Maycraft Kall Wendy
Department of Government, Uppsala University, PO Box 514, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014 Nov-Dec;37(6):609-18. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.035. Epub 2014 Mar 15.
This article analyzed the apparent paradox of disability rights in Sweden. Despite strong welfare state traditions and stated Government ambitions to create generous statutory entitlements for all disabled people using a single, comprehensive Disability Act, psychiatric disabilities were principally excluded from the Disability Act's rights and provisions. The study focused on Sweden's Mental Health Reform and Disability Reform using governance perspectives that traced and analyzed the policy-processes of both reforms. Theoretically guided analytical frameworks were developed to help understand the divergent reform outcomes. The first focused on legislative arguments of regulatory specificity and legal enforcement mechanisms to consider whether the Disability Act was formulated in a manner that was easier to apply to certain disabilities. The second analyzed ideological arguments and the influence of Government political beliefs that signaled specific reform 'visions' to implementers and thereby influenced policy implementation. The main findings are that both perspectives matter as the dual influences of legislative and ideological differences tended to exclude mental health service users from the Act's generous disability rights. The overall conclusion was that while legislation was an important regulatory mechanism, the Government's underlying ideological reform vision was also an essential governance instrument that signaled Government intentions to implementing agencies and thus influenced the creation of enduring disability rights.
本文分析了瑞典残疾人权利中明显的矛盾之处。尽管瑞典有着强大的福利国家传统，且政府宣称有雄心通过一部单一、全面的《残疾人法案》为所有残疾人建立慷慨的法定权利，但精神残疾主要被排除在《残疾人法案》的权利和条款之外。该研究运用治理视角，聚焦于瑞典的心理健康改革和残疾改革，追踪并分析了这两项改革的政策过程。为帮助理解不同的改革结果，构建了理论指导的分析框架。第一个框架聚焦于监管特殊性的立法论据和法律执行机制，以考量《残疾人法案》的制定方式是否更易于适用于某些残疾情况。第二个框架分析了意识形态论据以及政府政治信念的影响，这些信念向实施者传达了特定的改革“愿景”，从而影响了政策实施。主要研究结果是，这两个视角都很重要，因为立法和意识形态差异的双重影响往往使精神卫生服务使用者无法享有该法案慷慨的残疾人权利。总体结论是，虽然立法是一种重要的监管机制，但政府潜在的意识形态改革愿景也是一种关键的治理工具，它向实施机构传达了政府意图，从而影响了持久的残疾人权利的形成。
