Albino Barrera’s paper (PASS 2024) provides an impressive list of ethical, moral, and economic reasons comprehensively including persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the labor market. At the same time, it convincingly shows that there are many factors preventing the integration of PWDs. For one thing, PWDs are thought to have lower productivity, they may find it difficult to commute to the workplace, and they are stereotyped by the population. What’s more, disabilities are highly heterogeneous in their form and extent, they intersect strongly with socio-economic characteristics (low household income, housing problems, health problems), and companies incur high costs for universal accessibility. All of these factors are closely interwoven and are intensified by the speed of transformations in the labor market, increased competition, and globalization.
In this paper, we turn to the statistics. In the first section, we compare countries based on new OECD publications (OECD 2022) and answer four questions: (1) How many people are classified as disabled, and how is disability linked to age and education? (2) How do PWDs transition into the labor market and what proportion of PWDs are especially vulnerable because they are not in education, employment, or training (NEET)? (3) How well do PWDs participate in the labor market? (4) What are PWDs’ income situations? How do they fare in the interplay between the market, the state, and the family?
The second section deals with the more conceptual question of whether the proportion of PWDs in education or work is a good indicator for the integration of people with disabilities. It looks at what is lurking behind the aggregated country figures. Using Germany as an example, we show that figures that suggest a high level of inclusion may hide extensive exclusion of PWDs in education and work. This clearly contradicts the guidelines of the UN Convention on Human Rights.
The third section addresses another conceptual issue: whenever we talk about the inclusion of PWDs in the workplace, we very narrowly think about gainful employment, that is, market-based employment. We omit the nonmarket work that is just as necessary for society, such as raising children, caring for the elderly, or volunteering. In doing so, we apply an all-too-narrow and unsuitable concept of work to PWDs. Even work that serves the common good rather than the market can also be productive.
We close with a short summary of lessons learned.
1. Proportion of PWDs, transition to the labor market, employment, and household income in selected OECD countries
1.1 Persons with disabilities
For anyone wishing to compare the proportion of PWDs in selected OECD countries, the first issue to address is the selectivity of the sample. For instance, samples do not include persons under the age of 15 and older than 69 or PWDs living in care homes. This results in an underestimation of PWDs.
As Figure 1 shows, the cross-country average of PWDs is 18 percent across all 32 OECD countries surveyed. However, the range is huge, going from 3 percent in Korea to 27 percent in Latvia. This is extremely unlikely to be due to state-specific PWD rates, as the different levels would be difficult to explain. In this instance, statistical artifacts may be to blame. The country data is based on different definitions of what constitutes a disability. European countries define people as disabled if they state that they (a) suffer from any chronic illness or condition with (b) moderate to severe activity limitations due to health problems. In Australia, PWDs are people with “restrictive long-term health conditions, impairments or disability.” In Canada, the definition lists nine specific impairments (such as seeing, hearing, moving, thinking, etc.) along with other long-term illnesses. The USA, Mexico, and Chile take a similar approach, referring to six specific disabilities (see Fig. 1, legend). The application of different definitions may result in different levels of PWDs.
Moreover, we face different national cultures in the self-assessment of disability. This is best seen when we compare nations with similar definitions of disability, such as Korea (with a 3% PWD rate) and Canada (with a 19% PWD rate), or by comparing European countries following the same definitions of PWDs, such as Italy (where PWDs make up 7% of the population) and Latvia (with a 27% PWD rate). Quite obviously, people with similar symptoms do not consider themselves disabled in one culture but do so in another. Another possibility is that people differ in their willingness to define themselves as PWDs according to how problematic they find it. This is interesting in itself, as it indicates the extent to which the respondents’ self-classifications are a result of their social environment. For meaningful international comparisons, however, it is crucial to have a common definition of PWDs and to have data based on medical diagnoses rather than self-assessments. At present, not much can be learned from country percentages.
Much more can be learned when we consider differences by gender, age group, and educational level within the countries. Figure 2, Panels A, B, and C, show very uniform trends. Women consider themselves to be disabled slightly more often than men, but the differences are modest. Age makes a greater impact: There is a lower proportion of PWDs in the youngest age group (15-29 years) than in the middle age group (30-49 years), and there are especially clear differences with the oldest age group (50-69 years). Note, however, that the surveys are selective, as they often do not reach people with severe disabilities at all. Since the oldest age group (69 and older), which has the highest disability rates, is not included in the data, we could assume that most disabilities are due to employment, accidents, or military service and less so to increased life expectancy. In turn, many disabilities may be avoided with preventive health policies.
Differences by educational attainment are equally clear, albeit difficult to interpret. The data say nothing about causality: Are PWDs less likely to achieve a good education or does a good education protect them from disability? Life-course data would be required to answer this question; however, they are not available in most countries. Not surprisingly, people with a high level of education are less likely to report a disability than people with a medium level of education, and they are much less likely to report disability than those with a low level of education (Fig. 2, Panel C). These differences are not inevitable. In Switzerland, for example, differences in disability by level of education are much lower than the OECD average or in neighboring Austria. The reason for this is that, in Switzerland, people with disabilities find it easier to access a good education, so level of education is less likely to determine disability.
Figure 3 provides more detail and contrasts different levels of disability. In the six countries examined, people with a severe disability are most likely have a poor education and least likely to attain a high level of education. There are striking differences between countries. In Belgium, 50 percent of people with severe disabilities have the lowest level of education; in Switzerland and Canada, the figure is under 30 percent. In Canada, more than 30 percent of people with severe disabilities have a high school diploma, compared to just 18 percent in the Netherlands. In addition to the level of education achieved, the gap between people with and without disabilities is also interesting. In Switzerland, there is merely a 10-percentage-point gap between people without and with severe disabilities in the low education sector; in Belgium, by contrast, it is almost 30 percentage points. The Swiss school system and/or Swiss disability policies seem to be more inclusive.
Let us now turn to educational poverty, defined as the proportion of people without any school diploma. Research shows that educational poverty often impedes labor market access. However, educational poverty has even more far-reaching consequences: The people affected often lack social contacts, self-efficacy, and the knowledge that they are wanted, valued, and needed. Country comparisons show (Fig. 4) that differences in educational poverty among people without disabilities are quite low – with the exception of Italy, Spain and Portugal. Country differences increase as disabilities become more severe. In Switzerland, 25 percent of people with severe disabilities are educationally poor, in Germany, the figure is 50 percent, and in Portugal, Spain, and Lithuania, it is over 60 percent.
1.2 Disability and transition to employment
The transition between education, training, and employment is important for everyone, but PWDs find it more difficult than almost any other group. This is demonstrated by the very high proportion of NEETS – people not in education, employment, or vocational training – between the ages of 15 and 29. As a basis for comparison, consider that, among people without a disability (PWODs), the proportion of NEETs is generally around 10 percent; in Italy, Greece, Spain, and Mexico, it is around 30 percent (Fig. 5). Yet, for PWDs, especially those with severe disabilities, rates are much higher. In most of the OECD countries presented here, the proportion of NEETs is over 50 percent; in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, it is even over 70 percent. Diplomas seemingly make little difference. For example, few PWDs leave the Dutch education system without credentials but the proportion of NEETs is 50 percent. This suggests some reluctance and stereotyping on the part of employers – for reasons mentioned at the beginning and described so aptly in the paper by Albino Barrera (PASS 2024). At this sensitive juncture between the state and the market, large numbers of people with (severe) disabilities are being lost.
1.3 Disability and labor market participation
Panel A of Figure 6 shows the employment rates of people with disabilities, while Panel B depicts the differences between the employment rates of people with and without disabilities. Again, there are significant differences between the countries, which cannot be explained by educational certificates. For example, in the US, PWDs’ educational poverty is quite low while the percentage of NEETs is high and the employment gap between PWDs and PWODs is almost 40 percent.
People with severe disabilities find it particularly difficult to get a job, and it is more difficult for women than for men (Figure 7, Panels A and B). PWDs’ employment rates also vary by age. The younger (15-29) and older (50-69) age groups have a lower labor force participation than PWDs aged 30 to 49. The same applies to PWDs with low and medium education levels compared to those with high education levels (Figure 7, Panels C and D), although differences here are smaller than expected.
Once PWDs have found a job, further inequalities emerge. In all countries, PWDs have a significantly lower average income than PWODs. As Figure 8 shows, these differences are particularly high in Korea, Lithuania, Sweden, and Mexico, where PWDs’ annual income is between 65 and 75 percent of the income of PWODs; in Italy and Greece, the differences are significantly lower (Figure 8).
Many PWDs receive transfer payments due to illness, disability, unemployment, retirement, or social assistance (see Figure 9) that either replace or supplement their market income. Among people with severe disabilities, between 60 and 100 percent of people receive these payments. Transfers are particularly high in the 50 and 69 age group and among PWDs with a low level of education. For many, state transfers are higher than market income.
Despite transfer payments, PWDs’ disposable household income is still significantly lower than that of PWODs. This is shown in Figure 10. The differences are again stark in the US, where PWDs receive only 65 percent of the disposable household income of PWODs; they are considerably lower in Slovakia and Italy. It is thus not surprising that a high proportion of PWDs live in poverty and that they have a significantly higher risk of living below the poverty line than PWODs (Fig. 11).
II Participation in the education and employment system as a measure of social integration? The case of Germany.
At first glance, Germany appears rather unremarkable in an international comparison of PWDs. On most of the indicators used so far to measure participation by PWDs, Germany ranks in the middle of the table. We could therefore reasonably assume that the inclusion of PWDs in Germany is not good but not much worse than in other countries.
This is not the case. In Germany, institutions such as special schools and workshops for the disabled (Behindertenwerkstätten) constitute parallel structures in the education and employment system. They separate PWDs and PWODs into two institutional realms. Aggregate figures mask this institutional divide.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Art. 24, United Nations 2006) came into force in Germany in 2009. It demands that PWDs’ needs be considered in all areas and requires inclusive schooling – meaning that children with and without disabilities learn together – as well as an integrated education and employment system. The reality in Germany is different.
In Germany, pupils with special educational needs are often taught at separate schools. In 2018, 320,922 pupils attended separate special schools. This represents more than half of all school-age children with special educational needs (KMK 2020). By contrast, in the USA and Italy, for example, almost all children – including those with learning difficulties and disabilities – are taught at mainstream schools (Powell 2016).
In special schools, children with disabilities are taught separately from other children in all areas. In 2020/21, 313,857 of the 567,908 pupils with special educational needs were in special schools, meaning that the inclusion rate was 44.7 percent. This is significant progress compared to 2008/09, when the inclusion rate was only 9 percent (Klemm 2022). However, the overall proportion of children at special schools in relation to all pupils in a birth cohort (exclusion rate) has only fallen from 4.8 percent to 4.3 percent, which corresponds to a decrease of around 37,000 pupils (Menze et al. 2021; Klemm, 2022). This can be explained by the fact that children are increasingly being diagnosed with special educational needs and that this group has grown significantly in terms of numbers.
Differences between the federal states are striking. In Bremen, almost all special schools have been abolished since 2008/9 and children with special educational needs have been integrated into normal school life. The exclusion rate in that state is 0.7, while it is much higher in Saxony-Anhalt (6.5), Saxony (5.5), Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (5.3), and Baden-Württemberg (5.0) (Klemm 2022). The opportunities for children with disabilities therefore differ almost as much within Germany as they do internationally.
The retention of special schools cannot be justified on educational or social grounds. On the contrary, studies suggest that children in special schools are in many respects worse off than children in Germany’s lowest mainstream educational track, the Hauptschule. This is also the conclusion of a study by Laura Menze and others (2021) that examined transition processes between school and work using data from the National Educational Panel Study. Laura Menze et al. noted that the basic cognitive abilities (perceptual speed and deductive learning) of school leavers from special schools and mainstream schools clearly overlapped (Figure 12). Allocations to one or the other type of school therefore appeared arbitrary. Yet, the consequences of this allocation are severe. The majority of school leavers from special schools do not attain the lowest school diploma, the Hauptschulabschluss (73 percent)[1] while the vast majority of school leavers from mainstream schools do so, with only 10 percent leaving school without this diploma. Furthermore, young people from mainstream schools enter vocational training more frequently than pupils from special schools (87 percent vs. 77 percent) and complete it more often (30 percent vs. 13 percent).
Special schools achieve the opposite of what they are supposed to achieve. They educate pupils less well than mainstream schools. They make the transition into the employment system more difficult. And they lead to a vicious circle of stereotyping and feed PWDs’ sense of not belonging.
After special schooling, few PWDs start vocational training. Instead, most transition from special school into special employment programs, appropriately called rehabilitation programs. These are paid for by the Federal Employment Agency and rarely lead to permanent integration into the labor market. Here, too, PWDs remain among themselves.
This also explains the substantial difference in the proportion of NEETs between people with severe disabilities (50 percent) and people without disabilities (8 percent). The majority of people with severe disabilities are assigned to special schools, cannot switch to another school type, and leave school without a diploma, which is the worst possible starting point for a successful transition into training and later into employment.
Exclusion also continues in working life. Workshops for people with disabilities are facilities that isolate rather than integrate PWDs. In 2023, around 270,000 people, mostly people with cognitive and multiple impairments, were employed in workshops for people with disabilities (Bellan 2023). Their salary is 226 euros per month, which corresponds to an hourly wage of just over one euro. As most of these people receive basic income support, the income they earn is also offset against their basic income support (Schütz and Eibelshäuser 2023).
Many people who work in these workshops do not do so of their own free will. Typically, they express a desire to work in the primary labor market. When asked why they have not been able to enter it, they cite a lack of information, a lack of support, problems in commuting to work, or the lack of barrier-free working environments. Moreover, some lack the confidence to work in the primary labor market or are worried about losing their friends in the workshop (ibid.).
The magnitude of the difficulties faced by people with disabilities in Germany is demonstrated by the companies that do not employ PWDs despite an obligation to do so and instead pay the resulting fines. Companies are obliged to employ people with disabilities if they have 20 or more employees; they must fill at least 5 percent of these positions with people with severe disabilities. Statistics show that in 2020, of around 160,000 private-sector employers with 20 or more employees, a good 100,000 had to pay a penalty. More than 43,000 of them did not employ any people with a severe disability at all. In the public sector, the picture is more mixed: 7,100 of 11,700 employers met their obligations and were thus not liable to pay the levy but almost 1,200 did not employ any persons with severe disabilities. The federal government has since reacted: In order to increase pressure on companies, the rates rose on January 1, 2024. Since then, large companies that do not employ any people with severe disabilities have had to pay 720 euros/month for every job that, according to the law, should be filled by a person with a severe disability.
Nevertheless, given the highly segregated structures in education, training, and employment, it is not surprising that the UN clearly criticizes Germany in its latest state report on the realization of the rights of people with disabilities (United Nations 2023), focusing in particular on special schools: “The chain of exclusion from special schools to special workshops and residential homes for people with disabilities must finally be broken in Germany too by inclusive services for a life in the middle of society.”
III From a society of gainful employment to a society of activity
In the previous sections, we have tacitly equated integration with integration into the labor market and gainful employment – that is, we have regarded work as purely market-related work through which services and goods are produced to generate income, be it dependent or independent employment or one of the many forms in between. We propose a shift in emphasis from a “work-oriented society” to an “activity-oriented society” as was envisioned by Ralf Dahrendorf (1983) and has been repeatedly emphasized in feminist, ecological, and Catholic discourses (National Academy of Sciences/Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities 2024).[2] This means that work should no longer be considered synonymous with paid work. Instead, the concept of work should be understood more broadly and include non-market-related activities, such as citizen work, care work, education, family, and household work.
There would be several implications of such a shift. First, it would create a more complex understanding of the work-oriented society and explore potential dimensions of the purpose of work far beyond its market value and its results. An extended understanding of work could account for the practical and intellectual developments of a time in which the concept of work was not yet subsumed or limited by industrial capitalism. It would address work as an irreplaceable medium of individual fulfilment and self-realization, community building via cooperation and mutual recognition, and the – indirect – participation in a larger whole. It would understand work as part of creating the common good beyond one’s individual benefit and ultimately also beyond service to the individual. To speak of an “activity-oriented society” rather than a “work-oriented society” is more than a language policy or symbolic demand; language not only reflects societal reality but also shapes it. When non-market-related work is identified and dealt with as such, these activities – which are a necessary precondition for and addition to paid work – will become visible. At the same time, currently existing tensions between paid work and other activities will become apparent, as will the regulations and social safety nets associated with the different forms of activities.
Second, the concept of an activity-oriented society also entails culturally enhancing non-market-related activities. It should therefore be reflected in the cartographies of society and politics and be included in key economic metrics. This would be a welcome contribution to gender equality, since non-market-related activities are predominantly still performed by women. In the long term, this could lead to a further alignment of male and female activity profiles. Moreover, it would make a more flexible distribution of work between people of different ages, with different health conditions, and in different phases of life easier, as well as improving the inclusion of PWDs. The concept of unemployment, which so far is exclusively defined by the lack of paid work, would likely also undergo change.
At the same time, and third, a broader concept of work could shift attention to the opportunities and limitations of individual self-realization in view of the challenges that have to be overcome together.
This shift toward the concept of an activity-oriented society would not lead to a devaluation of market-related paid work. It would remain a central and necessary element in order to ensure societal prosperity and enable people to engage in unpaid activities. This shift would, however, mean assessing the opportunities that lie in an activity-oriented society. This includes the opportunity for people to participate in flexibly shaping their work biographies and carrying out other activities without ending up in financial dead ends. For this purpose, a certain degree of federal regulation, welfare-oriented social security, and public good provision (education and continuing education, health, and constructed environment) would be necessary. If such changes occurred, they would bring the achievements that an activity-oriented society provides to the fore and enable the promotion of the common good.
The likely potentials for development concern the societal organization of work on all levels: individuals and their immediate environment, the relationship between free enterprise and responsibility, and the design of appropriate political frameworks. At its core, it is about a new balance between cooperation and competition, creation and appreciation of value.
References
Barrera, A. (2024). Economic Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities: Imperatives, Impediments, and Remedies. 2024 PASS Plenary on Disability.
Bellan, J. (2023). Behindertenwerkstätten: Gehälter weit unter dem Mindestlohn. FAZ.NET. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/behindertenwerkstaetten-gehaelter-weit-unter-dem-mindestlohn-19283147.html
Dasgupta, S., & France-Massin, D. (2023). Businesses leading the way on disability inclusion: A compilation of good corporate practices (S. 52). ILO.
Klemm, K. (2022). Inklusion in Deutschlands Schulen: Eine bildungsstatistische Momentaufnahme 2020/21. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/doi/10.11586/2022067
Kultusministerkonferenz [KMK] (2020): Sonderpädagogische Förderung in Schulen 2009 bis 2018. Statistische Veröffentlichungen der Kultusministerkonferenz Dokumentation Nr. 223. Berlin: KMK.
Menze, L., Sandner, M., Anger, S., Pollak, R., & Solga, H. (2021). Jugendliche aus Förderschulen mit Schwerpunkt „Lernen”: Schwieriger Übergang in Ausbildung und Arbeitsmarkt (IAB-Kurzbericht 22). IAB, p. 6.
Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (2024). Die Zukunft der Arbeit. Berlin.
Powell, Justin J.W. (2016): Barriers to Inclusion: Special Education in the United States and Germany. Abingdon: Routledge.
Schmidt-Stein, M. (2023). Inklusion: Ab 2024 höhere Ausgleichsabgabe. Personalwirtschaft. https://www.personalwirtschaft.de/news/arbeitsrecht/inklusion-bundeskabinett-will-ausgleichsabgabe-erhoehen-146319
Schütz, D.H., & Eibelshäuser, S. (2023). Studie zu einem transparenten, nachhaltigen und zukunftsfähigen Entgeltsystem für Menschen mit Behinderungen in Werkstätten für behinderte Menschen und deren Perspektiven auf dem allgemeinen Arbeitsmarkt. Abschlussbericht (Forschungsbericht 626; S. 286). BMAS.
United Nations (2023). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Deutschland. http://liga-selbstvertretung.de/wpcontent/uploads/2023/09/230912_Germany_Concluding_Observations.pdf