Hello everyone-- the post below is a bit longer than usual for DI, but it is important. It's a reprint of a guest blog post invited by the Center for Progressive Reform, a think tank in Washington, DC, for their own blog. Visit: http://www.progressivereform.org
The commentary is by Thomas Tolin, Assistant Professor of Economics at West Chester University, and Martin Patwell, Director of the Office of Services for Students with Disabilities at WCU.
SuperFreakonomics and Superficial Facts: A Defense of the ADA
In the recently published SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance the authors, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, make the following claim: (p. 138-139)
As we wrote earlier, the law of unintended consequences is among the most potent laws in existence… Consider the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was intended to safeguard disabled workers from discrimination. A noble intention, yes? Absolutely--but the data convincingly show that the net result was fewer jobs for Americans with disabilities. Why? After the ADA became law, employers were so worried they wouldn’t be able to discipline or fire bad workers who had a disability that they avoided hiring such workers in the first place.
We reject this argument. It is a simplification of the literature that undermines civil rights legislation for individuals with disabilities.
The starting point for this narrative is an article by Tom DeLeire (Journal of Human Resources, 2000). DeLeire concludes that following passage of the ADA there was a 7.2% decrease in the employment rates of men with disabilities relative to that of men without disabilities. DeLeire cites unpublished research by Acemoglu and Angrist to support his opposition to the ADA. Acemoglu and Angrist (Journal of Political Economy, 2001) estimate statistically significant decreases in weeks worked for younger workers with disabilities following enforcement of the law.
We agree that employment for individuals with disabilities decreased during the 1990's relative to employment of individuals without disabilities, but we do not agree that the ADA was the primary cause of this decline. To begin, the ADA was not altogether a new innovation. Following the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, eighteen states had passed ADA-style laws prior to passage of the ADA in 1990. Another twenty-nine states had anti-discrimination laws protecting individuals with disabilities, though they did not require the 'reasonable accommodations' provision found in the ADA. Only three states had no legal protections for individuals with disabilities.
Jolls and Prescott (Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 496, 2005) use these differences between state legal regimes to study the employment effects of the ADA. They conclude that the ADA had a negative effect on employment of individuals with disabilities in states that lacked a 'reasonable accommodations' provision, but that this effect lasted only two years. They write:
Our results clearly support a causal relationship between the ADA and declines in disabled employment in the years immediately following the law’s enactment, but beyond that period our findings—contrary to the existing work by DeLeire and by Acemoglu and Angrist—indicate that disabled employment declines do not appear to be causally linked to the ADA.
There are at least two alternative explanations for the downward trend in relative employment among individuals with disabilities during the 1990s. First, eligibility requirements were relaxed in the mid-1980s for Supplemental Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). More individuals with disabilities chose not to work, and this is "a much more plausible explanation ... for the decline in the relative employment of working-age men and women with disabilities since then." (Burkhauser, Houtenville, and Rovba, p 30).
Second, the 'reasonable accommodations' provision of the ADA lowered barriers to higher education. This may have increased enrollment in postsecondary institutions by students with disabilities while simultaneously decreasing employment for this group. Jolls (2004) tests this hypothesis with Current Population Survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and finds some evidence supporting it: The return-to-school effect is significant in the three states with no prior legal protections for individuals with disabilities.
The return-to-school theory is consistent with Acemoglu and Angrist’s finding that the negative employment effects of the ADA were more pronounced for the 21-39 age group. It also is supported by national data from the National Center for Education Statistics: "In 1994, approximately 45 percent of persons 16 or older who reported having a disability had either attended some college or had a bachelor’s degree or higher. In contrast, 29 percent had reported doing so in 1986…" To the degree that the ADA increased educational opportunities, it has been a success.
One of the most remarkable facts about the debate surrounding the employment effects of the ADA is that employment increased during the 1990's for individuals with disabilities who claimed to be employable. According to the 2000 Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities, there was “a significant increase in the percentage of people with disabilities who are able to work and are working, from 46% in 1986 to 56% today.” (p 28) Given that the ADA's employment provisions only protect workers who are able to work, on its own terms the law is a success.
In our opinion, a fair reading of the literature would conclude that the employment effects of the ADA are much more positive than the authors of SuperFreakonomics want readers to believe, but Levitt and Dubner ignore the complexities. They simply discredit government, even though that means rejecting legislative attempts to secure civil rights and protection from discrimination for individuals with disabilities.
Thankfully, this view certainly is not popular in the U.S. Congress. Last year, by a 420-17 vote, the Congress passed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Posted at the Department of Labor's website, one finds the following:
The ADAAA, Pub. L. 110-325, is intended to overturn a series of Supreme Court decisions that interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in a way that made it difficult to prove that an impairment is a "disability." The ADAAA makes significant changes to the ADA's definition of "disability" that broadens the scope of coverage under both the ADA and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act.
In effect, the 2008 Congress said that the preceding decades had proved the point that discrimination against people with disabilities was intentional, purposeful and wrong, and that even our most respected judicial body could err where elements of civil rights and market forces clash. It would be a travesty to leave the task of promoting inclusiveness and diversity to the ‘science’ of economic positivism and to long-run, ‘rational’ market forces. Ending discrimination now is a struggle that requires a clear government mandate such as the ADA.
13 comments:
Finding work when you have a disability can be a daunting experience. Even with the ADA, there is still the question of how much information do disclose when looking for employment. You need to disclose enough information about your disability to make sure that you have ‘reasonable accommodations.’ However, you do need to be leery of the details you disclose as they may overshadow your abilities. That’s why a company that is designed around a concept of employing disabled adults with education or experience can be the right fit for some. J. Lodge Corporation is a premier quality call services company whose dedication and commitment in providing jobs for disabled Americans has been the foundation of its 10 year history. Due to its success, they are now hiring and accepting applications for disabled individuals looking for part-time careers. To apply, visit: www.jlodge.com/careers
I agree that the argument used by the authors of SuperFreakonimics undermines the role of the ADA.
They are making implications about a statistic without regard for other possible explanations. Unfortunately, many people who are not familiar with the true benefits of the ADA may actually believe these people. Luckily, as was also mentioned in the blog article, the government does not agree with the Freakonimic writers. However, when misleading information is presented as "truth" or "nonfiction", this has the potential to harm the progress that has been made.
It is rather interesting for me to read this blog. Thanks for it. I like such themes and everything that is connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more soon.
I know right now it is very difficult finding a job with the economy and all. I can only imagine how hard it is right now for a person with a disability. As far as the ADA, you still have to think about how much information you should give out if you’re a person with a disability. I have heard that disclosing to much information can sometimes be very hurtful, also when is the best time to disclose your disability. It’s hard to find the right time because you want to get hired but also be truthful about your disability. This was a very interesting article to read. I really liked the discussion about it.
Tanya Davila :o)
ADA is a very important to our country as it addresses various needs and civil rights issues for individuals with disabilities. At some point and in some cases the able body population has taken employment opportunities for granted but as the country is faced with an economic crisis more and more individuals are experiencing what some individuals with disabilities experience, lack of job opportunity and much rejection. This may be somewhat beneficial because it can bring an in depth appreciation for ADA laws and further amendments that aid a vulnerable population in the area of employment. During the civil rights movements a lot of chaos and disturbance seemed to be taking place but it needed to be done because minorities, especially African Americans, were being discriminated against and now many years later we have an AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT! So perhaps ADA caused some discomfort in early years but overall and after much more consideration for the need of the population has been considered it has been improved and in turn has also improved the lives of many individuals with disability in the work place. Therefore ADA ROCKS! Gloria P.
I disagree with the writers of Freakonomics; they underestimate the benefits of ADA. Several things affected the results of lower employment in 1990 and I agree with the blog on the part that education has a lot to do with lower employment.
ADA protects individuals with disabilities against discrimination and the intent of ADA is never to harm PWD, unfortunately people can be misinformed by reading this kind of data. It is in our hands to spread the correct information.
Mary Thomas.
Despite the fact that SuperFreakonomics and Superficial Facts states that ADA had a initial negative effect on the employment of individuals, it is apparent that ADA has done good. Change causes an initial instability, but that does not necessarily mean it is negative. If in fact they claim that employment decreased, why can it not be clarified that it could have been due to the incompetence and ignorance of employers who were not informed about the overwhelming benefits of the legislation to the community as a whole. In fact the writers perhaps should explore the difference between causative factors and correlation. Correlation does not always mean causative. While reading the blog I was formulating thoughts with the information given. Even before I read about the educational factor I had speculated that could be a reason why employment might of gone down. ADA did open many doors for advancement. This simply shows the importance of proper research and investigative questioning.
American Disability Act being passed in the 1990's did initially have impact on the employers. Being in the area of rehabilitation there were resources providing the employers with education on ADA law's. It was difficult in the initial phase for the small employers due to the cost entailed for modifications of the job sites. The employers were required and responsible to be within ADA compliance. This was not so complicated for state or federal programs for they were allocated funding. However, I strongly feel It is great that they continue to review the statistic's to continue to work forward. I feel it is wonderful that congress has passed ADDA to work in conjunction with ADA to improve and broaden the scope of coverage.
By: Tina Casares
The concept that jobs are unattainable for anyone with a disability in my opinion is moot at this point. "SuperFreakonomics..." comes off as though the world is out to stop individuals with disabilties from being employed and our legislation is the cause. Perhaps if we stopped to study the data we have recovered over the years we can make an accurate assestment of where we stand.
Ana R.
This post was a bit longer than the usual ones, but nonetheless very interesting. Especially since a lot of the information brought good insight and very good information that I haven't thought about before. As a new position as a counselor this information is useful and somewhat inspiring. I will definitely keep these website along with other websites in handy. As any professional, they need to keep up with their legislation to better serve their consumers, or anyone in need of advocacy.
I always finding interesting to read articles like the one Levitt and Dubner wrote "SuperFreaknomic". However, articles like that I think are written not necessarily to mislead but to get a reaction out of individuals. It is easy to make some quick conclusions and mislead people who are not well informed on the subject matter. I do not believe the article but I do find it an interesting read.
-Bibiana Medina
I believe discrimination is still being held against individuals with disabilities, that is why many persons with a disability would rather stay with the small check SSDI gives them than go out and seek employment. I have a friend who has a mental disability AND he has degree in engineering; he had a relapse and it was documented in his medical file, when he tried to apply for employment at a company he really wanted to work for, he was told he did not pass the medical clearance portion of the application due to his documented disability. Ever since that experience, my friend no longer notes he has a disability because he fears he will not be given an equal opportunity. It is not fair for those individuals who are educated and want to be part of the workforce, for some people the ADA gives false reassurances because of the negative connotation placed upon them when they document they have a disability.
C. Cardona
The American with disabilities act being attacked and it being said that is responsible for the decline in employment for men with disabilities I find it interesting that they quote a unpublished article and information that cannot be readily verified. First of all I find it very difficult to believe that the American with disabilities act would cause a declining in employment when the majority of the act was created to help individuals with disabilities whether it was gaining employment or protecting an individual with disabilities employment rights. This act of legislation does more than just protect workers who were able to work, it is a comprehensive act that allows individuals with disabilities the same opportunities that a non disability person has. Every individual wants to be able to have equal rights, and to be able to execute their rights without discrimination or fear from an employer that they will be fired because of the disability. All individuals deserve a free and equal chance at employment, life, and a chance at happiness.
Post a Comment