From Surveillance to Criminalization: The Automation of decision-making on Welfare Entitlements and the Policing of Fraud

• In Event: POLWG Panel 10. Automating Suspicion: Facial Recognition, Welfare Control, and Predictive Policing.

Abstract

The digitalization of welfare provision has been received with much enthusiasm, aiming to increase efficiency and reduce wastage. However, it extends beyond a simple technical e-governance initiative; it fundamentally alters the processes through which welfare claims are received, assessed, and disbursed. The introduction of digital and automated welfare surveillance technologies, where an algorithmic reading of claimants’ data decides if entitlements are granted, denied, or subject the claimant to a fraud investigation, can have significant implications for society's most vulnerable groups, with far-reaching consequences for their access to basic support and services. Furthermore, it affects how social workers and other welfare officials perceive and approach claimants, how minor inconsistencies in documentation are interpreted and resolved, and how cases of actual welfare fraud are detected and handled. These shifts are not devoid of social consequences, as intrusive surveillance and automated eligibility tests by state welfare actors can spell social distrust, diminished agency and a lack of trust in the government among poorer and disempowered communities.

Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted within Centres for Social Work in Slovenia, where the automation of decision-making on welfare entitlments is pervasive and advance, this paper explores the transformation of welfare fraud policing following the automation of eligibility tests and its integration of digital data exchanges. It identifies and maps the various actors, both public and private, as well as actants, including technologies, databases, materialities, and practices, that are involved in these processes .It then argues that automated decision making on welfare entitlements can recast claimants as potential criminal fraudsters, reduce discretion in eligibility tests but also reinforce social institutions policing in undertaking investigative and punitive measures. It concludes with a number of recommendations to produce better social and material outcomes in the policing of welfare fraud in the digital age.

Author

• Lior Volinz, Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana