Disability and poverty
The world's poor are significantly more likely to have or incur a disability within their lifetime compared to more financially privileged populations. The rate of disability within impoverished nations is notably higher than that found in more developed countries. Since the early 2010s there has been growing research in support of an association between disability and poverty and of a cycle by which poverty and disability are mutually reinforcing. Physical, cognitive, mental, emotional, sensory, or developmental impairments independently or in tandem with one another may increase one's likelihood of becoming impoverished, while living in poverty may increase one's potential of having or acquiring disability in some capacity.
Implications[edit]
The relationship between disability and poverty is seen by many to be especially problematic given that it places those with the greatest needs in a position where they have access to the fewest resources. Researchers from the United Nations and the Yale School of Public Health refer to the link between disability and poverty as a manifestation of a self-fulfilling prophecy where the assumption that this population is a drain of resources leads society to deny them access to avenues of success. Such exclusion of individuals on the basis of their disability in turn denies them the opportunity to make meaningful contributions that disprove these stereotypes.[35] Oxfam asserts that this negative cycle is largely due to a gross underestimation of the potential held by individuals with disabilities and a lack of awareness of the possibilities that each person may hold if the proper resources were present.[15]
The early onset of preventable deaths has been demonstrated as a significant consequence of disability for those living in poverty. Researchers show that families who lack adequate economic agency are unable to care for children with special medical needs, resulting in preventable deaths.[12] In times of economic hardship studies show families may divert resources from children with disabilities because investing in their livelihood is often perceived as an investment caretakers cannot afford to make.[36] Benedicte Ingstad, an anthropologist who studied families with a member with disabilities, asserted that what some may consider neglect of individuals with disabilities "was mainly a reflection of the general hardship that the household was living under."[33] A study conducted by Oxfam found that the rejection of a child with disabilities was not uncommon in areas of extreme poverty.[15] The report went on to show that neglect of children with disabilities was far from a deliberate choice, but rather a consequence of a lack of essential resources. The study also demonstrated that services necessary to the well-being of these children "are seized upon" when they are made available. The organization thus concludes that if families had the capacity to care for disabled children they would do so willingly, but often the inability to access crucial resources bars them from administering proper care.[15]
Current initiatives[edit]
Initiatives on the local, national, and transnational levels addressing the connection between poverty and disability are exceedingly rare. According to the UN, only 45 countries throughout the world have anti-discrimination and other disability-specific laws.[16] Additionally, experts point to the Western world as a demonstration that the association between poverty and disability is not naturally dissolved through the development process. Instead, a conscious effort toward inclusive development is seen by theorists, such as Disability Policy expert Mark Priestley, as essential in the remediation process.[37]
Disability rights advocate James Charlton asserts that it is crucial to better incorporate the voices of individuals with disabilities into the decision-making process.[38] His literature on disability rights made popular the slogan, "Nothing about us without us", evidencing the need to ensure those most affected by policy have an equitable hand in its creation. This need for agency is an issue particularly salient for disabled people who are often negatively stereotyped as dependent upon others.[38] Furthermore, many who are part of the disability rights movement argue that there is too little emphasis on aid designed to eliminate the physical and social barriers those with disabilities face. The movement asserts that unless these obstacles are rectified, the connection between disability and poverty will persist.[8]
Employment is seen as a critical agent in reducing stigma and increasing capacity in the lives of individuals with disabilities. The lack of opportunities currently available is shown to perpetuate the vicious cycle, causing individuals with disabilities to fall into poverty. To address these concerns many recent initiatives have begun to develop more inclusive employment structures.[34] One example of this is the Ntiro Project for Supported and Inclusive Employment.[39] Located in South Africa, the project aims to eliminate the segragationist models prevalent in the country through coordinated efforts between districts, NGOs, and community organizations. The model stresses education and pairs individuals with intellectual disabilities with mentors until they have developed the skills necessary to perform their roles independently. The program then matches individuals with local employers. This gradualist model ensures that people who may have been deprived of the resources necessary to acquire essential skills are able to build their expertise and enter the workforce.[39]
The United Nations has been at the forefront of initiating legislation that aims to deter the current toll disabilities take on individuals in society, especially those in poverty. In 1982 the UN published the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons, which explicitly states "Particular efforts should be made to integrate the disabled in the development process and that effective measures for prevention, rehabilitation and equalization of opportunities are therefore essential."[40] This doctrine set stage for the UN Decade of the Disabled Person from 1983 to 1992, where, at its close, the General Assembly adopted the Standard Rules of the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.[41] The Standard Rules encourages states to remove social, cultural, economic, educational, and political barriers that bar individuals with disabilities from participating equally in society.[42] Proponents claim that these movements on behalf of the UN helped facilitate more inclusive development policy and brought disability rights to the forefront.[43]
Criticisms[edit]
Critics assert that the relationship between disability and poverty may be overstated. Cultural differences in the definition of disability, bias leading to more generous estimates on behalf of researchers, and the variability in incidences that are not accounted for between countries are all speculated to be part of this mischaracterization.[15]
These factors lead some organizations to conclude that the projection asserting 10 percent of the global population belongs to the disability community is entirely too broad. Speculation over the projection of a 10 percent disability rate has led other independent studies to collect varying results. The World Health Organization updated their estimate to 4 percent for developing countries and 7 percent for industrialized countries. USAID maintains the initial 10 percent figure, while the United Nations works off half of that rate with a projection of 5 percent.[7] The percentage of the world's population with disabilities remains a highly contested matter. The most recent estimates on global prevalence for adults stand at about 15 percent.[44][45]
The argument that development should be channeled to better the agency of individuals with disabilities has been contested on several grounds. First, critics argue that development is enacted to harness potential that most individuals in this population do not possess.[15] Second, the case that health care costs for disabled people are simply too great to be shouldered by the government or NGOs has been made, especially with regard to emerging economies. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that investing in an individual's rehabilitation will result in substantial change in their agency. Lastly is the proposition of priorities. It is argued that most countries in need of extensive development must focus on health ails such as infant mortality, diarrhea, and malaria that are widespread killers not limited to a specific population.[15]
Critique with respect to potential solutions has also been made. In regards to implementing change through policy, critics have noted that the weak legal standing of United Nations' documents and the lack of resources available to aid in their implementation have resulted in a struggle to achieve the goals set forth by the General Assembly.[43] Other studies have shown that policy on a national level has not necessarily equated to marked improvements within these countries. One such example is the United States where sociologists Esther Wilder and William Walters purport that "the employment of disabled individuals has increased only marginally since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed."[28] The smaller than anticipated impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other policy-based initiatives is seen as a critical flaw in legislation. This is because many issues surrounding disability, namely employment discrimination, are generally reconciled through the legal system necessitating that individuals engage in the often expensive process of litigation.[28]