Neo-Liberalist Narratives Encourage Concepts Of Merit 950696

Neo Liberalist Narratives Encourage Concepts Of Meritocracy And Equal

Neo-liberalist narratives encourage concepts of meritocracy and equal opportunity, informed by the belief that social problems are the result of a flawed morality among individuals and that there is a moral hazard in creating reliance on government assistance; resulting in ‘welfare dependency’ (Carson & Kerr, 2017; Jamrozik, 2009). This has led to a rise in mutual obligation policies and the idea that people should “have a go to get a go” (Carson & Kerr, 2017; The Drum, 2019). However, Melissa Lucashenko argues that “there are structural barriers to participation” and that marginalised groups have less access to opportunities to “have a go” (The Drum, 2019). Furthermore, Rick Morton contends that if the government continues to implement ‘mutual obligation’ policies, it must also meet its obligations, which is currently not happening (The Drum, 2019).

In what ways are governments not meeting their mutual obligations, and are some groups more impacted than others? How could government policy be shifted to ensure that the concept of equal opportunity is actualised?

Paper For Above instruction

The discourse surrounding neo-liberalist policies and their impact on social equity highlights a complex landscape of government responsibilities, societal structures, and marginalized groups’ access to opportunities. The core assertion of neo-liberalism—that meritocracy and individual responsibility are paramount—has significantly influenced Australian social policies, particularly the adoption of mutual obligation policies. These policies aim to foster a sense of personal accountability among welfare recipients but often overlook broader structural barriers that inhibit equal participation, especially among marginalized populations.

Neo-liberal narratives construct social problems as deficits rooted in individual morality, thus justifying reductions in state intervention and emphasizing personal effort over systemic reform (Harvey, 2005). The assumption is that if people "try hard enough," they can succeed economically and socially. This belief underpins mutual obligation policies in Australia, which require welfare recipients to actively seek employment or participate in community activities as a condition of support (Carson & Kerr, 2017). While well-intentioned, these policies can inadvertently ignore the realities faced by marginalized groups, including Indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, and those living in remote or impoverished areas such as Cherbourg (Lucashenko, 2019).

Melissa Lucashenko’s critique underscores that structural barriers—such as limited access to quality education, healthcare, and employment opportunities—undermine the efficacy of policies that solely emphasize individual effort. Marginalized groups often encounter systemic disadvantages that cannot be surmounted by motivation alone. For example, Indigenous communities in rural Australia face significant barriers to employment due to historical disenfranchisement, geographical remoteness, and ongoing social exclusion (Altman & Kerby, 2017).

Moreover, Rick Morton highlights that if the government enforces mutual obligation policies, it must fulfill its own obligations to create an enabling environment—this includes investing in infrastructure, education, and targeted programs to reduce structural inequalities. Currently, evidence suggests that governments have fallen short, leading to unmet mutual obligations, particularly for vulnerable populations (Muir, 2018). These shortcomings manifest in inadequate support mechanisms and insufficient investment in community development, which perpetuate cycles of poverty and unemployment.

Addressing whether governments meet their obligations involves examining specific policies and their outcomes. For example, welfare-to-work schemes have been criticized for their punitive tone and lack of tailored support for marginalized groups, resulting in high failure rates among Indigenous Australians and those with disabilities (Biddle & Ferguson, 2017). Conversely, some localized initiatives—such as employment programs targeting remote Indigenous communities—demonstrate promising results but often lack national cohesion or scalability (Paraskevas & Clarke, 2020).

To actualize the principle of equal opportunity, a policy shift must prioritize structural reforms alongside individual accountability. This entails increasing investment in education, healthcare, and infrastructure; implementing anti-discrimination laws; and designing culturally appropriate employment programs for Indigenous communities (Gray & McDonald, 2019). Additionally, policies should incorporate comprehensive support systems that recognize the unique barriers faced by marginalized groups, such as transport subsidies, flexible job placements, and culturally sensitive outreach.

Furthermore, adopting a human rights-based approach aligned with international commitments (such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) can anchor efforts to address systemic inequities. These reforms require a rethinking of current policy frameworks, moving away from punitive measures toward empowerment and inclusive development (Finkelstein & Valadez, 2019). Such a paradigm shift emphasizes collective responsibility of governments to foster environments where all individuals—regardless of background—can genuinely access equal opportunities to participate in economic and social life.

In conclusion, while neo-liberalist narratives promote meritocracy and individual effort, they often neglect the structural realities that create barriers for marginalized groups. Governments need to meet their mutual obligations by implementing policies targeting systemic inequities and providing accessible pathways for all citizens to succeed. This requires committed investment, culturally appropriate interventions, and a recognition that true equality involves addressing the root causes of disadvantage rather than solely emphasizing personal responsibility.

References

• Altman, J., & Kerby, D. (2017). Indigenous Australians and the Challenges of Development. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(3), 392–406.
• Biddle, N., & Ferguson, F. (2017). Inequality, Governance and the Indigenous Disadvantage. Australian Indigenous Studies, 20, 1–9.
• Finkelstein, L., & Valadez, J. (2019). Inclusive Policies for Marginalized Communities. Social Policy & Society, 18(2), 319–330.
• Gray, M., & McDonald, P. (2019). Social Policy for Social Work and Human Services Practice. Cengage Learning Australia.
• Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
• Lucashenko, M. (2019). Participation and Structural Barriers. In The Drum (ABC News). Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au
• Muir, S. (2018). Welfare Policy and Structural Inequality in Australia. Australian Policy Forum, 12, 45– Fifty.
• Paraskevas, A., & Clarke, R. (2020). Indigenous Employment Programs: Successes and Challenges. Journal of Indigenous Policy, 11(4), 25–41.
• Carson, E., & Kerr, L. (2017). Australian Social Policy and the Human Services (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Jamrozik, A. (2009). Social Policy in the Post-Welfare State: Australian Society in a Changing World. Pearson Education Australia.