‘The AISH review is a big joke’: contradictions of policy participation and consultation in a neo‐liberal context

Abstract

Responsive and appropriate disability policy is ideally developed through the participation of individuals with disabilities. Using a case study methodology, we have examined the policy review process for a disability income programme in Alberta, Canada. We examined questions of participation and consultation and compared individual and agency involvement. Participation was characterized by sustained interactions with government, face‐to‐face collaboration and transparency. Consultation involved short‐term interactions by invitation only, limited input and was more typical in policy construction. In this study individual involvement was more likely to be consultative, while agency involvement was more participatory. In terms of policy outcomes, neither model was more effective. Instead, the government adhered to its original intent, responding in terms of neo‐liberal ideals of independence and autonomy.

Keywords:

• disability policy
• poverty
• policy review
• consultation
• participation
• neo‐liberalism

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was generously provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and a Chinook Research Summer Award.

Notes

1. We use people‐first language in this article, despite theories of language and naming that problematise such utilisation (Oliver 1996; Titchkosky 2001). Despite the strengths of the argument that ‘disabled person’ is a more accurate reflection of the social model of disability, ‘people‐first’ language remains normative in Canadian disability research and activism.

2. Juliet Corbin has argued that one can use the tools of Grounded Theory without taking a strictly Grounded Theory approach (Corbin 1999).

3. Some women reported being erroneously told by their AISH workers that their adult children’s income could result in a deduction from their monthly payments.