民主宪法、贫困和经济不平等:通过第四分支机构进行补救?

Q3 Social Sciences
Rosalind Dixon, M. Tushnet
{"title":"民主宪法、贫困和经济不平等:通过第四分支机构进行补救?","authors":"Rosalind Dixon, M. Tushnet","doi":"10.1177/0067205X231188640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Scottish Poverty and Inequality Commission is a relatively new fourth branch institution with responsibility for addressing both poverty and inequality in Scotland. Nonetheless, it has made important, if modest and incremental, inroads to achieving these objectives, by encouraging the collection and use by government of relevant data in policy-formation; and the expansion and acceleration in the roll-out of important substantive policies focused on alleviating child poverty. The question this raises is what underpins this institutional success. The article draws attention to three key factors: the Commission’s distinctive combination of independence and a collaborative approach to policy making, supported by a ‘triangular’ relationship between the government, Commission and civil society, its expertise and perceived legitimacy, and the unique policy context presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s commitment to devolution and progressive differentiation of its policies from the UK. These factors, it suggests, offer useful lessons for constitutional and institutional designers elsewhere — about both the promise and contingency and four branch solutions to problems of economic exclusion and disadvantage.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"285 - 295"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Democratic Constitutions, Poverty and Economic Inequality: Redress Through the Fourth Branch Institutions?\",\"authors\":\"Rosalind Dixon, M. Tushnet\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0067205X231188640\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Scottish Poverty and Inequality Commission is a relatively new fourth branch institution with responsibility for addressing both poverty and inequality in Scotland. Nonetheless, it has made important, if modest and incremental, inroads to achieving these objectives, by encouraging the collection and use by government of relevant data in policy-formation; and the expansion and acceleration in the roll-out of important substantive policies focused on alleviating child poverty. The question this raises is what underpins this institutional success. The article draws attention to three key factors: the Commission’s distinctive combination of independence and a collaborative approach to policy making, supported by a ‘triangular’ relationship between the government, Commission and civil society, its expertise and perceived legitimacy, and the unique policy context presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s commitment to devolution and progressive differentiation of its policies from the UK. These factors, it suggests, offer useful lessons for constitutional and institutional designers elsewhere — about both the promise and contingency and four branch solutions to problems of economic exclusion and disadvantage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"285 - 295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-23\",\"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/10.1177/0067205X231188640\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X231188640","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

摘要

苏格兰贫困与不平等委员会是一个相对较新的第四分支机构,负责解决苏格兰的贫困和不平等问题。尽管如此,它通过鼓励政府在制定政策时收集和使用相关数据,在实现这些目标方面取得了重要的进展,即使是适度和渐进的进展;以及扩大和加快推出以减轻儿童贫困为重点的重要实质性政策。这引发了一个问题,即是什么支撑了这一制度上的成功。这篇文章提请注意三个关键因素:委员会在政府、委员会和民间社会之间的“三角”关系的支持下,将独立性和合作政策制定方法独特地结合在一起,其专业知识和公认的合法性,以及新冠肺炎疫情所带来的独特政策背景,以及政府对权力下放的承诺和与英国政策的逐步分化,为其他地方的宪法和制度设计者提供有用的教训——关于承诺和偶然性,以及经济排斥和劣势问题的四个分支解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Democratic Constitutions, Poverty and Economic Inequality: Redress Through the Fourth Branch Institutions?
The Scottish Poverty and Inequality Commission is a relatively new fourth branch institution with responsibility for addressing both poverty and inequality in Scotland. Nonetheless, it has made important, if modest and incremental, inroads to achieving these objectives, by encouraging the collection and use by government of relevant data in policy-formation; and the expansion and acceleration in the roll-out of important substantive policies focused on alleviating child poverty. The question this raises is what underpins this institutional success. The article draws attention to three key factors: the Commission’s distinctive combination of independence and a collaborative approach to policy making, supported by a ‘triangular’ relationship between the government, Commission and civil society, its expertise and perceived legitimacy, and the unique policy context presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s commitment to devolution and progressive differentiation of its policies from the UK. These factors, it suggests, offer useful lessons for constitutional and institutional designers elsewhere — about both the promise and contingency and four branch solutions to problems of economic exclusion and disadvantage.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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