Abstract
In this article, I take the framework of neuroliberalism as an analytical lens to explore the functioning and implementation of a social impact bond-funded welfare service for young homeless people in the UK. After reflecting on the lines of connections and divergences between social impact bonds and neuroliberal logics, I draw attention to the limitations that exist in welfare interventions inspired by neuroliberal thought. On the one hand, the studied intervention functioned mainly through designing trustful, ideal-type relationships as a means to ‘fix’ people, thereby focusing on behavioural and biographical deficiencies and spreading good life ideals of a marketized world. On the other hand, I demonstrate how this focus on adjusting micro-contexts and tinkering with the affective, relational infrastructure fails to understand systemic constraints. Those were particularly evident with regard to the precarious labour market environment and colliding welfare agendas individuals were confronted with.
Highlights
This article takes the functioning and rollout of a welfare intervention for young homeless people in the UK as a starting point to think about the interrelation of social finance and the growing importance of behaviourally inspired policymaking
Focusing on the UK, in this paper I will investigate how neuroliberal logics relate to and play out in welfare services financed by social impact investing concepts
An example is a social policy instrument called the social impact bond (SIB), which is celebrated for their supposed efficiency and innovativeness in the fight against poverty (Berndt and Wirth, 2018)
Summary
This article takes the functioning and rollout of a welfare intervention for young homeless people in the UK as a starting point to think about the interrelation of social finance and the growing importance of behaviourally inspired policymaking. Promoted by the UK Coalition government since 2010, the key idea behind social impact investing was to draw financial market actors into the realm of the welfare system and incentivize them to fund socially oriented projects, charities or social enterprises (Rosenman, 2019). The aim was to reformulate welfare services in terms of market-based logics and financialized valuation to render them more efficient and cost effective for the public (Harvie and Ogman, 2019; Langley, 2018). For this purpose, the government established an expansive impact investing infrastructure, introduced tax incentives and invented specialized financial instruments and market-based policy instruments. An example is a social policy instrument called the social impact bond (SIB), which is celebrated for their supposed efficiency and innovativeness in the fight against poverty (Berndt and Wirth, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
