a. Economic view on the welfare payment distribution
The Australian Government has taken the policy to distribute the welfare payments in form of cashless debit card instead of direct transfer to the account of the beneficiary. The government make the welfare payments for purchase of necessary goods, however, it is evident that people in many cases use it to purchase products like alcohol, pornographic video CDs and indulge into gambling. Hence, it is necessary to restrict such expenditures to avoid the misuse of the welfare payments. Thus, the government used the cashless debit card mode to transfer the welfare payments, because it enables the government to restrict the purchase of the products that are discouraged under the scheme of welfare payments[1]. The card companies program the cards as per government instructions due to which the cards do not work during purchase of any such restricted products. Therefore, cashless debit card mode is an effective policy of welfare payments to increase welfare of the people.
b. Welfare payment in kind is inferior than in cash
The welfare payments can be done in two ways, one is in kind and the other is in cash. There is a popular argument in economics that welfare payment distribution in cash is better than in kind. For example, if a welfare payment of $1000 is given to a financially weak person in kind then the bundle would be fixed and might not fulfil the need of the person. However, if the welfare payment was made in cash then the person could spend the money as per wish and satisfaction would be greater. Although, the cashless debit card programme in this case does not directly choose a fixed bundle, rather it restricts the people from spending the money in products such as addictive goods, porn and luxury goods[2]. Hence, with cashless debit card people can buy any necessary products like grocery, medicine and education, therefore, in the programme bundle is only restricted but not fixed.
Answer 2
a. Ethical framework of the cashless debit card programme
Duty and Rule Based Ethics is the ethical framework on which the cashless debit card programme is based. The framework states that every action should be morally correct and must not hurt others interest[3]. Suppose, an action made by a person does not consider its effect on others, and if the consequences influence others adversely, then the action should be considered as unethical. Therefore, taking the case of expenditure made on alcohol and gambling with the money received under welfare payments scheme to explain the ethical framework in the given context. Hence, if a person has spent the welfare payments money to purchase alcohol then the person depriving its family because the money could have used to purchase grocery or education for children. Thus, such a purchase affect others adversely which should not occur as per the welfare scheme. Thus, the cashless debit card is conceptualised under the said ethical framework to remove the depriving features.
b. Effect of using the cashless debit card
The cashless debit card programme introduced by Australia in 2016 to distribute welfare payments, emphasised on the encouragement of purchase of necessary products related to education, health and grocery. The distribution of welfare payments will be done in the ratio of 80:20, 80% will be added in cashless debit card and remaining 20% will be transferred directly to beneficiaries account. Thus, people will be able to spend 20% of the payments as per their wish and the remaining 80% they have to spend to purchase said necessary products. However, the bundle for cashless debit card is not fixed; people can buy any bundle they wish. Thus, the programme is a mixture of cash and kind distribution. It only restricts the spending on alcohol, gambling and other similar products. Hence, the programme is conceptualised to increase social welfare and people are not deprived in this case.
Answer 3
Ethical framework of the programme and related issues
The Duty and Rule Based Ethics framework has been used while conceptualising cashless debit card programme, hence it faces similar arguments as the ethical framework faces. In the programme of welfare payment distribution through cashless debit card the payment is made in the ratio 80:20, 80% via card and 20% transferred to account directly. Thus, people can spend some amount of money to purchase bad products like alcohol. The programme also does not consider other needs of the people as it only covers education, health and grocery. Many people do not intend to consume bad products, but has different needs than the products encourage under the programme. Hence, people becomes immoral or unethical for not meeting the families’ basic need, even after not indulging into bad products[4]. The programme also hampers the market of other products, which are not bad products but get discouraged, as they are not considered in the programme.
Answer 4
Arguments for and against the cashless debit card programme
Welfare payments through cashless debit card have impact on both individuals’ life and social welfare. The opposing ethical framework in this case is consequentialism. It states that the wrongdoing or right doing should be based on individuals’ judgement[5]. Consequences are based on the outcome of conduct in contrary to deontology, the base of the cashless debit card programme. Thus, as per consequentialism the programme is unethical as it assumes that the beneficiaries will definitely consume bad products and thus taking the precautionary measure to avoid any bad expenses. Hence, the government has decided the outcome and consequences by itself and implementing programmes as to achieve that pre-decided outcomes. Therefore, it opposes the theory of consequentialism and that is why it should be considered as an ethical breach.
The product in another way has positive effect on the society as it helps drug addicts to come out of their addiction[6]. It makes the beneficiaries who may indulge in bad products purchase more responsible towards family and society as a whole. It also discourages youth from indulging into such products. Hence, there will be positive social welfare. Apart from this, the progamme will reduce the consumption of bad products and thereby reduce the sales of those products and eventually with induced effect, manufacturers of such products will be forced to shut down and the country will be free of addictive products in future. Hence, without enforcing any law against such bad products, they will be abolished. Therefore, the measure taken to restrict consumption of addictive products through cashless debit card delivers a positive outcome that brings a favourable consequence for the society.
Answer 5
a. Economic and ethical view on income management
The welfare payments distribution through cashless credit card generates significant problems as it interferes in the individual choice and restricts in several ways[7]. It hampers the independency of the people, interferes in the choice of consumption, and tracks the purchase and consumption details. This completely violates the ethics of society. Everyone should have the freedom to spend income at his or her own will[8]. Income management should not be enforce by the government; it should be a matter of choice as deprivation of individual choice is not welcome in a free country. Moreover, there should be a balance in responsibility of citizens, government and parents. Awareness regarding income management can be organized by the government instead of enforcing law or policies to do it. However, justification of income management can be understood through instances like intervention of social organizations to create awareness regarding management of income and controlling expenditure on products considered as bad for health and society such as drugs, pornography and gambling[9]. These are the cases where income management is necessary to achieve social harmony. Hence, enforcement of income management is important and appropriate in these cases. Thus, income management through cashless credit card programme in this context is justifiable as it restricts consumption of addictive products[10]. The policies of government if increase the positive social welfare then such policies are always welcome and sometimes indulgences in drugs and addictive products cannot be controlled by lenient policy control. Thus, strict policies like income management are necessary to remove such social evils.
b. Cashless debit card to recipients of government payments
There is severe ethical issue when people’s
right of choice is interfered by some enforced rule and compromises income
spending[11]. In
this case cashless debit card programme is applicable for all beneficiaries
irrespective of individuals’ choice of spending. Thus, it can be argued that
the programme is intending to put every beneficiary in same category when
considering the choice of spending regarding addictive products and family
welfare. Hence, it will make the beneficiary feel that the government does not
trust its citizen regarding fair and unfair choices. Thus, beneficiaries while
accepting the welfare payments might feel injustice, as they are not going to
do any wrong thing with the payment and use it for important and necessary
purpose only[12]. Some
might feel that accepting such welfare payments will disrupt their social status
and may not take the welfare payment. Therefore, the rule of the cashless
credit card should not be applied on all.
Bibliography
Ahlstrom-Vij, K. and Dunn, J., 2014. A defence of epistemic consequentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 64(257), pp.541-551.
Bielefeld, Shelley, and Fleur Beaupert. “The Cashless Debit Card and rights of persons with disabilities.” Alternative Law Journal (2019): 1037969X19831768.
Bielefeld, Shelley. “Cashless Welfare Transfers for ‘Vulnerable’Welfare Recipients: Law, Ethics and Vulnerability.” Feminist Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (2018): 1-23.
Dougherty, T., 2013. Agent-neutral deontology. Philosophical Studies, 163(2), pp.527-537.
Elkind, E., Lackner, M. and Peters, D., 2016, July. Preference Restrictions in Computational Social Choice: Recent Progress. In IJCAI (Vol. 16, pp. 4062-4065).
Greenacre, Luke, and Skye Akbar. “The impact of payment method on shopping behaviour among low income consumers.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 47 (2019): 87-93.
Hart, C.L., 2017. Viewing addiction as a brain disease promotes social injustice. Nat Hum Behav, 1, p.0055.
Hunt, Janet. “The Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: A Short Review.” (2018).
Lawson, R.A., Murphy, R.H. and Williamson, C.R., 2016. The relationship between income, economic freedom, and BMI. Public health, 134, pp.18-25.
Mendes, P., 2017. Community as a ‘spray-on solution’: a case study of community engagement within the income management programme in Australia. Community Development Journal, 53(2), pp.210-227.
Smith, N.C., Goldstein, D.G. and Johnson, E.J., 2013. Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(2), pp.159-172.
Barnhill, A., 2015. Choice, Respect and
Value: The Ethics of Healthy Eating Policy. Wake Forest JL & Pol’y, 5,
p.1.
[1] Bielefeld, Shelley. “Cashless Welfare Transfers for ‘Vulnerable’Welfare Recipients: Law, Ethics and Vulnerability.” Feminist Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (2018): 1-23.
[2] Greenacre, Luke, and Skye Akbar. “The impact of payment method on shopping behaviour among low income consumers.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 47 (2019): 87-93.
[3] Dougherty, T., 2013. Agent-neutral deontology. Philosophical Studies, 163(2), pp.527-537.
[4] Bielefeld, Shelley, and Fleur Beaupert. “The Cashless Debit Card and rights of persons with disabilities.” Alternative Law Journal (2019): 1037969X19831768.
[5] Ahlstrom-Vij, K. and Dunn, J., 2014. A defence of epistemic consequentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 64(257), pp.541-551.
[6] Hunt, Janet. “The Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: A Short Review.” (2018).
[7] Barnhill, A., 2015. Choice, Respect and Value: The Ethics of Healthy Eating Policy. Wake Forest JL & Pol’y, 5, p.1.
[8] Lawson, R.A., Murphy, R.H. and Williamson, C.R., 2016. The relationship between income, economic freedom, and BMI. Public health, 134, pp.18-25.
[9] Elkind, E., Lackner, M. and Peters, D., 2016, July. Preference Restrictions in Computational Social Choice: Recent Progress. In IJCAI (Vol. 16, pp. 4062-4065).
[10] Mendes, P., 2017. Community as a ‘spray-on solution’: a case study of community engagement within the income management programme in Australia. Community Development Journal, 53(2), pp.210-227.
[11] Smith, N.C., Goldstein, D.G. and Johnson, E.J., 2013. Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(2), pp.159-172.
[12] Hart, C.L., 2017. Viewing addiction as a brain disease promotes social injustice. Nat Hum Behav, 1, p.0055.
