Disability and Entrepreneurship: Barriers and Opportunities of Disabled Entrepreneurship - Literature review Example

Disability and Entrepreneurship: Barriers and Opportunities of Disabled Entrepreneurship Submission Abstract Disability is a major obstacle to successful entrepreneurship. People with disabilities confront numerous difficulties and barriers—personal, institutional, structural, and societal—to employment and entrepreneurship. Many of these barriers are overwhelming and seem insurmountable for many disabled people. However, with the help of local and global organisations, these barriers may be reduced or, ideally, removed. This paper discusses the barriers confronted by disabled entrepreneurs and the possible measures that can be implemented to help disabled people become successful entrepreneurs and gain self-sufficiency and confidence. Introduction It has been reported that approximately 600 million individuals all over the world have a disability. As revealed by the Disabled World (2010 as cited in Wood et al., 2012: p. 146): A disability is a condition or function judged to be significantly impaired, relative to the usual standard of an individual or group. The term is used to refer to individual functioning, including physical impairment, sensory impairment, cognitive impairment, intellectual impairment, mental illness and various types of chronic disease. Furthermore, people with disability make up 20% of the total population of the poorest people in the world. There are 10 million individuals with disability in the UK alone, which comprises 18% of the total population of employed individuals (Wood et al., 2012: p. 146). A large number of disabled individuals have by now built opportunities or prospects for themselves by means of entrepreneurship. The advantages of entrepreneurship for these disabled people rest largely in their self-reliance and in the chance to engage in their own business decision-making, the capability to make their own timetable and pace, and the prevention of stereotypes and discrimination that are at times observed in the practise of recruitment, leading to underemployment or unemployment. Decreased transportation difficulties offered by home-based businesses are important advantages too. Disabled individuals usually face challenges, difficulties, or barriers when trying to embark on entrepreneurial projects, particularly in obtaining the resources or capital required for business start-ups, for they do not have the adequate resources or credit to fall back on as indemnity for a loan (Parker, 2009). This paper discusses the barriers confronted by disabled entrepreneurs and the possible measures that can be implemented to help disabled people become successful entrepreneurs and gain self-sufficiency and confidence. Barriers Faced by Disabled Entrepreneurs In certain instances, they may not possess the assets, knowledge, or information needed to formulate a business plan, a successful path to economic self-reliance for their customers, and so on. However, by means of innovative thinking and effective control of available assets, people with disabilities are contributing to the removal of these barriers through continuous training, education, partnerships, or establishing their commercial businesses in domains wherein they have a competitive leverage over ‘able-bodied’ entrepreneurs, for instance: recruiting other disabled individuals in their enterprises, building computer-based programmes for disabled customers, or trading disabled supports and fixtures (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). An impaired woman from Vietnam, Tran Hoang Yen, manages her own store and has come to be a thriving entrepreneur, hiring several underprivileged youngsters, most of whom are disabled women (Wood et al., 2012). Some scholars found out that problems with ‘confidence’ were the main barrier for entrepreneurs with disability, especially those experiencing mental health disorders. Self-image has been found to be a major problem for disabled individuals as they are very accustomed to being discouraged and demoralised. Furthermore, individuals may have their personal or subjective opinion of their disability and what impact this could have on the capacity to embark on or manage a business (Kariv, 2011). This was connected to the fear of missing advantages or benefits, and that individuals with disability would have no earnings until the business generate sufficient profit for their upkeep. It was known that individuals require time to consolidate benefits, like financial assistance. Availability of start-up resources is another major problem. Established barriers are existent as capital has a tendency to be organised based on a customary working pattern— eight working hours for five days a week—and a large number of disabled individuals prefer to work more flexibly, performing tasks when they are capable to. It was stressed that people with disability may confront greater financial difficulties than other populations (London & Morfopoulos, 2010). For instance, even though women might have problems with costs of childcare, a monitor reader for a blind individual can require a huge amount of money. Furthermore, disabled individuals have lower credit ratings as they are likely to have been covered by various benefits for a considerable period of time, and hence access to credit is more difficult (Parker, 2009). Furthermore, institutional, programme, and societal barriers to entrepreneurship and employment can seem overwhelming to numerous disabled people. Those with mental impairments should frequently cope with public prejudice, and the anxiety, uncertainty, and stigma of having a psychiatric disability. Physically disabled and/or visually impaired individuals usually have difficulties landing a job, and if employed, securing and accessing the accommodation and practical, serviceable technologies required to carry out their task (Parker, 2004). Those with cognitive impairments should also habitually overcome barriers of prejudice, stigma, and stereotype to acquire employment, and afterwards build the support system that assists them not merely to carry out the work to the expectations or standards of the employer but also to build positive and helpful relationship with colleagues. Covering these organisational, institutional, and societal barriers can be the consequences of the treatment services that do not possess the knowledge, competence, resources, or relations with employers to assist their customers in finding employments, or to become entrepreneurs. Reduced expectations or trusts among employees about the capacity of disabled individuals to acquire and maintain employment, or to become entrepreneurs, pose other difficulties (Kirve & Kanitkar, 1993). A large number of disabled individuals are anxious to go back to work because they are worried that they will be stripped off of their public benefits. Although numerous public benefit platforms have several return-to-work programmes, as well as those that involve entrepreneurship, disabled individuals, and usually the business or career mentors with whom they collaborate, are mostly uninformed of these services. The usual outcome is that disabled individuals restrict their work hours, do not ever begin to work toward entrepreneurship, or choose not to pursue employment or entrepreneurship for fear of being disqualified for hard-won financial assistance, and, most essentially, the medical support they get (Audretsch, 2002). Disabled individuals who decide to become entrepreneurs or self-employed also experience the business-related difficulties or barriers that any would-be entrepreneur should confront, like usability of the support system, feasibility of the business plan, and acquiring loans or grants. Job-related counsellors are usually unequipped or unable to assist would-be entrepreneurs with disability to confront challenges like those (Nandram & Samson, 206). However, in spite of these major barriers and difficulties, numerous disabled individuals still desire, and have the ability, to become entrepreneurs. What they usually do not have are the access to education, financial support, and especially the motivation that can be helpful to making the dream of entrepreneurship a reality. In recent years, microfinance (i.e. insurance services, savings, credit) has been the vanguard in international development projects as a technique to tackle concurrently two problems focused on by development bodies and contributors—poverty alleviation and the encouragement and empowerment of disabled individuals (Read et al., 2010). The rationale is that by focusing on disabled individuals as clients, microfinance provisions deal with the objectives of poverty relief, as disabled people are poorer than nondisabled individuals; and they focus on the objective of empowering disabled people by enhancing their control over or ownership of resources, earnings, and asset (Parker, 2004). Past microcredit services only provided considerable small loans to low-earning and poor micro-entrepreneurs to improve and grow their business enterprises. Numerous nonfinancial development groups integrated microcredit, and eventually their insurance and savings services, into their selection of offerings, to satisfy their clients’ financial requirements and as an encouragement to apply for other programmes (Parker, 2004). In recent years, focus has moved towards creating stable organisations to meet an array of financial requirements of poor individuals, and affordability or reduced costs has been emphasised alongside long-range financial sustainability. The interests of contributors in such ‘financial systems approach’ (Sweetman, 2004: p. 30), has sped up the development of individual microfinance provisions. It has resulted as well in a move towards focus on financial empowerment and incentive, away from wider services which concentrated on nonfinancial operations and on empowerment’s political and social facets. At present, the discourse is changing once more, as companies explore and experiment with microfinance programmes within the context of rights-based and participatory models of development (Williams & Williams, 2011). Issues of advantages and disadvantages to poor and disabled individuals, the value or usefulness of microcredit for sustainable economic independence, discussions over related services, processes, techniques, and objectives—these topics are the emphasis of thorough, passionate discourse, research, and testing across the globe. How are disabled individuals engaged in these studies on microfinance as a tool for poverty mitigation and empowerment of people with disability? Disabled women leaders, for instance, have made an attempt to take part in this global discourse as contributors, specialists, and implementers. Disabled women have usually been deprived of access to microfinance provisions, in spite of the fact that numerous services were focused on women or the poorest groups in a society (Litzky et al., 2010). Disabled individuals are considered as ‘bad risks’, and, per se, they are declined loans by financial institutions, like peer-lending associations, micro-lenders, and banks. Microfinance lenders widely have in common the stereotypes and biases against disabled individuals that result in this discrimination. They believe that, because of their impairments, disabled people are not qualified for business or microcredit provisions, or that they are sufficiently and better provided for by charities and rehabilitation groups (Bygrave & Zacharakis, 2011). Microenterprise services focus on disabled people due to the numerous barriers they confront in starting business enterprises and acquiring financial support. These involve weighty family duties, discouragement from other people, illiteracy, absence of education and experience, inadequate resources, poor self-image or confidence, and absence of adequate collateral (Parker, 2009). Disabled people confront these barriers, yet disability determines or influences their experience, changing and strengthening some barriers. For instance, women with disability may have dependents, like children, whom they have to support and provide for. However, due to their relatively poor ‘market value’, disabled women are more probable than nondisabled women to be unwed mothers (Bessant & Tidd, 2011). Disabled individuals are often given low importance in a family and have poorer access to job-related or educational training courses which would equip or get them ready for the labour market (Wood et al., 2012). Disability-specific barriers influence the involvement of disabled people at every phase of development programmes designed to improve means of support or subsistence—from outreach interventions to application procedures, from training courses to business operations. Communication and institutional obstacles confronting people with different impairments involve difficult to access market and meeting locations, transportation modes, and equipment which call for adjustment, print-only resources, and absence of sign-language specialists (Perrini, 2006). Other major obstacles involve stigma associated with disability, and the consequent prejudice and exclusion in education, training, the marketplace, and loan prospects. Such disability-related barriers demand feasible processes to enable the involvement of disabled individuals. Economic problems in developing nations have raised new barriers and difficulties. The consequences of globalisation, as well as structural-adjustment programmes (SAPs), that have led to decrease in basic services, tax raises, and privatisation, unduly influence disabled people (Ahl & Marlow, 2010). For instance, in periods of high rates of unemployment, disabled people are expected to be the first to be laid off. Greater competition in the marketplace pushes start-up nondisabled business ventures against enterprises owned by disabled individuals, who disadvantaged because of barriers in access and stigma (Ahl & Marlow, 2010). As resources for social services are drained, limitations on social expenditure lead to reduced access to useful technologies or services that would enhance the capacity of disabled people to take part in the society’s economic activities, like sign-language specialists, Braille resources, wheelchairs, or hearing aids. Restricted in prospects by obstacles to movement, transportation, and self-sufficiency, secluded from public sources of information, and influenced by limited expectations rooted in disability, disabled people quite frequently have little or no opportunity to build the confidence needed to become successful as an entrepreneur and loaner. Without a tough self-confidence, self-reliance, and entitlement, disabled people who do acquire loans and build business ventures are not sufficiently prepared to deal with demands and pressures from family members and others to give up power over decision making and resources (Gates & Leuschner, 2007). Difficult to access infrastructure and the absence of needed adaptive and assistive technologies and assets, make it harder for disabled individuals to become successful entrepreneurs. Movement and transportation were among the most widely cited issues or barriers, for systems of public transport and majority of public roads, are hard for people with mobility impairment to use. Deaf people admitted that communication problems influence their capacity to communicate with customers or service providers, as sign-language specialists are not easily accessible (Pagan-Rodriguez, 2012). Furthermore, people with all forms of disabilities admitted that prejudice, discrimination, and misinformation concerning disability make them competitively disadvantaged in the marketplace. Completely involving disabled people in development oblige development bodies to go beyond conventional, discriminatory models of disabled groups. Rather, they have to make the complete array of development alternatives accessible to disabled individuals. Mainstreaming, for instance, is a major technique to make sure that no spinoff occurs (Sweetman, 2004: p. 32): “While women-specific projects are appropriate under certain conditions and can bring significant benefits to women, women-specific projects are often ineffective in achieving a long-term change in the balance of power… since they often lead to further marginalisation of women.” Nevertheless, discouraged by their seclusion from mainstream development prospects, and extremely driven to move away from poverty into independence, groups headed by and for disabled individuals have initiated attempts to offer microfinance provisions, especially microcredit services, for their clients (Perrini, 2006). Among these, majority have integrated a certain extent of gender emphasis, from devoting outreach to female clients, to carrying out projects precisely for, and in certain instances headed by, disabled people. Nevertheless, popular disability groups are seldom prepared for the requirements of running sustainable microcredit projects, nor are these projects within the range of their knowledge, experience, and task. Sarah Dyer of UK Leonard Cheshire International explains this problem (Sweetman, 2004: p. 32): Because the economic needs of poor and disabled people cannot be ignored, organisations of and for disabled people have rightly established their own initiatives in economic empowerment, including micro-finance and credit programmes. There are many examples of successes and positive changes in the economy of poor disabled people. However, it has been the experience of many disability organisations that their work in credit has detracted and diverted their limited resources from other priority areas of their work… Because of resource constraints, conflicting interests and priorities and limited technical knowledge and experience, the finance programmes operated by disability organisations have had limited success. Despite of the restrictions, disability-based programmes do offer prospects for disabled people to show their abilities as entrepreneurs and loaners, to shed light on barriers and difficulties confronted by individuals with disability in microcredit, and to determine approaches for dealing with them (Litzky et al., 2010). Business-linked barriers faced by disabled people reported by some scholars were growing costs and severe lack of commodities caused by present environmental, political, and economic circumstances. These issues are definitely not limited to entrepreneurs with disability; they also affect start-up or small business ventures (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). Disabled individuals would undoubtedly gain from access to the supply of resources, technical assistance, and experience provided by mainstream economic development projects in coping with these societal problems. Conclusions People with disabilities normally confront numerous barriers to entrepreneurship. One of the major barriers is access to required capital or resources to set up a business enterprise. More often than not, disabled individuals have poorer credit records which make them unqualified for business loans. Another major obstacle is the absence of support system or discouragement and lower expectations from other people. These stereotypes about disabled people are rooted from the fact that disabilities limit mobility and capabilities. Gender is also a barrier, since women with disabilities are more disadvantaged in economic terms compared to their male counterparts. Microfinance or micro-lending institutions should take into consideration these people with disability and develop inclusive programmes that will help these disabled people become successful entrepreneurs and attain self-reliance and confidence. Recommendations What are possible measures to help disabled entrepreneurs become successful or economically empowered? One important measure is the significance of instilling disabled-specific theories all over the processes of planning and implementation. Likewise, engaging disabled people in participatory programmes, and in all facets of programme preparation, execution, and assessment, is the most appropriate means to make sure that successful and efficient strategies for inclusion are integrated into programmes from the beginning (Bessant & Tidd, 2011). Disabled people themselves are usually the most excellent resource for integrating feasible, suitable techniques to make services available and accessible to disabled people. Development groups have to communicate with disabled people to evaluate the forms of financial provisions that would be helpful to people who have traditionally been secluded from taking part. They have to gain knowledge of or identify what forms of assistance, adjustments, and accommodations disabled people in fact require and demand so as to take part in microfinance projects. Societal or structural obstacles and prejudice that damage the access of disabled people have to be recognised, and efforts intended to reform them. Research on micro-lending services that precisely aim at or engage disabled people have to be specially made and strengthened, in order that actual information for assessment and comparison become accessible. Mainstream development groups can employ groups as bridges or facilitators of discourse or dialogue between global and national disability-related associations, development associations, government bureaus, and groups administered by and for disabled individuals. These organisations must take into consideration the reasons why disabled people want to become entrepreneurs (Sweetman, 2004). Disabled individuals may decide to enter entrepreneurship for several rationales (Kingma, 2011: p. 112): Choice: many people with disabilities value a career as a small-business owner over that of wage employment; Capability: many people with disabilities have operated, or have worked in and gained the skills needed to start a small business at some time in their lives; Control: many people with disabilities want a career where they are the person in control of their economic future; Change: from the role of being viewed as a ‘client’, ‘patient’ or ‘consumer’ to being viewed as a small-business owner. Community co-operative goals will result in the formation of several programmes to help disabled individuals to become entrepreneurs or self-employed. Behind such attempts is the understanding that students, and the originality and innovative ideas that they can offer, are one of the best assets that sustain and reinforce new philosophies, ideologies, or beliefs about what is needed to attain a society where all people, including disabled individuals, has importance. As stated by the educational scholar Henry Giroux (Kingma, 2011: p. 115): In order for higher education to become a meaningful site for educating youth for a democratic future, educators and others need to reclaim higher educations as an ethical and political response to the demise of democratic public life. At stake here is the role of higher education as a public sphere committed to increasing the possibilities of democratic identities, value and relations. In essence, what disabled people need in order to become successful entrepreneurs are independence, confidence, and encouragement. References Ahl, H & Marlow, S (2012) “Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end?” Organisation, 19(5), 543-562. Audretsch, D (2002) Entrepreneurship: Determinants and Policy in a European-US Comparison. London: Springer. Bessant, J & Tidd, J (2011) Innovation and Entrepreneurship. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Bygrave, W & Zacharakis, A (2011) Entrepreneurship. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Gates, S & Leuschner, K (2007) In the Name of Entrepreneurship? The Logic and Effects of Special Regulatory Treatment for Small Business. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Kariv, D (2011) Entrepreneurship: An International Introduction. UK: Taylor & Francis. Kickul, J & Lyons, T (2012) Understanding Social Entrepreneurship. UK: Routledge. Kingma, B (2011) Academic Entrepreneurship and Community Engagement: Scholarship in Action and the Syracuse Miracle. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Kirve, H & Kanitkar, A (1993) “Entrepreneurship at the Grass-roots: Developing the Income-generating Capabilities of Rural Women”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 177-197. Litzky, B et al (2010) “Social Entrepreneurship and Community Leadership: A Service-Learning Model for Management Education”, Journal of Management Education, 34(1), 142-162. London, M & Morfopoulos, R (2010) Social Entrepreneurship: How to Start Successful Corporate Social Responsibility and Community-Based Initiatives for Advocacy and Change. London: Routledge. Nandram, S & Samsom, K (2006) The Spirit of Entrepreneurship. UK: Springer. Pagan-Rodriguez, R (2012) “Transitions to and from self-employment among older people with disabilities in Europe”, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(2), 82-93. Parker, S (2009) The Economics of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Parker, S (2004) The Economics of Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Perrini, F (2006) The New Social Entrepreneurship: What Awaits Social Entrepreneurial Ventures? UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read, S et al (2010) Effectual Entrepreneurship. London: Routledge. Sweetman, C (2004) Gender, Development and Diversity. Oxford, UK: Oxfam. Williams, N & Williams, C (2011) “Tackling barriers to entrepreneurship in a deprived urban neighbourhood”, Local Economy, 26(1), 30-42. Wood, G et al (2012) Minorities in Entrepreneurship: An International Review. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More