Disability employment services under new public management: A comparison of Australia and Taiwan

In the 1990s, both Australia and Taiwan were influenced by new public management (NPM) and subsequently reformed their public employment services. However, the reforms of the two countries have led to divergent results. This study assumes that the essential differences lay in the mobilization capaci...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International social work 2018-05, Vol.61 (3), p.437-450
Main Authors: Yeh, Hsiu-shan, Lin, Wan-I
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advocacy
Benefits
Cultural differences
Disability
Disability recipients
Disadvantaged
Employment
Employment agencies
Employment policies
Government
Governmental reform
Job hunting
Mobilization
Neoliberalism
New public management
Nonprofit organizations
People with disabilities
Physical disabilities
Private sector
Privatization
Public administration
Public policy
Quality of service
Reforms
Rights
Services
Social welfare
Supported employment
Welfare benefits
Workfare programs
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the 1990s, both Australia and Taiwan were influenced by new public management (NPM) and subsequently reformed their public employment services. However, the reforms of the two countries have led to divergent results. This study assumes that the essential differences lay in the mobilization capacity of the disabled rights advocacy organizations and the disability employment benefits. Taiwan’s disability employment services (supported employment), though privatized, are limited to nonprofit organizations (NPOs), while for-profit organizations (POs) remain absent in this area. In Australia, the employment services (open employment services for people with disabilities) have been privatized, and for-profit organizations are encouraged to compete with one another to enhance the service quality and to reduce the costs. By providing job-search benefits for disabled people and implementing workfare policy, the Australian government reforms have resulted in the change of the relationship between the government and the citizens. In contrast, since the Taiwanese government never provided sufficient social welfare benefits for disabled people, they have to actively seek employment not after encouragement from the government, but as a result of their desperate need to earn a living. Despite the two countries’ differences, the force of neoliberalism, along with NPM, ostensibly continues to be a part of their employment policies for the socially underprivileged.
ISSN:0020-8728
1461-7234
DOI:10.1177/0020872816648201