- Išparduota
/https://libri-media.knygos-static.lt/40c66767-a57c-4223-84a6-cbe359180660/1)
- Autorius: David Cowan, Simon Halliday
- Leidėjas: Bloomsbury UK
- Metai: 2003
- Puslapiai: 232
- ISBN: 9781847312389
- ISBN-10: 1847312381
- ISBN-13: 9781847312389
- Formatas: ACSM ?
- Kalba: Anglų
Atsiliepimai
Formatai:
Aprašymas
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-theorised 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.
Elektroninė knyga:
Atsiuntimas po užsakymo akimirksniu! Skirta skaitymui tik kompiuteryje, planšetėje ar kitame elektroniniame įrenginyje.
Kaip skaityti el. knygas ACSM formatu?
Mažiausia kaina per 30 dienų: 168,29 €
Mažiausia kaina užfiksuota: Kaina nesikeitė
- Autorius: David Cowan, Simon Halliday
- Leidėjas: Bloomsbury UK
- Metai: 2003
- Puslapiai: 232
- ISBN: 9781847312389
- ISBN-10: 1847312381
- ISBN-13: 9781847312389
- Formatas: ACSM ?
- Kalba: Anglų
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-theorised 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.
Atsiliepimai