Betul Yalcin
PERCEPTION OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS DISABLED PEOPLE IN THE LABOUR
MARKET: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN EUROPEAN CONTEXT
BETUL YALCIN
Marie Curie Initial Training Network: DREAM Project-ESR,
University of Leeds, UK
(Work in progress please do not quote and cite without permission email: B.Yalcin@leeds.ac.uk)
1. Introduction
With the advancement of interconnectedness between countries, industrialized economies
have entered into a new era where economic rules are set in a global context. In the process
of globalization, citizenship, which declares the rights and responsibilities of members of
society, has undergone important changes, and social protection policies have been replaced
by active labor market policies (Falk, 2000; Yeates, 2001).
Parallel to these transformations, the EU, with its sui generis governance system, puts its
effort to create a socially and economically integrated union between the states of Europe.
Compatibly, all activities and legislation are predominantly directed towards completion of
single market and economic competitiveness (Hantrais, 2007). Within this framework, there
is an emphasis on active labor market policies in the belief that it would contribute to the
overarching goal of securing sustainable economic growth. Active labor market polices,
defined as ‘measures taken in order to improve functioning of the labor market that are
directed towards unemployed’ (Calmfors, 1994, pp.8) are incorporated into policies,
including the policies addressing disabled people. However, increased emphasis on
employment at macro policy level is not reflected in micro level policy outcome. It failed to
meet the expected outcomes most of the time (Jeager and Kvist, 2003). Despite substantial
efforts, the employment rates amongst disabled people are still far below those of their nondisabled counterparts in most EU member states (OECD, 2010; Gammenos, 2011). The
Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED) report provided the most recent
proof. According to the Labor Force Survey dataset, the average employment rate for
disabled people is around 45 percent, whilst the rate for their nondisabled counterparts is 72
percent in the EU (Gammenos, 2011).
For disabled people, experiencing challenges in participation into social and economic life is
mostly attributed to institutional, attitudinal and environmental barriers (Hannon, 2007;
Hahn, 1985; 1988). As one of those obstacles, public attitudes towards disabled people
1
gained attention amongst scholars and governance bodies in the last few decades (Hannon,
2007) due to the role it plays in policymaking processes (Page and Shapiro, 1983). Yet, the
existence of negative attitudes is acknowledged as a risk factor that can create a volatile
ground for disabled people’s integration and prevent stipulation of enabling policies and their
implementation, which, as a whole thought to inhibit the enjoyment of full citizenship rights
(Rosenthal et al, 2006; Hannon, 2007; Dwyer, 2004; Hanh, 1985; 1988; Kamieniecki, 1985).
Studies on attitudes towards disabled people provide extensive information (Hannon, 2007),
however, there is a gap in the literature, which investigates this issue in a cross-national
context. Additionally, there is no research in the disability literature that simultaneously
evaluates the effects of individual and country level variables. Whilst, the Eurobarometer
Opinion Survey Series can answer to what extent European citizens hold discriminatory
attitudes, it is inadequate due to its reliance on descriptive statistics, when discussing who is
more likely to see disability as a discriminatory factor. Limited reference to country level
factors is another shortcoming of the Eurobarometer series.
This paper, therefore, sets its aim as to: (1) to provide the pattern and trends in the European
citizens’ perception of attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market and (2) to
untangle underlying factors behind this perception by taking individual and country level
factors into account. Within the scope of this paper, the following questions guide the
investigation: what is the pattern and trend in European citizens’ perceptions of attitudes
towards disabled people in the labor market? and who holds such perceptions?.1 In order to
answer the questions, responses given to a regularly appearing statement addressing the
employment of disabled people in Eurobarometer Survey 2007, 2009, 2012 are being
revisited 2 . Whilst patterns and trends are displayed with mainstreamed descriptive
techniques, present study employs logistic regression analysis to untangle the factors behind
the attitudes, where both individual and country level factors are taken into account. This
paper contributes to the literature by providing the first cross-national analysis, which
concurrently scrutinizes the effects of individual and country level factors. Initially, brief
description of attitudes and their importance for policy are presented. Under the same section,
1
This paper partially reflects preliminary findings of an ongoing doctoral research that aims to identify how states can better
promote the employment of disabled people in open labor market, private sector in particular. Mentioned research has a
layered framework for policy analysis, where each layer relates to one another in a progressive manner to render a more
comprehensive understanding of the current situation of disabled people’s employment. Whilst, macro level focuses on the
similarities and differences between EUMS’s employment policies for disabled people, meso level analysis focuses on the
impact of those policies. Unlike the former layers, micro level analysis investigates interpretation and implementation of
employment policies for disabled people.
2 Reason of limiting the analysis with one item was mainly due to its regular appearance over the three successive surveys,
which enables the researcher to trace changes..
Betul Yalcin
previous findings on the attitudes towards disability are discussed. Factors that influence the
attitudes are also adressed. In the following section, information on data and statistical
analysis are provided. After the discussion of main results, implications for future research,
and the European Union organs (EU) and the Member States are specified as concluding
remarks.
2. Literature on Attitudes towards Disabled People
Attitude, defined as ‘an idea (cognitive) charged with emotions (affective) which predisposes
a class of actions (behavioural) to a particular class of situations’ (Triandis, et al.1984, cited
in Hannon, 2007, p.9), serves as a framework through which people interpret and link
themselves to the social world (Hannon, 2007). They are evaluated in a threefold way:
cognitive, affective, and behavioural. Whilst cognitive and affective evaluation mostly refers
to internal thoughts and attached emotions, behavioural evaluation denotes observed actions
in relation to the questioned issue.
Yet, fundamentally an internal process, attitudes are believed to be an implicit but influential
determinant that shapes the policy due to their effect on policymaking processes (Page and
Shapiro, 1983). Regarding disability policies, it is argued that societal attitudes dictate social
policy to a substantial degree (Hahn, 1985; 1988; Kamieniechki, 1985; Massie, 2006).
Especially, Hahn says that experiences of disabled people are indeed determined not by their
functional limitations, but more by others’ attitudes towards their limitations (Hahn, 1985;
1988). He also adds that attitudes ‘not only mould the behaviour; they embody values that are
the basis of public policy that ultimately shapes architectural configurations and social
institutions’ (Hahn, 1985, p. 306). In his paper, Kamieniechki (1985) addresses the influence
of public attitudes on policy makers. He argues that due to concentration on reelection,
elected leaders are keen to learn the electorates’ opinion on disability related issues before
they come to a decision, especially on welfare provisions.
Whilst claiming the influence of public attitudes on policy-making processes, it is equally
plausible that institutional structure and policy discourses of a state influence public attitude
(Hick, 1999 cited in Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003). This idea is backed up in the Jacobs
and Shapiro’s book (2000, cited in Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003). They claim that it is
true, as politicians would have an urge to seek ways to promote their policy agenda in order
to secure public support. Thus, it is not surprising to witness changes in the public attitude
following alterations in policy discourses. The most recent 2012, British Social Attitudes
Survey carried out a review of the changes in public and governmental attitude towards
3
welfare within the last decade. The analysis revealed that government displayed a
differentiated attitude towards benefit claimant and pensioners throughout the last decade.
More interestingly, analysis also revealed a reflection of this differentiation in public
attitudes, with an observable decline in the support for welfare policies for benefit claimants.
Whilst the 1998 Survey revealed 74 percent agreement with the notion of allocation of more
resources on benefits for disabled people, this support dropped to 53 percent in the 2011
survey with drastic decline after 2008 (Park et, al, 2012).
Cited as one of the socially excluded groups, there is a growing body of literature on attitudes
towards disability. According to Mark Oliver (1990), today’s understanding of disability is
shaped by the interaction between mode of production and social values attached to disabled
body. He states that industrialization devalued labor of those who are unable to meet
expectations form an average worker. Barnes and Mercer (2005) express that the global rise
of industrialization created competitive market where ethos of profit maximization further
decreased the value of disabled workers, thus causing disabled people to emerge as a
categorically excluded group. Explaining the economic exclusion, Hodghes Aeberhard and
Raskin (1997) also pointed out societal attitudes. They further argued solely banning
discrimination is not enough, thus, it is necessary to take affirmative actions to eliminate the
experienced inequalities (Hodghes Aeberhard and Raskin, 1997).
In general terms, experiencing challenges in participation into social and economic life is
mostly attributed to institutional, attitudinal and environmental barriers (Hahn, 1985; 1988;
Hodghes Aeberhard and Raskin 1997; Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Hannon, 2007). As stated in
introduction, public attitudes towards disabled people gained attention since 80s (Hannon,
2007), however, those studies are mostly carried out in national context. The British Social
Attitudes Survey Series, launched in 1983, are repeated on an annual basis to assess attitudes
towards certain social issues in the UK (ESDC, 22 Feb 2012). According to the 2005 survey,
most British think that there is prejudice towards disabled people, with a higher agreement
rate by disabled respondents (Robinson, et al., 2007). In the 2009 follow-up survey, findings
showed that compared to 2005, attitudes towards disabled people have incremented. In terms
of socio-demographic factors, people who have higher education and those who have higher
incomes are found to display more positive attitudes towards disabled people. Females and
public sector employees have more positive thoughts compared to men and private sector
employees (Staniland, 2009).
Betul Yalcin
In its sister survey series, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey series included questions on
disability in the 2002, 2006, and 2010 surveys. Unlike the rest of the revised researches, the
Scottish survey series used logistic regression analysis to investigate the factors behind the
attitudes. It was revealed that economic and individual factors make a difference in people’s
view. The 2002 findings revealed that three out of ten Scottish think that there is
discrimination against disabled people. Those who are coming from a demographically
mixed community are less likely to display discriminative thoughts. Additionally, people who
think that they have a lot in common with people of minority groups are less likely to present
discriminative thoughts. People who hold university degrees were found to be less likely to
hold discriminatory attitudes compared to those who have no qualifications. However, they
display lower support for positive measures. Additionally, older people hold more
discriminatory attitudes towards minority groups compared to younger people (Bromley and
Curtice, 2003). 2006 follow-up displayed similar trends. Only a minority of Scottish people
expressed discriminatory views. Like in the 2002 series, differentiation of attitudes as a
function of age was apparent. The effect of frequencies of practicing religious retreats was
also reported. Again, familiarity was found to be a significant factor that explains
differentiation in the attitudes (Bromley et al, 2007). The most recent one, 2010 Survey,
included more questions on disability. Similar findings were disclosed in terms of support for
positive actions towards disabled people. A majority of the Scottish people sees positive
actions in the recruitment, as unfair (63 percent). Logistic regression analysis, run to reveal
who are more likely to hold discriminatory attitudes, people who hold higher educational
attainment, people from managerial positions and professional backgrounds, are those who
most likely to see positive actions as unfair. Compared to previous years, it is observed that
the share of people who see positive action to support employment of disabled people as
unfair increased, in the meanwhile. It is assumed they display such hesitation as they feel like
their own interest could be endangered under such circumstances (Ormstone et, al, 2011)
Similar opinion survey series have been carried out in Ireland. A 2001 National Survey of
Public Attitudes to Disability depicted that a majority of Irish people hold the view that
disabled people should be supported to get equal opportunities. In terms of employment
related questions, it was observed that people tend to favour employment of physically
disabled people more than they do the other types of disability. People who have disabled
family or have disability themselves showed more agreement (NDA, 2002). In its 2006 and
2011 follow-up, people’s attitudes towards employment mostly display similar trends (NDA,
5
2007; NDA, 2011). Additionally, disabled respondents were found to be more willing to
work with disabled colleagues regardless of their disability type (NDA, 2011).
For the economic integration, employer’s attitudes are thought to play the most crucial role.
In terms of employer attitudes, a large-scale survey in the workplaces has been carried out in
the UK. Results of this survey showed that a majority of employers disagree with the
statement that disabled people are less productive. Some employers stated that they would
employ them if there were disabled applicants (DRC, 2007). Qualitative research carried out
by Davidson (2011) showed that employers see some risks over employing disabled people.
Amongst the cited risks they listed were: reputation of the company, risk to customer base,
and risk to business, especially for food industry. Risk of frequent absenteeism has also been
pronounced. In a study carried out in the USA, it was also revealed that those employers who
use support systems hold more positive thoughts. Moreover, employers who have prior
contact with disability display more positive thoughts about employment of disabled people.
In another study from Sweden, it was found that employers who have a history of hiring
disabled employees have a tendency to hire again (Anderson, 2012).
Except for the Eurobarometer survey series; there is no known research that addresses
disability issues in a cross-national context. The first Eurobarometer survey addressing
attitudes towards disability was carried out in 2001. Overall findings of this survey revealed
that a majority of European citizens believed that disabled people face difficulties in daily
life. Most of them agreed with the notion that more should be done to integrate disabled
people into society and more money should be spent on decreasing the physical barriers etc.
When they are asked about feeling ease in the presence of disabled people in different
situation, a majority of Europeans reported that they are at ease in the presence of disabled
people. In terms of the factors behind attitudes, the Survey revealed that gender, education,
income, occupational class, and age were reported to be important factors affecting attitudes
towards disabled people. By looking at the observed percentages, males, people with lower
education, people from low income and having lower occupational status, were found to
display less support to positive slants, and more on negative ones (EORG, 2001). In
September 2003, another Eurobarometer special survey addressing the activities throughout
the European Year of People with Disabilities was carried out. Results disclosed that three
out of ten Europeans were aware of the fact that the year 2003 was the European Year for
People with Disabilities. A Majority of them hold the belief that this year contributes to
awareness about disability. Similarly, a majority of them believed that disabled people have
the same rights to find a job and right to enroll in training, 84 and 87 percent respectively.
Betul Yalcin
However, only 42 percent of Europeans thought that the activities carried out during this year
would improve the chance of employment. More importantly, more than half of the
respondents believed that people with profound disability levels should be directed to work in
sheltered workshops. In terms of socio-demographic factors, analysis mostly displayed
variations by age, schooling period, occupational status, socio- economic status, people from
managerial positions, and high socio- economic status is more supportive and aware of
disability related issues. However there were items where no significant variations were
reported (EORG, 2004). Although Eurobarometer series provides the foremost multinational
analysis of attitudes towards disability, it is limited in terms of its reliance on observed
percentages over the total base while displaying effects of individual and country level
factors. In terms of country level factors, there are studies, which look at the effect of
institutional structure and welfare regime on attitudes towards social issues. In some of these
studies, Gelissen (2000), Svalford (1999), Roosma, (2012) investigate both the individual and
country level factors and revealed to what extend people’s approach to certain social issues
are influenced when both group of factors taken into account simultaneously.
Due to interconnectedness between policy and public attitudes, it is important to investigate
patterns and trends as well as the factors behind the attitudes in the age of austerity. As one of
the aspirations of the present paper, factors that affect people’s perceptions will be
scrutinized, alongside the patterns and trends. The following section is allocated to give
information about the data and the methods employed for the present analysis.
3. Data and Measurement
Within the scope of the present paper, European citizens’ perception of attitudes towards
disabled people in the labour market was investigated by analysing Eurobarometer Opinion
Survey series. These series are conducted on behalf of the European Commission and based
on face-to-face interviews with people who are age 15 and over. In order to revealed patterns,
trends, and the factors behind the European citizens’ perception on the attitudes towards
disabled people in the labour market, regularly appearing questions in the 2007, 2009, and
2012 Eurobarometer series were scrutinized. On the basis of regular appearance, the
questions of ‘when a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between two
candidates with equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may in your
opinion, put one candidate at a disadvantage_ disability_ ‘ were selected. Accordingly,
seeing disability as a disadvantageous criterion was set as a dependent variable for the
analysis.
7
The data are from EU27 member states and provides information on 26,822 European
citizens for 2007, 26,756 for 2009, and finally 26,662 for 2012. The sample size for the
countries varies between 500 and 1,570; however most of the countries have sample size
around 1,000 per series. As stated before, the present study takes individual and country level
factors into account while investigating European citizen’ views on attitudes towards disabled
people in the labour market. In light of the literature, individual level factors are selected as:
age, gender, and schooling period, subjective personal health, familiarity with disability,
perceived social level (excluding 2006 series), political orientation, religious denomination,
and occupational status. For country level variables dummy variables are created as welfare
typology, quota system, and NationEU27. Prior to analysis, all variables are recoded into
dummy variables and categories, which act as reference categories for comparison are given
zero (See Annexes- Table 1 and Table 2). For dependent variable, response categories are
coded 1 for ‘seeing disability as a disadvantageous criteria’ and 0 for the other way around.
While running the logistic regression analysis, all variables, excluding NationEU27, are set as
a categorical variable in order to spot the effects of subdivisions of the factors.
The pattern and trends are presented based on the calculation of observed percentages over
total base. On the other hand, influence of the factors on people’s views is investigated with
logistic regression analysis, like in the Scottish Attitudes Survey Series. Logistic regression
analysis allows to ‘specify and test if the independent variable has an effect, but the effect
varies depending on the characteristics of the respondent after controlling for the other
factors’ (MacDonald, 2008, p.7). Whilst, observed percentages provide information on plain
shares of who do/don’t see disability as a disadvantage in the labour market over total base,
logistic regression analysis provides information on whether simultaneously presented factors
and their subdivisions have a statistically significant effect on dependent variable, when all
other factors are controlled. More importantly, it provides likelihood of occurrences amongst
subdivisions of researched population (MacDonald, 2008; Budzier, 2010).
In the light of the literature, a decrease in the number of seeing disability as a disadvantage in
the labour market is expected. For logistic regression analysis, it is hypothesized that the
effect of the simultaneously presented factor on dependent variable would be statistically
significantly, when all the other individual and country level factors are controlled. Null
hypothesis, therefore, implies no significant effect. In the real social world nothing can be
brought about by a single factor, thus the result of the logistic regression might reveal
different but more credible findings than what the descriptive presents regarding likelihoods.
The following section presents the patterns, trends and the influence of individual and
Betul Yalcin
country level factors. Although, it merits a much more detailed discussion of all the presented
data, due to the length of this paper, focus is given to discussion of 2012 and the rest
addressed in brief.
4. Results
In order to analyze the datasets and to disclose the perception of European citizens on
attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market, SPSS Version 20 was employed.
Whilst Table 3 (See Annexes) presents the pattern and trends in the aforementioned
Eurobarometer series, Table 4 (See Annexes) displays results of the logistic regression
analysis based on the same dummy variable recoding. Presentation of results in both forms
provides validation of the descriptive results and statistically displays the differences in the
likelihoods of subdivisions of all the factors. This, in turn, reveals more credible findings for
identifying which group of people or countries have to be addressed most in order to
accomplish the desired level of awareness regarding the employment of disabled people.
The 2007 Eurobarometer series shows that 53 percent of European citizens see disability as a
criterion that put an individual at a disadvantage when two candidates who have the same
skills and qualifications are short-listed for a vacant position. This percentage dropped by 10
units and reached 42.8 percent in 2009 and flattened at 42.2 percent in 2012. At the moment
four out of ten European citizens mentioned disability as a disadvantageous criterion in the
recruitment phase in the labor market. Overall descriptive results depicted a downward trend
in the number of people who regard disability as a disadvantageous criterion in the labor
market. It should also be noted that the drastic decline has happened between 2007 and 2009.
Individual Level Factors:
Gender
When gender is taken into account, present analysis revealed that both hold almost similar
amounts of share in terms of seeing disability as a disadvantage in the labor market.
However, as a whole, there is a decline in the amount of shares seeing disability as a
disadvantage for both genders between 2007 and 2012. For 2007, there is one unit difference
between females and males, both display more than 50 percent shares on seeing disability as
a disadvantage in the labor market. The share was 43 percent for both genders in 2009. The
most recent series depicted 42 percent share for both gender. Except for 2012 series, logistic
regression analysis over three data sets revealed significant effect of gender on dependent
variable at p=.500 significance level, after controlling for the other factors. That means
9
gender, as an individual level factor, makes a difference in people’s views. According to
2007 dataset, having coefficient of .949 and negative B value means that after controlling for
all the other factors males are 5 percent [Exp(B)-1x100=x] less likely to perceive that
disabled people are at disadvantageous position in the labor market, after controlling for other
individual and country level factors. For 2009 data set, likelihood is 2 percent lower for
males.
Age
Descriptive analysis over the 2007, 2009, and 2012 Eurobarometer survey series were
reflecting the downward trend as parallel to the decrement in the in the total share of seeing
disability as a disadvantageous criterion. For three successive series, younger people, aged
between 15 and 24, were found to display higher share. In 2012, 44.6 percent of younger
people see disability as a criterion that puts an individual at a disadvantage in the labor
market; this share is 40.6 percent for people who are 55 and older. Similar pattern and trend
for all age groups were observed in the 2007 and 2009 surveys. The gap between the shares
of youngest and oldest group was highest in the 2007 survey by 10 units; however it
narrowed down in the 2012 survey. For the parent variable testing for whether age, after
controlling for the other factors, has an effect on dependent variable were found to have a
statistically significant effect for 2012 data set. That means people’s perception on attitudes
towards disabled people in the labor market changes as a function of age. Whilst subdivisions
for people who are aged between 25 and 39 and between 40 and 54, did not revealed a
statistically significant effect, subdivision for those coming from the older age group were
found to have a significant effect on the dependent variable. People who are 55 and older
displayed lower odds compared to people aged between 15 and 24. They are 18 percent less
likely to refer to disability as disadvantageous criteria in the labor market. Significant effects
of age on dependent variable were observed for the previous surveys as well. Unlike the 2012
observations, both the 2007 and 2009 survey series revealed significant contribution of all
subdivisions. After controlling for all the other factors, compared to youngest people, oldest
people displayed 31 percent, and 22 percent lower odds, for the 2007 and 2009 series
respectively.
Schooling Period
In considering the schooling period, slightly different trends amongst subdivisions were
observed in the 2007, 2009 and 2012 series. Parallel to general trend, there is decrease in the
amount of the share of seeing disability as a disadvantageous criterion. In terms of schooling
Betul Yalcin
period, the 2012 series revealed that 39 percent of those who have left school before the age
of 15 mentioned disability as a criteria that put an individual at a disadvantage in the labor
market. Amongst those who left school before 20 years of age, 42 percent see disability as
disadvantageous criteria. Agreement of people who have continued to full- time education
even after 20 years of age is 44 percent. Similar types of pattern are observed over the 2007
and 2009 datasets. When logistic regression findings were taken into account, 2012 findings
showed that after controlling for the other factors, schooling period as a parent variable has a
statistically significant effect on dependent variable. Compared to people who have left fulltime education after 20 years of age, early school leavers had lower odds. Those who left
schooling before 15 years of age are 4 percent less likely to see that disabled people are
disadvantaged in the recruitment phase. Those who left full-time education before 20 years of
do not revealed a statistical significance, meaning that this group holds similar views with
people who have completed higher educational attainment levels. For 2009 and 2007, people
who have shorter schooling period displayed substantial lower odds compared to people who
remain under full time education after 20 years of age. For all series people who left full-time
education before 15 years of age depicted the least likelihood of seeing disability as a
disadvantage in labor market.
Personal Health Condition
A similar downward trend is observed in the amount of the share of seeing disability as
disadvantageous criterion. Descriptive studies over the 2007 data series depicted that the
shares for non disabled and disabled people subdivisions were around 53 percent. In 2009,
non disabled people depicted 42, whilst disabled people showed 47.2 percent share of seeing
disability as a disadvantageous criterion. Finally, 2012 data set revealed that 41.6 percent of
the non disabled people report disability as a disadvantageous criteria, whilst the disabled
people display 45.9 percent share. Logistic regression analysis depicts a statistically
significant effect of personal health condition on the dependent variable. Compared to nondisabled people, people who have disability or chronic illnesses were found to be 19 percent
more likely to see disability as a disadvantage at the recruitment phase after controlling for
the other factors. For the 2009 and 2007 series the odds of seeing disability as a
disadvantageous criterion was, again, higher for disabled respondents, 27 and 14 percent
respectively.
Familiarity
11
The 2007 series showed a 5 unit difference between the observed percentages of people who
do/don’t have familiarity with disability. For both group, the shares of seeing disability as a
disadvantageous criterion were above the 50 percent. In 2009 the 5 unit gap was sustained,
but, as a whole, there were 10 unit downward shifts in the shares. People who have family
member or a friend with disability had 40.3 percent share of seeing disability as a
disadvantage in the recruitment, while people who have no familiarity displayed 44.9 percent
share. In the 2012 survey population, 39.6 percent of people who have no acquaintance with
disability hold the view that disability puts an individual at a disadvantage. On the other
hand, 44 percent of people who have acquaintance with chronic illness or disability see this
condition as a criterion that places an individual at a disadvantage in the labor market.
Having a decline at about 10-unit from 2007 till 2012 is in line with the general trend.
Logistic regression analysis testing whether having familiarity with disability has an effect on
dependent variable, revealed statistical significance at p=.500 significance level, after
controlling for the other factors. For 2012 survey, people who have an acquaintance or family
member with disability are 16 percent more likely to hold the view that people with disability
are disadvantaged in the labor market. For the previous series, people who have acquaintance
with disability or chronic illness have higher odds compared to the reference group. After
controlling the other factors, a respondent who has a disabled acquaintance has a 14 percent
higher likelihood of seeing disability as a discriminatory factor compared to unfamiliar
people in the 2009 series. This rate is again significant and higher for the 2007 survey. They
are 11 percent more likely to mention disability as a disadvantageous criterion.
Perceived Social Level
Just as individuals have self-interest variables, individual’s socialization is also thought to
shape his or her attitudes towards certain issues. As one of the factors, social status is thought
to lead differentiation in the attitudes. The analysis of 2012 data set revealed that 44.5 percent
of those who place themselves in low social class see disability as a disadvantageous
criterion. While this rate was 42.1 percent for middle social level, it was 41.6 percent for
people of high social level. For 2009 it was the other way around, people from low social
displayed similar share with middle social level by 43 percent whilst it was 44.6 percent for
the high social level group. Self-placement of social level was not included amongst the
questions in 2007. Logistic regression analysis revealed significant effect of social level as a
parent variable in the 2009 and 2012 series. When subdivision were taken into account, the
2012 survey results showed that compared to people from low social level, people from
middle level are 9 percent less likely to see disability as a criteria that put an individual at a
Betul Yalcin
disadvantage after controlling the other factors. Similarly, people from high social level were
14 percent less likely to see disability as a barrier in the recruitment phase than those who are
from low social level. For 2009, middle social level display lower odds. Compared to low
social level group, they are 4 percent less likely to see disability as a disadvantage. Higher
social level, also displays lower odds after controlling for the other factors. They are 7
percent less likely to see disability as a disadvantage compared to reference category.
Occupational status
When occupational statuses have been scrutinized we can see that the trend follows general
downward movement. There is an almost similar rate of agreement with the statement that
taps discrimination at the recruitment procedures in the 2012 series. All the occupational
classes have an mentioning rate between 41 and 43 percent. For 2009 analysis, managers
were found to have more shares. 46.2 percent of them see disability as criteria that decrease
an individual’s chance of being recruited for vacant positions. People who are employed in
either blue or white color jobs have 43.3 percent share of seeing disability as a
disadvantageous criteria in the labor market. Self -employed, inactive and unemployed
people have 42 percent shares. In the previous survey series, the share of seeing disability as
discriminatory criteria is higher. However, the shares fluctuate amongst subdivisions.
Logistic regression analysis revealed a significant effect of occupational status as a parent
variable on explaining the variances on the dependent variable only for the 2012 series.
Whilst those coming from economically inactive and unemployed groups do not reveal
statistical significance, those coming from employee and self- employed groups display
statistical significance. After controlling for the other factors, people who are employed in
manual or professional jobs are 5 percent less likely than people of managerial positions to
hold the view that disabled people are disadvantaged at the recruitment phase. The odds for
self-employed people are again lower compared to manager: they are 10 percent less likely to
see disability as criteria that put an individual at disadvantage. For the previous series,
occupational class as a factor did not reveal significant effects on explaining the variances in
dependent variable.
Political orientation
Throughout the years between 2007 and 2012, there is again a downward trend among those
seeing disability as a discriminatory criterion. Ten-unit decrease is reflected in the evaluation
of this factor as well. For the 2012 survey series, people who hold right wing political
orientation were found to display a lower mentioning rate than other political orientation
13
groups. While 46.3 percent of people from left wing say that disability puts an individual at a
disadvantage in the labor market, 42. 6 percent of people who hold central political view hold
such view. 40.6 percent of people, who hold right wing orientation, see disability as a
criterion that put an individual at disadvantage in the labor market. Logistic regression
analysis for the same variable over 2012 survey data set revealed that political orientation as
a parent variable has significant effect while explaining the variances in people’s view.
Compared to the leftist group, people who hold central political views display lower odds.
They are 8 percent less likely to state disabled people are disadvantaged in the labor market.
When it comes to people from right wing political orientation, coefficients displayed lower
odds. Compared to leftist, they are 19 percent less likely to say that disability put an
individual at disadvantageous position after controlling for the other factors. The likelihood
measurements are almost the same for previous years. In total, leftist people are more likely
to see disability as disadvantage in the labor market, whilst people of right wing political
orientation are at the other end.
Religious Beliefs
Based on the observed percentages, Jewish were people found to report disability as a criteria
that put a candidate at a disadvantage with highest share in the 2012 survey series, Their rate
of seeing disability as a disadvantage is 57 percent. Christians and Muslims display 41 and 40
agreement respectively. People from eastern belief systems and non-believers display 48.6
and 46.6 percent reporting rate respectively. For the 2009 series, people who do not place
themselves in any of the monotheistic religions displayed a higher share than the other belief
systems. For the 2007 series, it was people who are in eastern belief systems that have the
highest share by 64 percent. Logistic regression over the 2012 series revealed that as parent
variable, religious denomination has a significant effect on the dependent variable after
controlling for the other factors. Compared to Christians, Jewish people were found to have
higher odds. They are 56 percent more likely to report disability as a disadvantage in the
labor market. Muslims on the other hand, display lower odds. Expressing disability, as
discriminatory criteria is 15 percent less likely for Muslims, compared to Christians.
Concerning people of eastern belief systems, logistic regression revealed higher odds. After
controlling for the other factors, a person who belongs to eastern belief systems is 40 percent
more likely to see disability as a criterion that puts an individual at a disadvantage in the
labor market. People who do not belong to any belief systems are 4 percent more likely to see
disability a disadvantage. For the previous series, likelihoods amongst different religious
groups showed differentiations.
Betul Yalcin
Country Level Factors:
Welfare typology
Welfare typology and institutional structure of a state are found to reveal differentiated
outcomes in the people’s views throughout the survey series. Descriptive analysis over the
2012 data set revealed that people from social democrat countries display a higher share in
terms of seeing disability as a criterion that puts an individual at a disadvantage in the labor
market. People of social democrat countries display 48.4 percent agreement, whilst people of
conservative countries display a 42.6 percent reporting rate. People of post-communist
emerging welfare regimes, on the other hand, showed a 40 percent mentioning rate. People
from liberal countries displayed a 27 percent share of seeing disability as a disadvantageous
criterion. Compared to pervious years, decline in the shares of seeing disability a
disadvantage is also observed for this factor. However, the decline is more for liberal and
post-communist emerging welfare regimes. There is 16-unit decrease in the shares of people
who see disability as disadvantageous criteria. In the 2012 series, the parent variable testing
whether welfare typology has an effect on dependent variable was found to be statistically
significant. Compared to social democrat welfare regimes, people from conservative regimes
are 8 percent less likely to see disability as a disadvantage in the labor market. People from
liberal welfare regimes are 61 percent less likely to see disability as a discriminatory criteria
compared to social democrat welfare regimes, after controlling for the other variables. And
again, people from post-communist emerging welfare regimes are 30 percent less likely to
say that disability is a disadvantageous factor compared to social democrat welfare regimes.
For the previous data sets, similar observations for the odds are made, however observed
likelihoods are slightly different than 2012 coefficients.
Quota System
Although there is no prior literature on the effects of quota systems on individuals ‘views on
disability related issues, there are theoretical discussions in Annette Henninger’s (2006)
paper on welfare policies in the post-modern era. In this paper she cites that active labor
market policies have a potential to create differentiation in micro-level behavior since it
involved sanction and coercive measures. The present findings are the initial findings as far
as employment of disabled people is concerned. People from countries, where there is no
quota system, display 44.8 percent share of seeing disability as a criterion that puts an
individual at a disadvantage in the labor market. For the countries that have a quota system
for the public sector, people display 38.2 percent share. Those who live in the countries
15
where quota system only applies to the private sector, display 46.8 percent agreement, while
countries where quota applies both to public and private sector reveals 40.6 percent share on
the idea that disabled people are disadvantaged in the labor market. Previous series
descriptive analysis was slightly different than that of 2012, however overall decline was
apparent in the shares compared to 2007. Logistic regression analysis over the 2012 series
data set revealed that as a parent variable, quota system is found to have an effect on
dependent variable. That is people’s views on attitudes towards disabled people in the labor
market changes as a function of quota system. People from countries where a quota system
applies to the public sector are 11 percent less likely to see disability as a disadvantageous
criterion compared to non-quota system after controlling for the other factors. Whereas
people who live in countries where a quota system applies only to the private sector, have 9
percent lower odds. For people who live in countries where a quota applies to both public and
private sector, people display lower odds compared to non-mandatory systems. They are 28
percent less likely to see disability as a factor that puts an individual at a disadvantageous
position.
5. Discussions and Conclusion
Present study sets its aim to examine the pattern and trends, as well as the factors that are
thought to shape perception of attitudes towards disabled people. The present analysis
addressed the research questions with two different statistical techniques. Similar to previous
literature, patterns and trends were presented in observed percentages. On the other hand,
logistic regression was used to entangle the effects of individual and country level factors on
in people’s perceptions.
A similar downward trend in the Park, et al, (2012) review was observed for present analysis.
Between the 2006 and 2012, there was a decline in the 10 units of the share of people who
view disability as disadvantageous criteria. However, most recent employment rates for
disabled people revealed that (see Annexes-Table 5) discrimination in the labor market on the
basis of disability is still present. In terms of enabling policies’, this downward trend might
result in lessening the public pressure on policy makers.
In terms of individual level factors, the literature states that females are more likely to hold
supportive views on disability related issues (Staniland, 2009, EORG, 2001; 2004). If we
only looked at descriptive statistics, we would not spot an apparent difference between males
and females. However, the logistic regression analysis revealed gender makes a difference in
European citizens’ view on attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market when all
Betul Yalcin
other individual and country level factors are controlled. In three successive surveys, male
participants displayed lower odds. The age revealed statistically significant for all three
surveys as the literature suggested (Broomley, et. al, 2007; EORG, 2001; 2004). Compared to
younger people, older people are less likely to see disability as a factor that put an individual
at a disadvantage in the labor market. However, the gap between older and younger group is
shrinking. Educational attainment, cited as another important factor, again depicted
statistically significant effect on people’s views. As the years spent in education increases,
seeing disability as a disadvantageous criterion in the labor market is incremented. This
finding is in line with the previous literature stating educational attainment increases the
likelihood of seeing disability as a discriminatory criterion (Staniland, 2009; Broomley and
Curtice, 2003; Ormstone, 2010; EORG, 2001; 2004). Complimentary findings also found for
personal health condition and having familiarity with disability (EORG, 2001; Anderson,
2012; NDA, 2002; 2011; Broomley et.al, 2007).
The perceived social level was only available for the 2009 and 2012 series. Results revealed
that people from higher social levels are less likely to see disability as a disadvantage
compared to lower social level. This finding was in line with the previous literature (EORG,
2001; 2004; Stanilan, 2009). It should be noted that the gap between low and high social
levels are increasing. The occupational status is again cited as a factor that shapes attitudes
towards disability (Ormstane, et. al, 2010; Staniland, 2009; EORG, 2001; 2004). Present
analysis revealed that only the data from the 2012 set display complimentary findings. For
the religious denomination, revised literature only cites the effect of frequency of the
practicing (Broomley, and Curtice, 2003; Ormstone, et, al 2010; Bromley et at, 2007).
Present analysis showed that religious denomination is an important factor which helps
explain the differences in people’s views. Political orientation, once again, depicted a
significant effect in participants view in three successive surveys. Compared to leftist, people
who hold central political orientation and right wing political orientation are less likely to see
disability as a disadvantageous criterion. These were to some extend in line with Svalford
(1999) and Roosma’s (2012) policy analyses.
Country level factors revealed that social democrat welfare states are more likely to see
disability as a disadvantage. Compared to social democrat welfare states, people of liberal
welfare states are least likely to see it as a disadvantageous criterion. Remembering the twoway interaction between policy processes and pubic attitudes, having differences as a
function of welfare typology can be attributed to the reflection of institutional structures or
17
fundamental ethos of welfare state regimes that they belong to. In terms of the quota
typology, compared with people who live in countries where there is no quota system for
disabled people, people courtiers with quotas displayed lower chances of viewing disability
as a disadvantage. All the parent variables for country level factors revealed consistent effect
throughout the series. Finding significant effect of welfare regimes and quota scheme might
be related with the relationship between institutional structure of a state and public
perceptions. Having 27 percent lower likelihood in countries where quota scheme applies to
both public and private sector might be brought about the air created by the applied system.
People in those countries might hold the view that such measures would prevent people being
discriminated against in the labor market. My personal opinion is that this is the foremost
finding of the present analysis.
The overall results imply that there is a sharp decrease, due to the ongoing global crises. This,
in turn, might decrease the social pressure on policy makers. When the results of individual
and country level factors evaluated together, it can be said that both are important in shaping
people’s views on attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market. Furthermore,
addition of country level factors created major increase in explained variances and it is
consistent throughout the series. This can be interpreted as policies are still a deterministic
relationship between policies and publics opinion. However, rather than having power to
shape the policy making processes, public’s opinion is indeed shaped by policies.
Recalling the country level factors’ findings, counties that governed by liberal welfare
systems, and countries who employ private and public quota system are suggested to place an
important focus on increasing awareness about the discrimination towards disabled people in
the labor market. Similarly, European Union organizations and Member States may take
present findings into account when planning intervention programs. Those individuals and
countries that are less likely to see disability as a disadvantage should be focused more. The
risk of creating a pseudo understanding in people’s mind that disabled people are less likely
to be discriminated due to affirmative actions, should be given utmost care and the preventive
measures should be added into the intervention programs to eliminate this risk.
In terms of attitude researches, after employing both descriptive and logistic regression
analysis over the three successive Eurobarometer surveys, I hold the view that both are
complementary to each other. While descriptive analysis is better showing a general picture,
it is limited in predicting who are more likely to be supportive or not. For this purpose,
Betul Yalcin
logistic regression serves better. Thus, using them both is suggested, since it would increase
the strength of the findings.
19
Bibliography
Anderson., J. 2012. Employer attitudes towards people with a psychological disability.
Master’s Thesis. Lunds Universitet, Insitutuionen For Psykologi . [online] Available at
.http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2797427&fileOId=2797
428. [Accessed December 2012].
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.
Barnes, C. and Mercer, 2005. The social model of disability: Europa and majority world.
Leeds: University of Leeds Media Services.
Bromley, C. and Curtice, J., 2003. Attitudes to discrimination in Scotland, Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive Social Research
Bromley, C., Curtice, J. and Given, L., 2007. Attitudes to discrimination in Scotland: 2006,
Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.
Budzier, A., 2010. A manual on dissertation statistics in PASW (SPSS). Oxford Univesity.
[online] Available at: < http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mast2876/budzier.pdf >. [Accessed October
2011].
Calmfors, L., 1994. Active labour market policy and unemployment: a framework for
analysis of crucial design features. OECD Economic Studies. No:22 Spring.
Davidson.. J. 2011. A qualitative study exploring employer’s recruitment behaviour and
decisions: small and medium enterprises. Research Report No: 754. Prepared for Department
of
Work
and
Pension,
2011
.
[online]
Available
at:
<
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGAQFjA
B&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.york.ac.uk%2Finst%2Fspru%2Fresearch%2Fpdf%2Fsmesu
mm.pdf&ei=056nT6nlE8_E8QOwiuHdBA&usg=AFQjCNGQGgtBtgC7bBuP9qIGEWjf_rM
qgA&sig2=nmO53gg6g0R1cZE58FMNOw >. [Accessed December 2011].
Disability Rights Commission Report. 2007. Small employers attitudes to disability. [online]
Available
at:
<
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHAQFjA
B&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leeds.ac.uk%2Fdisabilitystudies%2Farchiveuk%2Fopinion%2520research%2520business%2Fsmall_employers_attitu
des_to_disability%2520report%2520word.pdf&ei=QZnT_niNca38QPQirEU&usg=AFQjCNEZhsGW_0zLQwLaK1bWD48tbnjCA&sig2=NoVDeUDp7nr2-P7YrY9Ibg>. [Accessed July 2009].
Dwyer, P., 2004. Understanding social citizenship: themes and perspectives for policy and
practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
Eurobarometer 2004. Special Eurobarometer 198. Wave 65.4 The Erupean Year od People
with Disabilities 2003. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT)
Eurobarometer, 2001 Special Eurobarometer . Wave 54.2 Attitudes of Europeans towards
disability. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT )
Eurobarometer, 2007. Special Eurobarometer 263. Wave 65.4 Discrimination in the
European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT
Betul Yalcin
Eurobarometer, 2009. Special Eurobarometer 317. Wave 72.4. Discrimination in the
European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT) .
Eurobarometer, 2012. Special Eurobarometer 393. Wave 77.4. Discrimination in the
European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_Zdataset available on
registration at GESIS_ZACAT preliminary data set available since 21 December, 2012)
Falk, R., 2000. The decline of citizenship in an era of globalization. Citizenship Studies, 4(1),
pp. 5-17.
Fenger, H.J.M., 2007. Welfare Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post communist countries in a welfare regime typology. Contemportaty Issues and Ideas in Social
Sciences.
Goldstone, C., 2002. Barriers to employment for disabled people. In-house report 95.
Prepared Department of Work and Pension, 2002 [online]
Available at:
<
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CJ4BEBY
wAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.disabledworkers.org.uk%2Fdownloads%2Fbarempdis.pd
f&ei=hZunT4vlLOql0QXQyI2CBA&usg=AFQjCNHQ6h93OHbOXGQzQKxb47n2_ksMw&sig2=it1pqa5vUeOOwLFBkt9Uiw>. [Accessed July 2009].
Grammenos, S., 2011.IDEE Indicators of disability equality in Europe: comparative data on a
selection of quantitative implementation indicator. Prepared for ANED .
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.disabilityeurope.net/content/aned/media/ANED%20Task%206%20final%20report%20%20final%20version%2017-04-09.pdf>. . [Accessed July 2009].
Hahn, H., 1985. Introduction: Disability policy and the problem of discrimination. American
Behavioural Scientist 28, pp.293 -320.
Hahn, H., 1988. The politics of physical differences: disability and discrimination. Journal of
Social Issues, 44(1), pp.39Hannon, F., 2007. Literature review on attitudes towards disability. Disability Research
Series. National Disability Authority, Ireland.
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.
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.
Hicks A. (1999): Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism. Ithaca, Cornell University
Press. In Blekesaune a, M., and Quadagno, J., 2003. Public attitudes towards welfare state
policies: a comparative analysis of 24 Nations. In EspaNET Conference, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 13-15 November 2003. [online] Available at.
Hodges-Aeberhard, J. and Raskin. C., 1997. Affirmative action in the employment of ethnic
minorities
and
persons
with
disabilities.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://labordoc.ilo.org/record/315688 >. [Accessed April 2012].
21
Jacobs L R. and Shapiro R Y. (2000): Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and
the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. University of Chicago Press. In Blekesaune a, M.,
and Quadagno, J., 2003. Public attitudes towards welfare state policies: a comparative
analysis of 24 Nations. In EspaNET Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 13-15 November
2003. [online] Available at. <http://www.sfi.dk/graphics/ESPAnet/papers/Blekesaune.pdf.
[Accessed November 2012].
Jeager, M.M. and Kvist, J., 2003. Pressures on the state welfare in post industrial societies: is
more or less better?. Social Policy and Administration, 37(6), pp. 555-572.
Kamienciecki, S., 1985. The dimension underlying public attitudes towards blacks and
disabled people in America. American Behavioural Scientist 28, pp.367-376
MacDonald, K., 2008. Comparative research design and methods module. Quantitative
methods: practical classes/workshops 4: Interaction effects; introducing logistic regression.
University of Oxford, UK.
Massie, B., 2006. Participation: have we got an attitude problem?. Paper presented in NDA
5th Annual Conference, Civic, Cultural and Social Paticipation: Building an inclusive society.
[online]
Available
at.<
http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/5A19C972AF5A7B93802571E60052A06B/$File/conf
20064.html>. [Accessed December 2012].
Nauman, E., 2011. The dynamics of individual attitudes in times of welfare state
retrenchment. 9th Annual ESPAnet Conference. Sustainability and transformation in
European Social Policy. 8-10 September 2011.
NDA., 2002. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2001. Dublin: NDA.
NDA., 2007. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2006. Dublin: NDA.
NDA., 2011. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2011. Dublin: NDA.
Oliver, M., 1990. The politics of disablement. Hampshire: MacMillan
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. 2010. Sickness disability and
work: breaking the barriers, a synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
Ormstone, R., Curtice, J., McConville., S, and Reid, S. 2011 Scottish Social Attitudes survey
2010: Attitudes to discrimination and positive action. Scotish Center for Social Research.
Scottish Government.
Page, B.I. and Shapiro, R.Y., 1983. Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political
Science Review, 99(2), pp. 251-267.
Park., A., Clery., E., Curtice J.., Phillips M., and Utting, D., 2012. Bristish Social Attitudes
29..
[online]
Available
at.
http://www.bsa29.natcen.ac.uk/media/13421/bsa29_full_report.pdf>. [Accessed December 2012].
Robinson,C., Martin, J., and Thompson K., 2007. Attitueds towards and perceptions of
disabled people: findings from a module included in the 2005 Bristish Social Attitudes
Survey
.
[online]
Available
at:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/robinson/NatCenDisabilityModuleAug2007.pdf. [Accessed June 2009].
Prepared for Disability Rights Commision
Betul Yalcin
Roosma, F., Gelisien, J., and Van Oorschot, (2012). The multidimentionalaity of welfare
state attitudes: A European cross-national study. Social Inidcators Research. DOI 10.
1007/s11205-012-0099-4. Published online 12 June 2012.
Rosenthal, D.A., Chan,F., and Leivenh,H., 2006. Rehabiltastion students’ attitudes toward
persons with disabilities in high and low stakes social contexts: a conjoint analysis. Disability
and Rehabilitation, 28(24), pp.1517-1527.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropeiri. M.A, 1996. Teacher perceptions of inclusion measinsteraming.
1958-1995: A research synthesis. Expetional Children, pp. 63, 59-74.
Seeleib Kaiser, M., 2012a. Introduction to comparative analysis. Presentation at Comparative
Research Methods Workshop. 12 January 2012. University of Oxford.
Stailand., L., 2009. Public Perceptions of Disabled People. Evidence freom British Social
Attitudes Survey 2009. Office for Disability Issues. HM. Government.
Svalflfors, S., 1995. The end of class politics?. Stuctureal celavages and Attitudes in Swedish
Welfare policies. Acta Sociologica, 38, pp.53-74.
Yeates, N., 2001. Globalization and social policy. London: Sage.
23
ANNEXES
1- Variable Coding
2- Country Coding
3- Descriptive Statistics Results
4- Logistic Regression Results
5- EU Employment Outlook
Betul Yalcin
Table 1- Variable Coding
Gender
Female
Male
Age groups
15-24 yrs.
25-39 yrs.
40-54 yrs.
55 and older
Schooling Period *
Before 15
Before 20
After 20
Disability
Non-disabled
Disabled
Proximity
No acquaintance
Have DP Acq.
Social Level
Low
Middle
High
Occupational Status
Manager
Inactive
Unemployed
Employees
Self Employed
Politic Orientation
Left Wing
Central
Right Wing
Religion
Christians
Jewish
Muslim
Eastern Belief Systems
Atheist/Agnostic/none
Welfare Typology
Liberal
Conservative
Social Democrat
Post-Communist
Quota Typology
None
Only Public
Only Private
Both
0
1
0
1
2
3
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
2
1
0
3
0
1
2
3
*People who are still under full time education was not included in the analysis, and set as system missing
25
Table 2 -Country Coding
1
France
2
3
4
Belgium
Netherland
Germany
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Italy
Luxemburg
Denmark
Ireland
United Kingdom
Greece
Spain
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
Austria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Romania
Welfare **
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
Quota ***
3
2
0
3
3
3
0
1
0
3
3
3
0
0
3
1
1
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
* * Welfare Typology: For welfare typology, OECD 2010 disability typology was the main reference.
Additional typology, developed by Fenger (2007), was also employed when respective country was not listed
under OECD 2010. Those countries which are not listed in either of typology set as system missing
***Quota Typology: Allocation of the quota typology was done according to Greve, 2009 and APPLICA, 2007
reports.
Betul Yalcin
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics
Total
Base
2006
Total
Base
Disadvantage
No
Disadvantage
Yes
%
47.3
52.7
%
Female
57.2
46.9
53.1
55.7
Male
42.8
48
15-24 yrs.
12.5
25-39 yrs.
2009
Disadvantage
No
2012
Disadvantage
No
Disadvantage
Yes
42.8
%
57.8
42.2
57.2
42.8
54.1
57.6
42.4
52
44.3
57.2
42.8
45.9
58.0
42.0
41.3
58.7
12.3
53.4
46.6
11.5
55.4
44.6
24.2
44.8
55.2
23.3
56.3
43.7
22.7
57.7
42.3
40-54 yrs.
25.2
46.1
53.9
25.9
56.8
43.2
26
56.4
43.6
55 and older
38.1
51.8
48.2
38.4
59.1
40.9
39.8
59.4
40.6
Before 15
24.3
54.7
45.3
22.4
62.7
37.3
20.2
61
39
Before 20
46.2
48.1
51.9
46.8
58.3
41.7
47.5
58
42
After 20
29.4
42.4
57.6
30.8
52.1
47.9
32.3
56
44
Non-disabled
79.1
47.4
52.6
82.4
57.9
42.1
82.5
58.4
41.6
Disabled
20.3
46.9
53.1
17.6
52.8
47.2
17.5
54.1
45.9
Unfamiliar
45.4
49.5
50.5
41.8
59.7
40.3
37.5
60.4
39.6
Familiar
54.5
45.3
54.7
58.2
55.1
44.9
62.5
55.9
44.1
Low
NA
NA
NA
24.7
57
43
24.2
55.5
44.5
Middle
NA
NA
NA
49.2
57.2
42.8
49.8
57.9
42.1
High
NA
NA
NA
26.1
55.4
44.6
26
58.4
41.6
EU Nation 27
57.2
Disadvantage
Yes
Total
Base
Gender
Age groups
Schooling Period *
Disability
Familiarity
Perceived Social Level
Occupational Status
27
Manager
10
55.9
9.9
53.8
46.2
9.8
Inactive
45.4
57.5
42.5
49.4
50.6
43.1
57.8
42,2
42.8
58.1
41.9
Unemployed
5.7
45.2
54.8
8.2
58.3
41.7
8.7
Employees
31.6
57.5
42.5
46.0
54.0
31.6
56.7
43.3
31.7
57.3
42.7
Self Employed
7.0
46.5
53.5
7.2
58.5
41.5
7.0
58.7
41.3
Left Wing
29.4
45.3
54.7
29.6
53.4
46.6
32.6
53.7
46.3
Central
42.5
47.2
52.8
40.6
56.3
43.7
40.8
57.4
42.6
Right Wing
28.1
48.2
51.8
29.7
57.6
42.4
26.6
59.4
40.6
80.6
48.5
51.5
79.5
58.5
41.5
76.7
58.7
41.3
64.5
35.5
.1
42.9
57.1
44.1
Politic Orientation
Religious Denomination
Christians
Jew
.1
40
60
.1
Muslim
1.1
57.0
43.0
1.3
62.3
37.7
1.2
60
40
Eastern Belief Sys
.3
36.3
63.8
.3
56.7
43.3
.4
51.4
48.6
Atheist/Agnostic/no
18
42.5
57.5
18.8
50.9
49.1
21.6
53.4
46.6
Liberal
9.3
56.2
43.8
9.4
72.5
27.5
9.3
72.8
27.2
Conservative
47.4
49.6
50.4
47.4
60.3
39.7
47.3
57.5
42.5
Social-Dem
22.9
42
58
22.7
47.3
52.7
22.6
51.6
48.4
Post-Communist
20.4
43.9
56.1
20.5
56.6
43.4
20.8
60
40
None
27.7
42.1
57.9
27.7
50.6
49.4
27.8
55.2
44.8
Only Public
9.4
49.8
50.2
9.5
59.8
40.2
13.3
59.4
40.6
Only Private
11.5
41
59
11.3
52.6
47.4
11.5
53.2
46.8
Both
51.4
48.8
51.4
61.2
38.8
47.4
59.9
40.1
Welfare Typology **
Quota System ***
51.2
Betul Yalcin
Table 4 Logistic Regression
B
Gender (1) (Ref, Females)
-.052
SE
.032
Sig
.102
Exp(B)
.949
B
SE
-.025
.032
.000
Age (Ref 15-24 yrs.)
Sig
.436
Exp(B)
.975
B
-.018
SE
.031
Sig
.564
Exp(B)
.982
.000
.007
25-39 yrs. (1)
-.138
.080
.087
.871
-.129
.078
.098
.879
-.017
.079
.833
.983
40-54 yrs. 2)
-.238
.080
.003
.788
-.190
.077
.014
.827
.010
.078
.900
1.010
55>+ (3)
-.375
.084
.000
.687
-.254
.082
.002
.776
-.195
.082
.018
.823
Disability (1) (Ref-Non)
.135
.041
.001
1.144
.242
.043
.000
1.274
.170
.042
.000
1.185
Familiarity (1)
.105
.032
.001
1.110
.129
.302
.000
.1.138
.151
.033
.000
1.163
(Ref-Non)
Schooling period (Ref After
.000
20 yrs.)
.513
.000
Before 15 yrs. (1)
-.272
.048
.000
.762
-.248
.050
.000
.781
-.040
.051
.427
.960
Before 20 yrs. (2)
-.182
.038
.000
.834
-.144
.038
.000
.866
.013
.037
.729
1.013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Middle (1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
-.044
.041
.284
.957
-.089
.040
.028
.915
High (2)
NA
NA
NA
NA
-.069
.048
.154
.933
-.152
.048
.002
.859
Perceived Social Level
(Ref-Low)
Occupational Status (Ref-
.575
Managerial)
.007
.353
.269
.972
Inactive (1)
.032
.060
.597
1.032
.014
.063
.818
1.015
.033
.062
.589
1.034
Unemployed (2)
.129
.080
.108
1.137
-.002
.075
.976
.998
-.032
.073
.657
.968
.049
.053
.358
1.050
.017
.055
.752
1.018
-.046
.055
.401
.955
.065
.071
.361
1.067
-.022
.072
.756
.978
-.103
.073
.159
.902
White/Blue Colour
Employees (3)
Self Employed (4)
Religious Denomination
.002
(Ref-Christians)
.283
.002
Jewish (1)
.381
.473
.421
1.463
-.566
.468
.226
.568
.445
.510
.383
1.560
Muslim (2)
-.565
.167
.001
.568
-.407
.157
.010
.666
-.162
.157
.302
.851
.435
.282
.123
1.545
-.348
.270
.198
.706
.342
.234
.145
1.408
.065
.042
.120
1.067
.102
.041
.014
1.107
.041
.039
.292
1.042
Eastern Belief
Systems (3)
Non/agnostic/athei
st (4)
29
Political Orientation (Ref-
.001
Left wing)
.000
.000
Central (1)
-.074
.038
.050
.929
-.085
.038
.027
.919
-.077
.037
.036
.926
Right wing (2)
-.154
.042
.000
.857
-.180
.042
.000
.835
-.218
.041
.000
.804
.006
.003
.022
1.006
.001
.003
.725
1.001
.010
.003
.000
1.010
Nation EU 27
.000
Quota Typology (Ref- none )
.000
.000
Only Public (1)
.031
.070
.657
1.031
-.108
.072
.134
.897
-.117
.064
.069
.889
Only private (2)
.126
.072
.079
1.135
-.302
.071
.000
.739
-.094
.070
.178
.911
-.335
.050
.000
.715
-.475
.050
.000
.622
-.323
.050
.000
.724
Both private and
public 3)
Welfare Typology (Ref
.000
Social Democrat)
.000
.000
Conservative (1)
-.113
.053
.033
.894
-.121
.053
.022
.886
-.079
.053
.140
.924
Liberal (2)
-.615
.065
.000
.541
-1.068
.071
.000
.344
-.939
.067
.000
.391
Post-communist
emerging (3)
-.092
.069
.182
.912
-.141
.069
.040
.869
-.364
.067
.000
.695
.675
.104
.000
1.965
.495
.110
.000
1.640
.106
.110
.332
1.112
Constant
x= Exp (B)-1x100
p=.500 (confidence interval level)
Important note: Considering the system missing, individual and country level variables inserted into regression equation as presented.
Betul Yalcin
Table 5- EU Employment Outlook (LSF in Gammennos, 2011)
COUNTRY
Ireland-IE
Romania-RO
Greece-EL
Malta-MT
Hungary-HU
Poland-PO
Lithuania-LT
Czech Rep-CZ
Bulgaria-BG
Belgium-BE
Spain-ES
United Kingdom
Italy-IT
Latvia-LV
EU
Portugal-PT
Austria-AT
France-FR
Estonia-EE
Slovenia-SI
Slovakia-SK
Sweden-SE
Cyprus-CY
Germany-DE
Netherlands-NL
Finland-FI
Luxemburg-LU
Denmark-DK
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
ACTIVITY RATES
EMPLOYMENT RATES
NON DISABLED
DISABLED
DISABLED
NON DISABLED
DISABLED
NON DISABLED
26.4
15.3
39.5
76.8
29.0
65.1
7.6
4.7
31.8
73.1
29.4
69.6
17.9
9.6
38.2
75.3
31.4
68.1
17.6
6.1
38.8
65.5
32.0
61.6
19.8
9.7
40.1
76.2
32.1
68.8
13.9
8.4
38.7
76.7
33.3
70.3
17.0
14.5
46.1
85.7
38.2
73.2
23.3
7.1
50.4
79.9
38.6
74.3
22.4
14.4
50.2
84.3
39.0
72.1
23.7
8.9
55.8
79.4
42.6
72.4
25.8
17.3
57.9
82.1
42.9
67.9
8.5
5.3
48.4
83.9
44.3
79.5
13.9
10.6
51.9
71.6
44.7
64.0
29.4
20.8
63.9
88.3
45.1
70.0
17.7
9.2
55.5
79.5
45.7
72.2
19.4
12.5
57.6
85.8
46.4
75.1
19.2
6.3
59.7
78.2
48.2
73.3
16.6
9.3
59.7
79.4
49.8
72.1
15.2
11.8
59.8
84.8
50.7
74.8
21.0
9.0
64.8
77.5
51.2
70.5
11.4
8.9
58.9
82.1
52.2
74.8
11.0
6.2
59.3
88.1
52.8
82.6
8.4
5.6
58.2
77.4
53.3
73.1
21.1
7.3
68.4
82.4
53.9
76.4
5.0
1.9
56.8
81.1
54.0
79.6
14.8
7.6
65.1
83.5
55.5
77.2
13.4
6.4
64.5
74.5
55.8
69.7
14.4
4.3
65.7
84.7
56.3
81.1
31