Labour Market Integration and Equality for Disabled People: A Comparative Analysis of Nordic and Baltic Countries

Abstract

This article considers the employment situation of disabled people, and disability policies, in three Nordic and three Baltic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). The analysis is framed by a changing paradigm for disability policy‐making, from compensation towards human rights and in a context of multi‐level governance involving the EU and UN as significant policy actors. The analysis draws on policy analysis and European social survey data to compare outcomes for disabled people in each country and in binary comparison between Nordic and Baltic countries. This enables interactions between individual and regional block factors to be modelled. We conclude that national policies make a difference, that non‐discrimination policies are not enough and that a focused mix of regulatory and redistributive measures is needed. The findings highlight better employment and social protection outcomes for disabled people in the Nordic countries, but point to policy challenges in both blocks. National processes of (de)commodification and stratification affect disabled people differently and this may disrupt our assumptions about welfare state comparisons.

Employment and attendance in day care centres for people with mild intellectual disabilities – do age, gender, functional level or hospital admissions matter?

“…Alternatively, limited public services resources might also affect the status of activities. Additionally, our findings support the previous literature: The gap between policy and practice in employment for people with mild IDs still exists (Hvinden 2004;Halvorsen et al 2016;Kuznetsova et al 2017). These results imply a societal need for an increased focus on people with mild IDs, especially for those not receiving public services who have perhaps fallen through the gaps of public systems that provide help with work inclusion.…”

“…Additionally, our findings support the previous literature: The gap between policy and practice in employment for people with mild IDs still exists (Hvinden 2004;Halvorsen et al 2016;Kuznetsova et al 2017). This may be because most people with IDs receive a disability pension without an assessment of functional level, are never in contact with service providers, and no consideration of workability is performed.…”

“…The clear association between not being employed or attending day care centres and not having one's functional level registered implies there is a need for increased focus on how to enhance work participation However, there is a gap between policy and practice in employment and participation in day care for people with IDs, reflected in the relatively low rates of people employed or in day care in Norway (Hvinden 2004;Halvorsen et al 2016;Kuznetsova et al 2017). Participation in day care is a public service registered in IPLOS, which requires registration of functional level, while attendance in employment support is registered in SSB, where functional level is not registered.…”

“…However, there is a gap between policy and practice in employment and participation in day care for people with IDs, reflected in the relatively low rates of people employed or in day care in Norway (Hvinden 2004;Halvorsen et al 2016;Kuznetsova et al 2017).…”

Social Exclusion and Labor Market Integration of People with Disabilities. A Case Study for Romania

“…Some empirical research studies have revealed that the medical model of understanding disability plays a very important role in Romania, in which the impairment remains a solid rationale that justifies the use of patriarchal attitudes by the non-disabled towards individuals with disabilities [25]. In most cases, the medical model and the social model are exposed as dichotomous structures, but disability should be viewed neither as purely medical nor as purely social: Individuals with disabilities can often experience problems arising from their health condition [26]. On the other hand, resilience resources and soft skills confirmed their effectiveness in reducing perceived disability impact and improving perceived employability in the case of youth with disabilities [27].…”