According to the World Bank, "Persons with disabilities on average as a group experience worse
socioeconomic outcomes than persons without disabilities, such as less education, worse health outcomes, less employment, and higher poverty rates." Researchers have demonstrated that these reduced outcomes may be attributed to a myriad of institutional barriers and other factors. Furthermore, the prevalence of disabilities in impoverished populations has been predicted to follow a cyclical pattern by which those who live in poverty are more likely to acquire a disability and those who have a disability are more likely to become impoverished.
The vicious circle Experts from the United Kingdom Disabled Persons Council attribute the connection between disability and poverty to many systemic factors that promote a "vicious circle". Statistics affirm the mutually reinforcing nature of disability and low socioeconomic status, showing that people with disabilities are significantly more likely to become impoverished and people who are impoverished are significantly more likely to become disabled. Barriers presented for those with disabilities can lead individuals to be deprived of access to essential resources, such as opportunities for education and employment, thus causing them to fall into poverty. Likewise, poverty places individuals at a much greater risk of acquiring a disability due to the general lack of health care, nutrition, sanitation, and safe working conditions that the poor are subject to. Experts assert that this cycle is perpetuated mainly by the lack of
agency afforded to those living in poverty. The few options available to the poor often necessitate that these individuals put themselves in harms way, consequently resulting in an increase in the acquisition of preventable impairments. Another estimate released by Oxfam provides further evidence of this vicious circle. They found that 100 million people who in poverty also have impairments acquired due to malnutrition and lack of proper sanitation. Additional forms of discrimination may lead disability to be more salient in already
marginalized populations. Women and individuals belonging to certain ethnic groups who have disabilities have been found to more greatly suffer from discrimination and endure negative outcomes. Some researchers attribute this to what they believe is a "double rejection" of girls and women who are disabled on the basis of their sex in tandem with their disability. The stereotypes that accompany both of these attributes lead females with disabilities to be seen as particularly dependent upon others and serve to amplify the misconception of this population as burdensome. In a study done by Oxfam, the societal consequences of having a disability while belonging to an already marginalized population were highlighted, stating, Additionally, women with disabilities are particularly susceptible to abuse. A 2004 UN survey in Orissa, India, found that every women with disabilities in their sample had experienced some form of physical abuse. This double discrimination is also shown to be prevalent in more industrialized nations. In the United States, for example, 72 percent of women with disabilities live below the poverty line. The intensified discrimination individuals with disabilities may face due to their sex is especially important to consider when taking into account that, according to the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, women report higher incidence of disability than men. Institutional discrimination also exists as there are policies existing in organizations that result in inequality between a disabled person and non-disabled person. Some of these organizations systematically ignore the needs of disabled people and some interfere in their lives as a means of social control.
Health care Another reason individuals living with disabilities are often impoverished is the high
medical costs associated with their needs. One study, conducted in villages in South India, demonstrated that the annual cost of treatment and equipment needed for individuals with disabilities in the area ranged from three days of income to upwards of two years' worth, with the average amount spent on essential services totaling three months worth of income. This figure does not take into account the unpaid work of caregivers who must provide assistance after these procedures and the
opportunity costs leading to a loss of income during injury, surgery, and rehabilitation. Studies reported by medical anthropologists Benedicte Ingstad and Susan Reynolds Whyte have also shown that access to medical care is significantly impaired when one lacks mobility. They report that in addition to the direct medical costs associated with disability, the burden of transportation falls most heavily on those with disabilities. This is especially true for the rural poor whose distance from urban environments necessitates extensive movement to obtain health services. Due to these barriers, both economic and physical, it is estimated that only 2 percent of individuals with disabilities have access to adequate rehabilitation services. The inaccessibility of health care for those living in poverty has a substantial impact on the rate of disability within this population. Sex-specific ailments are particularly harmful for women living in poverty. The
World Health Organization estimates that each year 20 million women acquire disabilities due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth that could be significantly mitigated with proper pre-natal, childbirth, and post-natal medical care.
Institutional barriers Researchers assert that institutional barriers play a substantial role in the incidence of poverty in those with disabilities.
Accessibility The
accessibility of the physical environment may be a large determinant in one's ability to access ladders of success or even basic sustenance. Professor of urban planning Rob Imrie concluded that most spaces contain surmountable physical barriers that unintentionally create an "apartheid by design", whereby individuals with disabilities are excluded from areas because of the inaccessible layout of these spaces. This "apartheid" has been seen by some, such as the United Kingdom Disabled Persons Council, as especially concerning with regard to public transportation, education and health facilities, and perhaps most relevantly places of employment. This statistic is even more jarring for women with disabilities, with the
United Nations Development Program reporting that the global literacy rate for this population is a mere 1 percent.
Employment Some sociologists have found a number of barriers to employment for individuals with disabilities. These may be seen in
employer discrimination, architectural barriers within the workplace, pervasive negative attitudes regarding skill, and the adverse reactions of customers. According to sociologist Edward Hall, "More disabled people are unemployed, in lower status occupations, on low earnings, or out of the labour market altogether, than non-disabled people." The
International Labour Organization estimates that roughly 386 million of the world's working age population have some form of disability, however, up to eighty percent of these employable individuals with disabilities are unable to find work. Statistics show that individuals with disabilities in both industrialized and developing countries are generally unable to obtain formal work. In India, only 100,000 of the country's 70 million individuals with disabilities are employed. In the United Kingdom, 45 percent of adults with disabilities were found to live below the poverty line. Reliable data on the rate of unemployment for persons with disabilities has yet to be determined in most developing countries. Trends suggest that employment rate for persons with disability would continue to fall unless addressed with policies that consider such factors as technological progress and
climate change. Because the formal workplace is such a social space, the exclusion of individuals with disabilities from this realm is seen by some sociologists to be a significant impediment to social inclusion and equality. ==Implications==