DREAM ITN
Final Deliverable
Betul Yalcin
Faculty for Education, Social Sciences and Law, University of Leeds
Supervisor: Professor Mark Priestley
DREAM work package: Toward Economic Independence: Toward effective
employment policies for persons with disabilities
April, 2015
1 1.
Introduction to My Topic & Research Question/s.
The DREAM project proposal cites its main objective as to investigate ‘how rights
contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(UNCRPD) can be translated into practical applications’. Under the proposal, the ESR-5
work package has been linked with the Article 27 and consequently the objective was set
as ‘ to gain a deep understanding of how non-discrimination ideal interacts with positive
action measures to enhance the employability of disabled people’. The anticipated result
of the work package involves providing insight to:
•
What impact do EU policies have and how does the situation compare in the
different EU states?
•
What kind of policies, measures and incentives are appropriate and effective?
•
How do private sector employers adopt, adapt, negotiate or resist to state
interventions that promotes or require rights?
•
What roles do private companies, state agencies, and disabled people play in
innovating and producing knowledge about what works?
On the grounds of the above mentioned issues, the project titled as ‘A Comparative
Analysis of the Active Labour Market Policies for Disabled People in the EU Context’
was designed during the first year of the contract. Present research sets its aim as: to
identify how states can better promote the employment of disabled people in the open
labour market, private sector in particular. To this end a layered framework was designed
to analyse the current situation of active labour market policies from a broader
perspective. The following research questions guide the present research:
Macro Level Analysis
1. What are the similarities and differences in disability related employment policies in
the European Union Member States (EUMS)?
2. To what extent do EUMSs comply with the EU Acquis considering employment of
disabled people?
3. What are the determinants of successful implementation of disability related
employment policies of the EU?
Meso Level Analysis
2 4. What is the relationship between having a disability or chronic illness and
employment outcomes?
5. What kinds of country level and individual level factors lead to differentiation in
employment outcomes?
6. What kind of active labour market policies reveal better employment outcomes?
Micro Level Analysis
7. How do stakeholders perceive the employment of disabled people and related
policies?
8. What kinds of country and individual level factors lead differentiation in their
perceptions?
9. How the employment of disabled people is experienced and interpreted in the actual
employment contexts?
Considering the underprivileged situation of disabled people in most parts of the world,
international organizations have amplified their involvement in disability issues.
Organizations like, World Bank (WB), International Labour Organization (ILO), the
United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the European Union
(EU) propose frameworks of actions, legislations, and strategies to empower disabled
people (Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Priestley, 2005; 2007; Burke, 2002). As one of the
most prominent of all, the United Nations included disability related actions in its agenda
in the mid-70s. UNCRPD, by its legally binding nature, is the latest of such actions (UN,
2007). The Article 27 of the Convention particularly addresses the economic integration
of disabled persons by highlighting the importance of creating employment opportunities
in the open labour market.
Following the global trends, disability related issues have also been reflected in the EU
Aquis and policies. The most recent legislation in the EU context is the European
Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (CEC, 2010a). It is stipulated to harmonize the UNCRPD
provisions. Along with the Convention, the Strategy aims to promote and protect the
human rights of disabled people in the EU context. In line with the Article 27 of
UNCRPD, Article 4 of the Strategy discloses similar objectives. The proposed key
actions aiming to improve the employment of disabled people are cited as: creating
3 accessible work places, developing well-structured transition programs and new
strategies to increase awareness among employers, and also finding new ways of dealing
with job retention and dismissal. In both documents the importance of accessibility is
highlighted (CEC, 2010a). In addition to prohibiting discrimination, both documents
reiterate the importance of creating opportunities in the open labour market and recall the
importance of promoting employment in the private sector through appropriate policies
and measures, which may include affirmative action programmes, incentives and other
measures.
Since the inception of disability issues in the global policy arena, such macro level
policies have started to be reflected in a number national level policy mechanisms, with
an aim that they eventually be harmonized at national level and influence the experiences
of disabled people positively. Yet, it appears that introduced actions have not produced
the intended policy outcomes (Priestley, 2005; 2007). Providing the first global picture,
WHO’s World Report on Disability states that regardless of the development level of the
country, a majority of one billion disabled people in the world is being excluded from
social and economic structures (WHO, 2010), particularly those with mental health
problems and intellectual impairments (WHO, 2010; OECD, 2010). The situation of
disabled people in the EU member states reflects similar tendencies to a certain degree
(CEC, 2010b). As compared to non-disabled people, a majority of 80 million disabled EU
citizens are prone to a disadvantageous life trajectory and have a higher risk of living
under poverty (APPLICA, et al., 2007; Shima and Rodriguez, 2009; OECD, 2010;
Shima, et al, 2008; Greve, 2009). The disabled EU citizens are estimated to constitute
16% of the total labour workforce of the EU, and yet more than half of the working agedisabled population is reported to be economically inactive (CEC, 2010b; APPLICA, et
al., 2007; Shima, et al, 2008). Thus, it is not surprising that the disability related policy
documents have reiterated the importance of employment.
The limited integration of the EU level disability-related employment policies were
declared in a number of policy research reports prepared for the European Commission
(EC), Social Affairs and Employment (EIM, 2001; EIM 2002). Similar findings
reoccurred in a synthesis report on the employment situation of disabled people in the
EUMSs (Greve, 2009). Although comparative studies revealed that EUMSs have
4 displayed similarities in overall disability policy goals, there are still substantial
differences in the practical policy implementation, especially in certain areas where
longstanding procedures exist (Hvinden, 2003; van Oorschot and Hvinden, 2001; Marin,
2003). However, the information in comparative terms is limited due to the very few
numbers of studies regarding disability policies. Being one of those, Waldschmidt’s study
(2009) marked the importance of evaluation of the impact of European disability policy
and suggests that it could better be understood via comparative social policy research
techniques. Although this study presents valuable information on the transformation of
the EU disability policy, Waldshmidt has looked neither at the top down influence, nor
the level of policy convergence in the member states. While evaluating the global and the
EU impact, inclusion of both issues into the study is, therefore, advised by Waldschmidt
herself (2009) and Priestley (2007).
2.
My Research Journey.
- The kind of research that was planned/pursued/amended/altered.
Following the suggestions for further studies and bearing recalling the gaps in the
literature,
the present research was designed to analyse the current situation of active
labour market policies (ALMPs) in the EUMSs from a broader perspective. To this end, a
layered framework was adopted. Each layer administers a different type of method and
relates to one another in a progressive manner to render a more comprehensive
understanding of the current situation of employment of disabled people in the EU
context.
The macro level analysis aims to explore harmonisation of disability related employment
policies of the EU. It employs a mixed method where configurational qualitative analysis
is carried out for systematic content analysis. TOSMANA Version 1.2.3.0 (Tool for
Small Analysis) was utilised for this analysis. Academic Network on European Disability
Experts (ANED) online mapping tool acted as the initial resource. National action plans,
legally binding documents, policy documents which propose/form a frame for
employment related disability policies were scrutinized for the purpose of this analysis.
HLG on Disability reports, UNCRPD country reports and shadow reports, where
5 available, were also examined. As a consequence of the review process a list of
observations was generated. These observations were, later, grouped under four
overarching policy pillars. A situational truth table, where (1) is used to depict the
existence of the mechanism and (0) the other way around, was devised. As a succeeding
step, scores under each pillar were summed in a way to create MvQCA (Multivalue
Qualitative Comparative Analysis) configurational table, where countries were recoded
as weak, modest, and strong policy implementation based on their scores. Once the main
MvQCA table was constructed, configurations were compared against the preset outcome
where zero (0) represents being below the EU average employment rate for disabled
people and one (1) as otherwise.
The meso level analysis explores the factors behind better employment outcomes and
utilises quantitative method. All statistical analyses were conducted via IBM SPSS
Version 21 over a small set of questions from Eurobarometer Opinion Survey Series,
2012 (Eurobarometer Wave 393) (European Commission, 2013)1. This survey series are
periodically conducted on behalf of the European Commission to explore the perceptions
of Europeans towards discrimination on different grounds2. Data is collected through
face-to-face interviews with people who are age 15 and over. For Eurobarometer Wave
393, 26662 respondents have been interviewed in June 2012. Meso level analysis was
carried out in three steps. Initially, the relationship between having a disability or chronic
illness and the employment outcomes was explored through chi squared test. This
relationship was, later, investigated from the perspective of individual level (gender,
schooling period and age group) and country level factors (quota system and disability
policy typology) through binary logistic regression over a sub dataset that is constituted
by respondents who report having a disability or chronic illness. At the final step another
binary logistic regression was carried out to quantify the effect of ALMPs over the
employment outcomes. When calculating the likelihoods of being in paid work, the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) disability policy
All Eurobarometer questionnaires are reproduced with the license granted by its author, the European Commission, Directorate-­‐General for Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual Media, 200 rue da le Loi, B-­‐1049 Brussels, and by permission of its publishers, the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2 rue Mercier, L-­‐2985 Luxembourg 2 Gender, ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity 1
6 typology integration dimension sub scores (OECD, 2010) were used3 that results in the
utilization of the analyses over EU194 dataset. The dataset was further downsized to
control the inclusion of working age population. The validity of the measurements and
generalizability of the findings was given special attention, thus, all the results gathered
through the analyses are assumed to be valid and generalisable to the EU population. Yet,
relatively small sample size of Eurobarometer Wave 393 necessitates triangulation of the
findings with LSF Disability Ad-Hoc Module, 2011. To this end, University of Leeds has
recently initiated the procedure to obtain the aforementioned micro dataset.
Micro-level analysis aims to illustrate the individual level perception, interpretation and
experiences in the face of employment of disabled people and related policies. It was
carried out in three steps where quantitative and qualitative methods were utilised
separately. Whilst quantitative calculations were made via IBM SPSS Version 21,
qualitative analysis was done through NVIVO Version 10. The first step employs
quantitative analysis to answer the questions of how do stakeholders perceive the
employment of disabled people. The responses given to a number of the employment and
disability related statements in the Eurobarometer Wave 393 dataset were used for the
analysis. For the stakeholder positioning an individual level dummy variable, which
categorises respondents as disabled people, employers and the public, was created. For
the purpose of this analysis, chi squared test was used. The following step tries to
understand what kind of individual and country level factors have an influence on the
individual level perception of discrimination towards disabled people in the labour
market. The effects of country level (quota system and disability policy typology) and
individual level (gender, age, schooling period, stakeholder positioning, familiarity with
disability, political orientation, and socioeconomic status) factors were investigated via
binary logistic regression. In the third step, the actual employment context was
investigated to explore how is the employment of disabled people and related policies
experienced and interpreted in the open labour market, particularly in the private sector.
OECD disability policy typology [‘i) coverage consistency, ii) assessment structure, iii) anti-­‐discrimination legislation; iv) supported employment programme; v) subsidised employment programme; vi) sheltered employment programme; vii) vocational rehabilitation programme; viii) timing of rehabilitation; ix) benefit suspension regulations; and x) additional work incentives (OECD, 2010 p: 85] 4 The UK, France, Belgium,Italy,Luxemburg, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria,Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovak 3
Republic, Netherland, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden 7 The investigation was carried out in the UK, Ireland and Sweden, representing liberal,
conservative and social democrat disability policy typologies, respectively. Workplaces,
which employ disabled people in involved countries, were visited to conduct semistructured interviews. In order to recruit interviewees, gatekeeper and Internet
advertisement (Bristol Online Survey web page, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, emailing)
approaches were employed. Consent and permission for the recording were secured prior
to each interview. The fieldwork was carried out between September 2012 and October
2013. Regarded as a process for encoding qualitative information, thematic analysis is
used to identify, analyse, and report the patterns (themes) that were embedded in the
interview texts. Codes, which were referring to a particular theme, were clustered
together and later placed under the thematic hierarchy. In total, 56 interviews have been
held with employers, disabled employees, and associated organisation representatives.
Samplings were selected to generate geographic, firm size and business-sector diversity
and disability types. However, it is not intended to be statistically representative of the
wider EU and national population and the findings of the thematic analysis in this section
do not claim to be generalisable.
- The Methodology Used and adapted.
For the present research, a layered framework for situational analysis was generated
following the suggestions of Clarke (2005), Waldschmidt (2009), Priestley (2007), and
Henninger (2006) for further studies. Methodologically, present research can be defined
as a cross-national, multi-method, comparative social policy research where the strengths
of mixed, qualitative and quantitative methods were combined. Each layer employs
different method and relates to the others in a progressive manner to render a more
comprehensive understanding about the current situation of ALMPs for disabled people.
Whilst, macro level focuses on harmonization of employment related EU disability
policies, meso level analysis explore the factors behind better employment outcomes.
Unlike the former layers, micro level analysis investigates the individual level
interpretation and actions in the face of such policies to illustrate stakeholders’
perspectives.
8 Macro level analysis was carried out over EU27 countries. Since OECD disability policy
typology5 served as a ground for the country selection, the meso level analysis was
conducted in Eurobarometer 2012 EU196 data sets. This also applies to the initial steps of
micro level analysis, where perceptions of the EU citizens were investigated. Given the
geographical scope of the research, individual level experience and interpretation of
ALMPs has only been investigated in Sweden, Ireland, and the UK.
- The turns that were taken in the research journey that were not anticipated?
The original object and the focus of the present research mostly remains the same,
however there have been some changes in the methodology. The first change has
experienced when collecting data for micro level analysis. Although the initial plan was
to include employer and employee from the same workplace to control the social context
of the interviews, in some instances, the candidate has opted not to share the research
advertisement with the other party. In such cases, candidates were interviewed without
conducting a separate interview with the other party. The second change was made when
establishing correspondence with the associated organizations whose main focus is on
prompting the employment of disabled people. Their willingness to support and
participate in the study provided a mutually beneficial ground for both parties. After
consulting with supervisors, interviews with the representatives of the mentioned
organizations were included as another group of stakeholder. In some instances, an
additional representative from the same organization was interviewed as an employer
since they themselves provide employment opportunities for disabled people. Another
amendment to be mentioned under this heading revolves around the semi structured
interview forms. After piloting the interview forms, wordings of some questions have
been altered. Whilst some other questions were entirely omitted, two new questions from
5 Liberal-­‐ the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Korea, United States; Conservative-­‐France, Belgium, Italy, Luxemburg, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovak Republic; Social Democrat-­‐Netherland, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland 6 Liberal-­‐ the UK; Conservative-­‐France, Belgium, Italy, Luxemburg, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovak Republic; Socail Democrat-­‐Netherland, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden 9 Eurobarometer Opinion Survey Series, 2012 (European Commission, 2013) were
introduced into the frame.
In the research proposal Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, the UK, France, and Italy were cited
as the comparison countries based on the Ferragina (et al., 2012) study of consistency of
welfare typology classifications. Despite the continuous efforts to recruit interviewee,
few candidates approached to the research advertisement from Italy, Denmark, and
France. Consequently, the ground of typology classification was moved to OECD
disability policy typology classification and Ireland, Sweden and the UK acted as
representative of conservative, social democratic and liberal disability policy typology,
respectively. Shifting the main ground to the OECD disability policy typology was also
mirrored in the meso level analysis. The geographical scope of macro level analysis
remains the same, yet the applied methodology was slightly improved. Instead of QCA
method, its upgraded version MvQCA was employed and analysis was carried out
through a recently developed TOSMANA (Tool for Small N Analysis) Version 1.2.3.0.
- The knowledge and other gaps that needed to be addressed?
Considering the gaps in the literature, there is a scarce amount of comparative research in
the disability field. Alongside the scarcity, there is also a literature gap in the on the
impact of EU policies. Moreover, there is a limited amount of literature on what kind of
ALMPs are appropriate or effective. Additionally, there is also a gap in the comparative
social policy literature on the actual social context of the active labour market policies.
How employers in the open labour market, particularly the private sector, implement and
interpret state interventions have been barely investigated in comparative terms. More
importantly, there is no research, which simultaneously takes the other major
stakeholders’ perspectives into account. In her theoretical reflections on the welfare state,
Annette Henninger (2006) marks the importance of individual level actions. She argues
that it is essential for the policy makers ‘to analyse individual interpretations and actions
in the face of political regulations’ at the time of uncertainties (Henninger, 2006, pp. 11).
The present research was, therefore, designed in a way to fulfil the aforementioned gaps
in the literature. At the current state of the project, the aim is fulfilled to a great extent.
10 When the recent LSF Disability Ad-Hoc Module is obtained, disability type and level
will be inserted into the analysis, which is believed to fulfil another gap in the literature.
Due to the knowledge that I have managed to gather during my previous professional and
educational life, I was accustomed to the disability area. Thus, these gaps were not a
surprise at all. Nevertheless, limitations of the applied statistical analysis techniques in
the literature surprised me to a great extent. Although comparative datasets provide an
abundance of possibilities for quantitative analysis, basic descriptive analysis was used in
the majority of the reviewed literature.
- How the research journey changed my own own perspectives.
Prior to the involvement in the DREAM Project, I have worked at the policy making side
7
where my responsibilities mostly revolve around the harmonization of the EU disability
related Acquis and the formation of disability related policies in Turkey. During my
professional tenure in Turkey, my activities have largely been governed by medical
understanding of disability because of having an educational background in health
sciences. Furthermore, I have held the view that securing rights via legislations and
formulating the formal implementation and describing the roles of the line ministries are
sufficient for the practical policy implementation.
Parallel to previous belief, I still hold the view that the enjoyment of citizenship rights of
disabled people should be protected with legislations. However, the research process
itself results in transformation at the remaining aspects. First of all, I become more
conscious about the adverse role that societies have on the experiences of disabled
people. Secondly, I come to realise that policy decision making process should be based
on wider grounds, where human, nonhuman, organizational, institutional, global, and
local and grassroots elements are taken into account. Furthermore, the research itself
made me understand that any governance style that harms the responsibility and right
equilibrium in the favour of the state, inherently possess the potential to produce a
reaction at the individual level, even if the individual has benefited from it. Finally, my
7 Senior Social Policy and Family Affairs Expert, Directorate General for Disabled and Elderly People, Turkey (previously known as Prime Ministry Administration for Disabled People) 11 awareness of the significant role of the knowledge providers in evidence based policy
making has further amplified throughout the DREAM Project.
- My sense of the primary obstacles to change.
Europeanization term emerged from the attempts for policy transfer released by the EU.
Thus any policy, proposed by the EU, necessitates changes at the national level to some
extent. As stated before, studies revealed limited transfer of EU policies. The factors that
hinder the transfer of EU policies are thought to be associated with EU competences,
definition of disability, path dependency, the states’ own public policies, the repetitive
economic crises, inaccessibility of the built environment and educational systems,
societal and employer attitudes, lower qualification level of disabled people.
As a result of adopting a layered approach a wide range of factors that are listed above
were addressed under the scope of the present research. However, proposed as one of the
major obstacles to change, path dependency, that is the resistance to change in policies
due to long-standing policy procedures and related cost of policy reform (van Oorschot
and Hvinden, 2001; Hvinden, 2003; Marin, 2003) could not be addressed under the
present research due to the geographical scope of the present research.
3.
My Formation as a Policy Entrepreneur.
- What I have they learned about the processes of change?
To me process of change is initiated by the globalization, and yet governed by the
economic factors. As national economies have become more open to international trade,
they have become more exposed to economic fluctuations in other countries that results
transformation in social protection policies. To ensure sustainable economic growth in
the presence of the challenges that is created by global crises and an ageing society,
governments have diverted their focus on ALMPs and place special attention on inclusion
of the previously inactive population into work. However, these efforts have not yielded
the intended outcome in most parts of the world, particularly for disabled people.
Being a legitimate signatory to UNCRPD, the EU proposes a policy change at the
national level via the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (CEC, 2010a). Due to its
12 legally binding nature, the policy change proposed by the UNCRPD is not an option but a
fact that EUMSs must adopt. However, taking the context, in which the policy is
implemented, into account is the a crucial element of the successful policy transfer.
Another crucial factor is taking a life course approach. Due to the multifaceted and
longstanding nature of disability, any envisaged policy change at one policy domain
should be followed parallel changes at the other related policy domains which, most of
the time, require a great amount of financial and human resources.
Policy change in disability issues also entails a positive change in the policy discourses,
moving away from medical approaches and increased visibility of disabled people in
citizenship and equality definitions would provide a medium where the disability issue
could be handled more constructively.
To sum up, policy change proposed by UNCRPD is a fact that EUMSs adopt due to its
legally binding nature, and yet, having a context specific road map, ensuring sufficient
expert support and allocating financial and human resources, as well as taking a
constructive policy discourse would positively contribute to the policy change process.
- The role I see for knowledge providers such as researchers in the process of
change.
At the individual level, learning is seen as a prerequisite to change. In relation to policy,
learning is defined as the change in any aspect of the uncertainty of an outcome occurring
as a result of theory development, modelling, observation, or experiment. Whilst,
progressive learning is defined as the convergence towards the true policy outcome,
negative learning described as any divergence from it. Although there has been a
substantial amount of research on progressive learning, little attention has been given to
negative learning, i.e. erroneous decision making, which is generally accompanied by a
substantial amount of welfare loss to society (Oppenheimer, 2008). According to
Oppenheimer and his friends, (2008) overconfidence about the explanations at hand, as
well as the limited reference to the counterfactual knowledge are the reasons behind it.
The risk is thought to be further amplified when there is weak information or a number of
alternative explanations for an outcome. Worse, negative learning tends to persist and
13 continue to feed the policies that result in the loss of a large amount of financial resources
(Oppenheimer et al., 2008). To prevent welfare loss to society, the knowledge providers
are advised to be conscious and transparent about the assessment procedures and think
critically about the alternative paths and their outcomes. It is believed that taking such
approach can contribute to the quest for understanding of the common denominator
behind the failures (Oppenheimer, et al., 2008). In a seminar that I personally
participated, Peter Lugtig, who is the senior research officer at the Institute for Social and
Economic Research, has presented a number of methodological mistakes that cause a
detrimental effect in policy making which further make me think of the multiplier effect
of the methodological mistakes (Lugtig, 2013).
By drawing the attention to the negative learning and multiplier effect of erroneous
decision making, I would like to highlight the fact that researchers’ awareness about the
crucial role that they themselves play is equally important to the role that they are playing
as the knowledge providers. To me, there should be little room left for making a mistake
in the policy area. Recalling Thalidomide Generation, there should not be such a luxury
in health policies. When researchers critically examine the assessment processes, become
more transparent about it and cite the limitations in detail, as well as provide explanations
of the alternative paths and their outcomes, it may result in an increased flow of
information. This would, in turn, increase the communication between knowledge
providers and policy makers. Provided that the evidences are in line with progressive
learning, this can strengthen the grounds of evidence based policy making and boost the
policy change.
- How the training activities prepared me to be active as a researcher in processes
of change.
Throughout my professional and educational life, I have taken part in several academic
studies, trainings, workshops, seminars and projects on disability related issues, yet,
being a member of the DREAM Network Research, not only provide me a medium to
learn from the most prominent PIs of the disability policies, but also give me the chance
to reflect the skills and the information that has been accumulated so far. The modules
14 that I have taken, the readings that I have done, as well as the trainings and workshops
that I have taken part under the DREAM Project, have broadened my knowledge and
skills in comparative research design, policy analysis and advanced statistics. For
instance, throughout the project journey, I have had the opportunity of updating my
knowledge on the recent developments in quantitative comparative policy analysis, which
made me see the new further possibilities that datasets can offer. Furthermore, I have had
the chance to learn NVIVO, M-Plus and TOSMANA programs. Additionally, I have
recently started to enrol online SQL (Structured Query Language) and Ruby
Programming Language modules. Soon Arc-GIS (Geographic Information System) will
be added to the list. Together with my long term acquaintance with SPSS, these skills
have broadened my capability of data mining. More importantly, throughout the DREAM
Project, I manage to gain the skills to conduct the researches that I have been thinking for
a long time. That involves building accessibility maps of jurisdictions and representation
of disability in visual and online media.
- The extra dimension/edge that came from my internships?
At the commencement of DREAM Project, the EDF was set as the venue of my
internship. However, due to logistic constraints that EDF has experienced in
accommodating the DREAM ESRs, it has been changed. Amongst the offered
alternatives, I have chosen NOVA (Norwegian Social Research Institute) for the
internship. NOVA is one of the institutes that have an extensive expertise in comparative
social policy analysis. More importantly, scholars in NOVA have carried out a number of
comparative disability policy studies.
During my internship at NOVA, I have managed to deliver seminars which provided
beneficial feedbacks about my research. I have also participated in other seminars that
gave me the chance to exchange knowledge. Through such interactions, I have gained
further knowledge about the aspects that I should consider for my own research. Last but
not the least; I have managed to complete my field research in Sweden with the
tremendous support of NOVA scholars.
4.
Tentative Outcomes/Recommendations.
15 Recommendations for change emenating from my research.
The EU may consider;
•
Strengthening the European Agency for Fundamental Rights
•
Establishing a European Ombudsman
•
Ensuring establishment/strengthening national level independent mechanisms at
national level
•
Tackling disability issues with hard policy documents
•
Continuing to support EU-wide ‘Society for All’ and ‘Design for All’ actions
Recalling the macro level analysis, governments may consider;
•
Doing a national level situational analysis that takes peculiarities of their
countries and all related policy fields into account to reach tailor-made solutions
•
Strengthening related governmental and non-governmental agencies
•
Allocating
adequate
human
and
financial
resources
to
promote
the
implementation of UNCRPD provisions
•
Replacing the medical approach with the social model of disability
•
Conducting a parallel review process to eliminate the any inconsistencies in the
disability related policies
•
Increasing
visibility of disability issues in all formal and practical policy
implementation areas
Recalling the results of the meso level analysis, governments may consider
•
Placing special attention on increasing the economic participation of certain
groups of disabled people that include those who are females, in their late
adulthood, have lower educational attainment level
•
Placing more support for those who can and want to work, but also providing
strong protection to those who cannot work
•
Securing protection against discrimination at every stage of employment, making
involvement with vocational rehabilitation voluntary and timely, centralizing the
assessment structures, providing comprehensive additional in-work support,
16 limiting the duration of benefit suspension and downsizing the additional in-work
benefit
•
Carrying out a systematic analysis of the effect of quota system in their
jurisdiction
•
Coupling affirmative actions with persuasion and reward mechanisms, rather than
sanctions and coercive measures
Recalling the results of micro level analysis;
•
The EU organs may consider encouraging EUMSs to launch awareness raising
campaigns. Whilst planning an awareness raising programs, people who are in
their late adulthood, unfamiliar with disability, holding employer position, right
politic orientation, coming from high socioeconomic backgrounds should be
approached first
•
Governments of countries that where the quota system applies to public and/or
private sector, and those that are classified as liberal disability policy should
place special emphasis on awareness raising programs
•
Governments may devise training programs for employers and employees to
promote diversity in the work places. They may also consider setting up a
mechanism to monitor diversity in the work places and recruitment phases
•
Recalling the dramatic decrease in the perception of discrimination towards
disabled people in the last three Eurobarometer Survey Series, the governments,
especially the UK, may consider using more constructive disability policy
discourse
Recalling the results of the analysis of the interviews with stakeholders, the Governments
of the UK, Ireland and Sweden may consider;
•
Providing extensive and timely on-the-job support for disabled employees and
employers
•
Easing the bureaucracy to take up the services
•
Setting up better traineeship and transition programmes which are subsidised by
the government for a certain period of time
17 •
Increasing capacity and efficiency of the related governmental and nongovernmental organisations and social initiatives whose main activity revolve
around promoting employment of disabled people
•
Establishing collaboration mechanisms to increase communication between
stakeholders, i.e. support organization, employers, disabled job seekers,
municipalities, social initiatives
•
Ensuring accessibility, non-discrimination, equal opportunities
•
Taking persuasion approach rather than coercive one.
•
Taking actions to create/increase awareness amongst employers, both public and
private, and society, which may include leading by example, flagship programs
and sharing best practices
•
Providing certain financial incentives to employers, shared cost coverage for
special arrangements
•
Ensure accessibility of transport, education and training systems.
•
The proliferated adverse effect of the cuts in the economic and social participation
of disabled people, especially at the time of economic crises.
- My vision for change in my field.
As stated before, by the virtue of its legally binding nature, implementation of UNCRPD
provisions necessitates a policy change. However, due to the multifaceted and long
lasting nature of disability, envisaged policy changes in disability related employment
policies necessitates parallel changes in other policy domains, which, in most cases,
requires an extensive financial and human resources.
In order to bring about a change in employment related policies, any reform recipe should
take local context and aligned policy practices into account. Although present research
provides information about the determinants of successful implementation of
employment related EU disability policies, factors behind the better employment
outcomes, and individual level understanding and experiences, it fails to address aligned
policies within its scope. I believe this prevents delivering tailor made solutions for each
EUMSs. Yet, bearing in mind the insights of the present research, countries is strongly
advised to do a comprehensive analysis to develop their own road map to reform their
18 policies. Policy change in disability issues also requires a positive change in the policy
discourses.
- My insights as to why European policy has evolved the way it has?
The European Union, regarded as a project to create a socially and economically unified
union between the people and the states of Europe, is governed by a supranational sui
generis system. Within this unique system, national governments partially transfer their
sovereignty to the supranational EU institutions. In the EU governance system, there are
competence areas where the EU has sole or shared responsibilities (Aust, et al., 2002). In
the coercive governance mechanism of the EU, member states are obliged to harmonize
hard policy documents, i.e. treaties, directives and the policy documents in the
competence areas where the EU has sole responsibility. Policies on monetary issues,
customs, and trading are among the areas where the policy prerogative belongs to the EU.
On the other hand, in the mimetic governance mechanism, harmonization of the soft
policy documents, i.e. resolutions, recommendations, communications and the policies in
the areas where the EU has shared responsibilities, like justice, single market, foreign
policy, health and safety, taxation, labour market, and social policy depend on the state’s
willingness (Radaelli, 2000). In the shared responsibility areas, the principle of
subsidiarity is applied. Accordingly, the EU can act only if the matter cannot be
adequately addressed at Member State level. However, the decision to take an action still
depends on the agreement between the Member States and the EU institutions. This
means that in the shared competence areas, including the social, policy, the EU has
limited power (Merkel and Grimm, 2007; Feronas, 2011).
Ensuring ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive economic growth’ (the Europe 2020 Strategy)
and ‘making the EU the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the
world’ (the Lisbon Strategy, 2000) are at the core of the EU policies. Compatibly, all the
activities and the legislations that are administered by the EU institutions are primarily
directed towards these ideals (Aust et al., 2002). Within this framework, human dignity,
fundamental rights, non-discrimination, social inclusion, full employment, good working
conditions, and social security are emphasised (Hantrais, 2007; Feronas, 2011; Kleinman,
2002; van Berkel and Moller, 2002). Considering the social policies, the EU prioritizes
19 the involvement into paid work. Effective implementation of the ALMPs is extremely
important not only to confront the demographic challenges of the ageing society, but also
to ensure sustainable economic growth in the face of intensified global crises (Kleinman,
2002; van Berkel and Moller, 2002). Within the EU system, the main mechanism for the
harmonisation of social policies is the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) which is
based on writing periodic national action plans and creating mediums for peer reviews
(Bouwsma, 2003; Weishaupt, 2011). However, there is not a separate or dedicated OMC
process for disability policy (Bouswma, 2003; Priestley, 2005). Regarding disability,
most of the actions are directed towards increasing the rights of disabled people, ensuring
non-discrimination, providing equal opportunities, and removing institutional, societal
and environmental barriers.
Compared to OMC, disability related coordination
mechanism, High Level Group (HLG) of Member States’ Representatives on Disability,
has a limited role in harmonization of the EU level disability policies. It lacks the peer
reviews, but still, HLG has a role to provide feedback to EC (EESC, 2007).
Although there is a debate concerning whether the EU is a response to or a part of
globalization, the EU with its supranational governance system is believed to be a strong
response to globalization and its challenges (Weiztmann, 2010). In her study in the
transformation of the EU policies, Waldschmidt (2009) revealed that the EU has followed
the global trends in the welfare state transformation and respond to globally driven
disability policies.
- My insights about inhibiting factors in the process of change – and how they
might be overcome.
The extent of harmonization of EU legislation is highly correlated with the elimination of
obstacles that stems from the EU, national and individual level factors. Regarding the EU
level factors, shared competence and the limited visibility of disability issues in hard
policy documents, as well as lack of mechanism that particularly addresses disability
issues can be listed as the inhibiting factors. To mitigate these obstacles, the EU may
consider strengthening the European Agency for Fundamental Rights and establishing a
European Ombudsman, as well as ensuring establishment/strengthening national level
20 independent mechanisms at national level. Addressing disability related issues with hard
documents may also help to overcome the obstacle before the policy change.
Limited policy transfer of the EU has also roots in national level factors. Amongst them
disability definition, path dependency, state’s own policy, the effect of economic crises,
inaccessibility, societal and employer approaches and qualifications, accessibility, can be
listed. Analysing the current situation of disability issues in full detail should be the first
step of eradication of hindering obstacles before the change. Taking peculiarities of the
context, in which policies are implemented, into account can reveal extensive information
about the gaps in the policies, as well as its strengths and weakness, which, in turn, could
contribute building up tailor made solutions to overcome the obstacles. Although present
research provides recommendations on how states can better promote the employment of
disabled people, readers of this report should be aware of the fact that only the current
employment related policies are scrutinized under the scope of present research.
A disadvantaged position that disabled people have experienced, also stems from the
individual level factors. Attitudes towards the disabled people and their capabilities is the
most crucial individual level inhibitory factor which is followed by the lower
qualification level of disabled people. However, these can be handled via ensuring equal
opportunities. A genuine interest to create a ‘Society for all’ with ‘‘Design for all’
approach could pave the road for the empowerment of disabled people.
- My insights into critical success factors of change.
The successful implementation of employment related provisions of UNCRPD depends
on having nation specific tailor made solutions. It also involves parallel changes in
related policy domains, which most of the time entail a large amount of financial and
human resources. Accordingly,any action on promoting employment of disabled people
should be followed by parallel changes in policies like, health, education, public works
and settlement, transportation, social security and protection. Moving away from medical
approach, inserting capability notion into citizenship accounts would boost employment
of disabled people.
21 Whilst formulating policies, special attention can be given to those who are female, in
their late adulthood and have lower schooling period. Governments, particularly those
that adhere liberal disability policy, may consider providing extensive support for those
who can and want to work, but at the same time ensuring considerable protection to those
who cannot. Concerning the interaction with non-discrimination ideal, an authoritarian
governance style found to have a negative effect on employment of disabled people.
Thus, measures that involve coercive measures and sanctions may be replaced with
strong persuasion and reward measures. Centralizing the assessment structure, providing
strong in-work support, making involvement with vocational rehabilitation voluntary and
timely, limiting duration benefit suspension and reducing the additional in-work benefits
to disabled employees found to be significantly associated with better employment
outcome. However, compared to others, centralizing assessment structure and timely
vocational rehabilitation found to be relatively more effective in predicting better
employment outcomes. Awareness raising amongst employers and society, providing
trainings on job match, increasing efficiency and capacity of the support mechanisms,
increasing collaboration and cooperation between associated stakeholders, setting up
monitoring mechanisms to ensure diversity in the economic life are proposed policy
actions that were raised by the stakeholders.
Bibliography
APPLICA, CESEP, and EUROPEAN CENTRE., 2007. Study of compilation of
disability statistical data from the administrative registers of the member states. Prepared
for DG employment, social affairs and equal opportunities. 1 November 2007: Final
Report.
Aust, A., Daguerre, A. and Taylor-Gooby, P., 2002. European social policy. [online].
Available at: <http://www.kent.ac.uk/wramsoc/workingpapers/index.htm.>. [Accessed
28 December 2011].
Bambra, C., 2005. World of Welfare and Heatlh Care Discrepancy. Social Policy and
Society, 4 (1), pp. 31-41.
Bambra, C., 2006. Decommodification and worlds of welfare revisited. Journal of
European Social Policy, 16, pp.73-80.
22 Barnes, C. and Mercer, 2005. The social model of disability: Europa and majority world.
Leeds: University of Leeds Media Services.
Bouwsma. S., 2003. Disability policy in member states and open method of coordination.
Master Thesis. University of Twente. Faculty of Bussines, Public Administration and
Technology. [online] Available at: < http://www.ethesis.net/disability/disability.pdf.>.
[Accessed January 2012].
Burke, T., 2002. The globalization of disability rights. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place,
Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Centre, Boston, Massachusetts, 28 August 2002.
Clarke, A., 2005. Situational analysis: grounded theory after the postmodern turn.
California: Sage.
Commission of European Communities. 2010. Communication COM(2010) of 3 March
2010. Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Commission of European Communities. 2010a. Communication COM (2010) 636 of 15
November 2010. European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: a renewed commitment to a
barrier-free Europe.
Commission of European Communities. 2010b. M/473 of 1 September 2010 on
standardization mandate design for all.
EIM Business and Policy Research. 2001. The employment situation of people with
disabilities in the European Union. Prepared for DG for Employment and Social Affairs
and Equal Opportunities.
EIM Business and Policy Research. 2002. Active labour market programmes for people
with disabilities: facts and figures on use and impact. Prepared for DG for Employment
and Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
European Commission. 2013. Discrimination in the European Union. Special
Eurobarometer 393. Wave 77.4.
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). 2007. Opinion of SOC/270 - CESE
1259/2007
of 1 October 2007 ‘Harmonized Indicators in the Field of Disability’
23 SOC/270-CESE 1259/2007.
Feronas, A., 2011. The Europeanization of social inclusion in Greece: when EU ‘soft’
pressure meets ‘hard’ domestic paths. 9th Annual ESPAnet Conference. Sustainability
and transformation in European Social Policy. 8-10 September 2011.
Goldschmidt, P., (2008), The European Union facing the Financial Crisis: Obstacles and
Opportunities. [online]. Available at: <http://institut-thomas-more.org/showNews/276>
[Accessed December 2008].
Greve, N., 2009. The labour market situation of disabled people in European countries
and implementation of employment policies: a summary of evidence from country
reports and research studies. Academic Network of European Disability Experts. [online]
Available
at:
<
http://www.disability-
europe.net/content/aned/media/ANED%20Task%206%20final%20report%20%20final%20version%2017-04-09.pdf>. . [Accessed July 2009].
Hantrais, L., 2007. Social policy in the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
and St Martin’s Press.
Henninger, A., 2006. Welfare state citizens: objects of control or reflexive actors in the
context of market, family and social policy. In EspaNET Conference. Bremen, Germany,
27 July 2006.
Hvinden, B., 2003. The uncertain convergence of disability policies in western Europe’.
Social Policy and Administration, 37(6), pp. 609-24.
Kleinman, M. P., 2002. A European welfare state? : European Union social policy in
context. Basingstoke, New York : Palgrave.
Lugtig.P., 2013. Why care about survey errors? Studies of nonresponse and measurement
error seminar. GESIS– Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. 15.08.2013. Cologne,
Germany
Marin, B., 2003. Transforming disability welfare policies: completing paradigm shift. In
C. Prinz and B. Marin, ed. 2003. European disability pension policies: 11 country trends
1970-2001. European Centre Vieana: Ashgate. Ch1.
24 Merkel, W. and Grimme, S., 2007. The limits of the EU: enlargement, deepening and
democracy.
Estudio/Working
Paper
76/2007.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://portal.uam.es/portal/page/portal/UAM_ORGANIZATIVO/Departamentos/Cienci
aPoliticaRelacionesInternacionales/publicaciones%20en%20red/working_papers/Merkel
%2076_2007pdf.pdf.>. [Accessed 26 December 2011].
Oppenheimer, M., O’Neill, B.C., and Webster, M., 2008. Negative learning. Climate
Change, 89, pp. 155-172.
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. 2010. Sickness disability and
work: breaking the barriers, a synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
Priestley, M., 2005. We are all European now: the social model of disability and
European social policy. In C. Barnes and G. Mercer, eds. 2005. The social model of
disability: Europa and majority world. Leeds: University of Leeds Media Services.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-
studies/archiveuk/Barnes/EMW%20Chapter%202.pdf>. [Accessed December 2011].
Priestley, M., 2007. In the search of European disability policy: between national and
global. (e-journal) 1 (2007) 61-74, Available through: Science Direct ,Alter data base
[Accessed December 2011].
Shima, I. and Rodrigues, R., 2009. The implementation of EU social inclusion and social
protection strategies in European countries with reference to equality for disabled people.
Academic Network of European Disability Experts. [Online]
Available at:
<
http://www.disabilityeurope.net/content/aned/media/ANED%20Task%207%20report%20Social%20Inclusion
%20final%2020-05-09.pdf>. [Accessed in August 2009].
Shima, I., Zolyomi, E. and Zaidi, A., 2008. The Labour Market Situation of People with
Disabilities in EU25. European Centre for Social Welfare, Policy and Research. Policy
Brief (I).
The European Council Presidency Resolutions. 2000. Resolution of 23 and 24 March,
2000.
Lisbon
Strategy
for
Growth
and
Jobs.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm>. [Accessed 18 February 2010].
25 United Nations., 2007. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml> [Accessed 30 July
2011].
van Berkel, R. and Moller, I.H., 2002. Active social policies in the EU : inclusion through
participation?. Bristol: The Policy Press:
van Oorschot, W. and Hvinden, B., 2001. Introduction: towards convergence?: disability
policies in Europe. European Journal of Social Security, 2(4), pp. 293-302.
VC/2008/1214. Final Report. 2010.
Waldschmidt, A., 2009. Disability policy of the European Union: the supranational level.
(e-journal) 3 (2009) 8-23, Available through: Science Direct ,Alter data base [Accessed
April 2012].
Weishaupt, J.T., 2011. State of the art. OMC in social policy: theory, methods,
substantive outcomes and new directions. 9th Annual ESPAnet Conference.
Sustainability and transformation in European Social Policy. 8-10 September 2011.
Weitzmann, J., 2010. Does regionalism challenge globalization, or build on it? EInternational Relations. [online] Available at: < http://www.e-ir.info/2010/05/13/doesregionalism-challenge-globalisation-or-build-on-it/>. [Accessed April 2012].
World Health Organization. 2010. World Report on Disability. Malta: World Health
Organization.
26