| 000 | 02803nab a22002537ab4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | NY | ||
| 005 | 20170510140311.0 | ||
| 007 | cr |||||n||||| | ||
| 008 | 170101p xxu|||||o|||||00| 0 eng|| | ||
| 040 |
_aNY _cNY |
||
| 041 | 0 | _jeng | |
| 100 | 1 | _aNethercote, Megan. | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aNeoliberal welfare, minorities and tenancy support _h[electronic resource] / _cMegan Nethercote. |
| 300 | _app. 15-32. | ||
| 520 | _aUnder post-welfarist realignments in neoliberal democracies, the provision of welfare is increasingly conditional on claimants fulfilling certain (behavioural) obligations. Under these shifts, an increased focus on the cultural dimensions of conduct and belonging redefines the basis for citizenship and extends the risk of subversion to include incivility or cultural difference. Critically, this recasting of the state-citizen social contract occurs with potentially exclusionary effects by legitimising ethnic and culturalist explanations that attribute blame to individuals/groups based on their perceived failure to follow normative models of social and spatial integration. The significance of these neoliberal welfare shifts for many of those most at risk of exclusion—black and minority ethnics (BME) and indigenous populations—has received little attention. Responding to this gap from within housing studies, this article reports on qualitative research on the fulfillment of government responsibilities for tenancy support provision under reforms to Indigenous housing welfare in Australia. Based on interviews with Indigenous housing stakeholders, it identifies programmatic, organisational and operational issues hampering tenant support provision that challenge how the ideal of ‘fair reciprocity’ was satisfied at the outset of the reforms. Given contemporary policy discourse on community cohesion and integration, the ways in which current programmatic oversights signal this neoliberal programme and its attempts to reinforce perceptions and constructions of cultural difference to politicise and pathologise the behaviours of particular individuals and communities is significant. Key questions arise about how the needs of minority groups might inform the types of ‘opportunities’ required to achieve the conditions for fair reciprocity within the contractual welfare state. | ||
| 538 | _aMode of access: Internet. | ||
| 653 | _aHousing welfare, conditionality, Indigenous, tenancy support, minority | ||
| 700 | 1 | _aBowman, Dina. | |
| 700 | 1 | _aBiggs, Simon. | |
| 700 | 1 | _aKimberley, Helen. | |
| 773 | 0 |
_tSocial policy and society. _g2017, Vol. 16, No. 1 _x1474-7464 _wocm49954477 |
|
| 856 | 4 | 0 |
_uhttp://ezproxy01.ny.edu.hk:2048/login?url=https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746415000548 _zClick here to access full-text article |
| 942 |
_2lcc _cE-ARTICLE |
||
| 999 |
_c18532 _d18532 |
||