Disability-policy models in European welfare regimes: comparing the distribution of social protection, labour-market integration and civil rights

Abstract

This paper examines different models of disability policy in European welfare regimes on the basis of secondary data. OECD data measuring social protection and labour-market integration is complemented with an index which measures the outcomes of disability civil rights. Eurobarometer data is used to construct the index. The country modelling by cluster analysis indicates that an encompassing model of disability policy is mainly prevalent in Nordic countries. An activating and rehabilitating disability-policy model is predominant mainly in Central European countries, and there is evidence for a distinct Eastern European model characterized by relatively few guaranteed civil rights for disabled people. Furthermore, the Southern European model, which indicates a preference for social protection rather than activation and rehabilitation, includes countries which normally have diverse welfare traditions. KEYWORDS disability policy; welfare state regimes; comparative analysis; social policy; equal rights Points of interest • Much is written about links between capitalism and the modern concept of disability, but little research has compared disability policy across different types of welfare capitalism. • Research has measured and compared social protection and labour-market integration for disabled people in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. • There are theoretical claims that disability civil rights form a third dimension of a welfare state's disability policy; therefore, the authors of this article use self-reported perceptions of discrimination and accessibility to compute an index of disability civil rights. • Including all three dimensions, the analysis suggests that European welfare regimes have four distinct disability-policy models. • For disability studies, it is helpful to see that some countries are committed to all three dimensions of disability policy without any trade-offs.

Informed, involved, or empowered? Three ideal types of autism policy design in Western Europe

“…“Care” refers to an approach which sees the group as dependent and needing to be looked after by a benevolent other. "Cause” and “Care” are frequently seen in disability typologies, which typically distinguish between rights‐based and social protection policies (Esping‐Andersen, 1990; Maschke, 2004; Tschanz & Staub, 2017), while the “cure” versus “care” debate is well known in disability policy (Barnes, 2007; Fulcher, 2015). The fourth category, “Celebrate”, is more novel and describes an approach which highlights the strengths and abilities of the individual rather than their difficulties or disabilities (Chapin, 1995; Saleeby, 1993).…”

“…Many marginalized groups, who are already in a position of political disadvantage due to exclusion from social spaces (Milner & Kelly, 2009;Nordberg, 2006), are further disempowered by being excluded from democratic spaces as well (Cornwall, 2017;Fraser, 2009). The antidote to disempowerment is empowerment but these terms are both overused and under-defined (Bachrach & Botwinick, 1992;Cornwall & Brock, 2005;Perkins, 1995;Sørensen, 1997;Tilley, 1999). Traditionally, in policy studies, empowerment as a policy outcome equates to one of the following: making one's voice heard (achieving substantive representation) (Fraser, 2009;Pitkin, 2004;Urbinati, 2000;Wampler, 2012); being given resources to overcome artificially constructed barriers to social inclusion (Cornwall, 2017;Milner & Kelly, 2009;Sullivan, 1992); increasing life choices (Kaplow, 2007;Rawls, 2009) or increasing autonomy (Balcazar, Keys et al, 2001;Halvorsen, 2017;Hamilton, 2003).…”

Specialist support for persons with disabilities living in the community: Review of international practice

“…Ireland, regarded by some as historically similar to the UK in terms of disability policy and practice while generally lagging behind in terms of implementation (Fleming, McGilloway and Barry, 2016), can be considered a hybrid of the liberal and conservative models of welfare. One study places Ireland in an alternative 'Southern European' model of welfare state, which is characterised by a preference for social protection over individual freedom, along with Poland, Luxembourg and southern European countries (Tschanz and Staub, 2017). Mansell (2006) points out that most countries employ a mixture of the three main approaches proposed by Esping-Andersen (1990).…”

Policies based on mandatory employment quotas for disabled workers: the case of Italy

“…Their analysis identifies four clusters: (i) a cluster covering the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, with both moderate social protection and labour market integration and low level of rights safeguards; (ii) a cluster encompassing Austria, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, displaying disability policies mainly oriented to activation and rehabilitation; (iii) a cluster of Nordic countries, featuring disability policies of a high level in all three dimensions. Finally, the authors find (iv) a cluster that includes Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain, with strong attention to social protection rather than labour market integration (activation and rehabilitation) (Tschanz and Staub 2017; see also Prins 2014). Italy ranks at the bottom of the distribution of social protection resources for DP in the EU-27 – very much lower than the UK.…”

“…Tschanz and Staub (2017) analysed the implementation level of three dimensions of disability policies i.e. social protection, labour market integration and social rights, across different welfare systems of European countries.…”