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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS