首页> 外文学位 >Making a claim on the state: The experiential accounts of repetitive strain injury sufferers in different policy regimes.
【24h】

Making a claim on the state: The experiential accounts of repetitive strain injury sufferers in different policy regimes.

机译:对状态提出要求:不同政策体系中重复性劳损患者的经验描述。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This thesis is a comparative analysis of workers who suffer with a repetitive strain injury and their experiential accounts of being faced with the process of claiming workers' compensation in the Netherlands and Ontario.; Comparative policy regime theorists tend to examine policies between jurisdictions at the structural or policy level. It is at this level that they assess social citizenship rights within social policy regimes. I argue, however, that it is misleading to observe the structural level alone. It is also revealing to examine the experiences of those who have the option of making claims on the state. The process of their claims-making activities qualifies the realization of social citizenship.; Two social policy regimes are compared. Each approaches the issue of worker injury policies in a very different manner. The policies in place at the structural level differ in significant ways between these two jurisdictions. In the Netherlands the system seems relatively more generous. An injured worker, prior to accessing the workers' compensation system, is afforded a paid fifty-two week waiting period. This is not the case in Ontario. Given this it would then be reasonable to expect that the process of claiming workers' injury benefits would differ at the individual or experiential level across these two jurisdictions. A more detailed look at the experiential accounts of injured workers in both policy regimes, however, finds that workers who suffer from a repetitive strain injury and who opt to make a claim have similar experiences in both jurisdictions. This is accounted for by the practice that both policy regimes use medical gatekeepers to govern the access of injured workers to the process of making a claim.; Based on this finding, I contend that researchers interested in comparative analysis of welfare states should not focus solely on the manifest policy differences at the structural level but should also investigate the processes by which individuals access policies and their experiences in terms of the procedural practices with these policies, so that a deeper understanding of barriers to the realization of social citizenship rights can be achieved.
机译:本文是对在荷兰和安大略省遭受重复性劳损的工人的比较分析,以及他们面对要求工人赔偿的过程的经验描述。比较政策制度的理论家倾向于在结构或政策层面研究不同司法管辖区之间的政策。在此级别上,他们评估了社会政策制度中的社会公民权。但是,我认为仅观察结构层次会产生误导。审查那些有权对国家提出要求的人的经历,也揭示了这一点。他们的索赔活动过程有资格实现社会公民身份。比较了两种社会政策制度。每种方法都以非常不同的方式处理工伤政策问题。在两个司法管辖区之间,在结构层次上制定的政策存在很大差异。在荷兰,该系统似乎相对较为宽松。在使用工伤赔偿系统之前,受伤的工人将获得有偿的52周等待期。安大略省情况并非如此。鉴于此,可以合理地预期,在这两个辖区中,在个人或经验层面上,索赔工伤赔偿的过程将有所不同。然而,对这两个政策体系中受伤工人的经验进行更详细的研究后发现,遭受重复性劳损伤害并选择提出索赔的工人在两个司法管辖区都有类似的经历。这是因为两种政策制度都使用医疗看门人来管理受伤工人进入索赔过程的做法。基于这一发现,我认为对福利状态进行比较分析感兴趣的研究人员不应仅关注结构性层次上明显的政策差异,而应从程序实践的角度研究个人获取政策及其经验的过程。这些政策,从而可以更深入地理解实现社会公民权的障碍。

著录项

  • 作者

    van Veldhoven, Friskjen M.;

  • 作者单位

    Carleton University (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 Carleton University (Canada).;
  • 学科 Sociology General.; Sociology Industrial and Labor Relations.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2005
  • 页码 313 p.
  • 总页数 313
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 社会学;社会学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号