Abstract
There are strong economic, theological, and philosophical imperatives for economic inclusion for persons with disabilities (PWD). Nevertheless, the impediments PWDs encounter in the marketplace are significant. Even by the standards of neoclassical economics, the economic exclusion of PWD is a market failure because allocative efficiency is not attained. This is so because the private benefits of PWD economic inclusion are less than its social benefits. Thus, the marketplace, left on its own, will not demand the appropriate level of PWD inclusion for allocative efficiency. The gap between private and social benefit increases even further in the globalized knowledge economy. Extra-market remedies are needed to correct this. One could treat PWD socioeconomic inclusion as a merit good with the government providing subsidies to rectify PWD economic exclusion as a market failure. Other remedies include the use of fair trade, social enterprises, subminimum wages, and educational initiatives within civil society. PWD economic inclusion is an important and achievable goal, but it will require commitment and careful thought.
1. Imperatives
The economic inclusion[1] of persons with disabilities (PWDs)[2] can be made based on economic, legal, ethical, and theological arguments. In what follows, I briefly outline these except for legal arguments that are examined by other papers.
1.1 Economic arguments
It is in the self-interest of any community to ensure the socio-economic participation of PWDs. Empirical studies suggest that many nations are well within their production possibilities frontier because of the untapped contributions of large numbers of PWDs. The World Health Organization estimates that there are around 1.3 billion disabled people worldwide, or 16% of the global population, that is, one of every six people.[3] This is particularly disturbing in the case of developing countries which need all the help they can get to lift themselves out of poverty. Low-income countries lose anywhere from $135 billion to as much as $192 billion a year due simply to the economic exclusion of PWDs (Metts 2000). In a study in Sri Lanka in 2001, 90% of disabled people were unemployed (Fritz, et al., 2009, 677).
The economic case for the inclusion of PWDs becomes even stronger once we talk of contemporary globalization and the Microelectronics Revolution. First, we have become a knowledge economy. The bulk of value creation for the global economy has come from those related to microelectronics. The Dow of the pre-1980s was heavily industrial in its composition. Today, information-related firms dominate the Dow Jones. The five biggest companies by capitalization are technology stocks. The last half century has witnessed a radical transformation in how we live, work, travel, and interact with each other. The gig-economy, ridesharing, autonomous driving, social-media connectivity, and telecommuting are just a sampling of the radical transformation of the Industrial Economy into what may be called the knowledge economy. And even now, we are on the cusp of another revolution that many believe will dwarf even the changes effected by the Microelectronics Revolution. This is the major technological breakout inaugurated by Artificial Intelligence.
Development economics captures the shift in value creation well. In the pre-1980s, the ladder of comparative advantage was based on resource endowments. Nations’ comparative advantage vis-à-vis other nations was a function of their relative abundance in natural resources, labor, or capital. Resource-rich nations relied on commodity exports, those with large populations specialized in labor-intensive manufactures such as apparel, while capital-rich countries parlayed their capital in services or in high-end capital-intensive manufactures. Scholars refer to this pattern as natural comparative advantage – based on their natural endowments.
The knowledge economy has transformed this ladder of comparative advantage from natural comparative advantage to “created comparative advantage.” Nations create their own comparative advantage. The prime example of this phenomenon is Bangalore, India. From sub-contracting Y2K work prior to the turn of the millennium, Bangalore has been the incubator for global tech champions that have gone up the value chain in software innovation. Bangalore created its own comparative advantage. The Microelectronics Revolution has allowed India to leapfrog many middle-income countries in the ladder of comparative advantage to carve out a niche for itself as a software powerhouse.
This shift from natural comparative advantage to created comparative advantage underscores the even more vital role of human capital in the contemporary marketplace – a post-Industrial, knowledge economy. Thus, it makes no sense to exclude potential “value creators” from the marketplace just because of their disability. Human ingenuity has always been the source of wealth creation. It has now become even more so in the knowledge economy. If we are truly intent on maximizing and optimizing value creation as prescribed by mainstream economic analysis and thinking, then every person counts. It would be a self-inflicted wound to take disabled people offline just because of the extra impediments they face.
The tandem of globalization and the knowledge economy presents a second argument for the economic inclusion of PWDs. A globalized knowledge economy has drastically reduced the cost of accommodation and creates more workarounds for PWDs that easily enable them to participate in the marketplace. A wide range of new assistive technologies from the simplest (e.g., motorized wheelchairs) to the most advanced (artificial intelligence-enabled autonomous driving) have opened new or expanded existing opportunities for PWDs in terms of greater mobility or seamless participation in the marketplace such as telecommuting. These advances have been so rapid, so much so that even severely wounded soldiers who have lost limbs have been able to go back into the service and even serve on the battlefield again, courtesy of advanced prosthetics. Empirical studies done in the wake of the Americans with Disabilities Act suggest that technology and innovation have been pivotal in making workplaces PWD-friendly through the flexibility and access that they provide (Basas 2013, 79).
Consider too how the Microelectronics Revolution has drastically lowered the barrier to entry in global marketing. The Internet has enabled even the smallest business enterprise to market its wares or services to the entire world (e.g., outsourced copy-editing, typesetting, computer-assisted design, accounting, etc.) This has been a boon for billions worldwide, but especially for the self-employed, entrepreneurial PWDs. Furthermore, social media and crowdfunding open the door to financing, marketing, networking for employment, and other collaborative work much easier for PWDs. In sum, new assistive technologies that compensate for disabilities and thereby lower the cost of accommodation make the economic and moral obligation to include PWDs in the marketplace even more imperative.[4]
A third argument for the economic inclusion of PWDs is its efficacy in breaking the poverty cycle. Empirical evidence from Ireland clearly shows that the onset and persistence of disability lead to a significant decline in employment. Moreover, among the people most prone to being disabled are the elderly. Furthermore, people from low-income households are also more likely to see the onset of disability (Brenda and Nolan 2007). This link between poverty and disability is cause for concern because they can mutually reinforce each other and generate a poverty trap. In OECD countries in 2010, the income of PWDs was 15% lower than those without a disability, and 22% of households with a disabled member were below the poverty line compared to only 14% for other households (Walsham 2019, 98). The mitigating consideration here is that developed countries generally provide a social safety net to ensure that there is a moral floor beneath which the poor or elderly disabled are not allowed to sink.[5]
Unfortunately, such a social safety net is not available in many poor developing countries where the link between poverty and disability is even stronger and much more severe. The difficulties are magnified even further in poor developing countries where PWDs are among the poorest, the ultra-poor (Ahmed, et al., 2007). Moreover, households with disabled members are also most likely to be poor (World Bank 2007; Morris, et al., 2022, 965-966, Mitra, et al., 2013). This should not come as a surprise because the need to care for the disabled makes it much more difficult for both PWDs and their families to break out of the poverty trap. For example, caregivers of PWDs and the disabled themselves are unable to participate fully in the marketplace given the severe constraints on their time (Emmett and Allant 2006). The foregone income is substantial. Moreover, households with a disabled member incur additional healthcare expenses that drain what is a small and irregular family income to begin with (Fritz, et al. 2009, 676-677; Sen 1999). Besides these special requirements, the inability of PWDs and/or members of their family to gain a foothold in the formal market often leaves them to work in the informal sector. In Kenya, PWDs are more likely to be self-employed compared to non-PWDs (Morris et al., 2022, 967). Such work is less productive, uncertain, demands longer hours, and pays poorly. With such low and unsteady streams of income, PWDs and their families cannot address the disability.
The link between poverty and disability in low- and middle-income countries is so strong that it is an empirical regularity. In a systematic review of 150 studies, 122 (81%) showed a positive and statistically significant correlation between these two phenomena. The results were robust as various measures were used to measure poverty, such as asset ownership, income, expenditures, and socioeconomic standing. Moreover, the strong correlation held across various age groups, locations, and disability types. Variations in study design produced the same correlation. These studies also identified the specific venues by which PWDs descended into poverty: higher unemployment, lower educational attainment, lower enrollment, less remunerative and unstable jobs, higher morbidity, higher healthcare expenses, and greater expenditures for assistive devices and transportation. M. Walsham, et al., (2019, 98) conclude that this pattern across numerous studies suggests that there is “poverty-disability” cycle whereby disability is both a cause and an effect of poverty. Disability and poverty mutually reinforce each other to trigger a descent into a poverty trap.
Economic inclusion breaks a vicious cycle of decline whereby the lack of gainful employment leads to insufficient basic-needs satisfaction and in many cases homelessness, which in turn harms the mental and physical well-being of PWDs and their families, and which in turn makes getting a job even more difficult. This is a spiral of decline. A steady and gainful stream of income is a necessary condition for breaking PWDs and their families out of this poverty cycle. Thus, the economic inclusion of PWDs is a necessary component of poverty reduction strategies. PWD economic inclusion breaks the poverty cycle.
Finally, PWD economic inclusion is in the self-interest of employers. Thomas Aichner (2021, 2) surveys a variety of empirical studies of PWD employment and finds that PWDs are excellent hires because of their high work motivation, their work ethic, their company loyalty, their friendlier interaction with customers, their higher job satisfaction, and their consistency in job performance. Furthermore, having risen from and being used to dealing with their disability, PWDs turn out to be better problem solvers, are more creative in their solutions, and are much more open to innovating and experimenting with solutions to problems. They are much better at “thinking outside the box.” Consequently, their employers reap benefits that include lower absenteeism, lower worker turnover, better returns for training and development, a much more pleasant and less stressful workplace, and better innovation. All these generate improved shareholder value. This survey of empirical studies belies the stereotypical characteristics commonly attributed to PWDs as we will see in our list of impediments. Anecdotal accounts in the wake of the PWD surge in employment due to remote work during the pandemic affirm that PWDs are so appreciative of their being employed, so much so that they turn out to be more loyal, work harder, and are more committed to their work. They are more reliable, especially during a worker shortage, because they will not simply quit on the employer, unlike non-PWDs who were more prone to moving from employer to employer during the “Great Resignation” (Gittleman 2022). A wide variety of employers, from hotel chains, manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms, hospitals, and even military bases were successful in hiring PWDs and expressed satisfaction with the results (Torry 2023).
1.2 Social Philosophy
The economic inclusion of PWDs can be argued as both a personal and a communal moral obligation based on Cicero’s notion of justice as a cardinal virtue, Kant’s categorical imperative and universalizability rule, David Hume’s duty of humanity, Peter Singer’s duty of easy rescues, the ethics of care, and moral cosmopolitanism.
For Cicero (1913), justice as a cardinal virtue is comprised of iustitia (justice proper) and beneficentia (duty of beneficence). Beneficentia underscores people’s mutual obligation to care for one another. This is reiterated as well in iustitia itself and its call for the duty to prevent harm. Economic exclusion is clearly a harm that must be redressed. Thus, Cicero’s justice as a cardinal virtue presents arguments for the economic inclusion of PWDs.
Immanuel Kant’s (1993) universalizability rule and the categorical imperative have much to provide in arguing for PWD economic inclusion. If I expect others to come to my assistance in my moment of need, then I should in my own turn extend assistance in their own moment of need (universalizability rule). The categorical imperative notes that we should act in such a way that the principle of our action can be generalized for everyone else without exception. It is akin to the Golden Rule. If I do not deem it to be my moral duty to do anything to prevent the economic exclusion of PWDs, then, I cannot and should not expect others to come and help, as a moral obligation, in preventing my economic exclusion. Along these lines, we have John Rawls’ (1971) leximin rule whereby we allow inequalities within our community but only if they are for the benefit of the most disadvantaged in our community. In other words, PWDs, as among the most disadvantaged, ought to be among the first in line to benefit from the community’s joint efforts and resources.
Peter Singer (1972) argues that there is a duty of easy rescues. We have a moral obligation to prevent harm if it will not cost or require us to give up something of comparable moral value. The example he gives is that of rescuing a child drowning in a shallow pool of water at a personal cost to us of only a ruined pair of shoes and pants and delay in getting to where we are supposed to be. Our own moral sensibilities will condemn us if we do not save the drowning child. This is self-evident for reasonable people. Similarly, we could argue that as individuals and as a community, we have a moral obligation to prevent harm from befalling PWDs in their economic exclusion if this is something that we could accomplish without incurring a significant loss on our part.
Moral cosmopolitanism calls for treating every person with the dignity that is intrinsic to personhood. We do not engage in ethical particularism whereby we treat people differently based on our bonds, ties, proximity, or any other criteria. We simply treat everyone equally. Clearly, the economic exclusion of PWDs, or of anyone else, is unacceptable under moral cosmopolitanism.
The ethics of care underscores our strong moral obligation to come to each other’s assistance based on our three shared characteristics as part of what it is to be human, namely:
· We are vulnerable to the chance and contingencies of life.
· We need others to get over these unexpected events in our lives.
· We are unable to provide for all our needs and require the assistance of others.
In other words, we owe each other a strong moral obligation of mutual assistance because of our mutual vulnerability, interdependence, and needy nature (Miller 2011).
The character of a community is revealed in how well it takes care of the most vulnerable and the weakest members in its ranks. This is the measure of a community’s strength and virtue.
1.3 Theology
Christian theology also presents arguments on the imperative of PWD economic inclusion. In the first place, Laborem Exercens (1981, §38-45) argues that work is a necessary venue for self-realization and perfection because through labor, people (1) secure the goods of the earth for themselves and their dependents, (2) exercise the obligations of stewardship over their personal gifts and that of creation, (3) act as co-creators in sharing in the creative activity of God, (4) share in the sufferings of Christ through the toil and hardships of human labor, (5) contribute to the common good and participate in the social order, and (6) express themselves and their creativity (Barrera 2001, 265-267).
St. Paul underscores the moral obligation to provide for oneself and not be dependent on the community, to the extent possible. Despite his firm belief in an imminent Parousia and his sense of urgency in getting people to prepare themselves for this event, St. Paul is nevertheless adamant that people must necessarily still work. He instructs the Thessalonians not to feed those who refuse to work (2 Thess 3:10-12). Moreover, with such work, the indolent will be able to provide alms to those who truly need such assistance. St. Paul himself exemplifies the importance of working for one’s own keep and not be dependent on others. As the Apostle to the Gentiles, St. Paul had the right to ask for and receive material support from the churches to whom he was preaching. Nevertheless, he did not exercise this right but worked instead as a tentmaker in order not to be a burden on the people whom he served (1 Thess 2:9). Indeed, work is a constitutive element of integral human development.
Given such vital importance, Laborem Exercens argues that there at least two critical communal obligations: (1) a shared societal obligation to provide meaningful and gainful work opportunities for all and (2) humane working conditions, including a living wage. A “meaningful” job is one that truly gives people the chance to develop fully and put their gifts and training to full use and contribute to the common good. It is not merely tedious or mindless work, just for the sake of getting an income, but one that puts a person’s education, skills, and training to proper use. Moreover, meaningful work pushes people to grow further in their skills – to be stretched to their full potential. This is a challenging task to fulfill and requires extensive cooperation and a long lead time. Consequently, note that the moral obligation to provide meaningful and gainful employment opportunities is a communal responsibility. Like everybody else, PWDs have a right to benefit from this societal moral obligation.
We can extend Laborem Exercens’ insights by noting that there is an economic dimension to human flourishing and existence. In addition to work, PWDs also need to actively participate in the socioeconomic life, such as access to credit, goods, services, and labor markets. This includes being independent, drawing benefits from the community, and contributing toward the upkeep of society. All these are essential for the self-respect of PWDs in being able to satisfy the economic dimension of integral human development.
A second theological argument is the nature of the common good. The common good is difficult if not impossible to define completely, given the complexity of social life and its fluidity. Nevertheless, a second-best solution is to identify the minimum conditions that must be satisfied in any reasonable account for the common good. One of these minimum conditions is that of due order in the constitutive relationships that comprise the common good. Three of these key relationships[6] are (1) interpersonal relationships between persons, (2) the relationship of the community vis-à-vis individuals within its membership, and (3) individual and the community’s relationship vis-à-vis those at the margins. All three relationships are essential for PWDs.
Relationship #1: Interpersonal relationships between persons in a truly functional common good require that people accord one another mutual respect. It is to treat each other as equals. Clearly, PWDs must be accorded the same respect as one extends to everybody else. PWDs must be treated as equals. This is a major shortcoming in practice because discrimination against PWDs and their treatment as inferior is a common observation and complaint in many settings, not only from the PWDs themselves but even from the public.
Relationship #2: The community-individual relationship is marked by a two-way exchange of benefits and contributions. The community has a moral obligation to provide every individual within its membership with the necessary conditions for human flourishing, including the necessary safety nets to deal with life’s chances and contingencies. The individual, for its part, has the moral obligation to contribute to the community in the measure he/she can. Clearly, this is central to the concerns of PWDs. PWDs are a prime example of people who have fallen prey to the chance and contingencies of life. Clearly, the community is there to provide the necessary assistance for PWDs to be able to participate in community life, pursue their lifegoals, and thrive even with the disabilities they must bear.
Relationship #3: Individuals and the community have moral obligations toward those who are at the margins of the common life. PWDs are often numbered among these for manifold reasons – neglect, discrimination, voicelessness, destitution, severe disability, among many others. It is incumbent upon the community and individuals to reach out to those at the margins and bring them into the community.
This is not the place to develop fully the requirements of the common good. It suffices for our purposes to note that attaining the common good requires outreach and care for PWDs. This includes economic inclusion, especially since economic exclusion is a major reason for their chronic poverty and their marginalization.
A third theological argument that calls for the economic inclusion of PWDs is the all-important principle of subsidiarity. There are two parts to this principle. The first part of the principle forbids higher bodies from arrogating for themselves functions that lower bodies or individuals can perform by themselves. In other words, people ought to be able to do things for themselves. Decision-making and action should be left at the lowest possible level. Nevertheless, part 2 of the principle cautions that once the individual or the lower bodies are no longer able to function on behalf of the common good, then it becomes a moral obligation (not merely an option or a right) on the part of the higher body or other individuals with the necessary resources to intervene and provide the necessary assistance for the sake of the common good. This principle is central to the issue of PWDs’ economic inclusion. Given the disability that PWDs are unable to surmount on their own, it becomes the moral obligation of the community (the higher body) or other individuals to provide the necessary assistance to PWDs. The principle of subsidiarity provides a second important insight. The goal for such assistance is to enable PWDs to be able to function on their own and not to breed dependency. This is part 1 of the principle of subsidiarity. In sum, the principle of subsidiarity has a dual function of (1) aiding and (2) empowering and enabling the PWD to be independent. Clearly, the principle of subsidiarity has a built-in safeguard to ensure that it does not harm PWDs by engendering dependency. Economic inclusion is a major part of the principle of subsidiarity’s dual task vis-à-vis PWD.
Many other theological arguments can be presented. Populorum Progressio’s integral human development is a journey that is taken jointly with one’s neighbor, and it can be completed only together. Clearly, the economic exclusion of PWDs is incompatible with this principle. Another relevant principle is the universal destination of the goods of the earth whereby all are supposed to be able to satisfy their basic needs. The principles of solidarity and participation also warrant the economic inclusion of PWDs. Not included in this section’s theological imperatives for lack of space are the biblical norms relevant for this issue.
2. Impediments
2.1 Nature of actual (not theoretical) markets
PWDs will find it difficult to participate in the marketplace for several reasons. First, their disability often adversely affects their productivity and is much lower compared to those who do not suffer from such disability. Productivity differentials have been cited as a key factor that impedes labor market participation by PWDs (WHO and World Bank 2011, 233-257). This difference in productivity may be directly due to the disability itself (e.g., limitations in motor skills), to higher morbidity rates (e.g., more sick days), or the need to seek medical care with a consequent loss of working days or hours. Such a productivity differential puts them at a significant disadvantage because of the resulting higher production cost. Moreover, employers will find it risky to hire PWDs in an extremely competitive marketplace characterized by tight delivery schedules, requisite short turnaround times, small profit margins, just-in-time inventory, expensive employee training cost, and ease of entry or exit. Traditional business management is averse to uncertainty and avoidable risk. PWDs may not merely be much more expensive to hire relative to those without a disability because of the productivity differential, but they might also be deemed to be much riskier hires, given their perceived greater likelihood of calling out sick.
Nevertheless, it is important to recall the earlier observation on Aichner’s (2021, 2) survey of studies that find PWDs to be more productive because of their work commitment and loyalty. The difference in the findings of Aichner (2021) and WHO and World Bank (2011) may be due to the great heterogeneity of disability that allows PWD to excel in various activities, while struggling in other forms of employment. Moreover, empirical evidence showing PWDs to be more productive may be due to their greater loyalty, better motivation, and lower turnover compensating for their disability.
A second practical impediment to PWD economic inclusion is also related to cost. PWDs would most likely require special accommodation at their workplaces. Take the case of those who are wheelchair-bound. Most public workspaces are not wheelchair friendly. For example, doors and bathroom stalls are not wide enough for wheelchairs, there are no alternatives to walking up steps, and bathroom sinks or breakroom counters are too high. Some of the required fixes are easy and cheap. Others, however, require major renovations and are expensive, as in the case of putting wheelchair ramps as an alternative to stairs, or even installing chairlifts or elevators. Unless mandated by law (such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), most employers will not incur these additional expenses on their own. This is particularly so in poor developing countries where businesses are already stretched in their funding needs. Thus, even in those cases where there is no productivity differential between PWDs and those who are disabled, employers may still balk at hiring PWDs because of expensive retrofitting fixes in the workplace that they might require.
The expense incurred in accommodating PWDs is relevant for the earlier arguments we have seen from social philosophy on the need for PWD economic inclusion. Cicero’s duty of beneficence and duty to prevent harm as part of justice as a cardinal virtue are premised on their not costing too much. In fact, Cicero (1913 [I, vxi, 51]) follows Ennuis’ principle in which beneficence is mandatory only to the degree that it costs the giver nothing. Along the same lines, Peter Singer’s duty of easy rescues is also premised on such assistance not being too costly. This is not the place to debate the threshold of what is too costly for PWD economic inclusion. It is sufficient for us to note that even within social philosophy, the duty to rescue or prevent harm is not carte blanche but is also conditioned on the expense incurred. Cost is a legitimate consideration. This is particularly true if such costs put the entire business at risk by pricing itself out of the market.
A third practical impediment to PWD economic inclusion is the difficulty of getting to the workplace. Once again, let us take the case of the wheelchair bound. Public transportation (buses, trains, subways, etc.) are often inaccessible by wheelchair. Sidewalk curbs at street crossings are rarely designed for wheelchair use. These limitations are prevalent even in the major metropolitan areas of the most developed nations of North America and Europe (Ergon Associates 2017). If this is the case, even for the wealthiest countries, it is even worse for middle- and low-income countries that would be even more hard-pressed to come up with public funds to make these necessary accommodations. This severely limits the type or location of employment or business opportunities available to PWDs. Workarounds may be expensive, as in the case of the wheelchair-bound having to take a taxi instead of the public bus.
A fourth impediment to PWD economic inclusion is the array of many other and even more urgent socioeconomic problems that need to be addressed. Poor developing countries are overwhelmed as it is with many other troubles that threaten their stability and even existence. In particular, generating sufficient income and creating jobs for a young and growing population are perennial concerns. This poses even greater hurdles to PWD economic inclusion because there is already a problem with providing employment to non-PWDs to begin with. Governments in poor nations will most likely not take PWD economic inclusion as a priority, especially if the requisite expenditures are substantial. Much needed health, education, and social services for an impoverished population will compete for the scarce government funding that PWDs themselves will need. PWDs will most likely be bumped further back to the rear of the queue. PWD-friendly legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the European Accessibility Act, the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act, and Canada’s Accessible Canada Act, are a luxury that many developing nations cannot afford, besieged as they are with even more urgent spending and legislative priorities.[7]
A fifth impediment to PWD economic inclusion is the discrimination to which they are subjected. Employers, co-workers, and many in the public stereotype people with disabilities as somehow deficient, less productive, unreliable, sickly, needy, and vulnerable, among others. In empirical studies done in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and Bangladesh, PWDs and their families cite stigma and discrimination as major hurdles. They are perceived by their employers and fellow workers as low-value, and there is often pressure for them to find a livelihood in self-employment. They are denied even reasonable accommodations and face obstacles to access in education.[8] The bias is even worse for women who are disabled. They carry the double hurdle of gender-bias on top of PWD-bias (Emmet and Alant 2006). There is also danger of abuse, especially for those who are intellectually disabled (Bialik and Mhiri 2022). Such discrimination and stereotyping are also prevalent even in advanced countries and in the more innovative sectors of the economy. For example, entrepreneurs with disabilities are often deemed to be high-risk borrowers without any evidence to back up this view (Ergon Associates 2017, 3). Discrimination and stereotyping also impede PWDs’ access to continuing education and training to upgrade skills. Both are essential in generating employment or entrepreneurial activities for PWDs.
Sixth, the heterogeneity of disability makes it much more challenging to come up with policies and practices since these must consider the type, severity, and duration of disability, not to mention the age of the person (Emmet and Alant 2006). PWD economic inclusion requires a wide variety of measures that address the issues specific to the type of disability encountered. This aggravates the earlier impediment on the cost of workplace accommodation. Employers will have to accommodate different disabilities, each with its respective unique requirements for mitigation (e.g., physical, emotional, social, intellectual, etc.). It is not as if we could have a one-size-fits-all solution, which would have been ideal because we can avail ourselves of the resulting economies of scale in our mitigation efforts. Instead, we require different ameliorative measures, and this increases the cost compared to having a standard solution. The wide range of disabilities means that it may be difficult and expensive for the employer to accommodate many PWDs.
Finally, there is a perverse complementarity among the aforesaid impediments that raises ever higher hurdles for PWDs’ economic inclusion. Impediments mutually reinforce each other. PWDs experience multiple disadvantages simultaneously in being excluded from social programs, education, employment, transportation, and social life. They are most likely to be in poor households (Lockwood and Tardi 2014: 433-434). The link between disability, health, and poverty in low- and middle-income countries has been repeatedly established in multiple empirical studies (Morris et al., 2022, 965). The lack of reasonable accommodations in public transportation and public spaces makes it much more difficult for PWDs to access education and training. Discrimination and stereotyping not only worsen their employment prospects but make it even more likely for employers to refuse even the most reasonable accommodations. Ableism is a bias in organizations that stereotype PWDs as deficient or less productive (Kwon 2016, 181-182). The World Health Organization and the World Bank (2011, 233-257) report on disability identify discrimination and prejudice as significant hurdles to PWDs’ employment.
The resulting lack of work experience locks them out even further from the labor market and makes them even more unlikely to be hired. PWDs’ perceived or assumed lower productivity only strengthens even further the view that they are high-cost hires. Problems encountered in one type of disability are attributed to all PWDs, with employers or the public not making a distinction between disabilities and their heterogeneity. These mutually reinforcing impediments make PWDs’ economic inclusion much more difficult and expensive to achieve.
2.2 Globalization and the knowledge economy
As mentioned earlier, the tandem of globalization and the knowledge economy has opened new avenues for PWDs’ economic inclusion. For example, the Internet and new assistive technologies have mitigated or altogether rendered disability irrelevant for PWDs’ prospects of marketplace participation, as in the case of back-office work, sub-contracting, or marketing via telecommuting from home. Nevertheless, globalization and the knowledge economy have also raised even more hurdles for PWDs.
First, the globalized knowledge economy has accelerated the pace of economic life. In addition, higher skills or constant learning and training may now be the norm, as in the case of e-related work. Those with learning disabilities will find it much more difficult to secure the much more remunerative types of employment and will be left even farther behind because of this requisite need for upskilling. This is not even to mention the higher cost in terms of time, travel, and effort that may be required to secure such training. Recall that PWDs and their families are often in the lower wealth-income quintiles to begin with. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, they face discrimination or hurdles in educational access. Keeping up with the knowledge economy may be a challenge for some PWDs.
Second, globalized markets have intensified competition even further in the labor markets. For example, telecommuting and online back-office operations expand employment opportunities for physically disabled persons. However, offshore outsourcing as part of globalization widened the pool of workers overnight. Domestic PWDs now face stiff competition from workers worldwide, and they run the risk of getting crowded out further back in the queue. Nevertheless, the same offshore outsourcing creates the opposite effect by expanding the employment prospects of PWDs in other countries, especially those in poor countries, such as India and the Philippines.
Third, globalization has intensified the competition for a wide variety of goods and services that can now be imported at a much lower price and perhaps of even better quality. Profit margins are under pressure, and firms will be even more cost-conscious. Such greater sensitivity to production cost will dent the employment prospects of PWDs even further. As we have seen earlier, disability often raises production costs either due to lower productivity or the higher cost of workplace accommodations for disabled people. Such additional costs will be a tempting target for hard-pressed managers looking for requisite cuts to stay competitive in global markets.
Fourth, globalization has spared those parts of the services sector that require the actual physical presence of workers from stiff competition (e.g., construction, food service, agriculture, etc.). As we have seen in the post-pandemic era, such workers are in short supply, and competition for them has been severe thereby resulting in higher wages. The impact on PWDs is mixed depending on the type of disability. Those who are physically disabled would most likely be unable to do such service jobs.
3. Remedies
3.1 Extra-market interventions
Social philosophy, theology, and even economics itself present compelling arguments for PWDs’ economic inclusion as an imperative. Nevertheless, we have also seen that actual market conditions present significant hurdles to such inclusion. We can work around these impediments through a variety of extra-market interventions.
3.1.1 PWDs’ economic inclusion as a merit good
First, PWDs’ economic inclusion should be treated as a merit good. Using neoclassical economics, we can describe PWDs’ economic exclusion as a market failure. As we have seen from economic history and from empirical evidence, human capital is the driver behind value creation across all eras, from the ancient to the modern industrial economy. As mentioned earlier, human capital has become even more important in the knowledge economy with the shift from natural comparative advantage based on natural resources to created comparative advantage. Allocative efficiency requires putting scarce resources to their best use. Clearly, by the standards of neoclassical economics, PWDs’ economic exclusion leaves us well within our production possibilities frontier, well within the optimum welfare that we could attain jointly with the maximized use of the resources available to us.
Take the case of PWDs’ exclusion in labor markets. Market failure arises because employers are not able to internalize the social benefits of PWDs putting their human capital to work and contributing to the overall welfare of the entire economy. Human capital, by its nature, spawns positive externalities for the whole community. It is a similar phenomenon to that of education. A more educated population produces many more benefits at the community level, well above those reaped at a personal level. For example, at a personal level, people procure a college education because it eventually leads to better jobs and better incomes. However, there are many more benefits to education beyond this increase in personal productivity, such as greater civility in community disagreements and even more important, the creation of new knowledge as people interact with each other. Silicon Valley is a prime example of this phenomenon. Such positive externality to a more educated population does not enter the person’s calculation of how much education to pursue. Left on their own, people will not procure for themselves the right level of education for the long-term benefit of the entire community. Note how most governments treat education as a merit good and provide free 12 years of education and subsidize post-high school education. In many cases, 12 years of education is also mandatory, and in some jurisdictions, parents can be held to account for their children’s truancy.
Employers are concerned only with the costs they incur vis-à-vis the revenues they generate in hiring PWDs. However, such private benefits at the level of the employer do not capture the many other benefits, the positive societal externalities, of employing PWDs. This includes the maximization of community resources (the PWDs), imparting skills and further honing the human capital of the PWDs hired and the future contributions that may emerge from such improved human capital, averted unemployment insurance that would have otherwise been paid, and greater spending by the hired PWDs, among many other benefits not seen nor considered by the employer. And this is not even to talk about the non-economic benefits that PWDs can bring about, such as the impact of such inclusivity on the public ethos and civil society. In other words, private benefits are less than the social benefits, and this leads to the underemployment of PWDs.
Governments are best poised to address PWDs’ exclusion as a market failure for several reasons. In the first place, it has the power of fiat. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the European Accessibility Act, the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act, and Canada’s Accessible Canada Act are proven examples of how legislation can pave the way not only for PWDs’ economic inclusion but also facilitate their participation across the various realms of social life. Such legislation requires action beyond mere mandatory accommodations in public services, such as affirmative action in employment, contracts, and public offices, among others. Disability is also sometimes included as a measure of workplace diversity.
Governments can also provide subsidies. Unlike education in which government steps in as a provider of last resort, the economic inclusion of PWDs is a much more difficult merit good to deliver. It is unlikely that the government can take upon itself the role of being the PWD employer of last resort. The more feasible solution is to rely on the marketplace itself. This could be achieved with the use of subsidies. For example, a solution for such market failure is to subsidize employers with the goal of closing the gap between the community’s social benefits and the employer’s private benefits in hiring PWDs. Tax credits are a ready solution.[9]
Nevertheless, there are limits to government action as a remedy for PWDs’ economic exclusion. In the first place, there is the danger of regulatory creep or, worse, regulatory overload, such as affirmative action or mandatory hiring quotas. In fact, overly protective labor legislation and improperly designed regulations can backfire and discourage the employment of PWDs (Ergon Associates 2017, 3). Regulations can assist or impede the economy’s efforts to approximate its point of allocative efficiency. Great caution is required. Improperly designed disability benefits may in fact create disincentives to PWDs’ economic inclusion (WHO and World Bank 2011, 233-257). Moreover, there is the perennial problem of how to fund subsidies. This is not even to mention the contentious debates on doing a triage of the nation’s needs and priorities. PWDs’ economic inclusion as a goal does not stand by itself. It is only one of many issues competing for national attention and resources. This is particularly true for poor developing countries which are pressed by many other spending priorities.
Considering these limitations to government action, the most sustainable remedies are those that ensure a strong and smoothly functioning labor market as this provides the best chance of sustainable employment for PWDs (Agovino and Rapposelli 2016, 646). This is particularly important in poor developing countries where PWDs’ social inclusion as a goal will be relegated to the bottom of the list because the more pressing concern is not having enough gainful, formal-sector jobs for the labor force to begin with. Providing support services to PWDs in terms of counseling services, training, and continuing education is also essential. Empirical evidence suggests that these measures are positively correlated in matching PWDs with jobs in the marketplace (Agovino and Rapposelli 2016). Nevertheless, there are significant hurdles to incorporating PWDs into the workplace, and much has yet to be learned.[10]
3.1.2 Targeted poverty alleviation programs
The economic inclusion of PWDs also requires measures that help their caregivers. Mothers who tend to disabled children bear heavy burdens in addition to their already significant household responsibilities (Emmett and Alant 2006). Furthermore, such caregivers are often unable to secure remunerative employment, and the household is often in poverty. The problem becomes even more severe for women-headed households. Poverty itself not only compounds the original disability, but it might also create secondary disabilities from malnutrition, chronic morbidity, and social isolation.
In such cases, economic inclusion should consider not only the needs of disabled people but also of their caregivers. Both require assistance and accommodation for them to participate meaningfully and gainfully in the economy. For example, flexible hours of work will be of immense value to mothers or other caregivers of disabled relatives. Given the multiple disadvantages experienced by PWDs, their caregivers, and their families, the economic inclusion of PWDs must be embedded within a community’s overall development strategy instead of being addressed as an ad hoc issue (Emmett and Alant 2006). The argument for inclusion in a larger development plan becomes even more compelling considering the empirical evidence showing that disabled people are among the ultra-poor (Ahmed, et al., 2007). Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests that despite their much greater need for social protection, PWDs have far lower enrollment rates than non-PWD in these programs. This suggests the need to take extra measures to target PWDs specifically (Kuper et al., 2016).
3.2. Market-based Remedies
3.2.1 Fair Trade & Social Enterprises as Venues for PWD Economic Inclusion
Government fiat may be the most effective remedy at this time, but it is not the ideal. The best remedy is the marketplace itself, that is, for market participants themselves to include PWDs in their market transactions.
Left on its own, the marketplace operates based on allocative efficiency. To date, there is no other social institution that can orchestrate the exchange of the unimaginable volume of goods and services currently traded among disparate economic actors spread across a wide geographic area in a timely fashion, 24/7/365. A key mechanism that allows the marketplace to accomplish this feat is its price mechanism which alerts market participants as to when, how, and to what degree they ought to alter their choices regarding consumption, savings, the disposition of their resources, and all other economic decisions. Thus, markets are instrumental in actualizing the claim that economics is about putting resources to their most valued uses. This is allocative efficiency.
“Most valued use” by the standards of allocative efficiency is ultimately founded on consumers preferences. Resources are valued based not on their intrinsic worth but on how much value they command in the marketplace. Take the case of factor markets. Market wages are based on the value of the marginal productivity of labor. Producers employ workers who produce sufficient goods or services that payoff the wages they receive.[11] This leaves PWDs excluded because the marketplace deems them to be high-cost “factors of production.”[12] Such high factor cost means that they will be replaced by other factors of production in the production isoquant. In other words, PWDs will most likely find it extremely difficult to compete with non-PWDs for jobs in the marketplace.[13]
The ideal solution is for market participants to price goods and services based on their intrinsic worth. For example, consumers might be willing to forego a much cheaper non-PWD-made apparel for a much more expensive one manufactured with PWDs’ labor. These consumers willingly pay the much higher non-market price because of the intrinsic worth they ascribe to PWDs and their economic inclusion. Such valuation based on intrinsic worth rather than market price has already been tried and tested in the fair trade of a wide range of goods and services, from coffee, chocolate, apparel, and many others. Fair trade in these goods is geared toward ensuring that the workers and, not the intermediaries, are properly and justly compensated. The same principle and mechanism can be applied to achieve PWDs’ economic inclusion.
Social enterprises are another way of getting around the market’s failure to price goods and services based on intrinsic worth. Unlike non-profits, these are business enterprises that appreciate the importance of market discipline and the imperative of making profits to keep their operations viable and sustainable in the long term. However, unlike for-profit firms, these social enterprises do not make profit-maximization their overriding goal. Equally important, these profits are used to promote social causes. In other words, they are guided by a stakeholder, rather than a shareholder, model of corporate governance.
Examples of fair trade and social enterprises geared toward PWDs’ inclusion abound worldwide from PWD-sewn bags and leather craft in the Philippines,[14] to ice cream franchises in North America that deliberately employ mostly disabled workers,[15] to prosthetics manufacturers.[16] People are willing to pay a premium over and above market prices because they want to enable PWDs’ participation in the marketplace.
Unfortunately, fair trade and social enterprises are limited in effecting PWDs’ economic inclusion because it is difficult to scale up these operations. Moreover, they are completely dependent on the goodwill of consumers who willingly seek out and pay more to help PWDs. Not too many people have the motivation and the time to do this.
Nevertheless, such willingness to pay based on need and intrinsic worth is not too far-fetched because it is already customary practice in the marketplace. Compensation according to need is already a mainstream market practice. Consider the following examples. Workers with families have the option of getting family health insurance with their employment. This means that they are getting more benefits compared to single workers without dependents. Similarly, paternity and maternity leaves favor workers with children versus single workers who do not have children. Tuition remission for the children of university staff and professors is a boon for these workers especially in the U.S., where college tuition is prohibitive. Clearly, university staff and professors who avail themselves of such tuition remission for their children are paid more compared to the other university workers who are childless. In all these cases, people are in effect paid according to their needs and not according to their work. This is an instance in which the common standard of fairness of equal work for equal pay does not apply. Related to this is the provision of special education for children with special needs. Clearly, special education is much more expensive. Yet, most people would not begrudge children with special needs using much more of the community’s educational resources compared to other children who do not need to avail themselves of these extra services. Again, note how the community allocates its resources based on need, even if it may lead to inequalities.
3.2.2 Educating the Public
Discrimination is an impediment to PWDs’ economic inclusion. Civil society plays a key role in this regard by educating the public. Well-crafted extra-market interventions can prepare the groundwork for market-based solutions to work on their own. This is particularly so for educational programs. Consider the following examples.
Autism Speaks[17] is an advocacy group that works toward the inclusion of people with autism across their lifespan. One of its initiatives is a nationally aired TV ad campaign that shows people with autism in various professions. TV viewers come away with the message that people with autism easily fit into the labor force and can perform as well as everybody else.
Mattel produced a Barbie doll with Down syndrome with the goal of promoting the inclusion of people with this condition. It is an effort to let children with this condition see themselves like any other kid, and for other children to see the world around them much more realistically than the idealized earlier versions of the Barbie dolls.[18] The educational value of this effort cannot be overemphasized especially in teaching inclusion and acceptance of diversity at an early age. British Vogue, for its part, put a model with Down syndrome on its cover page.[19]
These educational initiatives go a long way toward disabusing people of their stereotypes of PWDs. They lay the groundwork for the other earlier remedies we had seen such as fair trade and social enterprises whereby market price is based on the intrinsic worth and not on exchange value. Educating the public, including employers and workers, on PWDs paves the way for the latter’s easier and successful labor market participation.
Governments also turn out to play a significant role in changing attitudes toward PWDs. Experience from the two decades since the Americans with Disabilities Act show that PWDs have a preference to work for the public sector because of its benefits, stability, and its perceived responsiveness to PWDs’ issues. It turns out that the public sector has set an example for how to treat PWDs’ economic inclusion as a civil rights issue (Basas 2016, 79). That PWDs gravitate toward public sector jobs is a testament to government responsiveness. This is a case whereby the government is leading the rest of the nation by example. Unfortunately, this phenomenon may not be replicable in many other settings, especially in developing nations in which there is stiff competition for public sector jobs. These are often created to solve chronic unemployment among favored political constituents.
Project Search[20] began as an effort by staff members in 1996 at Cincinnati’s Children’s Hospital to add training for eventual job-placements for the young people with developmental disabilities with whom they had been working. Today, this initiative has become an international effort that provides a one-year transition-to-work program for developmentally disabled youths. This includes a business-led effort to train intellectually disabled young people to take on even nontraditional complex jobs. The goals are to enhance these young people’s employability in the marketplace by providing them with the requisite skills, training, and experience, in addition to coaching on life skills. Project Search is about helping young PWDs transition into adult life with regular jobs.
3.3.3. Subminimum wages
Economic theory suggests that employers generally set wages according to the value of what workers can produce. In other words,
Wage (W) = Price of the good produced (P) x Marginal productivity of labor (MPL)
After all, employers need to recoup their wage bill and still have some leftover to cover their overhead, their other factor inputs, and their profits.
Unfortunately, market wages need not necessarily be above what people need to satisfy their family’s basic needs. In fact, often they are not. Consequently, legislated minimum wages are the norm in most countries. It turns out that this is yet another means to facilitating PWDs’ economic inclusion via their employment.
As mentioned earlier, disabilities can impair PWDs’ productivity. This is an impediment to their getting hired because they are unable to produce enough to make up for the wages that are paid to them (Recall W = P x MPL). In the U.S., one solution to closing this productivity-pay gap is to grant an exemption to the minimum wage law for PWD hires.[21] In other words, the law provides a leniency to employers who are willing to hire PWDs by exempting them from having to pay the minimum wage. Many find this remedy to be attractive because it is market-based and does not cost taxpayers. It is also deemed to be a win-win proposition in that both the hired PWDs and firms benefit. Subminimum wages leniencies can be viewed as minimizing distortions to make markets function much more smoothly in approximating allocative efficiency.
Nevertheless, this subminimum wage provision for PWD is deeply controversial, largely on ethical concerns.[22] It is a trade-off between creating more PWD job opportunities, on the one hand, and paying a wage that can fill basic needs, on the other hand. Opponents to this leniency decry succumbing to economism – that at the end of the day, economic factors are decisive and carry the day. In this case, the leniency yields to the practice of Wage = P x MPL. Since PWD MPL is lower, so should their wages be to get them hired. Severe space constraint does not permit me to weigh the economics, ethics, and theology of this leniency in this paper. Suffice it to say that it is one of the remedies that is currently in use.
3.4.4 Remote work
The Covid pandemic inadvertently uncovered what seems to be one of the most effective market-based paths to PWDs’ economic inclusion, to wit: remote work. Empirical evidence from the United States reveals just how important this change in the workplace makes for PWDs’ employment. Since the pandemic, 1.8 million PWDs joined the labor force. This additional labor is a huge jump of 28% compared to just 1% growth for the total workforce. By August 2022, the U.S. Labor Department reports that 25% of PWDs were part of the labor force, with 21% of PWD being employed. These are the highest ever recorded numbers for these statistics (Gonzales 2023; Tory 2023). The shortage of workers in the post-Covid era partly accounts for this sudden jump in PWDs’ employment statistics. However, anecdotal accounts suggest that it is remote work that opened a whole new opportunity never seen before by PWDs. Many have long been asking if they could work remotely even before the pandemic because of the obstacles to commuting and navigating workplaces. In addition, flex time can easily be incorporated into remote work, thereby making the combination even much more attractive and PWD-friendly. These requests for pre-Covid remote work had been rebuffed, until the pandemic upended it and turned such remote work into the norm.
4. Summary and Conclusions
Economics, social philosophy, and theological ethics converge in their conclusion that the socioeconomic inclusion of persons with disabilities (PWDs) is an imperative. This is consistent with human dignity and our self-understanding that we are a human community. From a strictly economic viewpoint, PWDs’ exclusion is self-defeating because of their untapped contributions that could have boosted the whole community’s well-being. This is particularly so in the new knowledge economy.
Nevertheless, there are significant hurdles to PWDs’ socioeconomic inclusion. This is largely because of the added cost of accommodating their needs in the workplace and public spaces. In addition, some forms of disabilities may lead lower productivity compared to non-disabled people. Given the unforgiving nature of markets, especially in the wake of even stiffer competition due to globalization, firms are cost-conscious and always on the lookout for ever greater efficiencies and savings. This may discourage PWDs’ employment. It should perhaps not be surprising that in the two decades since the American Disabilities Act, PWDs have gravitated to public-sector employment. After all, government is not subjected to market discipline, while private firms are. In addition to these, PWDs face discrimination. The public often perpetuates many misconceptions about PWDs’ economic capabilities and needs.
Remedies are available to get around impediments to PWDs’ inclusion. Among these are government subsidies, fair trade, social enterprises, and disabusing the public of common stereotypes of PWDs as deficient or inefficient. Developing countries face even greater hurdles to rectifying PWDs’ economic exclusion given the expense involved and their many other pressing needs. This is one area of possible foreign assistance from the Global North to the Global South.
Appendix
PWDs and the Household Production Model
Household Production Model |
Maximize Q = A(H) f(C, C, …, Cn), where Ci = commodities Ci = f(xi,ti), ti = time Example: Q = f(education, nutrition, good health, . . .)
Subject to: Monetary income = Wi x Twork + other income Total time constraint (24 hrs) = Twork + t1 + t2 + . . . + tn, where ti = time
Wages (Wi) = f (A(H), other exogenous factors) where Twork = work time
|
Gary Becker’s (1965) model of time allocation lends itself well to modelling disability using the household production model. Disability can be incorporated in the household production function in the A(H) variable that impedes or advances the production of Q. In addition, disability can also be incorporated in the increased usage of time and goods inputs by PWD due to the need to compensate for the impediments they face. Disability can be modelled for specific commodities. Thus, PWDs’ total output Q would be much lower compared to non-PWDs’ Q thereby showing a much lower productivity. Thomas Aichner’s (2021) finding of higher PWD productivity can be incorporated into the same variables above, although showing a positive rather than a negative impact. PWDs’ work ethic, greater loyalty, attention to details, and resiliency may compensate for their disability and thereby give A(H) a positive impact.
The consequences of lower (or higher) PWD impact on PWDs and non-PWDs’ competition for jobs can also be modelled using the specific factors model with PWDs’ labor and non-PWDs’ labor as the specific factors. The x-axis would be the available jobs for which PWDs and non-PWDs are competing. The y-axis is the remuneration from these jobs.
Works Cited
Agovino, M. and A. Rapposelli. 2016. “Disability and Work: A Two-Stage Empirical Analysis of Italian Evidence at Provincial Level in Providing Employment for Disabled Workers,” Social Indicators Research 125:635–648. DOI 10.1007/s11205-014-0851-z.
Ahmed, Akhter, Ruth Vargas Hill, Lisa Smith, Doris Wiesmann, and Tim Frankenberger. 2007. The World’s Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger . 2020 Discussion Paper #43. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Aichner, Thomas. 2021. The economic argument for hiring people with disabilities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8: 22: 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00707-y.
Barrera, Albino. 2001. Modern Catholic Social Documents and Political Economy. Washington DC: Georgetown.
Basas, Carrie Griffin. 2013. “Universally Designing the Public Sector Workplace: Technology as Disability Access,” Journal of Labor and Society 16:69–86.
Becker, Gary. 1965. “A Theory of the Allocation of Time,” The Economic Journal 75:299:493-517.
Bialik, Kimber and Manel Mhiri. 2022. “Barriers to employment for people with intellectual disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: Self-advocate and family perspectives,” Journal of International Development 34:988–1001. DOI: 10.1002/jid.3659.
Brenda, Gannon and Brian Nolan. 2007. “Transitions in Disability and Work,” Estudios de Economia Applicada 25:2:447-472.
Cicero. 1913. De Officiis. English translation by Walter Miller. NY: MacMillan. https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L030.pdf last accessed March 29, 2022.
Ergon Associates, 2020. Economic inclusion for people with disabilities: Challenges and responses. London: Ergon (with assistance from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development).
Emmett, Tony and Erna Alant. 2006. “Women and disability: exploring the interface of multiple disadvantage,” Development Southern Africa 23:4: 445-460.
Fritz, Dominic, Ursula Miller, Andreas Gude, Andreas Pruisken, and Dorothea Rischewski. 2009. “Making Poverty Reduction Inclusive: Experiences from Cambodia, Tanzania and Vietnam,” Journal of International Development 21:5:673-84. DOI: 10.1002/jid.1595.
Gittleman, Maury. 2022. “The ‘Great Resignation’ in perspective,” Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2022.20
Gonzales, Matt. 2023. “Employment Rate Rising for People with Disabilities,” SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/global-and-cultural-effectiveness/pages/employment-rate-rising-for-people-with-disabilities.aspx#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20about%2021%20percent,of%20Labor%20Statistics%20(BLS). Last accessed November 7, 2023.
Jajtner, Katie, Sophie Mitra, Christine Fountain, and Austin Nichols. 2020. “Rising Income Inequality through a Disability Lens: Trends in the United States 1981-2018,” Social Indicators Research 151:1:81-114.
Kant, Immanuel. 1993. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Third ed. Trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Kuper, Hannah, Matthew Walsham, Flora Myamba, Simeon Mesaki, Islay Mactaggart, and Morgan Banks. 2016. “Social Protection for People with Disabilities in Tanzania: A Mixed Methods Study,” Oxford Development Studies 44:4:441-57.
Kwon, Chang-kyu 2021. “Resisting Ableism in Deliberately Developmental Organizations: A Discursive Analysis of the Identity Work of Employees with Disabilities,” Human Resource Development Quarterly 32:2:179-96.
Lockwood, Elizabeth and Rachele Tardi. 2014. “The Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” Development 57:3-4:433-37.
Metts R. 2000. Disability Issues, Trends and Recommendations for the World Bank. Washington DC.: World Bank.
Miller, Sarah Clark. 2011. “A Feminist Account of Global Responsibility,” Social Theory and Practice 37:3:391-412.
Mitra, S., A. Posarac, and B. Vick. 2013. “Disability and poverty in developing countries: A multidimensional study,” World Development 41:1–18.
Morris, Lisa-Dionne, Ola Abu Alghaib, and James Northridge. 2022. “Capability-Sensitive Principles for Assistive Technology to Support Young Graduates with Disabilities in Bangladesh and Kenya into Employment,” Journal of International Development 34:5:964-87.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Sen A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Shaw, Jackie, Mary Wickenden, Stephen Thompson, and Philip Mader. 2022. “Achieving Disability Inclusive Employment – Are the Current Approaches Deep Enough?” Journal of International Development 34:5:942-63.
Singer, Peter. 1972. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1:3:229-243.
Torry, Harriet. 2023. “Workers with Disabilities are Gaining in the Labor Force,” Wall Street Journal. (November 6).
Walsham, Matthew, Hannah Kuper, Lena Morgon Banks, and Karl Blanchet. 2019. “Social Protection for People with Disabilities in Africa and Asia: A Review of Programmes for Low- and Middle-Income Countries,” Oxford Development Studies 47:1:97-112.
World Bank. 2007. People with Disabilities in India: From Commitments to Outcomes. Washington D.C.: World Bank
World Health Organization and the World Bank. 2011. World report on disability 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, Washington DC: World Bank.
[1] Economic inclusion entails participation in both input and output markets. For this paper, I concentrate on employment inclusion as this is the constraint that most PWDs encounter.
[2] For this paper, I focus our attention on the person(s) with disabilities. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that disability also adversely affects the caregiver(s) and the family of the disabled person who consequently may also suffer varying degrees of economic exclusion.
[3] This the latest data as of March 7, 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health#:~:text=An%20estimated%201.3%20billion%20people%20%E2%80%93%20or%2016%25%20of%20the%20global,diseases%20and%20people%20living%20longer. Last accessed November 4, 2023.
[4] See Morris, et al. (2022, 979, Table 6) for a list of several types of assistive technologies and other remedies for employment inclusion and retention.
[5] See Jastner, et al. (2020) for a recent empirical study of the role of government transfer programs in mitigating the economic exclusion of PWD in the United States.
[6] The other relationships are (a) between the person and God, (b) between the current and future generations, and (c) between the community and the earth.
[7] It is a similar dynamic on the issue of special education. Special education is a luxury that many nations cannot afford. This is particularly so in developing nations whose budgets for education are already so woefully insufficient to begin with. Special education is not a priority for them since providing a basic, primary education for their population is already a problem in the first place.
[8] In an empirical study of eleven low- and middle-income countries, children with disabilities were found to be less likely to be in school (Fritz, et al., 2009, 677).
[9] One can model this formally by using the Edgeworth Box diagram in production with PWDs’ employment as a non-economic objective. The deviation from the core that makes for allocative efficiency can be achieved by changing the factor prices in the marketplace in such a manner as to lower the cost of PWDs’ employment. This can be achieved through tax-subsidy schemes on factor employment. Employing PWD workers, for example, could bring government subsidies, tax credits, or exemption from different employment-related taxes.
[10] See Shaw, et al. (2022) for anecdotal accounts of the various challenges faced by PWDs in their job search or in their places of employment.
[11] Wages = Price x Marginal Product of Labor
[12] In this paper, I use the term “factor of production” only because it is the language used in the disciplines of economics and business. Labor is not a factor of production but is properly the subject of work. See Laborem Exercens’ distinction between the subjective and the objective dimensions of work.
[13] The appendix accounts for how such exclusion comes about. We can model disabilities and the higher cost they impose using the household production model (Becker 1965). Disabilities lead to a greater use of requisite inputs, such as time and material goods, in going about the person’s daily life. The resulting output will be more time- and resource-intensive compared to non-PWD output (appendix). The consequence of such lower PWD productivity is their inability to compete with non-PWDs when it comes to jobs. This theoretical account must, however, be juxtaposed against empirical evidence that find PWDs to have a much higher productivity than non-PWDs. Recall Thomas Aichner’s (2021) survey of studies on this issue.
[14] World Intellectual Property Organization. “Handy in the Philippines: Leather Crafting Brand Helps People with Disabilities,” https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/stories/harls_2021.html Last accessed November 4, 2023. Kitty, Elicay. 2019. “Thinking of Gifts For Christmas? These Tote Bags Are Made with Love by PWDs.” https://www.smartparenting.com.ph/parenting/kids-with-special-needs/pwd-tote-bags-a00228-20191016 Last accessed November 4, 2023.
[15] Howdy Homemade Ice Cream https://howdyhomemade.com/franchise/ Last accessed November 4, 2023.
[16] Medpage. 2017. “Disabled Workers Make Prosthetics for the Poor (Reuters)” https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/generalprimarycare/67205 Last accessed November 4, 2023.
[17] https://www.autismspeaks.org/ last accessed October 31, 2023.
[18] Diaz, Jaclyn. 2023. “Mattel unveils a Barbie with Down syndrome,” National Public Radio. (April 25). https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1172017348/barbie-doll-down-syndrome-mattel last accessed October 31, 2023. See also the Mattel website on this initiative. https://corporate.mattel.com/news/barbie-introduces-its-first-doll-with-down-syndrome-further-increasing-representation-in-the-toy-aisle last accessed October 31, 2023.
[19] Morgan, Ellie. 2023. “Ellie Goldstein Shares an Empowering Message About the First Barbie Doll With Down’s Syndrome,” https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/barbie-down-syndrome-ellie-goldstein last accessed October 31, 2023.
[20] https://www.projectsearch.us/core-model-fidelity/ Last accessed November 7, 2023.
[21] See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/special-employment last accessed November 4, 2023. Such subminimum wage arrangements require permission from the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor.
[22] Various states have challenged and banned such subminimum wages for the disabled in their jurisdiction: Vermont, Alaska, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado, California, Delaware, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Rhode Island. Advocacy groups for people with disabilities have also challenged in court the provision in Federal Law that permits this arrangement. See https://apse.org/state-legislation/#:~:text=14(c)%2Fsubminimum%20wage%20legislation&text=Note%3A%20Prior%20to%202023%2C%20the,%2C%20South%20Carolina%20%26%20Rhode%20Island. Last accessed November 4, 2023.