When the war is over: Accounting for people with disabilities

Abstract

We assess the extent to which accounting discourse was used during the aftermath of the Second World War as a way of reconceptualising the notion of a person with disabilities from welfare recipient to income earner. Drawing on Foucault's notion of pastoral power, we interpret archival documents from this important period in the development of disability policy in Australia, which is so far unexplored in the accounting literature. We reveal the role of accounting in rationalising and operationalising government initiatives and programs assembled to address the ‘problem of disability’. We show that accounting terminology and techniques were mobilised as a way of justifying the transference of people with disabilities into sheltered workshops, a process that aimed to transform them into income earners who could contribute to the national economy.

Keywords

Foucault Second World War pastoral power disability sheltered workshops

Introduction

The training, rehabilitation and reconditioning of those who suffer some incapacity is of considerable consequence both to the individual and to the nation …. They are important units in the economic structure (Australia House of Representatives, 23 May 1947: 2866, emphasis added).

The period following the Second World War in Australia witnessed a significant shift in attitude towards people with disabilities. Until then, people with disabilities were deemed unable to work (Nikidehaghani and Hui, 2017). However, the post-war Australian government identified them as a source of labour (Australia House of Representatives, 23 November 1948), and acknowledged that they would, if properly trained, improve their ‘inferior position’ and establish themselves as ‘useful citizens’ (Australia House of Representatives, 23 November 1948: 3296). This reconceptualisation of people with disabilities formed the basis of Australia's post-war disability policies.

Rehabilitation and vocational-training programs were introduced as a way of transforming people with disabilities from ‘takers’ to ‘earners’ (Australia House of Representatives, 23 November 1948: 3296). These programs, operationalised through sheltered workshops, enabled the government to filter people with disabilities into employment with the intention that they would cease to be welfare recipients and instead become taxpayers. By 1972, the sheltered workshops program had ‘placed 503 workers into paid employment and, significantly, the workshops were contributing goods to the value of $11.6 million to the national economy’ (Treloar and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1977: 49).

The aim of this article is to explore how the Australian government used accounting practices to transform people with disabilities into ‘profitable citizens’ after the Second World War (Australia House of Representatives, 30 March 1944: 2422). In doing so, we draw on Foucault's (2007) concept of pastoral power to theorise that the government used accounting as a mechanism to demonstrate the need for rehabilitation and vocational-training programs, and rationalise the operation of the sheltered workshops. The contemporary neoliberalised world is concerned with individuals’ economic citizenship (Annisette and Trivedi, 2013) and attempts to increase individuals’ financial independence through policies and programs. Understanding the role of accounting in operationalising the post-war disability policies, particularly those establishing sheltered workshops, is important since these workshops continue to operate in modern Australia and play a significant role in improving the employability of people with disabilities (Australian Government, 2020).

Our article contributes to the accounting literature that highlights the centrality of accounting in operationalising regimes of power and control in different domains such as education (Bigoni et al., 2018; Madonna et al., 2014; Walker, 2010), religious institutions (Bigoni and Funnell, 2015; Leardini and Rossi, 2013), factory settings (Miller and O’Leary, 1987), and hospitals (Preston, 1992), and in the governing of Indigenous peoples (Greer and McNicholas, 2017). Recent accounting literature also explores the role of accounting in how human bodies are shaped and perceived (Haynes, 2017; Jeacle, 2003; Rumens, 2016). However, fewer studies examine the intersection between accounting and disability. Works by Duff and Ferguson (2007; 2011, 2012) investigate the experiences of accountants with disabilities and their employment in accounting firms. Bishop and Boden (2008) show how, in the transition from a feudal to a capitalist society in the UK, accounting techniques for maximising the surplus value of labour enforced the medical classification of disability, which in turn contributed to the exclusion of people with disabilities.

In exploring the role of accounting in (trans)forming the identity of people with disabilities, we extend work by Nikidehaghani and Hui (2017) and Nikidehaghani et al. (2021). Nikidehaghani and Hui (2017) examined Australia's early welfare schemes, put in place shortly after federation, via the Invalid and Old Age Pension Act (1908−1946), focusing specifically on the installation and operation of the Means Test (Nikidehaghani and Hui, 2017). In later work, Nikidehaghani et al. (2021) reviewed the welfare-reform efforts of the Howard government in the 2000s, examining the neoliberalisation of more-recent disability-support programs, and their basis for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The literature shows a notable gap – the period following the Second World War – between the time periods covered by the two articles. This current article addresses that gap by examining the disability schemes in place in Australia during the period following the Second World War. In addition, the works by Nikidehaghani and Hui (2017) and Nikidehaghani et al. (2021) centre on governmental welfare policies for people with disabilities. We expand the literature by analysing the role of accounting in rationalising the operation of sheltered workshops, which were administered by not-for-profit organisations.

Our analysis also contributes to the critical-disability literature. Disability scholars such as Campbell (2012), Davis (1995), and Michalko and Titchkosky (2009) argue that ableism, ‘a set of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular understanding of oneself’ (Wolbring, 2007: 79), is at the basis of interventions in the lives of people with disabilities. These scholars demonstrate the privilege afforded to the able-bodied and the space created for specific types of human beings who possess favourable abilities (Goodley, 2014). People with disabilities are expected to emulate these norms (Campbell, 2009). Disability scholars have considered the relationship between rehabilitation and normalcy, revealing, for example, the centrality of the rehabilitation process in ‘making people with disabilities normal or as normal as possible’ (Finkelstein, 1993: 13). Similarly, critical-disability scholars Titchosky and Michalko (2009: 3) point out the primary aim of rehabilitation, which is to ‘prevent disability’, and, if prevention fails, to ‘cure disability’, with the ultimate aim being to enable the ‘disabled person [to] feel and look as normal as possible’.

The primacy of rehabilitation and the offering of rehabilitation programs through sheltered workshops was an important element in facilitating the reintegration of people with disabilities into the economic system. Sheltered workshops were promoted as ‘work-oriented rehabilitation facilities’ that operated in ‘controlled environments for the provision of employment-related services’ (Whitehead, 1986: 18). However, disability scholars such as Abbas (2016) and Albrecht (1992) have criticised sheltered workshops as sites for the exploitation of people with disabilities. Recent work by Bend and Priola (2021: 13) reveals that despite managers’ efforts to ‘disrupt normative constructions of disability’, sheltered workshops continued to function within the parameters of capitalist ableism and aspired to construct the ‘ideal worker’ (2021: 13, italics in original). We contribute to this discussion by offering disability studies scholars an awareness of how accounting can be integral to the construction of behaviour that is consistent with the ideal of capitalist ableism.

The remainder of the article proceeds as follows. First, we discuss the theoretical framework that helps interpret the empirical material. Then, we present the data on which the article is based. Next, we present the empirics. The article ends with a discussion and concluding comments.

Theoretical framing

The work of Michel Foucault, in particular his writings on governmentality and pastoral power, provides the framework for our interpretation of Australian policies put in place to manage the conduct of people with disabilities after the Second World War. Foucault's (1991) genealogical investigations reveal a shift in modes of power from sovereign power to governmentalised states. Foucault (1991: 101) traces the origins of governmentality to the eighteenth century, when the increase in population caused a transition in governing regimes ‘from a sovereignty regime to a regime ruled by the technique of government’. Foucault (1991) asserts that from this point, the predominant concern of government was the population, and its purpose was to oversee the improvement of the condition, welfare, and wealth of the population through meticulous management and government intervention (Foucault, 1991). The governing of the population required simultaneously considering the interests of each individual and pursuing the interests of the population as a whole (Foucault, 1991, 2003). This individualising and totalising principle (Foucault, 2007) has characterised the modern state (Foucault, 2001). Foucault (1982, 1988a, 1988b, 2007) has acknowledged the salience of pastoral power in comprehending modes of power in the modern Western state.

Foucault (1982, 2007) notes that pastoral power had its origins in the Christian church, where it formed part of an ethical code that helped to organise and manage social conduct. In this context, pastors were given a special form of power over individuals in their care that had four main characteristics (Foucault, 1982): (1) the ultimate aim of the pastor is to assure individual salvation in the next world; (2) pastoral power does not merely command, but is such that the pastor must also be prepared to sacrifice for the life and salvation of those in their care; (3) pastoral power is totalising and individualising, which requires the pastor to care for the entire community as well as each individual; and, (4) pastoral power cannot be exercised without intimate knowledge of individuals, which ‘implies a knowledge of the conscience and an ability to direct it’ (Foucault, 1982: 783). The idea of ‘salvation’ in the first category has a distinct religious quality, as does the idea of ‘conscience’ in the fourth category. The process of obtaining ‘knowledge of conscience’ involves ‘confession’ to the pastor in exchange for individual direction, care, and, ultimately, ‘salvation’ (Foucault, 2007).

Foucault's (2007) analysis of pastoral power reveals the centrality of confession in attaining salvation. Salvation depends on an ongoing verbalisation of thoughts and actions to the pastor (2007). The aim is to assess the purity of individuals’ thoughts and actions to reveal any deviation from the ideal and direct them towards salvation (Foucault, 1988b). In this way, confession reaffirms individuals’ subordinate relationship to the pastor (Foucault, 2007).

Foucault (1982) noted that the ecclesiastical institutionalisation of pastoral power began to lose momentum beginning in the eighteenth century, but that the function of pastoral power has since ‘spread and multiplied’, giving way to modern forms of pastoral power that see ‘the state as a modern matrix of individualisation’ (Foucault, 1982: 783). Importantly, there was a change in the objective of salvation in this ‘new’ conception of pastoral power: ‘it was no longer a question of leading people to salvation in the next world, but rather ensuring it in this world’ (Foucault, 1982: 784). Salvation in its modern context takes on many different meanings, including good health and standard of living.

Foucault (1982: 784) observed that in the modern world the ‘officials’ of pastoral power have also increased. No longer restricted to those with a religious duty to perform, modern-day pastoral power is often executed through a state apparatus or public institutions, or even private entities or professions. The types of ‘confession’ have also changed their guise. Knowledge has shifted from the extraction of a ‘never-ending knowledge of the conduct of the individuals’ (Foucault, 2007: 181) in terms of inner thoughts, temptations, and desires, to include the ‘development of knowledge of man around two roles: one, globalising and quantitative, concerning the population … [and] the other, analytical, concerning the individual’ (Foucault, 1982: 784).

Importantly, Foucault (1988a) believes that confession remains the instrument of power in the modern world, albeit that in the contemporary world, confession is not merely verbal, but rather in other formats such as writing, diarising, and reviewing one's actions. Foucault (1988a) explains that the modern individual does not confess to be dominated by the power of experts, but rather to know the self, and be known by others. However, as long as it is assumed that the truth can only be understood by expert interpreters, confession contributes to the deployment of power: ‘… people know what they do; they frequently know why they do it; but what they do not know is the circumstances of their actions’ (Foucault 1988a, cited in Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982: 187). Once the person confesses and the relations of power consequently take place, the overall effect escapes the actors’ intentions (Foucault, 1980).

The idea that the modern state presents aspects of pastoral power has encouraged researchers to investigate pastoral forms of governance in various domains of action, including funeral industries (Schäfer, 2007), the oppression of nonhuman animals (Cole, 2011), health care (Martin and Waring, 2018), pharmacy (Waring et al., 2016), migration (Salukvadze et al., 2018), education (Tsolidis and Pollard, 2007), and public policies (Gustafsson and Driver, 2005; Zavala Pelayo, 2017). In particular, Nadesan (2008) proposes that pastoral power continues to operate within the welfare state, requiring certain knowledge to govern individuals in a particular way; this way of government, in turn, has a macro-level impact. Scholars have demonstrated how accounting has been used as a technology of power to render domains of governance amenable to intervention and control (Gomes et al., 2014; Miller, 1994; Spence, 2010). However, there is limited research that investigates the role of accounting as a mechanism of pastoral power (for some exceptions, see Bigoni et al., 2021; Nikidehaghani et al., 2021). Accordingly, we have chosen to consider Australia's disability programs during the post-Second World War period to explain how accounting facilitates the connection between actions of people with disabilities and the macro-level concerns of the state.

In the following analysis, we demonstrate the use of accounting as a mechanism of pastoral power, specifically as it enables its operationalisation and facilitates the rationalisation of the sheltered workshops. Drawing on the aspects of pastoral power described above, we reconceptualise Australia's post-war disability policies as a modern form of exercising pastoral power. In the context of this article, the Australian government is perceived as the pastor, with the aim of transforming people with disabilities into income earners (i.e. leading them to salvation). We outline how certain conceptions of people with disabilities were accepted as truth and became the basis for governmental programs. In particular, this study examines the role of accounting in the process of rationalising and operationalising programs of government that would facilitate attaining salvation.

Foucault's (1988a) explanation that knowing the self, motivates confession is relevant to this article. In the analysis that follows, we show that people with disabilities confessed to their financial circumstances to be known as deserving of financial assistance. However, confessing to financial circumstances results in placing people with disabilities in a network of obedience and power relationships.

Method

The emergence of post-modern philosophy in accounting literature has prompted the growth of ‘new accounting history’ (Miller et al., 1991: 395), which attempts to explicate historical events through various theoretical lenses (see Hoskin and Macve, 1986; Miller and Napier, 1993; Miller and O’Leary, 1987; Neu and Graham, 2006; Walker, 2008). These ‘new accounting history’ scholars, whom Macintosh (2009) identifies as ‘genealogical historians’, have embarked on understandings of ‘fictions of the present’ (Macintosh, 2009: 2; emphasis in original). They seek to question the contemporary situation of the present (Carnegie, 2014) and illustrate how truth is produced, rather than discovered (Gaffikin, 2011).

In a similar way, we seek to question the means by which the identity of people with disabilities was shaped in Australia following the Second World War. Political ideology and accounting nomenclature combined to shape notions of disability, and it is from this perspective that we adopt a genealogical approach to identify the obscured presence of power in the everyday life of people with disabilities. This genealogical approach questions contemporary norms and values (Foucault, 2000) and investigates the ‘forces and relations of power connected to discursive practices’ (Davidson, 1986: 226). We use this approach to demonstrate the ‘discontinuities’ and ‘deviations’ (Foucault, 2000: 374) in political relationships, and how these have intertwined with accounting terminology and techniques in an attempt to transform people with disabilities into ‘profitable citizens’ (Australia House of Representatives, 30 March 1944: 2422).

Sources of evidence

In mapping the transformation of people with disabilities, we draw on archival data associated with the disability programs in Australia from the 1940s to the early 1970s. We acknowledge that a potential limitation of our approach may be that our data set is incomplete, as archival data sets often are (Neuman, 2014). To gather as much evidence as possible to support our claims, we drew on a wide range of archival data. We manually collected archival data from several publicly available sources, including the Australian Parliament website, the Federal Register of Legislation website, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the National Archives of Australia, the National Library of Australia, and the State Library of New South Wales.

Data obtained from the Australian Parliament website contains the Senate and House of Representatives Parliamentary Hansards. Data accessed through the Federal Register of Legislation website comprises the Social Services Consolidation Act (1948−1954), the Social Services Act (1954−1972), the Disabled Persons Accommodation Act (1963), and the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act (1967). Data sourced from the National Archives of Australia and the National Library of Australia consists of Supplementary Assistance application forms, reports by the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (1977), the Sheltered Workshops Manual (1962), the Survey of Sheltered Employment Approved for the Purpose of the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act (1971), the Sheltered Workshops Employee Satisfaction Survey (1981), the annual reports for the Association of Sheltered Workshops NSW (1965−1972), and the Report of the National Seminar on Sheltered Workshops (1963). Evidence for this study also includes reports prepared by the Australian Council of Social Services and the Department of Social Security.

Data analysis

The research team reviewed all data to ascertain the significance and relevance of each piece in demonstrating how accounting concepts and practices have dominated the realm of disability policies. After an initial review, data was divided into three categories.

The first category included Parliamentary debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives on disability legislation. This data set enabled us to document the government's perspective towards people with disabilities and the role of accounting in rationalising these views. Drawing on Foucault's concept of pastoral power, this data set facilitates the interpretation of how the notion of financial effectiveness has dominated the government's position on disability policies.

The second category consisted of official forms such as applications for Supplementary Assistance, guidelines to administer the legislation, committee reports, and government papers associated with the Social Services and Sheltered Employment Acts. Examining this data set allowed us to demonstrate the centrality of the accounting concept of ‘cost’ in implementing government programs for people with disabilities. We argue that by adopting Foucault's ideas on pastoral power, these programs were designed to mould the behaviour of people with disabilities in accordance with certain political objectives.

The third data group included instructions and guidelines developed to support the operations of sheltered workshops. A review of this data let us understand the application of management-accounting techniques in forming the prescribed identity of people with disabilities. The third category also included the sheltered workshops’ annual reports, surveys, and other reports associated with the operation of sheltered workshops. This data was examined to understand the role of accounting numbers in giving visibility to the contributions of the workshops in solving the problem of disability.

Accounting for post-war disability policies

The outbreak of the Second World War provided an opportunity for the Commonwealth government to reinforce its leadership by expanding its intervention in the economic and social lives of its citizens (Kewley, 1973). In particular, by federalising the collection of income tax in 1942¹, the government empowered itself to move into different fields of governing, including higher education, national development programs, social services², and the management of immigrants³ (Kewley, 1973).

By the end of the Second World War, most Western countries had embarked on programs to improve their national economies to avoid economic failures such as the Great Depression of the 1930s (Harvey, 2005; Palley, 2005). Similarly, post-war Australia became engaged with the goals of achieving full employment and building the national economy (Keating, 2014). However, improving the economy of post-war Australia required the contributions and efforts of every individual, including people with disabilities (Australia House of Representatives, 23 November 1948). The post-war Australian community initiated the discussion that people with disabilities could re-establish themselves as ‘effective citizens’ (Australia House of Representatives, 11 October 1951: 1556) who could contribute to advancing the national economy if supervised by the Commonwealth (see Australia House of Representatives, 23 November 1948; 11 October 1951).

The government, as the modern-day pastor, intervened in the lives of people with disabilities through the state apparatus in the form of rehabilitation and vocational-training programs. These programs were both individualising and totalising in that they were offered at the individual level as a way to transform people with disabilities into ‘trainees’ (Australia House of Representatives, 23 November 1948: 3298) who would potentially benefit the national economy at the macro level. Our analysis shows that, according to the accounting discourse recorded at the individual level, productivity was brought into line with the broader public strategy of including all citizens’ contributions to the wealth of the nation. The documents we analysed noted that rehabilitation and vocational-training programs could transform people with disabilities into ‘profitable citizens’ (Australia House of Representatives, 30 March 1944: 2422), which was a quality promoted at the time (Menzies, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c). The training program was acknowledged as an opportunity for people with disabilities that could transform them from ‘takers’ to ‘earners’ (Australia House of Representatives, 23 November 1948: 3298) who would potentially benefit the economy of the community.

Foucault (1991) argues that modern states have drawn on normalising techniques to encourage individual participation in government programs. A society that was committed to full employment (O’Halloran, 2002) normalised expectations of individual effectiveness and productivity (Keating, 2014; Sangkuhl, 2015). Consequently, rehabilitation was introduced as the ‘act of helping pensioners to return to a normal way of life as efficient members of the community’ (Australia House of Representatives, 11 October 1951: 556). This presentation of the rehabilitation program was welcomed by the Australian public (O’Halloran, 2002), and by people with disabilities who were considered incapacitated to work (Nikidehaghani and Hui, 2017). It also mirrored the individualising and totalising aspect of pastoral power in the modern world. Rehabilitation would have enabled the government to care for people with disabilities and recognise their capacities while achieving the agenda of full employment.

Importantly, our analysis indicates that medical professionals were cautious about the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, which they saw as a threat to their professional autonomy (Martyr, 1995). However, discourse that linked rehabilitation to full employment penetrated medical discussion around rehabilitation. For example, medical professionals argued that as ‘there cannot be a full and active life without occupation and employment, it follows that the ultimate aim of rehabilitation is employment’ (Galbraith, 1946: 1). Further, medical professionals who were critical of Commonwealth rehabilitation and advocated for separating medical and vocational rehabilitation attested that: ‘it has been proved conclusively that, in terms of community economy, rehabilitation pays dividends’ (Meyers, 1957: 722). Such discourse linking rehabilitation to full employment encouraged people with disabilities, who previously had been considered deviant and inferior to the able-bodied (Australia House of Representatives, 23 November 1948: 3296; Nikidehaghani, 2017), to voluntarily attend the program, thereby giving legitimacy to the regulatory intervention in their lives.

Members of Parliament acknowledged the significant potential for people with disabilities to improve the national economy, and argued that, when people with disabilities could earn their own income, not only would they cease to access government payments (i.e. cease to act as a ‘cost’), they could contribute to the economy through paying taxes (see Australia House of Representatives, 30 March 1944; 23 May 1947; 23 November 1948). It is in this context that Thomas Holloway, the then-Minister for Labour and National Services, reported:

Perhaps an even more important feature is the fact that former pensioners are now earning their own living. They are putting into the Commonwealth revenue, and not taking out of it. (Australia House of Representatives, 23 May 1947: 2866)

In addition, discussions of potential costs and savings with respect to people with disabilities gave measurable visibility to the advantages of the rehabilitation program for the nation as a whole, further rendering people with disabilities subject to continuous regulatory intervention. As reported by Thomas Holloway:

In spite of the limited facilities available during recent years, the rehabilitation of the 500 invalid pensioners cost the Commonwealth about £6,000, and resulted in a saving in invalid pensions of approximately £40,000 per annum.⁴ (Australia House of Representatives, 23 May 1947: 2866)

This data indicates that the decision about whether to rehabilitate people with disabilities was rationalised by reliance on accounting-based cost and savings information. In a similar manner, Minister for Parliament Henry Pearce referred to accounting numbers to justify the decision to train people with disabilities:

The rehabilitation of invalid pensioners and prospective pensioners has provided already an estimated contribution to Australia's economy of £412,500,000 …. We find in terms of cold figures, which do not lie, that the rehabilitation section of the Department of Social Services is of immense value to the nation. (Australia House of Representatives, 11 October 1951: 556, emphasis added)

Minister Pearce's statement reveals how integral the accounting figures were to governing people with disabilities. The quotes bring to mind Foucault's (1982: 784) reflection on how modern-day pastoral power is examined: ‘knowledge of man … is globalising and quantitative … and analytical’. The reliance on the perceived objectivity of numbers is striking, and the effect is even more significant as they translate the qualitative realities of the lives of people with disabilities, such as social marginalisation and discrimination (Earl, 2011), into a quantifiable format (Kornberger and Carter, 2010; Miller, 2001). A decision about rehabilitating a disabled population of human beings was rationalised as a result of a cost-benefit analysis and a series of calculative techniques that showed the course of action to be beneficial for macro-level concerns, as well as incidentally beneficial for the people themselves.

Accounting for confession: Supplementary Assistance program

Foucault (2007) describes the individualising and totalising aspect of pastoral power: it demands the pastor's attention to the whole population as well as each individual. The financial condition of welfare recipients (Garton, 1990) positioned the Australian government in a similar situation. At the same time as the rehabilitation and training programs for people with disabilities were gaining traction as a means of reducing welfare expenditure, the government was faced with strong voices that demanded improvements in the financial conditions of welfare recipients (Kewley, 1973). In response, the Australian government initiated the Supplementary Assistance program to support welfare recipients identified as most in need (Social Services Act, 1958)⁵.

To be considered for Supplementary Assistance, individuals were required to apply in writing, submitting a form that detailed financial and other personal circumstances to the Australian government (Department of Social Services, 1958). The application form queried the financial situation of the claimants, requiring that applicants disclose their expenses and income to determine their eligibility for support (Department of Social Services, 1958). For example, Question Two asked whether applicants were paying rent, and if so, the amount, along with the name and address of their landlord (Department of Social Services, 1958). To be identified as most in need, applicants also had to disclose whether they or their spouse were receiving income, along with the source and amount (Department of Social Services, 1958). It was assumed that through the examination of the expenses and income of people with disabilities, the truth would emerge: an applicant could be identified as in need and eligible for special government care, or rejected as not qualifying for Supplementary Assistance (Social Services Act, 1958).

The Supplementary Assistance program is another example of the Australian government's exercise of pastoral power within the context of post-Second World War disability policies. As the pastor, the government proposed to lead the entire population of people with disabilities, as well as each individual living with disabilities, towards ‘salvation’, which in this context was a program of supplementary living allowances. A government program and an affiliated agency were established to facilitate this exercise of power, and obtaining knowledge about individuals took place through a type of modern-day confession: the gathering of quantitative, analytic information (Foucault, 1982). That is, the written statements provided through the Supplementary Assistance Claim Form required by the government to determine eligibility for the Supplementary Assistance program are the ‘confessions’ made by individuals (welfare applicants) to the pastor (the government) in order to be directed to salvation (welfare benefits).

Foucault (1988b; 2007) explained that confession was a mechanism that enabled the Christian pastor to teach the truth in a way that developed and guided the individual's actions. Through confession, the pastor created an in-depth knowledge of the individual by knowing their ‘feelings, temptations, smallest movements of consciousness, sins and intentions’ (Foucault, 1988b: 46). In this way, confession becomes an ‘instrument of subordination’ (Foucault, 2007: 238): it binds the individual to the pastor and enables the pastor to extract the truth from the individual, thereby empowering the pastor to direct the individual's conduct (Foucault, 2007). In a similar way, the Supplementary Assistance program and its related forms and disclosure requirements demonstrate the manner in which confession reinforced individuals’ obedience to the pastor (government) and enabled them to be directed towards salvation (welfare benefits) (Foucault, 2007).

As Foucault (2007) notes, while it is likely that individuals do not confess with the intention of being dominated, the very nature of confessional discourse implies the existence of a power structure within in: it is an ‘obligatory act of speech’ (Foucault, 1988a: 62) that presupposes someone from below confessing to someone from above. As Foucault observes, ‘… people know what they do; they frequently know why they do it; but what they do not know is the circumstances of their actions’ (Foucault cited in Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982: 187). The overall effect is shaping of behaviour (Foucault, 1980). The confessor is not simply a listener; rather, the confessor is the ‘authority who requires the confession … and intervenes in order to judge, punish … and reconcile [it]’ (Foucault, 1988a: 62). Our analysis validates this point. Individuals confessed to their circumstances hoping to achieve salvation in the form of welfare benefits. The Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia (1959) reported that by the end of the 1958 financial year, 67,957 people with disabilities (87.7% of the entire national population of people with disabilities) qualified for Supplementary Assistance (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1959: 669). While the receipt of Supplementary Assistance was inherently positive, at the same time as accepting this salvation, individuals rendered themselves amenable to modifications and government intervention and control.

The confessions enabled the government to adopt accounting techniques of quantification to determine the number of individuals eligible for Supplementary Assistance, and the associated costs of running the program as well as national losses as a result of the unemployment of people with disabilities. Members of the Parliament argued that ‘the direct cost of [disability] pensions alone is over £20,000,000 a year. The indirect losses through so many handicapped people being kept idle … could well be in the vicinity of £40,000,000 annually’ (Australia House of Representatives, 12 September 1961: 1067). By giving visibility to the severity of the financial circumstances of people with disabilities and the costs of welfare dependency for the nation, quantification also provided agency for the management of individuals in a pastoral sense.

Authorities highlighted that people with disabilities ‘would have been in receipt of a regular wage, and being in employment they would not be obliged to seek the pension payment’ (Australia House of Representatives, 12 September 1961: 1066). Members of Parliament argued that ‘a disabled worker can make his own contribution to the national prosperity, but it is much more difficult for the disabled pensioner to contribute in a like manner’ (Australia House of Representatives, 12 September 1961: 1067). Data obtained from the Parliamentary Hansards indicates that sheltered workshops were put forward as a way of addressing the problem of the poverty in which people with disabilities lived, and the associated costs for the nation (Australia House of Representatives, 17 May 1962). As suggested by the then-Minister for Social Services Hugh Roberton, these facilities would enable ‘the maimed and broken to restore a better life free from the economic chains of their infirmities’ (Australia House of Representatives, 8 October 1963: 1513).

The analysis presented in the following section shows the centrality of accounting in the transformation of people with disabilities through employment at the Sheltered Workshops.

Accounting for transformation: sheltered workshops

Sheltered workshops, now known as Australian disability enterprises (BuyAbility, 2021), were voluntary ventures organised, and largely run, by disability advocates and parents and carers of people with disabilities in 1950s to improve the wellbeing and quality of life of people with disabilities (BuyAbility, 2021; Treharne, 1967). These workshops provided employment opportunities to adults with disabilities who could not secure employment otherwise, and offered an environment in which people with disabilities could socialise (Kirby, 1986). Faced with the extensive cost of setting up and facilitating welfare policies and schemes, the government saw sheltered workshops as an opportunity to address the matter of rehabilitation and employment for people with disabilities (see Australia House of Representatives, 12 September 1961; 13 September 1961; 17 May 1962; 10 October 1963).

Drawing on the accounting concept of cost, Members of Parliament advocated for allocating governmental grants to sheltered workshops. They argued that ‘the savings to the Government in pension payments in the first three years alone would equal the capital cost per person. Further gains to the Government would be from income tax as these people received income, and from indirect taxation as they were able to purchase more of the necessities for daily living’ (Australia House of Representatives, 12 September 1961: 1067). Accordingly, the Commonwealth provided capital works funding to these non-for-profit organisations to establish and equip sheltered workshops and supported accommodations (Disabled Persons Accommodation Act, 1963; Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act, 1967).

Data drawn from the Sheltered Workshops Manual indicates that in line with the macro objectives of the government, the primary objective of the sheltered workshops was to ‘enable people with disabilities to become working members of the community and enjoy the benefits, therapeutic, social and financial which productive work gives to those who are not handicapped’ (Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1962: 4). Therefore, people with disabilities were not only hired as working members of the workshops; on many occasions they also served in managerial and supervision roles within the workshops (Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1962).

To prepare people with disabilities to work in the open market, the sheltered workshops were encouraged to adopt a business model for their operation and management. Our analysis reveals the centrality of management-accounting techniques in the operation of the workshops. These techniques included direct labour and overhead cost calculations, inventory control, production and quality control, sales strategy and pricing techniques, and budgeting.

For example, the instructions for operating the workshops introduced different payment methods. These included payment related to the volume of work; payments based on an equal division between members of any income which remain after the payment of all expenses; payment amounting to the maximum which can be earned without loss of pension rights and not related to the value of work done; and payment based on a combination of the value of work done in relation to the efforts made and the financial assistance required (Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1962). However, it was stressed that payment methods based on volume of work were most suitable because these enabled workshops to operate like ‘a normal business … and become self-supporting’ (Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1962: 26). In addition, the instructions highlighted that in deciding on the most appropriate payment method, the financial assistance that people with disabilities required had no place in an entity that aimed to become an integral part of the industrial community (Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1962).

Further, supervisors and managers of sheltered workshops, who, as mentioned earlier, often themselves experienced disabilities, were reminded of the importance of stock control. They were guided to ensure that raw materials were always available to meet the needs of the production line. Importantly, they were instructed to produce a ‘stock card’ (Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1962: 36) for each stock item to record ‘all orders, receipts and deliveries and the balance in stock at any time’. In addition, they were instructed to receive training in the techniques of ‘method study and work measurement’ (1962: 36). These techniques, which were referred to as ‘work study’ (1962: 36), were deemed integral to the successful operation of the workshops. It was noted that the work study would ensure that people with disabilities employed at the workshops ‘employ the most economical methods in order to achieve maximum production with the least possible effort’ (1962: 37). Work-measurement techniques were used to calculate the cost of labour when quoting for contract work. Importantly, in pricing the work, the cost of labour was calculated based on a standard rate determined by observing an able-bodied member of the workshop completing the work after suitable training. Figure 1 exhibits the steps involved in calculating the direct labour cost using the standards rate of payment.

Figure 1.

Calculating the direct labour cost using the standards rate of payment. Source: Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce (1962: 37).

In an attempt to direct people with disabilities to attend sheltered workshops, the government allocated a financial payment, the sheltered-employment allowance, to those who attended (Social Services Act, 1967). Importantly, the sheltered-employment allowance was not a welfare payment; rather, it was an ‘incentive to strengthen the development of sheltered workshops’ (Australia House of Representatives, 4 April 1967: 870). The amount of the incentive was more than the disability welfare payment (Australia House of Representatives, 4 April 1967). This allowance was subject to means testing to calculate the rate of social welfare payments (see Nikidehaghani and Hui, 2017), except for income earned from employment in sheltered workshops. In the case of an unmarried person, the first $10 a week of workshop earnings plus half the earnings in excess of that amount would have been taken into account as income for the purposes of means testing. The individuals would be deemed ineligible for allowances once their ‘income reached $36 per week’ (Australia House of Representatives, 4 April 1967: 870). Ian Sinclair, the Minister for Social Services at the time, noted the significance of this financial incentive:

The incentive … will assist the sheltered workshop movement, as well as the disabled employees, by enabling them to provide employment to persons before their disability has reached a stage that would enable them to qualify for an invalid pension. (Australia House of Representatives, 4 April 1967: 870)

The sheltered-employment allowance was paid at the same time as employees received their wages from the sheltered workshop to represent a salary (Social Services Act, 1967). In this way, the government was able to intervene to enhance ‘disabled people's income’ (Australia House of Representatives, 4 April 1967: 870).

In addition to the accountability mechanisms installed at the individual level, mechanisms were also installed at the level of the sheltered workshop that enabled the government to further monitor people with disabilities via their employment at the sheltered workshops. This was achieved by reporting information such as the number of people with disabilities employed at the workshops, types of disabilities, age, gender, average weekly earnings, and average weekly working hours to the government (Department of Social Services, 1972). Accessing detailed information about multiple aspects of the lives of people with disabilities was justified by government's accountability to taxpayers. As stated by Minister Roberton, ‘since public moneys are involved, the Commonwealth should have some legislative authority to ensure that the purpose of the grant is fulfilled’ (Australia House of Representatives, 8 October 1963: 1515).

For the sheltered workshops to be eligible for government funding, they were required to give the government access to their accounts, and disclose cash on hand and expenses when requesting grant money (Disabled Persons Accommodation Act, 1963, Section 9). Moreover, to be eligible to receive the government subsidy, workshops were required to demonstrate to the responsible Minister that people with disabilities who were engaged in the workshop were not only getting paid for their work, even if only a nominal amount (Disabled Persons Accommodation Act, 1963, Section 4, Subsection b), but were also being transformed into active contributors to the national economy.

Our analysis shows that with the introduction of government grants for sheltered workshops, their managers and supervisors acted as pastors who observed the daily conduct of people with disabilities and documented their transformation. These observations were presented through annual reports that demonstrated the journey towards employment for people with disabilities as a result of attending sheltered workshops. For example, data drawn from the annual reports of the Association of Sheltered Workshops (NSW) between the years 1965 to 1972 reveals that the reports not only included financial information such as the balance sheet and income statements, but also photographs and narrations of the daily activities of the employees (see Appendix 1). As stated by the Association of Sheltered Workshops (NSW) (1966), ‘the story told in words and pictures will illustrate the important role the handicapped individual is capable of playing in the economic life of our State through the activities of sheltered workshops’ (1966: 5). Other reports presented the number of workshops, number of people with disabilities employed, their age, gender, type of disability, amount of government benefits received, average hours worked, and weekly earnings, as well as annual sales of workshop production (Department of Social Services, 1972). These reports enabled the sheltered workshops to demonstrate the contribution of people with disabilities to the national economy. More importantly, it allowed the workshops to present a compelling picture of the transformation of people with disabilities as a result of attending the workshops, which helped the workshops secure further government funding.

The accounting information gathered from sheltered workshops was combined at the federal level and compared across cities and states and across multiple financial periods (Department of Social Services, 1972). Drawing on the information reported, the government demonstrated the success of the sheltered-workshop scheme and justified its continuance:

The Commonwealth has made a substantial contribution to the development of Sheltered Workshops throughout Australia. Against this outlay must be considered the significant savings in the long-run of such scheme of assistance. Savings are made through the payment of reduced pensions and sheltered employment allowances resulting from the disabled supplementing their income through workshops earnings. For example, of the 776 employees receiving sheltered employment allowances at the 30 June 1971, 70% received the allowances at a reduced rate, many solely as a result of workshops earnings. Also, such expenditure means that handicapped persons may eventually take up a position in ‘outside’ employment, as did 504 during 1970−71. (Department of Social Services, 1972: 5)

While accounting numbers and reports presented the effectiveness of the sheltered workshops in transforming people with disabilities into income earners, surveys of the workers indicate dissatisfaction with payments and workplace conditions (Ogren and Lauricell, 1981). In particular, a report by the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (1977) revealed that the salaries of people with disabilities from the sheltered workshops were ‘not commensurate with efforts nor sufficient to enhance their financial circumstances’ (Treloar and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1977: 49). The Commission reported that by attending the workshops, people with disabilities incurred expenses, such as transportation, clothing, and food, that they would not have incurred had they remained unemployed (Treloar and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1977).

Moreover, the Commission observed that occupants of government housing experienced an increase in their rent due to their increase in earnings as the result of employment at the sheltered workshops (Treloar and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1977). Additionally, under means testing, the Supplementary Assistance benefit of $4 per week that applied in 1972 would be reduced consistently once income rose above $1 per week (Social Services Act, 1972). The combined effect was that some people with disabilities who attended sheltered workshops were worse off financially:

Taking into account increased expenses and reduced benefits, it is obvious that some invalid pensioners are out of pocket as a result of attending Sheltered Workshops, the majority make a small net gain, and a small minority get a reasonable return for effort. (Treloar and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1977: 49)

On the whole, the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty blamed people with disabilities for their financial struggle. It asserted that the slow rate of increase in average earnings of sheltered-workshop employees was due to the ‘low productivity of the workers’ (Treloar and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1977: 49). There was, however, a recommendation that further resources be allocated to the sheltered workshops. Accounting concepts related to cost and profit helped in these justifications:

In 1972, Sheltered Workshops produced goods to the value of $11.6 million and placed into open employment 503 disabled workers, 75 percent of whom were on invalid pension or sheltered employment allowance prior to placement. The production of the workshops constituted a worthwhile contribution to gross national product and each successful rehabilitation represents, potentially at least, a substantial gain to the economy taking into account pensions payments saved, tax payable as a worker and increased contribution to gross national product by way of production. (Treloar and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1977: 49)

Drawing on accounting concepts, the Commission presented people with disabilities as a financial cost for the nation, and attempted to persuade taxpayers that transferring even one person from welfare to employment would reduce the total national cost. Thus, financial information facilitated a demonstration of the program's effectiveness for the national economy. In a society where productivity and efficiency were admired (see Australia Senate, 3 May 1967; 18 April 1967; 19 April 1967), the workshops were considered profitable, as they were transforming ‘incapable’ persons into income earners (Treloar and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1977).

Concluding comments

This article is positioned within related accounting studies that explore the influence of accounting on the execution of governmental rationalities through public policies (Baker 2013; Cooper et al., 2016; Lai et al., 2012; Maran et al., 2016; Nikidehaghani et al., 2021; Sánchez-Matamoros and Hidalgo, 2012; Sargiacomo and Gomes, 2011). Drawing on Foucault's (2007) notion of pastoral power, we extend this stream of literature by revealing the centrality of accounting in shaping the identities of people with disabilities. The evidence presented in this article reveals the manner in which accounting portrays employability as a worldly form of salvation. Further, the analysis shows the centrality of accounting in directing people with disabilities towards salvation through programs that intend to transform incapable citizens into productive workers.

In particular, this article contributes to accounting literature that studies the implications of accounting in disability-related policies. We expand work by Nikidehaghani and Hui (2017) and Nikidehaghani et al. (2021) by investigating the role of accounting in governing people with disabilities in an era in which employability and productivity were highly encouraged. Work by Bishop and Boden (2008) demonstrated the discursive role of accounting in disablement by documenting how evaluating the ‘cost’ of including people with disabilities in the UK workforce shadowed the benefits of including them in the workforce. Our study presented a case in which accounting concepts of cost and savings facilitated the transition of people with disabilities into employment but resulted in unexpected consequences for people with disabilities who were expected to comply with the norms of society. In this way, we contribute to the field of critical-disability studies such as Goodley (2014) and Wolbring (2008), who argue that ableism provides the basis of intervention in the lives of people with disabilities to ensure their compliance with the norms of able bodies without considering individuals’ circumstances and needs.

In the current neoliberalised world, citizenship is related to one's ability to contribute to society from a market-based point of view (Cooper, 2015). Unsurprisingly, contemporary disability policies, such as Australia's National Disabilities Insurance Scheme (NDIS), focus on the importance of empowering people with disabilities to ‘participate in the community and employment’ (NDIA, 2017: 3). This study traced the origins of such perspectives towards disability-related policies.

It is unquestionable that people with disabilities deserve equitable and inclusive treatment; however, it is crucial that the processes that are designed to promote these treatments are subject to critique so that potential power imbalances do not hinder progress and contribute to further inequality. As we write this article, the Australian Disability Royal Commission is investigating the violence against and abuse, neglect, and exploitation of people with disabilities through different programs such as the Australian Disability Enterprises and the NDIS (Disability Royal Commission, 2021). This demonstrates that the very programs that were formulated to empower people with disabilities and their carers to participate meaningfully in society (NDIS, 2020) could subject them to abuse and exploitation. Similarly, our study revealed how sheltered workshops, which were originally designed by disability advocates and carers, drifted from their original mission and led to exploitation rather than emancipation.

The article investigated the implications of accounting in rationalising and operationalising disability policies following the Second World War. The investigation showed that, in an effort to improve the national economy, the Australian government of the post-war period required the effective contribution of the whole nation, including people with disabilities. From this point, a shift in attitudes towards people with disabilities was identified: they were considered to have the capacity to become ‘effective citizens’. People with disabilities were thus encouraged to contribute to the national economic effort. They were to ascribe to the notion that they were incapacitated, and subject themselves to government intervention in the form of their participation in rehabilitation, training, and employment initiatives. Importantly, our analysis highlighted that accounting information regarding the costs and benefits of vocational and rehabilitation services rationalised the almost constant intervention in the lives of people with disabilities, with the aim of turning them into useful citizens.

An examination of the Supplementary Assistance program revealed the influence of accounting in exercising mechanisms of pastoral power in the modern world. The analysis showed that similar to the ‘pastoral-power paradox’ (Foucault, 2007: 165), where the pastor must care for each individual as well as the population as a whole, the Australian government sought to reduce its welfare expenditure in an attempt to enhance the national economy. However, at the same time, the government needed to provide security to those individuals who were considered most in need. As the ‘salvation’ of each individual was as important as that of the whole nation, the government introduced Supplementary Assistance to improve the financial circumstances of the individuals most in need while maintaining the national agenda.

The discussion demonstrated that confession to obtain financial means provided an effective tool that ensured that government programs were targeted to the most appropriate candidates. People with disabilities confessed to their financial means in order to achieve ‘salvation’, in the form of welfare benefits. However, as the analysis showed, in practice confession rendered people with disabilities open to further intervention. The confessions of people with disabilities revealed their financial dependency and cost for the nation, giving viability to transforming them into productive citizens. This formed the rationalisation for the government's decision to encourage the attendance of people with disabilities in sheltered workshops as a way of improving their employability prospects.

The analysis demonstrated that sheltered workshops became central in operationalising the individualising and totalising aspect of pastoral power. They would not only transform people with disabilities from welfare recipients to income earners, they would also contribute to the macro-level agenda of reducing national welfare expenditure by reducing the number of disability-pension recipients. Importantly, our findings demonstrated the centrality of management-accounting techniques in managing sheltered workshops and ensuring a smooth transition of people with disabilities into the workforce.

The findings also revealed the centrality of accountability mechanisms such as annual reports in documenting the conduct of people with disabilities, demonstrating their compliance with the norms that generally apply to able-bodied citizens. In addition, the financial reports and statistical data provided evidence to taxpayers, the main stakeholders, that sheltered workshops were viable and that their presentation as profitable entities justified their continuing operation. One central finding of the study is thus the contribution of accounting in seizing the intention of the program and causing deviation from its original mission. As shown in our analysis, people with disabilities whose capacity was finally recognised by Australian society attended sheltered workshops in the hope of improving their social and financial life. However, the application of accounting techniques and discourse under the guise of managing the workshops and improving their effectiveness as businesses led to the exploitation and further subjectification of people with disabilities. The current study suggests the scope for more detailed research to investigate the performance of accounting in this context. We encourage scholars to explore the implications of accounting in both historical and contemporary disability-related policies and programs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to sincerely thank Freda Hui-Truscott, the two anonymous reviewers, and participants at the 15th Accounting History Symposium (Virtual, 3 July 2021), for their encouragement and helpful comments.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mona Nikidehaghani

Notes

Appendix 1.

Photographs and narrations of the daily activities of the people who were employed in sheltered workshops.

Source: Association of Sheltered Workshops of N.S.W. (1966: 6).

Appendix 1. Continued

Source: Association of Sheltered Workshops of N.S.W. (1966: 7).

References

Abbas

(2016) Economy, exploitation, and intellectual disability. In: Malhotra

(ed) Disability Politics in a Global Economy Essays in Honour of Marta Russell. London: Routledge, 151–163.

Albrecht

(1992) The Disability Business. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Annisette

Trivedi

(2013) Globalization, paradox and the (un)making of identities: Immigrant chartered accountants of India in Canada. Accounting, Organizations and Society 38(1): 1–29.

Association of Sheltered Workshops of N.S.W (1966) Annual Report: Association of Sheltered Workshops New South Wales 1965–1966. North Sydney: The Association.

Australia House of Representatives (1944) Debates.

Australia House of Representatives (1947) Debates.

Australia House of Representatives (1948) Debates.

Australia House of Representatives (1951) Debates.

Australia House of Representatives (1961) Debates.

10.

Australia House of Representatives (1962) Debates.

11.

Australia House of Representatives (1963) Debates.

12.

Australia House of Representatives (1967) Debates.

13.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1959) 1301.0 – Year Book Australia No. 45–1959. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1301.01959?OpenDocument (accessed 20 August 2020).

14.

Australian Government (2020) Supported Employment. Available at: https://www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers-programs-services-for-people-with-disability/supported-employment (accessed 22 September 2020).

15.

Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce (1962) Sheltered Workshops Manual: Produced for the New South Wales Association of Sheltered Workshops/by the Australian Junior Chamber of Commerce and Personnel Administration Pty. Ltd., Honorary consultants to the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association. Sydney: N.S.W. Association of Sheltered Workshops.

16.

Australia Senate (1967) Debates.

17.

Baker

(2013) Administrative and accounting practices in the Byzantine Empire. Accounting History 18(2): 211–227.

18.

Bend

Priola

(2021) ‘There is nothing wrong with me’: The materialisation of disability in sheltered employment. Work, Employment and Society, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170211034762.

19.

Bigoni

Antonelli

Funnell

, et al. (2021) “Contra omnes et singulos a via domini aberrantes”: Accounting for confession and pastoral power during the Roman Inquisition (1550–1572). Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 34(4): 877–903.

20.

Bigoni

Funnell

(2015) Ancestors of governmentality: Accounting and pastoral power in the 15th century. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 27: 160–176.

21.

Bigoni

Funnell

Verona

, et al. (2018) Accounting and raison d’État in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany: Reopening the University of Pisa (1543–1609). Critical Perspectives on Accounting 56: 1–19.

22.

Bishop

Boden

(2008) Disabling accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19(1): 1–16.

23.

BuyAbility (2021) The History of Supported Employment. Available at: https://buyability.org.au/history/ (accessed 13 June 2021).

24.

Campbell

(2009) Contours of Ableism: Territories, Objects, Disability and Desire. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

25.

Campbell

(2012) Stalking ableism: Using disability to expose ‘abled’ narcissism. In: Goodley

Hughes

Davis

(eds) Disability and Social Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 212–230.

26.

Carnegie

(2014) Historiography for accounting: Methodological contributions, contributors and thought patterns from 1983 to 2012. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27(4): 715–755.

27.

Cole

(2011) From “animal machines” to “happy meat”? Foucault’s ideas of disciplinary and pastoral power applied to “animal-centred” welfare discourse. Animals 1(1): 83–101.

28.

Commonwealth (1963) The 1961 Census. Current Affairs Bulletin 32(6, 5 August): 84–86.

29.

Cooper

(2015) Entrepreneurs of the self: The development of management control since 1976. Accounting, Organizations and Society 47: 14–24.

30.

Cooper

Graham

Himick

(2016) Social impact bonds: The securitization of the homeless. Accounting, Organizations and Society 55(November): 63–82.

31.

Davidson

(1986) Archaeology, genealogy and ethics. In: Hoy

(ed) Foucault: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 221–233.

32.

Davis

(1995) Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. New York: Verso.

33.

Department of Social Services (1958) Form S.A 55 Claim for Supplementary Assistance. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

34.

Department of Social Services (1972) Survey of Sheltered Employment Approved for the Purposes of the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act. Canberra: Department of Social Services.

35.

Disability Royal Commission (2021) Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Available at: https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/ (accessed 10 July 2021).

36.

Disabled Persons Accommodation Act (1963).

37.

Dreyfus

Rabinow

(1982) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

38.

Duff

Ferguson

(2007) Disability and accounting firms: Evidence from the UK. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18(2): 139–157.

39.

Duff

Ferguson

(2011) Disability and the socialization of accounting professionals. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22(4): 351–364.

40.

Duff

Ferguson

(2012) Disability and the professional accountant: Insights from oral histories. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 25(1): 71–101.

41.

Earl

(2011) ‘A group of parents came together’: Parent advocacy groups for children with intellectual disabilities in Post-World War II Australia. Health and History 13(2): 84–103.

42.

Finkelstein

(1993) The commonality of disability. In: Swain

Thomas

Barnes

, et al. (eds) Disabling Barriers–Enabling Environments. London: Sage, 9–16.

43.

Foucault

(1980) The confession of the flesh. In: Gordon

(ed) Power-knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Hassocks: Harvester Press, 194–228.

44.

Foucault

(1982) The subject and power. In: Dreyfus

Rabinow

(eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 208–226.

45.

Foucault

(1988a) The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.

46.

Foucault

(1988b) Technologies of the self. In: Gutman

Hutton

Foucault

, et al. (eds) Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 16–49.

47.

Foucault

(1991) Governmentality. In: Burchell

Gordon

Miller

(eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: With two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 87–104.

48.

Foucault

(2000) Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In: Faubion

(ed) The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, 1954–1984, Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology. London: Penguin, 367–391.

49.

Foucault

(2001) Omnes et singulatim: Toward a critique of political reason. In: Faubion

(ed) Power. Essential Works by Foucault, 1954–1984 Volume 3. New York: The New Press, 298–325.

50.

Foucault

(2003) Society must be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76. New York: Picador.

51.

Foucault

(2007) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège De France, 1977–1978. New York: Picador/Palgrave Macmillan.

52.

Gaffikin

(2011) What is (accounting) history? Accounting History 16(3): 235–251.

53.

Galbraith

(1946) The responsibility of the doctor in regard to rehabilitation in private and hospital practice. Medical Journal of Australia 2(1): 1–9.

54.

Garton

(1990) Out of Luck: Poor Australians and Social Welfare 1788–1988. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

55.

Gomes

Carnegie

Rodrigues

(2014) Accounting as a technology of government in the Portuguese empire: The development, application and enforcement of accounting rules during the Pombaline era (1761–1777). European Accounting Review 23(1): 87–115.

56.

Goodley

(2014) Dis/ability studies: Theorising Disablism and Ableism. New York: Routledge.

57.

Greer

McNicholas

(2017) Accounting for “moral betterment”: Pastoral power and indentured Aboriginal apprenticeship programs in New South Wales. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30(8): 1843–1866.

58.

Gustafsson

Driver

(2005) Parents, power and public participation: Sure Start, an experiment in New Labour governance. Social Policy & Administration 39(5): 528–543.

59.

Harvey

(2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

60.

Haynes

(2017) Accounting as gendering and gendered: A review of 25 years of critical accounting research on gender. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 43: 110–124.

61.

Hoskin

Macve

(1986) Accounting and the examination: A genealogy of disciplinary power. Accounting, Organizations and Society 11(2): 105–136.

62.

Jeacle

(2003) Accounting and the construction of the standard body. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28(4): 357–377.

63.

Keating

(2014) The evolution of Australian macroeconomic strategy since World War 2. In: Ville

Withers

(eds) The Cambridge Economic History of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 438–462.

64.

Kewley

(1973) Social Security in Australia, 1900–72. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

65.

Kirby

(1986) Have sheltered workshops a future? Australia New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities 12(3): 187–202.

66.

Kornberger

Carter

(2010) Manufacturing competition: How accounting practices shape strategy making in cities. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23(3): 325–349.

67.

Lai

Leoni

Stacchezzini

(2012) Governmentality rationales and calculative devices: The rejection of a seventeenth-century territorial barter proposed by the King of Spain. Accounting History 17(3/4): 369–392.

68.

Leardini

Rossi

(2013) Accounting and power in religious institutions: Verona’s Santa Maria Della Scala Monastery in the Middle Ages. Accounting History 18(3): 415–427.

69.

Macintosh

(2009) ‘Effective’ genealogical history: Possibilities for critical accounting history research. Accounting Historians Journal 36(1): 1–27.

70.

Madonna

Maran

Cestari

(2014) The 1771 and 1824 reforms of the University of Ferrara: A Foucauldian analysis of papal interests. Accounting History 19(4): 507–532.

71.

Maran

Bracci

Funnell

(2016) Accounting and the management of power: Napoleon’s cccupation of the commune of Ferrara (1796–1799). Critical Perspectives on Accounting 34: 60–78.

72.

Martin

Waring

(2018) Realising governmentality: Pastoral power, governmental discourse and the (re)constitution of subjectivities. Sociological Review 66(6): 1292–1308.

73.

Martyr

(1995) The Professional Development of Rehabilitation in Australia – 1870–1981. Perth: University of Western Australia.

74.

Menzies

(1986a) The forgotten people. In: Harley

Brandis

Thompson

(eds) Australian Liberalism: The Continuing Vision. Melbourne: Liberal Forum, 16–21.

75.

Menzies

(1986b) Forming the liberal party. In: Harley

Brandis

Thompson

(eds) Australian Liberalism: The Continuing Vision. Melbourne: Liberal Forum, 32–35.

76.

Menzies

(1986c) The four freedoms. In: Harley

Brandis

Thompson

(eds) Australian Liberalism: The Continuing Vision. Melbourne: Liberal Forum, 22–26.

77.

Meyers

(1957) Aspects of rehabilitation. Medical Journal of Australia 2(20): 720–723.

78.

Michalko

Titchkosky

(2009) Rethinking Normalcy: A Disability Studies Reader. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

79.

Miller

(1994) Accounting as social and institutional practice: An introduction. In: Hopwood

Miller

(eds) Accounting as a Social and Institutional Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1–39.

80.

Miller

(2001) Governing by numbers: Why calculative practices matter. Social Research. 68(2): 379–396.

81.

Miller

Hopper

Laughlin

(1991) The new accounting history: An introduction. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16(5): 395–403.

82.

Miller

Napier

(1993) Genealogies of calculation. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18(7): 631–647.

83.

Miller

O’Leary

(1987) Accounting and the construction of the governable person. Accounting, Organizations and Society 12(3): 235–265.

84.

Nadesan

(2008) Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

85.

NDIA (2017) National Disabilities Insurance Agency (NDIA) Annual Report 2016–17. Available at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report/annual-report-2016-17 (accessed 18 Augsut 2020).

86.

NDIS (2020) Planning: Booklet 2. Available at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/people-disability/fact-sheets-and-publications.html#participant (accessed 18 April 2020).

87.

Neu

Graham

(2006) The birth of a nation: Accounting and Canada’s first nations, 1860–1900. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31(1): 47–76.

88.

Neuman

(2014) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Harlow, UK: Pearson.

89.

Nikidehaghani

(2017) A Genealogy of Accounting and Pastoral Power in the Australian Disability Welfare Program (1908–2016). PhD Thesis, University of Wollongong, Australia.

90.

Nikidehaghani

Cortese

Hui-Truscott

(2021) Accounting and pastoral power in Australian disability welfare reform. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 80: 102098.

91.

Nikidehaghani

Hui

(2017) Accounting and accountability for disability benefits in Australia (1909–1961). Accounting History 22(3): 348–369.

92.

Ogren

Lauricell

(1981) Sheltered Workshops Employee Satisfaction Survey. South Melbourne: Yooralla Society of Victoria, Department of Research and Development.

93.

O’Halloran

(2002) An historical overview of Australia’s largest and oldest provider of vocational rehabilitation – CRS Australia. Work 19(3): 211–218.

94.

Palley

(2005) From Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting paradigms in economics. In: Saad-Filho

Johnson

(eds) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press, 20–29.

95.

Preston

(1992) The birth of clinical accounting: A study of the emergence and transformations of discourses on costs and practices of accounting in U.S. Hospitals. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(1): 63–100.

96.

Rumens

(2016) Sexualities and accounting: A queer theory perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 35: 111–120.

97.

Salukvadze

Bailey

Drbohlav

(2018) Migration and pastoral power through life course: Evidence from Georgia. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 91: 97–107.

98.

Sánchez-Matamoros

Hidalgo

(2012) Accounting for the production of coins: The enactment and implementation of the Spanish Ordinances of the Mints, 1730. Accounting History 17(3–4): 351–367.

99.

Sangkuhl

(2015) How the macroeconomic theories of Keynes influenced the development of government economic finance policy after the Great Depression of the 1930’s: Using Australia as the example. Athens Journal of Law 1(1): 33–51.

100.

Sargiacomo

Gomes

(2011) Accounting and accountability in local government: Contributions from accounting history research. Accounting History 16(3): 253–290.

101.

Schäfer

(2007) Post-mortem personalization: Pastoral power and the New Zealand funeral director. Mortality 12(1): 4–21.

102.

Shaver

(1987) Design for a welfare state: The joint parliamentary committee on social security. Historical Studies 22(88): 411–431.

103.

Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act (1967).

104.

Social Services Act (1958).

105.

Social Services Act (1967).

106.

Social Services Act (1972).

107.

Spence

(2010) Accounting for the dissolution of a nation state: Scotland and the Treaty of Union. Accounting, Organizations and Society 35(3): 377–392.

108.

States Grants (Entertainments Tax Reimbursement) Act (1942). Available at: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/sgtra1942431942553/ (accessed 20 April 2020).

109.

Titchkosky

Michalko

(2009) Rethinking Normalcy: A Disability Studies Reader. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

110.

Treharne

(1967) Aid Retarded Persons N.S.W., Newcastle Branch: A Short History, 1959–1966. Newcastle, NSW: Aid Retarded Persons N.S.W., Newcastle Branch.

111.

Treloar S and Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (1977) The Relationship Between Poverty and Disability in Australia: Research Report for Social/Medical Aspects of Poverty. Canberra: Australian Government.

112.

Tsolidis

Pollard

(2007) Re-deploying techniques of pastoral power by telling tales on student teachers. Teaching Education 18(1): 49–59.

113.

Walker

(2008) Accounting, paper shadows and the stigmatised poor. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33(4/5): 453–487.

114.

Walker

(2010) Child accounting and “the handling of human souls”. Accounting, Organizations and Society 35(6): 628–657.

115.

Waring

Latif

Boyd

, et al. (2016) Pastoral power in the community pharmacy: A Foucauldian analysis of services to promote patient adherence to new medicine use. Social Science and Medicine 148: 123–130.

116.

Whitehead

(1986) The sheltered workshop dilemma: Reform, or replacement. Remedial and Special Education 7(6): 18–24.

117.

Wolbring

(2007) New and emerging sciences and technologies, ableism, transhumanism and religion, faith, theology and churches. Madang: International Journal of Contextual Theology in East Asia, 7: 79–112.

118.

Wolbring

(2008) The politics of ableism. Development (Cambridge, England) 51(2): 252–258.

119.

Zavala Pelayo

(2017) Welfare governmentalities: Pastoralism and parties’ youth wings in Mexico. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 37(13/14): 808–822.