Why do most welfare applicants fail to challenge adverse decisions despite a continuing sense of need? This book addresses this severely under-researched and under-theorised question. Using English homelessness law as their case study, the authors explore why homeless applicants did - but more often did not - challenge adverse decisions by seeking internal administrative review. They draw out from their data a list of the barriers to the take up of grievance rights. Further, by combining extensive interview data from aggrieved homeless applicants with ethnographic data about bureaucratic decision-making, they are able to situate these barriers within the dynamics of the citizen-bureaucracy relationship. Additionally, they point to other contexts which inform applicants' decisions about whether to request an internal review. Drawing on a diverse literature - risk, trust, audit, legal consciousness, and complaints - the authors lay the foundations for our understanding of the (non-)emergence of administrative disputes.
|Place of Publication||Oxford and Portland, Oregon|
|Number of pages||220|
|Publication status||Published - 31 Aug 2003|
- welfare applicants
- internal administrative review
- decision making
- administrative disputes