Complexity in the law and administration of social security: is it really a problem?

References

• Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC). (2011). Securing fairness and redress: Administrative justice at risk? London: AJTC.
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, C., & Fothergill, S. (2013). Hitting the poorest places hardest: The local and regional impact of welfare reform. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, F., Brewer, M., & Shaw, J. (2009). Understanding the compliance costs of benefits and tax credits. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Black, J. (1997). Rules and regulators. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, M., Browne, J., & Wenchao, J. (2012). Benefit integration in the UK: An Ex Ante analysis of university credit. In T. Callan (Ed.), Budget perspectives 2013 (pp. 25–47). Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institut.
   Google Scholar
• Bunt, K., Adams, L., & Leo, C. (2006). Understanding the relationship between the barriers and triggers to claiming pension credit Research Report 336. Leeds: Corporate Document Services.
   Google Scholar
• Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care in England. (2014). A new settlement for health and social care. Final report. London: The King's Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Cousins, M. (2009). The European convention on human rights, non-discrimination and social security: Great scope, little depth? Journal of Social Security Law, 16, 120–138.
   Google Scholar
• Cousins, M. (2014). Civis Europeus sum? Social assistance and the right to reside in EU law. Journal of Social Security Law, 21, 83–96.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, P. (1997). Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law. Public Law, 467–487.
   Google Scholar
• Crettez, B., Deffains, B., & Deloche, R. (2009). On the optimal complexity of law and legal rules harmonization. European Journal of Law and Economics, 27, 129–142. doi:10.1007/s10657-008-9088-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean, H. (2002). Welfare rights and social policy. Harlow: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2007). Simplification guide to best practice Benefit Simplification Unit (Revised Edition). London: DWP.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2010a). Disability Living Allowance Reform (Cm 7984). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2010b). Universal Credit: Welfare that Works (Cm 7957). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2011). A state pension for the 21st century (Cm 8053). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2013a). Government response to the fifth report of the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, session 2012–13, into part 1 of the draft Pensions Bill (Cm 8620). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2013b). The Single-tier Pension: A simple foundation for saving (Cm 8528). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2013c). Universal Credit. Local support services framework. London: DWP.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2014). Fraud and error in the benefits system 2013/14 estimates (biannual). London: DWP.
   Google Scholar
• Devetzi, S., & Stendahl, S. (Eds.). (2011). Too sick to work? Social security reforms in Europe for persons with reduced earnings capacity. Alphen aan den Rijn: Klewer Law International.
   Google Scholar
• Disability Benefits Consortium. (2012). Personal Independence Payment Assessment and Thresholds: Consultation Response. Retrieved December 17, 2014, from https://disabilitybenefitsconsortium.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/dbc-response-to-pip-assessment-consultation.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Diver, C. S. (1983). The optimal precision of administrative rules. The Yale Law Journal, 93, 65–109. doi:10.2307/796245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, R. A. (1995). Simple rules for a complex world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, R. A. (2004). The optimal complexity of legal rules. John M Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No.210. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Geyer, R. (2003a). Beyond the third way: The science of complexity and the politics of choice. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5, 237–257. doi:10.1111/1467-856X.00105.
   Google Scholar
• Geyer, R. (2003b). Europeanisation, complexity, and the British welfare state. Retrieved December 17, 2014, from http://aei.pitt.edu/1719/.
   Google Scholar
• Geyer, R., & Rihani, S. (2010). Complexity and public policy: A new approach to 21st century politics, policy and society. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (1986). Welfare, rights and discretion. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 6, 232–261. doi:10.1093/ojls/6.2.232.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, N. (2000). The welfare state, social security and social citizenship rights. In N. Harris (Ed.), Social security law in context (pp. 1–38). Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, N. (2010). Conditional rights, benefit reform, and drug users: Reducing dependency? Journal of Law and Society, 37, 233–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2010.00503.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, N. (2013). Law in a complex state: Complexity in the law and structure of welfare. Oxford: Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, N. (2014). Welfare reform and the shifting threshold of support for disabled people. The Modern Law Review, 77, 888–927. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12096.
   Google Scholar
• Holz, B. (2006). Chaos worth having: Irreducible complexity and pragmatic jurisprudence. Minessota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 8, 303–343.
   Google Scholar
• Home Office UK Border Agency. (2009). Simplifying immigration law: The draft bill (Cm 7730). London: Cabinet Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. (2006). Thirty-sixth report of session 2005–06 Tackling the complexity of the benefits system (HC 765). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. (2013a). Department for Work and Pensions: Contract management of medical services (HC 744). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. (2013b). Thirtieth report of session 2013–14 (HC 619) Universal Credit: Early progress. London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. (2014). Personal Independence Payment (HC 280) First Report of Session 2014–15. London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee. (2007). Seventh Report Session 2006–07. Benefits Simplification Vol.1 (HC 463-I). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee. (2012). Government support towards the additional living costs of working-age disabled people (HC 1493). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee. (2014). Fraud and error in the benefits system Sixth Report of Session 2013–14 (HC 1082). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• James, S., & Edwards, A. (2008). Developing tax policy in a complex and changing world. Economic Analysis and Policy, 38, 35–53. doi:10.1016/S0313-5926(08)50005-1.
   Google Scholar
• Jewell, C. J. (2007). Assessing need in the United States, Germany, and Sweden: The organization of welfare casework and the potential for responsiveness in the "three worlds". Law & Policy, 29, 380–406. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2007.00260.x.
   Google Scholar
• Kades, E. (1997). The laws of complexity and the complexity of laws: The implications of computational theory for the law. Rutgers Law Review, 49, 403–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplow, L. (1995). A model of the optimal complexity of legal rules. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 11, 150–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karpen, U. (2008). Improving democratic development by better regulation. In C. Stefanou & H. Xanthaki (Eds.), Drafting legislation (pp. 151–163). Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Keohane, N., & Shorthouse, R. (2012). Sink or swim? The impact of universal credit. London: Social Market Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Larkin, P. (2011). Incapacity, the labour market and social security: Coercion into “positive” citizenship. The Modern Law Review, 74, 385–409. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00852.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larkin, P. (2015). Engaging with the human rights angle: R (Reilly and Hewstone) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Journal of Social Security Law, 22 (forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Lawton, K., & Stanley, K. (2009). Welfare spending – time to reassess universal benefits. In T. Dolphin & C. Oppenheim (Eds.), Opportunities in an age of austerity: Smart ways of dealing with the UK's fiscal deficit (pp. 22–25). London: IPPR.
   Google Scholar
• Lister, R. (2011). The age of responsibility: Social policy and social citizenship in the early 21st century. In C. Holden, M. Kilkey, & G. Ramia (Eds.), Social policy review 23 (pp. 63–84). Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, T. H. (1992). Citizenship and social class. In T. H. Marshall & T. Bottomore (Eds.), Citizenship and social class (pp. 3–51). London: Pluto.
   Google Scholar
• McKeever, G. (2013). A ladder of legal participation for tribunal users. Public Law, 575–598.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, M. K., Riccucci, N. M., & Lurie, I. (2001). Achieving goal congruence in complex environments: The case of welfare reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 165–202. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Migration Advisory Committee. (2014). Migrants in low skilled work: The growth of EU and non-EU labour in low-skilled jobs and its impact on the UK. London: Migration Advisory Committee.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. (2005). Department for Work and Pensions: Dealing with the complexity of the benefits system (HC 592). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. (2011). Means testing: Report by the comptroller and auditor general (HC 1464). London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. (2014a). Department for Work & Pensions. Personal Independence Payment: Early progress (HC 1070). London: NAO.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. (2014b). The performance of the Department for Work and Pensions in 2013–14. London: NAO.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. (2014c). Universal Credit: Early progress (HC 621). London: NAO.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. (2014d). Universal Credit: Progress update (HC 786). London: NAO.
   Google Scholar
• Neuberger, L. (2012). General, equal and certain: Law reform today and tomorrow. Statute Law Review, 33, 323–338. doi:10.1093/slr/hms032.
   Google Scholar
• Partington, M. (1987). The juridification of social welfare in Britain. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Juridification of social spheres (pp. 419–438). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Radford, M. (2007). Action research and the challenge of complexity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37, 263–278.
   Google Scholar
• Raz, J. (1979). The authority of law: Essays on law and morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, M. L., Murphy, J., Muir, J., & Murray, J. A. (2011). Public management and complexity theory: Richer decision-making in public services. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Royston, S. (2007). Benefits simplification and the customer. London: DWP.
   Google Scholar
• Ruhl, J. B. (1996). The fitness of law: Using complexity theory to describe the evolution of law and society and its practical meaning for democracy. Vanderbilt Law Review, 49, 1407–1490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruhl, J. B. (2008). Law's complexity: A primer. Georgia State University Law Rev., 24, 885–911.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, D. (2010). The tax law rewrite in the United Kingdom: Plus ça change plus c'est law même chose? British Tax Review, 671–687.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, D. (2011). The Ipsos Mori review of rewritten income tax legislation: Contrasting and converging viewpoints. British Tax Review, 622–625.
   Google Scholar
• Schuck, P. (1992). Legal complexity: Some causes, consequences, and cures. Duke Law Journal, 42(1), 1–52. doi:10.2307/1372753.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Government. (2014). Financial impacts of welfare reforms on disabled people in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
   Google Scholar
• Spicker, P. (2005). Five types of complexity. Benefits, 13, 5–9.
   Google Scholar
• Spicker, P. (2011). How social security works: An introduction to benefits in Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stendahl, S., Erhag, T., & Devetzi, S. (Eds.). (2008). A European work-first welfare state. Gothenburg: Centre for European Research.
   Google Scholar
• Tarr, A., & Finn, D. (2012). Implementing Universal Credit: Will the reforms improve the service for users? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E-H. (2008). Complexity theory and public management. Public Management Review, 10, 287–297. doi:10.1080/14719030802002451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, A., Hunt, J., & Coulter, A. (2012). A simpler state pension: A qualitative study to explore one option for state pension reform Department for Work and Pensions, Research Report No 787. London: DWP.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, R. (2013). Agency rule-making, rule-type, and immigration administration. Public Law, 135–153.
   Google Scholar
• Towfigh, E. (2008). Complexity and normative clarity, or: Legal statutes are made for lawyers MPI Working Paper. Bonn: Max Planck Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Turnbull-Hall, C., & Thomas, R. (2012). Length of tax legislation as a measure of complexity. London: Office of Tax Simplification.
   Google Scholar
• Twining, W., & Miers, D. (1999). How to do things with rules. London: Butterworths.
   Google Scholar
• Van Aerschot, P. (2011). Activation policies and the protection of individual rights. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar