95.0 In Stock
Why do most welfare applicants fail to challenge adverse decisions despite a continuing sense of need? The book addresses this severely under-researched and under-theorized question. Using English homelessness law as their case study, the authors explore why homeless applicants did - but more often did not - challenge adverse decisions by seeking internal administrative review. They draw out from their data a list of the barriers to the take up of grievance rights. Further, by combining extensive interview data from aggrieved homeless applicants with ethnographic data about bureaucratic decision-making, they are able to situate these barriers within the dynamics of the citizen-bureaucracy relationship. Additionally, they point to other contexts which inform applicants' decisions about whether to request an internal review. Drawing on a diverse literature - risk, trust, audit, legal consciousness, and complaints - the authors lay the foundations for our understanding of the (non-)emergence of administrative disputes.
|Product dimensions:||6.14(w) x 9.21(h) x 0.56(d)|
About the Author
Dave Cowan is Professor of Law and Policy in the School of Law, Bristol University. Simon Halliday is the Nicholas de B Katzenbach Research Fellow at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University.