Compared with India, Brazil and South Africa, Indonesia has had few court cases on broadsocial matters. Among those few are the rulings which pushed education spending updramatically. But since state education in Indonesia tends to help the middle class most, theeffect was still mildly regressive: 36% of the benefits went to the two poorest quintiles. Eventhat was better than in Nigeria where, the authors reckon, three-quarters of the benefitswere captured by the rich. This was partly because many Nigerian cases concerneduniversities .
同印度、巴西和南非相比,印度尼西亚法院几乎不参与涉及广泛社会问题的案件,少有的例子中包括一项推动教育支出大幅度提高的判决。但是,由于中产阶级在该国教育体系中受益最大,因此印度尼西亚的法律环境对穷人不太有利:36%的相关利益由最穷的40%人口获得。即便如此,印度尼西亚穷人的法律境况还是要比尼日利亚穷人好很多。在那里,富人获得了法律利益的四分之三。究其原因,部分是由于许多案例涉及大学教育。
Majestic results
崇高的结论
So the empirical evidence is mixed. But it does not support the view that the law is an elitegame, fixed to serve the interests of the rich and educated. When the authors aggregatetheir national studies, they conclude that 55% of the benefits that flow from the variouslegal decisions accrue to the poorest 40%. Such calculations are, inevitably, rough andready. Ideally, one should compare the costs and benefits of going to law with those ofpursuing the same policy objectives in parliamentwhich is hard to measure. It is also anopen question whether a right to foodie, an obligation for someone else to provide itisthe best way to help the poor. A targeted cash-transfer programme, which makes welfarepayments conditional on recipients actions, may work better. More broadly, it is far fromclear that society as whole benefits when unelected judges mandate potentially costlysocial spending. That said, the study is still a revelation: courts are more majestic thandecades of received wisdom have suggested.
【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