Convergence to a European employment policy for disabled people?
Where to for Europe?
Convergence to a European employment policy for disabled people?
Date: September 17, 2005
Name: Margot de Greef
Student number: 1257048
Study: International Economics & Business University of Groningen (doctoraal) First supervisor: Dr. D.H.M. Akkermans
Second supervisor: Dr. B.J.W. Pennink
Organisation: Cedris/Workability Europe, Utrecht
Supervisor organisation: L.J. Kooyman
Executive summary
The European Union is increasing its influence in areas other than monetary policy.
One of those areas is employment of disabled people. At a European level, directives are issued requiring the Member States to implement them at national level. Each country, however, has its own way of providing employment to disabled people, using different labour market programmes/measures. This research aims to find out whether it is possible to converge to a European policy of employment for disabled people. In order to answer this question, the focus is on the distance and/or similarities between countries regarding the definition of disability, labour market programmes/measures, objectives of national policies and barriers to achieving those objectives, and finally the division of responsibilities (in designing and implementing policies and programmes).
In theory, the existence of institutional complementarities means that each country has historically developed its own specific institutional framework, supporting the policies and programmes in place in that country. Europe comprises a diverse variety of countries, all with their own culture, politics, economy, language, and history. The existence of institutional complementarities and path-dependency would mean that it is hard to depart from the historically determined path and to transfer policies from abroad. Therefore, although cross-country distances might be relatively small, convergence might still be hard to achieve. However, convergence does not necessarily mean that countries have completely equal and standardised policies or programmes. They can share the same common goals, implemented in a way adapted to national circumstances.
The study is based on 7 countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), all members of both the European Union and Workability Europe. The research is based on literature reviews of the employment policies for disabled people in these countries, as well as a questionnaire distributed to the 7 countries.
Over the past years, there has been a shift from a medical, needs based model to a human rights based model, meaning that disabled people are now viewed as bearers of human rights rather than in need of care. Other key terms and developments of today’s disability policy are integration into society and employment, social inclusion, and mainstreaming. In order to realise this integration, equal opportunities and anti- discrimination are emphasised as playing an important part in promoting employment of disabled people. Activation of disabled persons is encouraged, which is the move from passive measures (dependence on disability benefits) to active measures (employment). Stimulating employment means that there is a need to raise awareness about disabled people’s abilities and to encourage employers to hire disabled workers.
Up to now, the unemployment rate of disabled people is generally higher than the unemployment rate of non-disabled people.
The EU is increasing its influence on disability policy of the Member States. From the
results of the questionnaire, it appears that the countries involved in this research
experience the increasing influence of the EU positively. Most of the respondents also
agree on the desirability of convergence to a European policy, as long as this does not
mean a standardised policy for all countries. Although countries are generally
reluctant to give up responsibility to a European authority and to change national
systems, the EU should be responsible for designing a European policy and issue
directives (as it does now), to be implemented by national government and/or other
national organisations and adapted to national circumstances.
The countries agree on the need for more similarity in the definition of disability, which differs now from country to country and from organisation to organisation, complicating the gathering and comparing of cross-country information.
There are many labour market programmes that can be used to provide employment to disabled people. Traditionally, one of the most common ways is sheltered employment, increasingly complemented by supported employment. More recent phenomena are equal opportunities and anti-discrimination, coupled to persuasion policies (raising awareness) and workplace adaptations. These are the measures that contribute the most to achieving national disability policy objectives (i.e. their effectiveness) and also the measures that should be included in a European employment policy for disabled people, according to the respondents.
Out of the responses to the questionnaire, it becomes clear that different countries face similar barriers to achieving the objectives of their national employment policy for the disabled. The majority recognises the need to raise global awareness about disabled persons’ abilities and offer incentives to employers to hire disabled people, in order to realise integration and inclusion of disabled people into society and the labour market.
Since countries face similar problems, cooperating can provide the opportunity of learning from each other’s experience.
To conclude, although institutional complementarities would inhibit the transferability
of policies across borders, there is a possibility to achieve convergence within Europe,
based on this research sample, as long as it means the designing and issuing of
directives at a European level, to be implemented and adapted at national level.
Table of contents
Executive summary ...3
Table of contents ...5
Chapter 1: Introduction ...10
Chapter 2: Problem statement and research objective ...12
2.1 Problem statement ...12
2.2 Research objective ...12
2.3 Management dilemma ...13
2.4 Research question ...13
2.5 (Dis)similarities and convergence in Europe...14
2.5.1 Definition of disability ...15
2.5.2 Labour market programmes/measures ...15
2.5.3 Objectives & barriers ...15
2.5.4 Division of responsibilities ...16
2.5.5 Other considerations: legislation and finance...16
Chapter 3: Theoretical framework ...17
3.1 Convergence ...17
3.1.1 Social policy...17
3.1.2 Disability policy ...18
3.2 Path-dependency and institutional complementarities: history matters ....19
3.2.1 From institutional complementarities to cross-country transferability of policies and convergence ...20
3.2.2 Applying the theory to (labour market) policy convergence in the EU ...21
3.3 Chapter summary and conclusions ...22
Chapter 4: Research methodology ...24
4.1 Justification for the selection of countries ...24
4.1.1 Workability Europe...25
4.1.2 European Union...25
4.1.3 Research sample and representativeness...26
4.2 Data collection method ...27
Chapter 5: Disability and employment in focus ...29
5.1 Definition of disability ...29
5.2 From medical (needs based) model to social (human rights based) model and activation ...30
5.3 Economic and social motives for employment of disabled people...31
5.4 The role of employers, attitudes, and awareness ...32
5.5 Labour market programmes/measures ...33
5.6 Chapter summary ...34
Chapter 6: Disability and employment at a European level ...35
6.1 The general labour market situation and underemployment of disabled people ...35
6.2 European Employment Strategy ...36
6.3 Human rights, equal opportunities, anti-discrimination, social inclusion, and mainstreaming ...37
6.4 Barriers to integration and accessibility ...38
6.5 2003: European Year of People with Disabilities...39
6.6 International and European regulations, legislations, and programmes
covering the rights of disabled people...39
6.6.1 The European Union Disability Strategy...39
6.6.2 Directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation ...40
6.6.3 EU Disability Action Plan ...40
6.6.4 European Constitution ...41
6.6.5 UN Convention for promoting and protecting the rights of disabled people ...41
6.7 Financing ...41
6.7.1 European Social Fund ...41
6.7.2 EQUAL...42
6.8 Responsibilities and actors ...42
6.8.1 High Level Group on Disability...42
6.8.2 European Disability Forum ...42
6.8.3 Inter-service Group on Disability...42
6.9 Chapter summary ...43
Chapter 7: Cross-country comparison ...44
7.1 Definition of disability ...44
7.2 Labour market programmes/measures and the scope for convergence ...46
7.2.1 Actual versus potential versus effective labour market programmes ...46
7.2.2 Sheltered employment ...50
7.2.3 Willingness and possibility of changes at country level ...51
7.2.4 Labour market policy expenditures ...53
7.3 Objectives and barriers of national employment policies for the disabled 55 7.3.1 Objectives: national and European ...55
7.3.2 Barriers ...56
7.3.3 Conclusion on objectives & barriers ...56
7.4 Division of responsibilities...56
7.5 General perceptions about Europe...59
7.5.1 Increasing European influence ...59
7.5.2 Desirability of a European employment policy for disabled people...60
7.6 Chapter summary and conclusions ...61
Chapter 8: Conclusions, recommendations, and limitations ...62
8.1 Conclusions: Quo vadis, Europe?...62
8.2 Recommendations ...63
8.3 Limitations...63
Acknowledgements ...65
Appendix I: Country report France ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.1 Defining disability ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.2 Legislation... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3 Labour market programmes... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3.1 Registration ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3.2 Quota-levy system... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3.3 Sheltered employment... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3.4 Wage subsidies ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3.5 Protection against dismissal... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3.6 Self-employment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3.7 Workplace adaptations... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.3.8 Passive measures: social security & disability benefits Error! Bookmark
not defined.
A1.3.9 Persuasion policies: awareness raising & attitudes changing ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A1.4 Responsibilities ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1.5 Effectiveness ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix II: Country report Germany ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.1 Defining disability ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.2 Legislation... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.2.1 Anti-discrimination legislation/equal opportunitiesError! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3 Labour market programmes... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.1 Registration ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.2 Quota-levy system... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.3 Sheltered employment... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.4 Supported employment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.5 Social firms and Integrationsbetriebe ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.6 Wage subsidies ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.7 Protection against dismissal... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.8 Workplace adaptations... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.9 Passive measures: social security & disability benefits Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.3.10 Persuasion policies: awareness raising & attitudes changing ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A2.4 Responsibilities ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2.5 Effectiveness ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix III: Country report the Netherlands . Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.1 Defining disability ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.2 Legislation... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.3.2.1 Anti-discrimination legislation/equal opportunities... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3. Labour market programmes/measures ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.1 Registration ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.2 (No) quota system ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.3 Sheltered employment... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.4 Supported employment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.5 Wage subsidies ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.6 Protection against dismissal... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.7 Self-employment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.8 Workplace adaptations... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.9 (Tax) incentives for employers ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.10 Passive measures: social security & disability benefits...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A3.3.11 Persuasion policies: awareness raising & attitudes changing ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A3.4 Division of responsibilities... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3.5 Effectiveness ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix IV: Country report Poland ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.1 Defining disability ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.2 Legislation... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3 Labour market programmes... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.1 Mainstream versus targeted programmes Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.2 Registration requirement... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.3 Quota-levy system... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.4 Sheltered employment... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.5 Wage subsidies ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.6 (No) protection against dismissal... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.7 Self-employment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.8 Workplace adaptations... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.9 Tax incentives for employers ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.10 Passive measures: social security & disability benefits...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A4.3.11 Persuasion policies: awareness raising & attitudes changing ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A4.4 Responsibilities ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4.5 Effectiveness ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix V: Country report Spain ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.1 Defining disability ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.2 Legislation... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.2.1 Anti-discrimination legislation/equal opportunitiesError! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3 Labour market programmes... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.1 Active versus passive labour market programmes ..Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.2 Mainstream versus targeted labour market programmes ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.3 Registration ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.4 Quota-levy system... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.5 Sheltered employment... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.6 Centros Ocupacionales (Occupational Centres)...Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.7 Supported employment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.8 Wage subsidies ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.9 Protection against dismissal... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.10 Self-employment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.11 Workplace adaptations... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.12 Tax incentives for employers ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.13 Tax incentives for disabled working people ...Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.14 Passive measures: social security & disability benefits...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.15 Persuasion policies: awareness raising & attitudes changing ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A5.3.16 Long-term programme for employment (1997)...Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.4 Responsibilities ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5.5 Effectiveness ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix VI: Country report Sweden ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.1 Defining disability ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.2 Legislation... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.2.1 Anti-discrimination legislation/equal opportunitiesError! Bookmark not
defined.
A6.3 Labour market programmes... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.1 Registration ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.2 Wage subsidies (lönebidrag) ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.3 Sheltered employment in Samhall ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.4 Sheltered jobs in the public sector (offentligt skyddat arbete; OSA) Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.5 Supported employment (SIUS; Särskilt introduktions- och
uppföljningsstöd)... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.6 Protection against dismissal... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.7 Self-employment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.8 Workplace adaptations... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.9 Tax incentives ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.10 Passive measures: social security & disability benefits...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A6.3.11 Persuasion policies: awareness raising & attitudes changing ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A6.4 Responsibilities ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.4.1 Disabled people’s movement ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6.4.2 Disability Ombudsman (Handikappombudsmannen; HO) ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A6.5 Effectiveness ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix VII: Country report United Kingdom ...Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.1 Defining disability ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.2 Legislation... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.2.1 Anti-discrimination legislation/equal opportunitiesError! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3 Labour market programmes... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.1 Registration ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.2 (No) quota system ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.3 Sheltered employment & supported employment: WORKSTEP ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.4 New Deals... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.5 Access to Work ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.6 Work preparation ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.7 Job introduction scheme... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.8 Protection against dismissal... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.9 Disabled Persons’ Tax Credit ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.10 Passive measures: social security & disability benefits...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A7.3.11 Persuasion policies: awareness raising & attitudes changing ...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A7.4 Responsibilities ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7.5 Effectiveness ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix VIII: Questionnaire ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix IX: Expert panel ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix X: Glossary of terms ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix XI: Statistics and results of questionnaire ....Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Chapter 1: Introduction
‘Crushing defeat leaves EU vision in tatters’. ‘What now for Europe?’ Headlines in The Guardian and The Independent, June 2, 2005, the day after a referendum in the Netherlands led to a rejection of the European Constitution, with the same results in France just a few days earlier.
The European Union is expanding, adding new member states, but the nations get more anxious about loosing influence in determining national policies. Although a monetary union has been achieved, the step from an economic to a social or political union is still a big one, which not everyone is (already) willing to take. The expansion of the EU in 2004 (with mainly Eastern European countries) also has an impact on competition, due to the fact that the low labour costs in Eastern European countries induce firms from the West to outsource their work to the East, thus forming a threat for sheltered workshops and other employers of disabled people.
In 2002, a research by EIM concluded that there is still limited convergence in the current employment policies and new policy developments for disabled people in the European Union (p. 30). Now, in the year 2005, 3 years later, with discussions about the extent of influence of the EU going on, this research aims to find out whether convergence to a uniform European
system of employment for disabled people is realisable. In order to answer that question, the research makes use of literature reviews and a questionnaire covering 7 countries within Europe, measuring the distance between the countries.
The research is carried out on behalf of Cedris, the umbrella organisation of sheltered employment and (re)integration in the Netherlands, and Workability Europe, a European organisation made up of national members (such as Cedris) and promoting employment of disabled people.
They recognise a need for additional research regarding the provision of employment of disabled people, especially in a comparative international context, from an economic as well as a social point of view. Each country has its own way of providing employment to disabled people.
Cross-country comparisons can elicit
opportunities of good or best practices (Treloar 2003), of learning from each other by providing access to each other’s knowledge and experiences, and possibly of transferring policies across borders, thus creating a convergence path to a single European system. (European Commission 1998a, Russell 1998) In order to make cross-country comparisons and identification of good practices possible and useful, more uniformity regarding the definition of disability is required, which is up to now determined independently by the individual countries.
Approximately 10% of the European population is disabled and therefore requires
adjustments in employment and faces difficulties in finding a job. This is a significant
portion and involves a large number of people. (Russell 1998) On the one hand, this group represents an economic asset in the sense of potential labour productivity and capacity. On the other hand, this group involves high costs for the individual countries. There is an increasing interest of policy makers in social inclusion issues and reintegration policies for disabled people. (EIM 2001, p. 7) The wish to prevent social exclusion, to promote equal opportunities, and to combat discrimination, together with growing shortages in the labour market, have contributed to an increase in attention for especially the labour market position of disabled people. Due to the high unemployment rates, they represent a huge labour potential. (IPWH-EUG 1999) Thus, the future of the EU is a currently hotly debated topic, with countries expressing their views about more convergence and uniformity. At this very point in the history and future of European integration, this research raises the question whether convergence to a uniform European system of employment for disabled people can be realised.
The thesis starts with the problem statement and research objective (Chapter 2). Next, a theoretical framework will be presented, placing employment of disabled people in the appropriate context of convergence, path-dependency, and institutional complementarities (Chapter 3). The thesis continues with an explanation of the research methodology (Chapter 4), after which disability and employment will be discussed, paying attention to those aspects relevant for this research (Chapter 5).
Then employment and disability in a European context will be examined in Chapter 6,
followed by a cross-country comparison in Chapter 7. The thesis ends with a
conclusion, some recommendations and some limitations.
Chapter 2: Problem statement and research objective
2.1 Problem statement
Approximately 10% of the population in Europe is disabled. Therefore, each country needs a disability policy. Focusing on those people who are able to perform productive activities, attention needs to be paid to the way in which disabled people can be employed. Employing disabled people does not only mean making use of a large labour potential, but it also provides the people themselves with a way to participate and integrate into society and a way to spend the day and earn money.
One of the debates about employment for disabled people concerns the discussion of sheltered versus supported employment. Sheltered employment provides an adapted environment where disabled people can work together and perform different activities. However, a disadvantage is that they get isolated from society, since their job does not integrate them into a regular company. Therefore, supported employment is seen as an alternative, placing a disabled employee in a regular company while still supporting that person. This research compares different ways of promoting employment of disabled people across countries, thereby looking at similarities and differences between the policies and measures of various countries.
Different countries follow various approaches in providing employment for people with disabilities. This does not only depend on economic conditions, but also on cultural and social factors. As Visier (1998) points out, there is considerable variance in the definition of the target group and the purpose of sheltered employment. One of the issues raised is whether sheltered employment is an end in itself or whether it should act as a transition towards employment in a regular business. Another question concerns whether the main incentive for providing sheltered employment is just mere production (economical/commercial) or if it is social as well.
Due to the fact that each country needs to pay attention to its disabled (potential working) population, coordination and cooperation can play an important role in improving the employment situation of disabled people. Different countries face similar challenges in this respect. Therefore, cross-country comparisons can help identifying what works well under which circumstances (best practices), enabling countries to learn from each other and possibly to transfer knowledge across borders.
(Santvoort & Van den Heuvel 2004)
Europe consists of a variety of countries, all with their own specific cultures, languages, governments, habits, history, policies, religions, development, and finance.
It is a challenge to try and see if it is possible to converge to a single European employment policy for disabled persons. Some countries have been developing employment for disabled people for over a century, while others have just started.
Therefore, those countries that are still in the beginning phase can learn from those that already have a long experience in this field, although policies might not be transferable, due to historical developments leading to institutional complementarities and path-dependency.
2.2 Research objective
The objective of this research is to compare the existing national systems of providing
employment to disabled people in 7 European countries, also taking into account the
European legislation and regulations in this respect, and to find out if it is possible to
converge to a uniform system of employment for disabled people in Europe.
2.3 Management dilemma
All countries apply a different employment policy for disabled people, while the EU influence on national policies increases. The measures that are used to promote employment of people with disabilities are entrenched in a supporting institutional framework in each country, in a political, legal, as well as financial aspect. Brussels is increasing the number of directives on employment policy for disabled people, most recently in particular with respect to anti-discrimination and equal opportunities. In addition, attention for the possibility of policies regulated at a European level in general is increasing, with the EU trying to expand its scope more and more from a monetary union to social issues. Therefore, Cedris and Workability Europe have expressed their interest in research regarding the possibility of realising convergence to a European employment policy for disabled people.
2.4 Research question
Are the distances and similarities between countries within Europe such that it is
possible to converge to a European employment policy for disabled people? That is
the main question that this study aims to answer. A questionnaire distributed to the 7
countries involved helps in finding out whether the countries are close to each other or
far apart from each other, in particular regarding a number of aspects that relate to the
labour market programmes being applied to promote employment of disabled people
(see Figure 2.1). Thus, the aim is to find out if convergence can be realised, or if
instead the distance between the countries in Europe is prohibitively large, due to
path-dependency and institutional complementarities, making convergence (at least at
this point in time) not possible.
Figure 2.1: Management dilemma & research question
1 A short explanation of these labour market programmes/measures can be found in Appendix X.
2.5 (Dis)similarities and convergence in Europe
The central and main question that the research aims to answer is whether convergence to a European employment policy for disabled people is possible. In order to answer that question, this study makes use of literature research (secondary data) and a questionnaire (primary data). The information used to answer the question includes currently existing legislation and regulations at a European level and the existing national systems of the 7 countries selected. Those national systems are
Definition of disability
Labour market programmes/
measures
1Division of responsibilities
Registration requirement for disabled Quota(-levy) system
Sheltered employment Supported employment Wage subsidies
Protection against dismissal
Self-employment incentives for disabled people Workplace adaptations
Tax incentives for employers to employ disabled people Tax incentives for disabled people to work
Passive measures: social security & disability benefits Persuasion policies: awareness raising & attitudes changing Equal opportunities
Anti-discrimination legislation
Existing European legislation & regulations
Convergence superimposed: voluntary versus binding
Existing national systems of employment for disabled people
From divergence to convergence
Distances/similarities between countries with respect to:
Convergence to a European employment policy for disabled people?
Objectives &
barriers
analysed regarding the aspects shown in Figure 2.1, which have been retrieved from other literature, with a particular focus on the labour market programmes/measures.
The research focuses on the employment situation of disabled people, and excludes the fields of e.g. living conditions, training, education, and accessibility to the environment.
At a European level, regulations and legislation already exist that promote the employment of disabled people. Through these laws and rules, the EU superimposes a trend towards convergence, requiring the Member States to transpose European directives in national laws. Some of the policies are regulated and designed at a European level, but implemented at a national level. Usually, these directives are binding, imposing a deadline for the achievement in national law (e.g. the Directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation, see section 6.6.2).
The individual countries have their own measures and laws of providing employment to disabled people, which at the moment are quite divergent. Thus, regarding the national systems, this research tries to find out if the distance between the Member States is such that it is possible to converge to a single European disability policy, rather than having diverging approaches. Even if the distances are small enough, however, there is still the problem of institutional complementarities and path- dependency which might make transferability and convergence not realisable, or at least complicated.
The aspects looked at in the questionnaire and in the cross-country comparison (see Chapter 7) are the definition of disability, labour market programmes/measures, objectives & barriers, and division of responsibilities (Figure 2.1). The country reports (Appendices I-VII) provide a description of these elements per country. In addition, they include a separate section on legislation.
2.5.1 Definition of disability
Any discussion about employment for disabled people starts with a definition of what a disability is, or who is considered to be disabled. Currently, many different definitions of disability exist, making cross-country comparisons difficult. Therefore, a first aspect to look at when considering the possibility of a European employment policy for disabled people, is the definition of disability. (ILO Bureau of Statistics 2004)
2.5.2 Labour market programmes/measures
The second aspect includes the labour market programmes (or measures) designed to promote employment of disabled people (‘labour market programmes’ and ‘measures’
are used interchangeably). This shows which means currently exist to promote the employment of disabled people. A comparison across countries reveals the mix of measures that is available and the extent to which different measures are used in different countries.
The list of labour market programmes/measures has been based on previous research and literature on the measures that are in place in the 7 selected countries. Sometimes the same measures are in place in different countries under different names, and sometimes the same names in different countries refer to different measures.
2.5.3 Objectives & barriers
The third aspect concerns the objectives of the national policies and the barriers
towards achieving these objectives (i.e. their effectiveness). Identifying objectives can
retrieve information about countries views of employment policy for disabled and
comparing these objectives can give insight into the extent to which the countries see the same goals for their policy. Furthermore, the barriers that are encountered for achieving the objectives and the needs that have to be filled in order to be able to reach the objectives, might partly be similar among countries. If countries meet similar problems, a coordinated approach can make it easier to tackle the problems and to improve the situation.
2.5.4 Division of responsibilities
Last but not least, attention is paid to the division of responsibilities. Several ministries and other parties can together be responsible for designing and implementing disability policy. The division of responsibilities differs per country.
Due to the fact that responsibilities can be spread out, it is hard to change the existing system, because this has consequences for and requires changes in multiple interrelated and connected fields. In addition, a European policy requires reflecting about a division of responsibilities between European, national, and local levels.
2.5.5 Other considerations: legislation and finance
In order for measures aimed at promoting the employment of disabled people to be effective and enforceable, legislation is needed to cover these measures. Over time, each country has developed its own laws to protect disabled people or to provide them with special employment, and nowadays there is an upsurge of anti-discrimination legislation. A brief description of some country specific legislation can be found in the country reports (Appendices I to XII).
An important consideration of all policies implemented involves its financial
component. In some countries government subsidies are available for the employment
of disabled people. In Europe there is a wide gap between countries in the amount of
money available for disabled people, which makes it difficult to implement policies in
the same way and with the same financing across countries. Prosperous countries can
afford more subsidies than less prosperous countries. (Visier 1998) This does not
necessarily mean, however, that less wealthy countries have fewer opportunities to
support the employment of disabled people or that wealthier countries have better
systems. Not all labour market programmes involve high costs and each has its own
financing method. Although the importance of finance at both a national level and a
European level is recognised, it is beyond the scope of this research to deal with
finance in detail.
Chapter 3: Theoretical framework
Focusing on the distance and similarities between countries in Europe, this research has its theoretical foundation in the concepts of convergence, institutional complementarities, and path-dependency (the role of history), influencing the transferability of policies and programmes across countries.
3.1 Convergence
In general terms, convergence implies that countries become more and more similar, applying the same policies, whereas divergence implies that countries move away from each other, with differences and gaps between countries getting bigger. The evidence regarding the convergence-divergence dilemma is mixed. Some studies conclude that convergence patterns dominate, while others find that divergence is more prominent. A third position is that convergence can take place to some extent, leading to convergence clubs. (Hall & Soskice 2001)
Discussions on the convergence-divergence debate take place in the field of economics (Ray 1998, Armstrong 2002), business (Thompson & Strickland 2003, Schermerhorn 2001, Hofstede 2002), social policy (Corrado et al. 2003, Taylor- Gooby 2003, Bouget 2003), and disability policy (Hvinden 2003), amongst others.
Within economics, unconditional convergence implies that history in the sense of different initial conditions does not matter, because all countries will eventually end up at the same point (one steady state). This view thus proposes path-independency.
Conditional convergence represents a weaker proposition of convergence, stating that each country converges to its own steady state, which does not have to be the same for all countries. That is, countries do not necessarily converge to each other and to one single steady state, but rather there can arise convergence clubs, with some countries reaching the same steady state. (Ray 1998, p. 74, 82, Armstrong 2002, p.
233-234)
In business, some think that management practices and competencies can be universally applied (Thompson & Strickland 2003, p. 211-212), while others are of the opinion that management is culture-specific and should be adapted to the country or culture where it is applied. (Schermerhorn 2001, p. 104-106, 108, Hofstede 2002) Those who think that successful practices cannot be transferred abroad, argue that the existence of institutional complementarities prohibit transfer. That is, in other countries the appropriate business environment and supporting institutions and policies are missing.
3.1.1 Social policy
The results of research on the divergence-convergence dilemma in social policy at a
European level are mixed and ambiguous, as they do not lead to a definitive and clear
conclusion. (Corrado et al. 2003, Bouget 2003) Corrado et al. (2003) discuss
convergence towards a European welfare state, as a step from an economic and
monetary union to a political union. Institutional differences between the countries
can inhibit convergence in social policy and therefore result in the coexistence of
different welfare states and divergence rather than convergence in social policy. The
results of the test used by the authors do not show evidence for a European welfare
model. It does, however, become clear that the unequal distribution of real per-capita
welfare expenditure among EU countries has been reduced over time. The authors
point out the important role of European institutions in preserving the diversity of the
European countries. They state that, rather than introducing one European social
policy model, European institutions should introduce common standards in the development of social protection policies as a coordination mechanism among national welfare states. In line with this reasoning, at a European level the EU already has developed a disability policy, issuing directives that have to be implemented at a national level.
Welfare states in Europe face common challenges, such as ageing of the population, globalisation, competition, and reduced opportunities for the less-skilled. Some argue that common challenges should lead to policy convergence. However, due to the existence of different national economic and social contexts, common measures produce different responses, even when goals are similar. Europe has experienced the difficulty of policy convergence and has therefore put aside its ambitions of harmonisation of national policies and shifted to an open method of coordination (as explained in section 6.2). Taylor-Gooby (2003) points out the dual concern of the EU for economic growth and social welfare, leading to tensions between economic and social goals, and making convergence in social policy a complex issue. Taylor-Gooby relates this discussion to two opposing theories of Schumpeter and Polanyi.
Schumpeter advocates a liberal market oriented model of capitalism and limited state intervention. He proposes creative destruction, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
Polanyi on the other hand, argues that structures provided by an interventionist welfare state are necessary to enable market capitalism to flourish in the long term.
He argues in favour of interrelated economic and social institutions embedded in a framework of regulations and intervention. This distinction between liberal and interventionist models can also be recognised in the distinction that Hall & Soskice (2001) make between liberal and coordinated market economies (p. 8; see section 3.2). In Europe, there is a shift away from Polanyi’s interventionist model of social policy making to a liberal market model promoting the role of the entrepreneur, as supported by Schumpeter. Increasingly, the EU seeks to set benchmarks or indications for national policy outcomes that may be achieved by diverse means (issuing directives to be implemented nationally). EU policy making agrees with Schumpeter that market freedom is essential to economic success, but at the same time the EU aims to improve social welfare and encourages social intervention to reach economic growth, if this does not conflict with the market. Thus, pressures for both liberalism and for a stronger interventionist role exist.
3.1.2 Disability policy
Hvinden (2003) has performed a research regarding the convergence of disability policies in Western Europe. He argues that convergence is more likely to arise in vacant sub-areas of disability policy (where less rules, objectives, measures, and instruments already exist) than in crowded areas, which tend to be path-dependent.
Hvinden distinguishes between two discourses about the disability protection system
in Western Europe. These two discourses are the discourse of societal costs of
disability (passive benefits; expenditure on income maintenance of disabled people)
and the discourse of equal rights and opportunities. His study focuses on Western
Europe and divides the countries involved in four main groups (Nordic, continental,
southern, and western countries). Hvinden states that ‘income maintenance,
employment and care provisions aimed at disabled people, as they exist in member
states, make up a fairly crowded area where a development towards a joint EU system
is less likely to take place in the foreseeable future.’ (p. 620) He points out that there
are no ‘strong reasons to expect a general convergence in the systems of disability
protection in Western Europe’. Although there might be ‘a trend toward greater
similarity in terms of general goals and policy principles, for instance expressed in official support for aims like promoting equal opportunities, fuller participation in economic and social life, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and combating discrimination, poverty and exclusion, so far it is not possible to demonstrate that this has led to a convergence at the level of outputs. On the level of policy instruments the prospects appear mixed and uncertain.’ (p. 620-621) This research involves aspects from both crowded (core) and vacant areas (periphery) and it is therefore interesting to compare Hvinden’s results with the findings from this research.
Tait (1997) concludes that most Member States of the EU seem to be moving in a similar direction of disability policy, while the details and content of individual measures differ widely. Van Oorschot & Hvinden (2000) also indicate that although policies for disabled people in different European countries are becoming more similar, there are still substantial differences, which is likely to remain so in the near future.
The fact that national policies in Member States of the European Union regarding labour market programmes differ considerably, might be due to different policy priorities, differences in unemployment levels, and variations in eligibility criteria for benefit schemes. (EIM 2002) EIM states that ‘there is (still) limited convergence in the current employment policies and new policy developments for people with disabilities in the EU Member States.’ (p. 8, 30, 50) Historically developed administrative structures and policy preferences still play an important role in the mix of measures and organisation of services in each country. This brings us to two other important concepts, namely those of path-dependency and institutional complementarities, already touched upon throughout this section.
3.2 Path-dependency and institutional complementarities: history matters
History plays an important role in the existence of a nation’s policies and customs. If, for some arbitrary reason, history has supported the adoption of a certain policy, then this tends to consist over time, although it might well be that something else is actually more efficient. This is known as a coordination failure, meaning that one is caught in a sub-optimal, historically determined equilibrium (lock-in effect). The tendency to proceed on the way that has developed over time is known as path- dependency, whereby costs of reversal from the historically chosen path are very high. Therefore, history establishes a status quo, which determines whether a new policy can be undertaken. (Ray 1998, p. 132-138, 156, Hvinden 2003, p. 611)
Hall & Soskice (2001, p. 12-14) also point out that history plays an important role in determining the institutions of political economy that are in place in a country.
Repeated historical experience forms a set of common expectations that allows the actors to coordinate effectively with each other. Therefore, the working of institutions must be reinforced by appropriate historical experience. Since the European states have developed in country specific ways, they all have their own institutional framework. This means that good practices in one country and institutional framework may not work well in another country and framework, which would imply that convergence at a European level is hard to realise, even if distances among the countries are not prohibitively large.
Hall & Soskice (2001) discuss varieties of capitalism and also indicate that there
exists institutional variation across countries. They raise the question whether
technological progress and globalisation can be expected to lead to institutional
convergence. (p. 1) A distinction is made between liberal market economies and
coordinated market economies. In liberal market economies, firms coordinate their activities mainly by means of hierarchies and competitive market arrangements. In coordinated market economies on the other hand, firms depend more heavily on non- market relationships to coordinate their activities. (p. 8)
Differences in institutions in liberal versus coordinated market economies cause differences in corporate strategy. The presence of institutional complementarities reinforces the differences between liberal and coordinated market economies. Two institutions are complementary if the presence (or efficiency) of one increases the return from (or efficiency of) the other. This implies that countries with a particular type of coordination in one area of the economy tend to develop complementary practices in other fields as well. Following this line of reasoning, institutional practices of various types are not expected to be distributed randomly across nations.
Instead, there should be expected some clustering along the dimensions that distinguish liberal from coordinated market economies, as nations converge on complementary practices across different areas. (Hall & Soskice 2001, p. 14-18)
The concepts of institutional complementarities and path-dependency are closely connected. Once history has started a path, future changes and adaptations in institutions and policies will usually be made along that path (incremental changes), rather than searching for whole new ways and paths, due to the high costs that are connected with such radical changes. Thus, the existence of institutional complementarities reinforces path-dependency and path-dependency reinforces institutional complementarities.
Economic policies will be effective only if they are incentive compatible, that is, if they are complementary to the coordinating capacities of the existing political economy. The types of political economies (liberal, coordinated) should also be connected to the types of welfare states (social policy). (Hall & Soskice 2001, p. 46, 50) Within Europe, there are great institutional differences of the political economies, on which the firms of each country rely for competitive advantage. Therefore, international negotiations are unlikely to lead to cross-country institutional convergence. (p. 54) Building on these concepts, the continuing existence of the historically rooted differences contribute to the different disability policies that are in place in Europe. Each country has developed separately and when change is needed, this will usually be an adaptation of already existing policies and measures, rather than departing from the path followed so far.
The focus of the current research is on the possibility of a change from different national employment policies for disabled people to one European policy. However, the existence of institutional complementarities and path-dependency might form an obstacle for convergence of disability policies in Europe.
3.2.1 From institutional complementarities to cross-country transferability of policies and convergence
Hall & Soskice (2001, p. 54-60) raise the question whether institutional differences
among states will remain significant, or whether instead the processes of competitive
deregulation resulting from international integration will drive all economies towards
a common market model. Some scholars predict substantial deregulation and a
convergence in economic institutions across nations, thereby adhering to the
convergence hypothesis. Hall & Soskice however, argue that firms do not relocate
merely because of lower labour costs, because they depend on the institutions of a
country. Companies may shift particular activities to other countries in order to
benefit from the advantages that the institutional frameworks offer for those activities.
Because of comparative institutional advantage, nations often prosper, not by becoming more similar, but by building on their institutional differences. This would mean that a single European disability policy (or any policy) might not be desirable or possible, since each country has its own institutional framework. What works well in one country, does not necessarily have to work in another country as well, since it depends on the historically determined institutional framework in place. Therefore, it might well be that policies, measures, or approaches are not transferable across countries. If it is the case that measures are not transferable, then there is little scope for convergence at the level of individual measures. However, it should still be possible to design an overall policy at a European level, to be adapted at a national level.
Chapon and Euzéby (2002) also point out that different European countries follow different approaches, based on the types of policies that have traditionally and historically been followed. Thus, convergence towards a European social model requires many obstacles to be overcome, also because there are many different responsible parties (ministries) involved. Based on the number and types of legal agreements that exist in Europe, the authors state that what is next required for convergence in a social area, is political will. The fact that European countries face common challenges in a social field (such as ageing of the population) requires a certain convergence of social models, even though responses are often isolated.
3.2.2 Applying the theory to (labour market) policy convergence in the EU
Casey and Gold (2004) investigate the diffusion of active labour market policies across the member states of the EU. They base their research on the extent to which a peer review programme of active labour market programmes in the EU, designed to promote the transfer of good practices, contributes to cross-country learning and transfers of policies. Their research focuses on policy convergence in the context of the European Employment Strategy (EES). (See Chapter 6 for more details about the EES.) The review programme provides the participating countries with an opportunity to learn about policies in other countries, thus offering a good opportunity to test for cross-country learning, transferability, and policy convergence. The EES sets a number of policy goals, through a set of commonly agreed Guidelines. There have been significant changes in national employment policies, with a clear convergence towards the common EU objectives set out in the EES policy guidelines. However, the European guidelines are implemented in a country-specific way. Individual countries carry out these guidelines in different ways and the peer review gives them the opportunity to search for best practices. Hence, although the EES has established common labour market targets, member states still rely on national means (administrative, institutional, and legal) to meet them. Therefore, because each country uses its own method, up to now there is no convergence in the way guidelines are carried out. Convergence in policy content, instruments, and programmes remains unusual.
One of the motivations for countries to participate in the peer review is to learn from
other countries for the design of their own policies, possibly considering transfer of
policies from abroad to their own country. In addition, they might learn from the
mistakes of others. One of the ways in which countries can contribute to convergence
is if good or best practices are generalised. (Casey & Gold 2004, p. 7) However,
transferability may not always be possible or desirable. The unwillingness of
countries to transfer and take over active labour market programmes or policies from
other countries can be based on several grounds. It might be that a programme is
inappropriate for certain labour markets, that it is irrelevant, or interesting but not convincing. (Casey & Gold 2004, p. 9) Some more specific constraints to transferability include the following.
First of all, institutional constraints exist, such as the legal, industrial relations, political, social security, or tax systems, that might need to replaced or adapted if a particular programme were to be transferred. The reason for this is that a labour market programme needs to match the institutional setting to which it is to be transferred and in which it has to function (institutional complementarities). The complexity of these relationships makes it difficult, if not impossible, to simply transfer a programme, if that programme has been embedded in a different institutional environment. (Casey & Gold 2004, p. 10)
In some cases, the problem may be a lack of the relevant supporting infrastructure. A policy applied is supported by and fits the institutional framework in which it functions, since usually those policies are adopted or adapted in such a way that they are compatible with the supporting system. Therefore, a programme is embedded in an element of a nation’s institutional life. Radical change is unlikely to occur, but rather incremental changes are made, adapting already existing policies or systems.
In addition, attitudinal constraints should be overcome, which differ per country.
Cultural differences also require attention, being a possible cause of opposition to a certain policy to be transferred from abroad. (Casey & Gold 2004, p. 12) Attitudes and awareness also play an important part in employment for disabled people.
Employers are generally reluctant to hire disabled persons, due to a focus on disability rather than abilities.
Patterns of industrial relations (social partnership) also differ considerably between countries, as do social security systems. Furthermore, political structures and administrative constraints can make it difficult to adopt successful approaches from abroad. The division of responsibilities for political policies differs per country, due to which in some countries a certain area is the responsibility of one single ministry, while in other countries the responsibilities are spread out among different, interrelated ministries. Some countries decentralise responsibilities from a federal to a county level, while others use one central authority. If responsibilities are shared, good coordination is needed between the interrelated departments. The more parties are involved, the harder it is to implement a new policy, because it requires change in all different parties involved. This also makes it difficult to transfer programmes across countries. Not just the programmes or policies are different, but the whole institutional (and cultural) framework in which they are embedded. Adoption of a certain programme or policy does not only mean changing a programme or policy, but also the institutional environment and responsible parties (e.g. ministries). Finally, there are also financial constraints. In short, there are major barriers to policy learning, transferability, and convergence.
3.3 Chapter summary and conclusions
The conclusion, therefore, is that history matters. History creates a path, from which it
is difficult to depart (path-dependency). In addition, it remains a question whether
policies can be transferred across countries, that is, whether they can be generalised
(or are universally applicable). Multiple factors are involved in determining which
institutions and policies are in place in a country, including historical developments,
complementarities, and pressures for European integration. Therefore, transferring
policies across countries is a complex issue, as is the implementation of European
policies, requiring many barriers to be overcome. Due to the involvement of multiple
factors, it is hard to determine what exactly causes what, or to disentangle cause and effect. Each country in Europe has developed individually, resulting in different policies and institutions. Thus having developed a certain system, a country tends to solve new problems and handle new issues in a way that fits the existing system, that is, in a complementary way.
In the field of disability policy, there is an opportunity for convergence if countries
are not too far apart from each other, that is, if the distance between the countries is
not prohibitively large. The distance between the countries can be measured in
different ways, but this research is mainly concerned with the distances and
similarities regarding labour market programmes/measures to promote employment of
disabled people.
Chapter 4: Research methodology
Introduction
This study has a European scope. In this chapter, the population and sample selection will be discussed, based on membership of Workability Europe and the European Union. In addition, the method of data collection and the use of literature research as well as a questionnaire will be accounted for.
4.1 Justification for the selection of countries
The European Union consists of 25 member states, while Workability Europe has members in 18 countries within Europe. 14 countries are members of the EU as well as Workability Europe. Together, the EU and Workability Europe make up the population of this research, as shown in Table 4.1. The research sample has also been shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Population and sample
European Union Workability Europe Research sample
Austria Austria Belgium Belgium Czech Republic
Cyprus Denmark Estonia
Finland Finland
France France France Germany Germany Germany Greece
Hungary Hungary Iceland
Ireland Ireland Italy
Latvia
Lithuania Lithuania Luxembourg
Malta
The Netherlands The Netherlands The Netherlands Norway
Poland Poland Poland Portugal Portugal
Romania Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain Spain Spain Sweden Sweden Sweden Switzerland
United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom
4.1.1 Workability Europe
Workability Europe is a regional subgroup of Workability International, established in 1987. It is a non governmental and non-profit organisation, recognised by the European Commission and registered in the Netherlands, with an office in Brussels, Belgium. Workability International has over 50 members in 26 countries, and part of these members constitute Workability Europe, which consists of 27 members in 18 countries within Europe (see Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1). These members are mainly organisations that represent the disabled employment sector in their country. They are the umbrella organisations of specially organised employment in their countries or, if these do not exist, the major organisation in this field. (IPWH-EUG 1999) Workability Europe is the largest employer body representing providers of work and employment services to disabled people in Europe, which provides work programmes for over one million people. Workability Europe envisions a Europe where equal employment opportunities are a reality for people with disabilities. Its mission is to secure work and paid jobs for people with disabilities within Europe and to be recognised as the European leader in promoting and providing employment and work participation for disabled people. (http://www.workability- international.org/indexeurope.html, retrieved February 23, 2005)
Figure 4.1: Geographical scope of Workability Europe and European Union
(Source: http://www.workability-international.org/europe_15.html, retrieved March 18, 2005)
4.1.2 European Union
In 1951, France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg
signed the Treaty of Paris, launching the European Coal and Steel Community
(ECSC). In 1957, they signed the Treaty of Rome, which created the European
Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). These two organisations, together with ECSC, formed the European Community (EC) in 1967. In 1993, the Treaty of Maastricht came into effect, creating the European Union and establishing three pillars: a common currency, a common foreign and security policy, and a common justice and internal policy. The EU has executive (European Commission, Council of Ministers, European Council), legislative (European Parliament), and judicial (European Court of Justice) institutions. In 2002 the European Monetary Union was completed with the introduction of the euro. In 2004, ten new members entered the EU, thus resulting in a total of 25 Member States today (see Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2). While the EU started as a free trade area, the process of economic integration has led to a common market today, with efforts being made to political integration as a next step. (Ray & Kaarbo 2005, p. 376-382)
Figure 4.2: The European Union with its 25 members, since May 1, 2004 (Source: http://www.epsaweb.org/maps/euroflag.jpg, retrieved July 7, 2005)
