Theoretical debates over the causes of disability
The issue of how to engage disabled people in work has been a concern for government, business, and not least disabled people themselves for over 100 years (Danieli and Wheeler 2006). Certainly following the rapid and substantive rise in the disabled population as a consequence of the second World war, structural interventions were introduced to assist more disabled people enter the workforce enshrined in the 1944 disabled persons employment act (Tomlinson 1943). However, these structural attempts largely failed (Hyde1996), resulting in an increasing disabled population outside the labour market and dependent on state benefits (ibid).
In the mid 1970s, a combination of the effects of war, politics and economic policy once again affected the size of the disabled population in many Western industrialised countries (Bell 1993; Bowitz 1997; Catalano & Kennedy 1998; Riphahn 1997; Snower 1995). One event which had the secondary consequence of increasing the numbers of disabled people unable to find work was the decision by OPEC (the association of major oil producers) to quadruple the price of crude oil and reduce output (Turner 2001). These actions were taken due to the disenchantment of (primarily) Arab oil producers with the support given by many Western countries to Israel preceding and during the Arab/Israeli war of 1972 (Turner 2001, 311-13). The effect of the increased price and reduced supply of ‘crude’ was to plunge many Western economies into recession (Bell 1993; Powell 1995; Snower 1995). For many organisations, such a recession resulted in restructuring, downsizing or even closure (Powell 1995). In such economic circumstances, the outcome was increased numbers out of work.
One labour market exit strategy was to enter disability rather than unemployment benefit systems (Toynbee & Walker 2001). There were several stakeholders who could benefit from such a decision. Government could find unemployment levels remaining relatively low (Toynbee and Walker 2001 ). For individuals, invalidity benefit (IVB) provided a higher level of income than unemployment benefit (Ward 1996) which, some have argued, conferred the perception of social stigma and lower status on its recipients (Argyle 1989). The relative benefits offered by the exit-route from the workforce to invalidity also served the interests of employers. Resistance to losing their jobs, particularly amongst older workers, could be reduced when workers were presented with a more acceptable exit strategy than unemployment benefit (Snower 1995). So, faced with job losses, many individuals accepted invalidity benefit as the most appropriate Labour market exit strategy (Disney & Webb 1991; Molho 1991). Claimants of IVB rose from 505,000 in 1977 to 1.77 million by 1995, costing the Treasury an increase in IVB benefit payments from £678 million in 1971/72 to £7.75 billion in 1994/95 (Ward 1996). Hence it is possible to increase the size of a disabled population without there being a parallel increase in levels of impermanent. In this instance, disability becomes a product of economic and political rationality rather than a directly attributable consequence of an individual’s medical situation.
It was against this background of rising levels of disability that New Labour swept to power in 1997 and argued for the greater social inclusion of disabled people. This was to be achieved primarily by improving their opportunities to gain paid work in open employment (Brown 1999; Harman 1997; Mandelson & Liddle 1996). Since this concept of social inclusion through paid work remains present government policy it is important to consider its underlying ideology and how this has influenced the mechanisms that are currently in place to assist disabled people to break away from state-dependency and achieve social inclusion through paid work. The electoral success of ‘New Labour’ has been attributed to the party’s rejection of many traditional outmoded ‘Old Labour’ ideologies. These include a move away from central government control of the economy (Coote 2001); an ideological shift away from a commitment towards public ownership (Giddens 1998), and a weakening of the once close links to the trade union movement (Driver & Martell 2000). This ideological shift, often referred to by New Labour as ‘modernization’ has been criticised by some as a move away from collectivism towards individualism (Lavalette & Pratt 1998: 246). This move towards individualism, however, does not mean that the structural effects of policy are of no concern, since funding for many areas of social policy is dependent on projects being monitored to ensure the desired structural policy outcomes are achieved (Prideaux 2001). Many who support this modernization process argue that ‘New Labour’ has attempted to ‘strike a balance between economic success and “social inclusion”, the market and the community’ (Toynbee & Walker 2001; Driver & Martell 2000).
Social inclusion is often thought to be synonymous with excluded citizens finding paid work (DSS 1998). The mechanisms chosen to deliver work opportunities were primarily filtered through training schemes and education (Hyland 2000a, 2000b; Hyland & Merrill 2001) and, theoretically, improved training should increase opportunities to participate in open competition for jobs (Brown 1999; Harman 1997; Mandelson & Liddle 1996). The aim of ‘New Labour’ was to forge a new relationship between social inclusion, citizenship and State. This move towards proactive citizenship was a pivotal concept in what has been termed ‘The Third Way’ (Giddens 1998). ‘The Third Way’ directly links the State to equality and social inclusion, arguing that ‘“the social investment state” defines equality as inclusion and inequality as exclusion’ (Giddens 1998: 102). Some have argued that scepticism towards the State’s ability to provide efficient solutions to social exclusion has also moved the focus away from state intervention towards partnerships (Popple & Redmond 2000). Partnerships are considered by the New Labour Government to be the most efficient use of state and market resources to deliver social inclusion (Compact 1998) and these partnerships have primarily been made between public, private and the voluntary sector (Wickham Jones 2000).
It was against this background of individual responsibility and partnership that the government’s cornerstone project ‘The New Deal’ was launched to combat social exclusion (Carter & Greco 2000; Foley & Martin 2000; Miller 2000; Welch 1997). £5.2 billion was raised early in New Labour’s first term in office (HMT 1997) through a one-off windfall tax on the privatized utilities (Drake 2000). Money was allocated into a series of New Deal programmes, which aligned policy with Third Way principles.
In addition to New Deal for Disabled people (NDDP) other New Deal programmes included those for the young unemployed (Miller 2000; Ritchie 2000; White 2000); the long term unemployed (Layard 2000; Peck 1999), and lone parents (Hales 2000). Of the total financial commitment to the New Deal programmes, £195 million was earmarked for New Deal for Disabled People (Drake 2000) the ethos of which was outlined by Harriet Harmon, Minister for the Disabled at that time, who stated: "e; This announcement will give a significant boost to those disabled people who want to work. This government wants to give marginalized and excluded people a hand up not a hand out"e;. (DSS 1998)
From commissioned research the government had identified in excess of 1 million working-age disabled people who wanted to work (NDDP 1999). It was argued that if these unemployed disabled people could be assisted into employment, several benefits would accrue.
The financial burden of incapacity benefit would be reduced as workers migrated into work and began paying taxes; individual disabled people would enjoy an increase in their income; they would achieve a greater degree of independence from state benefits, and feel more socially included (AccountAbility 2004). Additionally, a strong case has been made that organisations can benefit financially by employing disabled staff (AccountAbility 2004; DRC 2004; Evans 2001; Spechler 1996). For example, Evans lays out the best practice for employing disabled people. He makes the business case that failure to use this talent-pool fully is a cost to business not only in terms of promoting one's company as socially committed but also because it does not exploit the untapped potential of disabled people (Evans 2001). Spechler provides a number of case studies on business profitability that was achieved by employing disabled people, including benchmark examples of positive impacts on quality and employee and customer relations (Spechler 1996). These texts reflect the recommendations set out on the websites of prominent UK bodies including the Disability Rights Commission (DRC 2004) and the Employer’s Forum on Disability (AccountAbility 2004). However, policy and a few positive cases, encouraging as they may be, should not be misinterpreted as the general case.
Research has identified that disabled people are twice as likely as their non-disabled peers to be out of work (DRC 2004), with one third of those who find work becoming unemployed within the following year. Of those who become disabled during their working life, one in six lose their jobs during the first 12 months after becoming disabled (Burchardt 2000). So there appears to be a problem in translating the rhetoric of social inclusion through paid work for disabled people into a working reality. There is a contradiction here between the benefits for government, disabled people and employers. Published statistics on the success of government policy towards the employment of disabled people revealed that targets were missed by some considerable amount. For instance, figures show that only 5% of disabled people involved in NDDP have found permanent jobs. From July 2001 to September 2002 1,400 disabled people worked for more than six months after getting help. Furthermore, just 6,099 people were helped into any form of work - far short of the target of 90,000 set (Calvi 2003).
Although to a neutral observer the gap between the rhetoric of social inclusion through paid work and the reality of continued exclusion for many disabled people may appear puzzling, for many in the disability movement this apparent contradiction can be easily understood once different models of disability are considered and the causes of disability are examined. Hence, for the disability movement, the issue has become a political struggle against dominant (mis)understandings of disability which, they argue, are the cause of oppression and discrimination against disabled people. So what follows is a brief summary of the underlying principles of these models.