De websites van Boom uitgevers maken gebruik van cookies. Wat betekent dit voor u? Klik hier voor meer info.
Social security and social welfare: barriers and retrograde policies, but cause for optimism?
Gepubliceerd op 01-11-2015
RDW 2015/3
1
0
0
0
0

Auteursinformatie

Amir Paz-Fuchs
Amir Paz-Fuchs (D. Phil Oxford) is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, University of Sussex, where he teaches employment law, public law, and legal theory. In addition, he is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies and a Research Associate at Wolfson College, both at the University of Oxford. He is also Co-Director of the ‘The Limits of Privatization’ research project, based at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem. He also served on the board of several human rights and social justice NGOs.

Citaties in dit artikel

Adler, AsquithAdler, Asquith
Discretion and welfare , 1981
Adler
‘Tribunals ain’t what they used to be’, Adjust Newsletter , 2009
AdlerCane, Kritzer
The Oxford handbook of empirical legal research , 2010
Anderson
‘Welfare, work requirements and dependent care’
Journal of Applied Philosophy , 2004
Bailey
‘Charging for local government services: A coherent philosophy’
Public Administration , 1994
Bailey
‘User-charges for urban services’
Urban Studies , 1994
BaxiGross, Barak-Erez
Exploring social rights , 2008
Bölen
‘A poor measure of the wrong thing: The food stamp program’s quality control system discourages participation by working families’, Hasting
Law Journal , 2001
Cappelletti, Garth
‘Access to justice: The newest wave in the worldwide movement to make rights effective’, Buffalo Law Review , 1978
Eleveld, Vliet, van
‘The Dutch welfare state: Recent reforms in social security and labour law’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato Ed Europeo , 2013
Felstiner, Abel, Sarat
The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming, Amsterdam , 1981
Galanter
‘The vanishing trial: An examination of trails and related matters in federal and state courts’
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies , 2004
Genn, Genn
The Effectiveness of Representation in Tribunals , 1989
Goodin
Reasons for Welfare , 1998
Handler
‘Discretion in social welfare: The uneasy position in the rule of law’
Yale Law Journal , 1983
Handler, Hasenfeld
Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality , 2007
Harrington
‘Visions of Utopia: markets, medicine and the National Health Service’
Legal Studies , 2009
HarrisHarris
Social security law in context , 2000
Lens
‘Confronting government after welfare reform: Moralists, reformers and narratives of (ir)responsibility at administrative fair hearings’
Law and Society Review , 2009
Lipsky
Street Level Bureaucracy , 1980
Cane, Kritzer
The Oxford handbook of empirical legal research , 2010
Mashaw
Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims , 2003
McColgan
‘Family friendly frolics? The maternity and parental leave etc. Regulations 1999’
Industrial Law Journal , 2000
Moffitt
‘An economic model of welfare stigma’
American Economic Review , 1983
Oorschot
Realizing Rights , 1995
Osborne
‘Child benefits changes and what they mean’
The Guardian , 2013
Paz-Fuchs
Welfare to Work: Conditional Rights in Social Policy , 2008
Piven, Cloward
Regulating the Poor, Updated Edition , 1993
Sainsbury
‘Administrative justice, discretion and the “welfare to work” project’
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law , 2008
Simon
‘Legality, bureaucracy and class in the welfare system’
Yale Law Journal , 1983
Simon
‘Right s and redistribution in the welfare system’
Stanford Law Review , 1986
WeilGilbert, Parent
Welfare reform: A comparative assessment of the French and U.S. Experiences, International Social Security Series, Vol. 10 , 2004
WrightMillar
Understanding Social Security: Issues for Policy and Practice , 2003

Download citeerwijze bij dit artikel

Trefwoorden

social security, legal representation, means-testing, Britain, fees

Onderwerpen

Juridisch > Metajuridica

Samenvatting

This contribution addresses the limits placed on access to justice in the context of social services, with a particular, but not exclusive, focus on the UK, across five central platforms: legal representation, the financial barriers, the structure of the programme, the attitude of the bureaucracy, and the personal attributes of the client. The contribution finds that there exist, for decades, problematic elements that constitute barriers to justice in this area: the means-tested element in the programmes and the bureaucracy’s double role as provider of services and detector of fraud. But to them, in recent years, significant barriers were added: recent cuts in legal aid and the imposition of tribunal fees in the UK are retrograde steps, reverting 40 years of impressive achievements in the field.

U heeft geen toegang tot deze publicatie
Beste bezoeker, om de inhoud te raadplegen heeft u een abonnement nodig op deze publicatie of de collectie waar deze publicatie deel van uitmaakt. Neem contact op met klantenservice@boomportaal.nl voor meer informatie over de mogelijkheden en prijzen.

Kopen in de webshop
Deze publicatie is ook te vinden in onze webshop. Sommige publicaties hebben ook de mogelijkheid om direct toegang te kopen tot het online boek.
Naar de webshop

Inloggen met uw account
Heeft u al een account, of heeft u een activatiecode voor deze publicatie? Log dan eerst in of maak een account aan.

Inloggen of registreren