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 a...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | 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 http://hdl.handle.net/10986/3287 |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|