Betul Yalcin

PERCEPTION OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS DISABLED PEOPLE IN THE LABOUR

MARKET: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN EUROPEAN CONTEXT

BETUL YALCIN

Marie Curie Initial Training Network: DREAM Project-ESR,

University of Leeds, UK (Work in progress please do not quote and cite without permission email: B.Yalcin@leeds.ac.uk)

1. Introduction

With the advancement of interconnectedness between countries, industrialized economies

have entered into a new era where economic rules are set in a global context. In the process

of globalization, citizenship, which declares the rights and responsibilities of members of

society, has undergone important changes, and social protection policies have been replaced

by active labor market policies (Falk, 2000; Yeates, 2001).

Parallel to these transformations, the EU, with its sui generis governance system, puts its

effort to create a socially and economically integrated union between the states of Europe.

Compatibly, all activities and legislation are predominantly directed towards completion of

single market and economic competitiveness (Hantrais, 2007). Within this framework, there

is an emphasis on active labor market policies in the belief that it would contribute to the

overarching goal of securing sustainable economic growth. Active labor market polices,

defined as ‘measures taken in order to improve functioning of the labor market that are

directed towards unemployed’ (Calmfors, 1994, pp.8) are incorporated into policies,

including the policies addressing disabled people. However, increased emphasis on

employment at macro policy level is not reflected in micro level policy outcome. It failed to

meet the expected outcomes most of the time (Jeager and Kvist, 2003). Despite substantial

efforts, the employment rates amongst disabled people are still far below those of their non-

disabled counterparts in most EU member states (OECD, 2010; Gammenos, 2011). The

Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED) report provided the most recent

proof. According to the Labor Force Survey dataset, the average employment rate for

disabled people is around 45 percent, whilst the rate for their nondisabled counterparts is 72

percent in the EU (Gammenos, 2011).

For disabled people, experiencing challenges in participation into social and economic life is

mostly attributed to institutional, attitudinal and environmental barriers (Hannon, 2007;

Hahn, 1985; 1988). As one of those obstacles, public attitudes towards disabled people

1

gained attention amongst scholars and governance bodies in the last few decades (Hannon,

2007) due to the role it plays in policymaking processes (Page and Shapiro, 1983). Yet, the

existence of negative attitudes is acknowledged as a risk factor that can create a volatile

ground for disabled people’s integration and prevent stipulation of enabling policies and their

implementation, which, as a whole thought to inhibit the enjoyment of full citizenship rights

(Rosenthal et al, 2006; Hannon, 2007; Dwyer, 2004; Hanh, 1985; 1988; Kamieniecki, 1985).

Studies on attitudes towards disabled people provide extensive information (Hannon, 2007),

however, there is a gap in the literature, which investigates this issue in a cross-national

context. Additionally, there is no research in the disability literature that simultaneously

evaluates the effects of individual and country level variables. Whilst, the Eurobarometer

Opinion Survey Series can answer to what extent European citizens hold discriminatory

attitudes, it is inadequate due to its reliance on descriptive statistics, when discussing who is

more likely to see disability as a discriminatory factor. Limited reference to country level

factors is another shortcoming of the Eurobarometer series.

This paper, therefore, sets its aim as to: (1) to provide the pattern and trends in the European

citizens’ perception of attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market and (2) to

untangle underlying factors behind this perception by taking individual and country level

factors into account. Within the scope of this paper, the following questions guide the

investigation: what is the pattern and trend in European citizens’ perceptions of attitudes

towards disabled people in the labor market? and who holds such perceptions?.1 In order to

answer the questions, responses given to a regularly appearing statement addressing the

employment of disabled people in Eurobarometer Survey 2007, 2009, 2012 are being

revisited2. Whilst patterns and trends are displayed with mainstreamed descriptive techniques,

present study employs logistic regression analysis to untangle the factors behind the attitudes,

where both individual and country level factors are taken into account. This paper contributes

to the literature by providing the first cross-national analysis, which concurrently scrutinizes

the effects of individual and country level factors. Initially, brief description of attitudes and

their importance for policy are presented. Under the same section, previous findings on the

1 This paper partially reflects preliminary findings of an ongoing doctoral research that aims to identify how states can better promote the employment of disabled people in open labor market, private sector in particular. Mentioned research has a layered framework for policy analysis, where each layer relates to one another in a progressive manner to render a more comprehensive understanding of the current situation of disabled people’s employment. Whilst, macro level focuses on the similarities and differences between EUMS’s employment policies for disabled people, meso level analysis focuses on the impact of those policies. Unlike the former layers, micro level analysis investigates interpretation and implementation of employment policies for disabled people.2 Reason of limiting the analysis with one item was mainly due to its regular appearance over the three successive surveys, which enables the researcher to trace changes..

Betul Yalcin

attitudes towards disability are discussed. Factors that influence the attitudes are also

adressed. In the following section, information on data and statistical analysis are provided.

After the discussion of main results, implications for future research, and the European Union

organs (EU) and the Member States are specified as concluding remarks.

2. Literature on Attitudes towards Disabled People

Attitude, defined as ‘an idea (cognitive) charged with emotions (affective) which predisposes

a class of actions (behavioural) to a particular class of situations’ (Triandis, et al.1984, cited

in Hannon, 2007, p.9), serves as a framework through which people interpret and link

themselves to the social world (Hannon, 2007). They are evaluated in a threefold way:

cognitive, affective, and behavioural. Whilst cognitive and affective evaluation mostly refers

to internal thoughts and attached emotions, behavioural evaluation denotes observed actions

in relation to the questioned issue.

Yet, fundamentally an internal process, attitudes are believed to be an implicit but influential

determinant that shapes the policy due to their effect on policymaking processes (Page and

Shapiro, 1983). Regarding disability policies, it is argued that societal attitudes dictate social

policy to a substantial degree (Hahn, 1985; 1988; Kamieniechki, 1985; Massie, 2006).

Especially, Hahn says that experiences of disabled people are indeed determined not by their

functional limitations, but more by others’ attitudes towards their limitations (Hahn, 1985;

1988). He also adds that attitudes ‘not only mould the behaviour; they embody values that are

the basis of public policy that ultimately shapes architectural configurations and social

institutions’ (Hahn, 1985, p. 306). In his paper, Kamieniechki (1985) addresses the influence

of public attitudes on policy makers. He argues that due to concentration on reelection,

elected leaders are keen to learn the electorates’ opinion on disability related issues before

they come to a decision, especially on welfare provisions.

Whilst claiming the influence of public attitudes on policy-making processes, it is equally

plausible that institutional structure and policy discourses of a state influence public attitude

(Hick, 1999 cited in Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003). This idea is backed up in the Jacobs

and Shapiro’s book (2000, cited in Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003). They claim that it is

true, as politicians would have an urge to seek ways to promote their policy agenda in order

to secure public support. Thus, it is not surprising to witness changes in the public attitude

following alterations in policy discourses. The most recent 2012, British Social Attitudes

Survey carried out a review of the changes in public and governmental attitude towards

welfare within the last decade. The analysis revealed that government displayed a

3

differentiated attitude towards benefit claimant and pensioners throughout the last decade.

More interestingly, analysis also revealed a reflection of this differentiation in public

attitudes, with an observable decline in the support for welfare policies for benefit claimants.

Whilst the 1998 Survey revealed 74 percent agreement with the notion of allocation of more

resources on benefits for disabled people, this support dropped to 53 percent in the 2011

survey with drastic decline after 2008 (Park et, al, 2012).

Cited as one of the socially excluded groups, there is a growing body of literature on attitudes

towards disability. According to Mark Oliver (1990), today’s understanding of disability is

shaped by the interaction between mode of production and social values attached to disabled

body. He states that industrialization devalued labor of those who are unable to meet

expectations form an average worker. Barnes and Mercer (2005) express that the global rise

of industrialization created competitive market where ethos of profit maximization further

decreased the value of disabled workers, thus causing disabled people to emerge as a

categorically excluded group. Explaining the economic exclusion, Hodghes Aeberhard and

Raskin (1997) also pointed out societal attitudes. They further argued solely banning

discrimination is not enough, thus, it is necessary to take affirmative actions to eliminate the

experienced inequalities (Hodghes Aeberhard and Raskin, 1997).

In general terms, experiencing challenges in participation into social and economic life is

mostly attributed to institutional, attitudinal and environmental barriers (Hahn, 1985; 1988;

Hodghes Aeberhard and Raskin 1997; Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Hannon, 2007). As stated in

introduction, public attitudes towards disabled people gained attention since 80s (Hannon,

2007), however, those studies are mostly carried out in national context. The British Social

Attitudes Survey Series, launched in 1983, are repeated on an annual basis to assess attitudes

towards certain social issues in the UK (ESDC, 22 Feb 2012). According to the 2005 survey,

most British think that there is prejudice towards disabled people, with a higher agreement

rate by disabled respondents (Robinson, et al., 2007). In the 2009 follow-up survey, findings

showed that compared to 2005, attitudes towards disabled people have incremented. In terms

of socio-demographic factors, people who have higher education and those who have higher

incomes are found to display more positive attitudes towards disabled people. Females and

public sector employees have more positive thoughts compared to men and private sector

employees (Staniland, 2009).

In its sister survey series, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey series included questions on

disability in the 2002, 2006, and 2010 surveys. Unlike the rest of the revised researches, the

Betul Yalcin

Scottish survey series used logistic regression analysis to investigate the factors behind the

attitudes. It was revealed that economic and individual factors make a difference in people’s

view. The 2002 findings revealed that three out of ten Scottish think that there is

discrimination against disabled people. Those who are coming from a demographically mixed

community are less likely to display discriminative thoughts. Additionally, people who think

that they have a lot in common with people of minority groups are less likely to present

discriminative thoughts. People who hold university degrees were found to be less likely to

hold discriminatory attitudes compared to those who have no qualifications. However, they

display lower support for positive measures. Additionally, older people hold more

discriminatory attitudes towards minority groups compared to younger people (Bromley and

Curtice, 2003). 2006 follow-up displayed similar trends. Only a minority of Scottish people

expressed discriminatory views. Like in the 2002 series, differentiation of attitudes as a

function of age was apparent. The effect of frequencies of practicing religious retreats was

also reported. Again, familiarity was found to be a significant factor that explains

differentiation in the attitudes (Bromley et al, 2007). The most recent one, 2010 Survey,

included more questions on disability. Similar findings were disclosed in terms of support for

positive actions towards disabled people. A majority of the Scottish people sees positive

actions in the recruitment, as unfair (63 percent). Logistic regression analysis, run to reveal

who are more likely to hold discriminatory attitudes, people who hold higher educational

attainment, people from managerial positions and professional backgrounds, are those who

most likely to see positive actions as unfair. Compared to previous years, it is observed that

the share of people who see positive action to support employment of disabled people as

unfair increased, in the meanwhile. It is assumed they display such hesitation as they feel like

their own interest could be endangered under such circumstances (Ormstone et, al, 2011)

Similar opinion survey series have been carried out in Ireland. A 2001 National Survey of

Public Attitudes to Disability depicted that a majority of Irish people hold the view that

disabled people should be supported to get equal opportunities. In terms of employment

related questions, it was observed that people tend to favour employment of physically

disabled people more than they do the other types of disability. People who have disabled

family or have disability themselves showed more agreement (NDA, 2002). In its 2006 and

2011 follow-up, people’s attitudes towards employment mostly display similar trends (NDA,

2007; NDA, 2011). Additionally, disabled respondents were found to be more willing to

work with disabled colleagues regardless of their disability type (NDA, 2011).

5

For the economic integration, employer’s attitudes are thought to play the most crucial role.

In terms of employer attitudes, a large-scale survey in the workplaces has been carried out in

the UK. Results of this survey showed that a majority of employers disagree with the

statement that disabled people are less productive. Some employers stated that they would

employ them if there were disabled applicants (DRC, 2007). Qualitative research carried out

by Davidson (2011) showed that employers see some risks over employing disabled people.

Amongst the cited risks they listed were: reputation of the company, risk to customer base,

and risk to business, especially for food industry. Risk of frequent absenteeism has also been

pronounced. In a study carried out in the USA, it was also revealed that those employers who

use support systems hold more positive thoughts. Moreover, employers who have prior

contact with disability display more positive thoughts about employment of disabled people.

In another study from Sweden, it was found that employers who have a history of hiring

disabled employees have a tendency to hire again (Anderson, 2012).

Except for the Eurobarometer survey series; there is no known research that addresses

disability issues in a cross-national context. The first Eurobarometer survey addressing

attitudes towards disability was carried out in 2001. Overall findings of this survey revealed

that a majority of European citizens believed that disabled people face difficulties in daily

life. Most of them agreed with the notion that more should be done to integrate disabled

people into society and more money should be spent on decreasing the physical barriers etc.

When they are asked about feeling ease in the presence of disabled people in different

situation, a majority of Europeans reported that they are at ease in the presence of disabled

people. In terms of the factors behind attitudes, the Survey revealed that gender, education,

income, occupational class, and age were reported to be important factors affecting attitudes

towards disabled people. By looking at the observed percentages, males, people with lower

education, people from low income and having lower occupational status, were found to

display less support to positive slants, and more on negative ones (EORG, 2001). In

September 2003, another Eurobarometer special survey addressing the activities throughout

the European Year of People with Disabilities was carried out. Results disclosed that three

out of ten Europeans were aware of the fact that the year 2003 was the European Year for

People with Disabilities. A Majority of them hold the belief that this year contributes to

awareness about disability. Similarly, a majority of them believed that disabled people have

the same rights to find a job and right to enroll in training, 84 and 87 percent respectively.

However, only 42 percent of Europeans thought that the activities carried out during this year

would improve the chance of employment. More importantly, more than half of the

Betul Yalcin

respondents believed that people with profound disability levels should be directed to work in

sheltered workshops. In terms of socio-demographic factors, analysis mostly displayed

variations by age, schooling period, occupational status, socio- economic status, people from

managerial positions, and high socio- economic status is more supportive and aware of

disability related issues. However there were items where no significant variations were

reported (EORG, 2004). Although Eurobarometer series provides the foremost multinational

analysis of attitudes towards disability, it is limited in terms of its reliance on observed

percentages over the total base while displaying effects of individual and country level

factors. In terms of country level factors, there are studies, which look at the effect of

institutional structure and welfare regime on attitudes towards social issues. In some of these

studies, Gelissen (2000), Svalford (1999), Roosma, (2012) investigate both the individual and

country level factors and revealed to what extend people’s approach to certain social issues

are influenced when both group of factors taken into account simultaneously.

Due to interconnectedness between policy and public attitudes, it is important to investigate

patterns and trends as well as the factors behind the attitudes in the age of austerity. As one of

the aspirations of the present paper, factors that affect people’s perceptions will be

scrutinized, alongside the patterns and trends. The following section is allocated to give

information about the data and the methods employed for the present analysis.

3. Data and Measurement

Within the scope of the present paper, European citizens’ perception of attitudes towards

disabled people in the labour market was investigated by analysing Eurobarometer Opinion

Survey series. These series are conducted on behalf of the European Commission and based

on face-to-face interviews with people who are age 15 and over. In order to revealed patterns,

trends, and the factors behind the European citizens’ perception on the attitudes towards

disabled people in the labour market, regularly appearing questions in the 2007, 2009, and

2012 Eurobarometer series were scrutinized. On the basis of regular appearance, the

questions of ‘when a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between two

candidates with equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may in your

opinion, put one candidate at a disadvantage_ disability_ ‘ were selected. Accordingly,

seeing disability as a disadvantageous criterion was set as a dependent variable for the

analysis.

The data are from EU27 member states and provides information on 26,822 European

citizens for 2007, 26,756 for 2009, and finally 26,662 for 2012. The sample size for the

7

countries varies between 500 and 1,570; however most of the countries have sample size

around 1,000 per series. As stated before, the present study takes individual and country level

factors into account while investigating European citizen’ views on attitudes towards disabled

people in the labour market. In light of the literature, individual level factors are selected as:

age, gender, and schooling period, subjective personal health, familiarity with disability,

perceived social level (excluding 2006 series), political orientation, religious denomination,

and occupational status. For country level variables dummy variables are created as welfare

typology, quota system, and NationEU27. Prior to analysis, all variables are recoded into

dummy variables and categories, which act as reference categories for comparison are given

zero (See Annexes- Table 1 and Table 2). For dependent variable, response categories are

coded 1 for ‘seeing disability as a disadvantageous criteria’ and 0 for the other way around.

While running the logistic regression analysis, all variables, excluding NationEU27, are set as

a categorical variable in order to spot the effects of subdivisions of the factors.

The pattern and trends are presented based on the calculation of observed percentages over

total base. On the other hand, influence of the factors on people’s views is investigated with

logistic regression analysis, like in the Scottish Attitudes Survey Series. Logistic regression

analysis allows to ‘specify and test if the independent variable has an effect, but the effect

varies depending on the characteristics of the respondent after controlling for the other

factors’ (MacDonald, 2008, p.7). Whilst, observed percentages provide information on plain

shares of who do/don’t see disability as a disadvantage in the labour market over total base,

logistic regression analysis provides information on whether simultaneously presented factors

and their subdivisions have a statistically significant effect on dependent variable, when all

other factors are controlled. More importantly, it provides likelihood of occurrences amongst

subdivisions of researched population (MacDonald, 2008; Budzier, 2010).

In the light of the literature, a decrease in the number of seeing disability as a disadvantage in

the labour market is expected. For logistic regression analysis, it is hypothesized that the

effect of the simultaneously presented factor on dependent variable would be statistically

significantly, when all the other individual and country level factors are controlled. Null

hypothesis, therefore, implies no significant effect. In the real social world nothing can be

brought about by a single factor, thus the result of the logistic regression might reveal

different but more credible findings than what the descriptive presents regarding likelihoods.

The following section presents the patterns, trends and the influence of individual and

country level factors. Although, it merits a much more detailed discussion of all the presented

Betul Yalcin

data, due to the length of this paper, focus is given to discussion of 2012 and the rest

addressed in brief.

4. Results

In order to analyze the datasets and to disclose the perception of European citizens on

attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market, SPSS Version 20 was employed.

Whilst Table 3 (See Annexes) presents the pattern and trends in the aforementioned

Eurobarometer series, Table 4 (See Annexes) displays results of the logistic regression

analysis based on the same dummy variable recoding. Presentation of results in both forms

provides validation of the descriptive results and statistically displays the differences in the

likelihoods of subdivisions of all the factors. This, in turn, reveals more credible findings for

identifying which group of people or countries have to be addressed most in order to

accomplish the desired level of awareness regarding the employment of disabled people.

The 2007 Eurobarometer series shows that 53 percent of European citizens see disability as a

criterion that put an individual at a disadvantage when two candidates who have the same

skills and qualifications are short-listed for a vacant position. This percentage dropped by 10

units and reached 42.8 percent in 2009 and flattened at 42.2 percent in 2012. At the moment

four out of ten European citizens mentioned disability as a disadvantageous criterion in the

recruitment phase in the labor market. Overall descriptive results depicted a downward trend

in the number of people who regard disability as a disadvantageous criterion in the labor

market. It should also be noted that the drastic decline has happened between 2007 and 2009.

Individual Level Factors:

Gender

When gender is taken into account, present analysis revealed that both hold almost similar

amounts of share in terms of seeing disability as a disadvantage in the labor market.

However, as a whole, there is a decline in the amount of shares seeing disability as a

disadvantage for both genders between 2007 and 2012. For 2007, there is one unit difference

between females and males, both display more than 50 percent shares on seeing disability as

a disadvantage in the labor market. The share was 43 percent for both genders in 2009. The

most recent series depicted 42 percent share for both gender. Except for 2012 series, logistic

regression analysis over three data sets revealed significant effect of gender on dependent

variable at p=.500 significance level, after controlling for the other factors. That means

gender, as an individual level factor, makes a difference in people’s views. According to

9

2007 dataset, having coefficient of .949 and negative B value means that after controlling for

all the other factors males are 5 percent [Exp(B)-1x100=x] less likely to perceive that

disabled people are at disadvantageous position in the labor market, after controlling for other

individual and country level factors. For 2009 data set, likelihood is 2 percent lower for

males.

Age

Descriptive analysis over the 2007, 2009, and 2012 Eurobarometer survey series were

reflecting the downward trend as parallel to the decrement in the in the total share of seeing

disability as a disadvantageous criterion. For three successive series, younger people, aged

between 15 and 24, were found to display higher share. In 2012, 44.6 percent of younger

people see disability as a criterion that puts an individual at a disadvantage in the labor

market; this share is 40.6 percent for people who are 55 and older. Similar pattern and trend

for all age groups were observed in the 2007 and 2009 surveys. The gap between the shares

of youngest and oldest group was highest in the 2007 survey by 10 units; however it

narrowed down in the 2012 survey. For the parent variable testing for whether age, after

controlling for the other factors, has an effect on dependent variable were found to have a

statistically significant effect for 2012 data set. That means people’s perception on attitudes

towards disabled people in the labor market changes as a function of age. Whilst subdivisions

for people who are aged between 25 and 39 and between 40 and 54, did not revealed a

statistically significant effect, subdivision for those coming from the older age group were

found to have a significant effect on the dependent variable. People who are 55 and older

displayed lower odds compared to people aged between 15 and 24. They are 18 percent less

likely to refer to disability as disadvantageous criteria in the labor market. Significant effects

of age on dependent variable were observed for the previous surveys as well. Unlike the 2012

observations, both the 2007 and 2009 survey series revealed significant contribution of all

subdivisions. After controlling for all the other factors, compared to youngest people, oldest

people displayed 31 percent, and 22 percent lower odds, for the 2007 and 2009 series

respectively.

Schooling Period

In considering the schooling period, slightly different trends amongst subdivisions were

observed in the 2007, 2009 and 2012 series. Parallel to general trend, there is decrease in the

amount of the share of seeing disability as a disadvantageous criterion. In terms of schooling

period, the 2012 series revealed that 39 percent of those who have left school before the age

Betul Yalcin

of 15 mentioned disability as a criteria that put an individual at a disadvantage in the labor

market. Amongst those who left school before 20 years of age, 42 percent see disability as

disadvantageous criteria. Agreement of people who have continued to full- time education

even after 20 years of age is 44 percent. Similar types of pattern are observed over the 2007

and 2009 datasets. When logistic regression findings were taken into account, 2012 findings

showed that after controlling for the other factors, schooling period as a parent variable has a

statistically significant effect on dependent variable. Compared to people who have left full-

time education after 20 years of age, early school leavers had lower odds. Those who left

schooling before 15 years of age are 4 percent less likely to see that disabled people are

disadvantaged in the recruitment phase. Those who left full-time education before 20 years of

do not revealed a statistical significance, meaning that this group holds similar views with

people who have completed higher educational attainment levels. For 2009 and 2007, people

who have shorter schooling period displayed substantial lower odds compared to people who

remain under full time education after 20 years of age. For all series people who left full-time

education before 15 years of age depicted the least likelihood of seeing disability as a

disadvantage in labor market.

Personal Health Condition

A similar downward trend is observed in the amount of the share of seeing disability as

disadvantageous criterion. Descriptive studies over the 2007 data series depicted that the

shares for non disabled and disabled people subdivisions were around 53 percent. In 2009,

non disabled people depicted 42, whilst disabled people showed 47.2 percent share of seeing

disability as a disadvantageous criterion. Finally, 2012 data set revealed that 41.6 percent of

the non disabled people report disability as a disadvantageous criteria, whilst the disabled

people display 45.9 percent share. Logistic regression analysis depicts a statistically

significant effect of personal health condition on the dependent variable. Compared to non-

disabled people, people who have disability or chronic illnesses were found to be 19 percent

more likely to see disability as a disadvantage at the recruitment phase after controlling for

the other factors. For the 2009 and 2007 series the odds of seeing disability as a

disadvantageous criterion was, again, higher for disabled respondents, 27 and 14 percent

respectively.

Familiarity

The 2007 series showed a 5 unit difference between the observed percentages of people who

do/don’t have familiarity with disability. For both group, the shares of seeing disability as a

11

disadvantageous criterion were above the 50 percent. In 2009 the 5 unit gap was sustained,

but, as a whole, there were 10 unit downward shifts in the shares. People who have family

member or a friend with disability had 40.3 percent share of seeing disability as a

disadvantage in the recruitment, while people who have no familiarity displayed 44.9 percent

share. In the 2012 survey population, 39.6 percent of people who have no acquaintance with

disability hold the view that disability puts an individual at a disadvantage. On the other

hand, 44 percent of people who have acquaintance with chronic illness or disability see this

condition as a criterion that places an individual at a disadvantage in the labor market. Having

a decline at about 10-unit from 2007 till 2012 is in line with the general trend. Logistic

regression analysis testing whether having familiarity with disability has an effect on

dependent variable, revealed statistical significance at p=.500 significance level, after

controlling for the other factors. For 2012 survey, people who have an acquaintance or family

member with disability are 16 percent more likely to hold the view that people with disability

are disadvantaged in the labor market. For the previous series, people who have acquaintance

with disability or chronic illness have higher odds compared to the reference group. After

controlling the other factors, a respondent who has a disabled acquaintance has a 14 percent

higher likelihood of seeing disability as a discriminatory factor compared to unfamiliar

people in the 2009 series. This rate is again significant and higher for the 2007 survey. They

are 11 percent more likely to mention disability as a disadvantageous criterion.

Perceived Social Level

Just as individuals have self-interest variables, individual’s socialization is also thought to

shape his or her attitudes towards certain issues. As one of the factors, social status is thought

to lead differentiation in the attitudes. The analysis of 2012 data set revealed that 44.5 percent

of those who place themselves in low social class see disability as a disadvantageous

criterion. While this rate was 42.1 percent for middle social level, it was 41.6 percent for

people of high social level. For 2009 it was the other way around, people from low social

displayed similar share with middle social level by 43 percent whilst it was 44.6 percent for

the high social level group. Self-placement of social level was not included amongst the

questions in 2007. Logistic regression analysis revealed significant effect of social level as a

parent variable in the 2009 and 2012 series. When subdivision were taken into account, the

2012 survey results showed that compared to people from low social level, people from

middle level are 9 percent less likely to see disability as a criteria that put an individual at a

disadvantage after controlling the other factors. Similarly, people from high social level were

14 percent less likely to see disability as a barrier in the recruitment phase than those who are

Betul Yalcin

from low social level. For 2009, middle social level display lower odds. Compared to low

social level group, they are 4 percent less likely to see disability as a disadvantage. Higher

social level, also displays lower odds after controlling for the other factors. They are 7

percent less likely to see disability as a disadvantage compared to reference category.

Occupational status

When occupational statuses have been scrutinized we can see that the trend follows general

downward movement. There is an almost similar rate of agreement with the statement that

taps discrimination at the recruitment procedures in the 2012 series. All the occupational

classes have an mentioning rate between 41 and 43 percent. For 2009 analysis, managers

were found to have more shares. 46.2 percent of them see disability as criteria that decrease

an individual’s chance of being recruited for vacant positions. People who are employed in

either blue or white color jobs have 43.3 percent share of seeing disability as a

disadvantageous criteria in the labor market. Self -employed, inactive and unemployed

people have 42 percent shares. In the previous survey series, the share of seeing disability as

discriminatory criteria is higher. However, the shares fluctuate amongst subdivisions.

Logistic regression analysis revealed a significant effect of occupational status as a parent

variable on explaining the variances on the dependent variable only for the 2012 series.

Whilst those coming from economically inactive and unemployed groups do not reveal

statistical significance, those coming from employee and self- employed groups display

statistical significance. After controlling for the other factors, people who are employed in

manual or professional jobs are 5 percent less likely than people of managerial positions to

hold the view that disabled people are disadvantaged at the recruitment phase. The odds for

self-employed people are again lower compared to manager: they are 10 percent less likely to

see disability as criteria that put an individual at disadvantage. For the previous series,

occupational class as a factor did not reveal significant effects on explaining the variances in

dependent variable.

Political orientation

Throughout the years between 2007 and 2012, there is again a downward trend among those

seeing disability as a discriminatory criterion. Ten-unit decrease is reflected in the evaluation

of this factor as well. For the 2012 survey series, people who hold right wing political

orientation were found to display a lower mentioning rate than other political orientation

groups. While 46.3 percent of people from left wing say that disability puts an individual at a

disadvantage in the labor market, 42. 6 percent of people who hold central political view hold

13

such view. 40.6 percent of people, who hold right wing orientation, see disability as a

criterion that put an individual at disadvantage in the labor market. Logistic regression

analysis for the same variable over 2012 survey data set revealed that political orientation as

a parent variable has significant effect while explaining the variances in people’s view.

Compared to the leftist group, people who hold central political views display lower odds.

They are 8 percent less likely to state disabled people are disadvantaged in the labor market.

When it comes to people from right wing political orientation, coefficients displayed lower

odds. Compared to leftist, they are 19 percent less likely to say that disability put an

individual at disadvantageous position after controlling for the other factors. The likelihood

measurements are almost the same for previous years. In total, leftist people are more likely

to see disability as disadvantage in the labor market, whilst people of right wing political

orientation are at the other end.

Religious Beliefs

Based on the observed percentages, Jewish were people found to report disability as a criteria

that put a candidate at a disadvantage with highest share in the 2012 survey series, Their rate

of seeing disability as a disadvantage is 57 percent. Christians and Muslims display 41 and 40

agreement respectively. People from eastern belief systems and non-believers display 48.6

and 46.6 percent reporting rate respectively. For the 2009 series, people who do not place

themselves in any of the monotheistic religions displayed a higher share than the other belief

systems. For the 2007 series, it was people who are in eastern belief systems that have the

highest share by 64 percent. Logistic regression over the 2012 series revealed that as parent

variable, religious denomination has a significant effect on the dependent variable after

controlling for the other factors. Compared to Christians, Jewish people were found to have

higher odds. They are 56 percent more likely to report disability as a disadvantage in the

labor market. Muslims on the other hand, display lower odds. Expressing disability, as

discriminatory criteria is 15 percent less likely for Muslims, compared to Christians.

Concerning people of eastern belief systems, logistic regression revealed higher odds. After

controlling for the other factors, a person who belongs to eastern belief systems is 40 percent

more likely to see disability as a criterion that puts an individual at a disadvantage in the

labor market. People who do not belong to any belief systems are 4 percent more likely to see

disability a disadvantage. For the previous series, likelihoods amongst different religious

groups showed differentiations.

Country Level Factors:

Betul Yalcin

Welfare typology

Welfare typology and institutional structure of a state are found to reveal differentiated

outcomes in the people’s views throughout the survey series. Descriptive analysis over the

2012 data set revealed that people from social democrat countries display a higher share in

terms of seeing disability as a criterion that puts an individual at a disadvantage in the labor

market. People of social democrat countries display 48.4 percent agreement, whilst people of

conservative countries display a 42.6 percent reporting rate. People of post-communist

emerging welfare regimes, on the other hand, showed a 40 percent mentioning rate. People

from liberal countries displayed a 27 percent share of seeing disability as a disadvantageous

criterion. Compared to pervious years, decline in the shares of seeing disability a

disadvantage is also observed for this factor. However, the decline is more for liberal and

post-communist emerging welfare regimes. There is 16-unit decrease in the shares of people

who see disability as disadvantageous criteria. In the 2012 series, the parent variable testing

whether welfare typology has an effect on dependent variable was found to be statistically

significant. Compared to social democrat welfare regimes, people from conservative regimes

are 8 percent less likely to see disability as a disadvantage in the labor market. People from

liberal welfare regimes are 61 percent less likely to see disability as a discriminatory criteria

compared to social democrat welfare regimes, after controlling for the other variables. And

again, people from post-communist emerging welfare regimes are 30 percent less likely to

say that disability is a disadvantageous factor compared to social democrat welfare regimes.

For the previous data sets, similar observations for the odds are made, however observed

likelihoods are slightly different than 2012 coefficients.

Quota System

Although there is no prior literature on the effects of quota systems on individuals ‘views on

disability related issues, there are theoretical discussions in Annette Henninger’s (2006) paper

on welfare policies in the post-modern era. In this paper she cites that active labor market

policies have a potential to create differentiation in micro-level behavior since it involved

sanction and coercive measures. The present findings are the initial findings as far as

employment of disabled people is concerned. People from countries, where there is no quota

system, display 44.8 percent share of seeing disability as a criterion that puts an individual at

a disadvantage in the labor market. For the countries that have a quota system for the public

sector, people display 38.2 percent share. Those who live in the countries where quota system

only applies to the private sector, display 46.8 percent agreement, while countries where

15

quota applies both to public and private sector reveals 40.6 percent share on the idea that

disabled people are disadvantaged in the labor market. Previous series descriptive analysis

was slightly different than that of 2012, however overall decline was apparent in the shares

compared to 2007. Logistic regression analysis over the 2012 series data set revealed that as a

parent variable, quota system is found to have an effect on dependent variable. That is

people’s views on attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market changes as a function

of quota system. People from countries where a quota system applies to the public sector are

11 percent less likely to see disability as a disadvantageous criterion compared to non-quota

system after controlling for the other factors. Whereas people who live in countries where a

quota system applies only to the private sector, have 9 percent lower odds. For people who

live in countries where a quota applies to both public and private sector, people display lower

odds compared to non-mandatory systems. They are 28 percent less likely to see disability as

a factor that puts an individual at a disadvantageous position.

5. Discussions and Conclusion

Present study sets its aim to examine the pattern and trends, as well as the factors that are

thought to shape perception of attitudes towards disabled people. The present analysis

addressed the research questions with two different statistical techniques. Similar to previous

literature, patterns and trends were presented in observed percentages. On the other hand,

logistic regression was used to entangle the effects of individual and country level factors on

in people’s perceptions.

A similar downward trend in the Park, et al, (2012) review was observed for present analysis.

Between the 2006 and 2012, there was a decline in the 10 units of the share of people who

view disability as disadvantageous criteria. However, most recent employment rates for

disabled people revealed that (see Annexes-Table 5) discrimination in the labor market on the

basis of disability is still present. In terms of enabling policies’, this downward trend might

result in lessening the public pressure on policy makers.

In terms of individual level factors, the literature states that females are more likely to hold

supportive views on disability related issues (Staniland, 2009, EORG, 2001; 2004). If we

only looked at descriptive statistics, we would not spot an apparent difference between males

and females. However, the logistic regression analysis revealed gender makes a difference in

European citizens’ view on attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market when all

other individual and country level factors are controlled. In three successive surveys, male

participants displayed lower odds. The age revealed statistically significant for all three

Betul Yalcin

surveys as the literature suggested (Broomley, et. al, 2007; EORG, 2001; 2004). Compared to

younger people, older people are less likely to see disability as a factor that put an individual

at a disadvantage in the labor market. However, the gap between older and younger group is

shrinking. Educational attainment, cited as another important factor, again depicted

statistically significant effect on people’s views. As the years spent in education increases,

seeing disability as a disadvantageous criterion in the labor market is incremented. This

finding is in line with the previous literature stating educational attainment increases the

likelihood of seeing disability as a discriminatory criterion (Staniland, 2009; Broomley and

Curtice, 2003; Ormstone, 2010; EORG, 2001; 2004). Complimentary findings also found for

personal health condition and having familiarity with disability (EORG, 2001; Anderson,

2012; NDA, 2002; 2011; Broomley et.al, 2007).

The perceived social level was only available for the 2009 and 2012 series. Results revealed

that people from higher social levels are less likely to see disability as a disadvantage

compared to lower social level. This finding was in line with the previous literature (EORG,

2001; 2004; Stanilan, 2009). It should be noted that the gap between low and high social

levels are increasing. The occupational status is again cited as a factor that shapes attitudes

towards disability (Ormstane, et. al, 2010; Staniland, 2009; EORG, 2001; 2004). Present

analysis revealed that only the data from the 2012 set display complimentary findings. For

the religious denomination, revised literature only cites the effect of frequency of the

practicing (Broomley, and Curtice, 2003; Ormstone, et, al 2010; Bromley et at, 2007).

Present analysis showed that religious denomination is an important factor which helps

explain the differences in people’s views. Political orientation, once again, depicted a

significant effect in participants view in three successive surveys. Compared to leftist, people

who hold central political orientation and right wing political orientation are less likely to see

disability as a disadvantageous criterion. These were to some extend in line with Svalford

(1999) and Roosma’s (2012) policy analyses.

Country level factors revealed that social democrat welfare states are more likely to see

disability as a disadvantage. Compared to social democrat welfare states, people of liberal

welfare states are least likely to see it as a disadvantageous criterion. Remembering the two-

way interaction between policy processes and pubic attitudes, having differences as a

function of welfare typology can be attributed to the reflection of institutional structures or

fundamental ethos of welfare state regimes that they belong to. In terms of the quota

typology, compared with people who live in countries where there is no quota system for

17

disabled people, people courtiers with quotas displayed lower chances of viewing disability

as a disadvantage. All the parent variables for country level factors revealed consistent effect

throughout the series. Finding significant effect of welfare regimes and quota scheme might

be related with the relationship between institutional structure of a state and public

perceptions. Having 27 percent lower likelihood in countries where quota scheme applies to

both public and private sector might be brought about the air created by the applied system.

People in those countries might hold the view that such measures would prevent people being

discriminated against in the labor market. My personal opinion is that this is the foremost

finding of the present analysis.

The overall results imply that there is a sharp decrease, due to the ongoing global crises. This,

in turn, might decrease the social pressure on policy makers. When the results of individual

and country level factors evaluated together, it can be said that both are important in shaping

people’s views on attitudes towards disabled people in the labor market. Furthermore,

addition of country level factors created major increase in explained variances and it is

consistent throughout the series. This can be interpreted as policies are still a deterministic

relationship between policies and publics opinion. However, rather than having power to

shape the policy making processes, public’s opinion is indeed shaped by policies.

Recalling the country level factors’ findings, counties that governed by liberal welfare

systems, and countries who employ private and public quota system are suggested to place an

important focus on increasing awareness about the discrimination towards disabled people in

the labor market. Similarly, European Union organizations and Member States may take

present findings into account when planning intervention programs. Those individuals and

countries that are less likely to see disability as a disadvantage should be focused more. The

risk of creating a pseudo understanding in people’s mind that disabled people are less likely

to be discriminated due to affirmative actions, should be given utmost care and the preventive

measures should be added into the intervention programs to eliminate this risk.

In terms of attitude researches, after employing both descriptive and logistic regression

analysis over the three successive Eurobarometer surveys, I hold the view that both are

complementary to each other. While descriptive analysis is better showing a general picture,

it is limited in predicting who are more likely to be supportive or not. For this purpose,

logistic regression serves better. Thus, using them both is suggested, since it would increase

the strength of the findings.

Betul Yalcin

Bibliography

Anderson., J. 2012. Employer attitudes towards people with a psychological disability.

Master’s Thesis. Lunds Universitet, Insitutuionen For Psykologi . [online] Available 19

at .http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?

func=downloadFile&recordOId=2797427&fileOId=2797428. [Accessed December 2012].

APPLICA, CESEP, and EUROPEAN CENTRE., 2007. Study of compilation of disability statistical data from the administrative registers of the member states. Prepared for DG employment, social affairs and equal opportunities. 1 November 2007: Final Report.

Barnes, C. and Mercer, 2005. The social model of disability: Europa and majority world. Leeds: University of Leeds Media Services.

Bromley, C. and Curtice, J., 2003. Attitudes to discrimination in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research

Bromley, C., Curtice, J. and Given, L., 2007. Attitudes to discrimination in Scotland: 2006, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.

Budzier, A., 2010. A manual on dissertation statistics in PASW (SPSS). Oxford Univesity. [online] Available at: < http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mast2876/budzier.pdf >. [Accessed October 2011].

Calmfors, L., 1994. Active labour market policy and unemployment: a framework for analysis of crucial design features. OECD Economic Studies. No:22 Spring.

Davidson.. J. 2011. A qualitative study exploring employer’s recruitment behaviour and decisions: small and medium enterprises. Research Report No: 754. Prepared for Department of Work and Pension, 2011 . [online] Available at: < http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.york.ac.uk%2Finst%2Fspru%2Fresearch%2Fpdf%2Fsmesumm.pdf&ei=056nT6nlE8_E8QOwiuHdBA&usg=AFQjCNGQGgtBtgC7bBuP9qIGEWjf_rMqgA&sig2=nmO53gg6g0R1cZE58FMNOw >. [Accessed December 2011].

Disability Rights Commission Report. 2007. Small employers attitudes to disability. [online] Available at: < http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leeds.ac.uk%2Fdisability-studies%2Farchiveuk%2Fopinion%2520research%2520business%2Fsmall_employers_attitudes_to_disability%2520report%2520word.pdf&ei=QZ-nT_niNca38QPQirEU&usg=AFQjCNEZhsGW_0-zLQwLaK1bWD48tbnjCA&sig2=NoVDeUDp7nr2-P7YrY9Ibg>. [Accessed July 2009].

Dwyer, P., 2004. Understanding social citizenship: themes and perspectives for policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.

Eurobarometer 2004. Special Eurobarometer 198. Wave 65.4 The Erupean Year od People with Disabilities 2003. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT)

Eurobarometer, 2001 Special Eurobarometer . Wave 54.2 Attitudes of Europeans towards disability. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT )

Eurobarometer, 2007. Special Eurobarometer 263. Wave 65.4 Discrimination in the European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT

Eurobarometer, 2009. Special Eurobarometer 317. Wave 72.4. Discrimination in the European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT) .

Eurobarometer, 2012. Special Eurobarometer 393. Wave 77.4. Discrimination in the European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_Zdataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT preliminary data set available since 21 December, 2012)

Betul Yalcin

Falk, R., 2000. The decline of citizenship in an era of globalization. Citizenship Studies, 4(1), pp. 5-17. Fenger, H.J.M., 2007. Welfare Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post -communist countries in a welfare regime typology. Contemportaty Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences.

Goldstone, C., 2002. Barriers to employment for disabled people. In-house report 95. Prepared Department of Work and Pension, 2002 [online] Available at: < http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CJ4BEBYwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.disabledworkers.org.uk%2Fdownloads%2Fbarempdis.pdf&ei=hZunT4vlLOql0QXQyI2CBA&usg=AFQjCNHQ6h93OHbOXGQzQKxb47n-2_ksMw&sig2=it1pqa5vUeOOwLFBkt9Uiw>. [Accessed July 2009].

Grammenos, S., 2011.IDEE Indicators of disability equality in Europe: comparative data on a selection of quantitative implementation indicator. Prepared for ANED .

Greve, N., 2009. The labour market situation of disabled people in European countries and implementation of employment policies: a summary of evidence from country reports and research studies. Academic Network of European Disability Experts. [online] Available at: < http://www.disability-europe.net/content/aned/media/ANED%20Task%206%20final%20report%20-%20final%20version%2017-04-09.pdf>. . [Accessed July 2009].

Hahn, H., 1985. Introduction: Disability policy and the problem of discrimination. American Behavioural Scientist 28, pp.293 -320.

Hahn, H., 1988. The politics of physical differences: disability and discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), pp.39-

Hannon, F., 2007. Literature review on attitudes towards disability. Disability Research Series. National Disability Authority, Ireland.

Hantrais, L., 2007. Social policy in the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan and St Martin’s Press.

Henninger, A., 2006. Welfare state citizens: objects of control or reflexive actors in the context of market, family and social policy. In EspaNET Conference. Bremen, Germany, 27 July 2006.

Henninger, A., 2006. Welfare state citizens: objects of control or reflexive actors in the context of market, family and social policy. In EspaNET Conference. Bremen, Germany, 27 July 2006.

Hicks A. (1999): Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. In Blekesaune a, M., and Quadagno, J., 2003. Public attitudes towards welfare state policies: a comparative analysis of 24 Nations. In EspaNET Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 13-15 November 2003. [online] Available at.

Hodges-Aeberhard, J. and Raskin. C., 1997. Affirmative action in the employment of ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities. [online] Available at: <http://labordoc.ilo.org/record/ 315688 >. [Accessed April 2012].

Jacobs L R. and Shapiro R Y. (2000): Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. University of Chicago Press. In Blekesaune a, M., and Quadagno, J., 2003. Public attitudes towards welfare state policies: a comparative analysis of 24 Nations. In EspaNET Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 13-15 November 2003. [online] Available at. <http://www.sfi.dk/graphics/ESPAnet/papers/Blekesaune.pdf.

21

[Accessed November 2012].

Jeager, M.M. and Kvist, J., 2003. Pressures on the state welfare in post industrial societies: is more or less better?. Social Policy and Administration, 37(6), pp. 555-572.

Kamienciecki, S., 1985. The dimension underlying public attitudes towards blacks and disabled people in America. American Behavioural Scientist 28, pp.367-376

MacDonald, K., 2008. Comparative research design and methods module. Quantitative methods: practical classes/workshops 4: Interaction effects; introducing logistic regression. University of Oxford, UK.

Massie, B., 2006. Participation: have we got an attitude problem?. Paper presented in NDA 5th Annual Conference, Civic, Cultural and Social Paticipation: Building an inclusive society. [online] Available at.< http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/5A19C972AF5A7B93802571E60052A06B/$File/conf20064.html>. [Accessed December 2012].

Nauman, E., 2011. The dynamics of individual attitudes in times of welfare state retrenchment. 9th Annual ESPAnet Conference. Sustainability and transformation in European Social Policy. 8-10 September 2011.

NDA., 2002. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2001. Dublin: NDA.

NDA., 2007. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2006. Dublin: NDA.

NDA., 2011. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2011. Dublin: NDA.

Oliver, M., 1990. The politics of disablement. Hampshire: MacMillan

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. 2010. Sickness disability and work: breaking the barriers, a synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD.

Ormstone, R., Curtice, J., McConville., S, and Reid, S. 2011 Scottish Social Attitudes survey 2010: Attitudes to discrimination and positive action. Scotish Center for Social Research. Scottish Government.

Page, B.I. and Shapiro, R.Y., 1983. Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 99(2), pp. 251-267.

Park., A., Clery., E., Curtice J.., Phillips M., and Utting, D., 2012. Bristish Social Attitudes 29.. [online] Available at. http://www.bsa-29.natcen.ac.uk/media/13421/bsa29_full_report.pdf>. [Accessed December 2012].

Robinson,C., Martin, J., and Thompson K., 2007. Attitueds towards and perceptions of disabled people: findings from a module included in the 2005 Bristish Social Attitudes Survey . [online] Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/robinson/NatCenDisabilityModuleAug2007.pdf. [Accessed June 2009]. Prepared for Disability Rights Commision

Roosma, F., Gelisien, J., and Van Oorschot, (2012). The multidimentionalaity of welfare state

attitudes: A European cross-national study. Social Inidcators Research. DOI 10.

1007/s11205-012-0099-4. Published online 12 June 2012.

Betul Yalcin

Rosenthal, D.A., Chan,F., and Leivenh,H., 2006. Rehabiltastion students’ attitudes toward persons with disabilities in high and low stakes social contexts: a conjoint analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(24), pp.1517-1527.

Scruggs, T.E., Mastropeiri. M.A, 1996. Teacher perceptions of inclusion measinsteraming. 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Expetional Children, pp. 63, 59-74.

Seeleib Kaiser, M., 2012a. Introduction to comparative analysis. Presentation at Comparative Research Methods Workshop. 12 January 2012. University of Oxford.

Stailand., L., 2009. Public Perceptions of Disabled People. Evidence freom British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. Office for Disability Issues. HM. Government.

Svalflfors, S., 1995. The end of class politics?. Stuctureal celavages and Attitudes in Swedish

Welfare policies. Acta Sociologica, 38, pp.53-74.

Yeates, N., 2001. Globalization and social policy. London: Sage.

ANNEXES

1- Variable Coding

2- Country Coding

3- Descriptive Statistics Results

4- Logistic Regression Results

5- EU Employment Outlook

23

Table 1- Variable CodingGender Female 0 Male 1Age groups 15-24 yrs. 0 25-39 yrs. 1 40-54 yrs. 2 55 and older 3Schooling Period * Before 15 1 Before 20 2 After 20 0Disability

Betul Yalcin

Non-disabled 0 Disabled 1Proximity No acquaintance 0 Have DP Acq. 1Social Level Low 0 Middle 1 High 2Occupational Status Manager 0 Inactive 1 Unemployed 2 Employees 3 Self Employed 4Politic Orientation Left Wing 0 Central 1 Right Wing 2Religion Christians 0 Jewish 1 Muslim 2 Eastern Belief Systems 3 Atheist/Agnostic/none 4Welfare Typology Liberal 2 Conservative 1 Social Democrat 0 Post-Communist 3Quota Typology None 0 Only Public 1 Only Private 2 Both 3

*People who are still under full time education was not included in the analysis, and set as system missing

Table 2 -Country CodingWelfare ** Quota ***

1 France 1 32 Belgium 1 23 Netherland 0 04 Germany 0 35 Italy 1 36 Luxemburg 1 37 Denmark 0 08 Ireland 2 19 United Kingdom 2 010 Greece 1 3

25

11 Spain 1 312 Portugal 1 313 Finland 0 014 Sweden 0 015 Austria 1 316 Cyprus - 117 Czech Republic 1 118 Estonia 3 019 Hungary 1 320 Latvia 3 021 Lithuania 3 322 Malta - 323 Poland 1 324 Slovakia 1 325 Slovenia - 226 Bulgaria 3 227 Romania 3 3

* * Welfare Typology: For welfare typology, OECD 2010 disability typology was the main reference. Additional typology, developed by Fenger (2007), was also employed when respective country was not listed under OECD 2010. Those countries which are not listed in either of typology set as system missing

***Quota Typology: Allocation of the quota typology was done according to Greve, 2009 and APPLICA, 2007 reports.

Betul Yalcin

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics TotalBase

2006 TotalBase

2009 TotalBase

2012

DisadvantageNo

DisadvantageYes

DisadvantageNo

DisadvantageYes

DisadvantageNo

DisadvantageYes

EU Nation 27 % 47.3 52.7 % 57.2 42.8 % 57.8 42.2

Gender

Female 57.2 46.9 53.1 55.7 57.2 42.8 54.1 57.6 42.4Male 42.8 48 52 44.3 57.2 42.8 45.9 58.0 42.0Age groups

15-24 yrs. 12.5 41.3 58.7 12.3 53.4 46.6 11.5 55.4 44.6 25-39 yrs. 24.2 44.8 55.2 23.3 56.3 43.7 22.7 57.7 42.340-54 yrs. 25.2 46.1 53.9 25.9 56.8 43.2 26 56.4 43.655 and older 38.1 51.8 48.2 38.4 59.1 40.9 39.8 59.4 40.6

Schooling Period *

Before 15 24.3 54.7 45.3 22.4 62.7 37.3 20.2 61 39Before 20 46.2 48.1 51.9 46.8 58.3 41.7 47.5 58 42After 20 29.4 42.4 57.6 30.8 52.1 47.9 32.3 56 44

Disability

Non-disabled 79.1 47.4 52.6 82.4 57.9 42.1 82.5 58.4 41.6Disabled 20.3 46.9 53.1 17.6 52.8 47.2 17.5 54.1 45.9

Familiarity

Unfamiliar 45.4 49.5 50.5 41.8 59.7 40.3 37.5 60.4 39.6Familiar 54.5 45.3 54.7 58.2 55.1 44.9 62.5 55.9 44.1

Perceived Social Level

Low NA NA NA 24.7 57 43 24.2 55.5 44.5Middle NA NA NA 49.2 57.2 42.8 49.8 57.9 42.1High NA NA NA 26.1 55.4 44.6 26 58.4 41.6

Occupational Status

Manager 10 44.1 55.9 9.9 53.8 46.2 9.8 57.5 42.5

27

Inactive 45.4 49.4 50.6 43.1 57.8 42,2 42.8 58.1 41.9Unemployed 5.7 45.2 54.8 8.2 58.3 41.7 8.7 57.5 42.5Employees 31.6 46.0 54.0 31.6 56.7 43.3 31.7 57.3 42.7Self Employed 7.0 46.5 53.5 7.2 58.5 41.5 7.0 58.7 41.3

Politic Orientation

Left Wing 29.4 45.3 54.7 29.6 53.4 46.6 32.6 53.7 46.3Central 42.5 47.2 52.8 40.6 56.3 43.7 40.8 57.4 42.6 Right Wing 28.1 48.2 51.8 29.7 57.6 42.4 26.6 59.4 40.6

Religious Denomination

Christians 80.6 48.5 51.5 79.5 58.5 41.5 76.7 58.7 41.3Jew .1 40 60 .1 64.5 35.5 .1 42.9 57.1Muslim 1.1 57.0 43.0 1.3 62.3 37.7 1.2 60 40Eastern Belief Sys .3 36.3 63.8 .3 56.7 43.3 .4 51.4 48.6Atheist/Agnostic/no 18 42.5 57.5 18.8 50.9 49.1 21.6 53.4 46.6

Welfare Typology **

Liberal 9.3 56.2 43.8 9.4 72.5 27.5 9.3 72.8 27.2Conservative 47.4 49.6 50.4 47.4 60.3 39.7 47.3 57.5 42.5Social-Dem 22.9 42 58 22.7 47.3 52.7 22.6 51.6 48.4Post-Communist 20.4 43.9 56.1 20.5 56.6 43.4 20.8 60 40

Quota System ***

None 27.7 42.1 57.9 27.7 50.6 49.4 27.8 55.2 44.8 Only Public 9.4 49.8 50.2 9.5 59.8 40.2 13.3 59.4 40.6 Only Private 11.5 41 59 11.3 52.6 47.4 11.5 53.2 46.8 Both 51.4 51.2 48.8 51.4 61.2 38.8 47.4 59.9 40.1

Table 4 Logistic Regression

Betul Yalcin B SE Sig Exp(B) B SE Sig Exp(B) B SE Sig Exp(B)

Gender (1) (Ref, Females) -.052 .032 .102 .949 -.025 .032 .436 .975 -.018 .031 .564 .982

Age (Ref 15-24 yrs.) .000 .007 .000

25-39 yrs. (1) -.138 .080 .087 .871 -.129 .078 .098 .879 -.017 .079 .833 .983

40-54 yrs. 2) -.238 .080 .003 .788 -.190 .077 .014 .827 .010 .078 .900 1.010

55>+ (3) -.375 .084 .000 .687 -.254 .082 .002 .776 -.195 .082 .018 .823

Disability (1) (Ref-Non) .135 .041 .001 1.144 .242 .043 .000 1.274 .170 .042 .000 1.185

Familiarity (1) (Ref-Non) .105 .032 .001 1.110 .129 .302 .000 .1.138 .151 .033 .000 1.163

Schooling period (Ref After 20 yrs.) .000 .000 .513

Before 15 yrs. (1) -.272 .048 .000 .762 -.248 .050 .000 .781 -.040 .051 .427 .960

Before 20 yrs. (2) -.182 .038 .000 .834 -.144 .038 .000 .866 .013 .037 .729 1.013

Perceived Social Level (Ref-Low)

NA NA NA NA .353 .007

Middle (1) NA NA NA NA -.044 .041 .284 .957 -.089 .040 .028 .915

High (2) NA NA NA NA -.069 .048 .154 .933 -.152 .048 .002 .859

Occupational Status (Ref-Managerial) .575 .972 .269

Inactive (1) .032 .060 .597 1.032 .014 .063 .818 1.015 .033 .062 .589 1.034

Unemployed (2) .129 .080 .108 1.137 -.002 .075 .976 .998 -.032 .073 .657 .968

White/Blue Colour Employees (3) .049 .053 .358 1.050 .017 .055 .752 1.018 -.046 .055 .401 .955

Self Employed (4) .065 .071 .361 1.067 -.022 .072 .756 .978 -.103 .073 .159 .902

Religious Denomination (Ref-Christians) .002 .002 .283

Jewish (1) .381 .473 .421 1.463 -.566 .468 .226 .568 .445 .510 .383 1.560

Muslim (2) -.565 .167 .001 .568 -.407 .157 .010 .666 -.162 .157 .302 .851

Eastern Belief Systems (3) .435 .282 .123 1.545 -.348 .270 .198 .706 .342 .234 .145 1.408

Non/agnostic/atheist (4) .065 .042 .120 1.067 .102 .041 .014 1.107 .041 .039 .292 1.042

Political Orientation (Ref- Left wing) .001 .000 .000

Central (1) -.074 .038 .050 .929 -.085 .038 .027 .919 -.077 .037 .036 .926

29

Right wing (2) -.154 .042 .000 .857 -.180 .042 .000 .835 -.218 .041 .000 .804

Nation EU 27 .006 .003 .022 1.006 .001 .003 .725 1.001 .010 .003 .000 1.010

Quota Typology (Ref- none ) .000 .000 .000

Only Public (1) .031 .070 .657 1.031 -.108 .072 .134 .897 -.117 .064 .069 .889

Only private (2) .126 .072 .079 1.135 -.302 .071 .000 .739 -.094 .070 .178 .911

Both private and public 3) -.335 .050 .000 .715 -.475 .050 .000 .622 -.323 .050 .000 .724

Welfare Typology (Ref Social Democrat) .000 .000 .000

Conservative (1) -.113 .053 .033 .894 -.121 .053 .022 .886 -.079 .053 .140 .924

Liberal (2) -.615 .065 .000 .541 -1.068 .071 .000 .344 -.939 .067 .000 .391

Post-communist emerging (3) -.092 .069 .182 .912 -.141 .069 .040 .869 -.364 .067 .000 .695

Constant .675 .104 .000 1.965 .495 .110 .000 1.640 .106 .110 .332 1.112

x= Exp (B)-1x100p=.500 (confidence interval level)Important note: Considering the system missing, individual and country level variables inserted into regression equation as presented.

Table 5- EU Employment Outlook (LSF in Gammennos, 2011)COUNTRY UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ACTIVITY RATES EMPLOYMENT RATES

Betul Yalcin DISABLED NON DISABLED DISABLED NON DISABLED DISABLED NON DISABLED

Ireland-IE 26.4 15.3 39.5 76.8 29.0 65.1

Romania-RO 7.6 4.7 31.8 73.1 29.4 69.6

Greece-EL 17.9 9.6 38.2 75.3 31.4 68.1

Malta-MT 17.6 6.1 38.8 65.5 32.0 61.6

Hungary-HU 19.8 9.7 40.1 76.2 32.1 68.8

Poland-PO 13.9 8.4 38.7 76.7 33.3 70.3

Lithuania-LT 17.0 14.5 46.1 85.7 38.2 73.2

Czech Rep-CZ 23.3 7.1 50.4 79.9 38.6 74.3

Bulgaria-BG 22.4 14.4 50.2 84.3 39.0 72.1

Belgium-BE 23.7 8.9 55.8 79.4 42.6 72.4

Spain-ES 25.8 17.3 57.9 82.1 42.9 67.9

United Kingdom 8.5 5.3 48.4 83.9 44.3 79.5

Italy-IT 13.9 10.6 51.9 71.6 44.7 64.0

Latvia-LV 29.4 20.8 63.9 88.3 45.1 70.0

EU 17.7 9.2 55.5 79.5 45.7 72.2

Portugal-PT 19.4 12.5 57.6 85.8 46.4 75.1

Austria-AT 19.2 6.3 59.7 78.2 48.2 73.3

France-FR 16.6 9.3 59.7 79.4 49.8 72.1

Estonia-EE 15.2 11.8 59.8 84.8 50.7 74.8

Slovenia-SI 21.0 9.0 64.8 77.5 51.2 70.5

Slovakia-SK 11.4 8.9 58.9 82.1 52.2 74.8

Sweden-SE 11.0 6.2 59.3 88.1 52.8 82.6

Cyprus-CY 8.4 5.6 58.2 77.4 53.3 73.1

Germany-DE 21.1 7.3 68.4 82.4 53.9 76.4

Netherlands-NL 5.0 1.9 56.8 81.1 54.0 79.6

Finland-FI 14.8 7.6 65.1 83.5 55.5 77.2

Luxemburg-LU 13.4 6.4 64.5 74.5 55.8 69.7

Denmark-DK 14.4 4.3 65.7 84.7 56.3 81.1

31