Brazilian courts, unlike their Indian and South African peers, rarely consider suits with broadimplications. Instead, they take on individual provision cases. But they hear so many40,000 claims a year about providing medicines, for examplethat their rulings havesweeping implications. Experts have long assumed that such rulings seldom help the poor,because the benefits are restricted to the plaintiffs, who are likely to be well-off. But theauthors point out that after a string of losses in court, the government bodies that deliversubsidised medicine changed their behaviour, making the stuff more easily available. By theauthors calculations, 36% of the benefits from medical cases in Brazil go to the poorest 40%ie, they are marginally regressive.
巴西的法院和印度及南非不同,它很少关心那些有着广泛含义的案件,而是对涉及特定条款的案件更感兴趣。不过,由于巴西法院一年要处理大约4万件类似关于提供药品的涉及特定条款的案件,大量涉及特定条款的案件综合在一起,还是为该国的社会政策提供了广泛的指引。长期以来,专家们都认为这类案件帮不上穷人什么忙,因为利益都属于原告,而原告通常比较富裕。但是研究报告指出,提供补助药品的政府相关机构在遭受了一系列败诉后,会改变自己的行为,为穷人获得补助药品提供更多便利。DanielBrinks和Varun Gauri估计,巴西的医疗案件判决中36%的利益由最穷的40%人口获得,略微不利于穷人。
【2015考研英语阅读法律与穷人】相关文章:
最新
2016-10-18
2016-10-11
2016-10-11
2016-10-08
2016-09-30
2016-09-30