Interest rate caps : protection or paternalism

In a context where over-indebtedness and financial exclusion have been recognised as problems in Australia, it is undesirable that those who can least afford it, pay a high cost for short-term consumer credit. Evidence points to an increase in consumer debt in Australia and consequential over-indebtedness which has been shown to lead to a wide range of social problems.2 There is also evidence of financial exclusion, where consumers suffer a lack of access to mainstream financial services, and in Australia this is particularly the case with regard to access to safe and affordable credit.3 Financial exclusion can only exacerbate over-indebtedness, given that financially excluded, predominantly low income consumers , have been shown to turn to high cost credit to meet their short term credit needs. This is a problem that has been explored most recently in the Victorian Consumer Credit Review...

Welfare reform, surveillance and new paternalism

This paper discusses the situation of welfare claimants, often constructed as faulty citizens and flawed welfare subjects. Many are on the receiving end of complex, multi-layered forms of surveillance aimed at securing socially responsible and compliant behaviours. In Australia, as in other Western countries, neoliberal economic regimes with their harsh and often repressive treatment of welfare recipients operate in tandem with a burgeoning and costly arsenal of CCTV and other surveillance and governance assemblages. The Australian Government’s Centrelink BasicsCard is but one example of welfare surveillance, whereby a percentage of a welfare claimant’s allowances must be spent on ‘approved’ items. The BasicsCard which has perhaps slipped under the radar of public discussion and is expanding nationally, raises significant questions about whether it is possible to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves if they no longer have real control over the most important aspects of their lives. Resistance and critical feedback, particularly from Indigenous people, points to a loss of dignity around the imposition of income management, operational complexity and denial of individual agency in using the BasicsCard, alongside the contradiction of apparently becoming ‘self-reliant’ through being income managed by the welfare state. This paper highlights the lack of solid evidence for the implementation/imposition of the BasicsCard and points to the importance of developing critically based research to inform the enactment of evidence based policy, also acting as a touchstone for governmental accountability. In highlighting issues around the BasicsCard this paper makes a contribution to the largely under discussed area of income management and the growth of welfare surveillance in Australia.

Welfare surveillance, income management and new paternalism in Australia

This article discusses the situation of income support claimants in Australia, constructed as faulty citizens and flawed welfare subjects. Many are on the receiving end of complex, multi-layered forms of surveillance aimed at securing socially responsible and compliant behaviours. In Australia, as in other Western countries, neoliberal economic regimes with their harsh and often repressive treatment of welfare recipients operate in tandem with a burgeoning and costly arsenal of CCTV and other surveillance and governance assemblages. Through a program of ‘Income Management’, initially targeting (mainly) Indigenous welfare recipients in Australia’s Northern Territory, the BasicsCard (administered by Centrelink, on behalf of the Australian Federal Government’s Department of Human Services) is one example of this welfare surveillance. The scheme operates by ‘quarantining’ a percentage of a claimant’s welfare entitlements to be spent by way of the BasicsCard on ‘approved’ items only. The BasicsCard scheme raises significant questions about whether it is possible to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves if they no longer have real control over the most important aspects of their lives. Some Indigenous communities have resisted the BasicsCard, criticising it because the imposition of income management leads to a loss of trust, dignity, and individual agency. Further, income management of individuals by the welfare state contradicts the purported aim that they become less ‘welfare dependent’ and more ‘self-reliant’. In highlighting issues around compulsory income management this paper makes a contribution to the largely under discussed area of income management and welfare surveillance, with its propensity for function creep, garnering large volumes of data on BasicsCard user’s approved (and declined) purchasing decisions, complete with dates, amounts, times and locations.

Empowerment in nursing : paternalism or maternalism?

The aim of this article is to explore whether patient empowerment flourishes in the wake of current health reforms or if there is a power struggle between nursing and medicine as to what is in the patients' best interest. Shifting the balance of power from healthcare professionals to patients has become a key element of healthcare policy in England. The RCN's definition of nursing places patient empowerment as a central remit of nurses. However, achieving genuine patient empowerment is not easy and requires individuals and organizations to alter their beliefs, values and behaviours. To empower patients nurses must be in a position to share power and this may require a realignment of the traditional power base within health care. Although empowerment is often viewed on a one-to-one level between professionals and patients, for true patient empowerment to occur, issues of power and control must also be addressed at a national and political level.

Balancing Social Citizenship and New Paternalism : Finnish activation policy and street-level practice in a comparative perspective

The study examines the origin and development of the Finnish activation policy since the mid-1990s by using the 2001 activation reform as a benchmark. The notion behind activation is to link work obligations to welfare benefits for the unemployed. The focus of the thesis is policy learning and the impact of ideas on the reform of the welfare state. The broader research interests of the thesis are summarized by two groups of questions. First, how was the Finnish activation policy developed and what specific form did it receive in the 2001 activation reform? Second, how does the Finnish activation policy compare to the welfare reforms in the EU and in the US? What kinds of ideas and instruments informed the Finnish policy? To what extent can we talk about a restructuring or transformation of the Nordic welfare policy? Theoretically, the thesis is embedded in the comparative welfare state research and the concepts used in the contemporary welfare state discourse. Activation policy is analysed against the backdrop of the theories about the welfare state, welfare state governance and citizenship. Activation policies are also analysed in the context of the overall modernization and individualization of lifestyles and its implications for the individual citizen. Further, the different perspectives of the policy analysis are applied to determine the role of implementation and street-level practice within the whole. Empirically, the policy design, its implementation and the experiences of the welfare staff and recipients in Finland are examined. The policy development, goals and instruments of the activation policies have followed astonishingly similar paths in the different welfare states and regimes over the last two decades. In Finland, the policy change has been manifested through several successive reforms that have been introduced since the mid-1990s. The 2001 activation reform the Act on Rehabilitative Work Experience illustrates the broader trend towards stricter work requirements and draws its inspiration from the ideas of new paternalism. The ideas, goals and instruments of the international activation trend are clearly visible in the reform. Similarly, the reform has implications for the traditional Nordic social policies, which incorporate institutionalised social rights and the provision of services.

Everybody Farts: Celebrating the Body and Refuting Medical Paternalism in Joyce's Ulysses

James Joyce’s Ulysses celebrates all facets of daily life in its refusal to censor raw human emotions and emissions. He adopts a critically medical perspective to portray this honest, unfiltered narrative. In doing so, he reveals the ineffectiveness of the physician-patient relationship due to doctors’ paternalistic attitudes that hinder nonjudgmental, open listening of this unfiltered narrative. His exploration of the doctor’s moral scrutiny, cultural prejudices, and authoritative estrangement from the patient underscore the importance in remembering that physicians and patients alike are ultimately just fellow human beings. Wryly, he drives this point to literal nausea, as his narrative proudly asserts the revulsive details of public health, digestion, and death. In his gritty ruminations on the human body’s material reality, Joyce mocks the physician’s highbrow paternalism by forcing him to identify with the farting, vomiting, decaying bodies around him. In celebrating the uncensored human narrative, Joyce challenges physician and patient alike to openly listen to the stories of others.

Paternalism and Populations

It is relatively uncontroversial that some public health policies are paternalistic. Furthermore, that they are paternalistic is often taken to show that they are morally wrong. In this article I challenge this position. The article starts by arguing that given standard definitions of paternalism it is unclear why such policies count as paternalistic. Whilst it might appear that they impose restrictions on what individuals can, or cannot, do for their own good, this is not the case. The reason for this is that whilst public health policies focus on achieving benefits at a population or group level, the imposition is made at the level of the individual. If we are to retain the idea that such policies are paternalistic we must characterize them in such a way that both the benefit and imposition are at the same level: either that of the individual or that of the group. I argue that in many cases moving to the group level is the only plausible option. However, if we move to the group level, the features that make a policy paternalistic will not, unlike in those cases where paternalism is targeted at an individual, make the policy morally wrong.

The Dark Side of Nudging: The Ethics, Political Economy, and Law of Libertarian Paternalism

Libertarian paternalism, as advanced by Cass Sunstein, is seriously flawed, but not primarily for the reasons that most commentators suggest. Libertarian paternalism and its attendant regulatory implications are too libertarian, not too paternalistic, and as a result are in considerable tension with ‘thick’ conceptions of human dignity. We make four arguments. The first is that there is no justification for a presumption in favor of nudging as a default regulatory strategy, as Sunstein asserts. It is ordinarily less effective than mandates; such mandates rarely offend personal autonomy; and the central reliance on cognitive failures in the nudging program is more likely to offend human dignity than the mandates it seeks to replace. Secondly, we argue that nudging as a regulatory strategy fits both overtly and covertly, often insidiously, into a more general libertarian program of political economy. Thirdly, while we are on the whole more concerned to reject the libertarian than the paternalistic elements of this philosophy, Sunstein’s work, both in Why Nudge?, and earlier, fails to appreciate how nudging may be manipulative if not designed with more care than he acknowledges. Lastly, because of these characteristics, nudging might even be subject to legal challenges that would give us the worst of all possible regulatory worlds: a weak regulatory intervention that is liable to be challenged in the courts by well-resourced interest groups. In such a scenario, and contrary to the ‘common sense’ ethos contended for in Why Nudge?, nudges might not even clear the excessively low bar of doing something rather than nothing. Those seeking to pursue progressive politics, under law, should reject nudging in favor of regulation that is more congruent with principles of legality, more transparent, more effective, more democratic, and allows us more fully to act as moral agents. Such a system may have a place for (some) nudging, but not one that departs significantly from how labeling, warnings and the like already function, and nothing that compares with Sunstein’s apparent ambitions for his new movement.

Can Mixed Martial Arts be Ethically Defended?: Autonomy, Paternalism and the Harm Principle

Abstract Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) and the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) founded in 1993 have been under scrutiny for the past two decades. Unlike boxing, the ethical status of MMA and whether it is morally defensible have rarely been analyzed in the academic literature. I argue that MMA requires such an analysis because it is inherently violent. The purpose of this study was to examine elite-level MMA by referring to the ethical concepts of autonomy, paternalism and the Harm Principle. Findings from interviews with MMA athletes as well as my personal experience of MMA were presented to establish a deeper understanding of the sport and what it means to train and compete in a sport defined as violent. The conceptual analysis and findings of MMA athletes' experiences in this investigation resulted in the conclusion that MMA is ethically defensible. Additional findings, implications and recommendations for further research were also discussed.