Affiliation:
1. University of Groningen , Postbus 716, 9700 AS Groningen , Netherlands
Abstract
Abstract
Mixed public/private governance regimes in social security are complex, legally intricate, and difficult to manage. This may operate as an obstacle for individual claimants when they want to protect themselves against decisions or actions of private actors or wish to enforce individual entitlements. Hence, individuals rely heavily on the corrective function exercised by the courts. Paradoxically, policies that create a public/private governance structure are not always geared towards strengthening access to justice for the individual. On the contrary, in the Netherlands, legislative changes and administrative practices purposefully raise the barriers to bringing cases to the independent judiciary. In this article, we analyse the relationship between the complex public/private governance regimes in social security and access to justice. It is argued that the policies should consider strengthening access to courts to counterbalance the weakened position of workers and vulnerable citizens.
Reference24 articles.
1. Bode, Ingo (2006): “Disorganized welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy 4: 346–359.
2. De Bruijn, Dorien; Friedel, Wieneke (2018): Kwalitatief onderzoek onafhankelijke cliëntondersteuning. Onderzoek en Statistiek, gemeente Amersfoort. January 2018.
3. Braithwaite, John (2000): “The New Regulatory State and the Transformation of Criminology”, British Journal of Criminology 40: 222–238.
4. Brenninkmeijer, Alex; Marseille, Bert (2011): “Meer succes met de informele aanpak van bezwaarschriften”, Nederlands juristenblad 86: 2010–2016.
5. Charkoudian, Lorig; Eisenberg, Deborah Thompson; Walter, Jamie (2017): “What difference does ADR make? Comparison of ADR and trial outcomes in small claims court”, Conflict Resolution Quarterly 1: 7–45.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献