The alternative is radical reconstruction of the welfare system away from the post primary production economy into one centered around the needs of disabled needs.

Disability, work and welfare i. Disabled people, employment and rights There is now universal agreement that disabled people are disproportionately disadvantaged in the labour market both nationally and internationally. Various studies from both official and unofficial sources consistently show that disabled people are far more likely to be unemployed and/or underemployed than nondisabled peers (Thornton and Lunt, 1997; OECD, 2003; 2006; 2010; WHO, 2011). In most western societies since at least the eighteenth century the meaning and organisation of work has been organised around a particular set of values and principles: the pursuit and maximisation of profit and competition between individual workers. Both effectively disadvantage and disable people with any form of impairment. But when work is organised around a different set of principles such as social necessity and interdependence people with impairments are included in, rather than excluded from, the workplace. For example, during the 1939/45 conflict hitherto excluded groups such as women and disabled people were drafted into the workforce at various levels by warring nations to aid the war effort. Immediately after the war ended much government effort was put into maintaining this situation due to the 'social obligation' (Thornton and Lunt 1995) felt towards these workers. But subsequently government priorities changed and labour market policies reverted to pre-war practices (Barnes, 1991; Roulstone, 1998; Russell, 2002). 8 Over recent years the meaning and organisation of work has undergone significant change. The intensifying globalisation of the world economy along with technological advances over the last half century has meant that many western societies have shifted from what Wolfensberger (1989) termed a ‘primary production' to a 'post primary production' economy. Therein agricultural and manufacturing industries have given way to human services as the principal source of economic activity and employment. Castells (1996) refers to this transformation as 'informationalisation' to reflect the new forms of production and power that has emerged. It is often argued that this 'mode of production' offers new employment possibilities for disabled people (Barnes, H. et al., 1998). Yet historically access to technology has never been evenly spread throughout the population, disabled or otherwise. Although information has taken on a value equalling that of the material products of industrialisation, questions of ownership and control are as relevant today as they ever were (Castells, 1996). This underlines the fact that whilst new technology, deregulation and more flexible production techniques enable some, for others they bring new and enhanced forms of exclusion and social isolation (Roulstone, 1998; Sapey, 2000; Sheldon, 2004). Indeed, whereas in the 19th and most of the 20th century an 'able body' was an essential prerequisite for paid labour and a 'non-disabled status', in the 21st century an ‘able mind may be more important’ (Barnes et al., 1999: 225). Therefore if people with impairments, and particularly those with ‘learning difficulties’ and ‘mental health’ problems are to participate in this 'post-industrial' workplace it is crucial that governments take a more interventionist role in how it operates. Certainly recently politicians and policy makers have adopted the language of inclusion, and posited what at first glance appear to be social model solutions to disability in the workplace. The rhetoric surrounding the introduction of the various anti-discriminatory legislative and policy measures at both the national and international levels provides a wealth of examples. But rhetoric rarely accords with reality and policy remains centred largely on the supply rather than the demand side of labour. Consequentially policies which target and highlight the functional limitations of individuals are prioritised and supported rather than those that address the social organisation of work. . For instance the British Government formally adopted a social model definition of disability in its report ‘Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People’ (Cabinet Office, 2005: 5). Yet Chapter 7 titled ‘Employment’ focuses exclusively on strategies to support disabled individuals into work, there is no discussion of how to tackle the various environmental barriers that pervade Britain’s labour market. Britain has had legislation prohibiting discrimination against workers with impairments since 1995. Analysis of case law (Ministry of Justice, 2010) shows a significant level of noncompliance with the employer’s duty, now under the ‘Equality Act’ 2010, following the abolition of the ‘Disability Discrimination Act’ in 2009’, to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for disabled employees (Harwood, 2011). Since the 1970s there have been several international initiatives designed to address disabled people’s social exclusion. Two notable examples are the UN’s 9 ‘Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities’ (1993) and the ‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (2006). Both adopt a ‘human rights’, holistic approach to the problem of exclusion and both have items dealing specifically with employment. The former although comprehensive with 22 items covering medical and support services, education, employment, leisure and cultural activities was not legally binding and ignored by national governments. The Convention on the other hand is designed within an international law context and sets out the duty of nation states to protect disabled people’s human rights. It is said to be legally binding on any country that ratifies it. At the time of writing it has been signed by 149 countries, 101 of which have ratified it (UN enable, undated). Of the 50 articles covering all aspects of the human experience Article 27 states: ‘States Parties recognise the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others; this includes the right to the opportunity to gain al living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities’ (UN Enable, undated). Whilst the Convention may be seen as a major step forward in the struggle for equality as it provides a comprehensive list of what needs to be done to eliminate disablism, there is little on how this is to be achieved by way of enforcement. As yet there is little sign that it has had any significant impact on securing disabled people’s individual or social rights within and across nation states (Jolly, 2010). This is not surprising since the rights based approach has yet to bring equality to other disadvantaged sections of the community in both rich and poor nations. This is because however they are defined: individual, social or human, rights are open to interpretation and context bound. Furthermore the notion of individual and social rights is the outcome of neo-liberal thinking and has little relevance to those living in non-western cultures (Miles, 2006). Even where appropriate laws exist challenging the denial of rights through the law courts is costly in terms of resources and time. The overwhelming majority of disabled people in all countries rarely have either. Moreover the legal route to equality does not challenge the established political and economic structures of capitalist societies. Therefore such an approach is unlikely to bring about the radical environmental and cultural changes needed to eradicate structural inequalities (Oliver and Barnes, 1998, 2012; Jones and Marks, 1999; Hahn, 2002; Russell, 2002). Major structural change is even less likely in the foreseeable future as a result of the succession of deepening economic crises that have dogged the world economy since the 1970s. This has resulted in a significant shift to the right by governments across Europe and North America and claims that excessive government regulation in the workings of the market and escalating welfare budgets are at the root of these problems. Hence solutions to these crises prioritise policies supporting finance capital and reductions in welfare spending in order to sustain and consolidate capitalist class interests and power. They are legitimated by a plethora of discourses about the importance of ‘individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility and the free market’ and assertions that future prosperity depends on the creation of a good business climate in which financial institutions can generate 10 and maximise profit (Harvey, 2010). All of which does not bode well for the employment prospects of disabled individuals reliant on welfare and expected to compete for jobs in labour markets characterised by high unemployment generally and structured almost exclusively for a non-disabled workforce. ii. Rethinking policy, work and welfare The growing problem of high unemployment generally in both rich and poor states has led some social analysts to call for a further reformulation of the meaning and organisation of work. For instance, building on the work of Gorz Beck (2000) argues that a combination of factors including globalisation and technological innovation, have generated a far less stable labour market in which traditional skills are devalued, jobs lost, and welfare reduced or eliminated. He argues that to offset the inevitable social and political instability everyone must have the right to be included in a new work system. This will include movement in and out of paid employment and forms of self organised artistic, cultural and political ‘civil labour’ involving equal access to comprehensive social protection within the context of democratically organised local, national and trans-national networks of active citizens. But whilst much is made of the role of active citizens in this and similar analyses, little is said about the role of government, disabled people and/or their organisations. This is important since the experience of work instability and social exclusion has characterised disabled people’s work experiences for much of the last century, and that if this situation is to be resolved government intervention is fundamental. Indeed, government involvement in the way the labour market operates is not new nor is it confined to policies for disabled people. Throughout recent history all governments have played a major role in structuring and restructuring the labour market through grants and tax concessions for industrialists and employers in order to sustain economic growth and maintain political stability (Grint, 1998; Giddens, 2006). With regard to the employment of disabled people, as noted earlier, 'demand side' initiatives were implemented in many states during and immediately following the 1939/45 war to facilitate their inclusion into the workforce. Whilst the current global economic climate may prohibit national governments from addressing labour market infrastructures in the short term, there are several policies that could be introduced to address disablism in the workplace. They could, for example, set targets for all government departments and state organisations to achieve in respect of employing disadvantaged workers. In their dealings with the private sector they could use similar targets to enforce contract compliance. International and government sponsored funding agencies could provide grants to charities and NGOs controlled by disabled people whose track record in employing disabled workers puts the traditional voluntary sectors to shame. Additionally, removing large numbers of people from state welfare systems and into work would reduce public spending and help combat disablism in the workplace (Oliver and Barnes, 1998; 2012). This is not to suggest that all disabled people can or should be expected to work at the same pace as 'non disabled' contemporaries or that all disabled people can or should work in the conventional sense. To expect people with high support needs to 11 be as productive as non-disabled peers, is one of the most oppressive aspects of modern society. And to radically reconceptualise the meaning of work beyond the rigid confines of waged labour is not unprecedented in the modern context. For example, in their efforts to assert the role of women in a predominantly patriarchal society, feminists have redefined the meaning of work to include housework and childcare (Lister, 1997). But this re-conceptualisation must go much further for disabled people because although many disabled individuals, both female and male, do housework, and have childcare, and/or ‘caring’ responsibilities others do not. Consequently this re-configuring of work must include the everyday tasks that nondisabled people take for granted. Notably this idea is not unprecedented within sociology. Corbin and Strauss (1988), for instance, identified three types of work associated with ‘illness’ management: a/ ‘illness work’ including activities like organising and administering medication, doing physiotherapy etc.; b/ ‘everyday work’ such as household tasks and interactions with family and professionals; and c/ ‘biographical work’. The latter involves strategies that disabled people adopt in order to incorporate impairment into their daily lives. This might involve developing ways of making sense of their condition and explaining it to others. The growing involvement of disabled people in the development and delivery of disability services should also be construed as work. This is especially evident with reference to the various self operated support systems now being introduced by many governments. As an alternative to professionally led services these schemes provide funding to disabled individuals to recruit and employ support workers or personal assistants (PAs) to do the things they are unable to do themselves. Although technically unemployed users of such schemes are in fact employers who may employ four or five people per week. The knowledge and skills required to manage these schemes is comparable to running a ‘small business’ (Prideaux et al., 2009). They also make a significant contribution to local and national economies. For instance, Sweden introduced funding for PA users in 1994. There are now some 14,000 people using these schemes employing 70,000 PAs (Ratzka, 2007). The recent expansion of user led involvement in the development and delivery of services has meant that more and more people with various impairments now spend their 'free' time actively involved in service consultations and development of one form or another. Notwithstanding that successive British governments since the 1980s have actively encouraged this involvement, but none have acknowledged such activity as work (Barnes, 2003). Such policies warrant a re-evaluation of debates about the costs of state sponsored welfare systems. Escalating welfare costs are due to a variety of factors: demographic, economic, political and cultural; not least of which is consistent governmental failure in all countries to address the various barriers to inclusion. But whilst barrier removal will undoubtedly reduce the cost of state sponsored welfare, it can never eliminate it altogether. This is simply because impairment however it is defined is a common human experience. As indicated above the overwhelming majority of impairments are acquired during the life course due to various factors: poverty, pollution, accident, violence, war, lifestyle and ageing (WHO, 2001a; 12 Priestley, 2003). Hence rather than being viewed as a drain on national economies, welfare systems in whatever form they take should be viewed as an indicator of collective social responsibility and social justice.. Moreover, there is growing realization amongst academics and policy makers that the continued development and future stability of a global economy is inextricably linked to the complex and ever changing relations between production and consumption (Bauman, 1998). This should be coupled with the recognition that, regardless of their role within the orthodox work environment, disabled people are both producers and consumers of a vast array of services upon which many nondisabled people depend; they are, therefore, a fundamental component within this equation. Consequently instead of stigmatising those in receipt of welfare services and support, politicians and policy makers should be striving to develop a more even handed and less stigmatising system of provision and support. In an increasingly unstable world such a policy is an essential element in the struggle for poverty reduction and development of a more equitable and just global society.