Search results

E‐Government programs often address problems such as institutional ineffectiveness, lack of transparency, or social exclusion. Financial exclusion and people's reliance on ineffective payment methods appear to be a well‐known problem world‐wide. Yet, despite the large number of related case studies and academic reports on the topic, little is understood about the impact governmental payment practices have on the financial behaviour of citizens. Few investigations address how governmental use of payment methods and related policies may impact citizen/consumer behaviour. Through investigating the move to E‐Payment based methods to replace the dominant use of cash and cheques in social welfare in Ireland, the purpose of this paper is to explore the recipient's view of this government project.

The research is organized as an intrinsic case study where the unit of analysis is one large project. It aims at a rich description of one particular case by analysing data collected from two main sources of evidence: preliminary investigation is done by reviewing relevant documents, while primary data collection involved face‐to‐face surveys of social welfare recipients (using a short, structured questionnaire augmented with a few open‐ended questions).

The planning and execution of E‐Government programs often face barriers of mostly social and historical nature. As the results of this research indicate, these barriers might be hard to overcome as they are the result of certain behaviours and attitudes rooted in people's daily experience, such as their daily financial reality. Results also imply that the choice of an adequate E‐Payment method and migration scenario by governmental agencies will be crucial to the outcome. Implementation and education will also be critical.

This study reports on the influence governmental decisions related to social welfare payment methods may have on recipients' financial habits regarding the choice of payment options. It also shows how recipients' everyday experience and financial reality determine the way they relate to payment options.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the rates of receipt of welfare for immigrants and natives in Ireland, to see if the outcome is consistent with the operation of a policy which was designed to limit immigrant access to welfare.

The authors use micro‐data from the Irish component European Union Survey on Income and Living Conditions for 2008, also published data on the numbers of people claiming unemployment related payments in Ireland. Descriptive statistics and results from probit regressions are presented.

The analysis generally shows that in the years preceding the recession, immigrants were less likely to be in receipt of welfare payments, whether one looks at adjusted or unadjusted data. The recession, and the consequent job losses among immigrants, gave rise to a possible surge in the numbers of immigrants receiving welfare benefits. While this seemed to happen at the outset of the recession, the more recent trends in the numbers receiving payments would suggest that the numbers of non‐nationals stabilised, even as the number of nationals claiming payments continued to rise.

As the data used do not give an indication of the length of time an immigrant has been in Ireland, the authors are unable to assess whether the observed patterns change with length of stay.

The results suggest that Ireland's policy of limiting access to welfare for immigrants has been successful in its primary goal.

No other papers have considered the issue of immigrant welfare receipt in Ireland in the context of the massive migratory inflow after EU expansion in 2004.

The study aims to address a critical gap in existing healthcare payment schemes and care service pricing by recognizing the influential role of patients' decisions on self-management efforts. These decisions not only impact health outcomes but also shape the demand for care, subsequently influencing care costs. Despite the significance of this interplay, current payment schemes often overlook these dynamics. The research focuses on investigating the implications of a novel behavior-based payment scheme, designed to align incentives and establish a direct connection between patients' decisions and care costs. The primary objective is to comprehensively understand whether and how this innovative payment scheme structure influences key stakeholders, including patients, care providers, insurers and overall social welfare.

In this paper, we propose a game-theoretical model to incorporate the performance of self-management with the demand for healthcare service, compare the patient's effort decision for self-management and provider's price decision for healthcare service under a behavior-based scheme with that under two implemented widely payment schemes, that is, co-payment scheme and co-insurance scheme.

Our findings confirm that the behavior-based scheme incentives patient self-management more than current schemes while reducing their possibility of seeking healthcare service, which indirectly induces the provider to lower the price of the service. The stakeholders' utility under various payment schemes is sensitive to the cost of treatment and the perceived health utility of patients. Especially, patient health awareness is not always benefited provider profit, as it motivates patient self-management while diminishing the demand for care.

We provide a novel framework for characterizing behavior-based payment schemes. Our results confirm the need for modification of the current payment scheme to incentivize patient self-management.

The author argues that we must stop and take a look at what our insistence on human labour as the basis of our society is doing to us, and begin to search for possible alternatives. We need the vision and the courage to aim for the highest level of technology attainable for the widest possible use in both industry and services. We need financial arrangements that will encourage people to invent themselves out of work. Our goal, the article argues, must be the reduction of human labour to the greatest extent possible, to free people for more enjoyable, creative, human activities.

The paper aims to investigate how accounting techniques, when embedded within data-driven public-sector management systems, mask and intensify the neoliberal ideological commitments of powerful state and corporate actors. The authors explore the role of accounting in the operationalisation of “instrumentarian power” (Zuboff, 2019) – a new form of power that mobilises ubiquitous digital instrumentation to ensure that algorithmic architectures can tune, herd and modify behaviour.

The authors employ a qualitative archival analysis of publicly available data related to the automation of welfare-policing systems to explore the role of accounting in advancing instrumentarian power.

In exploring the automation of Australia's welfare debt recovery system (Robodebt), this paper examines a new algorithmic accountability that has emerged at the interface of government, technology and accounting. The authors show that accounting supports both the rise of instrumentarian power and the intensification of neoliberal ideals when buried within algorithms. In focusing on Robodebt, the authors show how the algorithmic reconfiguration of accountability within the welfare system intensified the inequalities that welfare recipients experienced. Furthermore, the authors show that, despite its apparent failure, it worked to modify welfare recipients' behaviour to align with the neoliberal ideals of “self-management” and “individual responsibility”.

This paper addresses Agostino, Saliterer and Steccolini's (2021) call to investigate the relationship between accounting, digital innovations and the lived experience of vulnerable people. To anchor this, the authors show how algorithms work to mask the accounting assumptions that underpin them and assert that this, in turn, recasts accountability relationships. When accounting is embedded in algorithms, the ideological potency of calculations can be obscured, and when applied within technologies that affect vulnerable people, they can intensify already substantial inequalities.

Economic activity is typically provided by three distinct sectors. For-profit entities seek to maximize owner profit by providing various goods and services. The not-for-profit sector consists of private or quasi-public entities that provide goods and services without regard to making an explicit profit. Government entities extract resources from the economy and redistribute them to achieve certain public goods.

Recently a fourth or gray sector has developed that combines elements of the other three. As a corporate form that explicitly sacrifices profit maximization to advance some predetermined social good, benefit corporations are one example of this gray sector. Owners are aware of this dual mission but still invest as the social objectives are consistent with their personal goals. Thus, the benefit corporation can be viewed as a for-profit entity subject to an explicit social welfare constraint.

Since the late 1960s governments have spent trillions of dollars on a wide variety of social welfare programs. Nevertheless, poverty persists and government altruism may have made poverty more intractable in some respects. Economic logic suggests that providing social welfare transfer payments with few work or training requirements can make recipients dependent and enable dysfunctional behavior. Over time this may rob recipients of opportunities for labor and self-sufficiency.

Benefit corporations are typically viewed as a form of socially responsible investment that leverages the economic advantages of market-based systems. To date, however, little has been written about the benefit corporation’s potential ethical dimensions. The purpose of this paper is to provide a moral argument based in Catholic Social Teaching to support the use of benefit corporations as a substitute for some government service programs. Our arguments are centered on the primary principle of Human Dignity and will include, but not be limited to: Work, Solidarity and there role social and economic society as well as the Role of Government or Subsidiarity (including the Welfare State).

Improving quality of life for older people calls for public policy initiatives that have a positive impact on the determinants of quality of life. This paper presents a review of current social welfare, housing and health policy in the Republic of Ireland relevant to older people and policy areas that are of particular relevance to the determinants of quality of life identified in the literature. The state pension, on which older people are heavily reliant, constitutes the main focus of social welfare cash payments. However, a general practice of marginal increments that fail to take adequate account of inflation and costs of living can leave older people living on the margins of society. In relation to housing policy, there is a need for improved policy implementation regarding housing maintenance and facilitating home comfort in the older population. Overall, greater consideration for the housing needs of older people in general and social housing needs in particular are required. Since 1988 a preference for community over institutional care has persisted throughout Ireland's health policy documents, although gaps between policy aspiration and implementation measures continue to be highlighted. Future policy needs to focus on the creation of enabling environments for social participation and in the optimising of opportunities for physical, social and mental well‐being. The review underscored the absence of a rights‐based approach in policy‐making to date and the need for substantial capacity building to be undertaken among older people themselves.

The purpose of this study was to examine the interaction between citizens’ perception of justice and their trust in the government agency that provides e-services, in particular, those e-services with users who are particularly sensitive towards their interaction and exchanges with the government.

Analysis of 102 surveys completed by users of e-BR1M was conducted. Partial least squares regression, a form of structural equation modelling, was used for the data analysis.

This study found that distributive justice and procedural justice positively influence trust in government. Trust in government and convenience were also found to significantly influence the adoption of e-BR1M.

Understanding the interaction between perceptions of justice (procedural and distributive justice) and trust can contribute to the willingness to adopt e-government services by a particular group of users who are particularly sensitive towards interactions with the government.

Findings from this study can help policymakers improve the way in which they interact with citizens so that the citizens’ perceptions of procedural and distributive justice are improved. This, in turn, will improve trust in government and will lead to an improved willingness of citizens to use e-government services.

This study examined the interaction between citizens’ perceptions of trust and justice in an e-government service, which users are particularly sensitive towards in their interactions with the government.

A method of systematically assessing the “first-round” impact of tax and transfer policy changes on the income distribution and the incidence of relative income poverty is proposed. It involves the construction of a “distributionally neutral” policy, which can be approximated by a policy that indexes tax allowances, credits and bands and welfare payment rates in line with a broad measure of income growth. The impact of actual policy changes in five EU countries over the 1998–2001 period is then measured against this benchmark, using the EUROMOD tax-benefit model.