Suchergebnisse

The concepts of Albert O. Hirschman (Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, 1970, no further publication information provided) are applied to the underutilization of welfare rights. Hirschman's contrast between "voice" & "exit" is replaced by a schema of four types of reaction: fight, flight, acquiescence, & revenge. The legal program of the welfare state comprises a body of rights to which the weaker party in a relationship of dependency is entitled. Since nonassertion, from the individual's perspective, in the form of flight or acquiescence, is often preferable to the assertion of rights through fight or revenge, these new rights remain largely law in books. The Weberian method of interpretative sociology, together with empirical data from various studies, give a basis for understanding when & where the different courses will be chosen. Implications for the administration of justice & in particular the contribution of the exit option to justice, are noted. In Welfare Rights in the Welfare State, Norman Furniss (U of Indiana, Bloomington) notes the importance of the question of how far prescribed welfare rights are in fact asserted. Inferential reasoning suggests the importance of three factors: whether the state undertakes ad hoc welfare provisions or advances a general policy of a guaranteed national minimum; whether affected individuals are organized collectively or have to assert rights in isolation; & whether the type of welfare right involves the outcome of market relations or the distribution of government funds. The problem of nonassertion of welfare rights would be greatly reduced in a genuine welfare state. In Rejoinder, Bruinsma notes the contrast between continued advocacy of, & skepticism toward, the welfare state. From the viewpoint of the weaker party, Furniss's distinctions prove to have relatively little importance. 4 Figures. Modified HA.