Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Labour market policies, strategies and statistics for people with disabilities: A cross-national comparison

Contents:

Author Info

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    In addition to describing different countries’ labour market policies for people with disabilities, this study attempts to establish some initial benchmarks for comparing national policies in this respect for a number of OECD countries. The report systematically compares the countries in order to provide answers as to how they differ with respect to: (1) the target group’s labour force participation and employment rate; (2) what labour market programmes are applied and to what degree; (3) to what extent the regular policy and institutional framework is used to integrate persons with disabilities into the labour market (the degree of mainstreaming). The study is based on a questionnaire to national government departments in all the OECD-countries in 1999. Of the 21 countries which are compared, Sweden, New Zealand, Germany and France have high labour market participation rates, while Spain, Ireland, Poland, Greece and Italy are all below average. Eleven countries provided sufficient information for a thorough cross-national comparison which among other things includes detailed descriptions of each country’s labour market programmes and statistics on the number of participants with disabilities and disability pension recipients. Despite similar labour force participation figures in Great Britain, Australia, Finland, Norway and Austria, the latter two countries have a substantially higher proportion of people in labour market programmes. Likewise, labour force participation in New Zealand is about the same as in Sweden, despite fewer participants in programmes. The proportion of participants with disabilities in various types of programmes specially targeted for people with disabilities and general programmes are compared. In Sweden, almost half the participants with disabilities in labour market programmes are employees with long-term wage subsidies. Almost half the participants in labour market programmes in Finland and Norway are undergoing training. Labour market training is also important in English-speaking countries and so are work experience programmes and, in principle, there are no long-term wage subsidies. Both the proportion of disability pension recipients and the proportion of programme participants are limited in Australia and the United Kingdom, while both proportions are substantial in Sweden and Ireland.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.ifau.se/upload/pdf/se/2001/wp01-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy in its series Working Paper Series with number 2001:13.

    as in new window
    Length: 334 pages
    Date of creation: 26 Nov 2001
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:hhs:ifauwp:2001_013

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: IFAU, P O Box 513, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
    Phone: (+46) 18 - 471 70 70
    Fax: (+46) 18 - 471 70 71
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.ifau.se/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Labour market policy; People with disabilities; Mainstreaming; Labour force participation; Labour market programmes; Disability pension; Benchmarking; Cross-national comparison; OECD countries;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:ifauwp:2001_013. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Margareta Wicklander).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.