The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights
Optimism 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.
Saved in:
| id |
dig-okr-109863287 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
koha |
| spelling |
dig-okr-1098632872024-08-08T15:20:55Z The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights Brinks, Daniel M. Gauri, Varun ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AGGRESSIVE AIDS PATIENTS ASYLUM ASYLUM SEEKER ATTORNEYS BAIL BASIC HEALTH CARE BASIC NEEDS CANCER CHILD LABOR CITIZEN CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP CIVIL LAW CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS CLASS ACTIONS COLLECTIVE ACTION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CORRUPTION COUNSEL COURT COURT DECISIONS COURTS CRIMINAL CRIMINAL LAW DEMOCRACY DETAINEES DEVELOPMENT POLICY DIABETES DISABILITY DISEASES DRUGS ECONOMIC RIGHTS ECONOMIC STATUS ECONOMICS EMPOWERMENT EQUALITY FAMILIES FAMILY INCOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GAYS GIRLS IN SCHOOL HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HEALTH INSURANCE HEALTH POLICY HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SYSTEM HIV HIV INFECTIONS HOSPITAL HOSPITALS HOUSEHOLD INCOME HUMAN CAPITAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT HUMAN LIFE HUMAN RIGHTS HYPERTENSION ILLNESS ILLNESSES IMPORTANT POLICY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INEQUALITIES INEQUALITY JUDGES JUDGMENTS JUDICIAL DECISIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL SYSTEMS JUDICIARY JURISDICTION JURISPRUDENCE LACK OF FOOD LAWS LEGAL CHANGE LEGAL SYSTEMS LEGISLATORS LITIGATION LOCAL GOVERNMENTS LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS MEDICAL CARE MIGRANT MIGRANT WORKERS MINIMUM WAGE MINORITY MORBIDITY MORTALITY NATIONAL DRUG NATIONAL LEVEL NUMBER OF PEOPLE NUTRITION OFFENSE PATIENT PATIENTS PHYSICIANS POLICY DISCUSSIONS POLICY RESEARCH POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER POLIO POLIO VACCINE POLITICAL POWER POLLUTION POOR HEALTH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION PRACTITIONERS PREGNANT WOMEN PRIMARY EDUCATION PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRISON PRISONER PRISONERS PROGRESS PUBLIC HEALTH PUBLIC HOSPITALS PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC SERVICES QUALITY CARE REFUGEES RIGHT TO EDUCATION RIGHT TO STRIKE SCHOOL AGE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE SCHOOL CHILDREN SCHOOL STUDENTS SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE PROVISION SMOKING SOCIAL BENEFITS SOCIAL CHANGE SOCIAL CLASS SOCIAL CLASSES SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIAL MOBILIZATION SOCIAL MOVEMENTS SOCIAL POLICIES SOCIAL POLICY SOCIAL RESEARCH SOCIAL SECURITY SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SPILLOVER TERTIARY EDUCATION URBAN CENTERS VICTIMS WILL WORKERS Optimism 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. 2012-03-19T17:29:46Z 2012-03-19T17:29:46Z 2012-03-01 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000158349_20120315110008 https://hdl.handle.net/10986/3287 English Policy Research working paper ; no. WPS 5999 CC BY 3.0 IGO http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ World Bank application/pdf text/plain |
| institution |
Banco Mundial |
| collection |
DSpace |
| country |
Estados Unidos |
| countrycode |
US |
| component |
Bibliográfico |
| access |
En linea |
| databasecode |
dig-okr |
| tag |
biblioteca |
| region |
America del Norte |
| libraryname |
Biblioteca del Banco Mundial |
| language |
English |
| topic |
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AGGRESSIVE AIDS PATIENTS ASYLUM ASYLUM SEEKER ATTORNEYS BAIL BASIC HEALTH CARE BASIC NEEDS CANCER CHILD LABOR CITIZEN CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP CIVIL LAW CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS CLASS ACTIONS COLLECTIVE ACTION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CORRUPTION COUNSEL COURT COURT DECISIONS COURTS CRIMINAL CRIMINAL LAW DEMOCRACY DETAINEES DEVELOPMENT POLICY DIABETES DISABILITY DISEASES DRUGS ECONOMIC RIGHTS ECONOMIC STATUS ECONOMICS EMPOWERMENT EQUALITY FAMILIES FAMILY INCOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GAYS GIRLS IN SCHOOL HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HEALTH INSURANCE HEALTH POLICY HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SYSTEM HIV HIV INFECTIONS HOSPITAL HOSPITALS HOUSEHOLD INCOME HUMAN CAPITAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT HUMAN LIFE HUMAN RIGHTS HYPERTENSION ILLNESS ILLNESSES IMPORTANT POLICY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INEQUALITIES INEQUALITY JUDGES JUDGMENTS JUDICIAL DECISIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL SYSTEMS JUDICIARY JURISDICTION JURISPRUDENCE LACK OF FOOD LAWS LEGAL CHANGE LEGAL SYSTEMS LEGISLATORS LITIGATION LOCAL GOVERNMENTS LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS MEDICAL CARE MIGRANT MIGRANT WORKERS MINIMUM WAGE MINORITY MORBIDITY MORTALITY NATIONAL DRUG NATIONAL LEVEL NUMBER OF PEOPLE NUTRITION OFFENSE PATIENT PATIENTS PHYSICIANS POLICY DISCUSSIONS POLICY RESEARCH POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER POLIO POLIO VACCINE POLITICAL POWER POLLUTION POOR HEALTH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION PRACTITIONERS PREGNANT WOMEN PRIMARY EDUCATION PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRISON PRISONER PRISONERS PROGRESS PUBLIC HEALTH PUBLIC HOSPITALS PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC SERVICES QUALITY CARE REFUGEES RIGHT TO EDUCATION RIGHT TO STRIKE SCHOOL AGE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE SCHOOL CHILDREN SCHOOL STUDENTS SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE PROVISION SMOKING SOCIAL BENEFITS SOCIAL CHANGE SOCIAL CLASS SOCIAL CLASSES SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIAL MOBILIZATION SOCIAL MOVEMENTS SOCIAL POLICIES SOCIAL POLICY SOCIAL RESEARCH SOCIAL SECURITY SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SPILLOVER TERTIARY EDUCATION URBAN CENTERS VICTIMS WILL WORKERS ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AGGRESSIVE AIDS PATIENTS ASYLUM ASYLUM SEEKER ATTORNEYS BAIL BASIC HEALTH CARE BASIC NEEDS CANCER CHILD LABOR CITIZEN CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP CIVIL LAW CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS CLASS ACTIONS COLLECTIVE ACTION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CORRUPTION COUNSEL COURT COURT DECISIONS COURTS CRIMINAL CRIMINAL LAW DEMOCRACY DETAINEES DEVELOPMENT POLICY DIABETES DISABILITY DISEASES DRUGS ECONOMIC RIGHTS ECONOMIC STATUS ECONOMICS EMPOWERMENT EQUALITY FAMILIES FAMILY INCOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GAYS GIRLS IN SCHOOL HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HEALTH INSURANCE HEALTH POLICY HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SYSTEM HIV HIV INFECTIONS HOSPITAL HOSPITALS HOUSEHOLD INCOME HUMAN CAPITAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT HUMAN LIFE HUMAN RIGHTS HYPERTENSION ILLNESS ILLNESSES IMPORTANT POLICY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INEQUALITIES INEQUALITY JUDGES JUDGMENTS JUDICIAL DECISIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL SYSTEMS JUDICIARY JURISDICTION JURISPRUDENCE LACK OF FOOD LAWS LEGAL CHANGE LEGAL SYSTEMS LEGISLATORS LITIGATION LOCAL GOVERNMENTS LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS MEDICAL CARE MIGRANT MIGRANT WORKERS MINIMUM WAGE MINORITY MORBIDITY MORTALITY NATIONAL DRUG NATIONAL LEVEL NUMBER OF PEOPLE NUTRITION OFFENSE PATIENT PATIENTS PHYSICIANS POLICY DISCUSSIONS POLICY RESEARCH POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER POLIO POLIO VACCINE POLITICAL POWER POLLUTION POOR HEALTH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION PRACTITIONERS PREGNANT WOMEN PRIMARY EDUCATION PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRISON PRISONER PRISONERS PROGRESS PUBLIC HEALTH PUBLIC HOSPITALS PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC SERVICES QUALITY CARE REFUGEES RIGHT TO EDUCATION RIGHT TO STRIKE SCHOOL AGE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE SCHOOL CHILDREN SCHOOL STUDENTS SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE PROVISION SMOKING SOCIAL BENEFITS SOCIAL CHANGE SOCIAL CLASS SOCIAL CLASSES SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIAL MOBILIZATION SOCIAL MOVEMENTS SOCIAL POLICIES SOCIAL POLICY SOCIAL RESEARCH SOCIAL SECURITY SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SPILLOVER TERTIARY EDUCATION URBAN CENTERS VICTIMS WILL WORKERS |
| spellingShingle |
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AGGRESSIVE AIDS PATIENTS ASYLUM ASYLUM SEEKER ATTORNEYS BAIL BASIC HEALTH CARE BASIC NEEDS CANCER CHILD LABOR CITIZEN CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP CIVIL LAW CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS CLASS ACTIONS COLLECTIVE ACTION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CORRUPTION COUNSEL COURT COURT DECISIONS COURTS CRIMINAL CRIMINAL LAW DEMOCRACY DETAINEES DEVELOPMENT POLICY DIABETES DISABILITY DISEASES DRUGS ECONOMIC RIGHTS ECONOMIC STATUS ECONOMICS EMPOWERMENT EQUALITY FAMILIES FAMILY INCOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GAYS GIRLS IN SCHOOL HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HEALTH INSURANCE HEALTH POLICY HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SYSTEM HIV HIV INFECTIONS HOSPITAL HOSPITALS HOUSEHOLD INCOME HUMAN CAPITAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT HUMAN LIFE HUMAN RIGHTS HYPERTENSION ILLNESS ILLNESSES IMPORTANT POLICY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INEQUALITIES INEQUALITY JUDGES JUDGMENTS JUDICIAL DECISIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL SYSTEMS JUDICIARY JURISDICTION JURISPRUDENCE LACK OF FOOD LAWS LEGAL CHANGE LEGAL SYSTEMS LEGISLATORS LITIGATION LOCAL GOVERNMENTS LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS MEDICAL CARE MIGRANT MIGRANT WORKERS MINIMUM WAGE MINORITY MORBIDITY MORTALITY NATIONAL DRUG NATIONAL LEVEL NUMBER OF PEOPLE NUTRITION OFFENSE PATIENT PATIENTS PHYSICIANS POLICY DISCUSSIONS POLICY RESEARCH POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER POLIO POLIO VACCINE POLITICAL POWER POLLUTION POOR HEALTH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION PRACTITIONERS PREGNANT WOMEN PRIMARY EDUCATION PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRISON PRISONER PRISONERS PROGRESS PUBLIC HEALTH PUBLIC HOSPITALS PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC SERVICES QUALITY CARE REFUGEES RIGHT TO EDUCATION RIGHT TO STRIKE SCHOOL AGE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE SCHOOL CHILDREN SCHOOL STUDENTS SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE PROVISION SMOKING SOCIAL BENEFITS SOCIAL CHANGE SOCIAL CLASS SOCIAL CLASSES SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIAL MOBILIZATION SOCIAL MOVEMENTS SOCIAL POLICIES SOCIAL POLICY SOCIAL RESEARCH SOCIAL SECURITY SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SPILLOVER TERTIARY EDUCATION URBAN CENTERS VICTIMS WILL WORKERS ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AGGRESSIVE AIDS PATIENTS ASYLUM ASYLUM SEEKER ATTORNEYS BAIL BASIC HEALTH CARE BASIC NEEDS CANCER CHILD LABOR CITIZEN CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP CIVIL LAW CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS CLASS ACTIONS COLLECTIVE ACTION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CORRUPTION COUNSEL COURT COURT DECISIONS COURTS CRIMINAL CRIMINAL LAW DEMOCRACY DETAINEES DEVELOPMENT POLICY DIABETES DISABILITY DISEASES DRUGS ECONOMIC RIGHTS ECONOMIC STATUS ECONOMICS EMPOWERMENT EQUALITY FAMILIES FAMILY INCOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GAYS GIRLS IN SCHOOL HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HEALTH INSURANCE HEALTH POLICY HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SYSTEM HIV HIV INFECTIONS HOSPITAL HOSPITALS HOUSEHOLD INCOME HUMAN CAPITAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT HUMAN LIFE HUMAN RIGHTS HYPERTENSION ILLNESS ILLNESSES IMPORTANT POLICY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INEQUALITIES INEQUALITY JUDGES JUDGMENTS JUDICIAL DECISIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL SYSTEMS JUDICIARY JURISDICTION JURISPRUDENCE LACK OF FOOD LAWS LEGAL CHANGE LEGAL SYSTEMS LEGISLATORS LITIGATION LOCAL GOVERNMENTS LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS MEDICAL CARE MIGRANT MIGRANT WORKERS MINIMUM WAGE MINORITY MORBIDITY MORTALITY NATIONAL DRUG NATIONAL LEVEL NUMBER OF PEOPLE NUTRITION OFFENSE PATIENT PATIENTS PHYSICIANS POLICY DISCUSSIONS POLICY RESEARCH POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER POLIO POLIO VACCINE POLITICAL POWER POLLUTION POOR HEALTH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION PRACTITIONERS PREGNANT WOMEN PRIMARY EDUCATION PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRISON PRISONER PRISONERS PROGRESS PUBLIC HEALTH PUBLIC HOSPITALS PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC SERVICES QUALITY CARE REFUGEES RIGHT TO EDUCATION RIGHT TO STRIKE SCHOOL AGE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE SCHOOL CHILDREN SCHOOL STUDENTS SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE PROVISION SMOKING SOCIAL BENEFITS SOCIAL CHANGE SOCIAL CLASS SOCIAL CLASSES SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIAL MOBILIZATION SOCIAL MOVEMENTS SOCIAL POLICIES SOCIAL POLICY SOCIAL RESEARCH SOCIAL SECURITY SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SPILLOVER TERTIARY EDUCATION URBAN CENTERS VICTIMS WILL WORKERS Brinks, Daniel M. Gauri, Varun The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights |
| description |
Optimism 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. |
| topic_facet |
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AGGRESSIVE AIDS PATIENTS ASYLUM ASYLUM SEEKER ATTORNEYS BAIL BASIC HEALTH CARE BASIC NEEDS CANCER CHILD LABOR CITIZEN CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP CIVIL LAW CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS CLASS ACTIONS COLLECTIVE ACTION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CORRUPTION COUNSEL COURT COURT DECISIONS COURTS CRIMINAL CRIMINAL LAW DEMOCRACY DETAINEES DEVELOPMENT POLICY DIABETES DISABILITY DISEASES DRUGS ECONOMIC RIGHTS ECONOMIC STATUS ECONOMICS EMPOWERMENT EQUALITY FAMILIES FAMILY INCOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GAYS GIRLS IN SCHOOL HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HEALTH INSURANCE HEALTH POLICY HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SYSTEM HIV HIV INFECTIONS HOSPITAL HOSPITALS HOUSEHOLD INCOME HUMAN CAPITAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT HUMAN LIFE HUMAN RIGHTS HYPERTENSION ILLNESS ILLNESSES IMPORTANT POLICY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INEQUALITIES INEQUALITY JUDGES JUDGMENTS JUDICIAL DECISIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL SYSTEMS JUDICIARY JURISDICTION JURISPRUDENCE LACK OF FOOD LAWS LEGAL CHANGE LEGAL SYSTEMS LEGISLATORS LITIGATION LOCAL GOVERNMENTS LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS MEDICAL CARE MIGRANT MIGRANT WORKERS MINIMUM WAGE MINORITY MORBIDITY MORTALITY NATIONAL DRUG NATIONAL LEVEL NUMBER OF PEOPLE NUTRITION OFFENSE PATIENT PATIENTS PHYSICIANS POLICY DISCUSSIONS POLICY RESEARCH POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER POLIO POLIO VACCINE POLITICAL POWER POLLUTION POOR HEALTH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION PRACTITIONERS PREGNANT WOMEN PRIMARY EDUCATION PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRISON PRISONER PRISONERS PROGRESS PUBLIC HEALTH PUBLIC HOSPITALS PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC SERVICES QUALITY CARE REFUGEES RIGHT TO EDUCATION RIGHT TO STRIKE SCHOOL AGE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE SCHOOL CHILDREN SCHOOL STUDENTS SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE PROVISION SMOKING SOCIAL BENEFITS SOCIAL CHANGE SOCIAL CLASS SOCIAL CLASSES SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIAL MOBILIZATION SOCIAL MOVEMENTS SOCIAL POLICIES SOCIAL POLICY SOCIAL RESEARCH SOCIAL SECURITY SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SPILLOVER TERTIARY EDUCATION URBAN CENTERS VICTIMS WILL WORKERS |
| author |
Brinks, Daniel M. Gauri, Varun |
| author_facet |
Brinks, Daniel M. Gauri, Varun |
| author_sort |
Brinks, Daniel M. |
| title |
The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights |
| title_short |
The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights |
| title_full |
The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights |
| title_fullStr |
The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights |
| title_full_unstemmed |
The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Litigating Social and Economic Rights |
| title_sort |
law’s majestic equality? the distributive impact of litigating social and economic rights |
| publishDate |
2012-03-01 |
| url |
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000158349_20120315110008 https://hdl.handle.net/10986/3287 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT brinksdanielm thelawsmajesticequalitythedistributiveimpactoflitigatingsocialandeconomicrights AT gaurivarun thelawsmajesticequalitythedistributiveimpactoflitigatingsocialandeconomicrights AT brinksdanielm lawsmajesticequalitythedistributiveimpactoflitigatingsocialandeconomicrights AT gaurivarun lawsmajesticequalitythedistributiveimpactoflitigatingsocialandeconomicrights |
| _version_ |
1807155747580018688 |