Promoting Innovation or Exacerbating Inequality? Laboratory Federalism and Australian Age Discrimination Law

Q3 Social Sciences
A. Blackham
{"title":"Promoting Innovation or Exacerbating Inequality? Laboratory Federalism and Australian Age Discrimination Law","authors":"A. Blackham","doi":"10.1177/0067205X231187971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to laboratory federalism, federal systems can promote governmental innovation and experimentation, while containing the risks of innovation to only one jurisdiction. However, it is unclear whether these benefits are realised in practice and whether states are actually effective ‘laboratories’. This article evaluates the extent to which laboratory federalism is occurring in practice, focusing on a case study of age discrimination law in Australia. Drawing on related ideas of democratic experimentalism; legal doctrinal analysis of age discrimination law in the Australian states and territories, and at the federal level; and qualitative expert interviews with 66 Australian respondents, I map the potential and limits of laboratory federalism in advancing age equality. I argue that, in this particular context, the benefits of experimentation may be outweighed by the resulting difficulties of enforcing age discrimination law, exacerbating inequality in practice. The federal structure has led to a confused and confusing patchwork of legal regulation. There is therefore a need for stronger federal structures to facilitate mutual learning and better realise the benefits of laboratory federalism.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"347 - 371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X231187971","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to laboratory federalism, federal systems can promote governmental innovation and experimentation, while containing the risks of innovation to only one jurisdiction. However, it is unclear whether these benefits are realised in practice and whether states are actually effective ‘laboratories’. This article evaluates the extent to which laboratory federalism is occurring in practice, focusing on a case study of age discrimination law in Australia. Drawing on related ideas of democratic experimentalism; legal doctrinal analysis of age discrimination law in the Australian states and territories, and at the federal level; and qualitative expert interviews with 66 Australian respondents, I map the potential and limits of laboratory federalism in advancing age equality. I argue that, in this particular context, the benefits of experimentation may be outweighed by the resulting difficulties of enforcing age discrimination law, exacerbating inequality in practice. The federal structure has led to a confused and confusing patchwork of legal regulation. There is therefore a need for stronger federal structures to facilitate mutual learning and better realise the benefits of laboratory federalism.
促进创新还是加剧不平等?实验室联邦制与澳大利亚年龄歧视法
根据实验室联邦制,联邦制度可以促进政府的创新和实验,同时只将创新风险控制在一个管辖区。然而,目前尚不清楚这些好处是否在实践中实现,各州是否真的是有效的“实验室”。本文评估了实验室联邦制在实践中的发生程度,重点是对澳大利亚年龄歧视法的案例研究。借鉴民主实验主义的相关思想;对澳大利亚各州和地区以及联邦一级的年龄歧视法进行法律理论分析;以及对66名澳大利亚受访者的定性专家访谈,我描绘了实验室联邦制在促进年龄平等方面的潜力和局限性。我认为,在这种特殊的背景下,实验的好处可能会被执行年龄歧视法的困难所抵消,从而加剧了实践中的不平等。联邦结构导致了法律法规的混乱和混乱。因此,需要加强联邦结构,以促进相互学习,更好地实现实验室联邦制的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信