Social policy and transitions to training and work for disabled young people in the United Kingdom: neo-liberalism for better and for worse?

Abstract

Although New Labour distanced itself from the neo-liberal ‘underclass’ discourses of its predecessors, its approach to disabled young people maintained key aspects of neo-liberalism, particularly an emphasis on individuals’ human capital, aspirations and self-investments as causes of and solutions to disabled young people’s unemployment. This is also apparent in early Coalition government statements. Since the 1990s, policies have focused on providing individually-tailored advice, developing individuals’ skills, and motivating appropriate self-investment. We examine recent evidence that highlights a number of problems with this focus. Notably, it entails a simplistic and individualised notion of ‘barriers’ to employment that cannot account for the complex impacts of disablement and inequality; moves towards open-market models of training and work support create perverse incentives that divert support away from those most in need; employment success is dependent on unpredictable local opportunity structures; and the focus on paid employment undermines other social contributions made by disabled young people.

Keywords:

• young people
• disability
• employment
• transition
• social policy
• individualization

Acknowledgements

This article is the result of a 12-country commissioned study of national vocational transitions and barriers coordinated by the French Ministry of Social Affairs and the EHESP Sorbonne.

Notes

1. This omits the experiences of disabled young people who hold or are pursuing more advanced qualifications (such as graduates or those in higher education). Whilst disabled young people participating in higher education are a minority (around 30%, compared with 45% of non-disabled young people), it is not an insignificant one. The experiences of disabled participants in higher education, however, have been covered in depth elsewhere (for example, Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson 2005) and are not the focus of the current paper.