Effectiveness of Social Security Policies for People with Disabilities - Essay Example

? Welfare Policies in Relation to People with Disabilities: A Cross-Cultural Perspective [Insert Here] [Insert Your s Here] [Insert Your Course Name and Number Here] April 3, 2011 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Cross-Cultural Approach 3 Historical Perspective 4 Scope and Obstacles of Welfare Policies 5 Specific Examples 6 Common Welfare Policy Reasoning 8 Social Context 9 A Matter of Human Rights 10 Britain’s Fit Notes 10 Relationship between Disabilities and Poverty 11 The Structure of Public Services 12 Structure at the State Level 12 Structure at the Country Level 13 In-Depth Exploration of Trends 14 Competencies as a Factor 14 Differentiation 15 Conclusion 16 References 18 Welfare Policies in Relation to People with Disabilities: A Cross-Cultural Perspective Introduction The welfare policies at the state level concerning people with disabilities generally reflect the level at which the needs and abilities of these people are respected by local society. The key characteristics of these policies are their strong dependency on the financial status of each particular country. From this perspective, developed countries are most likely to develop effective welfare policies for people with disabilities—compared to third-world and developing countries. However, problems and delays are identified in the development of these policies in practice. Most commonly, the welfare policies for people with disabilities focus on what these people cannot do, rather than on what they can do. Cross-Cultural Approach The level at which welfare policies address the needs of people with disabilities, refers to the obstacles that these people must overcome. It also aims to show the reason the policies referring to the needs, and the rights, of people with disabilities are based on these peoples’ inabilities and not on their potential and capabilities. Thus, the specific strategy, using this criterion for developing welfare policies for people with disabilities can be explained using multiple approaches. These strategies significantly vary from one country to another. However, similarities exist on which the relevant explanations can be based. Another notable discovery of this study is the expanding trend of focus on inabilities because specific interests are served, as explained analytically below. It should also be mentioned that the criteria used by legislators when developing policies related to the interests of people with disabilities is not standardized; the political characteristics of each country—as these characteristics are not constant over time—are of crucial importance for deciding on the terms under which disabled people will be supported (Combat Poverty Agency 1994, p. 114; Chaudhary 2006, p. 12). Moreover, often the reasons for which welfare policies are implemented are independent from political trends and social ethics within a given country. For instance, when these policies are applied across a particular organization, the criteria on which these policies are based cannot be controlled using the common ethical rules. This issue is also explored, at the level that it helps to understand this trend. Historical Perspective The welfare policies developed within each society are usually related to local social needs and culture; however, infrastructure available for the relevant policies has also historically been considered to play a critical role in deciding the welfare policies that would be most appropriate for a specific country. On the other hand, an increase in the number of people with disabilities, not participatory in the workforce, leads to the assumption that more funds are required for their financial support (Cousins, 2007, p. 252). The identification of these funds can be a challenging task for a government—particularly in periods of financial crisis and in countries that face severe financial turbulences. For instance, as of October 2010, the World Bank reports disbursements totalling “a record $81 billion—including $21 billion to the world’s 79 poorest countries” (2010). While developing countries are currently facing hardship related to high food prices and a lack of international funding, developed countries are dealing with increased rates of unemployment and relatively low growth (World Bank 2010). The deterioration of a country’s economy can be used as a justification for the limitation of the financial support provided at the local level to people with disabilities. Furthermore, in countries where the support provided to disabled people has been traditionally related to social ethics, local governments face greater challenges in allocating the necessary funds. Another notable example is Britain, where in 2002, 64% of households with one or more disabled persons did not have a source of income outside of the benefits provided by the state (Moore, 2002, p. 98). Reviewing the reasons for welfare policy implementation in a particular country requires examination into, and an understanding of, legislators’ priorities in regard to the specific issue. Scope and Obstacles of Welfare Policies To more clearly understand the reasons for which these policies tend to focus on what people with disabilities cannot do rather than what they can do it is necessary to refer primarily to the common forms and scope of the particular policies. The development of the current global financial crisis negatively has affected the quality of life of people with, and without, disabilities. In the case of people with disabilities the expansion of the recession has led to a severe problem, namely, their access to the workforce has transformed into an obstacle rather than a key aspect of their normalcy. As a result, their ability to cover the costs of medical treatments, prescriptions, and maintain a healthy lifestyle has been restricted. In the study of Stapleton and Burkhauser (2003), it is made clear that this problem is not recent, but that, through a series of surveys developed during the 1990s—it was proved that “the employment rate of people with disabilities has decreased, in opposition with the employment rate of people with no disabilities which has been increased” (Stapleton and Burkhauser 2003, p. 9). The above fact indicates the following trend: people with disabilities have been gradually excluded from the workplace. This is a trend that is also related to the fact that the number of people with disabilities who cannot work has increased – as revealed through the feedback from the surveys developed during 1990s in the particular field – reference is made to ‘the working–aged people with disabilities ‘(Stapleton and Burkhauser 2003, p. 10). Specific Examples Moreover, the level of support provided to the people with disabilities has decreased; this issue is highlighted in the study of Bochel and Defty (2007, p. 120) where reference is made to the support of British governments toward people with disabilities. It is noted that the specific sector had, traditionally, great importance for political parties in Britain – a trend that was extremely developed in the 1980s; however, currently, the support provided by British politicians to people with disabilities is decreased. This is most likely because of the identification of many cases in which the relevant Incapacity Benefit was provided (Bochel and Defty 2007, p. 120). In other words, the limitation of the support provided to people with disabilities can be related to the political trends and characteristics of each particular society. The limitation of the support provided to people with disabilities can be identified in different elements of the relevant policies developed in each country. For instance, in the United States, the lack of adequate support to people with disabilities is revealed by the following fact: people with disabilities face difficulties in attaining employment mostly because their insurance is not considered as satisfactory, meaning the health coverage provided to people with disabilities in the United States is not full coverage, and employers are not willing to be burdened with an added cost (Moy, 2000, p. 32). However, American companies that have hired disabled individuals report they are “predisposed to hiring them again;” meaning, companies in the United States that could overlook the financial aspects recognized the benefits that far outweighed the costs associated with hiring a person with disabilities (EEO Trust 2010). The EEO Trust reports that one out of five New Zealand members of the workforce is considered disabled (2010). This ratio is extremely high, and after critical review is unique to this country. However, based on research conducted by the EEO Trust in 2005, related to New Zealanders with disabilities and also employers who have employed them, employees and employers rated workers with disabilities highly in the following areas: people skills, work ethic, reliability, and trustworthiness (EEO Trust 2010). Furthermore, Australian research conducted in 2002, found: Disabled employees averaged one-sixth the recorded occupational health and safety incidents of employees without a disability. Disabled people are absent from work 85% less than other people. Disabled people are cheaper to maintain in employment (recruitment, safety and insurance costs). Workplace accommodations for disabled people are financially cost-neutral or cost-beneficial to the organisation as a whole. (EEO Trust 2010) The above issues should be taken into consideration when evaluating the criteria used by legislators worldwide when developing the laws referring to people with disabilities. Additionally, the problems noted in Britain and the United States could partially explain why the attention paid to the needs of people with disabilities is relatively low; regardless of the benefits found in the research conducted on United States, New Zealand, and Australian employees with disabilities. Thus, even in developed countries, the phenomenon to remove focus from those employees with disabilities has led to the following problems gradually: the laws addressing the issues related to people with disabilities are not analytical; they rather tend to refer briefly to the needs and the rights of these people; and the reference to the activities that these people cannot perform is always considered as easier compared to the analysis of the varied tasks they can handle, degrees they hold, and skills that these people do have. It is believed that they must be micromanaged and their daily assignments must be composed of tasks that would require a significant amount of time to be fully performed (EEO Trust 2010). Common Welfare Policy Reasoning The introduction of policies that address the needs and the interests of people with disabilities have been related to many reasons. First, from a common point of view, these policies are necessary in order to show the interest of the local government for the needs of these people. This interest is expected to benefit the government, though increasing in recent popularity among the public. From this perspective, the motives of each country’s government to develop welfare policies that address the needs and interests for people with disability are purely political. The rights and the interests of people with disabilities have been extremely promoted through relevant initiatives of international organizations such as the United Nations (International Labour Office 2004). In other words, these needs and interests must be secured by local governments in the context of the obligation of each country’s government to follow the rules and principles of the organization, of course, under the terms that the national laws and ethics are not violated. Using the above approach, it is concluded that governments worldwide tend to introduce welfare policies for people with disabilities because of their obligation to align their key strategies with the rules and the orders of these global organizations. The result of the support provided by the international community to the people with disabilities is that the relevant initiatives and schemes, when are developed in the context of a particular state, are adequately funded by international organizations – or individuals who support such plans, for instance the trusts developed for the financial support of people with disabilities. Organizations including the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are a couple of examples of foreign supporters of disabled individuals in different countries. In the above context, the incentives for the development of welfare policies that address the interests and the needs of people with disabilities can be financial. Social Context On the other hand, the reasons for which welfare policies for disabled people focus on their inabilities rather than on their skills or capabilities can be related not to the local social, political, or economic conditions but rather on the rules on which a specific social context is based, referring to the workplace, as an independent social and economic unit. This view is developed in the study of Krieger (2003), in which study it is made clear that each workplace is likely to be regulated by a series of rules, these rules needed to address the likely problems to appear in the specific environment. The terms under which a person is considered as eligible to perform specific tasks must also be clearly stated. This is a practice related to the organization’s culture and infrastructure – not the social or political ethics. The inabilities of each employee need to be reported by the employee to avoid any severe accident within the workplace (Krieger 2003, p. 182). For instance, the inability of a worker to move one of his hands effectively should be reported if the specific worker has applied for a job position related to the use of machinery, which requires careful handling. In a wider context, ethical issues of duty of care and negligence come into play. It is obvious that unqualified individuals cannot be hired to do a specific job—whether or not they have a disability. In this way, the firm or employer is made aware of the potential risks. Then, if it is decided to hire the particular employee, this information will help protect the well-being and the security of the disabled employee as well as other employees likely to work within his or her proximity. A Matter of Human Rights The view of Krieger (2003) as presented above is similar to that of Barnes and Mercer (2005); the welfare policies referring to the working rights of disabled persons are not likely to focus on their skills but rather on their inabilities. In other words, one must wonder why the skills of the disabled are not focused upon instead of their inability. This practice is followed, in accordance with Barnes and Mercer (2005) because of the following reason: referring to these persons’ skills and abilities would require a thorough examination of their actual competencies and physical condition; a process that would require a great deal of time. Instead, reference is made to their inabilities, which are limited, and often more obvious to identify. The protection of the rights of people with varied disabilities is ensured primarily through federal and local laws established in the given field or industry within the country of operation. Some examples include the United States’ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the United Kingdom’s Disability Discrimination Act of 1995, and Australia’s Disability Act 2006, which replaced the former Intellectually Disabled Persons' Services Act 1986 and Disability Services Act 1991. Such regulations have been put into place to help ensure the respect of the rights and interests for people with disabilities; however, in practice, these rights are often violated. Britain’s Fit Notes The social ethics regarding the protection of the rights of people with disabilities are extremely strong. The continued exclusion of people from British workplaces may seem to contradict the introduction of “fit notes,” which are designed to explain the capabilities of an employee as opposed to a sick note that is very “black-and-white” stating an employee is simply too “unfit” to report to work. However, it is difficult to see the difference between a fit note and an explanation of a disabled person’s capabilities and skills. The fit note focuses on providing the employer with information as to what the employee can do, which is all people with disabilities are asking of employers in countries around the world. This new legislation is a positive change because workers will not be able to abuse sick days, without having an electronically submitted “fit note” from their health care provider stating they are unfit to perform any duties within the organization. According to the Out-Law News Website, “The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has estimated that 172 million working days were lost due to absence in 2007, costing employers ?13 billion. Absences that last over four weeks make up around 40% of days lost to absence” (2009). Therefore, people who require numerous fit notes could potentially lose their jobs. Supposedly this is intended to benefit both the employer and the employee; however, this is seen as a major win for employers, giving them the ability to fire an individual on the grounds of absenteeism—particularly positive for employers dealing with performance issues relating to employees who have difficulty in completing work tasks (Out-Law News, 2009). This is discriminatory against disabled individuals in Britain, who may need support services to help them do their jobs. Without welfare policies in place in Britain, the loss of said policies may not lead to rioting necessarily; however, lack of comprehensive support services for people with disabilities could lead to a negative effect on the country’s economy and the overall health of the nation. Relationship between Disabilities and Poverty People with disabilities are most likely to be impoverished, compared to other population categories, an issue analysed in the study conducted by Cousins (2007) in which reference is made to the high level of unemployment of people with disabilities in Ireland. It is expected that people of this category need to be adequately supported by the state because they would not easily retrieve the funds necessary for both their diet—when special food is required—and their medical treatment (p. 252). From this point of view, the welfare policies for people with disabilities are indispensable part of a country’s social policies. However, the ability of each country to respond to the financial needs of people with disabilities is not standardized. In fact, the relevant policies of each country are likely to change over time, resultant of global financial turbulences (Combat Poverty Agency 1994, p. 114). The Structure of Public Services The structure of public services, referring especially to the social services dealing with the needs of people with disabilities, and the accounting practices of each state are also expected to influence the specific state’s ability to respond to the needs of disabled persons (George and Miller 1994, p. 164). The reasons for the introduction of welfare policies for people with disabilities would be reviewed in order to understand the common characteristics of these policies, referring especially to the fact that these policies tend to focus on the inabilities of these people rather than on their capabilities or skills. Structure at the State Level Through the decades, the policies of states for people with disabilities have been differentiated, under the influence of the factors presented above. It has been proved that the conditions in the political and social environment are most likely to be used for deciding the form of these policies; an issue also highlighted in the study of Walsh, Stephens, and Moore (2000) where reference is made to the important role of industrialization in the development of rights for disabled people. The authors focus particularly on their right to ask for the support of the state in regard to various needs and activities (Walsh et al. 2000, p. 222). Structure at the Country Level Under these terms, the reasons for which governments follow different criteria when developing their welfare policies—including the policies for people with disabilities—may be related to the change in these countries’ political characteristics and their priorities in regard to their welfare policies. An indicative example is Australia, a country that was traditionally extremely supportive to people with disabilities, focusing on the fairness of its welfare system (Milbourne 2010, p. 199). Through the years, though, the country’s political priorities have changed, and strict criteria have been identified for the provision of support to people with disabilities. In accordance with Milbourne (2010) in the context of the above change in the Australian welfare system, people with disabilities are not treated as “clients,” but as citizens (Milbourne 2010, p. 199). Under these terms, the potential focus of Australia’s welfare policies for people with disabilities on these peoples’ inabilities could be interpreted as an effort to ensure the correlation between the actual needs of people with disabilities and the support that should be provided for the particular needs. This, obviously, does not focus on what people can do but rather on what they cannot do. This is similar to the policy enforced in the United States, which mainly focuses upon more obviously visible disabilities, as previously mentioned. In addition, in the United States welfare policies are based upon the disabled individual’s ability to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he or she is incapable of doing any type of work. For example, someone may have a mood disorder such as schizophrenia—but may not be able to receive benefits in the United States because the schizophrenic individual may still be able to actually do physical work without significant impairment. Thus, mental disabilities usually take a backseat to disabilities, which are more physical and easily visible—for example, someone in a wheelchair who has lost use of his or her limbs, or a blind person. These are a few examples of the more obvious disabilities previously discussed, and readily accepted as a “true disability.” It is obvious, therefore, that certain disabilities take precedence over others because of their seriousness and, in Australia and the United States, the individual’s ability to perform the duties of the position, perhaps even with reasonable accommodation. In-Depth Exploration of Trends In other words, through the specific trend—focusing on the inabilities of these people, the following scope is revealed: emphasis is given by the state not so much on the social character of the welfare policies rather on the effectiveness of the control regarding the existence of the relevant criteria. In this context, particular measures are developed for ensuring that people who are given relevant support meet all the necessary requirements. The achievement of the above target is ensured by including in the rules that regulate the specific issue, a clear description of the inabilities for which the support of the state is provided. Inabilities are easier to be checked compared to skills or competencies and, thus, they are most likely to ensure that the support provided by the state is adequately justified; the above reasoning can be used for justifying the general framework of a country’s welfare policies – i.e., not only the support provided to the people with disabilities. Competencies as a Factor From a similar point of view, Clark (2004) notes that people with disabilities are likely to have different competencies for entering the job market – reference is made to their physical potential to work. In this context, the level of support provided by the state to people with disabilities would be decided in accordance with their actual physical condition. This condition would be most effectively measured and evaluated by referring to the inabilities of these people – again using the argument that their inabilities are easier to be checked and evaluated compared to their competencies which may be differentiated in accordance with the conditions in the environment or the time period during which these competencies are checked. The view of Clark (2004) justifies the use of the inabilities rather than the competencies of people with disabilities for providing to them relevant support using the following two arguments, as analysed above, that: Inabilities are easier to be checked – verifying the need of the person involved to be supported by the state; and Inabilities are likely to have a standard form and are more offered for the evaluation of the physical condition of the disabled person. (Clark 2004) Differentiation At the next level, the needs of people with disabilities can be differentiated; for this reason, the plans developed by the state for their support are differentiated, responding to the needs of each particular category. For instance, in the case of Belgium, three different types of allowances have been introduced for covering the needs of disabled persons (Council of Europe, 2003, p. 66). In order for the appropriate type of allowance to be provided it is necessary to identify the category to which each disabled person belongs (i.e. the establishment of criteria related to the physical inabilities of these persons would help to locate the type of support available to them). Again, the reference to these people’s skills or competencies would cause delays in the relevant procedure: the actual skills or competencies of these people may be many and difficult to be checked. However, their inabilities are likely to be specific and easy to be evaluated. Therefore, a focus on the inability to work in Belgium may, like the United States and Australia, be more closely-related to a lack of funds for all disabled people, not just those who have severe impairments—which is just more evidence pointing to the fact that budget cuts are partially the reason for keeping some people from being labelled “disabled,” even though they may have some type of impairment which is serious enough to be warranted a problem, but not serious enough to be considered a disability by these governments’ strict eligibility standards for qualifying as a disabled individual. In India, disabled individuals are given a monthly allowance of 1000 rupees, as well as various other kinds of governmental support—if disabled. According to the World Health Organization, there are 650 million people around the world who have a disability or disabilities; equivalent to approximately 9.5% of the world’s population. This means that one out of every ten people in the world has a disability of some degree. Obviously, that is not just a small problem, but an epidemic. There must be international support for people with disabilities, which includes welfare for those in need—regardless of their ability levels. Conclusion It seems that the criteria used by legislators worldwide in regard to the content and the priorities of the relevant rules are not appropriate. This problem has been also made clear in the following case: the rules referring to the interest and rights of disabled individuals are most likely to focus on their disabilities rather than on their skills. Despite the fact that a series of arguments has been developed for justifying the above trend, still the above phenomenon needs to be controlled. The above suggestion is based on the following fact: by using the inabilities of a disabled person in order to evaluate their potentials to access specific benefits or rights; for instance the right to financial benefit, the right to work and so on, a following problem would result. In most cases, emphasis is placed on these persons’ inabilities, rather than on their skills. Some regulations and legislation is moving the world in the right direction, such as Britain’s Fit Notes and various organizations spreading awareness of the true cost/benefit analysis of changing the focus from what cannot be done to what can be done. In the context of the social lives of individuals having disabilities, this fact would lead to isolation and the limitation of their willingness to be integrated into their social environment. Such perspective, could lead to the change of the social character of the welfare policies and to their transformation to an administrative (or, worse, to an economic) activity, a trend that would harm, in the long run, the local culture and ethics. References Barnes, C., Mercer, G. (2005) “Disability, work, and welfare: challenging the social exclusion of disabled people.” Work Employment & Society, Vol. 19 (3): 527-545. Bochel, H., Defty, A. (2007) Welfare policy under New Labour: views from inside Westminster. Bristol: The Policy Press Chaudhary, S. (2006) Welfare policy and social development. Delhi: Global Vision Publishing. Clark, L. (2004) The economics of an aging society. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Combat Poverty Agency (1994) Disability, exclusion & poverty: papers from the national conference Disability, exclusion & poverty: a policy conference. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency. Council of Europe (2003) Rehabilitation and integration of people with disabilities: policy and legislation: report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cousins, M. (2007) Welfare policy and poverty. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency. EEO Trust [online]. (2010) [Accessed 3 April 2011]. Available from: . George, V., Miller, S. (1994) Social policy towards 2000: squaring the welfare circle. London: Routledge. International Labour Office (2004) Achieving equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities through legislation: guidelines. Geneve: International Labour Organization. Krieger, L. (2003) Backlash against the ADA: reinterpreting disability rights. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Milbourne, P. (2010) Welfare reform in rural places: comparative perspectives. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Moore, S. (2002) Social welfare alive! London: Nelson Thornes. Moy, R. (2000) Helping employers comply with the ADA: an assessment of how the United States equal employment opportunity commission is enforcing. Philadelphia: DIANE Publishing. Out-Law News [online]. (2009) [Accessed 3 April 2011]. Available from: . Stapleton, D., Burkhauser, R. (2003) The decline in employment of people with disabilities: a policy puzzle. Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute. Walsh, M., Stephens, P., Moore, S. (2000) Social policy & welfare. London: Nelson Thornes. World Bank [online]. (2011) [Accessed 3 April 2011]. Available from: . Read More