A study on the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities

Ananian, Sevane; Dellaferrera, Giulia Working Paper A study on the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities ILO Working Paper, No. 124 Provided in Cooperation with: International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva Suggested Citation: Ananian, Sevane; Dellaferrera, Giulia (2024) : A study on the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities, ILO Working Paper, No. 124, ISBN 978-92-2-041076-9, International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva, https://doi.org/10.54394/YRCN8597 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/302866 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ XA study on the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities Authors / Sevane Ananian, Giulia Dellaferrera August / 2024 ILO Working Paper 124 Copyright © International Labour Organization 2024 This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Users can reuse, share, adapt and build upon the original work, as detailed in the License. The ILO must be clearly credited as the owner of the original work. The use of the emblem of the ILO is not permitted in connection with users’ work. Attribution – The work must be cited as follows: Ananian, S., Dellaferrera, G. A study on the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities. ILO Working Paper 124. Geneva: International Labour Office, 2024. Translations – In case of a translation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This translation was not created by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and should not be considered an official ILO translation. The ILO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. Adaptations – In case of an adaptation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the International Labour Organization (ILO). Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by the ILO. This CC license does not apply to non-ILO copyright materials included in this publication. If the material is attributed to a third party, the user of such material is solely responsible for clearing the rights with the right holder. Any dispute arising under this license that cannot be settled amicably shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The parties shall be bound by any arbitration award rendered as a result of such arbitration as the final adjudication of such a dispute. All queries on rights and licensing should be addressed to the ILO Publishing Unit (Rights and Licensing), 1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email to [email protected]. ISBN 9789220410769 (print), ISBN 9789220410776 (web PDF), ISBN 9789220410783 (epub), ISBN 9789220410790 (mobi), ISBN 9789220410806 (html). ISSN 2708-3438 (print), ISSN 2708-3446 (digital) https://doi.org/10.54394/YRCN8597 The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the ILO concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the ILO of the opinions expressed in them. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the ILO, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. Information on ILO publications and digital products can be found at: www.ilo.org/researchand-publications ILO Working Papers summarize the results of ILO research in progress, and seek to stimulate discussion of a range of issues related to the world of work. Comments on this ILO Working Paper are welcome and can be sent to r[email protected]g. Authorization for publication: Richard Samans, Director, Research Department ILO Working Papers can be found at: www.ilo.org/global/publications/working-papers Suggested citation: Ananian, S., Dellaferrera, G. 2024. A study on the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities, ILO Working Paper 124 (Geneva, ILO). https://doi.org/10.54394/YRCN8597 01 ILO Working Paper 124 Abstract This study investigates the employment and wage disparities between people with and without disabilities. It shows that individuals with disabilities are less likely to participate in the labour market, and that when they do, they face higher unemployment rates, are more likely to be self-employed and tend to earn lower wages. These disparities do not appear to be explained solely by individual characteristics such as educational attainment, experience or occupational category. They are most likely driven by various other factors as well, including limited provision of workplace accommodations in many firms, the potentially greater job flexibility offered by self-employment, and discrimination against people with disabilities. In its final section, the study highlights legal frameworks established at the international and national levels to promote equal opportunities and fair remuneration for people with disabilities. About the authors Sévane Ananian joined the Research Department of the International Labour Organization (ILO) as an economist in September 2021. His areas of expertise are inequality, wages and working conditions, and the transition to a green economy. Giulia Dellaferrera works for the promotion of domestic workers’ rights in Tanzania with CVM, after having analysed work-related inequalities at ILO Research Department. Previously, she worked at UNHCR, ICRC and Genocide Watch. She is specialised in human rights and international humanitarian law. 02 ILO Working Paper 124 Abstract 01 About the authors 01 XIntroduction 07 X1 Data and methodology 10 Defining people with disabilities 10 A sample of national household surveys including information on disabilities 11 X2 Employment outcomes of people with disabilities 13 A methodology for analysing differences in labour market outcomes between people with and without disabilities 13 On average, people with disabilities exhibit lower labour force participation and higher un‑ employment 14 People with disabilities are more likely to be self-employed 15 X3 Wage outcomes of people with disabilities 19 The share of low-paid workers is higher among employees with disabilities 19 The lower educational attainment of employees with disabilities may partly explain their lower wages 20 In addition, workers with disabilities are over-represented among employees working in el‑ ementary occupations and under‑represented among managers and professionals 22 Three quarters of the disability pay gap is not explained by differences in terms of educa‑ tion, age and occupation between employees with and without disabilities 24 Across countries for which the average pay can be broken down by sex, women with disabil‑ ities appear to earn less on average than their male counterparts 27 The role of minimum wages in reducing the disability pay gap 27 X4 Building inclusive legal frameworks to secure positive employment and wage outcomes for people with disabilities 31 International labour standards that can shape the employment and wage outcomes of peo‑ ple with disabilities 31 International labour standards on non-discrimination and equality of opportunity and treatment 34 International labour standards on wages 36 International labour standards on vocational guidance and rehabilitation 36 Designing a comprehensive system of national laws and policies to tackle the employment and wage gaps faced by people with disabilities 38 Table of contents 03 ILO Working Paper 124 XConclusion 43 Annex 44 References 48 Acknowledgements 53 04 ILO Working Paper 124 List of Figures Figure 1. Share of employees with disabilities in each quintile of the wage distribution, by country income group, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) 20 Figure 2. Share of low-paid workers among employees with and without disabilities, by country income group, 2019 or latest available year (percentage) 20 Figure 3. Distribution of employees with and without disabilities according to their educa‑ tional level, by country income group, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) 21 Figure 4. Distribution of employees with and without disabilities according to their age, by country income group, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) 22 Figure 5. Distribution of occupations among employees with and without disabilities, by country income group, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) 23 Figure 6. Average pay gap between employees with and without disabilities, by country, de‑ composed, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) 26 Figure 7. Gender pay gap among employees with and without disabilities in selected coun‑ tries, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) 27 Figure 8. Share of employees paid the minimum wage or less, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) 28 05 ILO Working Paper 124 List of Tables Table 1. Gaps in the probabilities of selected labour market outcomes between people with and without disabilities (percentage points) 15 National data sources used to analyse the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities 44 12 ILO Working Paper 124 are also some from earlier years, going back to 2013. This relatively broad time window allows countries with less frequent data collection to be included in the analysis. The final working data set for the study comprises 65 countries, covering all regions and levels of economic development. Out of the countries in the sample, 14 are from Africa, 2 from the Arab States, 12 from Asia and the Pacific, 30 from Europe and Central Asia, and 7 from the Americas.6 In terms of country income groups, the sample comprises 28 high-income countries, 16 upper-middle-income countries, 14 lower-middle-income countries and 7 low-income countries.7 The countries selected, and their corresponding surveys, are listed in table A1 in the Appendix. However, the exploration of working time and wages is restricted to countries with surveys that include a sufficient number of respondent workers (or wage employees) with disabilities to allow analysis of these dimensions. Across the countries sampled, the share of people with disabilities in the working-age population varies widely, from less than 1 per cent to over 13 per cent. Beyond differences in people’s health, several reasons can be cited to explain this variability between countries, such as differences in the perception of disabilities, culture and awareness, in addition to possible measurement differences across surveys (OECD 2022). Variations in the share of disabled people across countries may also reflect different levels of exposure to war or other forms of intentional injury.8 This means that comparisons of the estimates between countries should be made with great caution. Moreover, caution is also called for when extrapolating. Although the scope of this analysis is meant to be relatively wide given the available data, the results remain specific to the sample and may not necessarily reflect the relative situation of people with disabilities in countries not included. 6The relatively high coverage of European countries was enabled by the use of EU-SILC survey data, made available by Eurostat, which covers 28 countries in the sample. 7To group countries according to their level of income per capita, the World Bank classification corresponding to the year of the survey data collection is used. 8The World Health Organization has highlighted that suicides account for the largest proportion of the intentional injury burden in developed countries, whereas it is violence and war in developing countries (WHO 2008). 13 ILO Working Paper 124 X2 Employment outcomes of people with disabilities A methodology for analysing differences in labour market outcomes between people with and without disabilities People with and without disabilities can differ in characteristics that may have an impact on their labour market outcomes. For instance, lower educational attainment may affect their likelihood of finding a job. On the other hand, the over-representation of older people among people with disabilities could also result in lower labour market participation rates.9 Taking the socio-demographic structure of the population of people with disabilities into account is therefore critical when analysing the disparities they may experience in labour market outcomes. In order to perform such analysis, the econometric technique of logistic regression is applied to a data set constructed from the pooled country surveys selected for this study (see box 1 below for further details of the technique). This method makes it possible to assess how the probabilities of the labour market outcomes under study differ between people with and without disabilities, while at the same time disentangling this impact from that of other observed characteristics, such as education and age. It is important to bear in mind that all the estimates presented here do not take into account possible unobserved individual characteristics that could influence the labour market participation of people with disabilities. In addition, the results do not control for the possible impact that employment outcomes may have on a person’s disability status (“reversed causality”). Indeed, in some instances, disabilities can be a result of the employment situation, for example when they arise from an accident at work. The findings presented here should therefore not be interpreted as reflecting a causality between having a disability and the various labour market outcomes studied. XBox 1. Estimating differences in the probability of selected labour market outcomes between people with and without disabilities To assess how having a disability changes the probability of labour force participation, unemployment and wage employment, a logistic regression model is estimated separately for men and women using a pooled data set that includes all the surveys sampled (see table A1 in the Appendix). This econometric approach consists in estimating the parameters α, γ and β of the following equation: PY e ()= 1 1+ 1 γDsb X−(α+ +β )       where P(Y) is the probability that Y happens, Y referring respectively to labour force participation, unemployment and being an employee (versus being self-employed). In addition, α is the constant (or “intercept”), Dsb is a dummy variable indicating whether a respondent has disabilities and X is a set of control variables. 9An estimated 46 per cent of people aged 60 years or older live with disabilities (United Nations 2015). 14 ILO Working Paper 124 For labour market participation and unemployment, the control variables are the level of educational attainment (below secondary school level, secondary school level, above secondary school level), the age tranche (15–24 years, 25–55 years and 55+ years) and a country dummy for each country to take into account unobserved heterogeneity across countries. When estimating the probability of wage employment, the control variables also include the respondent’s occupation according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08), with occupations aggregated into six categories: “Managers, professionals and technicians”, “Clerical, services and sales workers”, “Skilled agricultural and trades workers”, “Plant and machine operators, and assemblers”, “Elementary occupations” and “Armed forces”. This allows one to control for possible differences in employment status that could be due to the type of occupation pursued. The above estimation is used to compute the results reported in table 1, which are called “average marginal effects”. They correspond to the increase (or decrease) in the probability of the event Y (that is, labour force participation, unemployment or wage employment) induced by the event “Dsb = 1” (that is, having disabilities). On average, people with disabilities exhibit lower labour force participation and higher unemployment People with disabilities are less likely to participate in the labour market than those without, even when one controls for age and educational attainment. On average across countries, having disabilities decreases the likelihood of labour market participation by 29 percentage points for men, and by 20 percentage points for women (table 1). The negative impact of disabilities on men and women’s likelihood of labour market participation is similar across countries at different levels of development, though it is lower in absolute terms for women in upper-middle-income countries (14 percentage points versus 20 percentage points on average for all countries). Furthermore, when they do participate in the labour market, people with disabilities are more likely to be unemployed than those without. Across countries, the likelihood of unemployment increases by 8 percentage points for men when they have disabilities; a similar increase is observed for women with disabilities (7 percentage points). However, the unemployment gap between people with and without disabilities appears to be narrower in developing countries. In particular, this gap is not statistically significant for women in lower-middle-income countries and for men in low-income countries. It is even negative for women in low-income countries (-1.5 percentage points), indicating that women with disabilities are less likely to be unemployed than other women. This last result may reflect the scarcer resources in developing economies compared with high-income countries, which could prompt people with disabilities to reduce their unemployment spell and take up any available job. 15 ILO Working Paper 124 XTable 1. Gaps in the probabilities of selected labour market outcomes between people with and without disabilities (percentage points) All countries High‑income countries Upper‑middle‑ income coun‑ tries Lower-middleincome coun‑ tries Low-income countries Labour force participation Men -29.1*** -29*** -27.5*** -32.2*** -31.2*** Women -20.3*** -21.7*** -14.1*** -22.1*** -22*** Total -24.9*** -25.5*** -20.9*** -27*** -26.2*** Unemployment Men 8*** 14.7*** 1.4* 2.6*** 0.3 Women 6.6*** 10.7*** 2.8** 0.7 -1.5*** Total 7.5*** 12.9*** 2.1*** 1.7* -0.6 Wage employment (vs. self‑employment) Men -4.3*** -1.1 -7.2*** -6.8*** -3.2** Women -3.4*** -1.4** -6.4*** -4.7*** -1.4 Total -4*** -1.2** -7.1*** -5.9*** -2.4*** Note 1: Statistically significant values are denoted by ***, **, * at the 1%, 5% and 10% significance levels respectively. Note 2: The results for labour force participation refer to the whole population. Those for unemployment refer to the population in the labour force. Those for status in employment (wage employment vs. self-employment) refer to the employed population. Note 3: The labour force participation and unemployment models control for age and education. The status in employment model (wage employment vs. self-employment) features occupation as an additional control variable. All the models control for country fixed effects. Source: Analysis based on ILO Harmonized Microdata collection (ILOSTAT), 2022 or latest available year (except 2020). See table A1 in the Appendix for more details. People with disabilities are more likely to be self-employed Finally, the third section of table 1 shows that, when in employment, people with disabilities are less likely to be working as employees than those without. Indeed, even after controlling for age, educational attainment and occupation, having disabilities reduces the probability of being an employee for both men and women. This pattern appears to hold at each level of economic development, except in high-income countries for men and in low-income countries for women, as the corresponding estimates are not statistically significant. The above findings are consistent with those already presented in the limited literature on the odds of self-employment for people with disabilities, where most studies focus on developed countries (Pagán 2009; Gouskova 2020). The main reasons proposed for the over-representation of disabled people among the self-employed include the greater flexibility and the better adjustment between disability status and working life that self-employment may allow (Pagán 2009). A recent empirical investigation drawing on US data confirmed that people with disabilities, on the whole, choose self-employment for non-monetary reasons, though it did not rule out the possibility of employer discrimination “pushing” part of the population with disabilities into self-employment (Gouskova 2020). 16 ILO Working Paper 124 The greater likelihood of self-employment among people with disabilities suggests an increased risk of exposure to informality, particularly in developing countries. Indeed, global estimates suggest that the vast majority of self-employed workers own and operate an informal economic unit, with eight in ten such workers in developing countries working informally (ILO 2023a). In contrast, only four in ten employees worldwide work informally, and only one in ten in high-income countries. On the other hand, in most countries with available data, people with disabilities are more likely to be in informal employment than those without disabilities (Stoevska 2022). Finally, in addition to differences in the likelihood of being employed or self-employed, people with disabilities also exhibit specific working-time patterns. A descriptive assessment of this is provided in box 2. In particular, compared to people without disabilities, they often work fewer hours and those in developing countries are more likely to be employed under temporary contracts. XBox 2. Working time of people with and without disabilities In comparison to other workers, those with disabilities often work fewer hours People with too few or irregular working hours may be exposed to specific risks, such as insufficient income. Conversely, excessive working hours are associated with health risks, such as ischaemic heart disease and stroke (Pega et al. 2021). An overview of the working time of people with and without disabilities is therefore provided here, based on a subsample of countries with available information on the working time of employees and self-employed workers. On average across these countries, people with disabilities work more often 20 hours or fewer than people without. Specifically, 13 per cent of workers with disabilities work fewer than 20 hours, that is, 5 percentage points more than other workers (figure B.2.1). This gap is relatively constant across levels of economic development, as it ranges from 4 percentage points in lowand lower-middle-income countries to 6 percentage points in upper-middle-income countries (5 percentage points in high-income countries). This can partly be explained by the fact that some workers with disabilities need to decrease their working hours in view of reduced work capacity. At the other end of the distribution of working hours, a substantial share of workers with disabilities may nonetheless experience long hours, especially in developing countries. Across the lowand middle-income groups of countries, between 12 and 22 per cent of workers with disabilities work more than 55 hours. This may be a cause for concern, as assessments undertaken by the ILO and the World Health Organization have reported higher risks of ischaemic heart disease and stroke among people working long hours. However, relatively large proportions of people without disabilities also work long hours in developing countries (between 16 and 25 per cent across the relevant country income groups). 17 ILO Working Paper 124 In developing countries, temporary employment is more widespread among employees with disabilities Among employees from developing countries, people with disabilities appear to be employed under temporary contractual arrangements more often than those without disabilities. On average across a subsample of developing countries with available information on 18 ILO Working Paper 124 the type of contract, 44 per cent of employees with disabilities were in temporary employment, compared with 38 per cent for those without (figure B.2.2). In contrast, across the developed countries in the subsample, temporary contracts are equally frequent among employees with and without disabilities (16 per cent in both cases). Unless adequate legal frameworks are put in place, higher levels of temporary employment for people with disabilities may make their position in the labour market more insecure. 19 ILO Working Paper 124 X3 Wage outcomes of people with disabilities In addition to outcomes related to employment, another key labour market outcome is earnings, which play a crucial role in determining livelihoods. This section therefore examines the hourly wages received by employees with and without disabilities. It draws on the findings from a subsample of 30 countries with quality information on the wages received by both population groups. Nearly half of the sample consists of countries with developing economies (14 countries). While this section focuses on wage employment because of data-related considerations, a brief analysis of the income earned by self-employed workers with disabilities is nevertheless undertaken for two countries whose surveys include reliable information in that respect (see box 4 further down). The share of low-paid workers is higher among employees with disabilities People with disabilities tend to be located at the lower end of the hourly wage distribution. On average across a subsample of 30 countries with information on the wages of employees, 30 per cent of employees with disabilities are in the first quintile of the wage distribution, meaning that they earn a wage that is below the wages earned by 80 per cent of employees (figure 1). In lowand lower-middle-income countries, this share is even higher, reaching 35 per cent (versus 28 per cent in high-income countries). Although the present study does not differentiate by types of disability, it should be noted that this factor may affect the position of people with disabilities on the wage ladder. Previous analysis carried out in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for instance, has shown that the median pay of people with mental impairment is lower than that of workers with other impairments, except for women, among whom the median pay is similar in the case of both physical and mental impairment (Longhi 2017). Although data tends to be scarcer in developing countries, estimates for Lebanon suggest that people with severe communication difficulties had the lowest earnings among employees with disabilities (ILO 2023b). As their wages are often near the bottom of their country’s wage ladder, employees with disabilities are particularly exposed to low pay, a relative measure indicating a wage below two thirds of the country’s median hourly wage.10 On average across the countries in the subsample, 32 per cent of employees with disabilities are low-paid, compared with just 22 per cent of those without (figure 2). Furthermore, while the share of low-paid workers is higher among employees with disabilities at each level of economic development, the gap vis-à-vis the rest of employees appears to be more marked in developing countries. In particular, the low-pay rate is 64 per cent higher for workers with disabilities than for those without in the lowand lower-middle-income country group (46 versus 28 per cent), whereas it is 42 percent higher in the high-income country group (27 versus 19 per cent). 10 Low pay was statistically defined in ILO (2012). 20 ILO Working Paper 124 XFigure 1. Share of employees with disabilities in each quintile of the wage distribution, by country income group, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) Source: Analysis based on ILO Harmonized Microdata collection (ILOSTAT), 2022 or latest available year (except 2020). See table A1 in the Appendix for more details. XFigure 2. Share of low-paid workers among employees with and without disabilities, by country income group, 2019 or latest available year (percentage) Source: Analysis based on ILO Harmonized Microdata collection (ILOSTAT), 2022 or latest available year (except 2020). See table A1 in the Appendix for more details. The lower educational attainment of employees with disabilities may partly explain their lower wages The high share of low-paid workers among employees with disabilities could be explained in part by the socio-demographic structure of this population group. Specifically, factors shaping human capital and skills are likely to have an impact on the wages received by such employees. When studying their wages, it is therefore necessary to look at such characteristics as education and experience. As far as education is concerned, employees with disabilities tend to have lower educational attainment than those without. In particular, across the 30 countries in the subsample considered here, 38 per cent of employees with disabilities had yet to attain secondary school level, whereas that was so for only 28 per cent of other employees (figure 3). Such a disability education gap can be observed in each of the three categories of economic development considered for this subsample (high-income countries; upper-middle-income countries; and lowand lower-middle-income countries). This can probably be explained by the challenges that people with disabilities may face in accessing education at the early stages of their lives. On the other hand, the industries most likely to expose workers to occupational hazards, with a possible impact on their health and disability status, are often those that employ a large proportion of low-skilled labour.11 11 Sectors such as agriculture, forestry and fishing, construction and manufacturing are widely recognized as the most hazardous. Specifically, one in three fatal occupational injuries worldwide occur among agricultural workers (Pintado Nunes et al. 2023). In many countries, the agricultural workforce has been found to be relatively low-skilled (OECD 2023). 21 ILO Working Paper 124 However, a factor that may offset, to some extent, the wage effects of their lower educational attainment is that employees with disabilities appear to include a relatively large share of experienced workers. Using age as a proxy for experience, it thus emerges that people aged 55 years or over account for an average of 28 per cent of the population of employees with disabilities, that is, almost twice the share observed among their counterparts without disabilities (figure 4). This pattern holds at all levels of economic development studied, including lowand lower-middle-income countries, where the overall workforce tends to be relatively young. XFigure 3. Distribution of employees with and without disabilities according to their educational level, by country income group, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) Source: Analysis based on ILO Harmonized Microdata collection (ILOSTAT), 2022 or latest available year (except 2020). See table A1 in the Appendix for more details. 28 ILO Working Paper 124 them are actually paid at the minimum wage rate. Thus, in a subsample of developed countries with a minimum wage, 15 per cent of workers with disabilities earn the minimum wage or less, compared with just 9 per cent of workers without disabilities (figure 8). In developing countries, these shares are 44 and 33 per cent respectively. However, the relatively large proportion of workers with disabilities who are paid less than the minimum wage level may point to challenges in ensuring their effective coverage through this policy. Indeed, in developed and developing countries, respectively, 11 and 36 per cent of workers with disabilities earn less than the minimum wage level, versus 6 and 26 per cent for their counterparts without disabilities. Factors that may explain the over-representation of workers with disabilities among employees paid below the minimum wage include a weaker enforcement of the policy as far as that population group is concerned and possible legal exemptions from minimum wage regulations. The latter situation could result from anti-discrimination measures aimed at protecting the employment of workers with disabilities in contexts where the provision of lower rates for certain workers with disabilities is viewed as a way of compensating for the effects of a potentially reduced productivity (ILO 2016). In other countries, however, the setting of lower minimum wage rates for workers with disabilities is considered to be a form of discrimination.14 International labour standards such as the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), and the Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation, 1970 (No. 135), provide a framework for the implementation of minimum wage regulations with a broad coverage, including such aspects as their enforcement and the determination of the adequate minimum wage rates (see section 4, which deals with the legal frameworks governing the employment and wages of people with disabilities). XFigure 8. Share of employees paid the minimum wage or less, 2022 or latest available year (percentage) Note: According to the definitions used here, an employee who earns below the minimum wage receives less than 95 per cent of the minimum wage value, while an employee paid at the minimum wage level earns between 95 and 105 per cent of the minimum wage value. Source: Same as in figure 6 above except for Denmark, Ethiopia, Italy, Maldives and Switzerland, which are not covered in the present chart. Ethiopia and Maldives did not have a minimum wage at the time of the survey. Denmark, Italy and Switzerland rely predominantly or exclusively on minimum wages set by collective bargaining agreements (ILO 2020). In these cases, rates and coverage depend on the collective bargaining system and its structure. Beyond a statutory minimum wage, inclusive working conditions can also be established through collective bargaining, including through negotiations on pay and other terms of employment for people with disabilities. Collective bargaining enables the parties to tailor the provisions of 14 For instance, in the United Kingdom the same National Living Wage applies to workers with disabilities. In France, it is regarded as a form of discrimination to pay a worker less for the same or a similar job. 29 ILO Working Paper 124 agreements to specific contexts and to adapt them when the circumstances change, including at the sectoral or enterprise level. In particular, an ILO survey of collective bargaining agreements around the world found that some agreements included provisions on reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, covering such areas as hiring, working-time arrangements, the working environment and the determination of work duties that may be better suited to such workers (ILO 2022). Importantly, collective bargaining can also be a key tool for tackling discrimination. Furthermore, two thirds of the collective bargaining agreements reviewed in that ILO survey contained provisions aimed at fostering diversity and inclusion, such as clauses prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, ethnicity, disability, HIV status, sexual orientation and gender identity, among other grounds. XBox 4. Employment incomes for self-employed workers with disabilities in Peru and Sri Lanka For Peru and Sri Lanka, the survey data makes it possible to compare the hourly earnings of self-employed workers with and without disabilities. Although the findings presented here may not apply to all countries, they serve to illustrate the disability gaps in income from self-employment that can be observed around the world. In both countries, self-employed workers with disabilities tend to earn incomes that are at the lower end of the national hourly employment income distribution. Specifically, 37 and 42 per cent of such workers with disabilities in Peru and Sri Lanka respectively are in the first quintile of this distribution, meaning that their employment income is below that of 80 per cent of the self-employed in their country (figure B.4.1). At the other end of the scale, the share of self-employed workers with disabilities in the upper quintile of the income distribution is rather small in both countries (11 per cent). Note: For each country, the quintiles of the distribution of hourly income from employment are estimated for the whole population of self-employed (that is, self employed with and without disabilities). Source: Analysis based on ILO harmonized Microdata collection (ILOSTAT). See table A1 in the Appendix for more details. As discussed in relation to wages in the main text, the lower incomes of the self-employed with disabilities can probably be explained in part by the relative composition of this population group in terms of socio-demographic and occupational characteristics. To take these into account, a Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition methodology similar to the one used for wages (box 3) is applied here to the average disability gap in income from self-employment. It appears that a substantial part of the observed income gap is not explained by the characteristics of the self-employed with disabilities. Indeed, while self-employed workers with disabilities earn respectively 40 and 45 per cent less than their counterparts without disabilities in Peru and Sri Lanka, only 38 and 24 per cent of these gaps are explained 30 ILO Working Paper 124 by differences related to human capital determinants and occupations (that is, 15 and 11 percentage points respectively). Note: For each country the unexplained and explained components of the average gap are estimated using the BlinderOaxaca method explained in box 3. Source: Analysis based on ILO Harmonized Microdata collection (ILOSTAT). See table A1 in the Appendix for more details. 31 ILO Working Paper 124 X4 Building inclusive legal frameworks to secure positive employment and wage outcomes for people with disabilities The previous section highlighted a series of inequalities in employment and earnings experienced by people with disabilities. In particular, this category of workers is more likely to be excluded from the labour market and to be unemployed when participating in it. Additionally, when employed, people with disabilities are often at higher risk of receiving lower pay. These gaps cannot be fully explained by the specific socio-demographic characteristics of employees with disabilities, such as age and education. Other factors have been put forward to explain these discrepancies – for instance, the disparities between their skills and the demands of jobs; inadequately adapted work environments and processes creating barriers for workers with disabilities; a potential reduction in wages by employers to compensate for offering greater job adaptability and workplace adjustments; discrimination against people with disabilities; and exemptions from, or weaker enforcement of, minimum wages for this population group. Moreover, intra-category inequalities can also be observed, as women with disabilities appear to earn less on average than their male counterparts, and different forms of disabilities can influence the position of individuals with disabilities on the wage scale. Guidance on how to tackle discrepancies in the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities, along with some of their root causes, is provided by international labour standards, which generally apply to every worker, unless they specify otherwise. Furthermore, some of them expressly refer to people with disabilities. Within this array of instruments, those that address the less favourable labour market outcomes of people with disabilities (and their determinants as mentioned above) can help to shape more inclusive labour markets. These matters are also regulated at the national level. A number of countries have enacted legislation to ensure that people with disabilities are able to participate in the labour market and that they are treated equally. Such legislation ranges from anti-discrimination laws to quota systems. A particular role is played by minimum wages, which have been either set at a unified rate or differentiated according to the working capacity of individuals. The analysis presented here is intended to illustrate legal frameworks that can contribute to tackling the inequalities in employment and wages experienced by individuals with disabilities. Accordingly, this section first reviews the international labour standards that lay down the foundation for an inclusive and equal approach to the participation of people with disabilities in the labour market. It then considers national laws and policies designed to offer solutions in that regard. The present study thus provides an overview of the options available to policymakers and legislators seeking to promote inclusive working environments, where people with disabilities enjoy equality of opportunities and treatment alongside all other workers. International labour standards that can shape the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities Several regional and international instruments are intended to foster the participation of people with disabilities in the civil, political, economic, social and cultural spheres under conditions of 32 ILO Working Paper 124 equal opportunities and treatment.15 The best known instrument of this kind is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006. States parties to the Convention recognize the right of people with disabilities to work on an equal basis with others. This includes “the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible”. They also commit themselves to taking appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of the right to work (Art. 27).16 The ILO has been advocating for inclusive labour markets almost all the way since its establishment in 1919,17 and today there exists a wide range of international labour standards dealing with the employment and wages of people with disabilities. Box 5 lists ILO Conventions and Recommendations calling for equality of labour opportunities and outcomes for workers with disabilities. These encompass instruments governing non-discrimination and equal treatment, employment policy and wages. Further down, box 6 enumerates instruments relevant to the creation of a general enabling environment that is conducive to equal rights and treatment for workers with disabilities and to the prevention of disabilities arising from work accidents. This category comprises international labour standards on vocational rehabilitation, social protection and work accidents. While the full list of instruments can be found in boxes 5 and 6, this section discusses only the most relevant for addressing disparities in employment and wage outcomes (and the underlying factors), together with the associated supervisory practice of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) in this area.18 XBox 5. International labour standards addressing inequalities in opportunities and treatment for people with disabilities in the world of work Non‑discrimination and equal treatment ●Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) ●Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988 (No. 168) ●Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Recommendation, 1958 (No. 111) 15 Alongside the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is discussed above, the most important instruments are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (both adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966); the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 1971); the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975); the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 1993); the European Social Charter (originally adopted by the Council of Europe in 1961 and revised in 1966); the European Union’s Employment Equality Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000); the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted under the aegis of the predecessor of the African Union on 1 June 1981); and the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted under the aegis of the Organization of American States on 17 November 1988). 16 Article 26 of the Convention is also relevant insofar as it requires States parties to “organize, strengthen and extend comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services and programmes, particularly in the areas of health, employment, education and social services”. 17 The first international labour standard to have a direct bearing on workers with disabilities was the Workmen's Compensation (Minimum Scale) Recommendation (No. 22), adopted in 1925 and now outdated, which set out principles for the payment of compensation for industrial accidents (paras I–III) and promoted the vocational retraining of injured workers (para. IV). 18 The CEACR is one of the two bodies forming part of the regular system of supervision developed by the ILO to help ensure that countries implement the Conventions they ratify. It examines the reports that governments are required to submit regularly on the implementation of ratified Conventions, along with the comments of employers’ and workers’ organizations on these reports. The Committee makes two kinds of comments on the reports received – “observations” and “direct requests” – and issues an annual report, which includes a General Survey on a specific subject selected by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office. For more information on the supervisory system, see the ILO website, https://www.ilo.org/about-ilo/how-ilo-works/ilo-supervisorysystemmechanism. 33 ILO Working Paper 124 ● Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205) Employment policy ●Employment Service Convention, 1948 (No. 88) ●Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122) ●Employment Service Recommendation, 1948 (No. 83) ●Employment Policy Recommendation, 1964 (No. 122) ●Employment Policy (Supplementary Provisions) Recommendation, 1984 (No. 169) Wages ●Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26)* ●Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131) ●Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) ●Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture) Convention, 1951 (No. 99)* ●Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation, 1970 (No. 135) ●Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery (Agriculture) Recommendation, 1951 (No. 89)* Note: An asterisk (*) denotes an instrument with interim status. Source: ILO NORMLEX database. XBox 6. International labour standards relevant to creating a general enabling environment that is condu‑ cive to equal opportunities and treatment and to the prevention of disabilities arising in the workplace Vocational rehabilitation and other measures to facilitate employment ●Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry) Convention, 1946 (No. 77) ● Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations) Convention, 1946 (No. 78) ●Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) ●Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142) ● Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159) ●Medical Examination of Young Persons Recommendation, 1946 (No. 79) ●Vocational Rehabilitation (Disabled) Recommendation, 1955 (No. 99) ●Human Resources Development Recommendation, 2004 (No. 195) ●Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Recommendation, 1983 (No. 168) Social protection ●Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors' Benefits Convention, 1967 (No. 128) ●Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969 (No. 130) ●Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202) 34 ILO Working Paper 124 Work accidents ●Workmen's Compensation (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 12) ●Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation) Convention, 1925 (No. 19)* ●Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) and its Protocol of 2002 ● Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187) ●Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152) ●Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation, 1981 (No. 164) ●Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation, 2006 (No. 197) Note: An asterisk (*) denotes an instrument with interim status. Source: ILO NORMLEX database. International labour standards on non-discrimination and equality of opportunity and treatment Disabled people are subject to discrimination that, together with other factors, leads to inequalities in employment opportunities and treatment. The most relevant international labour standard in this respect is the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).19 The Convention lists several prohibited grounds of discrimination, among which disability does not feature; however, it also provides for additional grounds of discrimination to be determined by Member States after consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, and with other appropriate bodies (Art. 1(1)). This means that discrimination on the basis of disability can indeed be considered under Convention No. 111. In parallel, as has been discussed, affirmative action measures and special adaptations to increase accessibility may be necessary to ensure equal working outcomes for people with disabilities. Accordingly, Article 5 of the Convention stipulates that special measures of protection or assistance provided for in other international labour standards (para. 1), along with other special measures designed to meet the particular requirements of people who, for reasons such as disablement, are generally recognized to require special protection or assistance (para. 2), are not to be deemed to constitute discrimination. This prescription is reinforced by the accompanying Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Recommendation, 1958 (No. 111), which emphasizes that the prevention of discrimination in employment and occupation should not adversely affect special measures designed to meet the particular requirements of people requiring special protection or assistance for reasons such as disablement (para. 6).20 19 The rights of individuals with disabilities are clearly affirmed in the context of measures on employment and decent work taken in response to crises arising from conflicts and disasters. The Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205), includes among its guiding principles the need “to combat discrimination, prejudice and hatred” on the basis of, inter alia, disability, and “to pay special attention to population groups and individuals who have been made particularly vulnerable” by a crisis, such as people with disabilities (paras 7(f) and (h)). The Recommendation then calls upon Member States to adopt a series of measures to achieve this aim (paras 8(e)),12 and 15(h)). 20 Similar provisions are to be found in the Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988 (No. 168) (Art. 6(1) and (2)). The need for special measures to adequately meet the needs of workers with disabilities is also underscored by the Employment Service Convention, 1948 (No. 88) (Art. 7) and the accompanying Employment Service Recommendation, 1948 (No. 83) (paras 4(b)(ii) and 6(b)), which provide for the organization of employment services, and by the Employment Policy Recommendation, 1964 (No. 122) (para. 16), and the Employment Policy (Supplementary Provisions) Recommendation, 1984 (No. 169), as regards the design of policies to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment (para. 15). 35 ILO Working Paper 124 The CEACR has noted how a series of countries have availed themselves of the possibility under Art. 1(1) of Convention No. 111 to adopt national laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on the grounds of disability (CEACR 2023a, 2023b, 2023c). In a direct request concerning the Convention, the Committee pointed out that people with disabilities had a much lower labour force participation rate than other workers and were concentrated in low-paid activities. It therefore asked the Government under review to provide information on the measures taken to promote employment opportunities for people with disabilities, including employment quotas, and on cases of discrimination based on disability dealt with by the competent authorities (CEACR 2023d). Furthermore, the Committee has also highlighted on several occasions that some groups of people with disabilities fare worse in the labour market, in particular women (box 7). Quotas for people with disabilities and the impact that they have on their integration into the labour market are often an object of inquiry for the Committee when reviewing the implementation of Convention No. 111 with respect to workers with disabilities (CEACR 2023e, 2023f). The Committee has also stressed, on the one hand, the importance of publicizing the available mechanisms to promote the employment of people with disabilities, and on the other, the need for measures that go beyond ensuring their entry into the labour market by promoting their retention and career progression (CEACR 2023g). XBox 7. The interrelationship between disability and gender Disability and gender can sometimes be intersectional grounds of discrimination. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities accordingly requires States parties to recognize that women and girls with disabilities are subject to multiple discrimination, and to take measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by them of all human rights and fundamental freedoms (Art. 6). The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) has similarly acknowledged, and called for action on, the higher rate of discrimination and violence affecting girls and women with disabilities. It has done so with reference to a variety of international labour standards. For example, in relation to the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), the Committee has requested information on “practical steps taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for both men and women with disabilities in all aspects of employment and occupation, and [to] ensure protection against violence and harassment including gender-based violence” (CEACR 2023e). Moreover, when reviewing the application of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159), the CEACR noted on one occasion that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had expressed concern regarding the under-representation of women with disabilities in the workforce of the country under review, and inquired about the specific measures adopted to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities in the open labour market, in particular for women with disabilities (CEACR 2023h). The CEACR has also referred to the observations of that treaty body on “the multiple and intersecting discrimination faced by women and girls with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities and those living in rural areas”, in relation to the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122) (CEACR 2022a). Again with reference to Convention No. 122, the Committee has noted the limited access of women with disabilities to the formal labour market (CEACR 2023i). 36 ILO Working Paper 124 International labour standards on wages As shown in the previous section, when they participate in the labour market, workers with disabilities are at the lower end of the wage distribution and they often earn below the minimum wage. Some international labour standards can be relevant in this respect, insofar as they regulate wage-setting. The Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), calls for the establishment of “a system of minimum wages which covers all groups of wage earners whose terms of employment are such that coverage would be appropriate” (Art. 1(1)). The national competent authority should determine the groups of wage earners to be covered (Art. 1(2)). Additionally, the employers and workers concerned may participate in, or be consulted on, both the determination of the groups of wage earners to be covered (Art. 1(2)) and the operation of the minimum wage-fixing machinery on a basis of equality (Art. 4(2) and (3)). In determining the level of minimum wages, the needs of workers and their families as well as economic factors should be taken into consideration (Art. 3). Further key guidance is provided in the accompanying Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation, 1970 (No. 135), which specifies that workers who are not covered should be kept to a minimum (para. 4). Recommendation No. 135 also indicates that it is possible to either fix a single minimum wage of general application or a series of minimum wages applying to specific groups of workers (para. 5(1)).21 Drawing on these principles, the CEACR has examined Member States’ minimum wage regulations and noted any exceptions for workers with disabilities. When discussing the possibility for enterprises not to apply the established national minimum wages and to take into account, in the fixing of wage scales, special situations connected with the age or physical or mental capacities of certain workers envisaged by Convention No. 131, the Committee has recalled that “the compulsory nature of minimum wages is a fundamental principle” and that “the fixing of minimum wages must observe the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value” (CEACR 2013, 2005). In a direct request regarding Convention No. 131, the Committee observed that although the Convention does not prohibit the fixing of lower minimum wage rates for workers on the basis of their disability, “protective clauses should be adopted to guarantee them equal remuneration to that of other workers, provided that they perform work of a similar nature and meet the same requirements as to quantity and quality of work” (CEACR 2012). In another direct request related to the same instrument, the Committee asked for information on “the reasons, assessment and even the social consensus underlying a policy allowing different wage rates to be fixed for … workers with disabilities”, and recalled that the determination of wages must be based on “objective criteria such as the quantity and quality of the work performed” (CEACR 2008). Additionally, it has highlighted how the reasons prompting the adoption of lower minimum wage rates for groups of workers on account of their disabilities should be “regularly re-examined in the light of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value” (CEACR 2004). International labour standards on vocational guidance and rehabilitation It was noted earlier that a mismatch between the skills and capacities of individuals with disabilities and the requirements of jobs can be one of the factors leading to the exclusion of this category of workers from the labour market or, when they do participate in the labour market, 21 When discussing the earnings gap faced by people with disabilities, the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202), is relevant. According to Recommendation No. 202, the social protection floors should comprise basic income security, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, for people of active age who are unable to earn sufficient income, in particular when they find themselves in certain challenging situations, including disability (para. 5). The Recommendation goes on to enumerate a range of benefits that help to provide the basic social security guarantees, including disability benefits (para. 9(2)). The Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors' Benefits Convention, 1967 (No. 128), and the Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969 (No. 130), also provide for benefits in favour of people with disabilities. 37 ILO Working Paper 124 to high rates of unemployment, access to job opportunities being limited to elementary occupations, and low earnings. Vocational rehabilitation – which involves the provision of vocational guidance, vocational training and selective placement, among other services, to help a disabled person to secure and retain suitable employment – is particularly relevant in this regard.22 It is therefore necessary to consider the main international labour standards that promote vocational rehabilitation and guidance for people with disabilities. The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention (No. 159) and Recommendation (No. 168), 1983, are considered to constitute the frame of reference for the employment rights of individuals with disabilities. Convention No. 159 requires the States parties to “formulate, implement and periodically review a national policy on vocational rehabilitation and employment of disabled persons” (Art. 2). Such a policy must uphold fundamental principles, notably those of equal opportunity and treatment, and incorporate affirmative measures that do not discriminate against other workers (Art. 4). The Convention calls for the integration of people with disabilities into mainstream work-related programmes, with a special focus on rural areas and remote communities (Arts 7–8). Additionally, it emphasizes the need for the training of qualified staff to provide vocational services for people with disabilities (Art. 9) and the importance of consultation with employers' and workers' organizations and representative organizations of people with disabilities (Art. 5). The accompanying Recommendation No. 168 sets out detailed measures to foster equitable employment opportunities, including measures to encourage employers to make reasonable adaptations to workplaces, job design, tools, machinery and work organization (para. 11). Other international labour standards stress the importance of vocational rehabilitation for workers with disabilities. For instance, the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), requires Member States to “adopt and develop comprehensive and co-ordinated policies and programmes of vocational guidance and vocational training” (Art. 1), including “appropriate programmes for all handicapped and disabled persons” (Art. 3). The CEACR has issued a number of direct requests and observations on different aspects related to vocational training and rehabilitation. For instance, with regard to the implementation of Convention No. 159, the Committee has stressed the importance of access to education and vocational guidance and training for people with disabilities in rural areas and remote communities (CEACR 2023j, 2023k). In relation to the same instrument, the Committee has reiterated the need to ensure that suitably qualified staff are available to offer vocational guidance and training and rehabilitation services (CEACR 2023k, 2023l). Furthermore, referring to Article 5 of Convention No. 159, on consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers and with organizations representing people with disabilities, the Committee has requested detailed information on how such organizations were consulted on the implementation and periodic review of the national policy on vocational rehabilitation of people with disabilities and on the outcome of these consultations (CEACR 2023m, 2022b, 2022c). The ILO Conventions and Recommendations discussed in this section can guide national authorities in addressing the employment and wage disparities experienced by people with disabilities. To achieve that purpose, they need to be translated into relevant norms, policies and collective agreement provisions at the national level. 22 The definition of “vocational rehabilitation” given above is based on that set forth in Paragraph 1(a) of the Vocational Rehabilitation (Disabled) Recommendation, 1955 (No. 99), which used to be considered the touchstone for the employment rights of individuals with disabilities, until the adoption, almost 30 years later, of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention (No. 159) and Recommendation (No. 168), 1983. 44 ILO Working Paper 124 Annex XNational data sources used to analyse the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities Country/Territory Name of survey Year Income group Survey used for analy‑ sis of work‑ ing time (fig‑ ure B.2.1) Survey used for analysis of tem‑ porary employ‑ ment (figure B.2.2) Armenia Labour Force Survey 2021 Upper middle income No Yes Austria European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) 2021 High income No No Belgium EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Benin Harmonized Survey of Household Living Conditions (Enquête harmonisée sur les conditions de vie des ménages) 2018 Low income Yes No Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Household Survey (Encuesta de Hogares) 2019 Lower middle income Yes No Botswana Continuous Multi-Topic Household Survey 2019 Upper middle income No No Bulgaria EU-SILC 2021 Upper middle income No No Cambodia Labour Force Survey 2019 Lower middle income Yes No Chile National Socio-Economic Characterization Survey (Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional) 2017 High income Yes Yes Colombia National Quality of Life Survey (Encuesta Nacional de Calidad de Vida) 2019 Upper middle income Yes Yes Comoros Survey of the Informal Economy (Enquête sur l’économie informelle) 2021 Lower middle income Yes No Côte d'Ivoire Integrated Regional Survey on Employment and the Informal Sector (Enquête régionale intégrée sur l’emploi et le secteur informel) 2017 Lower middle income Yes No Croatia EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes No 45 ILO Working Paper 124 Country/Territory Name of survey Year Income group Survey used for analy‑ sis of work‑ ing time (fig‑ ure B.2.1) Survey used for analysis of tem‑ porary employ‑ ment (figure B.2.2) Cyprus EU-SILC 2021 High income No No Czechia EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Denmark EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes No Ecuador Survey of Living Conditions (Encuesta Condiciones de Vida) 2014 Upper middle income Yes No Estonia EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Eswatini Labour Force Survey 2021 Lower middle income No No Ethiopia National Labour Force Survey 2013 Low income Yes Yes Finland EU-SILC 2021 High income No No France EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Germany EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Ghana Labour Force Survey 2015 Lower middle income No No Greece EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Guatemala National Survey on Employment and Income (Encuesta Nacional de Empleo e Ingresos) 2022 Upper middle income Yes No Hungary EU-SILC 2021 High income No No Ireland EU-SILC 2021 High income No No Italy EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Lao People’s Democratic Republic Labour Force Survey 2022 Lower middle income Yes No Latvia EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes No Lebanon Labour Force Survey 2019 Upper middle income Yes No Lesotho Labour Force Survey 2019 Lower middle income No No Lithuania Labour Force Survey 2021 High income No No Luxembourg EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Maldives Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2019 Upper middle income No Yes Marshall Islands Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2019 Upper middle income No No Mongolia Household Socio-Economic Survey 2018 Lower middle income Yes No 46 ILO Working Paper 124 Country/Territory Name of survey Year Income group Survey used for analy‑ sis of work‑ ing time (fig‑ ure B.2.1) Survey used for analysis of tem‑ porary employ‑ ment (figure B.2.2) Myanmar Labour Force Survey 2015 Lower middle income Yes No Netherlands EU-SILC 2021 High income No No Occupied Palestinian Territory Labour Force Survey 2019 Upper middle income Yes Yes Pakistan Labour Force Survey 2021 Lower middle income Yes Yes Peru National Household Survey (Encuesta Nacional de Hogares) 2022 Upper middle income Yes No Poland EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Portugal EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Republic of Moldova Labour Force Survey 2021 Upper middle income No Yes Romania EU-SILC 2021 High income No No Rwanda Labour Force Survey 2021 Low income No No Samoa Labour Force and School-toWork Transition Survey 2017 Upper middle income No No Senegal National Employment Survey (Enquête nationale sur l’emploi) 2019 Lower middle income No No Serbia EU-SILC 2021 Upper middle income No No Sierra Leone Sierra Leone Integrated Household Survey 2018 Low income No No Slovenia EU-SILC 2021 High income No No Spain EU-SILC 2021 High income Yes Yes Sri Lanka Labour Force Survey 2019 Lower middle income Yes Yes Sweden EU-SILC 2021 High income No No Switzerland EU-SILC 2021 High income No Yes Tanzania (United Republic of) National Panel Survey 2014 Low income Yes No Thailand Household Socio-Economic Survey 2019 Upper middle income No No Timor-Leste Labour Force Survey 2021 Lower middle income No No Tonga Labour Force Survey 2018 Upper middle income No No 47 ILO Working Paper 124 Country/Territory Name of survey Year Income group Survey used for analy‑ sis of work‑ ing time (fig‑ ure B.2.1) Survey used for analysis of tem‑ porary employ‑ ment (figure B.2.2) Uganda National Labour Force Survey 2021 Low income No No United Kingdom Labour Force Survey 2022 High income Yes Yes United States Current Population Survey 2022 High income Yes No Zambia Labour Force Survey 2021 Low income No No 48 ILO Working Paper 124 References Ameri, Mason, Lisa Schur, Meera Adya, Scott Bentley, Patrick McKay, and Douglas Kruse. 2015. “The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior”, NBER Working Paper No. 21560. National Bureau of Economic Research. Angelov, Nikolay, and Marcus Eliason. 2018. “Wage Subsidies Targeted to Jobseekers with Disabilities: Subsequent Employment and Disability Retirement”. IZA Journal of Labor Policy 7, Article 12. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1973. “The Theory of Discrimination”. In Discrimination in Labor Markets, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and Albert Rees, 3–33. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 1998. “What Has Economics to Say About Racial Discrimination?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (2): 91–100. Becker, Gary S. 1957. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bjørnshagen, Vegar, and Elisabeth Ugreninov. 2021. “Disability Disadvantage: Experimental Evidence of Hiring Discrimination against Wheelchair Users”. European Sociological Review 37 (5): 818–833. Blinder, Alan S. 1973. “Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Variables”. Journal of Human Resources 8 (4): 436–455. Bonaccio, Silvia, Catherine E. Connelly, Ian R. Gellatly, Arif Jetha, and Kathleen A. Martin Ginis. 2020. “The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence”. Journal of Business and Psychology 35: 135–158. Bruy, Susanne M., William E. Erickson, and Sara Van Looy. 2005. “Information Technology and the Workplace: Implications for Persons with Disabilities”. Disability Studies Quarterly 25 (2). CEACR (Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations). 2004. “Netherlands – Convention No. 131, Direct Request”. ———. 2005. “New Caledonia – Convention No. 131, Direct Request”. ———. 2008. “Martinique – Convention No. 131, Direct Request”. ———. 2012. “Chile – Convention No. 131, Direct Request”. ———. 2013. “Uruguay – Convention No. 131, Direct Request”. ———. 2022a. “India – Convention No. 122, Observation”. ———. 2022b. “Luxembourg – Convention No. 159, Direct Request”. ———. 2022c. “Madagascar – Convention No. 159, Direct Request”. ———. 2023a. “Angola – Convention No. 111, Observation”. 49 ILO Working Paper 124 ———. 2023b. “Barbados – Convention No. 111, Observation”. ———. 2023c. “Côte d’Ivoire – Convention No. 111, Observation”. ———. 2023d. “Brazil – Convention No. 111, Direct Request”. ———. 2023e. “Bangladesh – Convention No. 111, Direct Request”. ———. 2023f. “Bosnia and Herzegovina – Convention No. 111, Direct Request”. ———. 2023g. “Colombia – Convention No. 111, Direct Request”. ———. 2023h. “Cuba – Convention No. 159, Direct Request”. ———. 2023i. “Chile – Convention No. 122, Direct Request”. ———. 2023j. “Dominican Republic – Convention No. 159, Direct Request”. ———. 2023k. “Côte d’Ivoire – Convention No. 159, Direct Request”. ———. 2023l. “Egypt – Convention No. 159, Direct Request”. ———. 2023m. “Chile – Convention No. 159, Direct Request”. Council of the European Union. 2000. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Official Journal of the European Communities L 303: 16–22. CRPD (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). 2012. Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of China, Adopted by the Committee at Its Eighth Session (17–28 September 2012). CRPD/C/CHN/CO/1. EDF (European Disability Forum). 2022. “Disability and Gender Gaps: Addressing Unequal Employment of Women with Disabilities”. Gouskova, Elena. 2020. “Why Self-Employment Rates Are Higher among People with Work Limitations”. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 31 (1): 15–25. Groce, Nora Ellen. n.d. “Which One to Use? The Washington Group Questions or the Model Disability Survey”. University College London, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care. IHREC (Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission). n.d. “The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”. https://www.ihrec.ie/crpd/. ILO. 2012. Decent Work Indicators: Concepts and Definitions – ILO Manual : First Version. ———. 2014a. Achieving Equal Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities through Legislation: Guidelines. ———. 2014b. Minimum Wage Systems: General Survey of the Reports on the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), and the Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation, 1970 (No. 135). ILC.103/III/1B. 50 ILO Working Paper 124 ———. 2015. “ILO and Disability Inclusion”. ———. 2016. Minimum Wage Policy Guide. ———. 2019a. Promoting Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities: Quota Schemes – Volume 1. ———. 2019b. Supporting Companies’ Occupational Safety and Health Performance: A Guide for Employers and Business Membership Organizations on OSH Advocacy and Services. ———. 2019c. Promoting Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities: Quota Schemes – Volume 2. ———. 2020. Global Wage Report 2020–21: Wages and Minimum Wages in the Time of COVID-19 ———. 2022. Social Dialogue Report 2022: Collective Bargaining for an Inclusive, Sustainable and Resilient Recovery. ———. 2023a. Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Update. ———. 2023b. Living with Disabilities in Lebanon: A Snapshot Assessment of Basic Needs, Social Protection and Employment Gaps. Ireland, Department of Social Protection. 2019. “Reasonable Accommodation Fund”. https://www. gov.ie/en/service/62fd96-reasonable-accommodation-fund/. Jiménez-Martín, Sergi, Arnau Juanmarti Mestres, and Judit Vail Castelló. 2019. “Hiring Subsidies for People with a Disability: Do They Work?” The European Journal of Health Economics 20 (5): 669–689. Kruse, Douglas, Lisa Schur, Sean Rogers, and Mason Ameri. 2018. “Why Do Workers with Disabilities Earn Less? Occupational Job Requirements and Disability Discrimination”. British Journal of Industrial Relations 56 (4): 798–834. Longhi, Simonetta. 2017. The Disability Pay Gap. UK Equality and Human Rights Commission. McDiarmid, Carrly. 2023. “Earnings Pay Gap among Persons with and without Disabilities, 2019”. Statistics Canada. Oaxaca, Ronald. 1973. “Male–Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets”. International Economic Review 14 (3): 693–709. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers – A Synthesis of Findings across OECD Countries. ———. 2022. Disability, Work and Inclusion: Mainstreaming in All Policies and Practices. ———. 2023. “An Assessment of the Labour and Skills Shortages in Agriculture and the Food Sector”. Pagán, Ricardo. 2009. “Self‐Employment among People with Disabilities: Evidence for Europe”. Disability & Society 24 (2): 217–229. 51 ILO Working Paper 124 Pega, Frank, Bálint Náfrádi, Natalie C. Momen, Yuka Ujita, Kai N. Streicher, Annette M. Prüss-Üstün, Alexis Descatha, Tim Driscoll, Frida M. Fischer, Lode Godderis, et al. 2021. “Global, Regional, and National Burdens of Ischemic Heart Disease and Stroke Attributable to Exposure to Long Working Hours for 194 Countries, 2000–2016: A Systematic Analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury”. Environment International 154, Article 106595. Phelps, Edmund S. 1972. “The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism”. The American Economic Review 62 (4): 659–661. Pinilla-Roncancio, Monica. 2015. “Disability and Social Protection in Latin American Countries”. Disability & Society 30 (7): 1005–1020. Pinilla-Roncancio, Mónica, and Nicolas Rodríguez Caicedo. 2022. “Legislation on Disability and Employment: To What Extent Are Employment Rights Guaranteed for Persons with Disabilities?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (9). Article 5654. Pintado Nunes, Joaquim, Shengli Niu, Grace Monica Halim, Dafne Papandrea, and Andreas Hoibl. 2023. Safe and Healthy Working Environments for All: Realizing the Fundamental Right to a Safe and Healthy Working Environment Worldwide. Report prepared for the 23rd World Congress on Safety and Health at Work, Sydney, Australia, 27–30 November 2023. ILO. Samoy, Erik, and Lina Waterplas. 2012. “Designing Wage Subsidies for People with Disabilities, as Exemplified by the Case of Flanders (Belgium)”. Alter 6 (2): 94–109. Sanchez, Jeannette. 2015. Reporting on Disability: Guidelines for the Media. ILO. South Africa, Department of Labour. 2017. Technical Assistance Guidelines on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities. Stoevska, Valentina. 2022. “New ILO Database Highlights Labour Market Challenges of Persons with Disabilities”. ILOSTAT Blog (blog). 13 June 2022. https://ilostat.ilo.org/new-ilo-database-highlightslabour-market-challenges-of-persons-with-disabilities/. Stone, Anna, and Toby Wright. 2013. “When Your Face Doesn’t Fit: Employment Discrimination against People with Facial Disfigurements”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43 (3): 515–526. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2021. “Disability Inclusive Education and Learning”. UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, 22 September 2021. United Nations. 2015. World Population Ageing 2015. Vornholt, Katharina, Patrizia Villotti, Beate Muschalla, Jana Bauer, Adrienne Colella, Fred Zijlstra, Gemma Van Ruitenbeek, Sjir Uitdewilligen, and Marc Corbière. 2018. “Disability and Employment: Overview and Highlights”. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 27 (1): 40–55. Washington Group (Washington Group on Disability Statistics). 2021. “Creating Disability Severity Indicators Using the WG Short Set on Functioning (WG-SS) (Stata)”. WHO (World Health Organization). 2008. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. 52 ILO Working Paper 124 ———. 2013. “A Practical Manual for Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): Exposure Draft for Comment”. ———. 2022. Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities. 53 ILO Working Paper 124 Acknowledgements We are grateful to several colleagues at the ILO, in particular Guillaume Delautre, Stefan Trömel, Catherine Saget, and Tahmina Karimova, whose insightful comments enriched this paper.