The introduction of compulsory income management by the then Coalition Government in 2007 signalled the increasing policy influence of individualistic as opposed to structural explanations of social disadvantage. Using key policy and evaluation literature, this article critically examines the principal arguments for and against compulsory income management. Specific questions are raised about the top-down and coercive nature of compulsory income management, the lack of supporting empirical evidence, and its apparent discrimination against Australians who are Indigenous or reliant on income security payments, or both. Some conclusions are drawn about the potential for more effective policy solutions that would involve a genuine partnership with disadvantaged communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Philip Mendes (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: