‘Policies that Fail – Words that Succeed’: The Politics of Accessible Housing in Australia

This paper seeks to contribute to the debate over the efficacy of voluntary agreements versus regulation, and uses a study of the Livable Housing Design initiative to deliver voluntarily new‐built accessible housing in Australia. We first probe why regulation has become such a significant component of government policy making, and then ask why political campaigns focus on this issue as a strategy for reform. We refer to research by disability activists, which claims that the voluntary approach has failed and regulation is necessary. Amongst our conclusions are: (1) that the disjuncture between policy rhetoric and outcome can be attributed to the power of lobbyists, reliance on the private market to address inequality, and antipathy to regulatory enforcement; and (2) that there is a need for greater interrogation of the language deployed in policy texts to identify whether they are crafted to maintain the government's legitimacy or to deliver purposeful change.     

Legal grounds to process personal data under Spanish legislation after the ECJ Judgment of 24 November 2011 (the ASNEF and FECEMD case)

Spanish law on personal data protection regulates (among other issues) the legal bases that permit the processing of data in a way that is similar to that set out in Directive 95/46/EC. Consent constitutes the general rule although data may be processed without it if necessary for administration functions, within the framework of a contractual relationship, in order to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or if they are included in sources accessible to the public. However, unlike the Directive, legitimate interest is not recognised as an independent reason for processing data, whereas a legal ground that is not set out in community law is included, i.e., sources accessible to the public. This paper analyses these two cases, taking as its starting point consent, along with the consequences that the ECJ Judgment of 24 November 2011 regarding the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC may have and giving attention to the revision of this Directive itself.     

Does accessible technology need an ‘entrepreneurial state’? The creation of an EU market of universally designed and assistive technology through state aid

EU State aid law has sought to enable people with disabilities to obtain employment, yet has not been explicitly included in the toolbox of policy options to improve the availability and choice of accessible technology within the EU Internal market. This seems to be the consequence of an inherent bias against State intervention in the market, which is mostly unwelcome since it can limit open and free competition. This also reiterates the ‘less-aid’ policy and the purely economic approach to State aid professed by the European Commission. Against this background, this article discusses the potential for EU State aid policy to foster both ‘design for all’ and innovative assistive devices for people with disabilities. It seeks to argue that the goal of an EU-wide market of accessible technology can be achieved using EU State aid law. In particular, this article aims to highlight that a more targeted use of EU State aid law can lead developers to increase the production of accessible goods, to adjust or reduce prices and to provide consumers with a greater degree of choice in a greater number of marketplaces. Whilst it adopts a legal approach, this analysis relies inter alia on economic evidence and recalls the pamphlet recently published by Mazzuccato, from which the title of this work has drawn inspiration.