In the film I, Daniel Blake, a middle-aged man is rendered unfit for work by a heart condition. As he undertakes the tortuous process of navigating the welfare system, the film captures the way in which the privatized bureaucracies of the modern neoliberal state are every bit as awful, soul-destroying and Kafkaesque as the government bureaucracies they replaced.
As it stands, too much of what bureaucracy concerns itself with is the monitoring and punishing of ordinary citizens, and modern technologies can make matters worse.
Just ask all the Australian “Daniel Blakes” harassed by Centrelink for debts they did not owe because of the introduction of an algorithm that cross-referenced government benefits with people’s tax records.
Illustration: June Hsu
The idea was to detect any undeclared income but, because the data was not adequately “cleansed” — checked for errors in format, duplications and the like — it produced a large number of false positives. This meant people were sent letters demanding they pay back money they had not received.
Australian Senator Jenny McAllister described one example in parliament this month, in which a 67-year-old pensioner was falsely billed A$36,000 and had her pension canceled.
The mistake was corrected, but it is an error that will keep happening as long as technology is imposed thoughtlessly in bureaucracies designed to discipline rather than help.
It is a good reminder of something the scholar Mark Fisher argued in his book Capitalist Realism — namely, that any sort of left-wing populism likely to challenge the rising tide of right-wing populism needs to be committed to getting rid of this sort of dehumanizing bureaucracy.
How do you do that?
Technology could help, if implemented properly.
A report released by the UK think tank Reform suggests that robots and other forms of artificial intelligence might be able to replace up to 250,000 bureaucrats within the next 15 years.
It makes the point that “the demands on public services are changing rapidly” and that an “aging population, with increased prevalence of chronic conditions, requires a new way of delivering health and social care.”
All true, but, as the Centrelink example exposes, some skepticism is warranted.
For all its reasonable analysis, the report exhibits the worst sort of techno-boosterism, with a good dash of neoliberal groupthink thrown in for good measure. Not only does it presume that losses are sexy — efficient! streamlined! empowering! — the report is soaked in the hubris that assumes matters of governance can be reduced to something neat and clean like a new online platform.
As noted in an article in Politico, this is a pathology straight out of Silicon Valley: “Whenever the tech world turns its attention to politics, there is always the hint of this nerdish fascination for system: an inattention to what politics actually is or does, but a fetishization of efficiency, the latent notion that all these 18th-century structures really should just be replaced with something you can download on your phone.”
This nerdish fascination for system is nowhere more apparent than in the report’s suggestion that we introduce Uber-type platforms into government processes.
“‘Contingent labor’ platforms,” it says, “may suit hospitals and schools as an alternative to traditional agency models. It may also suit organizations who face seasonal peaks of demand... Using such platforms in the public sector would show its commitment to delivering working practices fit for the 21st century.”
Well, yes, but what is neatly skipped over is that with the rise of contingent labor comes a concomitant loss of wages and conditions. Do we really want hospitals and police forces staffed with Uber nurses and cops (or support staff) struggling to earn a living as they string together various “gigs”?
The report also leans towards more privatization, suggesting, for example, that the “efficiencies” they recommend will likely require “strong leaders... drawn from the private sector to change organizational culture.”
Australia has seen the logic of this approach, where privatization of employment services has already gone further than it has in Britain.
In the book Getting Welfare to Work, the authors note successive Australian governments have introduced into the system “private agencies who were thought to have better links to employers. Those agencies would also have greater scope to decide how to assist each individual in a model designed to give the job seeker more choice.”
There was a hitch: Because neither the government nor the agencies themselves can guarantee someone a job, they use the only metric of success they have, which is to ensure that the unemployed are “actively seeking work.”
As the book notes: “[Job]-seeker motivation was to be viewed as the primary driver of outcomes.”
In other words, far from being more efficient, such changes merely enabled the sort of insanity dramatized in I, Daniel Blake, and in Centrelink’s robo-call debacle; a system of monitoring and control that becomes draconian.
There is no doubt employment conditions are changing. As the structure of the economy shifts, traditional models of work are being rendered irrelevant, something reflected in the growing levels of under and over-employment distorting the traditional labor market.
Under such circumstances, there is an argument — a left-wing argument — to embrace technology as a way of improving services, but it has to be done in a way that does not leave workers worse off, and airy-fairy notions of turning governments into Uber risk just that.
Still, a system that combines better technologies with a reduction in compliance rules would help, and the most obvious way of achieving that is by introducing a universal basic income (UBI).
A UBI takes away the endless layers of compliance now demanded (a la Daniel Blake) for anyone applying for welfare. It reduces, almost at a stroke, not just the intrusiveness of the state, but the need for an army of bureaucrats to administer payments.
Sure, it cannot simply be used as a way of replacing other social benefits including those around housing, education and health.
However, as economist John Quiggin said: “Social democratic parties need to break with their current role as the responsible managers of the status quo and offer a radical vision for the future. An expanded, and ultimately universal, basic income is such a vision.”
There is no panacea here. Technology alone will not solve our problems.
We need to call the bluff on the neoliberal promise that privatization and other anti-state measures reduce bureaucratic sclerosis. They do not, they just change its form, emphasizing monitoring and control in the name of efficiency.
A system that actually uses technology (and a UBI) to reduce this bureaucratic burden would go a long way to empowering ordinary people in a way that left-wing populism takes as axiomatic.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs