Automating Inequality book review PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Automating Inequality book review PDF

Description

Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor Virginia Eubanks Book review Nafiah Fatima

Political scientist and technologist Virginia Eubanks in her book “Automating inequality: how high tech tool profile, police and punish the poor” starts her book by way of scene-setting about a personal experience of filing a medical claim

which ended up being flagged as potential fraud by the automated system. She outlines the life-and-death impact of public services decision making in America through three case studies: welfare provision in Indiana, homelessness in Los Angeles and child protection services in Allegheny. According to Eubanks Automating Inequality is a gravely disturbing finding of the impact of automated decision-making in the US public service. For the poor, she actively calls it the “digital poorhouse.” She argues that while technology is often displayed as a way to deliver efficient services to the poor, she shows us through her case studies that more often it increases inequality. Eubanks thesis statement can be found on page 12 of the introduction chapter: “Across the country poor and working class people are targeted by new tools of digital….for government, public and commercial scrutiny.”

Eubanks style of research poses as investigative journalism. She conducted almost 105 interviews. (pg. 11) And all her interviews were in person. She proves her arguments by telling real life stories about three main case studies. She carried out thorough research trips and traveled to Indiana, Pittsburg and Los Angeles which were the main locations of her research studies. There she personally interviewed the victims of the automated eligibility systems, whom she calls the residents of the “digital poorhouse” which give her strong examples to support her thesis. She also names the interviewees (who are comfortable with being exposed) for each case study under each chapter heading in the reference section.

This gives her the leverage of having trust worthy and first person information and experience. However, only three case studies can have their limitations. Nonetheless, Eubanks interviewed and observed both sides of the coin (pg. 11). She reported on organizations by carrying out illuminating interviews with the social services staff and administrators of the organizations involved in the case studies she was focusing on: The Homeless Services in Los Angeles, Human Services Systems such as TANF and SNAP, Medicaid Indiana and the Child Welfare in Allegheny County. Furthermore, she also gets her facts checked by a professional which makes her facts more legitimate and reliable. Again, however, this has a weak angle. Eubanks did not during her research investigate politicians or governors to understand the system or process of eligibility better. This further limits her scope of legitimate and an all-rounder research. She has also used published literature and research to support her thesis. Which include historical research about movements and revolutions carried out to eliminate poverty. She gives thorough examples of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speeches and work. However, forging the identities of two different groups of African Americans versus poor Americans is not the most accurate relatable historic examples.

“Today we have forged what I call a digital poorhouse from data bases, algorithms and risk models” (pg. 12). The digital poorhouse, Eubank argues, can act more swiftly than the physical poorhouses of the past. To prove her point, she gives the example of a severely disabled little girl named Sophie. Who at the age of 6, lost her Medicaid benefits due to her “failure to cooperate” during Indiana’s experiment with welfare eligibility automation. In Pittsburgh, Eubanks met her parents Patrick and Angel or child neglect. Their fault was being poor. As Eubank says, “The culture of policing wears many uniforms. And the state doesn’t require a cop to kill a person” (pg. 214). She gives a strong example of the cruelties of the automated eligibility systems. However, at times, it seems that Eubanks rushes to put digital technology at the center of the plot to prove her overarching thesis. For example, in Indiana, in 2006 the state's then-governor, Republican Mitch Daniels, was against public assistance long before he transferred the welfare eligibility process to a for-profit computing company. And hence found a way to get less people on the Government’s payroll. Bringing us to the point of "high-tech" tools being at fault or the public policy administered by the governor? On the other hand, the company then claimed to lose all welfare-related paperwork and thus according to Eubanks facts denied more than a million applications for cash benefits, Medicaid and food banks. Resulting in a 54 percent increase compared to the three years before automation began.

Again, in the example of the L.A. housing-match program Eubanks points out all the loopholes in the methodology of the program. She does however say that there’s isn’t enough housing to accommodate all the Angelinos being 58000 unhoused in LA. Bringing us again to the point that maybe the problem lies beyond the software. In Eubanks' final example: the Allegheny County algorithm, she brings the digital poorhouse into focus. It shows how poverty can lead to scrutiny and judgment if you are in need of state assistance in anything for your child such as counselling etc. It increases the chances of parents being flagged as neglectful or abusive. However, when a family hires private providers for help, it is not recorded in the database. Proving Eubanks thesis of digitalized approaches to poverty engulfing the poor. In my opinion Automating inequality provides the reader with a new lens to view the impacts of high-tech tools and their link with the poor and poverty. Although I do not clearly see the link between high-tech tools and poverty. Eubanks provides suggestions to combat poverty for dismantling the digital poorhouse through establishing UBI (Universal Basic Income) can be an effective way of eradicating poverty maybe for a first world country like the US. I feel that overall the book promotes emotive shifts instead of pragmatic ones, it does however, highlight the pressing problem of inequality and the need for further debate and spotlight on the issue.

It gives the much needed attention on the issue and link between policy and technology which is of grave importance in today’s world. It is a global issue. This book should be read by policy makers, social service workers and those passionate about equality and most importantly it should be widely circulated amongst the poor. And I think that is the only way to start a movement, as Eubank says, “Justice requires more than truth telling. It requires mobilizing grassroots power to disrupt the status quote” (pg. 207). However, as mentioned before I feel that at times, Eubanks rushes to put digital technology at the center to prove her overarching thesis....