Institutional Ableism, Critical Actors and the Substantive Representation of Disabled People: Evidence from the UK Parliament 1940–2012

References

• Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). The two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 947–952. doi: 10.2307/1952796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachrach, P., & Botwinick, A. (1992). Power and empowerment: A radical theory of participatory democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, C. (2002). Introduction: Disability, policy and politics. Policy and Politics, 30(3), 311–318. doi: 10.1332/030557302760094685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, D., & Heitmueller, A. (2009). The Disability Discrimination Act in the UK. Journal of Health Economics, 28(2), 134–155. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, P. (1996). The politics of the women's movement. Parliamentary Affairs, 49(1), 55–70. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a028673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabinet Office. (2007). Fairness and freedom: The final report of the equalities review. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Celis, K., Childs, S., Kantola, J., & Krook, M. L. (2008). Rethinking women's substantive representation. Representation, 44(2), 99–110. doi: 10.1080/00344890802079573
   Google Scholar
• Chaney, P. (2006). Critical mass, deliberation and the substantive representation of women: Evidence from the UK's devolution programme. Political Studies, 54(4), 671–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00633.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaney, P. (2012). Critical actors versus critical mass: The substantive representation of women in the Scottish parliament. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14(3), 441–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00467.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaney, P. (2013). Electoral competition, issue-salience and public policy for disabled people: Westminster and regional UK elections 1945–2011. Parliamentary Affairs: A Journal of Representative Politics, 66(2), 364–383.
   Google Scholar
• Childs, S., & Krook, M. L. (2009). Analyzing women's substantive representation: From critical mass to critical actors. Government and Opposition, 44(1), 45–62.
   Google Scholar
• Childs, S., & Withey, J. (2004). Women representatives acting for women: Sex and the signing of early day motions in the 1997 British parliament. Political Studies, 52(3), 552–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00495.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corker, M. (2000). Disability politics, language planning and inclusive social policy. Disability & Society, 15(3), 445–462. doi: 10.1080/713661963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creed, W., Langstraat, J., & Scully, M. A. (2002). Picture of the frame: Frame analysis as technique and as politics. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 34–55. doi: 10.1177/1094428102051004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in the American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlerup, D. (2006). The story of the theory of critical mass. Politics & Gender, 2(1), 511–530.
   Google Scholar
• Deacon, A. (2003). Levelling the playing field, activating the players: New Labour and 'the cycle of disadvantage'. Policy and Politics, 31(2), 123–139. doi: 10.1332/030557303765371636
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Work and Pensions. (2011). Disability prevalence estimates 2010/11. London: Author. Retrieved from http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/docs/res/factsheets/disability-prevalence.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2003). EU Disability Action Plan 2003–2010. Brussels: Author.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2007). The situation of disabled people in the European Union: The European Action Plan 2008–2009. Brussels: Author, 2007, COM (2007) 738 final.
   Google Scholar
• Fierros, E. G. (2006). One size does not fit all: A response to institutionalizing inequity. Disability Studies Quarterly, 26(2), 37–52.
   Google Scholar
• Fong, C., & Hung, A. (2002). Public awareness, attitude, and understanding of epilepsy in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. Epilepsia, 43(3), 311–334. doi: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.31901.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fredman, S. (2011). Discrimination law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gabel, S., & Danforth, S. (2008). Disability and the politics of education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Galligan, Y. (2007). Gender and political representation: Current empirical perspectives. International Political Science Review, 8(1), 557–570. doi: 10.1177/0192512107082100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gargarella, R. (1998). Full representation, deliberation and impartiality. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 142–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gooding, C. (2000). Disability Discrimination Act: From statute to practice. Critical Social Policy, 20(4), 533–549. doi: 10.1177/026101830002000405
   Google Scholar
• Goodley, D., & McLaughlin, J. (2011). Does every child matter, post Blair? (ESRC End of Award Report No. RES-062-23-1138). Swindon: ESRC.
   Google Scholar
• Government Equalities Office. (2013). Representation in public life. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hodge, N., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2013). ‘They never pass me the ball’: Exposing ableism through the leisure experiences of disabled children. Children's Geographies, 11(3), 311–325. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2013.812275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Home Office. (1999). The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (Cm 4262-I) Report of an inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. London: Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons. (2010a). Early day motions factsheet. Westminster: House of Commons Information Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons. (2010b). Parliamentary questions, factsheet P1 procedure series. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons. (2010c). Speaker's conference (on parliamentary representation). First Special Report. London: Author. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/spconf/449/44902.htm
   Google Scholar
• Hyde, M. (2000). From welfare to work? Social policy for disabled people of working age in the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Disability & Society, 15(2), 327–341. doi: 10.1080/09687590025702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenner, E. (2012). News photographs and environmental agenda setting. The Policy Studies Journal, 40(2), 274–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00453.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, M. (2007). Gender, institutions, and power: A critical review. Politics, 27(2), 91–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2007.00284.x
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, P., Byrne, C., & Foster, E. (2011). Theorising Cameronism. Political Studies Review, 9(1), 193–207. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00232.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumari Campbell, F. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• López, I. (2000.) Institutional racism: Judicial conduct and a new theory of racial discrimination. The Yale Law Journal, 109(8), 1717–1884. doi: 10.2307/797509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. (1971). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Syracuse, NY: Inter-University Case Program.
   Google Scholar
• Lowndes, V. (1996). Varieties of new institutionalism: A critical appraisal. Public Administration, 74(1), 181–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1996.tb00865.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mabbett, D. (2005). The development of rights-based social policy in the European Union: The example of disability rights. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(1), 97–120. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9886.2005.00548.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackay, F. (2008). ‘Thick’ conceptions of substantive representation: Women, gender and political institutions. Representation, 44(2), 125–139. doi: 10.1080/00344890802079607
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657. doi: 10.2307/2647821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organisational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 732–749.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, A. (1994, October 26). Paying for the bill. The Guardian, p. 7.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, T., & Oxleya, Z. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040–1067. doi: 10.2307/2647553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton, P. (2000). The British polity. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Office for Disability Issues. (2011). UK initial report on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Office for Disability Issues. (2013). Disability facts and figures. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Office for National Statistics. (2010a). Life opportunities survey interim report. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Office for National Statistics. (2010b). Ageing. Statistical bulletin (p. 2). London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy (p. 136). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, R., & Repper, J. (2013). Prejudice, discrimination and exclusion: Reducing the barriers to recovery for people diagnosed with mental health problems in the UK. Neuropsychiatry, 3(4), 377–384. doi: 10.2217/npy.13.34
   Google Scholar
• Peters, G. (1992). The policy process: An institutionalist perspective. Canadian Public Administration, 35(1), 160–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-7121.1992.tb00686.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pitkin, H. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Purdam, K., Afkhami, R., Olsen, W., & Thornton, P. (2008). Disability in the UK: Measuring equality. Disability and Society, 23(1), 53–65. doi: 10.1080/09687590701725658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reingold, B. (2000). Representing women. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rioux, M., Basser, L., & Jones, M. (Eds.). (2012). Critical perspectives on human rights and disability law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Sarcinelli, U. (2008). Symbolic politics. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopaedia of communication (pp. 92–96). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Saward, M. (2006). Representation. In A. Dobson & R. Eckersley (Eds.), Political theory and the ecological challenge (pp. 183–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Shah, S., & Priestley, M. (2011). Disability and social change: Private lives and public policies. Cambridge: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Siminski, P. (2003). Patterns of disability and norms of participation through the life course: Empirical support for a social model of disability. Disability and Society, 18(6), 707–727. doi: 10.1080/0968759032000119479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studlar, D., & McAllister, I. (2002). Does a critical mass exist? A comparative analysis of women's legislative representation since 1950. European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), 233–253. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.00011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Topf, R. (1994). Party manifestos. In A. Heath, R. Jovell, & J. Curtice (Eds.), Labour’s last chance: 1992 election and beyond (pp. 65–84). Aldershot: Dartmouth.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2007). Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Vernon, A., & Qureshi, H. (2000). Community care and independence: self-sufficiency or empowerment? Critical Social Policy, 20(2), 255–274. doi: 10.1177/026101830002000204
   Google Scholar
• Volkens, A. (2001). Manifesto research since 1979: From reliability to validity. In M. Laver (Ed.), Estimating the policy positions of political actors (pp. 131–145). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 87–103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wolbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51(1), 252–258. doi: 10.1057/dev.2008.17
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar