This study investigates the mechanisms that courts apply to expose private social service suppliers to constitutional duties. In doing so, we suggest two variants of welfare regimes: the regulatory constitutional welfare state and the regulatory constitutional neoliberal welfare state. We outline how constitutional rights, including social rights, are applied to private entities, and the tests that courts use in doing so. We then analyze the transformation of traditional jurisprudence in Israel since the 1990s, and we discuss developments in British jurisprudence, which embraces a neoliberal approach. We end with an analysis of the differences between British and Israeli jurisprudence to highlight our theoretical framework’s contribution to comparative research.
AndersonStuart. 2012. Public, Private, Neither, Both; Publicness Theory and the Analysis of Healthcare Organizations. Social Science and Medicine74:313–22.
2.
Barak-ErezDaphne. 2017. Three questions of privatization. In Comparative administrative law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
3.
Ben-BassatAvi. 2001. Conflicts, interest groups, and politics in structural reforms. The Journal of Law and Economics54 (4): 937–52.
4.
BenishAvishaiLevi-FaurDavid. 2012. New forms of administrative law in the age of third-party government. Public Administration90 (4): 886–900.
5.
BenishAvishaiMaronAsa. 2016. Infusing public law into privatized welfare: Lawyers, economists, and the competing logics of administrative reform. Law & Society Review50 (4): 953–84.
6.
BenishAvishaiHaberHananEliahouRotem. 2017. The regulatory welfare state in pension markets: Mitigating high charges for low-income savers in the United Kingdom and Israel. Journal of Social Policy46 (2): 313–30.
7.
BenishAvishaiMatteiPaola. Forthcoming. Accountability and hybridity in welfare governance. Public Administration.
8.
BozemanBarry. 1984. Dimensions of publicness, an approach to public organization theory. In New directions, public administration, eds. BozmanB.StraussmanJ.Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole
9.
BozemanBarry. 1987. All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organization theory. San Francisco, CA: Jossy Bass.
10.
BozemanBarryBretschneiderStuart. 1994. The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory4 (2): 197–224.
11.
BraithwaiteJohn. 2008. Regulatory capitalism: How it works, ideas for making it work better. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
12.
DoronAbraham. 1985. The Israeli welfare state at crossroads. Journal of Social Policy14 (4): 513–25.
13.
FrankelRichard. 2009. Regulating privatized government through § 1983. The University of Chicago Law Review76 (4): 1449–1516.
14.
FreemanJody. 2003. Extending public law norms through privatization. Harvard Law Review116 (5): 1285–1352.
15.
JessopBob. 2015. Margaret Thatcher and Thatcherism: Dead but not buried. British Politics10 (1): 16–30.
16.
KingDesmond S.WaldronJeremy. 1988. Citizenship, social citizenship and the defense of welfare provision. British Journal of Political Science18 (4): 415–43.
17.
KosarKevin R.2011. Quasi government: Hybrid organizations with both government and private sector legal characteristics. Collingdale, PA: Diane Publishing.
18.
KusBasak. 2006. Neoliberalism, institutional change and the welfare state: The case of Britain and France. International Journal of Comparative Sociology47 (6): 488–525.
19.
LeslieJ.2009. Approaches to Section 6 HRA: Lessons from Weaver v London and Quadrant Housing Trust. Judicial Review14 (4): 327–32.
20.
Levi-FaurDavid. 2005. The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598 (1): 12–32.
21.
Levi-FaurDavid. 2013. The odyssey of the regulatory state: From a “thin” monomorphic concept to a “thick” and polymorphic concept. Law & Policy35 (1–2): 29–50.
22.
Levi-FaurDavid. 2014. The welfare state: A regulatory perspective. Public Administration92 (3): 599–614.
23.
LitorLilach. 2019a. Constitutionalism and anti-privatisation strikes: Introducing an eclectic model. Israel Law Review52 (3): 327–66.
24.
LitorLilach. 2019b. The rise of an anti -global doctrine and strikes in public services. In Transformative law and public policy, eds. PellisserySonyBabuMathewGovindjeeAvinashNarrainArvind. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
25.
MabbettDeborah. 2010. The regulatory rescue of the welfare state. The Jerusalem papers in regulation and governance. No. 28. Working Paper.
26.
MajoneGiandomenico. 1994. The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics17 (3): 77–101.
27.
MajoneGiandomenico. 1999. The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems. West European Politics22 (1): 1–24.
28.
MamanDanielRosenhekZeev. 2012. The institutional dynamics of a developmental state: Change and continuity in state–economy relations in Israel. Studies in Comparative International Development47 (3): 342–63.
29.
MetzgerGillian E.2009. Private delegations, due process, and the duty to supervise. In Government by contract: Outsourcing and American democracy, eds. FreemanJodyMinowMartha, 291–309. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
MilesThomas J.SunsteinCass R.2006. Do judges make regulatory policy? An empirical investigation of Chevron. The University of Chicago Law Review73:823–81.
31.
MizrahiShlomoCohenNissim. 2012. Privatization through centralization in the Israeli health care system: The case of the national health insurance law and its amendments. Administration & Society44 (4): 412–37.
32.
MorrisGillian S.2000. Employment in public services: the case for special treatment. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies20 (2): 167–83.
33.
MundlakGuy. 2007. Fading corporatism: Israel’s labor law and industrial relations in transition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
34.
PalmerStephanie. 2008. Public functions and private services: a gap in human rights protection. International Journal of Constitutional Law6 (3–4): 585–604.
35.
Scott-SamuelAlexBambraClareCollinsChikHunterDavid J.McCartneyGerrySmithKat. 2014. The impact of Thatcherism on health and well-being in Britain. International Journal of Health Services44 (1): 53–71.
36.
StewartFenner L.2014. The corporation, new governance, and the power of the publicization narrative. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies21 (2): 513–51.
37.
United Nations. 1967. International Covenant on Social, Cultural and Economic Rights. New York, NY: UN General Assembly.
38.
Aston Cantlow v. Wallbank UKHL 37 (2003)
39.
James v. London Electricity (2004) EWHE 3226 (QB) (2004)
40.
R on the application of A v. Partnerships in care ltd. High court (Administrative court) 2002.EWCH 329. 2002. 1 W.L.R. 2610. 4 WLUK 121. 5 CCL Rep 330.
41.
R. v. Servite homes exp. Goldsmith (2001) LGRS
42.
Donoghue v. Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association (2004) 4 All ER 183
43.
R on the application of Heather and others v. Leonard Cheshire (2002) 2 All E.R. 936 (C.A).P. 946
44.
James v. London Electricity (2004) EWHE 3226 (QB) (2004)
45.
Y.l. v. Birmingham city council (2007) 27
46.
The application of Weaver v. London and Qua drant housing trust Court of appeal 2009. 18 June 2009.
47.
Southward Housing Cooperative Ltd. V. Walker EWHC1645 (CH) (2015)
48.
Walting v. Chief constable of Suffolk. (2019) EWHC 2342 (QB) 2019
49.
Israeli cases:
50.
Supreme Court appeal Bank Hamizrahi v. Migdal vol 49(4) 221 (1993).
51.
HCJ 366/03 Commitment of peace and social justice association v. Minister of finance (2005)
52.
Supreme Court case 10662/04 Hasan v. The National Insurance institution (2012)
53.
Supreme Court case 1105/06 Kav Laoved v. The welfare minister (2014)
54.
High court decision 731/86 Kastenbaum v. The Kadisha association (1992).
55.
High court decision 731/86 Mikrodaf v. Electricity corporation (1987).
56.
HCJ 5587/02 Manor v. Treasury Minister (2004)
57.
Regional labor court case 9914/05 Lev v. Clalit Medical services (2008)
58.
Labor case (Tel Aviv)7053/00 Yosef v. Kupat Holim (2001)
59.
Civil case 850/03 Duby v. Kupat Holim (2003); HBR 2018-15-14 Nahum v. Kupat Holim (2016)
60.
Regional labor court case (Tel Aviv) 1770/01 Shiber v. The General Kupat Holim Klalit (Takdin legal database)2001
