UK Government Policy Relating to the Human Right - Essay Example

Critically evaluate a current UK government policy relating to the human right of individual with disability impacted by globalization processes Table of Content: I. Executive Summary 2 II. Introduction 2 III. A Transformationalist Perspective 4 IV. Disability Policy in UK 5 V. Globalization and disability 10 V. 1 Poverty 11 V. 2. Wars and political upheals 12 V. 3 Work 12 V. 4 Education 12 VI. Practical Issues in UK 13 VII. Overall Findings 15 VI. Conclusion 16 VII. References 17   I. Executive Summary: The essence of report can be summarized as follows: The objective of this report is to find out whether UK governmental policy towards disability is appropriate for eliminating the effect of globalization on the people with physical or mental impairments or disability. The report has presented a critical discussion of the disability policy of UK and how it has evolved over time. Then, the report has explained the link between globalization and disability. It has explained how globalization can influence in the life of disabled individuals. Thereafter, in light with the discussed impacts of globalization on disabled people and UKs current disability policy, the paper has tried to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the policy. The study has found that the UK government has been able to evolve its disability policy in order to meet the changing need of the time in the light of globalization. The theoretical analysis of the impact of globalization on dibbled people has found that globalization has various negative effects on disables people in terms of employment status, income, education, etc. At the time of evaluating the practical issues relating to the effectiveness of the chosen policy in redressing the problem of disabled people, it has been found that despite making improvements in overall status of disabled people of the country, the disabled people is still lagging behind others. The concept of equal rights has not materialized in practice. II. Introduction: Disability has been brought to focus in the global agenda currently which is a socio-cultural issue that remained in the side line always. It is often mistaken with other two terms – handicap and impairment. These terms were used to have a perception from the diagnostic angle. These terms often misguided the policy makers to take any required political action or for any other practical use. (Yeates & Holden, 2009; Lavalette and Pratt, 2005) The strengthening of the rights of disability in Great Britain by the Disability Rights Commission has been better professed as a changeover towards achievement of social, cultural and economic rights and so as an act of affirming the incapability of dissolving the human rights. As such, that procedure of growth represented a tangible work out in the accomplishment of communal rights by a constitutional equality body and a momentous step towards the outset of disability rights as worldwide contribution, not just personage but marginal group privilege. This paper considered the distinguishing features of that demanding activity. From the exacting knowledge of DRC, the paper looked onward to considerations of broad significance to extra such bodies, together with the new Equality and Human privileges Commission. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010; Yeates, 2008) In April 2000, DRC was established which manifest the foremost institutional disclosure of equality in Great Britain. The CRE and EOC were there since the middle of 1970s. Lots of changes happened in the intermediate period and there was an air of change in the three social, political and legislative policies: The Race relation Act of 2001 introduced a new optimistic race obligation for the public sector in order to give consequence to the proposal of Stephen Lawrence inquiry. (De Haan, 2007; Yeates & Holden, 2009; Lavalette and Pratt, 2005) The Human Rights Act of 1998 was owing then to come into force on October 2000. A lot of the key necessities of the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 were still to be phased incrementally as well as extensions to cover education in September 2002. (De Haan, 2007; Yeates & Holden, 2009; Lavalette and Pratt, 2005) The Hepple report of 2000 provided a trustworthy review of the enforcement of anti-discrimination law in UK, set in a broader dictatorial perspective. When DRC first emerged as a solemn vision in the government White paper that preceded the DRC Act of 1999, the then Secretary of State, David Blunkett, made it obvious that DDA and DRC had been and would be correspondingly very noteworthy advances for the social rights of people with disability. (De Haan, 2007; Yeates & Holden, 2009; Lavalette and Pratt, 2005) This report will try to analyze the UK disability policy and its evolution in light with globalization as globalization has some serious impacts on the lives of disable people. Hence, the report will first present a critical analysis of a UK disability policy and its evolution over time. Then it will go analyzing the impacts of globalization on disabled people and finally it will critically evaluate the current policy in addressing the problems of disabled people under globalization. (De Haan, 2007; Yeates & Holden, 2009; Lavalette and Pratt, 2005) III. A Transformationalist Perspective: In regard to International Relations, disability may seem inappropriate to many people for discussions related to globalization. It is solely an ideal situation, shaped possibly by various state communal policies, but not really being affected or itself being affecting any global condition. This approach focused that disability is a condition Marcia Rioux and E. Zubrow termed as individual pathology. They suggested having more research on Disability Studies so that the approach of individual pathology relates to disability as being having some incapacity of non-disabled persons and the related costs which is seen as a social burden. Finally they suggested that the enclosure of disabled people is not state’s liability but a personal responsibility. (Stiglitz, 2008; Franzini and Pizzuti, 2001) The responsibility of the medical experts becomes critical when it comes to assess the degree of disability and the likelihood for it to be cured. This provides justification to both the public and market sector to edge its social and financial dedication. (Bardhan, Bowles and Wallerstein2006) A more clear and in my opinion, more interesting approach in this age of sturdy responses by social organizations to worldwide powered meetings, was to highlight disability from the recognized point of those occupied in the social activities linked to disability. The organizations of public with disabilities were creating room for themselves within every country and in global arenas like United Nations. Self-persistent disability movements which are of people with disabilities rather than for people are comparatively recent. The foremost internationally organizing hard work took place near the beginning of 1980s with the institution of Disabled Peoples’ International, which is a cross-disability association. (Stiglitz, 2008; Franzini and Pizzuti, 2001; Steger, 2003) IV. Disability Policy in UK: The UK government has been very active towards resolving diability issues in the country. In order to protect the civil and human rights of the diabled people living in the country, the UK government has undertaken several policies over time. Among these policies the most remarkable one is the Diability Discrimination Act of 1995 (DDA). This section will critically evaluate this act and will try to find out how the diability act has evolved over time to become relevant and appropriate in the context of globalization. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010; Yeates, 2008) The DDA was quite distictive in the way it was formatted for addressing the struggle of disabled people. It divieated from the previous policies in its charateristics. At the time of implementation of DDA in 1995, there had already been existed “equal treatemnet” legislation for the disabled people of the country. The provisions of the DDA were quite different from the existing laws on gender and race. The DDA actually did not aim for providing equal treatement to all. In fact, the essence of the Dda was to offer equality on amore meaningful ground. The makers of the DDA act proposed that equality can be achieved in a more meaningful way if different tteatement is offered to the disabled individuals. The DDA made necessary adjustmnets to the existing practices, policies and procedures to meet the distictive needs of the people with mental and physical impairments. The DDA undertook a positive approach towards solving the problems of disabled people by recognising their distinctive needs. This act in fact provided special attention to this particular social group. The positive accent with which the policies under the DDA were enunciated were further reinforced by the development of laws relating to human rights. Thus, it can be said that DDA went beyond the narrow space of civil rights of the disabled. The DDA, however, attracted several criticisms, particulrly from the lawyers of the country. The major problem with the DDA was that it did not conform enough to the traditional civil rights and the legislation of equal treatement. It actually severely deviated from the norm of anti-discrimination legislation. According to this norm, in any kind of discrimination law all sorts of deviations from the equal treatemnet principle should be kept at a minimum level. But the provisions of DDA crossed the minimum necessary boundary in case of keeping up various exceptions. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010; Yeates, 2008) However, over time, the UK government felt it necessary to evolve the exiting legislation relating to treating disabled people in light with various domestic and international changes in social, economic and political arena. Over time the provisions of DDA have been changed and in 2010, the underlying principles of of Act has undergone several changes and it has obtained a new name. Now the existing disbility policy is known to be as Equality Act of 2010 (EA). (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) In United Kingdom, the policy of disability has been currently reconciled with a broad concept of equality and with a perspective of human rights. The approach of United Kingdom has been built on the impression of "active citizenship", which involved: organizing and vindicating fundamental rights; confirming that people having disabilities do have a sense of association, and Facilitate people with disabilities to go ahead with their responsibilities as citizens together with their mutual rights. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The recent approach of United Kingdom was induced by growing acknowledgement of little demographic and social progression inclusive of a surge in the diversity of population caused by an increase in globalization. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The main focus of the Equality Act of 2010 (EA) was to amalgamate and ascend anti-prejudice legislation in Great Britain. It provided the legal composition that protected people, including people with disabilities, from being discriminated from others. It mend a dimension of anti-discrimination legislation, including the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 (DDA) and consecutive amendments. The Equality Act of 2010 did not replace the related parts of DDA of United Kingdom for domestic servants who woks in Northern Ireland. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The Equality Act of 2010 assured that the legal composition of the law of equality was much more dependable for most of the people with covered characteristics, for instance, cultural group and gender (Section 4 of the EA and the Equality and Human Rights website both offer a detailed explanation of ‘protected characteristics’). By analyzing and building up earlier equality legislation, the Act was contemplated to get operated effortlessly and to be understood easily than earlier equality legislation. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The Equality Act of 2010, in general, has carried forward the assurance provided for people with disability by the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995. However, there were some major differences like: (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 provided assurance for people with disability from directly being discriminated in areas pf employment and the correlated areas. The Equality Act of 2010 protected people with disability against direct differences in areas beyond employment (such as bundle of goods, facilities and services). (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The Equality Act of 2010 introduced advanced assurance from discrimination that arises because of some thing related with disability of a person. This form of distinction can be supported if it can be highlighted as a sufficient means of accomplishing a consistent aim. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The EA brought out the convention of indirect distinction for disability. Indirect differences occur when in particular it become disadvantageous for the people with disability while being same for the others. Indirect distinction may be supported if it can be highlighted to be a balanced means of getting an appropriate aim. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The EA applied one cause at which there was a duty to make understandable adjustments for people with disability. If the adjustments were not made, this trigger point would be the place where a disabled person would be at a substantial disadvantageous level compared to some non-disabled people. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The EA extended protection from getting harassed which is related to disability. Earlier, major protection was given related to work. The EA applied this idea of protection to various places beyond work. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The EA provided protection from getting direct disability discrimination and harassment where it is related on a person’s union with a disabled person, or on a false idea that the person is disabled. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) The EA contained an arrangement which limited the kind of enquiries that an employer can have about disability and health while recruiting new team of staff. This provision has helped to prevent disabled candidates from being unfairly treated out at an initial stage of the recruitment process. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) V. Globalization and disability: The term called globalization was first documented in the year 1959 but remained inactive till the mid of 1980s when its practice amplified spectacularly in scholastic language. The term seemed to pass on to the coming out of intercontinental organizations whose decisions have a propensity to figure and hold back the policy choices any meticulous nation state may desire to take. Globalization possibly will furthermore mean the changeover from nationwide walled and provincial economies towards universal free deal and markets. Globalization also relates to the manifestation of new comprehensive enriching forms, media, information and communication technologies, which seemed unobstructed by national borders. (Priestley 2001) There is mounting substantiation that disability as a concern seemed to have changed considerably over the precedent few years from the margin to the centre of the global human rights schedule and also of plentiful literature that disability strategy plan has risen to be a large-scale policy concern (Barton & Oliver, 1987; Priestley 2001); and also that it has turn out to be a defy to policy planners who plan out expansion oriented policies and strategies for social and economic programs for disabled people. The process of globalization seemed to be variable not only in the populations of being with disabilities but also their occurrence of disability. People with disabilities internationally seemed to be empowering themselves to declare better participation and parity in comprehensive challenges distressing them. Such claims are not only about to have power over individuals’ lives, but also about greater authority over the societies and economies within which they live. (Priestley 2001; Frieden, 2002) In this epoch of globalization it appeared that disabled people are mostly challenged in four segments, namely, by deficiency, wars, right of entry to education and work. V. 1. Poverty: With the program of disability policy, being reaching the uppermost level of global acknowledgment, globalization was perceived to propose nonstop opportunities and innovative life patterns to every one, for instance, easy admittance to information and technology, health and social amenities, education, and others. But, as per Ghai (2001), the contradiction was that, on one hand, globalization stressed on financially viable power in order to get better source of revenue for mankind but on the other hand, it systematically bounded some groups of public, particularly some people with disability, by its application of new technology and thereby removing these people from getting engaged in providing to GNP of unique states of nation. In this way, globalization has brought up challenges in order to equalize opportunities of disabled people. In addition, the obvious inequality in social, technological and economic developments between the different national states has given rise to globalization with a different meaning for people with disability and to confront them differently in various communities (Ghai, 2001; Beresford, 1998); with other communities being more affluent than others. V. 2 Wars and political upheavals: Another facet of globalization that appeared to dare, in order to equalize the opportunities for people with disability, was war and its related political disruption. (Priestley, 2001). Any political commotion had unfavorable effects on the lives of people with disability and their rights were perceived to be hideously desecrated during the times of war anywhere on the earth, efficiently not including them from taking part in the social and capital capability in building of unnatural nations. Priestley (2001) also noted that any kind of wars have resulted into lots of displaced persons and disabled refugees in and around war prone zones.  V. 3 Work: People having some kind of disability internationally continued to be unreasonably jobless, underemployed and poorly paid. The International Labor Organization embraced a Convention Concerning Vocational, Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) (ILO, 1983) to establish parity of opportunities and to have equality in the treatment of disabled people at job and social incorporation. On the other hand, in spite of much attempt at the overall level to take account of disabled people in the service sector, at the restricted level, some would continued to be disqualified by their impairments since some would be likely not to be competent of producing merchandise or services in order to make a payment to the social and financially viable asset foundation.  V. 4 Education: Education occupied a only one of its kind position in the contemporary society today since it tends to provide advantage to both the world and the individual as it was considered to be an open good. Classically, as worldwide market trends and technologies continued to build up in new horizons, free admittance to education seemed to also turn out to be even more imperative for all and sundry. Nevertheless, disabled group seemed to persist to be challenged in their mission to have the right of entry to the educational opportunities available. In their enthusiasm to get hold of information and skills needed in the developing world of work, it was noted that the undemocratic admittance to educational reimbursement resulted in the detachment to work; thereby insisting further the formation of an insolvent community. (Shah, 1990; Lauder et al. 2006) VI Practical Issues in UK: In the earlier sections, it was found how globalization can impact upon the disabled people and in order to cope up with the effect of globalization how the disability policy of the UK has evolved over time. It has already been discussed in this chapter how the UK government is sensitive towards the disability issues and how it has implemented its policies over time to address the problems of disabled people. The UK government has been very much effective providing high quality life to the disabled people and providing them a living standard at par with others. The government has correctly recognized the changing environment under globalization and its potential impacts on the disabled people and redesigned its existing policy accordingly. However, it is now necessary to consider some practical issues relating to the effectiveness of this current existing policy. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) According to the statistics on disability published by the government, in 2010 there was more than ten million people with disability in the UK and prevalence of disability risen with age. It has been found that a significantly higher percentage of people who belong to the families having disabled members still live in poverty compared to those who belong to the families having no disabled member. With respect to the area of employment that is supposed to be significantly impacted by globalization, it was found that existing policy has not been able to address the issue properly. Although, the employment rate gap between non-disabled and disabled individuals has decreased from the level of 36% in 2002 to 29% in 2010, disabled individuals are far less likely to get a job. The employment rate for disabled people is far lower compared to that of non-disabled people. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) In the area of education, the percentage of disabled students at the secondary and elementary levels has increased significantly in recent years. But the thing to worry is that the disabled individuals are far more likely of not having higher educational qualifications compared to disabled people. Around 24 percent of disabled working age individuals of the country do not hold any formal qualification compared to just ten percent of non-disabled people. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) A very high percentage of disabled people still complain about not having any choice and control over their lives. They are still forcefully deprived of independent living. They still experience unfair treatment at the work place. A large proportion of disabled people also have to face various difficulties in accessing commercial, leisure as well as public goods and services. They are far less likely to take any active parts in any social, cultural or leisure activities compared to non-disabled people. (Office of Disability Issues, 2010) VII. Overall Findings Based on the discussion in the earlier sections of this paper, a theoretical point has become very clear relating to the situation of individuals with disability or impairment in this age of globalization. As discussed in many theoretical literatures, globalization produces some negative impacts on disables people. The rights of the disabled people have to confront some undesirable conditions in the process of increasing internationalization. Of course, the issue of disability and the rights of disabled are now being taken into account by various international organizations, but it would be very difficult t the issue of disability at a private level, not at a state level. In other words to say, according some people disable people are not the burden of state, rather they burden of the society. However, the UK government has not left the issue of disability and the concern relating to safeguarding their rights in this era of globalization at the hand of society alone. The government has made some policies to redress the situation of disabled people. As found in the earlier discussion, the government has been successful in evolving the strategies relating disability according to the need of time. This study, however, has gone ahead to examine whether practical scenarios are same as theoretically presented by the policy makers. As discussed in earlier section, although the policy has been able to improve the standard of living, employment and educational status of disabled people, they are still lagging behind others. Thus the UK policy relating to disability has not been able to eliminate the negative effect of globalization on disabled people completely. VIII Conclusion: The present has been conducted with an objective of critically analyzing a disability policy of the UK government in the light of globalization. The report has first presented a critical discussion of the disability policy of UK. Here it has tried to critically analyze the disability policy DDA 1995 and tried to find out whether it has changed over time to reconcile with the changes in social, economic and political life brought about by the globalization. Then, the paper has tried to present the impact of globalization on individuals with disability. Thereafter, it has tried to find out to what extent the disability policies have been able to improve the condition of disabled people who are adversely impacted by globalization in practice. On the basis of the above discussion it can be concluded that since last few decades the government of UK has been very active in addressing the disability issue of the country and the government has undertaken several policies to deal with the problems of disabled people and treating them at par with non-disabled persons by recognizing the changing needs over time, but the current UK policy is not much efficient in addressing the problems of disabled people. Of course, there have been a number of improvements in a number of areas like work, education, general standard of living and so on. But there still exists huge scope of further improvements as disabled people still lag far behind than non-disabled people in every sphere of life. At the end of the findings, we can conclude that the paper has been able to meet its objective by conducting a rigorous review of the chosen policy of UK government and evaluating not on theoretical basis only, but in light with practical scenarios also. VIII References: 1. Yeates, N. & Holden, C. (eds) (2009) The global social policy reader, Bristol, The Policy Press. 2. Lavalette, M. and Pratt, A. (eds) (2005) Social Policy: Theories, Concepts and Issues, London, Sage. 3. Bardhan, P., Bowles, S. and Wallerstein, M. (eds) (2006) Globalization and Egalitarian Redistribution, Princeton, Princeton University Press. 4. Franzini, M. and Pizzuti, F. (eds) (2001) Globalization, Institutions and Social Cohesion, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag Berlin. 5. Yeates, N (ed) (2008) Understanding global social policy, Bristol, The Policy Press. 6. Steger, M (2003) Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 7. Stiglitz, J. (2008) Making Globalization Work, London, Penguin 8. Office of Disability Issues. 2010. Equality Act 2010 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Avaibale at http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disabled-people-and-legislation/equality-act-2010-and-dda-1995.php (19th MAy, 2011) 9. Office of Disability Issues. 2010. Disability facts and figures. Avaibale at http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-facts-and-figures.php (19th MAy, 2011) 10. De Haan, A. (2007) Reclaiming Social Policy: Globalization, Social Exclusion and New Poverty Reduction Strategies, Basingstoke, Palgrave. 11. Barton L. and Oliver, M., (1987) Disability Studies; Past, Present and Future, Leeds: The University Press. 12. Beresford, P. (1998), “Poverty and disabled people; challenging dominant debates and policies”, Disability & Society, Vol. 11, No.4 pp. 553-567. 13. Driedger, D., (1987) ‘Disabled People’s International’, Rehabilitation Gazette, 28: pp. 13-14. 14. Frieden L., (2002) “The Global Disability Community Must Respond to the Critical Challenges of the 21st Century”, Address to Rehabilitation International European Conference in Aachen, Germany, November 11th. 15. Ghai, A., (2001) “Marginalization and Disability; Experiences from the Third World”, In   Priestley M., (ed.), Disability and The Life Course; Global Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.26-37. 16. International Labour Organization, (1983) Convention Concerning Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons), Geneva, ILO, C159, June 20th. 17. Lauder, H., Brown, P., Dillabough, J. A. and Hasley, (2006) Education, Globalization and Social Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press.  18. Priestley, M., (ed), (2001) Disability and the Life Course; Global Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19. Shah, F., (1990), “Disability, Self Help and Social Change”, In Priestley, M., (2001), Disability and the Life Course; Global Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Read More