Mediating Welfare Ethics:Selectivity Or Universalism?

Abstract

This paper explores some of the underpinning ideologies that drive Australia’s selective income support system, by examining the ethical justifications used to support targeted welfare systems such as Mutual Obligation. Such justifications for selectivity will be compared with the ethical justifications that are used to promote the concept of Universalism for income support, a concept that has been attracting increasing attention in social science circles internationally.
At an ideological level, Universalism in welfare also has compelling arguments for implementation, particularly in the form known as the Universal Basic Income Guarantee or Basic Income for short. The underpinning ideologies for each income support system are explored so that their ethical justifications may be examined in a compare and contrast format. Such a format facilitates a beginning mediation between some of the competing ethical claims used, so as to clarify positions and develop greater understanding about income support system implementation debates.