The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa

This paper explores social policy-making role of supreme courts in India and South Africa. It argues that that both significantly shaped social policy. But neither imposed its will on elected government – both recognised that judicial power is limited and sought negotiation with the government and o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Friedman, Steven, Maiorano, Diego
Format: Article
Published: Taylor and Francis 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42471/
_version_ 1848796493943668736
author Friedman, Steven
Maiorano, Diego
author_facet Friedman, Steven
Maiorano, Diego
author_sort Friedman, Steven
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description This paper explores social policy-making role of supreme courts in India and South Africa. It argues that that both significantly shaped social policy. But neither imposed its will on elected government – both recognised that judicial power is limited and sought negotiation with the government and other interests to ensure compliance with rulings. Despite the difference between them, both courts promote and support collective action by the poor or their allies in civil society. The paper traces the institutional roots of the relative strength of the two courts and their relations with their governments and links their rulings to the political environment.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T19:48:52Z
format Article
id nottingham-42471
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T19:48:52Z
publishDate 2017
publisher Taylor and Francis
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-424712020-05-04T18:50:32Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42471/ The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa Friedman, Steven Maiorano, Diego This paper explores social policy-making role of supreme courts in India and South Africa. It argues that that both significantly shaped social policy. But neither imposed its will on elected government – both recognised that judicial power is limited and sought negotiation with the government and other interests to ensure compliance with rulings. Despite the difference between them, both courts promote and support collective action by the poor or their allies in civil society. The paper traces the institutional roots of the relative strength of the two courts and their relations with their governments and links their rulings to the political environment. Taylor and Francis 2017-06-16 Article PeerReviewed Friedman, Steven and Maiorano, Diego (2017) The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 55 (3). pp. 353-376. ISSN 1743-9094 courts social policy constitutionalism rights collective action popular agency http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14662043.2017.1327098 doi:10.1080/14662043.2017.1327098 doi:10.1080/14662043.2017.1327098
spellingShingle courts
social policy
constitutionalism
rights
collective action
popular agency
Friedman, Steven
Maiorano, Diego
The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa
title The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa
title_full The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa
title_fullStr The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa
title_full_unstemmed The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa
title_short The limits of prescription: courts and social policy in India and South Africa
title_sort limits of prescription: courts and social policy in india and south africa
topic courts
social policy
constitutionalism
rights
collective action
popular agency
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42471/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42471/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42471/