From relief to mutual obligation: welfare rationalities and unemployment in 20th-century Australia

Social Inquiry Murdoch University

Unemployment policy is currently informed by notions of labour force flexibility, workfare and mutual obligation. Things have not always been this way. Over this century there have been profound shifts in the way in which unemployment and government responsibilities have been conceptualized. Using the notion of ‘welfare rationalities’ to guide the discussion, this paper records the nature of these changes. Particular attention is paid to the ways in which economic objectives intersect with the social and moral-behavioural components of unemployment programmes. The changing nature of these factors is traced through three distinct welfare rationalities surrounding un/employment: relief, full employment and mutual obligation.

Key Words: economy • income security • social policy • the unemployed

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 1, 5-26 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/144078301128756175


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Mcdonald and G. Marston Workfare as welfare: governing unemployment in the advanced liberal state Critical Social Policy, August 1, 2005; 25(3): 374 - 401. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. Hartman In Bed with the Enemy: Some Ideas on the Connections between Neoliberalism and the Welfare State Current Sociology, January 1, 2005; 53(1): 57 - 73. [Abstract] [PDF]