The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.creatorBrinks, Daniel M.
dc.creatorGauri, Varun
dc.date2012-03-19T17:29:46Z
dc.date2012-03-19T17:29:46Z
dc.date2012-03-01
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-01T01:06:08Z
dc.descriptionOptimism about the use of laws, constitutions, and rights to achieve social change has never been higher among practitioners. But the academic literature is skeptical that courts can direct resources toward the poor. This paper develops a nuanced account in which not all courts are the same. Countries and policy areas characterized by judicial decisions with broader applicability tend to avoid the potential anti-poor bias of courts, whereas areas dominated by individual litigation and individualized effects are less likely to have pro-poor outcomes. Using data on social and economic rights cases in five countries, the authors estimate the potential distributive impact of litigation by examining whether the poor are over or under-represented among the beneficiaries of litigation, relative to their share of the population. They find that the impact of courts varies considerably across the cases, but is positive and pro-poor in two of the five countries (India and South Africa), distribution-neutral in two others (Indonesia and Brazil), and sharply anti-poor in Nigeria. Overall, the results of litigation are much more positive for the poor than conventional wisdom would suggest.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.formattext/plain
dc.identifierhttp://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000158349_20120315110008
dc.identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/10986/3287
dc.identifier10.1596/1813-9450-5999
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/415214
dc.languageEnglish
dc.relationPolicy Research working paper ; no. WPS 5999
dc.rightsCC BY 3.0 IGO
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
dc.rightsWorld Bank
dc.subjectACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
dc.subjectACCESS TO JUSTICE
dc.subjectAGGRESSIVE
dc.subjectAIDS PATIENTS
dc.subjectASYLUM
dc.subjectASYLUM SEEKER
dc.subjectATTORNEYS
dc.subjectBAIL
dc.subjectBASIC HEALTH CARE
dc.subjectBASIC NEEDS
dc.subjectCANCER
dc.subjectCHILD LABOR
dc.subjectCITIZEN
dc.subjectCITIZENS
dc.subjectCITIZENSHIP
dc.subjectCIVIL LAW
dc.subjectCIVIL LAW SYSTEMS
dc.subjectCLASS ACTIONS
dc.subjectCOLLECTIVE ACTION
dc.subjectCONSTITUTIONAL COURT
dc.subjectCONSTITUTIONAL LAW
dc.subjectCORRUPTION
dc.subjectCOUNSEL
dc.subjectCOURT
dc.subjectCOURT DECISIONS
dc.subjectCOURTS
dc.subjectCRIMINAL
dc.subjectCRIMINAL LAW
dc.subjectDEMOCRACY
dc.subjectDETAINEES
dc.subjectDEVELOPMENT POLICY
dc.subjectDIABETES
dc.subjectDISABILITY
dc.subjectDISEASES
dc.subjectDRUGS
dc.subjectECONOMIC RIGHTS
dc.subjectECONOMIC STATUS
dc.subjectECONOMICS
dc.subjectEMPOWERMENT
dc.subjectEQUALITY
dc.subjectFAMILIES
dc.subjectFAMILY INCOME
dc.subjectFUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
dc.subjectGAYS
dc.subjectGIRLS IN SCHOOL
dc.subjectHEALTH CARE
dc.subjectHEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
dc.subjectHEALTH INSURANCE
dc.subjectHEALTH POLICY
dc.subjectHEALTH SERVICES
dc.subjectHEALTH SYSTEM
dc.subjectHIV
dc.subjectHIV INFECTIONS
dc.subjectHOSPITAL
dc.subjectHOSPITALS
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLD INCOME
dc.subjectHUMAN CAPITAL
dc.subjectHUMAN DEVELOPMENT
dc.subjectHUMAN LIFE
dc.subjectHUMAN RIGHTS
dc.subjectHYPERTENSION
dc.subjectILLNESS
dc.subjectILLNESSES
dc.subjectIMPORTANT POLICY
dc.subjectINDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
dc.subjectINEQUALITIES
dc.subjectINEQUALITY
dc.subjectJUDGES
dc.subjectJUDGMENTS
dc.subjectJUDICIAL DECISIONS
dc.subjectJUDICIAL REVIEW
dc.subjectJUDICIAL SYSTEMS
dc.subjectJUDICIARY
dc.subjectJURISDICTION
dc.subjectJURISPRUDENCE
dc.subjectLACK OF FOOD
dc.subjectLAWS
dc.subjectLEGAL CHANGE
dc.subjectLEGAL SYSTEMS
dc.subjectLEGISLATORS
dc.subjectLITIGATION
dc.subjectLOCAL GOVERNMENTS
dc.subjectLOW-INCOME POPULATIONS
dc.subjectMEDICAL CARE
dc.subjectMIGRANT
dc.subjectMIGRANT WORKERS
dc.subjectMINIMUM WAGE
dc.subjectMINORITY
dc.subjectMORBIDITY
dc.subjectMORTALITY
dc.subjectNATIONAL DRUG
dc.subjectNATIONAL LEVEL
dc.subjectNUMBER OF PEOPLE
dc.subjectNUTRITION
dc.subjectOFFENSE
dc.subjectPATIENT
dc.subjectPATIENTS
dc.subjectPHYSICIANS
dc.subjectPOLICY DISCUSSIONS
dc.subjectPOLICY RESEARCH
dc.subjectPOLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER
dc.subjectPOLIO
dc.subjectPOLIO VACCINE
dc.subjectPOLITICAL POWER
dc.subjectPOLLUTION
dc.subjectPOOR HEALTH
dc.subjectPOPULATION DISTRIBUTION
dc.subjectPRACTITIONERS
dc.subjectPREGNANT WOMEN
dc.subjectPRIMARY EDUCATION
dc.subjectPRIMARY HEALTH CARE
dc.subjectPRISON
dc.subjectPRISONER
dc.subjectPRISONERS
dc.subjectPROGRESS
dc.subjectPUBLIC HEALTH
dc.subjectPUBLIC HOSPITALS
dc.subjectPUBLIC POLICY
dc.subjectPUBLIC SERVICES
dc.subjectQUALITY CARE
dc.subjectREFUGEES
dc.subjectRIGHT TO EDUCATION
dc.subjectRIGHT TO STRIKE
dc.subjectSCHOOL AGE
dc.subjectSCHOOL ATTENDANCE
dc.subjectSCHOOL CHILDREN
dc.subjectSCHOOL STUDENTS
dc.subjectSECONDARY EDUCATION
dc.subjectSERVICE PROVISION
dc.subjectSMOKING
dc.subjectSOCIAL BENEFITS
dc.subjectSOCIAL CHANGE
dc.subjectSOCIAL CLASS
dc.subjectSOCIAL CLASSES
dc.subjectSOCIAL JUSTICE
dc.subjectSOCIAL MOBILIZATION
dc.subjectSOCIAL MOVEMENTS
dc.subjectSOCIAL POLICIES
dc.subjectSOCIAL POLICY
dc.subjectSOCIAL RESEARCH
dc.subjectSOCIAL SECURITY
dc.subjectSOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
dc.subjectSPILLOVER
dc.subjectTERTIARY EDUCATION
dc.subjectURBAN CENTERS
dc.subjectVICTIMS
dc.subjectWILL
dc.subjectWORKERS
dc.titleThe Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights

Archivos

Colecciones

AgroKnow