Recent research has documented a trend towards the individualization of activation policies. This study reviews a radical Australian effort to personalize the delivery of activation policies called the One to One Service initiative, which was abandoned shortly after its introduction. The paper asks: what does the brief and tumultuous tenure of this initiative reveal about the role of the individual in contemporary welfare administration and activation policy? Based on a theoretical engagement with the works of Ulrich Beck, Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim and Anthony Giddens, and an ethnographic study of frontline interactions in Centrelink, Australia’s national benefits agency, the paper argues we should understand the rise and fall of One to One Service in terms of contradictions between two competing forms of contemporary welfare individualization, referred to as ‘democratic relationships’ and ‘compulsory choice’. One to One Service represented a push for individualized, democratic relationships between staff and clients; yet it was undermined because policy makers chose to emphasize an alternative form of individualization premised on forcing recipients to take responsibility for their lives and move off welfare. The findings have implications for the individualization, street level bureaucracy, and activation policy literatures.
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) (2001) ‘Learning for Skills and Knowledge – Customer Service Officers’. Canberra: Australian National Audit Office.
3.
Australian Statistician (2000) Australian Social Trends 2000. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
4.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
5.
BeckUBeck-GernsheimE (2001) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. London: SAGE.
6.
BeckUWillmsJ (2004) Conversations with Ulrich Beck. Cambridge: Polity Press.
7.
BradyM (2000) ‘Globalization, the National Economy and the Jobseeker: The Governance of Unemployment in Australia’, Honours Thesis, Murdoch University, June.
CarneyTRamiaG (1999) ‘From Citizenship to Contractualism: The Transition from Unemployment Benefits to Employment Services in Australia’, Australian Journal of Administrative Law6(3): 117–139.
Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (2000) ‘What Is Mutual Obligation?’ Canberra: DEWR [http://www.dewrsb.gov.au/wfd/21.asp], accessed 22 August 2000.
12.
EliasN (1991) The Society of Individuals, ed. SchröterM. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
13.
FincherRWulffM (1998) ‘The Locations of Poverty and Disadvantage’, pp. 144–164 in FincherRNieuwenhuysenJ (eds) Australian Poverty: Then and Now. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
14.
GiddensA (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
GiddensA (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
16.
GulickL (1937) ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization’, pp. 1–45 in GulickLUrwickL (eds) Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
17.
HalliganJ (2007) ‘Interagency Management of Service Delivery in a Complex Environment: The Case of Centrelink’, Governance20(3): 445–467.
18.
HalliganJ (2008) The Centrelink Experiment. Canberra: ANU E-Press.
19.
HandlerJF (1986) The Conditions of Discretion: Autonomy, Community, Bureaucracy. New York: SAGE.
20.
HenmanPAdlerM (2003) ‘Information Technology and the Governance of Social Security’, Critical Social Policy23(2): 139–164.
21.
HowardC (2003) ‘The Promise and Performance of Mutual Obligation’, pp. 125–145 in AspalterC (ed.) Neoliberalism and the Australian Welfare State. Hong Kong: Casa Verde.
22.
HowardC (2006) ‘The New Governance of Australian Welfare: Street-level Contingencies’, pp. 137–159 in HenmanPFengerM (eds) Administering Welfare Reform: International Transformations in Welfare Governance. Bristol: Policy Press.
23.
HowardC (ed.) (2007) Contested Individualization: Debates about Contemporary Personhood. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
JamiesonNJacobsJ (1996) ‘The Making of Marginalisation: High Rise Living and Social Polarisation’, pp. 75–91 in GibsonKHuxleyMCameronJFincherRJacobsJJamiesonNJohnsonLPulvirentiM (eds) Restructuring Difference: Social Polarisation and the City. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
25.
JulkunenIHeikkilaM (2007) ‘User Involvement in Personal Social Services’, pp. 87–106 in van BerkelRValkenburgB (eds) Making it Personal. Bristol: Policy Press.
26.
LacknerS (2001) ‘The Unheard Injustice: Young People and Centrelink Breaches’, at the National Social Policy Conference, University of New South Wales, 4–6 July.
27.
LipskyM (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: SAGE.
28.
MosesJSharplesI (2000) ‘Breaching – History, Trends and Issues’, at the 7th National Conference on Unemployment, University of Western Sydney, 30 November–1 December.
29.
MulganR (2003) ‘Centrelink: A New Approach to Welfare Service Delivery?’, pp. 169–180 in AspalterC (ed.) Neoliberalism and the Australian Welfare State. Hong Kong: Casa Verde.
30.
RoseneilS (2007) ‘Sutured Selves, Queer Connections: Rethinking Intimacy and Individualization’, pp. 117–134 in HowardC (ed.) Contested Individualization: Debates about Contemporary Personhood. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
RowlandsD (1999) ‘Institutional Change in the APS: The Case of DSS and Centrelink’, Australian Social Policy1: 183–201.
32.
ScottE (1999) Centrelink: A Service Delivery Agency in Australia. Kennedy School of Government Case Program C16-99-124.0. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
33.
SirovatkaT (2008) ‘Activation Policies under Conditions of Weak Governance: Czech and Slovak Cases Compared’, Central European Journal of Public Policy2(1): 4–29.
34.
SmithKEBambraCJoyceK (2010) ‘“Striking Out”: Shifting Labour Markets, Welfare to Work Policy and the Renegotiation of Gender Performances’, Critical Social Policy30(1): 74–98.
35.
ValkenburgB (2007) ‘Individualising Activation Services: Thrashing Out an Ambiguous Concept’, pp. 25–44 in van BerkelRValkenburgB (eds) Making it Personal. Bristol: Policy Press.
36.
van BerkelRValkenburgB (eds) (2007) Making it Personal. Bristol: Policy Press.
37.
VardonS (1997) ‘Are Prisoners Clients?’, Australian Journal of Public Administration56(1): 127–129.
38.
VardonS (1999) ‘Centrelink: A Three-stage Evolution’, pp. 96–107 in SingletonG (ed.) The Howard Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 1996– 1998. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
39.
VardonS (2000) ‘One-to-One: The Art of Personalised Service’, at the 3rd Annual Conference of the Case Management Society of Australia, University of Melbourne, 11 February.
