1The nature of a state’s welfare policies and the resulting social services have a significant impact on the quality of life and the social participation of disabled persons. The specific social services provided by welfare and disability policies depend on the underlying interpretations of or assumptions about disability or disabled persons (Waddington & Diller, 2002). For a significant proportion of disabled individuals, securing employment presents a considerable challenge and is not a straightforward process. As an alternative, individuals who are unable to find employment in the open labour market are offered sheltered work, which is organised as an alternative work sector with special arrangements and distinctive characteristics by service providers. This alternative has been the subject of research and considerable criticism, both internationally and in Austria (Bend & Priola, 2023; Rustad & Kassah, 2021; Wolfmayr, 2021; Wegscheider & Schaur, 2019; Hauder, Wegscheider & Schaur, 2018; Heyer, 2015; Bates-Harris, 2012).
2Austria is among those countries that still maintains a well-developed segregated sheltered work sector, characterised by pocket money payments and the absence of labour rights (Wolfmayr, 2021). The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2023: 13) has expressed concern over “the segregated employment of persons with disabilities in sheltered workshops and ‘occupational therapy workshops,’ which among other issues, denies them the status of employed or self-employed persons and results in the payment of ‘pocket money’ instead of adequate wages” in Austria, following the second state audit in August 2023. As of the last count, more than 25,000 people worked in these kinds of arrangements (Sozialministerium, 2017: 111).
3In this article, we examine the ideological standpoint from which sheltered work services for disabled persons in Austria are developed, exploring how and why these services either promote personal autonomy or reinforce paternalistic, dis/ableist, and controlling practices. To date, research on the underlying ideas, concepts, and theoretical debates surrounding social services in the field of disability policy in Austria and other EU countries has been relatively scarce. It is particularly noteworthy that there has been a dearth of discourse on the concepts of autonomy and paternalism in this context. This absence is surprising given that the state authorities play a pivotal role in regulating and controlling disability, influencing the range of life opportunities for disabled individuals through the provision of social services. We therefore aim to contribute to the theoretical foundations of disability policy by developing three practice-relevant models that can be used to analyse the behaviour of actors within the socio-economic welfare triangle (Dimmel, 2005). The triangle in question is that of the federal states in Austria as legislators and financier, private social enterprises are executing organisations (service providers), and disabled persons as recipients of services. We do not focus on the federal level, e.g. on the social services offered by the Social Ministry Service (Sozialministeriumservice) and the Public Employment Service (PES) in Austria, which support disabled persons in the regular labour market. Instead, this article focuses on (sheltered) work services at the federal state level and the inherent opportunities for autonomy or risks of dependence and vulnerability for the disabled individuals concerned. This is particularly relevant for individuals with learning disabilities, as well as those with complex support needs.
4Section 2 presents an overview of the design of sheltered work policies and arrangements within the context of the Austrian welfare state. This is followed by a discussion of three models of social service relationships, with a particular focus on their impact on the autonomy, dependence, and vulnerability of disabled individuals (section 3). The subsequent section (4) applies this analytical lens to examine sheltered work regulations and arrangements. Finally, the findings are discussed and contextualised within an international framework (section 5).
5The Austrian welfare and disability policy incorporates features such as the preservation of status and group differences, integration into the social insurance system through employment or family membership, and the care and provision obligations of family members, as well as the involvement of charitable organisations (Flieger & Naue, 2019). This means that the Austrian welfare state is characterised as having a medium degree of de-commodification and a low degree of de-stratification (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Obinger & Tálos, 2010). These core elements result in significant stratification effects between individuals who are employed or who are deemed employable, and those who are unemployed or classified as unemployable, due to legislation.
6Despite Austria’s relatively modest population of 9 million, its constitution designates it a republic comprising nine federal states (Bundesländer). The combination of federalism and the cross-sectional nature of disability policy makes this area inherently complex, and it cannot be solely assigned to only one territorial level or policy field. With regard to disability, the central government is responsible for vocational education, employment, social insurance, and long-term care allowances. All other matters of social welfare and social services relating to income poverty, care, housing, or sheltered work, such as assistance, support, or occupational training, as well as their funding, fall under the responsibility of the Bundesländer and are regulated by federal state laws. The transition from sheltered work arrangements to employment in the open labour market carries with it the risk of losing other social benefits. The situation is unclear and depends on which federal state is responsible. The nine federal states of Austria have enacted legislation and regulations pertaining to disability and social assistance, with notable discrepancies between individual state laws. In this context, the Bundesländer have stipulated a diverse but confusing and fragmentated array of disability services (Flieger, Schönwiese & Wegscheider, 2014). Some of these legal texts have been revised and re-enacted in recent years (most recently the Tyrolian Participation Act 2018). The federal states’ social administrations primarily commission social economy enterprises – mostly non-profit, though some are for profit – as service providers to fulfil their legal obligations. These social services have become increasingly important in Austria over the past four decades, driven not only by the structural demographic, familial, and labour market changes, but also by the rising public financial burden associated with their provision (Dimmel & Schmid, 2013: 13-4).
7This paper focus on the analysis of social services, with an emphasis on labour and work policies and services stipulated in the nine Austrian disability assistance laws. The analytical lens is grounded in the tension between autonomy, paternalism, and vulnerability. Being autonomous means acting out of one’s own volition and “from one’s integrated sense of oneself” (Arstein-Kerslake, 2017: 51) instead of being externally controlled. Paternalism, on the other hand, is understood to be an action (or set of actions) towards other people that limits their autonomy for their supposed benefit or a corresponding attitude (Thompson, 2013). Vulnerability means being susceptible to or not being in a position to prevent harms, injuries, failures, or misuses that come from humans, animals, objects, or groups, and threats that undermine what is important to you (Anderson, 2013: 135; Formosa, 2013: 89). Therefore, while every human being is vulnerable due to their embodiment and their need for societal companionship, terms such as “vulnerable groups” denote people who are, for whatever reason, more vulnerable than most others (Fineman, 2010: 268-9; Formosa, 2013: 92; Mackenzie, Rogers & Dodds, 2013: 2-6). Dependency – on other people, societal structures, or resources – is often seen as a direct consequence of human vulnerability (Fineman, 2021: 10; Kittay, 2011: 54-7; MacIntyre, 1999: 8). However, as with vulnerability, dependency is often seen as an attribute of certain groups of people. Both vulnerability and dependency are not just inherent in individuals but also constructed by societies and states (Anderson, 2013: 136; Kittay, 2011: 57). Thereby, additional or unnecessary vulnerability, referred to as pathogenic vulnerability, can be created (Anderson, 2013: 154; Dodds, 2013: 188; Mackenzie, Rogers & Dodds, 2013: 9). By applying this analytical lens, we have developed models of social service relationships that have enabled us to examine the dynamics of autonomy and self-determination, as well as paternalism and protection, in relation to the sheltered work services provided by the nine federal states, and to compare them.
8The following models, derived from literature, include action-guiding perspectives on disabled persons influencing the design of social services provided by sheltered work arrangements. They subsequently describe the relationship between social services, state actors, and disabled users. For the sake of brevity, we will refer to them as social service relationship models.
9In social services according to this first model, the relationship of disabled persons vis-à-vis the service providers and the state is deferential. Disabled persons can be described as clients, a term derived from Latin meaning protégé or bondman (Dimmel & Schmid, 2013: 17). This view of disabled persons has a long history. From the 17th century onwards, contract theorists have attempted to justify the state’s sovereignty and its power to curtail individuals for their own sake or for the sake of the community as a whole (Arstein-Kerslake, 2017: 5; Fineman, 2010: 263). In this narrative, autonomous, mature, fully capable, and rational people – at least initially thought to be white male property owners – strike an agreement about the extent and limitation of mutual rights, responsibilities, and duties (Pateman, 1988; Wilde, 1997, 2009). Thus, for John Locke (1824/2012) and especially Immanuel Kant (1785/1977, 1797/1977) the rights and duties before the law were grounded in those capabilities (Anderson, 2013: 153; Fineman, 2004: 8). According to one prominent reading of Kant (e.g. Gutmann, 2010: 7-9) every individual deemed to lack these capabilities does not possess these duties and rights, such as protection against the violation of one’s rights and undue interference in one’s life decisions. This further means that, historically, disabled persons could be assigned social services that segregate them into separate living facilities, sheltered workshops, or educational programs, even against their individual wishes, all with the intention of serving their best interest.
10While administrating and conducting social services, respecting the autonomy of people deemed vulnerable and dependent, i.e. clients, is often overlooked in the name of protection (Arstein-Kerslake, 2017: 53). However, such patronising protectionism often is dis/ableist and can create additional or pathogenic vulnerability since it may undermine the sense of self-governance and confidence, as well as opportunities to gain experience and grow as a self-directed person (Anderson, 2013: 140).
11Because of the importance it gives to individual ability and vulnerability, the paternalist model aligns with what disability scholars refer to as the biomedical model of disability (Szerletics, 2022: 82). This model reduces disability to negative functional deviations from bodily or mental norms in an individual, as diagnosed by medical experts (Barnes, 2019: 14; DeVidi & Klausen, 2017: 358; Harris, 2000), and implicitly suggests that there is “something wrong with you” (Oliver, 1996: 30). In the related economic model, disability is viewed as an individual’s diminished capacity to engage in gainful employment due to functional impairments, along with the financial consequences for both the individual and society (Retief & Letšosa, 2018: 6; Rice, Wunderlich & Amado, 2002: 54). For disabled persons, the medically determined “degree of impairment” dictates the level of leniency they are granted from the pressures of “normal society” (Cloerkes, 2007: 156). Those deemed unfit for earning their living by means of paid employment are dis/ableistically devalued and written off as being inherently vulnerable, dependent, and pitiful (McColl & Bickenbach, 1998: 6; Retief & Letšosa, 2018: 6).
12Since the libertarian model affirms the capabilities and the rights to autonomy and self-responsibility of disabled persons, it seems – at least on a superficial level – to be the opposite of the model described above. Generally, this perspective not only allows but also encourages disabled persons to independently choose and pursue their own well-being, instead of being overly protected as part of a vulnerable population. To some extent, this perspective and critique of paternalism align with certain ideas, e.g. direct payments of aid or de-institutionalisation, and the rhetoric of disability and independent living activism (Grover & Soldatic, 2013: 223; Mladenov, 2015: 452-4). Rooted in philosophical liberalism, this libertarian thinking has evolved from earlier stages of liberalism, which justified the practical absence of disability, welfare and social policy in many European countries. With the rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s, libertarian thinking gained new relevance under the auspices of “new public management” in social policy and administration (Dimmel & Schmid, 2013: 17; Grover & Soldatic, 2013: 220; Mackenzie, 2019: 146; Soldatic & Morgan, 2017: 1).
13New public management places the individual and their choices and responsibilities at centre stage, with the state taking on an activating role (Dimmel & Schmid, 2013: 23-4). Neoliberalism levels criticism against the perceived culture of dependency (Grover & Soldatic, 2013: 222; Mladenov, 2015: 450) and appeals to values such as responsibility and obligation (Soldatic & Morgan, 2017: 6). Responsible individuals, defined as good and productive citizens, are only those who can exercise their individual autonomy with minimal assistance (Hayek, 1960 as cited in Davy, 2015: 141). Those who are perceived as relying too much on social services and welfare benefits, e.g. people without overt severe impairments receiving benefits, are seen as “slackers” and/or “welfare scroungers” (Soldatic & Morgan, 2017: 6) and are blamed for their inability to be self-reliant (Shakespeare, Watson & Alghaib, 2017).
14In terms of labour market policy, social services may function as workfare programmes. By streamlining and cutting financial benefits, by funding workplace accommodations and/or by offering monetary incentives to employers, efforts are made to encourage as many disabled people as possible to enter the workforce (Grover & Soldatic, 2013: 228; Soldatic & Morgan, 2017: 2). This emphasis on self-sufficiency and the stigma attached to the reliance on state support perpetuates the myth of total autonomy (Fineman, 2004). However, this approach may create pathogenic vulnerabilities for disabled persons if social services are drastically reduced for the sake of autonomy and these individuals are left to face all obstacles by themselves. Additionally, in many cases, the perpetually essential support has to come from the private sphere – i.e. family, partners, or friends – making the disabled persons reliant on their resources and goodwill. Therefore, despite apparent similarities in rhetoric with disability activism and the independent living movement, this model is also dis/ableist and engenders pathogenic vulnerability.
15The third model is based on the demands and insights from disability activism and scholarship. It starts with the “big idea” of the disability movement (Shakespeare, 2010) – the social model of disability (Oliver, 1997), according to which, the main issue for disabled persons often lies not in their impairments but in the way society erects environmental barriers that exclude and suppress them. From this vantage point, disabled persons advocate for the removal of such inclusion barriers through societal changes (Shakespeare, 2010), such as providing social services that enable self-directed living and social participation for everyone. Further developments and extensions of this line of thinking have led to the human rights model of disability (Degener, 2017) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD assesses disability as resulting from the interaction between people’s impairments and environmental barriers (UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, preamble (e)). This perspective holds that every human is at least potentially affected by disability (MacIntyre, 1999: 73), and that vulnerability and dependence on others are also seen as essential aspects of the human condition (Arstein-Kerslake, 2017: 9; Kittay, 2011: 54).
16At certain times in their life cycle, individuals may experience heightened dependence (Kittay, 2011: 57). Accordingly, every human being is understood to be a person, capable of the form of autonomy appropriate for them, regardless of the nature and extent of their inherent vulnerability and dependence. Denying this capability creates pathogenic vulnerability and constitutes dis/ableism as well as a human rights violation (Arstein-Kerslake, 2017: 38; Dodds, 2013: 188).
17In this context, the feminist relational notion of autonomy is often referenced (Mackenzie, 2013; Oshana, 2020; Stoljar, 2022) in which autonomy involves choosing and acting on one’s own behalf, but not necessarily without support (Davy, 2015: 140). This aligns with the conviction that every adult, regardless of impairments, given the right social environment, has both the ability and the right to autonomy (Arstein-Kerslake, 2017: 12; Davy, 2015: 145). Reliance on social services is thus not contradicting autonomy; rather, for some disabled persons, who are full persons and rights bearers just like everyone else, it is a prerequisite for exercising autonomy (Arstein-Kerslake, 2017: 12, 61; Fineman, 2004: 30). This view, which is also assumed by the CRPD, does not align with dis/ableist perspectives.
18In certain regards, this third model of the social service relationship can be seen as a synthesis of the overt paternalism of the first model and the (faux) laissez-faire approach of the second. It acknowledges this tension between paternalism and protectionism on the one hand and autonomy on the other (Arstein-Kerslake, 2017: 55f.). While this view acknowledges that everyone is vulnerable and dependent, it also recognises that disabled persons are inherently more so. Social services must therefore assist and support them to ensure they can enjoy their human rights without creating pathogenic vulnerability. Given that this can be resource-intensive, depending on the nature of the impairments, the guiding principle should not be contractual reciprocity but (generous) justice (Davy, 2015: 144; MacIntyre, 1999: 120-1; Silvers & Pickering Francis, 2009: 487).
19The practical application of social service relationship models is illustrated through an in-depth analysis of sheltered work regulations initiated and developed by the Bundesländer (federal states) and the associated social services delivered by non-state service provider organisations in the social economy. Our analysis utilised documents that explicitly influence sheltered work arrangements: nine disability or social assistance laws and their associated regulations (18) (retrieved from the RIS database) as well as guidelines issued by the federals states’ social administration offices for the service providers (3). Additionally, we used monitoring reports (5) prepared by the ombudsman (Volksanwaltschaft), the CRPD-Monitoring Committee, the Austrian Disability Council (Österreichischer Behindertenrat), and two reports written by Monika Rauchberger of WIPS (People first Tyrol). In order to examine this material, a qualitative content analysis was carried out, incorporating the steps of summarising, explicating, and categorising (Lamnek & Krell, 2016: 447-514). The core analysis is based on the identification of action-guiding perspectives on disabled persons within disability and social welfare legislation and the resulting dominant relationship models in disability policy. In addition to a summary of the content and a categorisation according to the three relationship models (paternalist, libertarian, and relational social model), the criteria shown in the following diagram were also taken into account in the content analysis framework.
Figure 1: Coding plan
Source: the authors.
20The coding system consists of three codes corresponding to the three social service relationship models, as well as instances identified as indicators of the models’ presence. These incidences are either abstract or more concrete concepts or rhetorical strategies, some of which are associated with more than one of the models.
21The federal governments use different terminologies for their disability assistance laws. Despite the differing terms, the regulatory frameworks across all subnational units provide definitions of disability, objectives of disability assistance, and benefits according to the law. The benefits according to the law vary at the subnational level and as do the range of sheltered work services that can be found. For readability, the provisions and terms in the following sections were translated into English. These translations have been done by the authors and are not official.
22In general, Austria regulates access to disability services through criteria based on the medical model of disability. Access to support services is not determined by the individual’s needs in their living context or their personal choices but by medical diagnoses and deficits assessed by medical professionals appointed by the authorities. This is also reflected in the definition of disability within the federal state disability laws. For instance, the disability law in Burgenland defines disabled persons as people who are permanently restricted (another possible translation would be “impaired”) in their development and their capabilities to receive appropriate schooling and vocational education, or to secure employment suited to their schooling and vocational education, due to afflictions or ailments. People who, for the same reasons, are unable to perform their previous job or find new employment are also included in this category (§18 Bgld SHG). Those afflictions and ailments must be assessed by the administration on an organic and/or psychological level, bearing in mind their restricting consequences. The definition nowhere mentions environmental barriers and thus individualises disability. Similarly, Carinthia’s law for equal opportunity defines persons with a disability (the law uses the singular form) as persons with physiological, mental, psychological, or sensory functional deficits and who face difficulties participating in social life. The causal nexus between these two factors is not explicitly stated and is only implied, and social barriers are not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, this reflects a more traditional definition, akin to the medical model of disability. In total, seven out of the nine Bundesländer use a medical definition of disability centred around individual deficits, thus stigmatising disabled persons as deviant and particularly vulnerable and dependent.
23Generally, in Austria, disabled persons only have access to the mainstream labour market policy if they are not classified as unable to work – regardless of whether they can or want to work. The PES can commission this assessment from the Pension Insurance Institute. It is conducted according to medical criteria, and there is no legal remedy against it. Young persons with learning disabilities or with increased support needs are almost always assessed unable to work in these evaluations. This classification allows them to retain the child status under social security law. Even if they are adults, they are treated like children: their social insurance is derived lifelong from their parents’ social insurance, and they are permitted to receive family allowance for life. While this might guarantee that they are provided for, it also stigmatises them as inherently vulnerable and dependent people and thus substantially constricts their live options.
24For example, with this evaluation they are also excluded from PES and any vocational education and supported employment measures for the open labour market. Instead, they are referred to segregated workshops or special segregated enclaves in regular commercial enterprises – both are forms of sheltered work. These constitute an inferior substitute labour market regulated and financed by the disability assistance of the Bundesländer and offered by service providers. As a general rule, the renumeration for this work consists solely of pocket money. These workplaces are not subject to any collective agreements, labour law, or employee representation based on social partnership (e.g. trade unions or chambers of labour). Furthermore, they are not entitled to support from the PES or any other supported employment service, nor support from the Social Ministry Service, which would promote the transition into open labour market jobs and provide reasonable accommodation and support in the workplace in the open labour market (Österreichischer Behindertenrat, 2018: 28). This deplorable state, however, is not really reflected in the laws. The drafters of Salzburg’s STHG, for example, state that workers in so-called integrative enterprises should receive either the collectively agreed or the usual level of compensation. Thus, as will become more apparent when discussing the next model, part of the dis/ableism comes not from the laws themselves but from their implementation.
25These types of segregated non-standard working arrangements are referred to differently from one federal state to another: Styrian law calls it “participation in work in the working world,” in Vienna it is referred to as “daily structures,” in Carinthia as “ability-oriented work,” and in Upper Austria as “ability-oriented activity” and “integrative work.”
26However, they all share the same characteristics. A significant pocket money economy has developed around them in recent years, and even if persons in these workplaces produce economically viable products and services, it is not elevated to gainful employment – even if this work arrangement lasts their whole working life and no therapeutic rationale can be identified. This kind of working arrangement is characterised by a high degree of segregation of disabled persons, and measures that prevent a transition into jobs on the open labour market, officially sanctioning exploitation under the guise of protection (Wolfmayr, 2021). Ironically, measures of this nature are often described in the laws with flowery and emancipatory language. The Vorarlberg law states: “Integration aid must be orientated towards the individual support needs of the particular person with disabilities. It also must also, as far as possible, meet his or her expectations.” Carinthia’s K-CHG states: “Ability-centred employment should enable the retention and further development of a person with disabilities’ abilities as well as his or her participation in social life.”
27However, in reality, most of the time, the opposite is true. People are not challenged enough or encouraged to develop or further develop their skills. In a poignant report, Monika Rauchberger (2006, 2017) of WIPS not only describes how monotonous her assigned activities were at such a facility, but also how, due to the prevailing paternalism, she was literally discouraged from pursuing vocational education and an opportunity for a position in the open job market. It was only through her individual courage and determination that she was able to disregard their warnings. Thus, even against their will, disabled persons often remain trapped in these so-called protected spaces. They usually spend their entire lives in these segregated areas, working only with other disabled persons and being cared for by non-disabled persons (Volksanwaltschaft, 2019).
28Overall, it must be said, that unlike the other two models, the libertarian one does not manifest in specific measures or services but in the manner in which they are administrated and the access to them is managed. A common restriction stated in the law is that work-related services are only available for disabled persons of working age and not for children or the elderly.
29Austria’s disability assistance historically derives from poor relief and is means-assessed, case-based and subsidiary, meaning that the benefits are intended to provide needs-based support at a minimum level when the individual’s own income or benefits from higher-level social protection systems are not sufficient. The benefits generally include cash benefits as well as supplements or maximum benefits, benefits in kind, minimum standards, as well as special or additional needs. Parents of sheltered work service recipients living above the poverty line are required to make copayments for these benefits. The extent and amount of these payments are often regulated by legislative decrees to the disability laws. Within a free-market system, copayments can be seen as an access constraint, i.e. as a means to minimise illegitimate or unnecessary use. However, they can also often function as real barriers to necessary access. Many of the work-related services require such copayments. This can create pathogenic vulnerabilities, especially in sheltered work when the copayments exceed the earned pocket money. Thus, disabled persons in sheltered work are not only dependent on state entities but also on their parents. Copayments demotivate and may also disincentivise necessary use, potentially increasing overall vulnerability.
30Further, the social administrations responsible for disability assistance generally use disability and support determination processes to regulate entitlement and access. This is purportedly intended to enable disabled persons to assert enforceable rights to benefits and social services against the state. From the outset, the Bundesländer defined rules on who is considered eligible for which disability assistance benefits and under which circumstances. While disability assistance relating to the area of sheltered work is defined as a legal entitlement, the relevant passages also state that this is limited by the availability of resources (§8 (2) Oö. ChG). Thus, in both an absolute and practical sense, despite some rhetoric to the contrary, there is no actual legal entitlement to a certain support service. The will of the authority and the availability of resources override individual wishes and needs. Usually, the social administrations of all nine Bundesländer commission regional non-state service provider organisations to provide sheltered work services in segregated settings. Most of these organisations also operate residential facilities for disabled people.
31With the advent of new public management in Austria, administrative authorities increasingly began to use business management instruments and brought to bear a market economy perspective (Dimmel & Schmid, 2013: 16-8) in order to increase the efficiency of support measures. This also meant cutting costs by attempting to prevent purportedly unnecessary use and thus trying to “activate” the users to live without this support. This approach is most evident in the Upper Austrian law. Since the introduction of the Oö. CHG, the users of all services are uniformly referred to as customers. Thus, at least prima facie, disabled persons are not no longer debased by being framed as clients but as customers. However, under this logic, the state’s obligations to provide adequate living conditions often gets overruled by market-related cost cutting imperatives, and therefore leading to availability issues.
32This libertarian market-orientated thinking not only manifests in access restrictions, but also in the fact that a lot of support is given monetarily in the form of subsidies. Some Bundesländer have introduced the possibility of receiving wage subsidies for measures that we classify as social relational, such as on-the-job coaching. The extent of the granted subsidies is also regulated and restricted. In Tyrol, for example, the amount of wage subsidies depends on the collective wage agreements and the individual employee’s functional capacity. In Salzburg it is stipulated that they must not exceed 50% of the employee’s wages. Another restriction concerns the duration of the entitlement. The subsidies for job coaching in Salzburg, for instance, must not exceed six months. Such subsidies for employers can be seen as a libertarian measure, since their purported aim is to integrate disabled persons into the job market, preferably the open market, by appealing to the pecuniary interest of the employer, i.e. by compensating them for the presumably reduced labour capability of their employee, a reasoning specified in many of the laws (e.g. in Burgenland and Carinthia).
33The social administrations strive to have more control over the disability service market. Consequently, Upper Austria has drawn up new framework guidelines and service agreements that regulate the contractual relationships, service and quality standards between the federal state and the service provider organisations. The provincial authority draws up a service contract with the respective organisation in which, among other things, the object, type, scope and quality of the service, the self-support quota, the placement quota, the amount of allowance, the qualification of the staff, the measures for representing the interests of the clients, the required documentation and the information obligations are agreed (§30 (1) Oö. ChG; Amt der Oö. Landesregierung/Abteilung Soziales, 2003/2008). The service providers can only operate within the framework of the service contract (§30 (2) Oö. CHG); generated revenues are transferred to the provincial administration. The budget is reviewed and revised annually in controlling meetings. This budget does not fully cover the expenses; the provider organisations must generate their own income, which varies greatly depending on the provider organisations and especially the services.
34Periodic cost-cutting measures have required efficiency improvements, for example through an increasing number of persons cared for without additional funding or through a reduction in additional services such as transport (Interessenvertretung der Sozialunternehmen im psychosozialen und Behindertenbereich Oö, 2018). This libertarian impetus and the cost-cutting imperative are also the reasons why applications for increased care are habitually rejected by the responsible social administrative authorities at first. Hauder, Wegscheider & Schaur (2018) found that, while there is in principle an entitlement to appropriate measures in Upper Austria, the availability clause deters people from accessing them by creating prohibitively long waiting lists, for example. Further, unlike the regular controlling discussions, quality controls take place irregularly. In practice, they are only carried out after a complaint has been made. Evaluations of the need for help, a measure of the extent of support, take place at the beginning of the service, with an overall survey being repeated at longer intervals.
35This diffusion of market logic reduces quality of and access to care and support, and thus limits self-determination and especially the free choice of the working environment. This increases pathogenic vulnerability and potentially dependence on friends and family of the “customers.” For example, some individuals may have no viable opportunity to access their ideal workplace if they cannot access suitable transport services or must rely on their parents. Further, the limitation of options also restricts self-determination and increases vulnerability and dependence by reducing system permeability: once benefits have been awarded, disabled persons in sheltered work hardly ever relinquish them up and they are not encouraged to do so, which in theory contradicts the libertarian impetus. However, the system is often constructed in a way that a risky and effortful attempt to change status, e.g., trying a job in the open labour market, is neither in the rational interest of the state authorities and service providers nor in that of their “customers” or their parents. This situation may arise if returning to a protected status with guaranteed care after a failed attempt in the open job market is very cumbersome (Wegscheider & Schaur, 2019). This dis/ableistic dynamic incentivises remaining in the paternalistic and protected sphere instead of daring to develop, which ostensibly contradicts the spirit of the libertarian model, which is supposed to activate people towards self-sufficiency. However, such a disincentive is a risk posed by all the above access restrictions. Furthermore, the legitimacy of receiving support, as regulated through restrictive clauses and interpreted by medical or bureaucratic officials, undermines the spirit of the social relational model.
36In this model, social services are not primarily centred around administrative logic nor exclusively around externally defined inherent vulnerability, dependency, or degree of disability, but around disabled persons’ wants, needs, and empowerment. In relation to the state and service providers, disabled persons are seen as right-bearing citizens and thus framed as sovereign users of the offered support (Dimmel & Schmid, 2013: 17-8). Even though Austria has signed the CRPD in 2008, such progressive and social relational ideas have only slowly and gradually permeated the provision and administration of disability assistance at the federal state level. While there is still a dearth of measures that realise the social relational model in the full sense, it should be noted that at the federal level Austria offers comprehensive measures for supported employment, such as personal assistance at the workplace to facilitate inclusion into the mainstream job market (Sozialministeriumservice, 2023). Additionally, at the federal state level, vestiges of the social relational model can be identified in some work arrangements. These measures and support services assist disabled persons in their attempt to live self-determined lives within mainstream society. Tyrol’s THG defines disability along the lines the CRPD and gives equal weight to impairments and environmental barriers as causes of disability. Salzburg’s law on participation also mentions environmental barriers in its definition and thus steers away from an individualising, reductionist, monocausal nexus between impairment and disability. Tyrol is also the only state that offers personal assistance at the workplace for those people who cannot access it at the federal level.
37Concerning concrete measures, laws contain one set of measures, often listed as subpoints under a common provision, intended to promote the inclusion of disabled persons into the job market. These measures can often roughly be delineated from the more paternalistic measures intended to segregate people into protected disability workshops, since they seem more focused on including disabled persons into more mainstream or general workspaces. Sometimes provisions mention that it is envisioned that the service should assist in finding or retaining a job in the open job market. These paragraphs are named “inclusive work” (Tyrol), “measures for vocational qualification and integration” (Vienna), “(aid for) vocational integration” (Lower Austria, Burgenland), or support for participation in employment (Salzburg). Typical measures include additional vocational orientation, re-skilling, (re-)education, (on-the-job) training, counselling, mentoring, or coaching, as well as the opportunity to attain a special vocational qualification. The measures are typically ambulatory and, apart from schooling, are not institutional in nature. They support individuals in making themselves more qualified for a job, finding and attaining a position, and pursuing their work. Thereby they seem to combine support and self-determination, foster inclusion, and reduce dependence on social relations such as family. This, in conjunction with the further development of abilities, reduces pathological vulnerability.
38While often the aforementioned social-relations measures to find and support employment are more or less separately arranged from the more paternalistic regulations concerning sheltered workshops, this is not the case in several states. In some cases, the different kinds of measures are listed under one common provision, or it is stated that the inclusion aimed for should preferably occur in the mainstream job market, but can also take place in organisations of institutionalised disability aid. These and other examples illustrate that more paternalistic and more social relational intentions are often interwoven.
39Finally, it is noteworthy that even these more inclusive measures, which are broadly in the spirit of the social relational model, are primarily aimed at the individual with disabilities, focusing on making them fit for work through functional optimisation. There is very little mention of environmental or attitudinal barriers. This corresponds with the individualising framings of disability mentioned above. Furthermore, access to these social benefits is however very restricted and is only granted in individual cases after combative requests with the aid of support circles, as Rauchberger (2017) impressively explains. Therefore, their beneficiaries form the minority of the disabled elite, who possess an enormous will, the knowledge, and means to access them. This situation is exacerbated by the libertarian mode of administration, i.e., with numerous restrictions, especially due to availability.
40We have traced three theoretically derived models of social service relationships in sheltered work-related disability policies and arrangements at the level of the nine Austrian federal states (Bundesländer). The paternalistic model is evident in the disability definitions centred around individual medical deficits. It is also apparent in the setup, promotion, and administration of a pseudo labour market of segregated facilities, where disabled persons are often permanently placed. They are required to work without adequate remuneration and without their own social security account with the associated social recognition. This approach is dis/ableist, as it not only demotivates disabled individuals but also fails to challenge them to develop further and grow in independence. Heyer (2015) is among the many scholars who categorise this model as the medical model, which espouses a “separate treatment” doctrine. This doctrine provides for the needs of disabled people in segregated settings and perceives them as unemployable persons (Barnes, 2019; Bates-Harris, 2012; Gill, 2005; Visier, 1998; Oliver, 1996).
41The libertarian model ostensibly aligns with a greater esteem for the self-determination of disabled persons, which is expressed, for instance, when they are framed as customers of support services. In our material, this manifests primarily in efforts to reduce expenditures and restrict access to support services, with the ultimate goal of weaning people off their perceived dependency culture. In sum, this attitude can also be characterised as paternalistic, and the restriction of access can potentially exacerbate pathogenic vulnerability and dependence on social networks, such as those provided by parents. Therefore, the libertarian model is not the antithesis of the paternalistic one, but rather an extension of the same dis/ableist paradigm. As demonstrated by Grover and Soldatic (2012) in the context of austerity policies in the UK and Australia, there has been a notable shift towards stricter eligibility criteria for disability benefits. This has been accompanied by increased expectations that are often unattainable and significant given barriers for disabled persons to actively seek paid employment (see also Soldatic & Morgan, 2017).
42In contrast, the social relational model offers a different approach, providing support services with the aim of enhancing self-determination, personal growth, and social inclusion. Instances of this, in relation to work and disability, can be observed at the Austrian federal level, for instance in the provision of personal assistance at the workplace. At the level of the nine federal states, there are indications of initiatives aimed at equipping individuals with the education and skills necessary for de-institutionalised work, as well as support measures in the workplace. However, even in these more person-centred measures, the laws seem to be more focused on improving the individual rather than changing the workplaces and their cultures. In other words, the emphasis is on the individual (with the objective of alleviating the effects of the impairment) rather than on the creation of adequate accommodation and the transformation of the work culture. Additionally, access to these measures is restricted due to the influences of the libertarian model. The social relational model is currently evident in the context of supported employment arrangements, which are aligned with the human rights model of disability and are endorsed internationally by experts in the field of disability and a growing number of countries (Rustad & Kassah, 2021; Wolfmayr, 2021; Waltz, 2018; Heyer, 2015).
43Our findings indicate that the paternalistic and dis/ableist perspective on disabled persons, as evidenced by the sheltered work arrangements that control them, is pervasive in the disability laws at the federal state level in Austria. However, there is only a limited scope for support services that aim to enhance self-determination and inclusion through access to gainful employment in the open labour market. Although the sources employ a progressive rhetoric, promising greater self-determination and inclusion, it is essential to examine these passages closely, as they frequently represent an attempt to disguise efforts to reduce costs and diminish quality. Those with disabilities who are not gainfully employed in the open labour market frequently find themselves reliant on the distributive character of the state, with the result that they are subject to high stratification effects. The design of sheltered work in Austria creates pathogenic vulnerability and increases dependence on the state and/or private networks such as the family. The focus of disability policy on differentiated assistance according to expected performance on the labour market, as assessed by medical assessment procedures, as well as the transfer of social and disability assistance to the federal states level are inherent characteristics of Austrian disability policy. In order to increase true autonomy of disabled persons, it is essential to reorient along the lines of the CRPD and the social relational model.
Flux RSS
-small120.png){kind=logo}
