残疾、市场和权利:市场化的国家残疾保险计划的局限性

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW Alternative Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-07-15 DOI:10.1177/1037969X231186196
Will Cesta
{"title":"残疾、市场和权利:市场化的国家残疾保险计划的局限性","authors":"Will Cesta","doi":"10.1177/1037969X231186196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the compatibility of Australia’s marketised National Disability Insurance Scheme and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The author recognises that market-based disability support is largely compatible with Australia’s human rights commitments but resists the idea that it is capable of serving the interests of all Australians with disabilities. Markets can and do fail, and market stewardship, the government’s proposed antidote, is only a partial solution. As such, we should embrace a pluralist disability support system that sees non-market mechanisms – like block funding – as playing an important role in disability support systems.","PeriodicalId":44595,"journal":{"name":"Alternative Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disabilities, markets and rights: The limits of a marketised national disability insurance scheme\",\"authors\":\"Will Cesta\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1037969X231186196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article considers the compatibility of Australia’s marketised National Disability Insurance Scheme and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The author recognises that market-based disability support is largely compatible with Australia’s human rights commitments but resists the idea that it is capable of serving the interests of all Australians with disabilities. Markets can and do fail, and market stewardship, the government’s proposed antidote, is only a partial solution. As such, we should embrace a pluralist disability support system that sees non-market mechanisms – like block funding – as playing an important role in disability support systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alternative Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alternative Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X231186196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternative Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X231186196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考虑了澳大利亚市场化的国家残疾保险计划与《联合国残疾人权利公约》的兼容性。提交人承认,基于市场的残疾支助在很大程度上符合澳大利亚的人权承诺,但不认为它能够为所有澳大利亚残疾人士的利益服务。市场可能也确实会失灵,而政府提出的市场管理方案只是部分解决方案。因此,我们应该建立一个多元化的残疾人支持体系,让非市场机制(如集体资助)在残疾人支持体系中发挥重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Disabilities, markets and rights: The limits of a marketised national disability insurance scheme
This article considers the compatibility of Australia’s marketised National Disability Insurance Scheme and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The author recognises that market-based disability support is largely compatible with Australia’s human rights commitments but resists the idea that it is capable of serving the interests of all Australians with disabilities. Markets can and do fail, and market stewardship, the government’s proposed antidote, is only a partial solution. As such, we should embrace a pluralist disability support system that sees non-market mechanisms – like block funding – as playing an important role in disability support systems.
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Coming, ready or not Beyond the Preamble: Legislating the right to self-determination in a NSW Human Rights Act Family inclusion in child protection: Law, courts and balancing risks Returning to rebellious roots: What rebellious lawyering can offer progressive law in Australia Forks in the road to equality: The path for same-sex attracted individuals in Australia and Nigeria
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1