Pub Date : 2023-01-12DOI: 10.1177/14680181221146030
Sophie Mitra, Q. Gao
Introduction The term ‘disability’ is complex and elusive as individuals and cultures often have different understandings of disability (Goodley, 2016). As noted by Oliver (1986), if disability is considered within ‘a personal tragedy theory of disability’, it is then outside the realm of social policy. Similarly, if it is understood as a medical notion, its relevance is limited to health care policy. However, modern conceptualizations of disability frame disability as an interactional or relational notion, one that results from an individual with a health condition interacting with structural factors and resources (Goodley, 2016; Mitra, 2018). Structural factors, be they barriers in the physical environment, negative attitudes, discrimination or resources, may and should be addressed by social policies. The United Nations (UN) has adopted a human rights perspective on disability. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is a global human rights treaty adopted in 2006. The CRPD aims ‘to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity’. It has been ratified by 185 countries as of November 2022. There are two broad components to the implementation of the CRPD. The first consists in adopting laws and policies in line with the provisions of the CRPD and the second includes non-legal strategies toward advocacy and social change. Both aim to lead to the full participation of persons with disabilities in society by mainstreaming disability in development strategies (United Nations, 2019). Disability has received little attention in the field of global social policy. While there has been research on social protection policies targeting individuals with disability and their families, limited work has considered disability in other areas of global social policy such as education, health, healthcare, and employment. Guided by the human rights
{"title":"Disability and social policy: Global evidence and perspectives","authors":"Sophie Mitra, Q. Gao","doi":"10.1177/14680181221146030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221146030","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The term ‘disability’ is complex and elusive as individuals and cultures often have different understandings of disability (Goodley, 2016). As noted by Oliver (1986), if disability is considered within ‘a personal tragedy theory of disability’, it is then outside the realm of social policy. Similarly, if it is understood as a medical notion, its relevance is limited to health care policy. However, modern conceptualizations of disability frame disability as an interactional or relational notion, one that results from an individual with a health condition interacting with structural factors and resources (Goodley, 2016; Mitra, 2018). Structural factors, be they barriers in the physical environment, negative attitudes, discrimination or resources, may and should be addressed by social policies. The United Nations (UN) has adopted a human rights perspective on disability. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is a global human rights treaty adopted in 2006. The CRPD aims ‘to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity’. It has been ratified by 185 countries as of November 2022. There are two broad components to the implementation of the CRPD. The first consists in adopting laws and policies in line with the provisions of the CRPD and the second includes non-legal strategies toward advocacy and social change. Both aim to lead to the full participation of persons with disabilities in society by mainstreaming disability in development strategies (United Nations, 2019). Disability has received little attention in the field of global social policy. While there has been research on social protection policies targeting individuals with disability and their families, limited work has considered disability in other areas of global social policy such as education, health, healthcare, and employment. Guided by the human rights","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"3 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48488818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-06DOI: 10.1177/14680181221145382
J. Bandola-Gill, Sotiria Grek, Marlee Tichenor
The production of data and numbers has become the key mechanism of both knowing and governing global public policy. And yet, processes of quantification are inherently paradoxical: from expectations of technocratic rationality and political usability of producing ‘global’ numbers that count for ‘local’ politics and needs to practical limitation of measurement and the necessity to work with ‘good enough’ data. This begs a question – how do these competing epistemic, political and value orders manifest themselves through the work that experts do? In this article, we explore the problem by focussing on reflexivity as a way for experts (primarily those working in key International Organisations) to make sense of and tame the tensions inherent in their work. Through rich qualitative exploration of over 80 semi-structured interviews with experts working in the areas of poverty, education and statistical capacity development, we contribute to debates in the social studies of quantification by arguing that reflexivity is not just a mental process that experts engage in but rather an important resource allowing them to make sense of the contradictions inherent in their work and to mobilise political and ethical considerations in the technocratic process of producing numbers. We identify three types of reflexivity: (1) epistemic reflexivity – regarding the quality of data and its epistemic status as reflecting the reality; (2) care-ful reflexivity – regarding values embedded in data and the duty of care to the populations affected by the measurement and (3) instrumental reflexivity – regarding political rationality and necessary trade-off required to realise political goals. Overall, the article argues that reflexivity becomes an increasingly central expert practice, allowing the transformation of the process of quantification into one of qualification enabling them to attach political attributes and values to data and measurement.
{"title":"The rise of the reflexive expert? Epistemic, care-ful and instrumental reflexivity in global public policy","authors":"J. Bandola-Gill, Sotiria Grek, Marlee Tichenor","doi":"10.1177/14680181221145382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221145382","url":null,"abstract":"The production of data and numbers has become the key mechanism of both knowing and governing global public policy. And yet, processes of quantification are inherently paradoxical: from expectations of technocratic rationality and political usability of producing ‘global’ numbers that count for ‘local’ politics and needs to practical limitation of measurement and the necessity to work with ‘good enough’ data. This begs a question – how do these competing epistemic, political and value orders manifest themselves through the work that experts do? In this article, we explore the problem by focussing on reflexivity as a way for experts (primarily those working in key International Organisations) to make sense of and tame the tensions inherent in their work. Through rich qualitative exploration of over 80 semi-structured interviews with experts working in the areas of poverty, education and statistical capacity development, we contribute to debates in the social studies of quantification by arguing that reflexivity is not just a mental process that experts engage in but rather an important resource allowing them to make sense of the contradictions inherent in their work and to mobilise political and ethical considerations in the technocratic process of producing numbers. We identify three types of reflexivity: (1) epistemic reflexivity – regarding the quality of data and its epistemic status as reflecting the reality; (2) care-ful reflexivity – regarding values embedded in data and the duty of care to the populations affected by the measurement and (3) instrumental reflexivity – regarding political rationality and necessary trade-off required to realise political goals. Overall, the article argues that reflexivity becomes an increasingly central expert practice, allowing the transformation of the process of quantification into one of qualification enabling them to attach political attributes and values to data and measurement.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42430220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.1177/14680181221145824
V. Chaudhry
Social protection policies for disabled people are in crisis, as governments across the world have implemented neoliberal reforms that curtail the scope of support by limiting social safety nets and producing stricter criteria for who counts as disabled. The financial crisis of 2008 in the global north caused governments to enforce austerity measures, which were subsequently exported to the global south (Martins, 2020). These austerity measures have ushered in stringent eligibility standards to limit who should be considered disabled, compounding the precarity of disabled people globally as they are required to undergo intense scrutiny and testing to prove their disability and access necessary support. Determining disability is at the heart of the crises of disability social protection policies. To address these crises, it is critical to understand the biopolitics of disabilitymaking that states rely on to manage their own resources. To this end, this article explores the processes states employ to demarcate the boundaries around the category of disability. Drawing from existing literature as well as my research on disability and social protection in India, I examine the challenges of state-sanctioned disability determination processes, which view disability through the lens of the medical model. States rely on austere assessment regimes to restrict who ‘counts’ as disabled, allowing them to accumulate resources. By governing populations across the lines of capacity and incapacity, these biopolitical processes produce disabled body-minds that can be forced into the labor market (Foucault, 1980). This results in two significant consequences: first, fewer people who need social protections receive them; second, these biopolitical processes actively narrow the category of disability itself. Finally, this article concludes by analyzing potential ways forward for disability researchers and policy-makers.
{"title":"Biopolitics of disability determination: Consequences of austere biomedical assessment regimes","authors":"V. Chaudhry","doi":"10.1177/14680181221145824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221145824","url":null,"abstract":"Social protection policies for disabled people are in crisis, as governments across the world have implemented neoliberal reforms that curtail the scope of support by limiting social safety nets and producing stricter criteria for who counts as disabled. The financial crisis of 2008 in the global north caused governments to enforce austerity measures, which were subsequently exported to the global south (Martins, 2020). These austerity measures have ushered in stringent eligibility standards to limit who should be considered disabled, compounding the precarity of disabled people globally as they are required to undergo intense scrutiny and testing to prove their disability and access necessary support. Determining disability is at the heart of the crises of disability social protection policies. To address these crises, it is critical to understand the biopolitics of disabilitymaking that states rely on to manage their own resources. To this end, this article explores the processes states employ to demarcate the boundaries around the category of disability. Drawing from existing literature as well as my research on disability and social protection in India, I examine the challenges of state-sanctioned disability determination processes, which view disability through the lens of the medical model. States rely on austere assessment regimes to restrict who ‘counts’ as disabled, allowing them to accumulate resources. By governing populations across the lines of capacity and incapacity, these biopolitical processes produce disabled body-minds that can be forced into the labor market (Foucault, 1980). This results in two significant consequences: first, fewer people who need social protections receive them; second, these biopolitical processes actively narrow the category of disability itself. Finally, this article concludes by analyzing potential ways forward for disability researchers and policy-makers.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"176 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49220392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1177/14680181221146037
Gérald Oriol, James English
{"title":"From the ground up: Constructing social policies for people with disabilities in post-earthquake Haiti","authors":"Gérald Oriol, James English","doi":"10.1177/14680181221146037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221146037","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"180 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42311907","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1177/14680181221146029
J. Heymann
{"title":"Needless barriers: Despite advances, equal rights for people with disabilities still lag far behind","authors":"J. Heymann","doi":"10.1177/14680181221146029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221146029","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"184 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45387028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1177/14680181221144559
S. Sutiyo
Inaccurate distribution is one of the major problems of social protection programs in developing countries. Program implementation experiences difficulties at the local level, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research aims to explain the institution of social protection programs in Indonesia and identify the deficiencies and ways to improve it in other developing countries. It analogically describes the institution as a phenomenon of ‘square peg for round hole’ to represent the mismatch between the state program design with local social constraints and the cultural-cognitive of the implementers. The result showed that complementing decentralization to the existing institution can overcome the problems. This study helped fill the void in understanding the crisis, which led to changing the implementation, thereby paving a way to revise the macro policy and improve the institution.
{"title":"A neo-institutional analysis of social protection: Insights from Indonesia","authors":"S. Sutiyo","doi":"10.1177/14680181221144559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221144559","url":null,"abstract":"Inaccurate distribution is one of the major problems of social protection programs in developing countries. Program implementation experiences difficulties at the local level, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research aims to explain the institution of social protection programs in Indonesia and identify the deficiencies and ways to improve it in other developing countries. It analogically describes the institution as a phenomenon of ‘square peg for round hole’ to represent the mismatch between the state program design with local social constraints and the cultural-cognitive of the implementers. The result showed that complementing decentralization to the existing institution can overcome the problems. This study helped fill the void in understanding the crisis, which led to changing the implementation, thereby paving a way to revise the macro policy and improve the institution.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"268 - 285"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44388335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221120871
Alexandra Kaasch
{"title":"Re-discussing targeting in times of Covid-19.","authors":"Alexandra Kaasch","doi":"10.1177/14680181221120871","DOIUrl":"10.1177/14680181221120871","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"423-425"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444826/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41407390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181211070987
D. Sack, EK Sarter
Violations of fundamental labour rights have been a problem in global supply chains for decades. Recently, public procurement is increasingly used to regulate labour standards in global chains. Based on previous research on private actors, which distinguished between compliance-focused and commitment-focused enforcement strategies, this article discusses the problems and means of enforcing respect for labour rights in global supply chains. By applying this distinction to public procurement, this article develops a concept of enforcement styles for public procurement as a tool to regulate labour in global supply chains.
{"title":"To comply or to be committed? Public procurement and labour rights in global supply chains","authors":"D. Sack, EK Sarter","doi":"10.1177/14680181211070987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211070987","url":null,"abstract":"Violations of fundamental labour rights have been a problem in global supply chains for decades. Recently, public procurement is increasingly used to regulate labour standards in global chains. Based on previous research on private actors, which distinguished between compliance-focused and commitment-focused enforcement strategies, this article discusses the problems and means of enforcing respect for labour rights in global supply chains. By applying this distinction to public procurement, this article develops a concept of enforcement styles for public procurement as a tool to regulate labour in global supply chains.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"521 - 539"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44272896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-30DOI: 10.1177/14680181221139077
Noemi Lendvai‐Bainton, P. Stubbs
In this text, we argue for critical reflexivity regarding ‘global social policy studies’, focusing on the pitfalls of forms of historical presentism and Eurocentrism, not least in terms of a profound silence about colonialism, culminating in a ‘view from above or from nowhere’. We explore the importance of historical legacies of historical socialist worldbuilding projects and the complexities of so-called ‘transition’ in liminal, peripheral, spaces. The text is structured around four interlinked dialogues and reflections: on the nature of our critique of Global Social Policy as an emergent field; on understanding the unfolding dynamics of social policy in the Global East; on the importance of decolonial histories and historiographies as a way of overcoming the profound ‘presentism’ of Global Social Policy and, finally, on the possibilities of articulating a Global Social Policy ‘otherwise’ and an ethics of translation.
{"title":"Towards a Global Social Policy Otherwise: Decoloniality, socialist worldmaking and an ethics of translation","authors":"Noemi Lendvai‐Bainton, P. Stubbs","doi":"10.1177/14680181221139077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221139077","url":null,"abstract":"In this text, we argue for critical reflexivity regarding ‘global social policy studies’, focusing on the pitfalls of forms of historical presentism and Eurocentrism, not least in terms of a profound silence about colonialism, culminating in a ‘view from above or from nowhere’. We explore the importance of historical legacies of historical socialist worldbuilding projects and the complexities of so-called ‘transition’ in liminal, peripheral, spaces. The text is structured around four interlinked dialogues and reflections: on the nature of our critique of Global Social Policy as an emergent field; on understanding the unfolding dynamics of social policy in the Global East; on the importance of decolonial histories and historiographies as a way of overcoming the profound ‘presentism’ of Global Social Policy and, finally, on the possibilities of articulating a Global Social Policy ‘otherwise’ and an ethics of translation.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45254368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-28DOI: 10.1177/14680181221138558
A. Revillard
Many countries worldwide resort to quotas in order to favour the employment of disabled people. Yet, the quota as a policy tool has an ambivalent meaning: while it has been conceived as an advanced form of antidiscrimination policy tool in domains such as gender and racial inequalities, in the sector of disability, it has tended to be theorized as an outdated measure, belonging to a social welfare perspective opposed to the more recent equalitarian policy frame. This article revisits this theoretical debate on the disability employment quota by shifting the focus from a normative discussion to an empirical investigation of the meanings policymakers have endowed it with. I draw on the case of France, where the quota scheme is a cornerstone of disability employment policy: post–World War I provisions were at the origin of a series of reforms extending and reinforcing the quota, in 1957, 1987 and 2005 – leading to the current 6% disabled worker quota imposed to private and public organizations of 20 employees or more. Tracing the historical trajectory of this policy tool and its uses by means of parliamentary debates and secondary sources, I show how quotas in France have had more complex meanings than what the social welfare versus antidiscrimination dichotomy suggests. Before the rise of antidiscrimination policy, they were thought of as a progressive form of social policy, as opposed to more segregative interventions such as pensions or sheltered employment. The adoption of antidiscrimination provisions in 2005 then led to a hybridization between quotas and antidiscrimination policy.
{"title":"The disability employment quota, between social policy and antidiscrimination","authors":"A. Revillard","doi":"10.1177/14680181221138558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221138558","url":null,"abstract":"Many countries worldwide resort to quotas in order to favour the employment of disabled people. Yet, the quota as a policy tool has an ambivalent meaning: while it has been conceived as an advanced form of antidiscrimination policy tool in domains such as gender and racial inequalities, in the sector of disability, it has tended to be theorized as an outdated measure, belonging to a social welfare perspective opposed to the more recent equalitarian policy frame. This article revisits this theoretical debate on the disability employment quota by shifting the focus from a normative discussion to an empirical investigation of the meanings policymakers have endowed it with. I draw on the case of France, where the quota scheme is a cornerstone of disability employment policy: post–World War I provisions were at the origin of a series of reforms extending and reinforcing the quota, in 1957, 1987 and 2005 – leading to the current 6% disabled worker quota imposed to private and public organizations of 20 employees or more. Tracing the historical trajectory of this policy tool and its uses by means of parliamentary debates and secondary sources, I show how quotas in France have had more complex meanings than what the social welfare versus antidiscrimination dichotomy suggests. Before the rise of antidiscrimination policy, they were thought of as a progressive form of social policy, as opposed to more segregative interventions such as pensions or sheltered employment. The adoption of antidiscrimination provisions in 2005 then led to a hybridization between quotas and antidiscrimination policy.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"92 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44684793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：