Authoritarian Neoliberalism and Asylum Seekers: the Silencing of Accounting and Accountability in Offshore Detention Centres

IF 5.9 1区 哲学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Business Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-27 DOI:10.1007/s10551-024-05770-4
Sendirella George, Erin Twyford, Farzana Aman Tanima
{"title":"Authoritarian Neoliberalism and Asylum Seekers: the Silencing of Accounting and Accountability in Offshore Detention Centres","authors":"Sendirella George, Erin Twyford, Farzana Aman Tanima","doi":"10.1007/s10551-024-05770-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper examines how accounting can both entrench and challenge an inhumane and costly neoliberal policy—namely, the Australian government’s offshore detention of asylum seekers. Drawing on Bruff, Rethinking Marxism 26:113–129 (2014) and Smith, Competition &amp; Change 23:192–217 (2019), we acknowledge that the neoliberalism underpinning immigration policies and the practices related to asylum seekers takes an <i>authoritarian</i> tone. Through the securitisation and militarisation of the border, the Australian state politicises and silences marginalised social groups such as asylum-seekers. Studies have exposed accounting as a technology that upholds neoliberalism by representing policy as objective and factual. Curiously, there has been a wilful intention by successive Australian governments to silence the accounting for offshore detention. We seek to demystify this <i>un</i>accounting and <i>un</i>accountability by exploring counter-accounts produced by meso-level organisations that support asylum seekers. We apply a close-reading method in analysing limited governmental accounts and various counter-accounts to demonstrate how counter-accounts give visibility to practices that an authoritarian neoliberal regime has obfuscated. We also reflect on the potential for counter-accounting to foster broader social change by holding the Australian government accountable to moral and ethical standards of care for human life. This paper considers the intersections between accounting and authoritarian neoliberalism and presents counter-accounts as mechanisms that can challenge these neoliberal norms.</p>","PeriodicalId":15279,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05770-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines how accounting can both entrench and challenge an inhumane and costly neoliberal policy—namely, the Australian government’s offshore detention of asylum seekers. Drawing on Bruff, Rethinking Marxism 26:113–129 (2014) and Smith, Competition & Change 23:192–217 (2019), we acknowledge that the neoliberalism underpinning immigration policies and the practices related to asylum seekers takes an authoritarian tone. Through the securitisation and militarisation of the border, the Australian state politicises and silences marginalised social groups such as asylum-seekers. Studies have exposed accounting as a technology that upholds neoliberalism by representing policy as objective and factual. Curiously, there has been a wilful intention by successive Australian governments to silence the accounting for offshore detention. We seek to demystify this unaccounting and unaccountability by exploring counter-accounts produced by meso-level organisations that support asylum seekers. We apply a close-reading method in analysing limited governmental accounts and various counter-accounts to demonstrate how counter-accounts give visibility to practices that an authoritarian neoliberal regime has obfuscated. We also reflect on the potential for counter-accounting to foster broader social change by holding the Australian government accountable to moral and ethical standards of care for human life. This paper considers the intersections between accounting and authoritarian neoliberalism and presents counter-accounts as mechanisms that can challenge these neoliberal norms.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专制的新自由主义与寻求庇护者:境外拘留中心对会计和问责的压制
本文探讨了会计如何既能巩固又能挑战一项不人道且代价高昂的新自由主义政策--即澳大利亚政府对寻求庇护者的离岸拘留。借鉴布鲁夫(Bruff),《反思马克思主义》(Rethinking Marxism)26:113-129(2014)和史密斯(Smith),《竞争与变革》(Competition & Change)23:192-217(2019),我们承认,支撑移民政策的新自由主义以及与寻求庇护者相关的做法带有专制色彩。通过边境安全化和军事化,澳大利亚国家将寻求庇护者等边缘化社会群体政治化,并使其保持沉默。研究揭露,会计是一种通过将政策表现为客观和事实来维护新自由主义的技术。奇怪的是,历届澳大利亚政府都有意压制对离岸拘留的核算。我们试图通过探究支持寻求庇护者的中层组织所做的反叙述来揭开这种不叙述和不负责任的神秘面纱。我们运用细读法分析了有限的政府陈述和各种反陈述,以说明反陈述如何使专制的新自由主义制度所掩盖的实践变得可见。我们还反思了反会计的潜力,即让澳大利亚政府对关爱人类生命的道德和伦理标准负责,从而促进更广泛的社会变革。本文探讨了会计与专制新自由主义之间的交集,并提出了反会计作为挑战这些新自由主义规范的机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
265
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term `business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while `ethics'' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon.
期刊最新文献
Are Employees Safer When the CEO Looks Greedy? Considering the Dark Side of Work: Bullshit Job Perceptions, Deviant Work Behavior, and the Moderating Role of Work Ethic Historical Ownership of Family Firms and Corporate Fraud Sameness and/or Otherness: What Matters More for Narcissist CEOs in the Context of Non-market Strategy? The Rise of Partisan CSR: Corporate Responses to the Russia–Ukraine War
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1