Social investment—or spending that generates a financial and social return—has become central to the practices of state and non-state organisations. This paper discusses the rise of social investment, paying particular attention to the New Zealand government’s post-2008 ‘social investment agenda’. The paper claims that the wellbeing and life-chances of citizens increasingly hinge not on considerations of need or the potential for positive social outcomes, as such, but on calculations of fiscal yield: the cumulative fiscal costs of inaction or ‘underinvestment’ weighed against the cumulative fiscal rewards of intervention. These changes suggest that social investment practices—insofar as they segment and stratify social welfare provision by the potential for fiscal yield—are implicated in the production of fiscally variegated citizenship.

In the post-welfare context of lean public budgets, devolved governance, and cross-sectoral partnerships, social enterprises are playing an increasingly central role in social provisioning. Key to the idea of the social enterprise—namely, an organisation that uses business-like methods to achieve social and/or environmental objectives alongside financial objectives—has been the figure of the empowered ‘social entrepreneur.’ Despite a large amount of critical inquiry into the political-institutional significance and implications of social enterprises, little attention has been given to the cultivation of social entrepreneurs. This paper aims to theorise the processes, practices and spaces of subject-making in the field of social enterprise. Joining studies of governmentality with recent literature on neoliberal affects, the paper discusses the roles of micro-spaces and affective strategies in social entrepreneurial subject-making. It then highlights efforts related to social entrepreneurial education—such as workshops, seminars and conferences—as a means through which citizens-turned-social-entrepreneurs are empowered to replace or supplement state-based social provisioning activities. The paper concludes by outlining a prospective study focusing on social entrepreneurial education in New Zealand.

While federally funded settlement programs are important to settlement outcomes of Refugee and Asylum Seeker communities in Australia, the sector providing support to these groups comprises a much broader range of organisations including NGOs, charities, grass roots community groups, local councils and many more. These organisations provide much needed support through a diverse array of programs and services including material aid, food banks, mentoring, language classes, employment programs, and health and wellbeing programs. Such organisations negotiate challenging economic and political conditions to provide this support, often seen to be ‘filling the gaps’ left by limited federal settlement services. It is through such organisations and their programs and services, that newly arrived groups engage with Australian society. Drawing upon interviews with workers from a range of organisations across 3 local government areas in greater Melbourne, this paper focuses upon the ways in which the values and practices of organisations that provide support for Refugee and Asylum Seeker groups encompass a ‘feminist ethic of care’. Through doing so it will discuss the capacity of such organisations and institutions to challenge regressive forms of citizenship and neoliberalist urbanism.

The shift from block-funded services to individualised funding packages allocated to individuals is a centrepiece of both the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) reform in the disability sector, and the Home Care Package (HCP) reform in aged care. Both schemes spearhead a broader trend towards the individualisation of social programs in Australia. The individualisation of support funding provides people with disability and older Australians increased choice about where, how and from whom they receive support services. These reforms have significant housing policy implications, which to date have not been fully explored; and which have the potential to change the way housing is designed, delivered and desired. In this paper we discuss the parallels and differences between the NDIS and HCP models, comparing their design and potential housing implications.