The administrative meaning of non-response in digital welfare

Non-response can trigger administrative consequences even when a person's reasons for not responding are unknown. Drawing on qualitative analysis of six published reports, this article focuses on Australia's Robodebt scheme and uses Universal Credit managed migration in Britain as a supplementary comparison. Non-response is analysed as a status relative to a request, channel, deadline and procedural stage. The article distinguishes administrative attributions about a person's understanding or reasons from procedural defaults prescribing what happens when a response requirement remains unmet. In Robodebt, non-response was used to infer acceptance, trigger income averaging or presume the absence of a reasonable excuse. Digital arrangements shifted fact-finding and data entry to individuals and shaped opportunities for explanation. Later requests for help and submissions of information were not always recorded or considered, while confirmation of correct aggregate income could still be followed by assessments based on averaging. Reported revisions changed some defaults and contact requirements without establishing individual reasons. Universal Credit accounts show that anticipated burdens can inform decisions not to claim, and that people may intend and attempt to claim without completing the process. Correcting an attribution, changing a default and securing consideration of later action therefore address different administrative problems. The selected documents clarify these relationships without establishing how common the documented processes are or the net effects of digitisation.